Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Admins and being paid to advise on editing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Admins and being paid to advise on editing

I have recently learned about an admin who is offering their services on Upwork. This admin (who I'm not naming because of WP:OUTING but who I will inform of this discussion) is quite clear that they will not edit or use their admin toolset. This admin further makes clear that they will follow all Wikipedia rules about paid editing and expect their clients to do the same. The service that they do offer is helping their clients "every step of the way" with editing on Wikipedia.

I feel pretty confident, for a number of reasons, that there is no paid editing violation happening based on the conduct of this admin and the way the Terms of Use and enwiki policies and guidelines are written. However, I am pretty troubled by this all the same in the way I wouldn't be with a non-admin. Again I do not suspect this current admin of doing anything wrong so it's not about them; it's about this as a principle. Do others see this as an issue as well? If so what should we do in response? Ideas that we could do:

• Change the requirement for RfA candidates to something like required to disclose whether they have ever edited Wikipedia, or advised others on editing Wikipedia, for pay (though this doesn't impact people after they become admins or current admins)
• Add some kind of transparency requirement for paid advising not just paid editing (but wording this in a workable way strikes me as hard)

Barkeep49 (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Can you expound on what your concerns are, and why it is different for an admin as opposed to a non-admin? Wehwalt (talk) 22:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the question. My concern is that we have to take people at their word that all they're doing is advising - I would much prefer a trust but verify (through transparency) system. And it's because of the tools that admins have that others don't to help clients, ranging from the not really a problem (viewing deleted content) to full on sanctioning someone who edits against their clients interests, that it strikes me as more of a problem for admin than other users. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

If an admin blocks someone on behalf of a client, then they are making a paid contribution and would have to conform to the paid-contribution disclosure requirements. Perhaps any use of administrative privileges should be considered to be a contribution for purposes of the terms of use? There is a financial conflict of interest with being paid for advice; I agree that figuring out how to compel disclosure in this case is difficult.

I'm having difficulty, though, trying to work out if there a distinction, other than type of client, with the role you are describing versus a Wikipedian-in-residence. In theory this is mutually beneficial, as the client will know from the start how to engage productively with the Wikipedia community, but this depends on the diligence of the advisor. isaacl (talk) 23:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Add some kind of transparency requirement for paid advising not just paid editing (but wording this in a workable way strikes me as hard) Does anyone see issues with something like Editors are required to disclose any payment for or related to activity on the English Wikipedia? It's broader than just paid advising, but in general I think transparency is a good thing so I don't see an issue with that. BilledMammal (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not convinced of the need, but if some policy were put in place, we'd need to cement what counts as "advising". Sure, being a consultant for EvilCorp would, but would teaching Wikipedia Editing 201 at EvilU (and in that case, who needs to be reported, EvilU who paid directly, or the students who were advised and funded it with their tuition?) Would writing a How Edit Wikipedia book for EvilPub count? If in the course of her regular workday in the EvilCorp communications dept, Brenda Admin is asked "how do we change our Wikipedia page to say we make solutions?" and Brenda tells them "you don't", does Brenda now have to make such an announcement? There is much fuzziness here. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I've had to be Brenda. It sucked. It wasn't even me who let management know I was an editor; I'm not sure whether they knew I was an admin. I just wish I'd been brave enough to push the A7 button myself. —Cryptic 23:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I've been aware of this admin for some time. My main concern has been that this creates a problem for them - having been paid in regard to Wikipedia advice, they have an ongoing undisclosed COI with those topics. This is workable, but it gets tricky when their clients have hired paid editors in the past and may do so in the future after seeking their advice when they are aware of this, but now they are in a difficult position. I know of other cases where editors have advised clients on Upwork and as a result of that advise the clients have hired banned editors to edit on their behalf, and I am aware that at least one of the clients who have hired this admin has also hired multiple paid editors in the past. - Bilby (talk) 23:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Like all COIs, it only needs announcement if they are editing (or administering) in their COI areas, which are already covered by existing policy. We all have COIs for some area, so the idea that these people will now have COIs for other ones doesn't strike me as a change of general status. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:21, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I don't see a need to disclose a COI unless you are editing articles related to that COI, but effectively creating COIs with articles where there has been violations of policy in the past is creating a difficult position for yourself as an admin. Especially when through consulting you will be made aware of paid editing that has happened on articles where you now have a COI, and you will likely become aware of paid editing that happens on those articles after you consult. - Bilby (talk) 00:52, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I feel like you put yourself in a position where you are 100% fine or you are deyssopped and possibly banned. Those are pretty extreme outcomes and it's why I'm wondering if some additional transparency helps create middle ground. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:23, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be some guidance that editors providing advice remain ethically bound to raise attention to any improper contributions they encounter on wiki, and are thus unable to agree to any terms that would restrict this duty. The editors must inform their clients of this responsibility. isaacl (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Bilby is touching on the most likely and troubling scenario if said Admin is advising MegaCompany, AspiringCeleb or whoever. The likely next step will involve paid article editing by a paid editor account; this will happen in the Admin's line of sight, but without their hands on the keyboard. Clearly, if another editor challenged/reverted the paid editor's changes, defensive action by the Admin may be sought by their sponsor, and must be resisted (or they must be de-sysopped). But if the paid edits remain unnoticed by others, what then? No COI action has touched their keyboard, but doesn't the Admin bear some responsibility for their inaction to defend the overall integrity? This is a swamp, best avoided. AllyD (talk) 06:59, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

In this case it isn't theoretical. One of the clients that the admin worked for had previously hired paid editors to create an article. After the admin provided advice, an editor has subsequently recreated the article. That editor might be a paid editor in which case we have UPE. I do not hold this against the admin - this is an admin whom I have considerable respect for and whom I trust, and I do not belive that they would ever willingly do the wrong thing by Wikipedia - plus they have been transparent about what they do even if they haven't been transparent about this article in particular. So that is not what I'm suggesting. But it is a difficult line to walk, knowing that a client you recently worked for is now breaking the ToU, and had hired people to break the ToU before you agreed to work for them. I'd recommend admins not put themselves in this position just because of the problems this could potentially lead to. - Bilby (talk) 11:36, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

My suggestion for advisors to make their clients aware of their community responsibility is intended to ensure the line is made clear to clients from the onset. isaacl (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

What is "advising"? If someone buys a copy of my hypothetical new book How to Edit Wikipedia, is that a declarable COI? Admins certainly shouldn't be revealing deleted articles for cash (even if obtainable for free from your favourite archive site) but that seems like mop abuse rather than "advising". Certes (talk) 23:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Do others see this as an issue as well? - Yes, this strikes me as a self-evidently bad thing.

If so what should we do in response? - I do not think admins have any business making money off of their adminship. Period. Paid editing, or marketing oneself as a Wikipedia expert for financial gain, should be strictly prohibited for administrators. That is my two cents. Pecopteris (talk) 23:17, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree. If an admin wishes to make money from paid editing, they should divest themselves of their mop before doing so. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Pecopteris is on the right track but I would go further. Admins should be role-modelling the highest standards of conduct. It's not good enough merely to not break rules - they should be morally beyond reproach. Adminship is a privileged position, and using that position for financial gain has the potential to bring the project into disrepute, even if done in good faith, and even if no edits are made. This is not a million miles away from cash for access, which is widely regarded as scandalous. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 19:10, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

+1 -- GreenC 04:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

• I pretty much agree with Pecopteris. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 23:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Do you see this as including getting an honorarium for speaking? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

• This has been discussed a bit with the functionaries, so I know a little more than barkeep49 has said, although I'm not privy to all of the details. Promotional editing is a big business, and those who run those sorts of businesses are always looking for an edge. Having an admin on your team is certainly a coveted asset for these people. I've been solicited off-wiki for my admin services, and I would imagine most admins could tell similar stories.

For sure, experts in all fields hire themselves out as consultants. Pharmaceutical companies hire retired FDA people to help them with regulatory issues. Likewise aircraft manufacturers hire FAA people to help with regulatory issues, and so on. This is all completely legit. These people come with knowledge and experience (not to mention contacts) which can only be gained by having been on the inside. But the common aspect here is that these people only go into private industry after they leave their government jobs. What's happening here is a sitting admin is offering their services for hire. Even if they're not providing direct tools-for-hire services, part of what they're selling is that they do have the tools (i.e. the ad on upwork directly states that they are an admin, even if it also states that they won't use those tools for hire).

I'd be much more comfortable if an admin decided they wanted to go into private consulting and resigned their bit to do so. They could still advertise that they're selling their experience and knowledge, but there would be a bright line in the sand that they're not selling their admin services. At the very least, they should publicly disclose that they're doing so. WMF:Policy:Terms of Use (under "Paid Contributions Without Disclosure") says You must disclose each and any employer, client, intended beneficiary and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. We could wiki-lawyer about whether providing consulting services that don't include on-wiki editing is covered by this, but I think it is certainly within the spirit of what was intended. RoySmith (talk) 23:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Ideally, there would be no paid editing. Returning to the real world, we should not allow editors to accept payment for using any significant privilege. What is "significant"? Certainly, anything that requires the sysop bit. Probably not autoconfirmed, which anyone can obtain easily. Probably most other hats such as new page reviewer or template editor. Extended-confirmed and autopatrolled may be borderline. Certes (talk) 00:14, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Just as a general principle, I don't think autopatrolled should be used for paid editing; such articles need the extra scrutiny provided by NPP. BilledMammal (talk) 00:18, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I thought for a while after seeing this that APAT only had effect if the AFC reviewer moving the article had the perm but reading the page again it does seem it's both (either one of original page creator or AFC reviewer with APAT will cause the article to be marked as reviewed). In which case, yes, I'd agree in general PAID articles should be unpatrolled when moved to mainspace so that the are reviewed by both sets of eyes. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:39, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Just a note on the last few replies, this is not about paid editing. This is about advising people on how to edit. We are not discussing admins who might take money for edits. Primefac (talk) 07:24, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, this is about parlaying the community's former confidence (an RfA with as high a percentage of supports as Eostrix's) into a quality guarantee in order to charge US$75/hour for paid advising. I had a look at the admin-in-question's user page. They do not indicate their "for hire" status or their hourly rate anywhere. Perhaps it could be suggested that they do so? -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 18:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

• S Marshall's thoughts:
  • Advising people about how to make appropriate, policy-compliant edits to Wikipedia is a good thing.
  • It's also appropriate behaviour for a sysop. We expect sysops to do this on people's talk pages.
  • It's not for us to police someone's earnings. Our only proper concern is inappropriate on-wiki behaviour.
  • There are good reasons why we need people to disclose on-wiki when they're getting paid for Wikipedia-related work.
  • Therefore this sysop should disclose (1) the fact that they're consulting and (2) which articles and topic areas are involved.
• And that should be sufficient.—S Marshall T/C 08:34, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

  We did stray onto activities which require privileges but are not edits, such as viewing deleted pages. That's an example of "using any significant privilege" for which we may wish to prohibit payment. Certes (talk) 09:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

  In general I agree with S Marshall, but I feel we need to be clear about how this impacts things like Wikimedians in residence, editathons, etc. There are also many other questions, such as what about $corp paying an someone to teach someone how to edit in accordance with all the relevant policies? Does it make a difference if it's just expenses? Is doing something like viewing a deleted article to advise what sources it used "inappropriate on-wiki behaviour"? If this admin is advising someone about editing in a given subject area is it inappropriate if they use their admin tools to revert obvious vandalism in that topic area? What about if they are giving advice about editing generally rather than in a specific topic area? What if an article in their client's field is (semi-)protected due to vandalism and the admin edits through that protection to fix a typo on behalf of their client? Or to add a requested citation? How long after the relationship with the client ends does the COI last? Thryduulf (talk) 11:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with all of these points Thryduulf, though I will note that some of them also apply to traditional paid editing and even just COI - for instance how long does it last for. In other words if someone works for a company for a year at age 23, when they're 25 they still have a COI. Do they still at 30? 50? 70? Barkeep49 (talk) 14:35, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with S Marshall. Additionally, I don't think we should treat admins and non-admins all that differently -- there are experienced non-admin NPP/AfC experts that could be much more of an asset to company PR than many admins. —Kusma (talk) 10:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Admins and being paid to advise on editing (break)

There are at least four questions here:

1. What counts as paid advising, and how do our policies on transparency/disclosure regarding paid editing apply to it?

   This is complicated, but if pressed for a simple answer I'd say our policies on paid editing simply don't apply. If you're not editing, you can't be paid editing.

2. Does a COI need to be disclosed even if someone never edits a related topic?

   No. You only need to disclose a COI as it relates to your on-wiki editing. The policy is the "conflict of interest editing" policy, after all. Do we all need to disclose our employers because we might someday write about them? Do you need a list of my family and friends in case I write about them? No. Disclosure needs to happen as soon as you start making edits that change or otherwise influence the subject.

3. Is it ever ok to use admin tools in the service of paid editing or paid advising?

   No. I'd carve out an exception for "obviously uncontroversial" things like maybe responding to a revdel request of doxing, but doing this would be dancing on the edge of a razor given the amount of discomfort such an act would cause in principle. Get a different admin to do it, and disclose your COI when you do.

4. Should the trust inherent in adminship and the specter of a conflict of interest bar an admin from paid advising?

   No. This all feels yucky because everything at the intersection of money and Wikipedia feels yucky. At the end of the day, companies and individuals are going to try to influence Wikipedia, so let them do it in the best possible way: advised by an experienced user telling them how to go about it properly and stopping short of paid editing. We should want that to be the pipeline so that they don't go and hire some blackhat operation or otherwise make a mess and waste people's time. Whether it's an admin or not doesn't really change anything except in the community's perception. We put a lot of trust in admins, so hold them to a higher standard. But we need admins and we need experienced users and we need people who can tell a company how to properly engage with Wikipedia. As long as someone is doing all that without actually paid editing and discloses any COI if they do edit those topics, I say go for it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree our policies don't currently apply to paid advising. I am suggesting that we need some new policies or guidelines, at least for admins, when it comes to paid advising. And right now, because our policies don't apply, there is no mandate towards transparency/disclosure which is also what I think should be desire. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:36, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd disagree. We cannot and should not try to control what people do outside of Wikipedia. If someone's providing advice, for pay or for free, and never ever edits with a COI, they should not have to disclose that just like they shouldn't have to disclose all of the many other hypothetical COIs they have on topics they don't edit. This is a principled but impractical intervention for the sake of feeling safe. It will discourage interactions that get companies to do things properly for fear of being tainted by the scarlet PE or COI, even when no PE or COI is taking place. We do not need more impediments to adminship, and we do not need more motivation for companies to do the wrong thing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:45, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with all of this comment. I can see why the concern came up but I see no need for new guidelines or disclosure requirements. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I think I agree, at least without evidence that something is being done in a problematic matter. Making money from being able to advise on Wikipedia is not wrong without some abuse of tools or other misconduct, as far as I can see. Wehwalt (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Regarding points 1 and 2, note that the terms of use specify the need to disclose paid contributions, which can encompass actions altering the Wikipedia database beyond editing. With that caveat, I agree the paid-contribution disclosure policy doesn't cover advice, and the conflict of interest guideline doesn't require disclosure unless the editor is involved in trying to change the content of a related article. isaacl (talk) 15:47, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

• We've seen a fair amount of text on talk pages, noticeboards, and the like, about paid editing and COI. I'll let others try to figure that out. But where I think we likely all agree is that no one should be using any granted tool/user-right ability as a result of being paid for the action. At best, it's WP:MEAT. I don't want to try to think about "at worst". - jc37 14:50, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

  True, but this is more or less covered by WP:TOOLMISUSE already. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

  Sure, but I think it was worth (re-)saying, in the context of this discussion. That regardless of where things fall concerning paid-editing/COI, that there's still a bright line to not be crossed. - jc37 19:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that it's money x WP that makes it yucky for me. It's soliciting as an admin that's the yucky part for me. It implies to the client that an admin can help them get what they want better than an equally-experienced and expert editor, which is a deliberate misrepresentation (that admins have some special authority over content, which takes advantage of general public confusion) plus the fact that misrepresentation takes advantage of the ignorant. Multiple ignorants, actually. Valereee (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Throwing an idea out there: a list of people that the English Wikipedia endorses as capable of advising in this capacity, and a set of requirements to be included in such a list. Some of those requirements could deal with transparency. So, you can go off and advise for pay, and you're not required to disclose unless your on-wiki editing intersects with your clients, but you won't be included in the list of preferred consultants if you don't disclose. I feel like this has been floated with regard to paid editing in the past, though I can't recall what came of it... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:45, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

There is a list of paid editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Integrity/Editor Registry, but it is updated very infrequently. isaacl (talk) 15:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I would suspect that if we were to go down that road, either there would be no consensus on the qualifications, or those who are greatly concerned about this issue would make the requirements so arduous and fraught with possible penalties that no one would care to use it. None of which would stop whatever is going on from going on, of course, whether harmful or innocuous. Wehwalt (talk) 15:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

This was a thought that I had, too. Probably the sort of thing that would be best written collaboratively among a few and then voted on rather than put together piecemeal. I don't think it's impossible that something useful could come of it, though, since it's inevitably less fraught than paid editing. It's an unfortunate reality that the hardliners who naively think money and Wikipedia should never intersect (and thus must never intersect) ruin so many attempts to create pathways to do it responsibly, and thus push people into the darkness. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:16, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

• Is this functionally different from the behaviour discussed in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:50, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

  Yes. There is zero evidence that the admin has pressed any buttons which was not true of the admin in that case.. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

• If there's a middle ground here its for *retired* admins, there is no good way to make a system in which an active admin is giving paid advice (in the same way that a retired senior civil service bureaucrat can consult/advise those with business before the government, but an active one can't). Unpaid advice is fine given the provision that free advice is worth the price you paid and banning it would seem to be unduly onerous to the social lives of Wikipedians. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:59, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

  Admins must not advise for pay while they are administrators. Resign first.

  Very simple bright line.

  I’m surprised we’re discussing any alternatives.

  —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  Any editor being paid to advise others on Wikipedia editing must disclose their conflict of interest and the name of their clients.

  This is another simple bright line.

  —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  Barkeep49, you’re on the Arbitration Committee. You all need to confront this admin. Give them these 3 choices from which to pick:

  1. Stop this work and disclose who they’ve worked for to date. They can stay an admin.
  2. Resign their adminship and they can continue advising clients for pay. They must publicly disclose current and former clients
  3. ArbCom takes matters into its hands and desysops this person. ArbCom publicizes the COI.

  If this feels awkward and embarrassing for this admin, so be it. I see the choices above as generous; other community members might argue for desysopping no matter whether they stop. Still others might say ban them outright.

  The community must be able to trust all its administrations … as well as ArbCom.

  —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 03:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Another Believer there is no policy or guideline this admin has broken. Mandatory disclosure under our current rules is required only if there has been paid editing. This admin says (and there is zero evidence to suggest otherwise) that they have not edited, used the tools, etc. They have instead offered advise and suggestions off-wiki. It's precisely because there is this gap between what we allow and what I think we should allow that I started this conversation. Best Barkeep49 (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Barkeep49 Did you mean to ping me? I have not participated in this discussion thus far. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  Nope meant to ping @A. B.. Sorry about that. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  I agree. I don't think the editor has broken our rules but I do think it's time for them to make a choice.

  Others such as Mike Christie have provided good examples below that my take on our rules going forward may be too simplistic.

  --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 16:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  If want to force them to make a choice we need to change the rules to say the current choice is not OK. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with the 3 choices @A. B. laid out, and with the sentiment "very simple bright line - I'm surprised we're discussing any alternatives." I am also surprised, and discouraged that so many editors seem to be adopting a permissive stance on administrators advertising their credentials to unknown entities for financial gain.

  This is inappropriate conduct for an admin. If this is permitted, I guarantee that other admins will start making money by advertising their admin-ship, and new prospective admins will definitely plan on cashing in ASAP upon being given the mop. Who wouldn't? If I were an admin, and I saw this mealy-mouthed conversation taking place, I'd immediately start looking for ways to financially profit of my adminship. This practice will grow exponentially if it is not prohibited.

  I don't want Wikipedia to be a place where admins can use their credentials to cash in off-Wiki. There are too many nefarious actors who would like to manipulate Wikipedia. I find it highly doubtful that a random good-faith person is out there looking to hire a Wikipedia adviser to help them understand NPOV, or anything of the sort. The defense I've seen, which is basically "just trust the admins bro", is inadequate. Pecopteris (talk) 22:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  The problem with that is that in the real world there are no bright lines and that it is entirely possible to receive payment and be acting in good faith. Thryduulf (talk) 23:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  I see your point, but disagree. For example, it's also possible to be a disruptive and tendentious editor who is acting in good faith. Nevertheless, disruptive and tendentious editing is still a potentially sanctionable offense. "I was acting in good faith" is not a defense against inappropriate behavior. I submit that touting your admin credentials to receive unknown sums of money from unknown entities is vastly more inappropriate than good-faith tendentious editing. At the end of the day, there are only two ways forward here: either we prohibit this behavior, or we do not. If we do not prohibit it, we are permitting it. What you permit, you promote. Are we sure that we want to promote this sort of conduct among sysops? Pecopteris (talk) 00:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  (ec) This sounds good, but I think the principles you're invoking -- payment vs. transparency -- don't actually break down in the way you're implying. I work for a company whose founder has an article on Wikipedia, and there's a controversy about the founder that has made it into national papers multiple times. I'm paid by that company. If the CEO asks me how to edit the article to reflect his view of the founder, and I tell him about the COI rules, I've advised him (that is, I've told him he should do no such thing). Are you saying I should then post a COI note on my user page? (I've not posted any such note to date because I have no intention of ever editing that or any article with which I might have a COI.). If I told him how to subvert the rules, sure, I'm a bad person. But the problem with that is not that it's advice, it's that it's advice that goes against the Wikipedia ethos. I suppose you could argue that one should disclose a COI if one plans to advise one's clients how to get around Wikipedia rules but that's unlikely to be useful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:41, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  • If you’re asked to give advice, do what you’re told and send ArbCom a note. Disclose on your user page that you are an employee of the XYZ Corp.
  • Disclosing your employment before you’re asked to make any actual edits may head off your boss later asking you to edit. You can just say, “everybody already knows I work for XYZ - they’ll immediately revert my edits.”
  • If your boss still coerces you into making actual edits, resign as an administrator.

  —A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not an administrator, by the way; I was responding to the part of your post where you argued that your points applied to non-admins too, though I would make the same case for admins. Your suggested actions go beyond what is in the COI guideline. I'd have no problem following your advice if it were in that guideline, and I might even do so without that being so, but as it stands I see no basis for arguing that editors must do as you outline. I think you'd have to propose and pass changes to the COI guideline to address this situation before you could fairly make the categorical statements you make above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  Disclosing that youre an employee of a specific company, in many cases is equivalent to outing yourself. We don't require that nor should we. (t · c) buidhe 05:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  ????? emphasis mine: Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. ltbdl (talk) 06:47, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Ltbdl emphasis mine: Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships.. Giving advice is not editing and it is not contributing. I strongly agree with buidhe that we do not and should not require an editor to out themselves. Especially just because someone else asked them to do something that did not involve being paid. Thryduulf (talk) 08:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  As another example, I was asked whether I could write an article about a person we both knew who had recently died. I explained the notability policy and my belief that subject would be unlikely to pass it. The person understood that and nothing more was said. Under your rules, if the person asking and/or the subject was my employer I would be required to out myself, declare I'd been giving paid advice and possibly resign my adminship. That is grossly disproportionate. Thryduulf (talk) 08:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  I do not think there is a single Wikipedia policy which would require a user to disclose who their employer is. What policies require is to disclose a COI without specifying the nature of the COI. (And I would certainly not advise of listing an employer at the user page; for a while I was saying on my user page that I am a full professor at one of the top universities in the Netherlands; this was enough for some persistent users to find my professional e-mail and send some mails using it, to which I never respond as a matter of principle, and resulted in at least one case of serious harassment). Ymblanter (talk) 14:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  This seems to be a red herring... You guys are conflating giving normal life experience advice in the course of your day jobs with your day job being to provide information about how to promote yourself on wikipedia. Those are not the same thing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  My point is that the rules proposed by A.B. would remove any such distinction - giving any advice about Wikipedia that relates to your paid employment in any way would be treated the same as paid editing. I think this would be grossly disproportionate. Thryduulf (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  I read A.B. as being a bit more nuanced than that, IMO in the description provided you would not be "Any editor being paid to advise others on Wikipedia editing must disclose their conflict of interest and the name of their clients." because you aren't actually being paid to advise on wikipedia you're being paid for something else and the question is unrelated to your core duties... Its a question about a hobby and as long as you don't step over the line into WP:PROMOTION you're good. Where it would be questionable would be if you were employed in a public relations or similar position. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

• So. I'm an admin, and have been for years. I'm also a functionary, a member of the WMF Communications Committee, and a bunch of other things. Over the course of many years, I've been asked to speak at various conferences, including ones that aren't directly related to the Wikimedia movement, although my topic was specific to some aspect of the movement. In some of those cases, I have received an honorarium; not always, and it's never been that significant. If it is an online matter, or I didn't have expenses, I've usually had the honorarium donated to the WMF. But when I do have expenses, I am more inclined to keep it (or at least as much of it as covers my personal costs). At every single place where I have spoken, I have been asked plenty of questions about how to do things on Wikipedia: create an article, what kinds of things are needed, how we deal with COI, how we deal with disinformation, who does the editing, what is our structure...the list could be infinite. In most of these cases, I don't think there's much of a different answer to these questions if I'm answering them at an official Wikimedia event than if it's in another forum. So...would this constitute paid advising? Should I stop answering questions that could potentially bring us new editors with new expertise? There are many other people who are or have been in that position; not answering questions about Wikipedia seems to defeat the purpose of this outreach. This is a real question.

  I think that we need to be a little more cautious in how we think about these things, and accept that there are grey areas. There are those who believe that scholarships paid with movement money turn people into paid editors. There are those who think anything less than the level of abuse exhibited by Orangemoody-type editors (i.e., claiming to be specific admins and/or editors, demanding money to keep articles, etc.) is probably okay. I think it's probably somewhere in the middle, but the middle can get awfully muddy. Risker (talk) 05:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

• Most of the problems here are in the area Thryduulf has pointed out. But really the core issue is with the admin policy and it being out of date with how COI's effectively work. If we want to eliminate COI impacts on admin tool use, then the requirements for having advanced tools (in the admin policy) need to be tightened up to explicitly say "You cant accept money or other considerations in return for wikipedia-related work in any form. If you wish to do so, you cannot have advanced tools". It would eliminate any and all COI issues with admin's who may *potentially* have issues, because they wont be admins. It would also eliminate our issue with employees of the WMF and their unresolvable COI. The alternative is dicking around with the COI guideline playing whack-a-mole while people find new ways to grift. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  You cant accept money or other considerations in return for wikipedia-related work in any form would prohibit any admins from working for the WMF, Wikimedia chapters or thematic organisations. It would also prohibit them from receiving scholarships grants, scholarships, expenses or even prizes (from the WMF, chapters, etc). Taken literally it would also prohibit them from eating food at any Wikimedia-related event they didn't pay for directly. That is not the goal of the rules regarding conflicts of interest and is much broader than the last consensus I am aware of believed should be prohibited. Thryduulf (talk) 08:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  And it would also disincentivize or even bar good strong editors who may already be giving Wikipedia classes, giving sound and proper advice at work, and so forth, from becoming admins, a process that is already too fraught. The assumption that someone who has become an admin is going to do evil if they accept money for giving advice (and let us be clear, giving advice is a good thing and should be encouraged) is strange and bleak; the assumption that an admin who intends to do evil for money is going to announce it is, in contrast, oddly utopian. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 12:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  "You cant accept money or other considerations in return for wikipedia-related work in any form would prohibit any admins from working for the WMF, Wikimedia chapters or thematic organisations." Yes thats exactly right. They can volunteer for them, but they cant work for them. The point of a COI is that a conflict of interest arises when you can be forced to put one interest over another. As soon as money (or other renumeration) enters the equation, the threat of withdrawing it also does. If you wanted to narrow it down, you could limit it to employees, contractors or those offering paid services in relation to wikipedia. But it would eventually just devolve into arguments over what is pay or not, or disguising obvious fees. We should have already banned employees of the WMF from holding advanced tools on a non-staff account as soon as the UCoC reared its head because that COI is just not resolveable. Almost zero of the activities offered to third party organisations require the admin suite of tools, and of our current admin corps, (outside of those directly employed by the WMF) how many regularly do any sort of renumerated wikipedia related work? I bet its dwarfed by the amount of people who do actually perform wikipedia-related paid work who would never pass RFA (or have even had their tools removed previously). RE Nat: The assumption isnt that someone who accepts money is intending to do evil, the point of a COI is that people with otherwise good intentions can be forced to perform actions under threat - because of the money changing hands. "Do this or I dont pay you" works perfectly well on otherwise good people with good intentions when they have bills to pay. Its a risk assessment, when someone is given advanced tools it is based on the risk of them abusing them. Their past editing history, their actions, personality etc. As soon as there is a COI, that risk jumps exponentially because that assessment is now completely invalid, it doesnt matter if they are a good and decent person with only the best interests of the encypedia at heart, if they work for an organisastion that only has contempt and sees it as a trough to snuffle their snouts in. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  My employment contract doesn't say I can be fired for explaining to a competitor how to hack our systems and get our confidential data; it doesn't need to. If I did that and was found out, I'd be fired. Until then, my company assumes I will behave appropriately, but retains the right to fire for cause if it decides to do so. In the same way if we find out that someone is doing something inappropriate we discuss banning or blocking them. Creating policies that legislate what our editors and admins can do off-wiki is unnecessary, and for those who don't want their real identities known is another disincentive as it means part of one's offline life would be relevant to discussions about one's behaviour online. We don't give the admin bit to editors we think will behave in the ways we're discussing here, and for regular editors the rule is AGF anyway. Adding offwiki elements to the COI guideline would be intrusive and wouldn't actually give us any more power or provide any more behaviour guidance than we have now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  Agree with this. Several in this thread are basically assuming our admins are just waiting for an opportunity to be corrupt and betray everyone's trust. That's a bad basis for writing policy. If there's evidence of violating policy, do something; if not, don't. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:01, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  But that conflict of interest doesn't exist when what is being offered is actually advice, because the client wants the advice and we want everyone to be well advised about Wikipedia, to whatever extent they'll accept. If someone is paying for something other than advice, then yes, conflict of interest arises. If the admin is administering over things with a visible relationship to who he is getting paid by, then yes, that's a conflict of interest, but it is no more true than if they were getting paid by those folks for something unrelated to Wikipedia. Presumably most of our admins have an income of some sort from some source. Are we to make every admin declare their sources of income? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  @NatGertler: But why does the client want the advice? If the answer is so that they can better promote themselves on wikipedia thats a problem and its hard to come up with other reasons why someone would pay for advice about wikipedia. Its settled community consensus that you can't engage in promotion or assist others in engaging in promotion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  its hard to come up with other reasons [than promotion] why someone would pay for advice about wikipedia. It really, really isn't. Many people want advice about how to contribute in accordance with the rules, they want advice about what the rules are, they want advice about how to learn editing, they want advice about how the whole thing works, they want advice about how a specific thing works, they want advice about whether Wikipedia as a whole/a given article is reliable, they want advice about how to spot scams they've heard about, etc. I've been asked all these things and more over the years. For many people offering to pay someone for their time and/or expertise isn't because they are a bad actor it's because they simply wouldn't think not to do otherwise, because they pay other people for their time and expertise and they get paid for theirs. Thryduulf (talk) 22:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  For what purpose? Their own pursuit of wikipedia as a hobby? Would you agree with the statement if people was replaced by companies? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  I have given requested advice to many people about Wikipedia (none for money, yet), and while yes, there have been those who wanted to use Wikipedia for promotion (in which case my advice is "ya don't"), there have been at least as many who wanted to figure out how to get factual misinformation off of their page, or are concerned that their page has been turned into an attack page, or here's someone who has been replacing the name of their CFO with "Duckface McGee". I.e., they want factual correct information, they don't want some POV material, and they want vandalism addressed. All of these things are in accord with what Wikipedia wants. And most or all of the advice I give is advice that could be found somewhere on Wikipedia, if they just knew how to navigate the eleventeen policies, guidelines and essays. "Here's how you state your conflict of interest, here is how you request an edit, you'll want to state your request in terms of policies and guidelines and here are the three of those that seem relevant to your situation." Very not evil. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  If you've never accepted payment what is the point of the long unrelated anecdote? We're talking about paid consulting here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  You stated "its hard to come up with other reasons why someone would pay for advice about wikipedia", and I was merely showing that it wasn't, that there are other reasons why folks might want advice, and all of it is reasons that some might be willing to pay for (speaking both as someone who has been asked for Wikipedia advice and paid for non-Wikipedia advice repeatedly, so I have the sense that people are willing to pay for advice.) I'm not sure why you feel your inability to come up with reasons why shouldn't be responded to. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  "Harmless wealthy eccentric" was on my list along with academics and non-profits. Those seems to be tiny niches compared to what the vast majority of the people willing to pay for wikipedia consulting want which is promotion... For profit enterprises don't spent money on things which don't have a profit potential. I think disclosure is also merited in the second and third cases, all three in fact if the eccentric is notable. It would be fine for a sitting admin to do consulting work for the Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on Digital Cooperation but they would need to disclose it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  Do you have any evidence for your assertions that people acting in good faith are "tiny niches" and that "for profit enterprises don't spend money on things which don't have a profit potential"? You also seem to completely disregard the possibly that something a for-profit entity wants might be exactly the same thing Wikipedia wants - something Nat Gertler's experience, and my experience, proves does happen. Your entire approach to this issue seems to be assuming that everybody is acting in bad faith and/or with a motive of somehow undermining Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 23:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  So I do consulting (that doesn't touch on wiki in any way)... That is primarily why people hire consultants just as a class of occupation. Neither of you have any experience in paid consulting with regards to wikipedia unless I'm missing something. Do you have any relevant examples or experiences to share? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  I have experience of advising regarding Wikipedia and teaching Wikipedia editing, all unpaid but in some cases I did receive expenses. I also have experience of working for Wikimedia UK and of dealing with the general public as a high profile Wikipedia person at Wikimania 2014 and as one of many ordinary attendees at the 2005 and 2016 Wikimanias. I also frequently wear Wikipedia t-shirts which sometimes leads to being asked questions about Wikipedia when I'm out and about. I also have some experience of paid and unpaid consulting regarding matters unrelated to Wikipedia. This means I have very extensive experience of the types of questions people ask and the types of things they want advice about, spanning over a decade of interactions. So, I do know what I'm talking about. Now would you like to answer my question? Thryduulf (talk) 23:56, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  I don't have any evidence that that people acting in good faith are "tiny niches" but I did not make that claim so thats not surprising... As for "for profit enterprises don't spend money on things which don't have a profit potential..." I wasn't aware that there was an exception to WP:COI and WP:PROMOTION based on interest alignment. I'd be interested to hear more about that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  So you're saying that you don't have any particularly more relevant experience than us, but you're putting down our views for lack of relevant experience and promoting your own? And you apparently think that a company will not see such things as having the Wikipedia page about them not be an attack page as being advantageous to their efforts without directly being promotion? Got it. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure how that doesn't fall under WP:PROMOTION can you explain where you're coming from? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  Addressing an attack page is very much in line with what WP:PROMOTION says a Wikipedia page should be: "Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style". If the page about CorpityCorp says primarily "they make really crappy products and everyone hates them, they stink and the Feds have outlawed half of them and should outlaw the other half", the CorpityCorp CEO wanting to know how to get that non-objective, biased material off of their page is not seeking to add puffery, advertising, promotion but merely removing inaccurate and biased POV statements, in line with our goals. Paying someone for some time discussing how one gets such a page deleted or have the attack material removed is not asking them to edit in promotion. It's not seeking to edit out negative but potentially appropriate material. It would be asking how to achieve edits that should be non-controversial. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  And in that scenario we would absolutely require the COI to be disclosed... There is no "fixing an attack page" exemption to disclosing a COI. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  So if someone advised the person from corpitycorp that they need to disclose their COI, make an edit request, and make neutral posts at coin/npovn explaining their COI and the article issues, the person giving advice would have to disclose a COI on-wiki? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  In context both the CorpityCorp CEO and the person they paid have a COI, if either intends to edit the page CorpityCorp of course they're going to have to disclose that COI. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, the person who makes the edits should absolutely disclose their COI. But if the hired admin is telling them "here's how you declare a COI, here's where the template it request an edit is, here's a list of deletion processes", none of that is the admin actually doing anything on Wikipedia. There's nothing there that requires the admin to declare a COI. If the admin were to be the one who, say, closes the deletion discussion, then yes, there's a COI problem there. But not at the advise level. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  You're conflating two discussions, in the current hypothetical the editor is no an admin. If editor X is paid one million dollars by CorpityCorp they most definitely need to declare that COI if they intend to edit CorpityCorp... If not then the COI exists but doesn't need to be disclosed. What we appear to have community consensus for is that admins are to be held to higher standards than regular editors, hence the suggestion that admins should be required to disclose the COI regardless of whether they intend to edit a related page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  This is just common sense from my POV. Again: we either permit this sort of behavior, or we do not. What you permit, you promote. The question is, do we want to promote this type of conduct among sysops? I think the answer is obviously "no". So it should not be permitted. If it is permitted, we are setting a horrible precedent. We cannot tolerate admins collecting undisclosed sums of money from unknown entities for "Wikipedia advising". That's extremely sus, and I hope we can all agree on that, regardless of our differing opinions as to what, exactly, should be done about it.

  I also think it's naïve to suggest, as some have, that the entities paying for "Wikipedia advising" are probably just nice, friendly, innocent folks who want to learn how to be a good Wikipedian. Come on. Pecopteris (talk) 01:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not sure you're actually reading what other people are writing. We are not talking about "paying for Wikipedia advertising", and despite your assumption of bad faith there are people willing to pay to learn how to do things in accordance with Wikipedia's rules. Thryduulf (talk) 08:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Pecopteris: NatGertler has pointed out on my talk page that I misread your comment (you wrote "advising" I read "advertising") so I redact my previous statement, however my principle point stands - there very much are people who will (offer to) pay to learn how to do things properly. Several of the people I've interacted with in Wikipedia training sessions would have paid if we weren't offering it for free. These are people who either share Wikipedia's goal or have a goal that is entirely compatible with Wikipedia's, i.e. we want a well-written article (i.e. comprehensive and neutral) about every notable subject, they want a well-written Wikipedia article (i.e. one that is comprehensive and which meets all our polices, whatever those policies are) about a notable topic with which they are associated. If we prohibit these people getting the advice they seek from white-hat editors then they will have no choice but to get the advice from black-hat editors, which does not benefit anybody. Thryduulf (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  Nothing anyone has proposed would preclude people from paying to learn wikipedia from white hat editors, they just wouldn't be able to pay a current admin to teach them. What of value does a current admin bring to the table that another experienced editor or a retired admin doesn't? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  Nothing anyone has proposed would preclude people from paying to learn wikipedia from white hat editors that might not be your proposal, but at least two proposals in this thread seek to prohibit everybody from receiving any payment for any Wikipedia activity. The effect of at least one of them would also prohibit things like receiving grants of books to improve articles.

  Why does it matter whether a good faith actor giving correct advice is an admin or not? Thryduulf (talk) 18:34, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  I don't actually see anyone making that argument, I see other people characterizing their argument as that which isn't really the same thing. Is receiving grants of books to improve an article a common thing? I've never come across that and I can't find it in the discussion here. It matters because admins have special privileges both official and unofficial within our system, we rely on them to be trustworthy and there's no possible way that the trust would remain if they were making a living on consulting for notable people and organizations without the community being able to know what notable people and organizations were paying them (and even then it would likely be the source of endless friction). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  I do not see this supposed second discussion here, nor do I see any relevance to the general topic at hand if it did, which is admins offering to be advisors. I have not seen anyone suggesting we should do away with our paid editing policies. And I am not seeing that supposed community consensus in this discussion, I am seeing an array of views. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  I thought the topic was about admins being paid to be advisors, not offering advice (something nobody seems to have a problem with). That community consensus is not in this discussion, it is longstanding... Admins are held to a higher standard than regular admins, thats how it works. Do you agree that under our current rules an admin who was paid one million dollars to advise CorpityCorp would have to disclose a COI if they wanted to edit CorpityCorp or a related article? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not going to jump through hoops answering obvious questions that are not at hand. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  If it was obvious I wouldn't have asked, you appear to be arguing that providing paid advice has no COI impact on the person giving the advice. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:04, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  Wow. You are just acting cartoonishly desperate in your efforts to have what I say not count... and in this case, claiming that I "appear to be arguing" the exact opposite of something i have specifically repeatedly said ("If the admin is administering over things with a visible relationship to who he is getting paid by, then yes, that's a conflict of interest", "If the admin were to be the one who, say, closes the deletion discussion, then yes, there's a COI problem there." "Like all COIs, it only needs announcement if they are editing (or administering) in their COI areas, which are already covered by existing policy.") If you're just here to troll me, feel free to use my talk page instead. -- Nat Gertler (talk) Nat Gertler (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  Then I guess it wasn't obvious was it... Of course what you say counts, WP:CIVIL please. Would you care to reframe your disagreement with my position if you feel that I am ignoring what you say? Do you actually disagree with it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  Kindly find someone else to ask to jump through your hoops... or better yet no one. I am not in the mood for sea lion games. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  You were just warned about being CIVIL, do I now have to link WP:NPA before you interact with your fellow editors with respect and camaraderie? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Only in death I completely disagree with this and agree with Christie, Rhododendrites and Nat Gertler. Nobody should be editing or admining in a way that is non-neutral, but simply being employed by someone does not generate a conflict of interest with everything even tangentially related to everything that organisation does. I used to work for Wikimedia UK, this did not affect my ability to edit and admin in a neutral manner regarding things unrelated to the Wikimedia movement. My receiving expenses to teach people how to edit Wikipedia did not result in my doing anything to undermine the neutrality of the encyclopaedia - indeed by teaching subject matter experts how to edit in accordance with policy it strengthened it. Advising people, whether they are your employers or not, how to follow policy is something everybody should do when the circumstances arise. Thryduulf (talk) 18:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  I was once asked by an employer for advice on something they wanted to add to Wikipedia about the company. My advice was along the lines of "Don't do that like that, because..." and I explained the relevant policy. What a surprise it is now to discover what an evil and corrupt admin I was at the time - I guess it's just as well I resigned the bit before I was caught. People ask me how to do things on Wikipedia all the time, and it helps both those people and the project if I advise them - but if I'm an admin, I mustn't do that for an employer, or for someone who makes me a cup of tea that they don't charge me for? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  There is a big difference between an editor being asked for advice by their employer (who was going to pay them anyway), and an editor proactively soliciting payment for advice, and trading specifically on their admin status. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  If you think one is acceptable and the other is not, what is it about the unacceptable one that makes it unacceptable? Where is the line between them? Thryduulf (talk) 20:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  The latter is intentionally and proactively marketing themself as an admin-for-hire. Their admin status is an intrinsic part of the deal. They are accessing a revenue stream that would be unavailable to them if they were not an admin. Whereas the former is employed primarily for other purposes, and the giving of advice doesn’t influence their remuneration. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  If the paid activity is limited to advice then there is no difference between admins and non-admins. There's no way to "trade on their admin status". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:47, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  Sure there is. As I mentioned above, the specific ad we're talking about states that they're an admin. What purpose is there in making that statement if not to make you more attractive to hire than all the other people advertising their wiki services for hire? RoySmith (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  A fair point, so I'll rephrase: if they're limited to giving advice, the admin bit makes no difference to the advice they can give. I suppose in this case mentioning it in the ad is intended to signal that they are a competent and experienced editor, which is probably the case. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  I would be more comfortable if they demonstrated their skill by listing the number of WP:FA or WP:GA nominations they've had approved. Or how many of those reviews they've done. Or their work at WP:GOCE, WP:AFC, WP:NPP, or some other area of the pedia that involves writing and/or evaluating content. If you were looking to hire a pen, would you be happy to see a candidate walk into the interview carrying a mop?

  My admin work has mostly taught me how to identify sockpuppets. Surely that's not something that would be valuable to a potential client looking for advice on how to write articles. What would be valuable to a potential client is that I could show them how to make their sockpuppets undetectable. But I assume that's not what most people here would be happy with me doing. RoySmith (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  What is valuable to a potential client depends on what they are looking to hire someone to do/advise on. If you were looking for someone to advise you about writing Good or featured articles, then yes you want someone experienced in those areas (who may or may not be an admin), but many (maybe most) people looking for advice about Wikipedia will not understand what those terms mean if they've even heard of them - they'll be looking for someone who is generally clueful and someone like that will likely think "administrator" means just that. If you are looking for someone to advise you about how to comply with policies regarding COI or image licenses or notability or something else then you want someone who knows the relevant policies. Not everybody who is looking for help regarding things other than content is doing so for nefarious reasons, not everybody who is offering to advise regarding Wikipedia is doing so for nefarious reasons. Thryduulf (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  If a potential client is conversant enough with Wikipedia that they know what WP:NPP means, they probably don't need advice. "Administrator" is a word that conveys "I have a reasonable degree of knowledge about the matter"... and in the case of an administrator, that's at least mostly true. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 22:48, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  It conveys power but it only implies knowledge. As you say not all admins are equally knowledgable, but they are more or less equally powerful. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  Actually "admin" implies to the average person "in charge of deciding what does and doesn't go into an article" and "has special skills and abilities that non-admins don't have". If the reason you can sell your services is because you're taking advantage of that generalized misunderstanding by even many registered users, you are taking advantage of people's ignorance, misrepresenting yourself, and just generally being...well, again, I know that people who are aware of this editor's identity believe they are someone who would never do anything to harm the project. But, yeah. Valereee (talk) 17:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

• I'd just like to take a moment to remind everyone about Levivich Advisor Group's price-matching guarantee: if you find cheaper advice anywhere, just let us know and we will match or beat that price -- guaranteed. Levivich Advisor Group: the Cheapest Advice, Guaranteed!™ Levivich (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  I could put my two cents in here ... but never mind. Wehwalt (talk) 17:55, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  I think for two cents I can write a script that emails people "no" (and possibly on occasions "maybe"). Then I can upsell on more specific advice, like why not. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:03, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

• IMO it it shouldn't and isn't going to happen that we'd implement tougher rules for off-wiki advising for admins than for editors. COI is already defined too broadly and vaguely and this would be a massive expansion into more broadness and vagueness. And the COI disclosure rules amount to near-self-outing and so are really only workable for SPA's and other similar narrower role accounts and a typical admin is likely to be the opposite of that. North8000 (talk) 18:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
• From what I can tell it is just not against the rules, and I am kind of fine with that. They are not editing or using tools, just talking. Now the moment they do edit or use admin tools then we have WP:PAID & WP:UPE to cover it. I do not see the purposed changes to be particularly helpful. PackMecEng (talk) 00:10, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
• I know opinions are a dime a dozen and I'm sure someone's already echoed my thoughts, but my gut reaction is

• if they're being paid to do anything that an unregistered user couldn't do themselves--create pages, delete pages, directly edit protected/semi-protected articles, give opinions in discussions solely because the company hopes their admin status will confer more weight to their thoughts, etc.--or if they don't disclose what they were paid for, that's not okay.
• Otherwise is an admin's being paid to just give advice, or to do ordinary uncontroversial edits ("this company asked me to convert their draft into proper Wiki-markup"), etc., and they disclose exactly which edits they were paid for, that doesn't seem so bad to me. 2603:8001:4542:28FB:D4B6:F2D4:E313:524B (talk) 00:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

• Well...my first reaction, upon learning that an admin is waving around their mop to make money, is certainly "Yuck". But "yuck" is not a basis for rational thought. As some others have stated above, I've been approached by people with offers to do various things for pay, and my response is a somewhat more polite but no less firm "HELL no". And don't think simple "advising" couldn't cause problems—right off the top of my head, I can think of some truly nasty black-hat practices I could teach someone to do, because I've seen them done, and seen how the black hats ultimately screwed up and got caught. (I will not, for obvious reasons, be sharing specifics here.) But of course, a lot of experienced non-admins could do that too. I just see a big difference between an admin advertising their services as such, and an admin happening to be asked for advice by someone, even if it's an employer or the like, and realistically, admins are probably some of the best people in that type of instance to tell someone how to get it right and not cause disruption. (In a lot of cases, of course, the answer to that "How do I...?" question will be "You don't", but well, admins will generally be used to telling people news they don't want to hear, too.) I also see a major difference between an admin receiving something like an honorarium for speaking to a general audience about their experiences on Wikipedia, or some complimentary food at an event, and an admin seeking to be hired by a specific client to act as their advisor. So, I don't know whether we would have a consensus that admins should be forbidden from doing that, but if I found out one was doing it my regard for them would drop by quite a lot, and I think from this discussion, I'm not by any means the only one. I'm definitely in the "should not" camp here—I'm just not sure if I'd take that final step into "may not". Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  Seraphim I think you bring up a crucial point. I think there is a difference between marketing ones services and some of the other scenarios discussed - e.g. an employer asking for advice. The element of solicitation does seem like part of what has caused me unease. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  Agree with Barkeep49; there is a palpable difference between being asked for advice and actively soliciting a service to provide advice. It seems to me, from reading this thread, that it's the solicitation that causes most concern, not the actual provision of advice/support/assistance to others. Risker (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  This is where I am, too. I see that there are multiple people here who know and trust this admin and believe them to be unlikely to do anything to harm the project, but I can't help but think parlaying your mop into a paid gig, no matter how you do it, is a bit...well, icky. Resign the mop and hire out to give advice as an experienced editor, but if the mop is what gets you the bigger bucks or makes you more attractive as a consultant, that's really problematic. I feel like there's a clear choice to be made, and it shouldn't be difficult. Keep the mop, OR get paid. Not both. Valereee (talk) 16:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

• This is very simple… if you are paid to edit WP, disclose it. If you are paid to advise someone else about editing WP, disclose it. If you are paid to do anything related to WP, disclose it.

What happens next depends on the nature of the edit. Blueboar (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

What is lost in a lot of the comments above is that there is no clear goal for what we want to achieve or why:

• If an editor is acting in bad faith everything we say here is irrelevant - they have no incentive to follow the rules (indeed they have an incentive not to). When discovered, editors acting in bad faith should be sanctioned (up to and including bans) regardless of the way they are acting in bad faith. We thus do not need to consider them further here.
• If an editor is acting in good faith then there are a few possible outcomes:
  1. The advice is good and results in an improvement to the encyclopaedia. We should be encouraging this, not making it more difficult let alone prohibiting it.
  2. The advice is good, but there is no change to the encyclopaedia. This could be neutral (in which case why should we care about it?) or it could be a benefit to the encyclopaedia (e.g. someone chooses not to do something that is against policy) - again this is something we should be encouraging.
  3. The advice is good, but there is a negative change to the encyclopaedia. This is by definition not the fault of the person giving the advice, most likely the advice has been ignored - in which case it's likely that the action would have been done anyway so the net effect on the project is neutral.
  4. The advice was bad. This is something we should care about, but what we should do about it will depend on the nature of the advice. For example there may be a CIR issue, it may be that there is a misunderstanding about policy (in which case we should consider whether the policy is at fault), etc
• In none of these scenarios am I seeing anything that suggests banning the giving of advice, whether for pay or otherwise, will be a positive to the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 18:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
• Exploiting (because that's really what it is) a privilege granted by the community for personal gain is, if nothing else, unethical. A significant portion of projectspace guidance is dedicated to putting personal desires and opinions aside to put the wiki first, e.g. WP:INVOLVED, WP:COI, WP:3RR, and leveraging community trust for money is violates the spirit of that. WP:TOOLMISUSE says Administrator tools may not be used as part of any paid editing activity. It does not specify that the activity must be editing itself, but regardless I have a pretty hard time believing that any admin would seriously think advertising their adminship to solicit payment for advice is 100% in line with what is written. There's also a notable difference between soliciting payment and being approached; I don't at all think there's a problem with sysops giving advice if asked – I think there is an issue if they seek personal reward from it. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 10:02, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

If someone writes on a job board website, "I am User:[whatever] on Wikipedia," then User:whatever should either confirm or deny that link on-wiki, so everyone (both on-wiki and off-wiki) knows whether the person on the job board website really is the same as the Wikipedia editor. Just a few months ago, we saw an example where someone off-wiki was pretending to be a wiki admin in order to get a job. At the very least, policy should require Wikipedia editors to disclose on their userpage any off-wiki accounts on job boards (or similar) if those off-wiki accounts claim to be a specific Wikipedia editor. This is to prevent fraud and impersonation.

Let's talk about the real issue, though, which is monetizing Wikipedia editing. I'm rather amused to see all the people who are outraged that an admin would advertise Wikipedia consulting services and trade on their adminship ("Hire me, I have been a Wikipedia admin for X years...") or editing experience ("I have been a Wikipedia editor for X years," "I have made X new articles"). This is amusing because it's so very common that people monetize their Wikipedia editing (that is, use their volunteer editing to get money in one way or another), and the community's reaction varies from a shrug to outrage based on... I'm not sure what. Here's a list of just some of the many Wikipedia editors who have monetized their editing experience:

• Jimbo, who sold an NFT of his first edit for $750,000, among many other monetizations
• Every editor who ever worked for the WMF
• Every Wikipedian-in-Residence
• Every editor who gets paid by a Wikimedia affiliate
• Every WikiEd instructor who gets paid to edit or supervise/coordinate others' editing
• Every editor who's ever gotten paid by a Wikimedia grant to edit or supervise/coordinate others' editing
• Every editor who has sold a book about Wikipedia editing (or tried to)
• That one editor who famously got tenure at his university based on his Wikipedia editing, and anyone else who's put their Wikipedia editing experience on a resume or otherwise used it to get paying work (or a promotion)

There are a ton of admins and non-admins who fall into one of those above categories. (I think mostly admins, in fact, though I'm not sure.) What is the difference between an admin being paid as a Wikipedian-in-Residence and an admin posting an ad on a job board website? I don't see a meaningful difference there.

The other day we had GTAV as the TFA on the front page because it was the 10th anniversary of the game's release. That work well for the game's 10th-anniversary internet advertising campaign. Is there anything a paid editor could have done to have Wikipedia advertise GTAV that volunteer editors didn't already do for free? And when it's not GTAV, it's Taylor Swift or some other product we're often advertising on the main page. Wikipedia editors promote businesses and products for free all the time. Whether they get paid for it or not, I don't think even makes a difference. Levivich (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Note that many are of the opinion that Admins should not hold WMF or wikipedian-in-residence positions, there seems to be a pretty diverse collection of views from the community on this and you're right that consensus ranges from "a shrug to outrage" depending on the context. I would caution both the contingent that wants to treat admins as Roman Senators and ban them from any commercial activity even marginally related to their roles and the contingent that wants to see no restrictions put on the commercial activities of Admins at all that neither of those extremes is sustainable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

@Levivich regarding If someone writes on a job board website, "I am User:[whatever] on Wikipedia," then User:whatever should either confirm or deny that link on-wiki... we've got that already. See foundation:Policy:Terms of Use under Paid Contributions Without Disclosure. I'd be surprised if you could find anybody who has ever complied with that, but it's there. RoySmith (talk) 17:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I feel like there are levels, here. Too lazy to look into the Jimbo thing, but working at WMF, being a WiR, getting paid by an affiliate, being a WikiEd instructior, and getting a grant all to me seem fairly innocuous, although IMO they all should be disclosed. Selling a book about WP editing...meh. I don't actually object to someone doing that if they aren't giving themselves false authority by using their adminship. The tenure, well that's on the Uni, IMO. Who does that? Valereee (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd also add the reward board, where some have offered cash awards, as a place where the community looks the other way on paid editing. Though I think it is challenging to put into practice, I think it may be more in line with community expectations to set a standard for ethical conduct for all editors, rather than just a subset.

Note that disclosing external accounts on Wikipedia is already a mandatory policy that was passed on Meta-wiki. isaacl (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

I suspect "Every editor who ever worked for the WMF" is too broad. Community liaisons and such, sure. But I doubt editing experience carries much weight for things like software engineering jobs for over a decade now beyond indicating that someone might be more intrinsically motivated. I've even known WMF managers who might well have seen editing experience as a negative, since it could lead to employees pushing for things "the community" wants rather than what the manager wants or publicly disagreeing with WMF actions. Anomie⚔ 12:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

This is not addressed by existing policies and guidelines

The discussions above are about whether the behaviour in question is ethical or unethical; or harmful or harmless. What most people seem to agree on is that it's not banned by the existing policies and guidelines, since WP:COI's language is very clear about its application to edits. Can I suggest that those who think a change to COI (or elsewhere) is desirable work on wording? Nothing new is getting said above. I think getting a consensus just among those who want a change would force resolution of some of the issues raised above, which might shortcut some debate when the wording is proposed. The conversation above is becoming a sinkhole and seems unlikely to go anywhere. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion: change WP:ADMINACCT from:

Conduct elsewhere incompatible with adminship (off-site attacking, etc.)

to:

Conduct elsewhere incompatible with adminship (off-site attacking, seeking financial gain from adminship, etc.).

The context of this passage is a list of things that may lead to sanctions or desysopping. It isn’t an outright prohibition, but is strongly suggestive that this conduct is unbecoming of an administrator.

Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I hadn't been ready to propose a change which is why I didn't start this conversation with any. But Seraphimblade's point did crystalize something for me and is making me think of possible wording. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Pretty well established this isn't against the rules, but in the interest of finding the smallest policy change which would satisfy the greatest number of people, I wonder how many people in this discussion who have expressed objections would have those at least somewhat assuaged by saying "admins can advise just like anyone else, subject to the limitations at WP:TOOLMISUSE and WP:COI, but they should not use their adminship to advertise their services (i.e. when you post an ad for services, omit 'I'm an admin')"? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

That, as a practical matter, very likely will make it much more difficult to get hired, especially if you are not allowed to mention it at any stage of the engagement process. I don't see this as a small change. Wehwalt (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think "you are not allowed to mention [you are an admin] at any stage of the engagement process" would be at all practical, let alone enforceable. Some people considering when considering whether to hire a given user will look at their userpage, if they see that says the user is an admin they may ask about it. It's also a key part of an editor's experience and is going to be difficult to avoid mentioning. Personally I would rather not restrict what neutral and factual information about themselves and their experience, the project will not benefit from that in any way. It may also make it harder for good faith editors to get hired than bad faith ones, which something that would harm the project. Thryduulf (talk) 15:22, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

If you

1. wouldn't get hired if you weren't an admin, you're taking advantage of your "special" status
2. are allowing your client to continue to misunderstand that admins don't actually have any special control over content and that the fact you're an admin makes you absolutely no more valuable to them than if you were an equally experienced non-admin advisor

...well, honestly this is looking more and more slimy to me. Valereee (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

• I don't think that someone should be using their status as an admin to increase the profitability of their advising or paid editing gig in the first place. Adminship involves responsibilities and trusts that go beyond just what you do with the tools; while obviously it's not possible to demand that every single mention or reference to their status as an admin serve the goals of Wikipedia, I think it's fair to say that using it as an advertising point for a business is completely inappropriate. If it would be harder for them to get hired without advertising that they're an admin, then they shouldn't be getting hired. And if, as a practical matter, not mentioning that they're an admin would make it harder for them to be hired, this does imply that as a practical matter, at least some of the people hiring them probably expect to get some sort of special inside influence or information in a way that creates, for Wikipedia as a whole, the appearance of impropriety. And there is precedent for binding admins against even the appearance of impropriety -- it is part of the rationale for WP:INVOLVED, for instance. --Aquillion (talk) 09:39, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

  My point was manly that forbidding someone from mentioning they were and admin at any time (rather than just in an advert) would be impractical and unenforceable. However, if good faith advisors are not allowed to say they are an admin but bad faith advisers are because they by definition aren't following our rules (and as we see with paid editing scams, there are many claims of adminship by people who are not) then the unsuspecting client is more likely to hire a bad faith adviser than a good faith one - this will make things worse for enwp. Thryduulf (talk) 09:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I think there should be guidance that consultants/advisors inform their clients that they remain ethically bound to follow Wikipedia's policy, guidance, and best practices, and that they cannot agree to any terms that would limit their ability to do so. Thus consultants would be free to take the same steps as they would ordinarily if they suspected their clients of any non-policy conforming behaviour. isaacl (talk) 15:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this. Perhaps also we could set up an information page that those engaging in paid editing and paid advising are required to inform their clients of. That page would explain in plain English (i.e. without Wikipedia jargon) what paid editors and advisers and their clients must do and what they may not do, along with a link to send an email to (probably) the paid queue, if they wish to let us know about people not doing as they should. Thryduulf (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

That could also be handed out by advanced rights holders who list such on their resumes and gain employment. Wehwalt (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation page covers some of this, though it's not maintained. Full disclosure: I hate typing the names of WikiProject Integrity and WikiProject Cooperation. The concepts are so much broader than how they apply to paid editing. isaacl (talk) 00:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Maybe amend WP:TOOLMISUSE to Administrator tools may not be used as part of any paid editing activity Administrators may not solicit payment for any Wikipedia-related activities, except as a Wikipedian-in-Residence, or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF. Emphasis on soilicit -- this wouldn't completely ban COI/PAID editing for sysops, but it would prohibit them from proactively seeking payment for their activities as appears to be the case here. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 16:24, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

An admin who receives payment from any company (regarding the Foundation, let it make the rules in this context) has a COI for that company and should never use the admin bit in it's favor. This is even merely peeking at deleted content. This applies even to a janitor who the company doesn't even know he ever touched a computer. Animal lover |666| 18:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

That's a shout. Extending the sentence rather than replacing part of it might be better, so: Administrators may not solicit payment for any Wikipedia-related activities, nor may they use their tools as part of any conflict-of-interest activity, except as a Wikipedian-in-Residence, or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 19:31, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm still not understanding what is trying to be achieved here? How will these changes benefit the encyclopaedia? Thryduulf (talk) 19:37, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd forbid it. (I'm not sure I wouldn't, either, I'm still considering that.) I am sure, though, that if it's allowed, anyone who is "advising" clients on Wikipedia-related matters should be required to disclose that, even if not directly making edits. Basically—if you make money from Wikipedia-related activities, you disclose. Period, end of story. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

• If you make money from Wikipedia-related activities, you disclose.
• "advising" clients on Wikipedia-related matters should be required to disclose that, even if not directly making edits.

These two issues to me are distinct. Disclosure is a tick box exercise. It probably allows the inviting of scrutiny for sure, and yes being paid is a compounding issue. Ultimately our paid editing policies are merely extensions of a lot of existing COI policy. But indirect impacts to the projects only being mitigated through WP:PAID would leave some glaring holes because there is little precedent or policy in this space.

The root issue is we don't want someone repeatedly giving bad advice off-wiki either deliberately, accidently through bias, or accidentally through incompetence; that results in damage to the projects or an erosion of its values. Paid or otherwise.

Outside of the extremely broad ranging and all encompassing aspects of WP:ADMINACCT and WP:ADMINCOND do we actually have any solid explicit policy basis that could be acted upon for any account? If you put the admin tools aside do we have any onsite policy that forbids any contributor from advising a client from taking actions on site that run in opposition to furthering the interests of the encyclopedia? WP:EXTERNALREL falls short; the terms of use doesn't explicitly require a disclosure for the the provision of advice, nor does it exclude non-editing activities which might result in on wiki disruption. WP:MEAT you'd think would cover it, but the policy as written doesn't. many instances can get plugged with WP:CANVASSING but if there isn't collusion to disrupt consensus processes it doesn't apply.

The easiest way to plug this gap for non-admins and admins alike would be think of it in a similar way to disallowing proxying edits for banned editors. In my mind it would be something fairly broad. Something along the lines of advice or guidance that leads to edits which are in contravention of policy, could make you accountable for those actions. Particularly if the advice itself is egregiously and/or consistently incorrect or out of alignment in policy, or that the outcomes of advice are in more than one instance resulting in egregious and/or consistent breaches of policy. You could apply that in a lot of settings. Seddon ^talk 23:32, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

advice or guidance that leads to edits which are in contravention of policy, could make you accountable for those actions. If we tell user:Example at the teahouse or on their talk page not to do X because it's against policy, but then they go and do it anyway, we don't hold the person giving advice as responsible for Example's actions. What makes it any different if the advice is given somewhere off Wikipedia?

If you give advice that is egregiously and/or consistently incorrect or out of alignment in policy then you should be dealt with identically regardless of where you give that advice. Unless there is some fundamental difference between venues I'm not aware of? Thryduulf (talk) 14:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

What about advice on how to avoid scrutiny of COI edits? I can think of several ways to do that. Valereee (talk) 10:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Why the automatic assumption of bad faith? But regardless, advice of how to avoid scrutiny of COI edits, like all advice about how to evade policy, be out of alignment with that policy which is explicitly addressed in the comment you replied to.Thryduulf (talk) 11:34, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Because it's harder to assume good faith when someone is not being transparent about what they're doing. Valereee (talk) 14:49, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

The majority of our policies assume that sanctionable activities are based on actions taken on wiki. Its easy to sanction someone for repeatedly giving out bad advice at the teahouse, there are multiple justifications you could use. Now have the individual give the same advice off-wiki. There seems to be little precedent to handle this without Arbcom setting caselaw. Seddon ^talk 19:15, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I've elaborated above on why I think this behavior is unacceptable (see my comment at 10:02, 17 September 2023) but frankly, the idea that you can pay a Wikipedia admin to help you gives the illusion of bribery. I know the arbs have said that in this instance the admin hasn't acted improperly, but merely the optics of this scenario are a consideration themselves, and I think they pose a threat to Wikipedia's integrity. Not to mention the disrespect soliciting payment shows to the Teahouse, Help Desk, IRC, and mentoring program helpers who continually do this sort of thing for free – an admin leveraging their community-appointed status to make a quick buck is a far cry from the volunteer nature of this project. While I would prefer to forbid this practice entirely, I recognize that I'm on the more critical side here, and I would support something along the lines of what Seraphimblade has said above me. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 21:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

@How will these changes benefit the encyclopaedia?...I think something like Giraffer's suggestion benefits the encyclopedia in the same way any COI disclosure benefits the encyclopedia: it gets increased scrutiny on possible COI edits so they don't slip under the radar. In the case of any experienced editor who is "advising" a client, that advice could easily include -- in fact, almost certainly would include, if you're of any use to your client at all -- how to avoid attracting hostile scrutiny. In fact the reason a client is likely seeking out advice is because they've attracted hostile scrutiny with past edits -- maybe to the point some admin has protected the article about them or blocked their PR rep -- and the first question they'll be asking is how to avoid that in future.

Oh, and the reason they're paying an admin more? Because they believe an admin will be able to help more. Which is why it's kind of icky to even mention you're an admin. Even if you tell them til you're blue in the fact that the fact you're an admin doesn't actually help them any more than the fact you're an experienced editor, they won't believe you. Wink-wink, right? Because why would you even mention it if it didn't mean anything? Icky. Valereee (talk) 10:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

In the case of any experienced editor who is "advising" a client, that advice could easily include -- in fact, almost certainly would include, if you're of any use to your client at all -- how to avoid attracting hostile scrutiny. once again with the assumption of bad faith on all parts. A good adviser would advise that the best way to avoid hostile scrutiny is to scrupulously follow policy. If the client's goals are compatible with Wikipedia's goals this benefits everybody by getting increased eyes on the content which is the most likely way it will be improved. If the client's goals are incompatible with Wikipedia then the advice to follow policy will be not to make the edits, etc. and so everybody benefits - Wikipedia doesn't get content it doesn't want and the client doesn't get hostile scrutiny. Thryduulf (talk) 11:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Again with the insistence that AGF is a suicide pact. :) I actually am probably more guilty than most of assuming good faith with a paid or COI editor who has disclosed. I have a much harder time AGFing when the person isn't disclosing, which this person apparently isn't doing. Valereee (talk) 14:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I think the absolute bare minimum is a very transparent and prominent disclosure on their user that this is something they do, but I'm still unhappy that they're making money off of having permissions that aren't available to everyone. It doesn't matter if they don't actually use the buttons. It's reminding me very strongly of Hunter Biden getting his dad to conference in on business calls just to shoot the shit with the people Hunter wanted to do business with. Did either of them do anything illegal? No. Is it slimy? Yep. Valereee (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

+1 to your first point. Going even further, I would argue we should extend policy to require admins to disclose all payments they have taken related to Wikipedia that haven't originated from the WMF/affiliates. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 19:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed and its my understanding that payments from the WMF/affiliates are all disclosed by the WMF/affiliates (at least in general). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

That might make interesting reading. Where? Wehwalt (talk) 20:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Giraffer, wouldn't your suggestion require an editor to out themselves now if they had done something in the past that was not then the subject of a policy or guideline? That sort of retroactivity doesn't seem fair, though I understand the motivation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:35, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

That's sloppy wording on my part, apologies. The idea is that admins shouldn't (in future) be taking undisclosed non-WMF payment for Wikipedia-related activities. I agree that it's not fair to hold yesterday's activities to tomorrow's standards. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 21:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The way that my workplace addresses outside activities and financial gain is through a full disclosure of activities to a committee, who then determines whether or not there is a conflict of interest. So I think some type of disclosure is necessary, but I'm feeling a bit irked by people who say the admin needs to immediately resign because they inherently violated policy by advising on how to properly edit Wikipedia -- how? If that's the case, then we need to actually amend the policy to make that clear. I think I align with Boing! said Zebedee and Thryduulf on this one otherwise. It should be easy to detect and resolve a bright-line ethics violation when it comes to paid editing. Beyond that, let people make whatever living they have to do. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:59, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

[An] admin needs to immediately resign because they inherently violated policy by advising on how to properly edit Wikipedia -- how? this is the key thing that I still don't understand - why is anybody, admin or otherwise, advising people how to follow our policy a bad thing? Why does being paid or not paid make difference? Why does who pays you (WMF/affiliate/anybody else) make a difference? We surely want more people to edit? And we definitely want everybody who edits to follow the rules. Surely we should be encouraging activities that achieve these goals? Telling people they must choose between being an admin and advising people how to edit seems to run directly counter to those aims? Thryduulf (talk) 14:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Just to clarify my comments way upthread about government employees resigning before taking industry consulting jobs, that was meant as an example of how things are done in the real world. While I do feel that is a good model to emulate, I don't feel it is strictly necessary for an admin to resign their bit before doing consulting work. I however do feel quite strongly that they should disclose their activities, in the same manner that meta:Policy:Terms of Use requires for paid editing. RoySmith (talk) 14:43, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

The difference of course is that admins are not paid for being an admin. Your agreement with an employer who pays you may bar outside work related to what you are employed for, and refraining from such work is perhaps part of what you are being paid for. That is not the case with Wikipedia. Out of disclosure, the only thing I've ever gotten from the Foundation or anyone else is a T shirt which was the wrong size, and which I do not wear. I think I saw my wife wearing it some weeks ago but she does not edit Wikipedia. Wehwalt (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

... about government employees resigning before taking industry consulting jobs, that was meant as an example of how things are done in the real world. I think that's not a bad analogy except that we need to also remember that, depending on the institution, there are degrees to which an industry consulting job require disclosure and we also need to judge how this analogizes to our scenario where we have an admin advising customers on how to properly edit Wikipedia. If you are a mechanical engineer working for the D.O.E. specializing in developing iridescent gizmos, and you take a side job providing advice to other engineers on how to keep your workplace desk neat and organized, that's much different from serving as co-chair of the Iridescent Gizmo Enterprise, LLC, and receiving a salary while also being paid by the same government who buys gizmos from said company.

As Wehwalt said, the admin in question is not being paid specifically for their administrative duties or even necessarily their administration-specific expertise. Claims that any sort of compensation for any Wikipedia-related activity presents bad optics which we must prevent is, frankly, just not taking a realistic look at how people operate in the real world. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 19:40, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

That's as may be, but at the very least transparency should be required. If you think it's not a problem to act as a neat-desk consultant, then disclose that you're doing it, since that shouldn't be a problem. If you're right, no one will care. If you're wrong, well then, maybe you shouldn't have both positions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

If it's not a problem, then why the rush to exclude compensation from WMF and affiliates? Do those carry some purity with them? Certainly the WMF has an interest in keeping the English Wikipedia onside, and has money. One would think they might use it. Disclosure, as you say, shouldn't be a problem. Wehwalt (talk) 22:20, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Because Wikimedians in Residence would object if they aren't excluded. My understanding is they believe the money would dry up if it means there'd be COI notices on talk pages. Valereee (talk) 10:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

There are multiple paid editors at Brigham Young University. The work they do benefits Wikipedia because they have unique access to the history of the Mormon church. But they're also LDS church members themselves, and church historians have presented Mormon history in a way that shows the church and its leaders in a friendly light. I think they have a COI. When I suggested they should disclose, Wikimedians in Residence objected. Valereee (talk) 11:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

If we are requesting a disclosure of paid editing for advising for the sake of consistency, then consistency demands that we apply that same standard across the board, otherwise this very much reeks of "rules for thee but not for me". Another thing that came to mind for me are professors who are also administrators but whose curriculum may include, incidentally or not, teaching their students how to create or edit articles in Wikipedia. I think you mentioned something like this earlier (WikiEd instructors?) but as I scroll up and see someone's suggestion that we amend the policy to read: Administrators may not solicit payment for any Wikipedia-related activities, to me that wording would require said admin-professor to turn in their mop in disgrace, with the likelihood being very low that they will ever get through RfA again. After all, they did the evil thing and took money.

Now I don't necessarily agree that we should have to go that far, but if we are going to change the policy on disclosures, then it needs to be done in a surgical way that makes logical sense and is in response to an actual problem, rather than as the result of a visceral disgust towards accepting money for Wikipedia-related activities. It's a simple and frank truth that most businesses or government entities generally don't go out of their way to create additional onerous regulations except in response to actual damages (fines, imprisonment, embarrassing news coverage, etc.), and I don't think we should act any differently here. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:31, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Consistency is a fine ideal, but I don't want the perfect to be the enemy of the good. Wikimedians in Residence and WikiEd instructors aren't advertising admin advice on Upworks, and really they've disclosed their 'paid' status, even if not at the level of article talk. Valereee (talk) 16:37, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

The BYU editors are at the bleeding edge of what is OK and note they often go over the edge into doing bad things like promoting BYU and the LDS church in general. If you want a clear example of positive and productive COI editing look elsewhere, its a complete shitshow over there. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't using them as a clear example. I was saying that while they do good things, they should disclose, but unfortunately asking them to disclose brought the WiR into the discussion, and they object to the entire idea. Valereee (talk) 16:38, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank god WiR doesn't make the rules then. Of course a WiR has a disclosable COI with their host institution, it baffles me that anyone would argue otherwise. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

What folks who have been WiR were saying, IIRC, was that having to disclose 'paid editing' at article talk would make the museums etc. reluctant to hire a WiR, as it might be seen as cast doubt on ethics of the article subject. And in any other case -- firms and celebs hiring someone to edit the article about them -- it would tend to do exactly that. I would think that we could come up with something that wouldn't frighten off institutions but would signal to experienced editors that there has been editing someone expert and hopefully ethical was paid to do. Valereee (talk) 17:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure there would be more demand for WiR if we gutted most of COI. Thats not a reason to gut COI. Why is reducing demand to what it should be a problem? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Hey, not defending the argument. Just reporting what reliable sources have said. :D Valereee (talk) 18:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Uh, just for clarity since I've clearly been unclear in this discussion multiple times: calling WiR a "reliable source" was sardonic, as of course the opinions of people who are WiR are their opinions alone unless otherwise specified. For further clarity, I'm not implying WiR is not a source we should rely on in discussions such as these. People who are WiR provide a perfectly reasonable source for the opinions of people who are WiR. Valereee (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Valereee, do you recall where and when this discussion took place? If we have people editing for pay and thinking they don't need to disclose because it's through WiR, that's a substantial problem. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

But Thryduulf, but then why not simply disclose the paid "advising"? If they're only advising rather than simply making edit requests, as any ethical paid editor would, there's a reason, and the only one I can really come up with is they don't want people to know. They're gaming the requirement to disclose. Valereee (talk) 10:56, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Why the scare quotes? Is this more assumption of bad faith? You need to remember that not everybody is out to harm the encyclopaedia, and the goals can be compatible. Someone advising is very different to a paid editor, whether ethical or not. A paid editor is making changes to the encyclopaedia on behalf of someone else. An adviser is explaining or teaching someone else how and when to make changes themself, which for an ethical adviser will include how and when they should not be making changes. Sure I've got no problem with disclosing, but it's not going to make much difference - good faith advisers will disclose but if they aren't making edits there isn't anything to check; bad faith advisers won't disclose whether we make it a requirement or not. Thryduulf (talk) 11:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

What's the difference between advising, proxying, and meatpuppetry? Levivich (talk) 13:56, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Thryduulf gives an example of advising in the section below that is clearly not a proxy for editing in any way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

In theory, it's a good thing for editors to be teaching anybody and everybody about our policies. What I fear, however, is that all engagements will start from the premise that the end goal is to have an article and it's the job of the consultant to show the client how to navigate our policies to reach that goal.

I'm dubious any engagement could possibly end with, "In my opinion, looking at all the available WP:SIRS, your company does not qualify for an article. Here's my bill for $1000." Or, equally unlikely, "That statement in your article about your company being sleazy con artists who ripped off their customers and got convicted of fraud in court is sourced to multiple high-quality WP:RS and presented in a WP:NPOV compliant way. It belongs in the article. Here's my bill for $1000." RoySmith (talk) 14:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Actually I think all those scenarios are possible. It is also however the case that not all advising, paid or otherwise, is on behalf of a commercial organisation whose goal is to have a non-neutral article about themselves. Indeed I would suggest that this will be the minority of clients. See the section below for a real life example of advising that is completely unrelated to anything in your comment. Any policies regarding paid advising need to be applicable to all types of advising to which they apply, and those clients who do have a goal that is incompatible with Wikipedia's goals are significantly more likely to hire a bad-faith adviser (or even more likely, paid editor) who will not comply with any rules that they don't like, regardless of what those rules are. Thryduulf (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, @Thryduulf, see below where? Convo is just too long, and sometimes below means physically above. :) Valereee (talk) 15:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh, you mean the driving gig? But you hadn't advertised for a gig "giving advice about Wikipedia from a WP admin while driving", had you? Unless you were being paid for the advice, the fact you were being paid at the time for doing something completely else, no worries. Advise away. Valereee (talk) 16:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

RoySmith You are dubious any engagement between an advisor and a client could end with "In my expert opinion, having looked at all the available evidence, you are not able to do what you are trying to do and are totally and completely F**k**. Here's by bill for $1,000."? You obviously have never had the pleasure of either providing or receiving legal advice. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 20:35, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

@Levivich: Advising is giving advice, answering questions, teaching people how to edit and things of that nature. It may or may not result in any edits being made. This can be good or bad, depending on the intent of the person advising, the intent of the person being advised, and whether the advice is followed.

Proxying is making edits at the direction of someone else who is unable or unwilling to make the edit themselves. This can be good or bad, depending on the intent of the person giving the direction, how much judgement the person making the edit exercises and how good that judgement is. Answering edit requests is a form of proxying that is normally good, for example.

Meatpuppetry is making an edit at the direction of and in support of (the goal of) someone who is also making edits with the same goal. I cannot think of any circumstance which this is a good thing.

As you can see, all three are different. Thryduulf (talk) 14:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

What's the difference between:

1. Person A advising Person B to make an edit and B makes the edit, and
2. A directing B to make the edit and B makes the edit?

Does it matter if B asked A for advice or if A offered to give B advice? Does it matter if A believes B's edit is a good edit? Does it matter if B pays A or A pays B or neither one pays the other? Levivich (talk) 03:13, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

You appear to have so fundamentally misunderstood what advising is that I'm not sure I can help you understand, but I'll try one more time. Advising people is at its heart about teaching. Teaching people what edits are good and bad, how to make good edits, what policies need to be followed and how to follow them. Person B is fully in control of whether to write something and if so what to write, where to write, etc. There will be some direction involved in this, e.g. "you need to declare any conflicts of interest you have.", "if you want to flag a statement as missing a citation you need to type {{citation needed|date=September 2023}} after it", but fundamentally person B is the controlling mind.

In the case of proxying, person A is the controlling mind and functionally the author. Person B is editing on behalf of person A not on behalf of themselves. Thryduulf (talk) 09:26, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Drop the pompous condescension, I'm not misunderstanding anything. You can stop repeatedly defining these terms, I'm not asking you what they are, I'm asking you what the difference is between them, and whether those differences matter. Hence the "does it matter if" questions that you did not answer. I'm trying to push your analysis past the surface level of definitions and into the deeper level of looking at effects.

So, what difference does it make whether A is the controlling mind or B is the controlling mind? I also asked you, what difference does it make if A pays B, or if B pays A, or neither? No matter who the controlling mind is, no matter who pays whom, no matter if the advice/direction was solicited or offered... B's edit gets made. So why does it make a difference to the reader whether B's edit was made upon A's advice or upon A's direction, whether A was paid or not, whether B was paid or not, and who solicited whom, and so forth. In any event, no matter what the details of the A-B relationship, B's edit gets made. If advising has the same result as proxying for the reader (B's edit gets made), then why differentiate between the two? Or in other words, if you're going to allow advising why not allow proxying, too? What's the difference?

(The difference in effect, not in definition.) Levivich (talk) 12:24, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

The difference is that when advising, B's edits get made by B (and/or the edits don't get made). When Proxying, A's edits get made by B.

We allow proxying in the form of edit requests. We allow proxying for even banned editors when the person making the edit takes responsibility for ensuring they benefit the project.

Whether someone is or is not paid is irrelevant. Whether the edit was solicited or not is irrelevant (again, edit requests are solicitation for someone to make an edit for you).

I see no benefit and lots of harm to the project from disallowing advising.

I see no benefit and lots of harm to the project from disallowing proxying. Thryduulf (talk) 12:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Because if someone is not disclosing that they're giving advice, I doubt "advising" is all they're doing. If they were being transparent about it, I'd assume good faith. But if they're hiding it, I don't really feel like it's ABFing to assume they've got something to hide. Valereee (talk) 14:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

What kind of disclosure would you be looking for? COI tags in article and talk space are there to help others watch out for NPOV violations. This is useful if a paid editor has been involved in writing the article. With paid advice, the advisor may have no idea which articles and edits will in the future be influenced by their advice, so this disclosure can't be expected in article space. Should it be on the user page? Would it have to stay there forever and prevent clean starts or other privacy related activities? If I go and give a "how to edit Wikipedia" workshop at my university (who pay me) will I then have to disclose who my employer is on my user page? Not everything involving money must immediately mean wrongdoing, and any policy change in this area would need to be careful not to invade users' privacy. Overall I'm very skeptical of any policy change here absent a compelling example of serious abuse that needs to be shut down. —Kusma (talk) 11:49, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, if it were me, I'd probably post to the article talk of the article about the client and let it archive as normal, and I'd certainly be disclosing the fact I did this on my own user for the period during which I was doing it. No, not everything involving money immediately means wrongdoing. But if you're hiding what you're doing, it probably involves at minimum something you'd be embarrassed to have others know. Look, would you decide NOT to give such a workshop if you had to disclose? I wouldn't. I'd just disclose: I'll be giving a workshop at my uni on how to edit Wikipedia. Or: I'm advising my employer, XYZ Company, how to edit Wikipedia. I will not be editing XYZ Company directly. Seems like an easy thing to do if you aren't trying to hide the fact. Valereee (talk) 15:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Embarrassment, or other other forms of privacy, are legitimate and the willingness to have privacy seems core to Wikipedia, where we do not require editors or even admins to reveal their true identities. If I'm being paid to give a class on How Edit Wikipedia at the Biennial Antifa Leather-Daddy BBQ or am answering questions for my superiors at Villainous Oil Co., then I am being asked to reveal things about myself that I would only have to if I was editing or admining in areas of my conflicts, which I may scrupulously avoid. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:49, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Okay, let's just forget the argument. I'm clearly not making it well. My point was that we don't have to protect every possible extreme example of innocent conversation or every possible reasonable example of embarrassing workshops. If you don't want to have to disclose you've done paid work for Villainous Oil, don't give them advice about Wikipedia. If you want to give them advice about Wikipedia, disclose they've paid you. Simple. Valereee (talk) 15:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

If they aren't going anything wrong what is the embarrassment risk? And if the worry is privacy then isn't the answer that the person shouldn't engage in wiki related commercial activity which they wish to remain confidential? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

He's pointing out that not every connection you don't want to disclose is necessarily problematic for Wikipedia, like the perfectly innocent workshop you gave to your B&D club, who comped your ticket in exchange for your time. Or the fact you work for the CIA. But in those cases, you also aren't advertising on Upworks. Valereee (talk) 16:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I think given the very real history of CIA COI editing on wikipedia an editor whose day job is at the CIA is probably in a bit of a pickle vis-a-vis whether to keep the mop. I think we've gotten pretty close to establishing two cases in which at least admins should disclose their employment on wiki: 1. when wiki is in their job description or duties (whether that means being a WiR, public relations manager, or wiki consultant). 2. when they seek to edit pages about which they have an otherwise non-disclosable COI (the same as applies to any other editor) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade, lemmesee...Special:Permalink/1001073031#Brigham Young University is probably what I was remembering? Valereee (talk) 19:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Pingin @Rachel Helps (BYU) as an interested party. Valereee (talk) 20:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

hi, do you have any questions for me? To me the core issue of that COIN discussion was applying to rules consistently to everyone. If we want to make all paid editors disclose their editing status on all of the talk pages of the pages they've worked on, that's fine, but requiring it of some editors and not others is not consistent. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

No questions, Rachel. Just wanted to make sure you knew someone was discussing. Valereee (talk) 21:59, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

• No one on the Wikimedia side approves someone becoming a WIR nor sanctions the institution that creates the position. Nothing requires signoff from the WMF or any affiliate. There is a lot of good work, but we should work with a full understanding of those positions.

From Meta:Wikimedian in residence:

There are no special permissions or editorial appointments available in the Wikimedia platform. Organizations that appoint Wikimedians in Residence do so from the same position as anyone else on the Internet creating a Wikipedia user account. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and a Wikimedian in Residence enters the role equal to anyone else with no special recognition or consideration of their institutional affiliation.

Seddon ^talk 19:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Disclosure of paid advising

Above, Kusma makes a good point: With paid advice, the advisor may have no idea which articles and edits will in the future be influenced by their advice. To give a real example: At the end of last month I gave advice about editing Wikipedia, including regarding notability and sourcing, to someone who expressed an interested in improving coverage related to the tourism industry. I did this as part of a wide-ranging conversation while I was driving them and their belongings from London to Somerset. They (or rather their mother) paid me to do the driving, I was not paid specifically for anything regarding Wikipedia but they did know in advance (through mutual friends) that I was a Wikipedia admin. I do not know if they have an account here. I do not know whether they have edited since our conversation and if they have what pages they have edited. They have had "a couple of temporary jobs" in the tourism sector, that mean they have possibly have a COI with regards to an employer and/or one or more tourist attractions that may or may not be notable, but I don't know which ones or to what extent. What, if anything, about this should I be required to disclose? Where? For how long? Does this mean I now have a COI - if so what with? Thryduulf (talk) 13:06, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

You were being paid to drive. In the course of driving, you were making conversation to pass the time. I'm pretty gung-ho when it comes to disclosure requirements, but even I can't see how that's a problem.

My next door neighbor is a college professor. We often have converstations about Wikipedia. For example, if students use wikipedia to prepare homework essays, Is it cheating? Is it a copyvio? Is it just effective use of a good resource? Our most recent topic was if a department chair assigns the office admins the task of writing wikipedia articles for each faculty member, is that socking and/or UPE? I feel no compunction to disclose those conversations, even if he's invited me over to his house and fed me dinner.

I like aviation analogies, so I'll dredge one up now. The FAA has strict rules about private pilots offering their services for hire. I cannot, for example, advertise that I have a plane and I'll fly you where you want to go if you cover my expenses. It is perfectly legal, however, for the two of us to decide we both want to attend WCNA and I offer to fly us if you'll split the expenses of the flight with me. The key difference there is commonality of purpose. In my case, our purpose was to get to Toronto to attend the conference, and flying us there was just a convenient way to go. In your case, the commonality of purpose was moving this person's belongings from one place to another, and the conversation was incidental to that. And, yes, private pilots flout this rule on a regular basis, rarely get caught, and when they do get caught try to invent some commonality of purpose which rarely holds up and end up getting the certificate revoked. RoySmith (talk) 14:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Something else to note is that succeeding at an RfA grants one the title of "admin" and a host of ability to perform technical actions, where you are given tools to perform administrative functions on Wikipedia such as deleting, blocking/unblocking, reviewing deleted content, apply/remove page protection, etc.. If someone chooses to trust an individual enough to hire them for advising specifically because they are an admin, and NOT for performing any actual administrative functions, that is a personal judgment that they are making based simply on their having admin status, which would be no different than trusting them because they're wearing a shiny hat. Similarly, an observer seeing an admin advising on non-admin functions and then saying "admins shouldn't do that" is also a personal judgment, because one is specifically fixating on the status of "admin" and likely wouldn't think twice if it was a non-admin doing the same thing. In my opinion, this is conferring added weight to the role of administrator than actually is there, which doesn't seem WP:NOBIGDEAL-compatible.

I'm aware this is a fairly radical viewpoint given that trust and judgment is one of the reasons why administrators are selected, but I feel everybody has varying degrees on that, and therefore this is one of the reasons why a change in policy based on a subjective judgment isn't a good idea. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

If I get a speeding ticket and then I'm approached by somebody who tells me they're a policeman in the jurisdiction where the ticket was issued and for $100 they can assist me with the ticket, it would be stretching the limits of AGF past the breaking point not to assume they're soliciting a bribe.

I once got a speeding ticket which was serious enough that I contacted a lawyer. Said lawyer referred me to another lawyer who lived in the town where the ticket was issued, had gone to high school with the town's traffic judge, still played basketball with him, and who assured me he could get the fine cut down to a much more reasonable level in exchange for his legal fees. I'm not saying I refused his services, nor that what was going on was strictly illegal, but I wasn't so oblivious as not to understand this didn't quite live up to my utopian standards of how the criminal justice system is supposed to work. RoySmith (talk) 15:13, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

And I'll ask you the same thing I asked Kusma: If you were required to disclose that "During the course of a paid gig driving from London to Somerset, I had a 2-hour conversation about editing Wikipedia", would you have refused the gig or refused to discuss Wikipedia? I wouldn't. I might roll my eyes that anyone could shoehorn that in here, but I'd comply and wouldn't feel the least bit reluctant to have everyone and their brother know. Valereee (talk) 15:27, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

If it required me to disclose that I live in the vicinity of London or Somerset and I'd scrupulously avoided doing that previously, then I certainly would have refused one or the other. —Cryptic 15:34, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

sigh. Fine. "During the course of a paid 3-hour driving gig, I had a 2-hour conversation about editing Wikipedia". I kind of feel like there's something going on here that I don't understand. Why are we arguing over whether anyone would ever be required to disclose a casual conversation, much less disclosing where they live, as part of this? Valereee (talk) 15:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

For clarification, I'm not suggesting this is what we should require. I am trying to get at the fact that even if we DID require disclosure of casual conversations or even workshops on editing in general while being paid for something else, while it would be silly, it wouldn't prevent a reasonable person from being able to have those conversations or give those workshops. Sorry for being unclear. Valereee (talk) 15:52, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

If that is the level of disclosure you require (no information about the content of the conversation), it is useless for tracking of whether any wrongdoing occurred but mostly harmless. If you require details like "explained to my neighbour who runs the only pet store in Somerton, Somerset that Wikipedia can't endorse HappyPet dog food and that they should self-revert their edit" this clears up what happened and makes it possible for others to check whether any NPOV has been introduced by your actions but gives away your real life address and the onwiki identity of your neighbour. —Kusma (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

But that isn't the level of disclosure any reasonable person would ever suggest we require. We currently require the name of the entity who paid you to edit wikipedia. Why would be any different to require the name of the entity who paid you to advise? Valereee (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

If that entity happens to be your everyday employer (and it may be impossible to refuse their request to explain the COI policy), then there is significant outing potential in such a requirement. —Kusma (talk) 16:07, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Unless your job description involved wikipedia how could it be legally impossible to refuse that request? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:15, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

It would likely be legally possible to refuse. But you might still feel compelled to act on such a request. The take-home line is "don't tell anyone you're a Wikipedia admin", I guess. —Kusma (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Hopefully we're electing admins with a standard moral compass, if they can't stand up for themselves why should they be admins? Wouldn't such hypothetically weak and unethical admins introduce a systemic liability? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

What you call a weak moral compass may to other people simply be pragmatism and a desire not to commit insubordination. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 20:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Depends on the country, probably. Most US job descriptions have a final line that says something like "And other tasks as required."

But I don't think giving general advice should be considered problematic unless it would typically fall into the general job description. You're the brand assistant for Pampers? Definitely consider not telling your brand manager you edit WP, it's never going to end well. You're in finance and the topic of the bm's attempts to get "World's most popular diaper brand!" inserted comes up at lunch one day? Meh. Personally I'd tell them about edit requests and Teahouse. Valereee (talk) 17:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

But I don't think giving general advice should be considered problematic unless it would typically fall into the general job description. Now I think we're getting into the meat of the issue here, which is that if giving general advice is okay, then at what point do we start cutting it off and say "this is no longer allowed for admins"? Never mind disclosure, I'm talking about just a plain cut-and-dry border between being de-sysopped or not. Is it really the taking of money for said advice that is the cutoff point? I think defining that border is where a poll or proposal would be the most useful. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 20:25, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

When you solicit clients as "an admin" without onwiki disclosure that you're doing this, I think we've passed the point of being okay. Valereee (talk) 21:02, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

The flip side of allowing paid advising but requiring disclosure is that you are then essentially asking admins who do this to advertise their services on their userpage. —Kusma (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

I think unless someone has been hired to advise or edit about Wikipedia, we can AGF on explaining things in pretty much any situation, including to their full-time employer. Once they start advertising the service freelance on Upworks, that changes things. Valereee (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

• If they haven't used this COI to make any edits or use any tools in relation to it on wiki, then no violation has happened. It's as simple as that. Anyone claiming otherwise is trying to control what people do off-wiki. The only exception I'd see to this is if someone was directly organizing efforts to vandalize, POV-push, harass, or otherwise have such edits happen on-wiki. I don't consider advising on how to edit Wikipedia properly falls under any of that. Silverseren^C 21:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

  Obviously, no one can control what someone does off-wiki, but we can certainly take notice of that on-wiki. With paid editing, we already do. I can't stop you from taking money from anyone who wants to give it to you, but we can say that if we find out some of that money is in exchange for editing Wikipedia, you will be required to make the proper disclosures and comply with the COI requirements, and if you don't do those things you won't be editing at all. The same is true for off-wiki canvassing or the like. I can't stop someone from posting to Reddit or anywhere else about a particular AfD, but I can certainly ignore the crapflood of purely canvassed comments when I close the discussion. So, while we can't ultimately control what's done off-wiki, that doesn't mean we have to stick our heads in the sand and pretend it didn't happen. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:35, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

  Re:advising on how to edit Wikipedia properly. I don't think anyone is objecting to that. I think what people object to is the very blurry line between that and something less innocuous, and if there isn't disclosure, we're less likely to notice the line has been crossed. There are actually many COI and paid editors who are ethical and committed to editing within policy. I've worked with some of them. But if they don't disclose, their edits don't get the scrutiny such edits need. Valereee (talk) 23:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

  I'm one of those who feel that more concern is being expressed than is justified, but I've been refraining from commenting too much in this section because I want to see what, if any, consensus can be reached, among those who feel the opposite, for a change in wording somewhere. I think it would be best to make concrete suggestions about wording changes -- straw men for an RfC, if you like. It's not a bad idea to try to reach common ground on the ethics, but I think that's gone as far as it can, and it's time for specific suggestions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:24, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

  +1. Let's focus on a suggestion, and my apologies for focussing too much on intangibles. Valereee (talk) 11:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  I suggest first agreeing a goal then working on wording to achieve that goal. Thryduulf (talk) 11:18, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  I only partly agree -- I think working on wording can often clarify where people's goals differ, and it is sometimes best done as an iterative process. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:25, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  I think we probably do need to address Thryduulf's main point, which is that if we don't agree on a goal, we can't come up with suggestions. @Thryduulf, my own goal would be some version of: "To ensure paid editing, which includes paid formal advising, receives the scrutiny it needs to protect the encyclopedia." Not sure "paid formal" is the right way to put it; what I'm trying to differentiate is between informal advising while in a "paid" position, such as answering your boss's questions on why an employee can't just go in and correct "their page", explaining policy in a convo while being paid to do something else, or giving a general editing workshop at your university or museum. Valereee (talk) 11:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  It seems to me that the original case that kicked this off was something like "soliciting of payment for advising on how to properly edit Wikipedia, using adminship as a selling point", and then opinions have varied from this in several directions: some specifically caring about the "using adminship as a selling point" part, some specifically caring about the soliciting part, some ignoring "properly" (lumping people who advise on how to get around the rules in with those who advise on how to follow them), some considering strict "payment for advising" versus "advising an employer outside of official job duties" versus "advising in watercooler chat", some considering payment in cash only versus payment in other considerations, various combinations of the previous, and even some considering "paid advising" to be identical to "paid editing via meatpuppet" and some considering payment for anything remotely involving Wikipedia (even if no editing or advising is involved) to be incompatible with adminship (or even with editing at all). Anomie⚔ 12:44, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  Anomie identifies the exact same problem I'm seeing. Here in this thread, there simply is too wide a dispersion of opinions for us to come to any sort of useful conclusion about how to proceed. As Thryduulf suggested, what needs to be done is we need to agree on baseline principles - what exactly are we trying to accomplish here? - that all of us can coalesce around. That may require a centralized proposal preceded by a trip to WP:VPI to hash out specifics, keeping the ethics discussion relatively separated and instead focusing on taking Wikipedia's pulse.

  Of course, this carries the inherent risk that we may not come to any sort of agreement at all. At that point, I then believe the question should turn to what our existing WP:PCD policy is saying and whether it still matches consensus on Wikipedia. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:28, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  Concur. I guess the question then becomes, is following all the processes you mention because of a single ad that, I understand, has since been withdrawn, worth all the time, fraught words, and frayed emotions that may follow, quite possibly for nothing. Wehwalt (talk) 14:40, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think it's for nothing, FWIW. I think this is something worth discussing and worth coming to a conclusion on. Valereee (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I think a fair balance would be to say that the actions a third party takes should not be taken in isolation, and that the advice given is the most important aspect. Seddon ^talk 19:17, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Required disclosure for admin paid advising

Add a sentence to Wikipedia:Paid-contribution_disclosure#Administrators which reads Any administrator soliciting clients for paid Wikipedia-related consulting or advising services not covered by other paid-contribution rules must disclose all clients on their userpage. This expectation will only apply to administrators after the passage of the RfC. 16:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Support (Required disclosure for admin paid advising)

1. This does not prohibit any admin advising. It also only requires disclosure in a narrow cirumstance. For instance there have been a number of scenarios where an admin might end up advising their employer. Such discussions would not require disclosure under this change. Instead it is a relatively narrow sliver if an admin puts up a website to find clients or goes onto upwork, or the like. I think this minimal form of transparency is appropriate in such cases and based on the discussion above I believe there is a consensus which agrees with me. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

   Support such disclosure seems more beneficial then harmful. If there is indeed any chilling effect on commercial beneficial activities (e.g., a user solicits useful advice for pay that improves the encyclopedia), it will be more than offset by the benefit of a clear paper trail/follow the money trail for accountability and transparency. While I think the current advising isn't a big deal, I do think this would ease the path to acceptance for such activity, and consistent with other disclosures of COI and paid editing. Advising isn't the same sort of COI as paid editing, but it would be good to disclose and require disclosing. Andre🚐 17:01, 24 September 2023 (UTC) After reading the opposes including that of Cullen, I am withdrawing my support here. Andre🚐 22:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

2. Support but I consider the “soliciting” part to be the most objectionable part. I can imagine a few legitimate client-initiated scenarios where an editor who happens to be an admin is offered compensation for their advice, but to actively seek to make money from their adminship feels incompatible with the spirit of public benefit that I believe admins should be role-modelling. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 18:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC) Edit: I agree with some of the oppose votes that the specific disclosure requirement here isn’t going to be that useful. I would prefer admins didn’t solicit at all, but if this is to be allowed, then I support disclosure of the activity in general, not a specific listing of clients. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 07:08, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
3. I think we need to come to some conclusion on what the community thinks is the best way to approach this. I don't think it assumes bad faith any more than any COI policy assumes bad faith. IMO there's a benefit to the encyclopedia of encouraging scrutiny. Valereee (talk) 18:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
4. I wouldn't support a candidate in an RfA, if they said they reserve a right to solicit or be approached by clients on upwork/fiverr, for monetary compensation in exchange for services (even if they are above board activities like explaining wikipedia policies, or explaining how to edit articles/ find legitimate sourcing etc), if such an advisory service is capable of being provided freely by any other editor as well, on the teahouse or helpdesk. A community-vetted admin, advertising on third-party sites, is a whole different look than a non-admin doing it. Reflects poorly on wikipedia and lowers trust. To me the crux of the matter is, are they disclosing the fact that they are wikipedia admins on fiverr/upwork? I don't think that should be allowed because it can be construed as benefiting from a position of authority, even if all they are doing off-wiki is within the present rules. Asking for admins to observe a higher standard of conduct, isn't an unreasonable demand from current and future admins. This RfC is asking for a disclosure requirement and I agree that personally identifiable information of individuals shouldn't be necessary, but I think information on any organisation which seeks such service should be disclosed. — hako9 (talk) 00:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Support While I respect the argument that "its not a problem yet" I would counter that we don't know if its a problem yet because we don't require disclosure. Its important to make the standards and norms of the community clear and a large part of the community is apparently uncomfortable with this sort of behavior by admins (to varying degrees of course). I understand how to some admins this sounds like people are saying that they don't trust you and I want to make clear thats not what I'm saying, I trust every admin who has commented here today including Cullen328. But trusting individual admins is different than trusting that all seven or eight hundred people aren't going to succumb to the lure of money, power, and creature comforts. I trust that my local judges are all fair, competent, and just, that doesn't mean that I'm opposed to laws which ban then from doing outside consulting (which they do by the way). This is significantly less extreme than that, it doesn't ban it just requires disclosure. One change I would support would be the addition of a floor (say $100) which would trigger the notification requirement, many have raised the issue that even small honorariums and free food would trigger a strict disclosure requirement and that would exclude such cases. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:06, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
6. Support per Barkeep. None of the opposes have raised problems significant enough to convince me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:38, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
7. Support Like Caesar's wife, admins must be totally above suspicion. The opposes raise nothing of significance. Disclosure is essential. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC).
8. Support per Barkeep this needs to be disclosed .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
9. Support I tend to agree with Horse Eye's Black that some notion of ignoring trivial relationships would make sense. But I would like to see disclosure. As I've raised in the past, I'm not concerned about admins acting inappropriatly when providing advice, but I am concerned that providing such advice where potential and actual bad actors may be invovled risks compromising the administrator. By disclosing that they have a finiancial COI regarding a subject where they have provided advice this can be mitagated. - Bilby (talk) 01:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
10. Support I'm not too comfortable with this behavior at all. If I found out that an admin I was dealing with using their adminship as a side hustle, I would lose some respect for them. However, we're not going to be able to ban the behavior outright. The reasonable middle seems to be allowing it, but requiring complete public disclosure and transparency. We cannot tolerate administrators collecting unknown sums of money from unknown entities for "Wikipedia advising". If this becomes policy, I would add that any administrator found to have failed to disclose paid advising should have their mop taken away immediately. Pecopteris (talk) 02:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
11. Support, though I would revise the proposed addition to something along the lines of: Administrators offering paid Wikipedia-related consulting or advising services must disclose their services, and the articles that they were paid to advise about, on their userpage. Administrators must additionally disclose their list of clients (including their clients' Wikipedia usernames) to the Arbitration Committee. If admins are using their position of authority for financial gain, then disclosure (in the interest of transparency to the Wikipedia community) is the bare mininum being asked here. The arguments that this disclosure requirement somehow assumes bad faith, that admins will always do the right thing/should automatically be trusted, or that this requirement will somehow discourage editors from running for adminship, are weak. To quote Barnards.tar.gz's comment in the discussion above, Adminship is a privileged position, and using that position for financial gain has the potential to bring the project into disrepute, even if done in good faith, and even if no edits are made. Some1 (talk) 03:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
12. Support. A few weeks ago I would have opposed, saying that we can trust our admins to follow the spirit and not just the letter of our existing COI rules, and not lower themselves to this kind of politician-style weaselling. I'm disappointed that I was wrong and disappointed in the admin that has made this necessary. Taking money to 'advise' someone on how they can use Wikipedia to their advantage clearly creates a conflict of interest. Using your position of trust on this project to attract customers clearly calls into question your grounds for holding it. At the very least, the community has the right to know about it. – Joe (talk) 07:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
13. Support for all editors, not just admins. I understand the concern that admins handle deletion, and we often delete promotional articles, etc, but truthfully all editors should disclose such potential COIs including paying clients they advise on use of Wikipedia. —siroχo 08:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
14. Support, as Joe Roe says, it creates an obvious conflict of interest. We shouldn't have to explicitly tell admins to be honest, but apparently we do. DuncanHill (talk) 10:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
15. Support. Cullen328 draws a false equivalence to "the type of advice that I already provide at the Teahouse and the Help Desk". Advice given on-wiki is subject to review and comment from other editors. Advice given on-wiki is open about who is being advised. Advice given on-wiki is open about what articles are impacted. If the activity is equivalent to the Teahouse and the Help Desk then be open about it, just as you would at the Teahouse and the Help Desk.
    I'm repulsed that Cullen is cultivating the impression which exists among some of our readers that admins are for sale and that they only need to find the right admin to pay. Cabayi (talk) 10:30, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

    I'm repulsed that you are cultivating this impression, which exists among some of our editors, that admins are inherently unethical, that it is fine to assume bad faith and that it's fine to require editors to out themselves and others if you are morally outraged enough. Thryduulf (talk) 14:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

    One shouldn't assume good faith to the point of childish naivete. AGF must be coupled with common sense. Perhaps "repulsed" isn't the nicest way to talk about an editor, but collecting undisclosed sums of money from unknown entities for "Wikipedia advising" isn't optimal, either, and such behavior could reasonably be described with this and similar adjectives. Pecopteris (talk) 23:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

    If a media outlet such as Slate, for example, writes an article about this RfC/topic, I wonder what the reactions will be among the general public/casual Wikipedia readers. Some1 (talk) 03:58, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

16. Spiritual Support First, I have absolutely no issues with how the admin who seems to be the genesis of this RfC has been handling this and my !vote here is independent of any discussion to that point. Anyway, as far as the proposal itself goes, in principal this seems fine, however, per Seraphimblade it should really apply to everyone. I'm also inclined to agree with Cullen328 that this will drive this type of activity underground where it's impossible to manage. So, while this seems like an admirable proposal, I would prefer to see it workshopped prior to adoption in a way that substantively addressed those concerns. Specifically, I think Folly Mox's proposal (or some variation of it, including even a proactive versus reactive version) is a good one. Chetsford (talk) 10:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

    But isn't it already underground if it isn't disclosed? Valereee (talk) 18:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

17. Support. The point of conflict-of-interest rules is not merely to preserve the integrity of a system, but to preserve the appearance of the integrity. Requiring that admins disclose when they advertise for paid consulting or advisory services is in my view the clearest way to preserve that appearance here. /wiae /tlk 11:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
18. Support as a corollary to what should be mind-bogglingly obvious. Disagree with not backdating it too. SN54129 12:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

    If people have already made confidential advice agreements with clients, which were not against Wikipedia rules at the time, we can't force them to break those agreements now. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

    Retrospectively requiring editors to out themselves and/or their clients is a great way to get into legal trouble, especially when there is no discernable benefit from this access to private information. Thryduulf (talk) 13:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

    No outing required, gentlemen. Merely RfA-style acknowledgement. But that's a worthy concern. I'm less taken with the concern that— Preceding unsigned comment added by Serial Number 54129 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

    In video game development news, Unity Technologies had made a hell of a lot of people angry by proposing a royalty fee schedule that would be backdated retroactively. I would advise not emulating them. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:24, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

19. Support The claim that this is assuming something is absurd, it is classic conflict of interest and it brings Wikipedia into disrepute. The basis for this Wikipedia Admin market is, 1) Wikipedians have created a demand for advice through our free work, here; and 2) because of 1, Wikipedians provide free advice, but 3) at least one and perhaps more below, Wikipedia admins want to pecuniarily profit from what we Wikipedians create a demand for, and to provide some pay level tier of advice not available to anyone who comes here for free.
    This is a pay-to-play scheme, and cries out to be monitored closely and transparently. The other objections just look like extended Wikilawering (or special pleading, because some think 'it's Cullen' should matter, which is absurd in a COI issue), just what one sees in a patent COI. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

    How is it a conflict of interest to advise someone off-wiki, whether or not it's for pay? WP:COI is about conflict of interest editing. That's where the assumption comes in -- we all have entanglements off-wiki that, if we edited the relevant articles, would create a COI. You're assuming that, unlike all the rest of our off-wiki entanglements, these admins are so untrustworthy that they're going to violate COI but trustworthy enough to disclose even when they've edited improperly. Re "pay-to-play scheme", it's "pay to get good advice so you don't violate wikipedia's rules" as opposed to "pay a bad actor who will hep you violate the rules". We're stigmatizing the very people we want to be the ones providing advice. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

    I'm not assuming. It's an obvious conflict of interest because admins write policy here, they formulate policy here, they openly participate in gathering consensus for policy, they are asked to openly enforce policy here, they are asked to openly interpret policy here, they are asked for completely unbiased judgment, they warn for breach of policy, they block people from being here entirely, and they delete articles -- they are central to the very system which they posit creates the demand for the services they now wish to personally profit from (and no, they were never given the position so they can make profit from it, no one here ever trusted them with that) -- by any measure that is a conflict of interest. Ethics problems often arise in a blind spot, that's why there are ethics rules, often focused in disclosure.

    We're not stigmatizing them, they are offering to sell on the basis of their position here. If anything, they are creating a further stigma for Wikipedia. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:38, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

20. Limiting this requirement to administrators is probably not ideal. However, to me that's not an argument against the proposal: Administrators are the most obvious group of people it should apply to. Contrary to highly experienced non-administrators, their ability to view deleted revisions, their role in deletion discussions, and perhaps most importantly the advertising impact of "Wikipedia administrator offers help for your business" or similar imaginable slogans makes solicitation of money for advice feel especially inappropriate. Additionally, we have WP:ADMINCOND and WP:ADMINACCT, so admins' additional responsibility is already policy and the proposal meets its spirit. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:43, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
21. Support. An entirely reasonable requirement for disclosure under limited circumstances. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:32, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
22. Support This is one of the clearest, most open and shut RFCs I've ever seen. It's already questionable for admins to be turning their mop into a revenue stream. It's obvious that if doing this is allowed, it should be transparent and publicly disclosed. This is not an undue burden. If you don't want to disclose the ways in which you are using your Wikipedia account to make money, and who is paying you, that's fine - just stop. I cannot believe some admins want to have their cake and eat it too: they want to have a mop, they want to be allowed to "advise" secret benefactors for undisclosed sums of money, and you, peasant, don't need to know anything about it. I find all oppose arguments to strain credulity. Philomathes2357 (talk) 00:01, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
23. Support I don't find any of the opposing arguments persuasive. They could equally apply to our existing policy on paid editing. That policy doesn't come up very often, but it's such a big deal when it does that we still absolutely need it. That policy also outs clients and therefore editors, but it's such a big deal when it happens that this is very much an acceptable risk. If anything, I'd support this proposal being expanded to cover all editors just like that one does, but I'm supporting this one for now just to avoid the perfect being an enemy of the good. Loki (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
24. Support The "advising" loophole is too wide and needs to be closed. There is currently nothing which prohibits me from drafting a whole article off-wiki and then sending it to a client to post which makes a mockery of WP:PAID. Personally, I would prefer a blanket ban on admins advising anyone for cash, but if it is going to happen then we need to know who they are advising in order to be sure that there is no misuse of the tools or that they are not mis-using their inside knowledge in order to help people evade detection. SmartSE (talk) 18:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
25. Support, as a first step. Later we could discuss adding payment dates, end-dates, etc. That said, such an announcement might backfire: it might frighten people away from posting RS articles about any bad press WYZ Company has received, if they see that SupeRfAdminstrel-with-the-sharpened-cane is a contractor. I saw that Cullen says this would cause him to stop his business since his clients want secrecy. He seems to be suggesting too that it is not that lucrative all told (given that he's had to spend so much time dealing with multiple inquiries from people who didn't hire him after he made clear what he was(n't) offering). I would personally be in favor of straight-up banning paid-advising by admins (who are supposed to set an example) unless the admin had transparently announced in their RfA their intention to start a consulting business once promoted. I wouldn't be entirely surprised if the right person, running on the information-gathering, ethical advisor platform Cullen mentions below, could pass. Perhaps he could test it, in the spirit of ethical information gathering concerning the possibility for a voluntarily-recalled admin being re-promoted with the full knowledge of the community that they intended to do ethical paid advising. Until someone does pass such an RfA though, it's probably best to just ban it so people aren't becoming admins/using the community-accorded tenure to get a competitive edge in the market. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 19:42, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
26. Support, Good governance. Actual judges offering paid services on the side isn't allowed. I don't see why advertising admin status should happen any more than that.
    Nit: @Barkeep49 "Such discussions would not require disclosure under this change." is a misstatement, no? This would be true:
    "Such discussions may not require disclosure under this change." (Because some scenarios where an admin ends up advising their employer would require disclosure under this change.)
    -RudolfoMD (talk) 20:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
27. Support. I've thought about this and am not comfortable with admins (or others, especially new page patrollers or AfC staff) soliciting payment for specific (tailored) advice given off-wiki. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:56, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
28. Leaning support. I can't see why this would be a negative. BD2412 T 04:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
29. Support (moved from oppose), I guess I'm convinced enough by some of these arguments that we need to do something here, and this is at least a start. I'm still very much of a mind that this should apply across the board, not just to admins, but I very much do not want admins to be soliciting work based upon their status unless they're being completely transparent about it—and that doesn't just mean "I'm getting paid", it means specifying who is paying. That's very much different from someone just happening to ask an admin for advice about Wikipedia, and the admin providing some—that happens all the time, and there's nothing wrong with that, even if it's during the course of paid work unrelated to Wikipedia. As always, the issues really start when money gets involved. The question that I have to ask myself is: If someone announced during their RfA that they intend to do this type of thing, would that RfA stand any reasonable chance to pass? I'm pretty certain the answer is "no", and so that indicates this is not a practice the community really wants to see admins engaging in. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:12, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
30. Support agreeing particularly with #4 and #5 above. While I respect Cullen328's openness, I think we should seriously ask: "Why would a client choose an Admin ″adviser″ rather than a non-Admin? Alternatively, if someone is already doing paid advising, why run for an Admin position?" I can't see NPOV supported by this kind of commingling of roles. Martindo (talk) 06:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

    Most people have no idea what a Wikipedia admin actually is. It would be easy to see it as marking or certifying some sort of expertise though, so it is easy to imagine that someone seeking expert advice who finds out there are "Wikipedia administrators" would look for one with no nefariousness in mind. CMD (talk) 04:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

31. disclosure good Seriously, if you have a position of responsibility, you have an obligation to disclose potential conflicts of interest. Hobit (talk) 00:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

    But potential conflicts of interest are there for many things besides paid Wikipedia-related consulting. Are we to expect admins to announce every employer, every benefactor, every investment they hold, and every family member? Because that would be a large shift from the current standard, where COIs must be announced if and only if a person is doing on-Wiki work related to the conflicted matter. I don't think I've seen anyone here say that such paid consulting is (or should be) immune from those existing COI rules. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

    I'm not sure I'm getting the issue you are raising. I'm saying that it is reasonable to expect leaders of any organization to disclose significant conflicts of interest. As an employee, I'm required to disclose any stock I have in any company related to my work. I'm also required to disclose any consulting I do. This feels very similar and equally reasonable to ask wikipedia leadership to disclose relevant conflicts of interest. It's not for everything, just for things you get paid to do related to Wikipedia. I'm honestly unclear how this could be considered anything other than reasonable--I think we should know if folks in leadership roles at any non-profit have a COI. I can see an argument for *everyone*, but I can't see an argument for no one. And I do think it's fair to characterize the admin cadre as the defacto leadership of this place. Hobit (talk) 04:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

    I'm not seeing how the conflict of interest of being paid for advice on Wikipedia is any more of a conflict than the company that pays you for doing whatever-other-way-you-make-your-living. Both of them would be recognized as conflicts if one is editing or doing administrative functions related to that topic, just as it would if they were editing in relation to a company they hold stock in, and all of that is already covered by our COI policies... much as at your work, it doesn't sound like you have to reveal all the stock you own, but only stock that is related to your work. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

    You're not seeing how a COI arising from someone paying you specifically for help with Wikipedia, because you advertised yourself to them as an admin with special insight into its processes, is different from the COI you have with your regular employer that probably doesn't even know or care that you edit Wikipedia? – Joe (talk) 05:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

    Correct. I've advised many people on Wikipedia (not for a fee) and that advising has not created conflicts of interest on my part. Giving advice does not create a COI. If someone accepted money for that same action, but never went on to do Wikipedia work related to client (broadly construed), what are they doing that's in conflict? COI arises when one is doing on-Wiki actions related to something that's a separate source of your benefit. If someone was hiring me because they wanted to put a kibosh on my admin actions (in theory; I am not an admin and do not expect that to change), they could have the same effect by hiring me to write a comic book script or some other unrelated matter. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

    @Nat Gertler:It might not have created significant conflicts of interest but it created minor conflicts of interest, did you mean they didn't create any significant conflicts which would effect your wiki editing or no conflicts at all resulted? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

    I have a response to Joe's question/perspective here substantially similar to Nat's, but with additional thoughts that ended up running so long that I didn't feel comfortable leaving the whole response in the !vote section. Instead, you can find it below in the 'Discussion' section, diff here. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:01, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

32. Support, largely per Joe Roe. While I have faith that our sysops aren't engaging in UPE, the intersection of payment and adminship is really messy territory; it makes me uncomfortable that we cannot unequivocally state that administrators are not paid. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 20:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
33. Transparency is critical in this area. Jenks24 (talk) 07:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
34. Support. If I'm gonna do some paid editing, I'm gonna disclose it. While my position is neutral on paid editing, if it does happen, it should be not only compliant with content policies but fully disclosed. I expect our administrators to be held to a higher standard. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 03:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

    This is not about paid editing. Thryduulf (talk) 08:00, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

35. Support per Joe Roe's comments. Sweet6970 (talk) 10:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
36. Support – I expect administrators not to have any conflicts of interest, real or perceived. This is an effective minimisation of that risk. There is no reasonable counterargument against this requirement, which is not unduly burdensome on anyone. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 06:29, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

    Anyone can have a conflict of interest, even high court judges and arbcom members, They are generally trusted to manage this by recusal where it applies. The requirement does not exist in policy and would be patently unreasonable, personal expectations notwithstanding. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:31, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

    I expect administrators to manage this by declaring it. The requirement does not exist in policy Obviously not Peter, we're on the policy proposal page. would be patently unreasonable Why? Because administrators wouldn't be able to profit off of Wikipedia? Or because they might be embarrassed by their work? Can't see why you would think it's unreasonable. personal expectations notwithstanding Well this is my vote and I am obviously going to vote in line with my personal expectations. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

    Support. The only plausible reason why anyone would pay a Wikipedia Administrator for advice, is for a quicker or more detailed response and/or to ensure there is a contractually binding confidence between them. Neither of these things have any place on Wikipedia. They are actually the complete opposite of what Wikipedia stands for. As such, I would explicitly ban the practice entirely, but if a disclosure requirement is all it takes to dissuade someone from paying for this service, so be it. Edson Makatar (talk) 10:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

    The only plausible reason why anyone would pay a Wikipedia Administrator for advice, is for a quicker or more detailed response and/or to ensure there is a contractually binding confidence between them. Do you have any evidence for this? Please can you explain how and why these are the complete opposite of what Wikipedia stands for as genuinely don't understand where you're coming from with that. What is the difference between someone giving the same advice contractually or non-contractually? Surely it's the advice given and actions taken as a result of that advice that are either compatible or not compatible with Wikipedia? Thryduulf (talk) 10:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

    Do you have any plausible reasons why someone would pay an Administrator for advice, other than an enhanced customer experience and/or a contractual assurance of confidence? The spirit of Wikipedia is volunteerism and transparency. The exact opposite of a commercial in confidence arrangement. Edson Makatar (talk) 13:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

    See plenty of previous examples elsewhere in this discussion for reasons why someone may pay for advice, including personal service, convenience, time, culture, etc. And you still haven't explained what is bad about an "enhanced customer experience" or a "contractual assurance of confidence". Transparency is a noble goal in the abstract, but in practical terms we need to balance transparency and privacy (which is why we do not require editors to use their real names for example) so we only require disclosure of information where the benefits outweigh the problems - and we simply do not learn anything useful from this in the majority of cases. Regarding volunteerism, the community has chosen to ban only undisclosed paid editing, not all paid editing. Thryduulf (talk) 14:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

    It is the combination of pay and secrecy that is both novel and disturbing here. You can do one or the other. To do both is to unambiguously violate the spirit of Wikipedia. If that needs to be codified in a rule, that's quite depressing. It isn't hard to deduce from first principles. It should certainly not be beyond the wisdom of an Administrator. Edson Makatar (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

    Who is Edson Makatar? The account was created very recently (2023-10-08 14:36) and of their 31 edits to date, 26 have been on this page. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

37. Support. I've made my opinion clear in my postings upthread but I don't think I've actually added my name to this list yet, so doing that now. RoySmith (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
38. Support I would not support an RfA which maintained that paid advising had occurred and would continue to occur. It's a messy situation, and administrators should place themselves out of that mess. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
39. Support The human capacity for self-delusion is infinite and its possible to convince yourself that you won't stray from the path even though history has show time and time again that such an intent is impossible. In every situation that question has arising, when there is an interaction taking place where one person has power and is in a position of duty and another person or group that is seeking entry into the group, there is the possiblity of conflict of interest and corruption. The question of corruption is the core aspect of this RFC. Corruption. In every situation where this has a potential to occur, some kind of oversight has been required. And this is true throughout history. Where there has been no oversight, corruption is allowed to fester. It is human nature. An example of the type of oversight, the UK parliaments member interest register, that lists exactly who they are talking and why they are talking to them. We probably need something similar, something fit for wikipedia. scope_creep^Talk 10:38, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
40. Support every (political) economist will tell you commodifying labour fundamentally alters social relations; it's not a bad faith assumption, it's a structural reality. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
41. Support any form of paid influence here should be declared; otherwise neutrality appears compromised. Oaktree b (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
42. Support. The crucial question here is: if a candidate for administrator disclosed that he was being paid by clients for editing or advice on editing Wikipedia, would said candidate be approved to become an administrator? The likely answer to that question is "no." Therefore, the community consensus would be that it is wrong to be paid for any editing or helping edit Wikipedia. Smallchief (talk) 11:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

    That's your supposition, not community consensus. Citation required.--v/r - TP 11:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

    Prove me wrong. Apply for becoming an administrator while saying that you provide editing and editing advice for money Smallchief (talk)

    Firstly paid editing and paid advising are not the same thing. Secondly, the burden is on the person making the claim to show that it is true not on others to prove that it is not. Thryduulf (talk) 14:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

    ....In accordance with your opinion, I've changed the verb tense of my comment to make it more hypothetical.Smallchief (talk) 14:43, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

43. Support as in keeping with our preference for transparency. While I'm generally comfortable with the manner in which the current instance has been handled, admins should avoid any appearance of conflict of interest. Should this fail, we should update WP:ADMIN to be clear that our definition of volunteer does not preclude this sort of paid activity. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:33, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose (Required disclosure for admin paid advising)

1. Oppose - The primary focus of Wikipedia should be on the integrity and neutrality of its content. Unless there's a direct payment influencing article edits, the need for such disclosure doesn't meaningfully serve the community's interests, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy after all. We also already have robust policies in place addressing conflicts of interest and paid contributions. If an administrator does find themselves editing an article they were paid to advise on, these existing policies suffice.
   Introducing another layer of regulation can also have unintended consequences. Mandating the disclosure of all clients on an administrator's user page may inadvertently violate privacy norms for both the administrator and their clients. We must consider the potential risks of such disclosures against their intended benefits. There is also the benefit that more advise to non-Wiki people is a good thing and only serves to improve the project. While I do not see an improvement or benefit from the addition proposed. PackMecEng (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

   I'm not actually sure existing policies suffice. If the admin were paid to advise, and we decide that doesn't represent "paid editing"...? I mean, you get paid to advise. One of your employees comes in and makes an edit request, and the resulting edit -- made by a completely unaware third party -- is not kosher, and the advisor sees that. Can they fix it? Because if they can't fix it, they're now in a quandary. They either out their client, or they leave the edit in place. Valereee (talk) 19:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

   Yes, existing policy covers this. If the edit button is involved that is a clear cut case, if it is not then there is nothing wrong. If the person they advise makes a bad edit that is handled by the normal process. Again not actually a problem. PackMecEng (talk) 23:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

   Is there a line where this would become an issue despite not crossing that line for you? For example Wikipedia has a famously contentious relationship with Elon Musk and Tesla... If Tesla launched a "free Teslas for wikipedia Admins" program would we have an issue? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

   Not until they hit the edit button. I have not seen a reason why there would be an issue with anything short of that? PackMecEng (talk) 23:12, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

2. For four seven reasons:
   • Assumption of bad faith: First and most importantly, this is built on a fundamental assumption of bad faith. Having the most experienced and most trusted Wikipedia users provide advice on how to follow our policies and guidelines is something we should all want. The discussion above is rife with assumptions and speculation that instead, it will turn into advice on how to circumvent our guidelines or even segue into paid editing or editing with a conflict of interest. In order to become an admin, you're required to demonstrate an extraordinary level of commitment to this project and earn an extraordinary amount of trust from the community. These are not users playing some long con, waiting to get the admin bit and exhibiting great judgment just to turn around and violate fundamental principles.
   • Reaching into people's off-wiki lives: We should not be trying to create rules for what someone can and cannot do with their lives when it does not involve any (a) on-wiki activity at all, or (b) access to privileged information obtained through on-wiki rights. We likewise don't make it standard for all users or admins to have to reveal their off-wiki employers on a "just in case they might edit with a COI in the future" basis. cf. nothing to hide argument.
   • Ambiguity: Too much gray area. What does it mean to "solicit"? If an oil company writes to me and offers me a lucrative consulting gig, that wouldn't be covered but isn't it the same? What about being paid to speak at an event? What if I let someone buy me lunch to ask my advice about something? Does it hinge if I'm the one who says "you pay for lunch"?
   • Unnecessary to prevent tool misuse: The worst case scenarios are already covered by WP:TOOLMISUSE. It's already true that an admin cannot use their tools as part of any paid editing/advising gig. That could be clarified at WP:ADMIN, I suppose, but the use of the tools and other on-wiki activity is where our prerogative should end.
   • Only affects good faith actors: This assumes that admins who advise for pay cannot be trusted to act with integrity (that they must disclose because they may indeed edit with a COI) but that those untrustworthy sorts can be trusted to disclose all of their clients. In reality, if someone is untrustworthy enough to advise in bad faith or edit with an undisclosed COI (something which would likely get you desysopped based on existing rules), why wouldn't they just hide all or some of their clients? In other words, the only thing this would accomplish is create a chilling effect or otherwise stigmatize those who would otherwise be acting in good faith.
   • Pushes companies towards The Dark Path: - It's yet another move to stigmatize doing COI editing properly; yet another move to push companies who want to change their articles into the shadows; yet another move which pushes people towards bad advice and away from good advice.
   • No evidence of a problem: There is exactly zero evidence of any harm to the project, let alone any problem that this change would solve. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC) Updated to add the last three. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:46, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

   So, just to play devil's advocate: we can't know whether there's been harm because we don't know which articles to look at. So saying there's no evidence of a problem...are we going to check every article about a current org or BLP to confirm there's no evidence of a problem? I don't think we should ask for retroactive disclosure, that's not fair, especially when he did announce he was going to do this. And I assume he's checking those articles himself regularly to make sure things aren't going sideways on any of them, that should be part of the job. But since he can't edit them himself, if he does see a problem, how does he even fix it without outing a client? Valereee (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

   @Valereee If someone with a COI sees a problem with an article they can use the {{Edit COI}} template to make an edit request. This does not require (or even provide a parameter for) the reason why the editor has (or might have) a COI so there is no outing involved. Thryduulf (talk) 20:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

   Thinking a bit more about this, edit requests work when the issue is something precise that can be expressed in a Change X to Y format. If the issue isn't that clear, what the editor with the COI can do is to start a talk page discussion about it, framing it along the lines of "I think X but I'd like another opinion" so that the issue is highlighted, no changes are made in contravention of any policies and nobody gets outed. Thryduulf (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

   Yeah, I know. I kind of feel like if someone were in this situation, they might be reluctant to do that at an org or blp, but obviously YMMV. Valereee (talk) 10:53, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

   Why? This is a genuine question as I cannot understand why you think someone who has Wikipedia's interests at heart (which they must in order to be in the situation of seeing a problem but not editing it due to COI concerns) would decide not to highlight an issue on a BLP or organisation's article but instead not highlight it. Thryduulf (talk) 07:27, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

   And I hope you'll take this as a genuine answer and not accuse me of assuming bad faith. They might be reluctant to declare they have a COI with the article because by doing so, they out their client. Again, YMMV, but if I were in that situation, it might feel like a quandary to me. Valereee (talk) 12:05, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

   In the extreme situation where declaring that you have a COI with the article, but not what or why, would out the client then they can just start a discussion on the talk page as above - there is no need to mention anything about COIs. I would even say that adding the COI edit template while editing as an IP to avoid outing would be within the spirit of the rules as it is not being done to evade scrutiny, indeed it's asking for scrutiny of the proposed edit. Thryduulf (talk) 20:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

   Yeah, that's a good solution. Valereee (talk) 13:45, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

3. Oppose: This addresses a problem that has not yet been detected as existing (where such advertised paid advising leads to inappropriate adminning), creates another discouragement to being an admin, and any real problem is already addressed by existing COI guidelines. The admin should definitely avoid editing/doing admin functions where it's a strong COI, such as a current paid client, but should only have to reveal if they work on Wikipedia is a matter where they have a weak COI (i.e., "I advised Villainous Oil Co five years ago on matters unrelated to The Horrible Orphanage Explosion Scandal and have had no ongoing work with since".) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

   Detected being the key word there. How do we know that Cullen328 hasn't used his tools on behalf of his clients, since he refuses to tell us who they are? How do we know that there aren't more admins like him? Requiring disclosure is a necessary first step to finding out the extent of the problem, so opposing as "a solution in search of a problem" sounds like circular reasoning to me. – Joe (talk) 08:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

   This sounds like "How do we know that he has stopped beating his wife, since he refuses to tell us that he has? How do we know there aren't more people who haven't stopped beating their wives?" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:08, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

   I don't see it. Cullen has given us ample grounds for suspicion – he has told us he has been paid to help people create articles, but won't say who they are. Before this I would have called him the most respected and honourable admin we have, so I do get why others have enough faith in him to leave it at that, but I don't share it. Money has changed hands, and it's reasonable to want to verify that nothing untoward has happened because of it. – Joe (talk) 10:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

   Money has changed hands and therefore all assumption of good faith goes out the window in favour of assumption of the worst possible faith. Knowing who Cullen's clients are will not even let us verify that nothing untoward has happened or if it has it has any relation to anything Cullen has done, for the reasons explained repeatedly elsewhere on this page. Thryduulf (talk) 10:49, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

   Yeah, I can own that. I don't assume any good faith on the part of editors who have money on the line. That's not a reflection on their character, just the sad fact of the world we live in. To put things more concretely, I would like to check that Cullen (or any other editor in this situation) has not directly edited articles relating to any of their consulting clients. Is that really so unreasonable? – Joe (talk) 11:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

   Thryduulf, knowing who is willing to pay lets us know which articles to take a look at because it lets us know which article subjects are willing to pay to have some influence over articles about them. That is one of the benefits of our paid editing disclosure policy: even if the paid editors are completely ethical, the next one along might not be, so it's best to keep an eye on these articles.

   Having worked with Jim as much as I have, I don't believe he'd ever do anything to intentionally harm WP. I don't believe he'd act in bad faith, and I don't believe he'd encourage anyone else to, either. But he's educating someone who is basically an SPA -- someone who wants to influence a specific article or articles. That's fine, but it needs disclosure. Valereee (talk) 18:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

   There are multiple unsupported assumptions in this comment (once again you've opted for just about the absolute worst faith assumption possible) - someone who is paying for advice wants to learn how to do things properly, they don't want undue influence, they don't necessarily even want to do anything related to an article about anything they have a COI with. The person being educated is no more or less likely to be an SPA than anyone seeking unpaid advice about Wikipedia is. Finally, even if everything you say were true and backed by evidence, this proposal would not give us any useful information with which to prioritise our watching efforts. Thryduulf (talk) 18:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

   @Thryduulf:

   1. Please immediately stop accusing me of bad faith because I don't think undisclosed paid advising is okay. You have done this multiple times, and I've objected multiple times. I am not assuming bad faith. I am saying we need disclosure. You are free to disagree, but it is not ABFing to think we do.
   2. This proposal would give us the useful information that X company or Y musician was willing to pay to influence the article about them. So we can watch those articles. You may not think knowing which 8 out of 6 million need more scrutiny is helpful, and that's fine, but it is not ABF for me to think so.

   Valereee (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

   This proposal would give us the useful information that X company or Y musician was willing to pay to influence the article about them. no it would not. It would give us information that X or Y was willing to pay to receive advice on how to properly interact with Wikipedia. Assuming that the only reason someone might do this is to gain influence over their article contrary to our policies is the assumption of bad faith I'm observing here, which corresponds to your repeated assumptions that the only reason someone would engage in advising for pay is to engage in (undisclosed) paid editing by proxy or otherwise act in a manner contrary to the goals of the project. Thryduulf (talk) 18:58, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

   They want to pay an admin for advice and ensure he doesn't disclose he's advised them. I think that means we should keep an eye on their article. That's not assuming they're acting in bad faith. It's just assuming we may need to keep an eye on the article. Valereee (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

   Look, this is just a disagreement we're having. Yes, I assume someone is paying for advice not because they want to be good internet citizens but because they want to figure out how to influence the article about them in a way they prefer without other editors getting in their way. It's great that they want to do learn how to do it without causing disruption, and I hope they'll do that. But of course they also want to do it in a way that won't attract hostile attention so that their version is the one that sticks. That's just corporate and human nature. It's not ABF to assume in general people and corporations want what they want and don't want to have to fight over it. But please can't you just AGF about me? I'm arguing this because I think it's best for the project. Valereee (talk) 19:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

4. Oppose I also believe that this is a solution in search of a problem, and that the proposal assumes the worst of the people the community has found worthy of trust. We don't need it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
   • Could you explain this? I think it's very standard to expect folks to disclose conflicts of interest. I don't think it's a lack of trust--we're trusting them to *do* the disclosure. Rather it sets a guideline for behavior. You are welcome to consult for pay about Wikipedia, but you should disclose that to the community. With proper disclosure rules, we might not have seen some of the issues arising at the US Supreme Court these days. I honestly buy that the COI issues were thought by those involved to be legal and acceptable. But with disclosure the fact that most everyone else disagrees would have been make clear much much earlier and the problems would thereby be much lessened. Hobit (talk) 04:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

     I make it a point not to discuss my !votes, thanks. Either I have made my point or I have not. In any event, I have expressed my preference. Wehwalt (talk) 14:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

5. Oppose due to three points:
   • I wholeheartedly do not think policy changes in this space should solely target admins. If there is a problem its broader. Per Wehwalt: the proposal assumes the worst of the people the community has found worthy of trust.; and Rhododendrites The worst case scenarios are already covered by WP:TOOLMISUSE..
   • The change also is ambigious per Rhododendrites What does it mean to "solicit"?.
   • It doesn't close the various policy gaps where off-wiki activities by one individual lead to disruptive or disceptive on-wiki actions. Despite what people claim above, WP:MEAT and WP:PROXYING do not prevent this. The closest you might get a throwaway remark in Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Sharing_an_IP_address which states Closely connected users may be considered a single user for Wikipedia's purposes if they edit with the same objectives.. That is the beginning of a policy, and there would be value in beefing this up to something more substantial that applied to all users.

   I agree with the spirit of Rhododendrites point that We should not be trying to create rules for what someone can and cannot do with their lives when it does not involve any (a) on-wiki activity at all but not the specificity of the context. Which is that I do think there should be accountability for individuals where off-wiki activity results in on-wiki disruption, even if they were not the one pushing the buttons. Enforcement of this probably sits with Arbcom, but unless Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Sharing_an_IP_address is considered good enough; I'd like a little more detail rather than relying on overly broad interpretations. Seddon ^talk 20:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

   Oppose, too narrow. This should apply to anyone engaged in this type of work, not just admins. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:16, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

6. Oppose as a solution in search of a problem. I am the administrator whose off-Wikipedia training and consulting work led to this discussion. Let me affirm at the outset that every bit of my off-Wikipedia activities have been in full compliance with the letter and the spirit of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and that if a policy change is made now, I will comply without hesitation going forward. On November 3, 2022, at 06:38 UTC, I posted the following disclosure on the Administrator's Noticeboard: I want to disclose that I may possibly engage in some paid off-Wikipedia consulting and training work, related to Wikipedia article creation. I will not edit Wikipedia directly for any such client but may advise potential clients about policies, guidelines and best practices. Feel free to ask me for clarification. This is the type of advice that I already provide at the Teahouse and the Help Desk. There were no objections. Had there been, I would have taken any such feedback into account. Shortly thereafter, I posted the following on my User page: I do some training and consulting about editing off-Wikipedia, but do not engage in any paid editing on Wikipedia. I thought it would have been useful if Barkeep49 had reported these relevant facts when this discussion began but that editor declined to do so despite my asking by email twice. So, for 12 days, the skimpiest of facts about my actual activities have been followed by wild speculation by various editors about get-rich-quick administrators collaborating with evil corporations scheming to bypass our content policies. Nothing could be further from the truth. To date, I have earned US $1290.00 total over nearly 11 months with possibly another $135.00 to come if a current client is not scared away by this discussion. This is a tiny percentage of my current income. I have been approached by 37 potential clients and only 8 of them hired me. This is because I am always crystal clear with potential clients that I do not edit Wikipedia for paying clients and that I provide ethical consulting and training services only. Through my interaction with the 29 potential clients that did not hire me, I have learned a lot about the undeclared paid editing marketplace which I believe makes me a more effective administrator. Despite the disbelief of some editors who have commented previously, I have actually been paid by a few clients to tell them in great detail that their topic is not notable and precisely why. Some editors have expressed the opinion that my actions express disrespect for the Teahouse and the Help Desk. The fact is that I have been among the most active contributors at those places for quite a few years, and continue helping there regularly. I also want to report that I have been approached by email by two ArbCom members about this matter, and that I replied quickly, fully and frankly. It seems that a few people are actually prepared to pay for personalized, policy compliant, in-depth help from knowledgeable people, and that is the type of service that I have tried to offer. I am opposing this specific policy language because I believe that anyone hiring a consultant or trainer has an implicit expectation of privacy, and that none of my clients has agreed to allow me disclose their personally identifying information, and that disclosing names of off-Wikipedia clients here on Wikipedia is incompatible with the type of ethical service that I had hoped to offer. So, if there is consensus among the community that this type of disclosure is required, then I will simply stop offering the services in question. Cullen328 (talk) 21:17, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

   Clearly I have been unsuccessful so far but let me try again to explain my thinking. While this discussion was sparked by you Cullen, it's not about you. My goal is to increase transparency for admins getting paid to advise people about Wikipedia. The goal is not to sanction you in some way - if it was all the mitigating context you gave would have mattered. But I don't think you've violated any rules and I don't think you have any ill intent towards the project, which is why I have said repeatedly that I don't think you have done anything The outcome of this RfC matters for all admin not just you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:00, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

   @Cullen328: in advising your clients, have you ever used the viewdeleted permission? For example, in the course of advising a client, did you ever look at a deleted article to see why it was deleted? Levivich (talk) 15:20, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

   Levivich, I do not recall looking at any deleted article on behalf of a paying client, and will be careful to never do so. I have declined two clients since this discussion began. Cullen328 (talk) 18:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

   Before engaging a client, what measures do you take to inform them of the free resources that exist to help newcomers navigate Wikipedia? I'm interested specifically in whether you give them a fair and accurate impression of the level of time and detail a volunteer would typically expend on what seems to be a relatively simple and common query (can I have a Wikipedia article?). Furthermore, are you aware of the CC license requirement that you shall not give clients the impression you are endorsed by or affiliated with Wikipedia in any way, if as I presume, you use Wikipedia materials in your advice and training? I am thinking specifically of your statement that clients take your status as a Wikipedia Administrator as reassurance you know what you are talking about. Last but not least, regardless of the disclosure issue, do you think a code of practice for Wikipedia consulting would be a good idea, and if so, have you given much thought as to what that notional document would contain and how it relates to the way you have conducted your business so far? Edson Makatar (talk) 15:31, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

7. Oppose. First, it is not clear that a problem exists that needs solving. Second, even if paid advice is problematic, there is no reason to assume that admins need to be observed more closely than non-admins. Third, why should it matter whether the admin is "soliciting for clients"? Fourth, if we assume all this bad faith of evil admins, should we really demand that they advertise their nefarious business on their user page? —Kusma (talk) 21:38, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

   Maybe someone can make up a "Have Mop, Will Travel" poster, Old-West style? Wehwalt (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

8. Oppose I agree with almost all the points above. Additionally, even after all the discussion prior to the RFC, I'm still not convinced that requiring an admin (or anyone else) to disclose this will bring any benefits to the project. If someone discloses: "I advised Joe Bloggs", "SmallTown Parish Council", "SmallTown Grocery Co", and "SmallTown Association" about Wikipedia" we learn nothing of value about what advice was given, whether the advice was followed, whether any edits were made, or indeed anything other than it is very likely that both the admin and Joe Bloggs are located in SmallTown. The prior discussion shows there will be accusations of UPE and other bad faith actions on the part of the admin, anybody they advise and unconnected editors editing any related topics, regardless of evidence. If the advice was followed then the project will have benefited from edits that were in accordance with policy and/or a lack of edits that are not. If the advice was not followed then the reputation of the disclosing admin will suffer even though they did everything right. Thryduulf (talk) 01:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
9. Advertising oneself as an admin on such websites seems bad to me and maybe we should have a rule against that. But as for this proposal, I continue to believe less advice like this would be a negative. Rhododendrites's first point explains this well and I agree with it in full. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:53, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
10. Oppose, essentially per Cullen328 and Thryduulf. If passed, this proposal will surely lead to fewer organisations seeking advice on how to edit ethically and in line with Wikipedia policy. We should want them to learn from people like Cullen328, and they should not be publicly identified for trying to do the right thing. Public identification of such clients would mean public suspicion and public shaming (because that's just the way things work around here). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:15, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

    Just to add, I'd support a requirement for the kind of disclosure that Cullen328 currently has on his user page, but not a requirement to identify clients. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:18, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

    I've been following this discussion with indifference, but this comment has alarmed me. Everything that we do here is built on transparency. Anyone can see any edit I've made in the past 13 years, and if I were to try to edit anonymously and do bad, I know that there are systems in place to analyze that as well. All of the morally admirable organizations I've worked with in the past (not with regard to Wikipedia, to be clear) advocate for transparency; these are organizations that work with NGOs and whatnot where complete transparency is essential for building trust. So when I hear fear-based arguments regarding mysterious organizations that don't want to disclose connections, I'm even more suspicious about what could be going on here. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 06:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

    This is connections that might or might not be realised, before they've even decided whether or not to try editing Wikipedia. Organisations and their representatives are still required to declare their COI if they do actually make any edits. But requiring them to self-identify when even just thinking about editing and seeking advice is taking it into the realms of thoughtcrime. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

    You forgot to explain why the exchange of money has to be a part of this notional confidential advice line. Nobody on Wikipedia should be teaching anyone that the way to ethically engage with Wikipedia is to combine money with secrecy. That's just common sense. Edson Makatar (talk) 23:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

11. Oppose per Cullen328. I agree that the wild and unhelpful speculation has led to people getting hysterical over a problem that doesn't exist, and that Cullen328 has explained himself adequately in extremely convincing detail. The failure of those to respond to his requests for clarification speaks volumes, and makes this sound like a lynch mob. Boing! said Zebedee also makes a good point that people are going to try and pay to get Wikipedia edited regardless of any policy changes here, which they don't care about, so we might as well make sure they do it the right way, otherwise they'll do it the wrong way instead. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
12. Oppose. I can see why the supporters dislike the idea of admins soliciting paid advising, but I think this proposal requires those doing so to give out information that will be useless, does nothing to protect the encyclopedia, and institionalizes an assumption of bad faith. Opposers above make other good points, which I won't repeat. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
13. Oppose - An excessive overreaction, and per BSZ, most likely it won't even solve the issue that we're trying to address by doing this or will actually worsen the problem. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
14. Solely because it does not apply to all editors. —Cryptic 12:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
15. Oppose per many above. A solution in search of a problem bordering on a moral panic. Let's stick to regulating what people actually do on this website. Those who care about the rules, like Cullen, wouldn't do anything nefarious anyway, and those who don't won't be stopped by our policies. Finally, people are going to pay for advice and edits anyway; I'd rather they got good advice from someone like Cullen than turn to someone with fewer scruples (cf Orangemoody). PS, the man has to eat! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

    PS, the man has to eat! – I'm surprised your the first person to bring this up, because I think it's actually the strongest argument against not just this proposal but our paid editing rules in general. I've worked a lot in UPE enforcement, which is to say that I've used my admin tools to remove a source of income from dozens of people. Most of those people have been from countries much poorer than the ones I've lived in, where opportunities to get the kind of job I have (which gives me enough time and money to volunteer for Wikipedia on the side) are virtually non-existent. I feel fucking awful about that, and I've thought long and hard about whether it's the right thing to do. Ultimately I think it is, because as much as I can sympathise with people needing money and seeing an opportunity to get that from the work they do for Wikipedia, it just isn't compatible with the project's continued existence and integrity. In other words, if we all started editing on behalf of paying customers, Wikipedia's reputation would be in tatters, and the money tap would be turned off for everyone.

    We get annoyed with repeat undisclosed paid editors because they are people who know that they're not allowed to make money off this project, but covertly try to do it anyway. This proposed new requirement is aimed solely at admins, to whom that logic applies a thousand times over. You cannot be invested enough in this project to pass RfA without knowing full well that there's no money it. You know it, you've accepted it, and part of your job is making sure others know it, or else. To then turn around and say "hey, I need to eat too!" is deeply hypocritical. If we say that regular paid editing, the kind that basically anyone with sufficient English literacy can do, is constrained by all these rules, but that more rarefied forms like 'consulting' or 'training' are fair game, we are quite explicitly also saying that the only people who are really allowed to profit from Wikipedia are the people with the existing social and economic means to work their way into its elite. I cannot think of a more unfair solution to the question of paid editing. – Joe (talk) 06:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

    I've seen this discussion play out with people who run scams in call centres in India. None of them want to scam old IT-illiterate ladies, but they can't get a job anywhere else and would struggle to pay the bills otherwise. However, the amount of money that Cullen328 is talking about is, to be honest, chump change. Without wishing to turn this into a bragging contest, I earned more in 6 weeks playing piano at weddings and corporate functions than Cullen328 did over 11 months advising people on how to edit Wikipedia. He's already said that he'll simply stop all consulting activities if consensus is against it, so "the man has to eat!" isn't really a suitable argument in this instance. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

    That he has to eat is not the main thrust of my argument, but really I never thought it was relevant that somebody was paid for their edits. I've blocked more spammers than most admins and I don't stop to consider whether they're being paid because a volunteer spammer is no more beneficial to the encyclopaedia than a paid one. Likewise, if someone writes a neutral, well-sourced article, I'm not really interested in whether they earnt money for it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

16. Oppose mostly per Cullen and Kusma. A solution in search of a problem, leading to further complication of rules. I do not see why a distinction between admins and non-admins is relevant here either. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
17. Oppose after reading Cullen's explanation as well as the comments from others. Andre🚐 22:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
18. Oppose. I've run a few consulting businesses, none of which have anything to do with Wikipedia. Under this proposal, almost no one would be able to run a Wikipedia consulting business unless they a.) failed to disclose or b.) didn't take any clients. I don't think it's wise to prohibit admins from doing it. It's a noble idea, but when it comes to practice, it's misguided. It would only cost us good Admins, or turn good Admins unethical. No. Jacona (talk) 22:45, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

    Why would we want to enable people to run Wikipedia consulting businesses? – Joe (talk) 05:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

    Because people will discover you get what you pay for and use them! Ideally having good paid Wikipedia consultants will drive all the crappy ones (who don't care about our rules) out of businesses and they'll realise that doing a crap job doesn't pay. As Cullen328 says, part of his paid consultancy involves saying "no" to people. That's just the sort of professional services we need. I've often said there are tasks, such as fully-referencing all BLPs and clearing the CCI backlog, that will never ever happen as long as there is not financial reward for doing it. The community has confused "paid editing" with "bad paid editing" for far too long, and thrown the baby out with the bathwater. As an analogy, nobody loses their head over Linus Torvalds being paid to hack Linux. A free operating system! The Wikipedia content is free; the editing process doesn't have to be. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:33, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

    Whether one would love to get paid, it still requires disclosure of the arrangement. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:19, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

    And it's not forbidden to get paid for your work on Wikipedia. You just have to disclose, first, that you're being paid, and second (and more critically) who is paying you. If someone wants to offer money for clearing CCIs or referencing BLPs, that's fine, but the rest of the community should know that's going on in order to watch for issues. When money gets involved, it has the potential for causing problems like almost nothing else does. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

19. Oppose per PackMecEng, Rhododendrites, and others who have worded things much better than I could (although I’ll still try). I can see a lot of potential negatives here, to what is (in my mind) not that many positives. Yes, disclosure would increase transparency, but I worry that it’d just be transparency for transparency’s sake — and not without probable harm. I worry about how this proposal goes against privacy norms, and the fact that it comes across to me as having an implied mistrust of admins/assumption of bad faith (even if it was not intended in that way). We already have our COI guideline and paid editing policy. If Admin X was paid for advice by Person Y, I think it’s fair to say that Admin X will have a conflict of interest with regard to articles connected to Person Y, and - per our current guidelines - would be expected to declare that COI if and when they wanted to make a change to such an article. This is already dependent on trust - trust that an admin will declare a COI when wishing to edit such an article. As far as I can see, the system for declaring paid advice would also be dependent on trust. So - as others have also said - I honestly don’t see what benefit such a mandated disclosure would bring that isn’t already covered by our existing policies and guidelines — but I can see potential for real-world harm. I just can’t see how this passes cost-benefit analysis. All the best, ^user:A smart kitten_meow 08:12, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
20. Oppose Too easy to game, too difficult to prove, not strong enough. I would support a ban that would disallow admin from being paid to edit from 3rd parties. Including by using a secondary account, etc. (Not the same as editing an article or topic for their employer or their own singular business, which is already covered by COI). I think the spirit of this proposal is not so bad, but it's just too weak to be of any use, so it just becomes another weak layer of bureaucracy that can be wiki-lawyered. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:22, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
21. Oppose per WP:CREEP and unintended consequences. This is much too broadly worded - it's a reasonable interpretation that any administrator who has ever or will ever discuss Wikipedia in a workplace context will then be compelled by the policy to publicly disclose their place of work. In any other context that level of sensitive personal information about non-notable individuals would be revdeleteable (WP:RD2), and for good reason: revealing one's employer connects one's Wikipedia persona with their real-life identity rather easily, which exposes administrators to rather serious real-life harassment. There likely would be legal consequences as well depending on their employer's social media or use of technology policies. And it doesn't solve any identifiable problem - per Barkeep's original post here, the admin in question isn't doing anything of concern, we've just spent a ridiculous amount of words trying to invent a scenario where this might be objectionable, and then invented a rule that is a gross overreaction to solving this imaginary problem and also doesn't solve it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
22. Oppose. I had to think about this very carefully, and I could see myself supporting a revised version of this proposal, but I feel like the community will have to put more thought into this before a change in policy will be ready for enactment. First of all, I want to say that Cullen328 is one of my absolute favorite people around here, and is someone I happily trust to act in the project's best interests. But I do feel like advertising on Upwork that one is available to be hired to give advice about how to edit is something that the community should define some boundaries for. I think that the word "soliciting" in the proposal is a key aspect, and it needs some refining. For me, the soliciting or advertising of services is where the potential for problems begins. That distinguishes it from things like having a conversation while driving, or having been invited to give a talk, or being the instructor in a class editing project. When one puts oneself out there, to all comers, as being available for pay, that opens up a specific kind of potential conflict, that the other scenarios do not. To some extent, I think the additional message that one is an admin compounds the situation, although I also think that we should have a policy on this that applies to everyone, and not just to admins. So I'd like to see some sort of transparency about advertising this sort of thing. And I want to make clear that I don't think the problem is about making money based on Wikipedia. And I also think that giving good advice is a good thing, not a bad one. Also, I'm not convinced that we should want to make everyone who advertises in this way list all their clients. I feel like there is a subset of that, as yet undefined, where the problem really resides. If someone has gotten a client, and the client appears not to be following advice, then there starts to be something that should be revealed... to someone. But maybe not posted onsite. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
23. Oppose per Boing! said Zebedee. Ajpolino (talk) 21:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

    Also per Boing, I'd likely support a disclosure of the type Cullen currently has on his user page (i.e. a general disclosure that one consults for pay regarding Wikipedia editing). Ajpolino (talk) 21:42, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

    Just for the record, Cullen328 does not explicitly declare that he consults for pay on his talk page. What he writes could be reasonably (mis)understood to mean that he does so on a voluntary basis: "I do some training and consulting about editing off-Wikipedia, but do not engage in any paid editing on Wikipedia". It does appear that he's complied with the spirit of the ToS requirement that he provide a direct link to his Wikipedia account by linking to articles he's created. (Technically I can't verify that without an account, but the ad says he links to examples of his work.) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 19:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

    Side note: disclosing one's Wikipedia account isn't a terms of use requirement, but an English Wikipedia requirement passed by RfC. isaacl (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

24. Oppose per Tryptofish. The 🏎 Corvette 🏍 ZR1^{(The Garage)} 21:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

    Oppose If someone stops advising for money, do they get to remove the disclosure? What if they quit for a week? Also, even if there is an issue to solve, asking admins to put what is effectively an ad on their talk pages just makes it easier for clients to shop around. What sort of solution would that be? Malibu Sapphire (talk) 06:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

25. Oppose. 1) Cullen's comments above have clarified that there is no urgent, immediate problem to solve here. 2) We have reasonably insisted all paid-COI editors disclose, since absent bright-line policies on that, there would be a never-ending supply of paid editing done by editors not only with a conflict of interest, but with limited interest and experience with wikipedia otherwise; that is unlikely the case with an admin with a long history on the project who is also advising someone, paid or not. 3) We tend to overindex our concern about bias on paid COI, and neglect equally pernicious bias/COI from passionate interests and ideological convictions (bias is bias whether it's due to $ or merely ardent fervour!); this proposal while well-intentioned doubles down on this overindexing. Martinp (talk) 18:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
26. Oppose – I think any problematic activity is covered by COI guidelines already. The only real thing that isn't is knowledge about which subjects have asked for advising, but that just isn't a strong argument to me, because they'll just do it under the table instead if they care about staying anonymous. We don't require anyone who's asked about making edits to a page in any circumstance to declare – I have been asked before by a family member to edit a person's page, which I declined because I feel I have a COI there, and I explained how they would need to go about editing it because they also have a COI; do I need to declare which page it is? If I ever become an admin, would I need to declare which page it is? I'm willing to raise the issue if a problem occurs on that page without editing further, and I think that should be what admins advised do if they see COI policy-violating paid editing on a page made by their client, but if that's all they do (raise the issue), they can declare their COI then, as opposed to beforehand. We trust our admins to have the best interest of the project in mind, and this just feels like unnecessary rules for the sake of avoiding a potential disaster that doesn't seem likely to happen to me. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 21:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
27. Oppose. This proposal would involve unworkable and problematic scrutiny of the off-project activities of our admins. Paid/COI editing is one thing: in that instance, the oversight pertains to an expressly on-project activity. Contributors, mops included, should be considered to be entitled to a staunch firewall between their on-project conduct and any opinions and perspectives shared about the encyclopedia and its processes and culture while they are off project--even if those outlooks take the form of practical advice, and irrespective of whether that advice is given for personal or professional reasons. Attempting to force disclosure of relationships which do not involve direct alteration of content would involve a significant abrogation of this project and community's existing priorities regarding user (and third party!) privacy.
    In my opinion, such a step would be cure worse than the disease even if we suspected some sort of widespread abuse related to such activity, but the fact that we are discussing this in a context which has been (quite accurately, in my opinion) described as a solution in search of a problem makes the advisability of such extreme alteration of our organizational priorities even more of a inadvisable and perplexing proposal. I mean, under this proposal as written, there are obvious scenarios of where it would potentially ask the admin to violate professional or ethical canons of their profession in a way that they are clearly not going to be able to do, putting them in very difficult circumstances here indeed, with absolutely no reason to believe their conduct is likely to result in violation of our guideline, nor any other form of bad faith or disruptive conduct. Talk about a disincentive for certain types of professionals every volunteering themselves for the bit, even if they would be capable and useful in the role.
    I'm sorry, I don't wish to hyperbolically inflate the intensity of the debate here, but this seems like a very poorly thought-out proposal, and if I am blunt, part of a pattern or similarly concerning proposals over the last year or two where certain arbs and prominent admins have repeatedly sought to vitiate the privacy barrier and distinction between on- and off-project activity that the community wisely instituted at the core of this project's identity for numerous pragmatic reasons. As here, these proposals often are advanced on the grounds of of the same sort of highly speculative, ambiguously defined, and/or simply insufficient supposed problems as justification for eroding that important divide between our on and off-project lives.
    We're not talking about COI editing here: every volunteer contributor of this project, admins included, should feel free to share their perspective about the project (and its processes, systems, community, and culture) with anyone when outside the project, regardless of context--without concern that they are going to be asked to report it. Similarly they should be able to be confident that the administrative apparatus of this community is not going to try to follow them off project to investigate them for compliance with standards that invade their wholly off-project relationships and communications. This is a terrible direction to even consider moving in. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
    • None of that is true, the proposal is for Admins on-wiki activity of disclosing real and potential conflict-of-interest. They can go consult about us for money, for say the government of Turkiya, but they need to be willing to be honest here about it. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
28. Appears to be a solution in search of a problem. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
29. Oppose - Outing and undue harrasment concerns. Existing policy should be good enough to cover these cases by a) disallowing use of admins tools for paid work b) requiring disclosure at the level of normal editors. -- Sohom (talk) 07:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
30. 'Oppose as a non-solution in search of a problem. I am in favor of making a disclosure similar to what Cullen328 has already made on his user page, although (because I find myself often in disagreement with Cullen328 so I have to find something to pick at here) his disclosure could be improved by mentioning that he has been paid for advising. Any bureaucratic requirement we add to the already ponderous bulk of them isn't going to solve anything that isn't already covered by existing policies. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
31. I am not convinced this is an actual problem in need of solving. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:48, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
32. Oppose generally per Snow Rise including their response to Joe Roe, particularly the last paragraph of their oppose (and Cullen). Frankly I don't see how advising companies on how to edit wikipedia properly is a problem. Advising could also bring the project a better reputation if it sees better quality contributions from companies that are advised (however, I think that all arguments involving Wikipedia's reputation are weak due to how hypothetical they are). —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 02:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

    The comment in your diff is from User:Snow Rise, not User:SoWhy. – Joe (talk) 13:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

    Gah! Thanks for pointing that out. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 02:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

33. Oppose as this is about controlling what people do outside of Wikipedia, and not affecting what happens in Wikipedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
34. Oppose. Solution in search of a problem. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 13:04, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
35. Opppose specifically because of the requirement to disclose clients. Snow Rise's comment, along with others discussion privacy, gives me a lot of pause. I understand the desire to do something for this issue, but I don't think this is it. Alyo (chat·edits) 13:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
36. Oppose What really matters is UPE, and that is already covered by policy for all users including admins including for disclosure. IMO it's not a good idea to force Admins to do the extreme measure of partially outing themselves for vaguer reasons outside of this even if that does have some benefits. North8000 (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

    In the event that one of Cullen's clients follows his advice, creates a perfectly neutral article, but doesn't declare who they are, what happens then? They have presumably broken their commercial agreement with Cullen and the Wikipedia rules against conflict of interest editing, but crucially, they didn't actually pay anyone to write their article. According to Cullen's logic in defending his manner of profiting from Wikipedia, this is a victimless crime and his client's obvious desire for privacy trumps any theoretical obligation he would feel to expose them. Does Cullen then watch this article forever, to guard against the client later turning it into more of an advertorial? After all, nobody else would have any reason to be exercising vigilance, because of his secrecy. And since that client now has in their history a legitimate looking record of creating a good article and no declared connection, they would have the advantage over some random person trying to stop them making subsequent changes. Perhaps they even inadvertently learn from Cullen's expert advice that the best way to fly under the radar of Wikipedia's eternal vigilance is to be subtle. Add news of your new wonder product, sourced only to your press release, just don't describe it as such in Wikipedia. All of a sudden, Cullen realizes he is compromised. A smart client will easily and quickly realize that they can have him over a barrel. He clearly worries about what potential clients think of his offering, one of which is confidentiality. He would obviously report a client if they flagrantly ignore his advice and drive a truck through Wikipedia's rules and conventions. But if they only skirt the rules, violate the spirit but not the letter, what does he do then? Does he risk it all for the good of Wikipedia. Does he do the right thing and lose all future work, just because one client bent the rules a little bit? Where's the crime? Who got hurt? What is there in his history of volunteer work here to even inform anyone what he might do in that scenario? The people expecting to see proof of harm before they will do a simple and standard thing like require transparency, are showing a shocking level of naivety. The harm could already be out there. Edson Makatar (talk) 13:17, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

37. Oppose per most of the reasons argued adequately above, and possibly for some I have not thought of yet. My gut feel here is that there would be additional undesirable unintended consequences. Also if a behavioural standard in important enough to insist on it being applied to admins outside of their use of the tools, it should be important enough to apply to everyone, and this rule would apply outside of the use of the tools, so I consider it discriminatory. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 19:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
38. Oppose Per above. Reeks of instruction creep and I'm still not convinced that this is actually solving a real problem. -FASTILY 20:50, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
39. Weak oppose, can be changed to support for the $100 mentioned in discussion below. Hiding T 17:09, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
40. Oppose Given the comments by various parties here, this seems more of a witch hunt than a useful proposal. As such, even if there might be a good idea in here somewhere it seems too likely to be taken to extremes in practice. Anomie⚔ 22:05, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
41. Oppose: I believe I take a hard line on COI policy and what topics I stay away from or mark as "COI edits". However, I don't see what problem is being solved here and instruction creep is a worry. It is not forbidden to monetise your Wikipedia reputation in other ways, such as starting a YouTube channel with advert revenue. A good faith actor could reasonably not realise this policy is in place. Or have privacy concerns.
    I don't see why admins should be treated differently in our COI policy. I could tell a client that I'm autopatrolled (so my creations are "automatically approved") or "in the top 3000 editors"—or lie about being a "moderator". I don't think any of them would know any different.
    Cullen328 has my full support (not that I think he needs it). — Bilorv (talk) 19:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

    Starting a YouTube channel is a false analogy; it is a transparent action. Everyone can see what an editor/admin/whomever has done. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 08:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

42. Oppose: Per reasoning of User:Snow Rise. --— Charles Stewart (talk) 15:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
43. Oppose. When the question was raised, I didn't have a strong feeling either way, so I sat back and let the discussion play out. After reading all of the support/oppose reasonings and the extensive back-and-forth below, I'm convinced that advising is not a problem that needs to be addressed. Schazjmd (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
44. Oppose. I generally am in favor of transparency for all editors, not just admins, however, the concerns raised in this section, especially by Snow Rise and Seddon, outweigh imho any potential benefits of such a rule. Regards SoWhy 13:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
45. Oppose Solution in search of a problem. --GRuban (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
46. Oppose. Poorly written mess with lots of potential unintended consequences. Also, any policy like this should apply to all users. Anyone can claim to be an editor, which is usually a prestigious position at most publications, and even common usergroups like autopatrolled, new page reviewer, extended confirmed, etc. can be spun as being useful for clients. If this was restricted to paid advising that was functionally identical to UPE (e.g. I "advise" the client to submit a draft article that I wrote), that might be worth explicitly clarifying in WP:UPE, but this is not that. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 23:08, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
47. Oppose I am unconvinced this is necessary. What matters is paid editing, and we already have policies covering that. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
48. Oppose. After being initially on the fence on this proposal, I've read through large portions of this discussion at various points, and increasingly find myself thinking that this proposal is a bad idea. Specifically, it represents a significant erosion of privacy for good-faith editors, and I don't see it as solving the problem it purports to solve, as anyone who would be giving malicious or bad-faith advice would likely just flout the new rule regardless. I've seen no evidence that the question of paid advising goes beyond this one case, and I don't feel convinced that our current policies are inadequate in this area or that this proposal would improve the encyclopedia. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
49. If Cullen328 is helping the project by advising clients about how to edit constructively and neutrally, then we'd be silly to put a stop to that with such bureaucracy. Acalamari 06:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
50. I also advised someone once, and I was harassed and stalked by editors on this stie for years culminating in my near-complete retirement. I only pop in here once in awhile now. Advising is different from editing. This proposal is definitely an extremist attitude and we must draw the bright line at paid edits.--v/r - TP 09:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
51. Strong oppose for privacy reasons. Wikipedia can't require volunteer editors to disclose details of their personal or professional lives, unless it is necessary to avert damage to the project. — kashmīrī ^TALK 23:29, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
52. oppose - A poorly thought out proposal with no consideration for the ways in which many of us do work with Wikipedia in our professional lives, and actively promote this to others as well (scientists! museum curators! and so on and so forth) -- none of which I think is very controversial in practice. Also, Cullen is a friend, fine contributor and ethical person, and I don't like to see this extended attack-as-RfC. phoebe / (talk to me) 20:10, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

    So you state a personal conflict-of-interest as Cullen's friend, which can only explain your nonsensical misconstruing of being a paid consultant. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

    Thanks to my long history as a conference organizer, I'm friends with literally hundreds of Wikipedians who I have had the pleasure of meeting at events over the last 20 years, and I can agree or disagree with them constructively. My point is simply that Cullen is a valuable and good-faith contributor. As for my "nonsensical misconstruing" - well, I disagree, obviously; I think that there will be a quelling effect with this rule for GLAM contributions, and many questions. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 16:00, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

    There is no one in the GLAM world, who does not know the difference between private paid consultant gig work, and librarian or scientist or curator. They are entirely different professional arrangements (including here as to subject matter) that are obvious to anyone. For goodness sake, Wikipedian-in-residence, are required to state the COI already. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

    Can you explain how this would have a quelling effect on GLAM contributions? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

53. Oppose per Rhododendrites, Snow Rise, and Thryduulf, among others. I share their concerns about the assumption of bad faith; a disproportionate effect on ethical editors and little, if any, on the unethical ones; as well as damage to the tradition of respect for the privacy of editors. This is showing up as no. 1, and I've no idea why; it should be 53. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 19:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
54. Oppose If nothing is being done, then nothing needs to be disclosed. Assume admins will give good advice and if it gets carried out badly thats not their fault. User1042💬✒️ 14:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
55. Oppose per the cogent arguments of Per Wehwalt and Rhododendrites, among others. - SchroCat (talk) 15:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
56. Oppose for the privacy reasons indicated by various editors above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
57. Oppose primarily for WP:OUTING concerns (which do not apply to me because I edit under my real name, but which I take very seriously for other editors). Secondarily, because this is about off-wiki behavior (it is described as being about advising people about Wikipedia editing, not about actual Wikipedia editing), and I don't think such things should be under the purview of Wikipedia's rules and bureaucracy. And tertiarily, because there is no good reason to treat administrators as different from other editors in such matters, as this proposal has nothing to do with administrative actions and in other regards admins are just editors like everyone else. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:43, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion (Required disclosure for admin paid advising)

• @Barnards.tar.gz: actively seek to make money from their adminship - Whether or not the client has any idea they're an admin isn't addressed here. This applies to anyone taking money for advice, but only if they happen to be an admin (regardless of whether the client knows). FWIW. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
• Why just admins? I like the idea, but really this should apply to anyone soliciting such "advising" related work. Note that this is separate from incidental advising, where someone just happens to ask them about Wikipedia, and also from giving general advice such as speaking to a general audience or assisting at an edit-a-thon; this would apply to people actively soliciting or accepting clients to regularly pay them for such "advising" activities. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:14, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
• I'm a little confused by "This expectation will only apply to administrators after the passage of the RfC". Does this mean that a) this expectation applies to only administrators who pass RfA after the RfC is over (a grandfather clause, since pre-RfC administrators aren't affected) or b) it was meant as a reiteration that only administrators are covered by the RfC, not non-administrators or c) the plain reading of the sentence, that the requirement comes into effect after the RfC is passed? If it's option B, then it's very clear that the proposed policy only applies to administrators from the wording of the green text and where it'd be placed. If it's option C, then surely that is the case with all RfCs? No RfC should come into effect before it passes ... Maybe I've completely missed the point here. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:33, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Sdrqaz I think the intent is that the policy does not apply retrospectively, i.e. an administrator who solicited paid advising who did not disclose clients they advised at the time would not in breach of this policy. It is unclear if admins who solicit before and after this policy is enacted (if it is) would need to disclose clients they advised before it comes into effect but not afterwards, but I would oppose a requirement to do so. Thryduulf (talk) 22:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  Ah, I see: so an option D. Thank you, Thryduulf. Perhaps that sentence should be altered to something like "this expectation will only apply to work undertaken after the passage of the RfC" or something similarly clearer. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

  If this RfC passes I hope the closer adopts the wording offered by Sdrqaz here as it was the intent. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:01, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

• I think I could find myself agreeing with something like this if the text were altered to read ...must disclose all clients on their userpage upon request of the Arbitration Committee. Honestly, if there's ever a situation where an admin is doing advising wickedly, the next step is always going to be Arbcom. Publicly listing clients doesn't feel like it should be necessary. We're not required to disclose COIs with subjects we perform no on-wiki edits or actions regarding. I'm not sure what audience this policy change is supposed to capture. Admins honest enough to list their clients, but unethical enough to make COI actions about them?
  There's been zero indication that this practice has led to any bad edits or bad actions. If people think that a side hustle leveraging Wikipedia expertise is against the moral underpinnings of adminship, then they should have an RfC about banning the practice. Cullen has been very forthright about what he does (thank you for self-outing, by the way, so we can stop tiptoeing around it). Personally, I trust him, as an admin who is very engaged and policy literate. If Arbcom believe otherwise, I could support a policy change giving them the power to demand private disclosure of client identities, but I don't think a public listing is the right step to take. Folly Mox (talk) 01:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you, Folly Mox. I "self-outed" today, because specific policy language is on the table now, as opposed to the wild speculation that was dominating this discussion for eleven days. I thought that bringing the actual facts of my case to light now may have some value. Cullen328 (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  In reply to "what audience", I don't think we're looking for admins specifically making paid edits (if they're doing that, current policy requires them to disclose anyway, so we don't need any change for that). Rather, it's more to monitor the effects of this practice. If someone acted as a paid advisor for Acme Corp., then people can keep an eye on articles related to Acme Corp. to see what happened with them afterwards. Nothing? Okay, then maybe the advice dissuaded them from doing something they shouldn't, or convinced them it wouldn't be worth their while. Paid editing done in accordance with policy and in a reasonable way? Great, the advice had a beneficial effect. Paid editing not in accordance with policy? Well, then we know there's a problem; either the advice was bad, or it's not getting followed. Basically, the same purpose of any paid editing/COI disclosure—it just tells people "Hey, there's something going on here you might want to keep an eye on." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  If we subsequently see good or bad edits related to Acme Corp., we still have no idea whether the edits or their quality have been influenced by the admin's advice. For example, unless we require disclosure by the people who listened to the admin's advice, we have no idea whether the people editing Acme Corp. related articles even know that there was such advice. If an admin discloses their clients, a bad faith actor can easily make some socks and try to get some Acme Corp. related material on the Main Page via DYK. Will we blame this on the admin? If yes, this seems unfair. If no, what is the point of the disclosure? —Kusma (talk) 08:43, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

• Is there anyone currently opposed who would support it with the addition of a USD $100 floor? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:09, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  That's a lot of money in many places, and has a varying value even in the United States. Seems odd to set an arbitrary limit like that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  Arbitrary limits are often set for disclosure, ask your tax advisor for more on that one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  The amount of money received is completely irrelevant to the reasons why I oppose this. Thryduulf (talk) 01:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  Also not relevant to my oppose. Wehwalt (talk) 01:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  I'll support for USD $100, sure! My venmo is (Redacted) Folly Mox (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  Even if it were relevant, $100 is way too low a threshold. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

• I find it extremely concerning that multiple editors regard outing (of editors and clients) as being something of no significance or relevance to the project. Perhaps someone can enlighten me as to how this view is compatible with policy? Thryduulf (talk) 01:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I believe the interplay between WP:COI and WP:OUTING is well explored, but I will leave explaining it to those better versed than me but in general my understanding is that if you want to avoid outing don't edit topics which you have a COI with. The corollary here would be don't engage in significant wiki relevant economic behavior you wouldn't want disclosed or something like that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:51, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how this would out any editors. It would reveal clients, but that isn't outing, and is required in cases of paid editing. - Bilby (talk) 07:37, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

You will be outing clients, and outing of clients can out editors (search this page for "SmallTown" and read that comment). In the case of paid editing, outing has been determined to be a necessary evil to protect the encyclopaedia from harmful edits. However, as repeatedly explained, advising is not editing. If it leads to paid editing then that's already covered by policies, if it doesn't then there is nothing to protect encyclopaedia from. Thryduulf (talk) 10:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I disagree that naming clients will necessarily involve outing yourself. If that is a risk, I think it is simple to not accept such a client. Even if the "smalltown" example resulted in enough hints to guess you live in the area, that seems incredibly borderline in terms of self-outing, and is extremely easy to avoid. Just don't choose your clients from local businesses. - Bilby (talk) 11:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The point that it is not just the details of the admin that you are demanding to see, but the details of third parties whose details will (make no mistake about this) be used, individually and in combination with other people's details, by good and bad faith actors for unspecified purposes with no checks and balances on how it is used. I just do not buy that this is an acceptable trade off for a theoretical benefit to the project so small that in practice it will be zero. Thryduulf (talk) 14:18, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

If anything, it would even further discourage adminship, knowing that people are going to be monitoring your off-wiki activities. I can already picture the RfA questions: "Have you ever accepted a payment from anyone for any service or advice pertaining to Wikipedia in any capacity whatsoever? If so, please explain who, when, for what, and why." _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Cue then !votes of "Oppose. In 2020 they advised John Smith, the CFO of Acme Video Game Co since 2022 is called John Smith, their latest game had an article about it at AfD in 2022 that RFA-candidate closed as keep. The candidate must therefore be an undisclosed paid editor who will abuse the tools to benefit their clients" even though there is no evidence that the John Smiths in question are the same person, that the CFO had any knowledge of the article, or that RFA-candidate even knew that someone who might or might not have been a former client subsequently got a job at a company that made a game about which they closed an AfD in line with consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 14:45, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Just personally I would never vote positively in a RFA for a wiki consultant. I imagine that most would agree with me, that candidate isn't getting thought nor is any other candidate whose day job is wiki consultant. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

As I understand it, the proposal is for admins only. Therefore, almost no one at RfA would need to acknowledge providing paid advice as an admin, because they haven't been an admin. - Bilby (talk) 15:18, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I think you are pushing this beyond reasonable bounds. If, as an admin, you choose to provide advice to a client, before being engaged the first step would be to inform the client that you will need to be transparent that you are working for them. If they disagree you look for work elsewhere. If they agree, you consider whether it would be an issue for you, and if not you work for them while providing the transperancy that is being asked for. I'm not seeing this hypothetical situation in which the name of the company you work for is weaponised. I am seeing value in transperancy, though. - Bilby (talk) 15:16, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

You're missing the point again that it is about the details of the combination of clients that can be used against the admin and against the clients. Joe Bloggs might have no issues with my declaring that I'm advising them, because that doesn't identify them, however if I then subsequently work for LocalCorp and Neighbourhood Ltd and declare that, this could identify Joe Bloggs, despite Joe having no opportunity to consent or not consent to this. Transparency is a find concept in the abstract, but when the transparency has the potential for real world harm and brings no benefits, it's not "beyond reasonable bounds" to regard it as unacceptably intrusive. Thryduulf (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

No, still not seeing it. If Joe Bloggs is ok with you identifying them then you should be able to do so. If you work for other clients, how does that affect Joe Bloggs? And if it is likely to, isn't it your choice whether or not to work for the other clients? You've already acknowledged that you worked for Joe Bloggs, so if working for other clients could identify Joe Bloggs then how does that differ from your earlier acknowledgement?

Fundamentally, any paid editor (or potentially advisor) needs to select their clients in regard to policy. If working for a client puts that client at risk - although I don't see how that can happen - then it that is something to be worked out between them and the client. If future jobs put that client at some sort of hypothetical risk, then it is up to the paid editor (or advisor) to not accept those future jobs. - Bilby (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Imagine that... Mainstream compliance and ethics best practices that apply across any number of industries could be applied to wikipedia consulting, who would have thunk it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

• I am considering opposing, but I want to raise a point here first. This has been pointed out by others in the various discussions above but I haven't seen a response that seems to fully address it. As far as I can see the proposed wording won't achieve anything beneficial to the project. Disclosing paid editing helps because edits made by the disclosing editor can be scrutinized. The policy on meatpuppetry doesn't require disclosure, because we don't expect anyone engaged in it to be willing to disclose it. We have a middle ground here: disclosing gives us nothing to look at except some private information, and those who are advising others how to evade policies are never going to disclose. So we'll have a list of users (and it should be users, if we have such a policy, not admins) about whom we can say that they have received an unknown amount of money for something which is invisible on Wikipedia and the effects of which cannot be connected to them in any way without further outing (since unlike with sockpuppetry we can't ascribe any edits to the advice). Why would we want this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  If an admin discloses that they've been paid to consult with the Acme Corporation, then the community can verify whether they've refrained from making direct edits or actions related to the Acme Corporation. If they don't disclose, we only have the admin's word for it. – Joe (talk) 07:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  This assumes that there are people who are honest enough to declare that they are advising Acme Corp but dishonest enough to engage in undisclosed paid editing. I find the possibility so ridiculously small that it doesn't come close to offering any benefits let alone outweighing all the outing and other serious issues. Indeed it is much more likely that some bad actor will see User:Admin has disclosed they are advising AcmeCorp and use that as a cover to make bad edits to articles related to AcmeCorp in an attempt to obfuscate their identity and/or besmirch the reputation of the admin. Thryduulf (talk) 08:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  OK, so the proposal is a trap for admins who comply with the disclosure requirements but later forget that editing/adminning for pay is not allowed? The target demographic is people ready to break the admin/paid editing policies but at the same time complying with the disclosure rule. I can't really believe that such people exist. —Kusma (talk) 08:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  It's precisely the same logic that underlies our regular paid editing disclosure requirement, and people said the same thing about that, but somehow it works. We have hundreds of blocked accounts that prove that it does. My own theory is that when people have an extrinsic motivation to edit, they tend to read what they want to read in policies, not what's actually written there. But the why is irrelevant – the point is that with disclosure we can actually know that our admins are honest, not just trust that they are. If we never catch anyone breaking the rules then that's great, it means our admins are smarter than the average UPEr. We still benefit from the transparency and the deterrent effect. – Joe (talk) 10:05, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  We currently require COI disclosure only in the areas where people edit, not in all areas where they have COIs. And the proposal isn't "admins must disclose all their COIs so we can check them" but "admins who openly solicit for advisory positions must disclose those advisory positions". The proposal does nothing except deter admins from openly soliciting for such positions. I just don't see how the openness of the soliciting is a problem that needs solving. —Kusma (talk) 10:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) How? We already trust every editor not to edit in areas where they have a COI without needing to disclose it. Disclosure here will not actually tell us anything we don't already know - either the admin is honest and not editing areas where they have a COI or the admin is being dishonest and not disclosing a COI in areas they edit. Thryduulf (talk) 10:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  It won't help us detect the dishonest admin, no. It will help us retain confidence in the honest admin (because we can check that they're not editing where they have a COI). It will also help us detect the third category which might sound unlikely, but I've seen enough in regular paid editing cases to think plausible: the honest-but-misguided admin who discloses their COI but then misuses their tools anyway. – Joe (talk) 10:33, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  That argument only holds water if you require admins to disclose every COI they have. I'm no more or less likely to edit about AcmeCorp if they paid me to advise them about Wikipedia than if they paid me to maintain their website, or they sponsor my football team, or they employ my partner, or they sued me for libel, or I sued them for breach of contract, or they gave me a free lunch when teaching their staff first aid, or anything else. Thryduulf (talk) 10:45, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  I mean, I don't think it's a bad idea to disclose significant potential COIs, for any editor. Many admins already do so – here's a good if somewhat ironic example. But I can't agree that paid consulting on Wikipedia editing creates no greater a tendency bias than regular, unrelated employment. If I've been paid to advise AcmeCorp on how to get an article created, and that article goes to AfD, its fate will reflect directly on my job performance, my relationship with a customer, my reputation and future earnings, etc. The temptation to use my status as admin (whether that's the tools or just the status) to ensure that what happens on-wiki makes my advice seem worth the money must be enormous. – Joe (talk) 11:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  Then thats easy, they are using the tools or editing with a COI and existing policy takes over. PackMecEng (talk) 16:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  If you edit and/or use the tools in relation to a COI then we have existing policy to deal with that, so no new policies are needed. If you don't edit and/or use the tools in relation to a COI then there is no problem that needs dealing with so no new policies are needed. Thryduulf (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  Do you accept that the majority of editors do think that there's a problem that needs dealing with even if you don't? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  The outcome of this RfC may tell us that, but I also think this is one of those things that sounds worse than it is. If you had said to me in a pub, "Hey, did you know admin X is getting paid for Wikipedia advice and they haven't disclosed it" I think my immediate reaction would be "That sounds bad". Trying to identify exactly what sounds bad about it has convinced me that there is no useful way to regulate this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for including that nuance, I had not meant to disregard those who see this as a real issue but not one which we can reasonably solve through regulation/bureaucracy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  It's easy to close one's eyes and imagine a situation in which an admin is paid and gives bad advice. (I don't for a moment think Cullen328 would ever do that, just to be clear.) I don't think it's at all likely, but those who are worried about the possibility aren't crazy to wish to close it down. I don't think what is being proposed would have the effect the supporters want. Joe's argument (that it would let us check on honest admins) is the most persuasive I've seen yet, but the fact that he said "honest admins" implies to me that it won't really have that effect, since only honest admins will disclose. I'm reluctant to legislate off-wiki behaviour where it can be avoided or would have little benefit. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:25, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  I see it less as letting us check on "honest admins" but as giving us greater assurance in admin honesty both in person and in general. On the honesty side its always a little disturbing when people are saying with absolute certainty that there isn't an issue here when we have no idea whether there is or isn't without mandatory disclosure. Nobody is saying they're sure something bad is happening, but people are saying that they're sure that nothing bad is happening based on the exact same amount of evidence. That doesn't make any sense to me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that "nothing bad is happening" is too definite, though I think it's possible that's correct (after all, how many admins who are getting paid for advice are there? I wouldn't be surprised if Cullen328 is the only one). And if you feel that something bad might be happening, it's reasonable to look for policy wording that might prevent it. You say it would give us "greater assurance in admin honesty both in person and in general"; it would not achieve that for me. If this wording passes I would not feel any greater confidence about that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:37, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  I appreciate you saying that, is there a policy or guideline based solution here that would effect your confidence or is your confidence based on factors outside policy/guideline or ones which aren't under discussion here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  (ec) Can I just say how pleasant it is to have a non-confrontational discussion about this before we go on? Thank you for that. Anyway, the answer is I haven't been able to come up with wording that I think would help. The case that I think would be most problematic would run something like this: admin X is hired and (a) the money is substantial enough that it would be a difficult decision for them to offend the client, and (b) they advise the client correctly that they can't add puffery (so admin X is honest), and (c) the client disregards the advice and adds puffery. If I were that admin (and I'm not an admin, by the way), I would not want to get in that client's face by reverting the edits, or posting to a noticeboard to get someone else to do so. I thought about whether that situation would be helped if the admin disclosed the relationship with the client, but eventually decided it would not. What I'd do, and what I'd expect any user to do, is to quietly let one or more other admins know about the situation so it could be addressed, and I'd do that regardless of whether I'd disclosed. And if I weren't an honest admin I wouldn't have disclosed in the first place. I tried to think of wording that would help in this case but I can't. The TL;DR is that I can't come up with a situation which is even faintly plausible in which I could have more confidence in the honesty of any or all admins as a result of any wording. To be honest, even then I might have supported as "mostly harmless" but I think we ought to have very good reasons for rules that relate to off-wiki behaviour, and for me I don't think we've reached that bar. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  Definitely agree with you on needing very good reasons for anything related to off-wiki behavior, thats why I think any restrictions should be places on just active admins following the ancient logic that great power comes with great responsibility and part of that responsibility is to keep your off-wiki life clean when it comes to wiki-related activities. I can see how this doesn't reach that bar for you though. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  Well, the purpose of disclosure is alerting others to watch what is happening with client on Wikipedia. Whether it's a question of notability or RS, or puffery, and who is involved in laying out, maintaining, and amending, the 'rules'. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  I see that. This conversation has reminded me of two situations that have happened to me, so let's use those as examples. One is Lilian Edwards, an old friend of mine. She asked me to address a couple of problems with the page. I posted a note on the talk page explaining the situation. No money changed hands (though Lilian has bought me drinks in bars in the past!) so I think we'd agree that COI or not, no disclosure was needed prior to my edits. The other is Jesse Sheidlower. I was one of the volunteers that ran the OED's Science Fiction Citations Project (see Historical Dictionary of Science Fiction), which Jesse managed (he was the OED's American Editor at the time). As part of that work the OED gave me free access to oed.com (I think about $500/year value at the time), and Jesse bought me dinner at a good restaurant in Manhattan, so you could say I was compensated, if not in cash. Some years after that project completed Jesse mentioned to me that there were inaccuracies in his article, and would it be possible to get them cleaned up. I posted a note on the talk page in case anyone thought I had a COI, and went ahead and cleaned up the article. I had certainly had conversations before that with Jesse about Wikipedia which would count as advice, but I suspect he thought that even with good advice he would rather keep his hands off the article, which is a good instinct. But before then: I'd been compensated and given advice. Should I have disclosed prior to the request to actually fix the problems? I would have regarded that as invasive. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  You said you did disclose on the particular talk page, both times. So in spirit, you fulfilled the need for others to watch what was going on, with information only you had. Also it seems you are discussing your edits, COI disclosure on the talk page for your edits already is what's called for in our COI guideline. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, agreed. My question is whether the situation before I edited called for any disclosure. At that point I'd been compensated, and had given advice about editing Wikipedia, but had no intention of editing the article myself. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:08, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  Why does it matter? We agree you needed to disclose, you did, and whether it was 'late' by some measure of late, does not deprive disclosure of value. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:17, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  It matters because that latency in disclosure, or more specifically the perceived latency, has a vital effect on whether the community can trust an individual making the disclosure. In other words, based on how much time it took for them to do so, would it be perceived as an honest effort at being transparent, or as simply reacting to cover themselves when the horse looks like it's out of the barn? That is especially the case for admins making disclosures, of which members of the community may feel is "too little, too late" and then move to have them de-sysopped (honestly, given some of the commentary here, I'm surprised someone hasn't now rushed to file an Arbcom request over Cullen's apparently vile transgression).

  For something like this in which the lines are absolutely blurred - which should be evident in the !voting above - then I absolutely think the value of the disclosure is impacted by timing, and then the issue there becomes at what threshold do we determine that a disclosure is necessary without digging into one's private life? This is not a linear process, and I think people forget that. From one moment to another, the clarity as to whether something borderline like this rises to WP:UPI-worthy disclosure can be muddy.

  As HJ Mitchell hinted at, it's extraordinarily unfair for Wikipedia users to try and dictate how someone should be earning a living when the activities concerned truly do not rise to the level of WP:COI and instead just seem to be a matter of unsavory optics. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:09, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

  HJ Mitchell's statement is preposterous relying as it does on the interest of what appears to be indulging a particular Admin by name, and the conflict-of-interest of making money off of being an admin. Also, it's just not true that issues of proper or substantial compliance would be at all unique here, such issues arise in every policy we have. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

  Do you accept that the majority of editors do think that there's a problem that needs dealing with even if you don't? I see no evidence of that. I see a mixture of:

  • Belief that there is a problem of some description (and there are at least three different interpretations of what the problem is)
  • Moral panic/moral outrage/similar at the idea of a problem, without reference to whether the problem exists or not
  • Uncritical acceptance of claims that a problem exists
  • Belief that the downsides to this proposal are sufficiently minimal that it doesn't matter whether there is a problem or not
  • Belief that there is a problem that needs solving but that this proposal will not resolve that problem
  • Belief that there is a problem but that it is a different problem
  • Belief that as this proposal will not achieve what supports want it to that it doesn't matter if there is a problem or not, and
  • Belief that the downsides to this proposal are greater than any benefits it might bring that it doesn't matter whether there is a problem or not, and
  • Belief that there is no problem that needs solving

  But none of that really matters because, even if the problem identified is a problem (and there is no evidence that it is) the proposal will not solve it. Thryduulf (talk) 18:56, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  The claim of "moral panic" is obviously without basis and just empty rhetoric. The 'compensate for my advice', when you've been placed in a volunteer and free gate-keeping roll has nothing to do with panic, moral or otherwise. It does have to do with ethics, but ethics is not a panic, either. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:13, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  The claim of "moral panic" is not mine, but some of the comments in this discussion do give that appearance. Others do give the appearance of being driven by ethical considerations, but not all comments appear to have any regard for "considerations" of any sort.

  Admins are not in a "gate-keeping roll", what is and is not included in Wikipedia is determined by consensus. That consensus is interpreted by (usually) admins and, in the case of deletion, is actioned by administrators. However that's not the same thing, and there is nothing an administrator can do that isn't subject to review and appeal. Thryduulf (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  We don't want to address ethics on appeal, admins are suppose to have that going in. And of course, it is a gate-keeping role: admins write policy, they participate in forming consensus on it, they warn others of breach of it, and they enact it, it's entirely gate keeping (from the article sentence, to its sources, to the article image, to the whole article, to the noticeboards, to the block, and the delete. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  Ooof! Well you certainly aren't pulling any punches there but when you put it like that I understand where you're coming from and why your argument is so strongly worded. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

  This has been an interesting discussion. I can see that Thryduulf feels genuinely that those of us in favour of this proposal are not treating our colleagues fairly (assuming bad faith) and/or not paying sufficient attention to the potential for outing, so I don't begrudge him the strong words. I would say that dismissing others' concerns as "hysterical", a "moral panic", or a "witch hunt", can easily come across as gaslighting and so should probably be avoided. (I realise it wasn't you that said this Thryduulf, but that you were quoting others). – Joe (talk) 14:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

  IMO it isn't gaslighting, but it is hyperbole that skates at the very bleeding edge of WP:COMPETENCE and WP:CIVIL (but stays on this side as far as I can tell, the hyperbole doesn't drift into outright lies and malfeasance and most can be explained away by Thryduulf not being a careful reader). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

• Jim, I respect you as a great admin, and I have never doubted your ethics. I do have a pretty big problem with the idea that client companies can escape scrutiny by refusing to allow you to disclose their identity. That's for me really problematic; to me it means we don't get the scrutiny we need to protect the encyclopedia. Still trying to wrap my head around this, which is something I didn't think I'd ever see, especially from someone I respect as much as I do you.

I don't recall seeing your post to AN, and I sympathize with your conclusion that since there'd been no objection, no one would object. But I wonder if you'd written "I intend to solicit this service on Upwork, noting my status as an admin" maybe there would have been an objection? But that's something we can never know. Valereee (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

I just don't understand what any increased scrutiny on Cullen's clients will achieve, other than squelching a modest side hustle. The causal chain is too tenuous. Any misbehavior on the clients' articles can be attributed to clients not heeding the advice they paid for. And any other attribution boils down to not actually trusting Cullen even though we say we do, which I think is something that should be owned and expressed if genuinely felt.

Maybe I'm feeling less concern than others in this conversation because I do remember the post at AN, and remember seeing the disclosure on Cullen's userpage, so this doesn't feel like a blindside, and I'm considering the single known actual case rather than diving deep into hypotheticals. Folly Mox (talk) 00:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Because we always do have to consider the hypotheticals. Sure, it may not be a problem this time, just like some paid editors may do things well even if no one was scrutinizing their edits. But considering the hypotheticals is exactly what we should do when we ask "Should this be allowed?". What if, for example, an admin were doing this who had been just barely active enough over the past ten years to avoid an inactivity desysop? Would you be as ready to trust them not to cross any lines, and would you be bothered by them using the "admin" status as essentially a cash grab? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:42, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

To answer this question: if this were a barely active admin gaming desysop by making token actions to meet minimums, no, I would not trust them to do paid advising appropriately. I'm not certain whether or not it would bother me in my heart. Maybe. My relationship with money is not normal.

Anyway though, I'm not planning on bolding a not-vote above, and feel like I understand both sides of this discussion now, so I'll probably be bowing out to avoid creating any more work for the closer, bless them. Folly Mox (talk) 18:03, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

This idea of "trusting" admins seems like it's being stretched to be unlimited, but it's never been unlimited, it is from the start limited and situational, and it has never been that we trust Admins having conflicts of interest, quite the opposite, not without detailed disclosure. (And we have certainly never trusted Admins with always being right, and always doing right -- rather, what is 'trusted', is that admins are, and always will be, fallible - and that's why we generally insist it all be double and triple checkable, here). Also, Wikipedia's purpose is not to protect anyone's "side-hustle", protecting their side-hustle is a conflict of interest.

Should there ever be a conflict about the results of what the Admin told a client about editing Wikipedia, chances are just as good that the client was following the advice or thought they were, and Admins, who are often asked to defend their positions will do -- sometimes Admins are known to not get their mistakes for quite awhile, if ever -- and even when not a mistake, everyone will be informed what the relationships are, and how it came to be this way, including what potential biases are involved. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

it has never been that we trust Admins having conflicts of interest, quite the opposite, not without detailed disclosure. if that were true then admins would be required to disclose, in detail, every conflict of interest they have. We do not do that, and we have never done that, because the community recognises that requiring such would be grossly disproportionate. Rather we do trust administrators to not edit in relation to a COI they have. Thryduulf (talk) 11:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

The community has always required disclosure to some extent, it's true that those who protected PAID editing were able for a long-time to weaken disclosure because of their evident conflict if interest. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Everything you say would equally apply to non-admins, and to conflicts of interest that do not arise from solicited work for pay. We do not currently require anyone to disclose any of their conflicts of interest unless they edit in the areas where they have conflicts of interest. The Lex Cullen proposed here does nothing to fix the hypotheticals of bad-faith New Page patrollers. —Kusma (talk) 11:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

That a rule does not go far enough is not an argument against the rule, it's a call to build on it. And ethics realizes that when money is involved the issues of conflict-of-interest are particularly salient. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:54, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

There are several extensions of this rule that I would also strongly oppose. For example, editors including admins should not be required to disclose all of their COIs involving money, as that would require disclosing their employer and potentially compromise their real life anonymity. —Kusma (talk) 14:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Come on. We are hardly so ethically obtuse, to not know what paid consultancy to effect Wikipedia is. This is like a bad re-run of all the reasons why it took so long to get PAID disclosure. But we did finally get PAID, when the conflicted opposition was overcome, and it demonstrates that identifying clients is nothing new for Wikipedia, let alone some radical departure from anything. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:34, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Although it doesn't affect your main lines of argument, note the paid-contribution disclosure requirement was enacted by the WMF, and the policy to disclose external accounts on-wiki came from a Metawiki discussion. English Wikipedia's editing community did agree on the requirement that paid editors must disclose their Wikipedia accounts to their clients, on their external web pages and in emails to their clients. isaacl (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Sure and it was years of discussion in getting it done, for all the bassically same conflicted opposition. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:13, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the point is that years of discussion never overcame the opposition on English Wikipedia regarding the paid-contribution disclosure policy. The only policy that did get approved by English Wikipedia is one that requires off-wiki actions and thus can't be enforced by Wikipedia admins (but that the WMF legal department said would be of assistance to it). isaacl (talk) 23:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Not that WMF legal has ever acted on it. - Bilby (talk) 23:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

But no, years of discussion led to more and more and more recognition of the issue on Wikipedia and to various ways of address, and led to tightening up the rules, although the same silly and conflicted objections kept slowing it down. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, @Folly Mox, I didn't intend to question whether that post had appeared, or whether it was in good faith. At all. The fact I hadn't seen it wasn't an indication I thought we'd been blindsided. It's my own fault I didn't see it.

The problem here is that once an article subject starts paying an editor for...well, pretty much anything...we should probably assume someone needs to look at future edits because it means that article subject is willing to pay to have some influence -- even if that influence isn't intentionally nefarious -- that article. Valereee (talk) 17:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry too @Valereee: rereading my comment, it seems unduly personal, although I intended it to be a more general response to several comments in the discussion, including yours. I apologise if I've misconstrued anything you wrote, and thank you for the clarification in your last sentence: I understand that position much better now. Folly Mox (talk) 17:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

No worries, just wanted to clarify. The situation is probably limited to two types of article: current organizations, and BLPs. It's a small segment of WP articles, but it's where almost all paid work is involved. Few would pay to be advised about how to edit Napoleon. But I am literally chasing List of entities associated with Tata Group around the encyclopedia, to the point I'm ready to take all of their dozens of organizations and the related BLPs of their management off my watchlist because nearly every day some editor with 8 edits comes in to "update" one of the articles with excessive positive and/or trivial detail on one of them. I added them all to my watch because I noticed Tata is apparently willing to pay for editing, and I think that means their articles need scrutiny. But it's incredibly frustrating to chase after it when I'd really prefer to do almost anything else. Valereee (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

One organisation allegedly paying for editing contrary to our policies tells us nothing about people paying for advice on how to edit in accordance with the rules. Do you have a citation for Few would pay to be advised about how to edit Napoleon. because I have been involved in teaching at an editathon where at least some of the participants would have paid to do exactly that (more precisely the Battle of Waterloo) - indeed some (maybe all of them) will have paid their own travel expenses to be there. IIRC received my travel expenses (from Wikimedia UK) and a free lunch in exchange for my time and expertise. Thryduulf (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

As you did not hold that as secret information nor refuse to disclose any of that in public, your opposition here is even more groundless. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:43, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

In what way is whether any of that is secret and/or disclosed at all relevant here? The point is that people will pay (and indeed arguably did pay) to learn how to contribute to Wikipedia for purposes completely unrelated to self-promotion. I wonder whether @Cullen328 can say whether any of their clients goals was to edit articles about subjects other than themselves/their organisation? I don't know whether that is something they will even know in all cases. Even if I'm wrong and everybody who pays for advice actually really wants to bypass NPOV and have a glowing hagiography about themselves and/or an advert for their company, it still wouldn't mean my opposition (which is based on multiple factors) "groundless". Thryduulf (talk) 20:19, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Really? A few lines ago you made a preposterous mention of outing, as this proposal is all about disclosure, the same disclosure Wikipedia requires everyday in PAID (so not outing), so once again your points are baseless. And how to contribute to Wikipedia is answered for free every day of the year, in person and in writing, multiple times a day, so your arguments in favor of an Admin corp, charging for what is free, is even worse. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, please dial down the hyperbole, and read what people are actually writing before responding next. While the proposal as a whole is about disclosure but the specific point here is about what content people want advice regarding. It has been asserted that people will only want advice regarding self-promotion and similar, and I provided evidence this is incorrect. You responded to that with hysteria about something irrelevant.

Secondly, opposiing a requirement for editors to out themselves and others when doing so would not bring any benefits to anybody is not "preposterous" in the slightest. Despite your attempt to conflate this with paid editing it is not the same. With paid editing there is a clear impact on the encyclopaedia: content gets added, changed or removed. With advising none of that happens - there are no changes to the encyclopaedia, there is nothing to protect it from. With paid editing the dangers of outing are being balanced against a clear benefit to the project, but requiring disclosure here will not bring any benefits and so is grossly disproportionate.

Whether advice is available for free or not is irrelevant - nobody is competing with the teahouse etc, they aren't trying to undermine it, devalue it, replace it, or anything like that. They're offering a supplemental service to it and there is nothing (and should be nothing) stopping anyone who advises for free getting paid for it as well if they desire. Thryduulf (talk) 08:45, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

So, you do support pay-for-play, creating an admin corp, which concerning Wikipedia only provides some level of service to the public for those rich and willing enough to pay. ('I could advise you whether that source is RS, but you have to pay me', 'I could advise you on your Wikipedia behavior but I only do that well for people who pay', 'I could be your wikifriend, but I like people who pay me', 'I could provide you an advantage concerning Wikipedia, but only if you pay me' etc, etc. etc. For the poor, let them eat cake, shall we say.). As for effects on Wikipedia, we see it here in this discussion, and with disclosure will actually be able to better monitor it just like PAID, and all disclosure rules, and it serves Wikipedia's transparency ethos. (As for your irrelevant mention of the Teahouse, that's not even where most free advice is given, it's only one channel.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Almost all of that is completely irrelevant to what is being discussed here, and is yet more evidence of the assumption of bad faith and assumption of a desire to undermine the project that characterises so much of the discussion around anything to do with money and Wikipedia.

I believe that everybody should be free to receive payment for giving advice regarding Wikipedia and how to contribute to it properly if someone desires to pay for it. If someone can't or doesn't want to pay then the free options should (and importantly will) be available. Nobody, for pay or otherwise, should be offering to give anyone else an unfair advantage on Wikipedia - and importantly nobody has provided any evidence that anybody giving the advice of the sort this discussion is about is doing anything of the sort.

My mention of "the Teahouse etc" (note that last word, it's important) was not irrelevant, it was in direct response to your comment And how to contribute to Wikipedia is answered for free every day of the year, in person and in writing, multiple times a day. I simply used "Teahouse etc" as a shorthand for the longer phrase you used. Thryduulf (talk) 11:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

You've been advised for free before to stop making your empty claims of bad faith. Nothing in my prior comment assumes anything, it is entirely based on your prior comments and all relevant to it and this discussion. That you don't like my conclusions based on your words has nothing to do with assuming let alone bad faith, that last comment is made, in whole, in good faith. As for your word play about unfair advantage, I never said unfair advantage. Either the selling you support provides something above and beyond the service that administrators' provide for free concerning Wikipedia (thus advantage to the client) or they are providing what is worthless (the economics of the scheme among the public is certainly unequal, as that's the nature of wealth distribution.) Thus, your support for pay-for-play is no assumption. (And yes, your Teahouse comment was irrelevant, as what the quote you point to has nothing in it about "denigrating" the Teahouse or anything else as you irrelevantly said-- my comment was noting the fact of Wikipedia's transparency, which this present proposal further supports.)Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:35, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Everything you said from "'I could be your wikifriend..." onwards is about gaining an unfair advantage, you did not use those words but they are an accurate description of what arises from the things you are suggesting. As for "worthless" it is completely irrelevant to us whether a paid offering offers any value or not. If someone pays to have an article created about a subject that gains them absolutely nothing over someone creating an identical article for no pay (other than accusations and suspicions about the motives of the author and client). Additionally, what people consider value varies by individual, e.g. one person might regard getting advice from a single specific person as more valuable than getting advice from a variety of people, another person might see that as less valuable.

Your comments about pay-for-play are misleading. I support people being allowed to choose whether to pay or not, but those who do choose to pay should not get any special treatment (good or bad) on Wikipedia because of that choice. Some people choose to pay money for Wikipedia in the form of donations to the WMF, yet they still get the same product as those who choose not to do that. Is that pay-for-play? It depends on your definition and interpretation.

I will stop accusing people of approaching this discussion in bad faith when their comments cease assuming that everyone paying or being paid has some sort of bad faith motive. Thryduulf (talk) 13:20, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

No, you should cease your nonsense bad faith claims now. As you have already been told there is no assumption nor bad faith in my comment. Everything I said is just fact, economic relationships regularly bind people together. Nor is my comment about pay-for-play misleading, it is the effect of what you support, what the economics of the situation are, and that this 'advice' information you just now posit is of value, only highlights the economic inequality. (As for getting advice from one person, in time that's always how it's done, one person at a time.)--Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

As you are clearly not reading what I'm actually saying rather than what you want me to have written I'm not going to respond any further Thryduulf (talk) 15:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I've read every word, and deeply comprehended it. Blind spots often arise in such money situations. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

• I don't understand the opposes because this doesn't go far enough. I feel like we could pass this, then open a related proposal to apply to all editors. But at the rate we're going it's no consensus even to require admins to disclose, even when they're soliciting paid work as an admin. Valereee (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

  I guess it's up to whoever closes this (and whoever you are, you have my sympathies), but my general philosophy is you roll up votes to the next level. For example, at AfD (yeah, I know, not a vote), if I saw 25% keep, 25% draftify, 25% merge and 25% delete, the last thing I'd do is declare "No consensus, defaults to keep". I'd look at it more like "75% are opposed to this existing as a stand-alone article", and then I'd dig deeper to figure out which of the various alternatives I should do. I would hope similar logic would apply here. RoySmith (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

  Same. But I've seen a lot of discussions that are closed 'no consensus' in this kind of situation. If there's someone willing to do the heavy lifting to either DVR or open another RfC, it could still happen, but it seems like often people have just wandered off. Valereee (talk) 18:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

  It still doesn't appear to me that this RfC has even truly addressed the central argument that needs to be addressed, based on the fact that the oppose !votes all oppose for different reasons, as do the support !votes. Again, I feel it's not a matter of whether disclosure is required, but what rises to the level of requiring disclosure. What tangible wrong has been committed here that requires a change to policy, and how did we come to the conclusion that Wikipedia now thinks it's wrong enough to merit a policy update? I think Ivanvector's !vote has it right, and at the very least, we need to retarget the discussion. Otherwise you're right, this just ends in "no consensus, no action" because ANY decision otherwise is going to be a supervote. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 19:06, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

  What tangible wrong? COI disclosure is not about a wrong, it is about the ethics of being up-front, and it's about full information so others can keep tabs in heading-off any issues, and make informed decisions. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

  Based on numerous !votes (both support and oppose) that say "all paid advising should be banned outright for admins" then I'm not entirely certain that's all it's about. If you approach it from that viewpoint, then that also means that if Admin Amy disclosed payment for a Wikipedia-related activity, then obviously she has done something wrong. The question in my mind is where are we setting the bar, and why are we setting the bar there. We've given a lot of analogies, scenarios, hypothetical situations, but all of them interpret the type of activity Cullen engaged in differently, and we have not here in this discussion agreed commonly on what is and is not tantamount to disclosure. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 16:35, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  Well, true that if admins did not do it, we would not have the issue. But conflict-of-interest disclosure is regularly concerned with potentialities and the inherent unequal information held by the person who is asked to disclose. Once they disclose, the inequality of information is lessened and others (everyone) can better watch-out for the potentialities. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  Beyond that, I know I'm a broken record at this point. I think we'll just agree to disagree. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 19:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

  To be fair, the trust put in admins has been a central part of this discussion, and "making money from adminship" appears in the most outraged !votes. Without that "using adminship" line of argumentation, this discussion takes on a different flavor. If you're going to roll "shouldn't apply to just admins" opposes into supports based on a hypothetical different question, you could also roll the support !votes that focus their support on the adminship dimension into opposes for that hypothetical different question. Likewise Roy's roll up votes to the next level is still entirely based on the closing admin's "levels". The exact same discussion that led to "75% are opposed to this existing as a stand-alone article", dismissing the keep !votes and deciding between the other three, could just as easily be interpreted as "75% are opposed to outright deletion (or 75% support retaining this material somewhere, etc.)", ruling out deletion and choosing between the other three. There's no objective "up", just different ways to frame. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

• Are there compromise/alternative options? For example, ask admins to disclose to Arbcom? Or something else that would be a least worst option for opposers, and an acceptable level of doing something for supporters? Good ideas welcome. —Kusma (talk) 12:34, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  Compromise may be possible, but this suggestion isn't it. Requiring people to disclose to arbcom would be even more pointless than requiring them to disclose in public. Instead of giving everybody a list of people and organisations that may or may not be thinking about editing the encyclopaedia in some way, which may or may not align with Wikipedia's goals in one or more ways, that may or may not relate to anything with a connection to them/their organisation and which may or may not involve giving/receiving money in exchange for making changes to the encyclopaedia; we'd be giving that list of vague to the point of uselessness information to a group of people who do not have either the resources or remit to do anything with it. Disclosing to arbcom would reduce (but not eliminate) the potential harm from the outing, but still wouldn't satisfy the GDPR principal of not collecting personal information without a tangible purpose for doing so. Thryduulf (talk) 13:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  I still can't see this outing risk you talk about. Recently I had to make a choice - raise things on a talk page relating to an article where I have a COI, or stay away. I chose to declare the COI, but I could just have easily stayed away. Admins hired to consult on articles get to make the same choice if this goes ahead - accept jobs which might reveal hints about who you are when you declare the COI, or don't accept those jobs and look for other work. They're not being forced to reveal anything about themselves, as ultimately it is solely up to them as to what jobs they accept. Anyway, if there was a reasonable compromise I'd go with it, but "if you accept a job as an admin providing paid advice regarding WP editing, be transparent" is not exactly a huge burden. - Bilby (talk) 13:50, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  The outing risk is moderate in the current proposal as it only applies to solicited-advice-for-pay, but there are massive outing risks related to disclosing advice-where-editing-would-mean-a-COI in general, and any slight extension of the proposal could be dangerous. —Kusma (talk) 14:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  I don't see the outing risk as moderate. I see it as almost non-existent. The rule is simple - if you are employed to provide advice about Wikipedia editing to a company where there is a risk that disclosure could provide some personal information about yourself, just say no. - Bilby (talk) 22:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  How about voluntary self-disclosure? Rather than mandate the practice, encourage editors and admins to disclose paid activities. This accomplishes two things. First, it allows them to manage the amount of information that they present so that they are not endangering their privacy or outing themselves. Second, there is still an incentive to do so because if one does not disclose such an activity, and later it turns out that this activity is highly problematic, the community can then respond accordingly based on the facts and nuances of that particular situation. Third, if someone got paid a fiver for a trivial task such as teaching someone how to properly edit an article about ambrosia beetles, that would be a situation where choosing not to disclose it would actually be less harmful and problematic than being mandated to disclose it. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 14:05, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  I could get behind voluntary disclosure with some guidelines around how and where to disclose (arguments about whether someone did or did not disclose ("properly"/correctly) will only lead to heat and no light) and guidelines around the sorts of things where disclosure is encouraged (e.g. you've received megabucks from a big corporation with a history of hiring paid editors) and where it really isn't necessary (you got a free lunch for teaching a couple of friends how to improve articles about fossil plants), all with a note that you should be careful to avoid outing yourself or your clients. Thryduulf (talk) 15:53, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  You've already rejected the idea that different levels of financial support come with different requirements "The amount of money received is completely irrelevant to the reasons why I oppose this." but here you appear to be endorsing it. I'm also still not sure what the outing concerns are, can you explain how in the scenario you just described of receiving megabucks from a big corporation the outing concern would manifest itself? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  Having a big corporation as a client could lead to outing if it's actually the local office or specific division of a big corporation or they pay for advice regarding something very specific (maybe they run projects in the small town where they began or something) - this is one of the least likely ways outing could happen related to paid advising (but the possibility is not zero), but when the same requirement exists for all paid advising what matters is the greatest likelihood not the least. The advice to be careful about outing would be general advice given to everybody in a position where disclosure is something to consider, it should not imply that any particular disclosure will or will not out anybody (it is impossible for us to know that).

  The amount of money received is irrelevant to the reasons I oppose mandatory disclosure as proposed at the beginning of this discussion, but this section is not about that mandatory disclosure. In the case of voluntary disclosure as proposed here people can choose not to disclose when that disclosure would out somebody., so that takes out much of the potential for harm. It reduces the value of the information disclosure would produce from "pointless but possibly complete if everyone complies" to "pointless and definitely incomplete" but if people want to collect pointless but harmless information I'm not going to stand in their way. Based on other people's comments here, they feel like receiving large amounts of money and/or money from large corporations makes it more likely that someone will act in bad faith and if it turned out later they didn't disclose but something bad did happen that the admin was responsible for (or even if they weren't but it is theoretically possible for them to have been) there will be a bigger fuss made (by some at least) if the client was a large corporation paying large amounts of money than if it was one guy giving you a fiver. Thryduulf (talk) 17:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  In your scenario, where someone is asked to provide paid advice to a local office of a big corporation and therefore is at some hypothetical risk of outing, is there any reason why they can't simply say no to the job? - Bilby (talk) 22:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  Can you be specific about what the risk actually is? Is it of the client outing the consultant by publishing information about the contract under their real name and not their wiki name? Thank you for explaining your understanding of where the amount of money becomes relevant, IMO we're basically in the same boat there... A lunch doesn't need to be made a fuss over but if an admin is paying for a second home on off the books wiki consulting thats an issue for me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:50, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  The risk of the client outing the consultant in that manner isn't something I'd thought of, but that is a non-zero risk for an editor whose real name is not public. As someone whose real name is public I don't feel qualified to judge how likely it is for a such a person to consider interacting with organisations in this way, or how they would go about doing so if they chose to.

  The risks I had in mind were third parties (other Wikipedia editors, Wikipediocracy/Wikipedia Review/etc folk, people looking to create joe jobs, etc) using the information about a client (or the information about multiple clients in combination) to discover (intentionally or otherwise) an editor's non-public information (real name, location, etc) or, potentially more seriously, similar information about a different client.

  Regarding just saying no, sometimes definitely yes if the risk is understood at the time and disclosure requirements are never changed with retrospective effect and/or changed mid-contract, but those are big ifs. In some cases it's probably more complicated than that, especially when there is little-to-no way for the paid advisor to know what combination of things might or might not out themselves or one of their past (or future) clients. Thryduulf (talk) 23:15, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  Thats not outing unless something happens on wiki and if it does we have systems in place for that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Who says nothing is happening on wiki? Regardless, it's just as harmful to the person whose private data is made public if the outing happens on Wikipedia, Wikipediocracy, Reddit, or any other place you care to mention. Thryduulf (talk) 00:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  Our outing restriction only apply to wikipedia editors, they are not meant to provide protection against non-editors... The point was never to protect people from the public off wiki or to shield people's commercial activity. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  As an Oversighter I am fully qualified to tell you that Oversight is not a magic bullet. While we do our best to minimise the harm caused by disclosure of non-public information we cannot guarantee that harm will be zero. For example, how quickly such information gets removed depends on how quickly it is reported to us and how quickly we see the ticket (this varies from seconds to hours, depending on when people happen to be awake, online and available). Thryduulf (talk) 00:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  We aren't talking about non-public information. Are we? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  I have explained multiple times how it can be. Thryduulf (talk) 00:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  How does this work without the person effectively outing themselves? If their wikipedia profile says "worked for Coke, Ford, GM, Bernie Sanders, and the Chinese Ministry of State Security" and their professional profile says the same thing and someone links those two thats on them not anyone else. They published that information. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  As explained previously it is not (in most cases) the list of clients that is the non-public information, but information derived from that list of clients. While those lists of clients would likely be unique, just because Wikipedia user:A says they worked for BigBusiness B, and Upwork advertiser C says they worked for BigBusiness B doesn't necessarily mean that User A and Advertiser C are the same person. Unless the connection has been made publicly then it is (likely) outing to make that connection. Thryduulf (talk) 00:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  Its not outing to make that connection off-wiki, its not a problem for us and not something we should be interested in preventing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:17, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  We should (arguably must) always be interested in preventing unnecessary outing, regardless of why it is happening and regardless of whether it is on or off wiki. The disclosure required by this proposal is on wiki anyway, so your point is irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 15:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  If we must do that then we must ban any form of wiki related work, such as consulting, which reasonably leads to outing. Theres only one actual solution here if thats your goal and its the one you don't want... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  Nothing will out their future clients, because by deinfition they have already disclosed who their clients are, so it doesn't matter if other clients could reveal who those clients may be. In respect to past clients, there is no reason why they need to be disclosed, so I'm no seeing a risk if there is no on-wiki connection between past clients and the admin's editing, and if there was they would have disclosed that under the paid editing rules. This feels very much like a strawman, as it seems to be predicated on some possible and badly timed change to the policy at some point in the future. - Bilby (talk) 00:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  I don't understand your first two sentences (I can't parse them into something that makes sense). Future policy changes (whether by their nature or their timing) are only a small part of the risk, but it is not a straw man to point out the risks from that happening when people have explicitly stated a desire for those changes to happen. Thryduulf (talk) 00:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  You seem to be saying that work for future companies could out prior companies that someone worked for. Or amd I reading "there is little-to-no way for the paid advisor to know what combination of things might or might not out themselves or one of their past (or future) clients" incorrectly? Aussming that by "out" you mean "identify", if someone has followed the proposed policy and revealed who their clients are, there is nothing to "out" about those clients in the future. They have already been revealed. - Bilby (talk) 00:40, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  You seem to be saying that work for future companies could out prior companies that someone worked for. No you've misunderstood. While the list of clients is public, not everything about those clients is public information - especially when the client is an individual not a corporation. While in theory all we should know is that a person or organisation with a given name has worked with a given editor (which doesn't actually tell us anything useful at all, as I and others have explained at length elsewhere in this discussion), the combination of clients could lead to non-public information about the editor and/or their clients being made public. If I say I've advised "J Lewis" that tells you nothing, but I subsequently advise clients whose details are public this could (and likely will, given how much people care about hunting out any potential paid editing) be used to discover who this "J Lewis" is and details of them (or an unconnected person they think to be them) could be made public. This is not the biggest risk of outing on Wikipedia, but it is a risk, and it is in my opinion completely out of proportion to the benefits gained from the disclosure this proposal would require (or could be interpreted to require, see other aspects of this discussion). Thryduulf (talk) 01:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  If you simply say "J Lewis" and that doesn't reveal the client, then it is not proper disclosure. If you properly disclose who your client is, there is nothing to out in the future. - Bilby (talk) 02:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  In which case you are requiring the publication of non-public information about private individuals, directly outing them. How would you feel about a disclosure that the client is "user:J Lewis" or "User:Three elephants in a trench coat"? Would you require them to disclose personal information about themselves? Thryduulf (talk) 02:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

  If this was in place, and I was hired to provide advice to a company as an admin, (not that I would accept such a role, but this is a hypothetical) I would first inform the client that I will be required to declare who they are on Wikipedia in order to provide these services as part of Wikipedia's transparency requirements. If they agreed I would provide proper disclosure. If they were not comfortable with this, I would politely inform them that I am unable to accept the contract. The only clients who would be named are those who are aware of the requirement and agree to it. If they did not agree, they would not be nameed, because I would not be working for them. - Bilby (talk) 02:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

• I see a lot of concerns about client and admin privacy here. I'd like to offer a different POV on that. Some editors think that this disclosure requirement would put administrators and their clients in a position where they'd be "outed" by the community, or forced to "out" themselves. That may be true, it may not, but let's assume for the sake of argument that it is true, and that every administrator engaged in paid advising would be obligated to publicly out their clients. And potentially themselves too.

The assumption on the part of "oppose" editors is that this is a bad thing. From my perspective, as a strong "support"...this is a feature, not a defect, of the proposal. I absolutely abhor doxxing and involuntary outing, on Wikipedia or elsewhere. On the other hand, I would argue that this wouldn't lead to "involuntary" outing, it would set a new standard for transparency that would mandate voluntary outing from those who want to pay volunteers for "advising" off the record, and from those choose to use their Wikipedia credentials to make money IRL. I do not accept the presupposition that administrators who accept money for Wikipedia advising, or clients who hire said administrators, should have an expectation of anonymity. Why should they? This isn't directed at any particular admin, but in general, don't you think it's a bit arrogant to not only say that admins should be allowed to collect unknown amounts of money from unknown entities for off-record Wiki-related activities, but that it's absolutely none of the community's damn business and should be allowed to take place behind a veil of anonymity? I reject that. Maybe in 2008 we could just "AGF" and hope for the best, but nowadays, Wikipedia is simply too important. Literally billions of people read this website every week, and trust it to some degree. We cannot have administrators taking money off-Wiki in such a non-transparent manner. The potential abuses are almost infinitely vast and numerous. So when I read someone say "but this would compromise admin and client privacy!", I don't read that as an issue. Instead, I think to myself "good, someone who voluntarily engages in this sort of paid off-Wiki relationship should have zero expectation of anonymity. If they want to be anonymous, then don't do it." That's my spicy take for the day. Pecopteris (talk) 02:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

• Generally we tend to react after a problem has become apparant, not before. This actually serves us rather well, although it does create a bit of a hodgepodge of rules. It might be the best option here is to wait until a bad actor becomes apparant (which is hopefully never) and then respond. However, I've been thinking about scenarios where an admin being paid for advice rather than editing may be an issue.

1. An admin is hired by a client who has found it impossible to get changes through to their article as the admin has been identifying the problems with either paid editing or promotional/COI editing. The admin is employed under an NDA to offer advice, and so the admin must stay away from the article and advise the client. They cannot edit it, which prevents them from taking admin actions in the future, but they are also limited in saying why because of the NDA.
2. An admin is hired by a client who has hired paid editors in the past. The admin has never been invovled in the article, but now is aware of past UPE and may identify future UPE. Because of their COI they cannot act on the UPE and cannot say why, even though they are aware of it happening.
3. An admin deletes an article as promotional, then offers to provide paid advice on the article to the client. They do not directly edit the article after the original deletion, but do make money as a result of that deletion.
4. An admin is hired to provide advice, and does not directly edit the article. They do perform admin actions related to editors of the article, but do not edit the article, and insist that they were not paid to make those actions (having only been hired to provide advice).

I think 4) is probably going to come under acting while involved, so may be nothing. 2) has already happened and worries me. I can easily see 3) happening, and it wouldn't need to be deliberate - the accusation that someone took jobs providing advice to clients after making admin actions would be a serious one, and only disclosure could make it clear that a) this is not happening; or b) it did happen, but I'm being open about the situation. - Bilby (talk) 02:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Regarding 1 (I don't have time right now to address the others) in every other scenario we don't care why someone has a COI or otherwise does not wish to get involved in an article, only that they do not act while involved. Why is this situation any different? Thryduulf (talk) 06:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

It is a way of removing an admin from the picture - hire them as an advisor, and they won't have anything to do with the article again. No need for the admin to reveal that's why they stopped fixing issues. It's a proposed potential problem, of course, I have no idea if this has ever happened, and I assume no, but I'm thinking through scenarios. - Bilby (talk) 07:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• This is a response (which ran a little too long for me to feel comfortable leaving in the !votes section) to Joe Roe's comment (directed towards another discussion participant) above in the 'Support' section, reading "You're not seeing how a COI arising from someone paying you specifically for help with Wikipedia, because you advertised yourself to them as an admin with special insight into its processes, is different from the COI you have with your regular employer that probably doesn't even know or care that you edit Wikipedia?":

I don't see how either scenario justifes the invocation of a supposed "conflict of interest". There's a lot of hand-wavey (indeed, frankly borderline jingoistic) use of the phrase here to imply some sort of wrongdoing that has to be guarded against, without any kind of substantiation of such a harm, or even significant clarity about what it consists of. Where is the "conflict" between someone sharing their opinion/knowledge about Wikipedia and its systems and their ability to conduct themselves appropriately as an admin and community member?

I've wracked my brain trying to figure out what exactly the advancers of this proposal think is the danger so severe that we have undermine the bulwark of privacy on this project and force admins (or everyone--that's clearly where this is headed, as comments above make clear) to disclose their off-project professional associations that touch upon Wikipedia. The only thing I can come up with is the notion that an admin might take administrative action to curry favour with their client. Honestly (even putting aside for the moment that it would generally be pretty hard for an admin to put their thumb on the scale in such a fashion, given our consensus- and policy-based processes, and pretty much impossible without attracting notice) that's a pretty massive leap. No evidence has been presented to suggest this hashappened even so much as once, or is likely to happen in the future, let alone that it would occur with the kind of regularity that would necesitate our community making such a dramatic cultural shift towards recquiring our contributors to disclose their personal associations.

For that matter, this hypothetical admin who has so lost the plot/sight of their priorities such that they were willing to take administrative action to bootstrap the interests of a client, could not possibly be relied upon accurately report their clients anyway: so corrupt would their motives in this fantasy scenario have to be. So we're talking about only asking those who wouldn't act in such a clearly impermissable, policy-violative manner to report their off-project associations.

So the only thing such a proposal would really accomplish (given the fact that it comes to meet a speculative, probably wholly imaginary concern and wouldn't even be effective against that concern even said concern did exist) is to encourage tendentious parties to go digging into the identities and associations of other contributors in order to undermine administrative actions they don't care for, tearing through our our privacy, outing, and harrassment policies to do so--and weakening the enforcement of such prohibitions when it comes to such activities because, afterall, the off-project associations of users are now considered an issue of "legitimate interest" to the community.

Talk about a mind-bogglingly bad trade-off: vitiated privacy standards and probable mountains of disruption in exchancge for an ineffective tool against an imaginary (or at worst, exceedingly rare) concern. Mind you, we are only even having this discussion about this phantom threat because the only admin we know for a fact has done a tiny amount of this consutlancy work was so obsessively pro forma and desirous to be above-board about it that he put a notice on his user page despite a lack of requirement to do so. I don't know if Cullen regrets his decision to do so, but I sort of do: this has got to be one of the worst cases of histrionic overeaction and reaching toward WP:CREEP/making a rule for the sake of making a rule that I have ever seen in my time on this project. And adopting this particular rule would be a significant step in dismantling this community's long-standing respect for the privacy of its users, in a way that I honestly think is a serious threat to the operation of the project, given the knock-on effects and likely next steps down this line of expecting users to disclose personal info. Terrible, terrible idea. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:54, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Snow Rise, you ask whether I regret being so obsessively pro forma and desirous to be above-board about it that he put a notice on his user page despite a lack of requirement to do so, and you did not even mention that I also disclosed my plans quite openly at WP:AN, which I have always considered to be the place for such frank self-disclosures. And for however long my disclosure was up at AN before being routinely archived, not a single editor, not even Valereee, wrote a single word of objection. No, I have no regrets whatsoever about making those disclosures then or repeating them now because I thought then and I continue to think now that my disclosures were the right thing to do, and I proceeded with my little business venture because literally no one objected at that time. I have already said that I will stop offering my off-Wikipedia consulting services if a policy requiring on-Wikipedia disclosures of off-Wikipedia client identities is required. I believe that this policy change would be a net negative to the encyclopedia, but I fully understand the sincerity of the contrary opinions, and will comply with consensus, as always. I have declined two clients while this discussion is underway, but to be frank, this particular income stream is tiny for me, and I do not need it to live comfortably. On the other hand, I do not believe that there is anything wrong with an administrator providing ethical off-Wikipedia paid training and consulting services, as long as the administrator never edits Wikipedia on behalf of a paying client. Cullen328 (talk) 08:53, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Cullen328, it's not that you did anything wrong. But we still need to know who paid you, not just that you have been paid by some ambiguous "someone'. That's what paid disclosure means. Not just "I've been paid", it means "I've been paid by ________ and __________". There should be no keeping payments secret, and that includes the identity of who paid. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade that sounds good in the abstract, but in all this discussion nobody has yet managed to articulate how knowing that is actually useful in practice. We would know that e.g. Megacorp or J. Williams of 22 Acacia Avenue, Liverpool paid for advice, but what would we actually do with that information? We could look to see whether there was any promotional editing at articles related to Megacorp but (a) we do that anyway (it's called RC patrol), and (b) any such editing may or may not be related to the advice given. Thryduulf (talk) 11:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@Thryduulf, I've said multiple times that knowing who is paying lets us know which articles to give more scrutiny to. You may not think that's a valid reason why it's actually useful in practice, but I do. It's fine that we disagree on whether it is or isn't useful, but it's not true that in all this discussion nobody has yet managed to articulate how knowing that is actually useful in practice. No one has articulated it in a way that convinces you, but that doesn't mean it's not being articulated. Valereee (talk) 11:10, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Except, as has been pointed out every time you've said this, it doesn't let us know which articles to give more scrutiny too. In some cases it gives us a long list of topics that might or might not be relevant, in other cases it doesn't even do that. In the narrowest example, being paid by someone who is notable for exactly one thing that has one article about them and that thing (say a musician with one notable song), we'd need to watch:

• That article
• whether they create articles about any or all their other non-notable projects
• the articles about directly related topics, e.g.
  • their record label
  • anyone they worked with and/or are or were inspired by (singers, musicians, composers, lyricists, producers)
  • the chart(s) they were featured on
  • the instrument(s) they play
  • similar songs
  • contemporary songs
  • the subject of their song
  • the genre(s) of music they perform and/or are inspired by

Then there are the articles that are a further step removed from these (e.g. other songs their lyricist worked on), and then it could turn out that they actually wanted advice about editing articles about physiotherapy, cacti or politics. Now consider that the client is a notable corporation with a large number of notable products or an author with a dozen notable books and think how much longer the list will be. Finally, having received advice about how to properly interact with Wikipedia, any edits they do make (and remember they may not be making any) are more likely than average to be good. Thryduulf (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Again, we can disagree, but it's not true that no one has stated a reason they think this would be useful to the encyclopedia. You think it wouldn't. I think even narrowing it to multiple articles would. I have every one of List of entities associated with Tata Group on my watch after stumbling over COI editing on one of the articles, checking a few others, and realizing there was systematic COI editing of multiple articles associated with Tata. Valereee (talk) 12:30, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

COI editing (for pay or otherwise, declared or otherwise) is completely different to giving or receiving advice. A list of articles that we speculate may or may not be of interest to someone who paid for some sort of advice related to something to do with Wikipedia (which is always incomplete unless it's a list of all 6,906,351 articles) is not something that is even debateably useful. I stand by my claim that nobody has articulated any practical use., despite multiple claims to theoretical use. So even assuming there is a problem that needs solving, this proposal will not solve it. Then consider that we can only generate uselessly vague lists, can only do even that for some clients and they require the disclosure of non-public information that may lead to real-world harm to editors and/or clients. Thryduulf (talk) 12:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

We give people (and companies) many routes for seeking advice. We have forums on the site, we have ways of calling for questions, we have events for learning Wikipediaing. there are books available (and oh, those authors may be getting a royalty!) It seems odd to say "this one avenue for advice demands disclosure". We don't demand folks seeking information disclose their employer, don't assume that seeking advice includes an intention to do damage. We actually want people to have good advice, and adding extra scrutiny for the mere fact that you act for advice works against that. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:23, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure we do, what's done in public is done in public so the situation does not trigger the inequality of information, and everyone from WMF to education projects disclose. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Not everyone. Editathons with paid (or otherwise reimbursed) teachers don't disclose the attendees. I was an assistant teacher at an editathon on drama in NYC years ago. I know the username of the editor who I helped get a username and showed how to edit the articles he wanted to edit, but I doubt anyone else does. It's so long ago I don't recall if I was reimbursed for travel or food, but I might well have been. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not all advice is given in public, e.g. some emails from the Oversight team give advice, I suspect many more VRT emails do. Many (probably most) experienced editors have given formal or informal advice at some point. None of those recipients are publicly disclosed. Thryduulf (talk) 14:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I have trouble pointing to any examples of where we require that disclosure from those seeking advice, so that "sure we do" doesn't go far. If the curious "inequality of information" concern is the problem, then couldn't that be addressed by the admin posting this advice ("No, don't make up an article for your own company. Here's how you request a correction on your page, Joe-Bob's Pollution Fan Page would probably not be considered a reliable source", all that radical stuff) on their talk page without disclosing the name of the client?v -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Disclosure is always about inequality of information, only the dislcosee has. We require every WMF account to disclose their pay relationship (the WMF), we require teachers to disclose who is paying them. Public presentation attendee don't pay, so they are not clients. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:17, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: If you think all COI editing is of the type that's easy to spot in general patrols, that goes a long way to helping me understand why you don't see the point in disclosing clients. But in my experience, even moderately skilled COI editors can twist articles to favour their external interests in a way that is very difficult to spot. When we expose undisclosed paid editors using off-wiki evidence, it usually reveals a whole batch of articles that got through NPP and RC patrols, but that on closer inspection are unduly promotional, misrepresent sources, exaggerate notability, etc. You just have to look through the COIN archives to see dozens of examples of the substantial clean-up involved in these cases. – Joe (talk) 14:55, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

So explain how, in practice, requiring the disclose of everybody who has given or received paid advice will help detect that? Also, how and why does paying for advice on how to edit Wikipedia properly make it more likely that someone will engage in COI editing than someone who receives the same advice without paying for it? Thryduulf (talk) 14:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

If a company don't get anything more by paying for advice why would they pay for it? If the same service is available for free there would be no market, a market exists therefore the goods aren't equivalent and the non-free version is superior. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't answer either question. Obviously someone paying for something is getting something more valuable to them than they know they can get for free, that could be personalised service, advice in person, or any of many other things. You need to explain how and why paying for advice means they will be more likely to engage in COI editing than they would be if they got advice for free. Thryduulf (talk) 15:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't intend to answer a question that wasn't asked of me, you asked Joe Roe to explain and I'm sure they will. You can get personalised service and advice in person for free, no need to pay for those... Both can be had at the help desk right now, if something more personalised is desired a wikipedia mentorship is probably the way to go. The problem is that "any of many other things" includes a lot of stuff that isn't kosher, most likely the client believes that they're paying for influence. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I cannot go to the help desk and arrange for someone to come to my home or office to give me an in-person lesson on how to use Wikipedia. Even if the client believes they are paying for influence, they aren't going to get it from someone who is operating in accordance with our existing policies. Someone who does attempt to give them influence (as nobody can guarantee anything more) will not be following the rules about COI editing and so won't follow any rules about paid advising. Thryduulf (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

If the client believes that they are paying for influence and the Admin takes their money thats corruption no matter what the Admin does. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the questions either. Even if it is corruption, and this is happening (for which no evidence has been presented) and this is the only reason anybody would want to pay for advice (evidence to the contrary has been presented) supporters of this proposal still need to demonstrate what practical benefit regarding that that this proposal would bring. Regardless of what someone things they are getting, if they aren't getting influence then there is nothing to detect so disclosure doesn't help. If someone is getting influence they aren't going to disclose it so disclosure doesn't help. Thryduulf (talk) 17:46, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

You did not ask me those questions, I can not answer them. I don't think admins should be involved either knowingly or unknowingly in a conspiracy against wikipedia, which is what paying for influence would be. There's no good outcome there for the project. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

If you cannot give any explanation of how knowing the names of clients will provide a practical benefit to the project, why are you supporting a requirement to do so?

If someone's goal is to influence Wikipedia unfairly and they are seeking advice on how to contribute then either they tell a prospective advisor before they hire them, they tell an advisor after they hire them or they don't tell them. Taking each in turn:

1. They tell a prospective advisor before hiring their goal is to influence content related to a subject with which they have a COI:
   • A good faith advisor will explain that nobody gets unfair influence, but there are ways to interact appropriately.
     • Choose not to proceed with the hire. In which case nothing happens and this proposal is irrelevant.
     • Choose to proceed anyway (likely after explanation of what they can get). The client learns how to contribute appropriately (e.g. edit requests). Then
       • Contributes appropriately. The advisor has done nothing wrong, Wikipedia has benefited, there are no problems to detect and so disclosure gains us nothing.
       • Contributes to articles they don't have a COI with. The advisor has done nothing wrong, Wikipedia has benefited, there are no problems to detect and so disclosure gains us nothing.
       • Contributes inappropriately: The advisor has done nothing wrong, the client has learned nothing useful to their goal, so from the project's perspective it's as if the no advice was given. Disclosure of the client's name will not (as repeatedly explained elsewhere) make it more likely that the inappropriate editing will be detected, so disclosure gains us nothing.
   • A bad faith advisor will give take the client without explaining anything, and either
     • They only teach the client how to contribute appropriately. This may or may not be fraud on the part of the advisor, but from the project's perspective it's identical to the above scenario. Disclosure gains us nothing there so gains us nothing here.
     • They teach the client how to contribute inappropriately. This advisor will not disclose this regardless of what the rules are, so disclosure gains us nothing.
2. They tell the advisor only after hiring them.
   • A bad faith advisor will just continue the relationship without explaining anything. From the project's point of view it's indistinguishable from a bad faith advisor under scenario 1.
   • A good faith advisor will explain that nobody gets unfair influence, but there are ways to interact appropriately.
     • If the client refuses to respect this then they have the option of either:
       • Terminating the contract. The advisor has done nothing wrong, the former client has gained no information useful to their goal so it's as if no advice had been sought. There is no motivation for the advisor to edit inappropriately related to their former client. In theory, if the advisor knows what article(s) their former client was planning to edit then they can alert the project to those articles (anonymously if there are outing issues) - knowing the client doesn't add anything. If they advisor doesn't know the articles, then the most they could give would be the client's name which (per elsewhere) is useless in practical terms and so disclosure gains us nothing.
       • Continuing anyway. From the project's perspective this is indistinguishable to a bad faith editor under scenario 1.
     • If the client does accept this, they can either:
       • Stop there. The advisor has done nothing wrong, Wikipedia benefits from a lack of attempted undue influence, nothing inappropriate happens so there is nothing to detect and disclosure gains us nothing.
       • Choose how to learn to contribute appropriately instead. From the project's perspective this is identical to making this decision after disclosing before the hire (see scenario 1).
3. The advisor is not doing anything fraudulently.
   • If the advisor is acting in good faith they have done nothing wrong, the client will learn only how to edit appropriately and Wikipedia has benefited.
     • • If they don't make any edits, or only interact appropriately then there is nothing bad happening, nothing to detect and disclosure gains us nothing.
       • If they go on to interact inappropriately it's not because of the advice they received, and (per elsewhere) simply knowing the client isn't going to help us in any practical way so disclosure has gained us nothing.
   • If the advisor is acting in bad faith then they wont be disclosing their clients regardless of the rules, so disclosure gains us nothing.

tl;dr there is no scenario in which disclosure gains us anything useful in a practical sense. Thryduulf (talk) 19:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I will be concise, the primary practical reason (one not based on tradition, best practices, policy, philosophy, etc but on pure utility to the project) to require disclosure is that purposeful nondisclosure can be treated as a de-facto admission of bad faith editing. It is primarily because it allows us to identify such conduct that it should be done, it is not the case as you contend that nothing can be done to identify such conduct. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:36, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Yet again that's a response that doesn't answer the question. How does knowing clients of good faith advisors gain us any knowledge about bad faith changes to the encyclopaedia? Thryduulf (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Seems like a tautology, if any bad faith changes are identified by definition the editor who made them couldn't be good faith but you can't identify those bad faith changes unless you know the clients. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

But you still haven't explained how knowing the clients helps identify any bad faith changes. At this point I'm just going to let the closer draw the appropriate influence from this inability to answer a simple question despite over a dozen requests. Thryduulf (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

How do you know whether an advisor is engaged in inappropriate editing unless they have to disclose their clients? If editor A is employed by Coca-Cola, has disclosed that, and either has previously removed or subsequently removes a well sourced section about (hypothetically) dead rats being found in coke cans across the country then the disclosure has allowed us to identify an area which may need to be addressed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Just because an admin is trying to act in good faith does not always mean they do the right thing, and the disclosure helps manage this. Somewhat akin to how good-faith COI editors can go about it poorly, there is the possibility that an administrator could solicit advice in a way that is good-faith but that the community finds problematic, and we would have no way of knowing of this problem if the admin did not disclose. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 19:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

How would knowing the clients let the community know this? Thryduulf (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Say user X works for a company (COI disclosed in advance) who want to improve their article. They hire admin Y to act as an advisor, asking for feedback on drafted talk page comments, or checking the rigour of any arguments put foward in a discussion. Y is not editing, nor are they in violation of any policies, but they are helping X advance their agenda.

Were it to come out that user X is secretly being supported by admin Y, I'm sure a significant number of people would take issue with the integrity of Y: Y would be assumed to have put the interests of a client before what they may consider the best interests of the wiki, e.g. advising X on how to convincingly vote keep on an article that Y may personally think should be deleted. Y wasn't suggesting policy violations, but they may have been going against their own better judgement.

If the relationship between the two was disclosed, there is a much clearer context within with to view X's edits, and a clearer picture of Y's activities on Wikipedia in general. If some part of the client-sysop's relationship was a cause for concern, the community would be able to address it much easier than if it had not been disclosed beforehand. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 21:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

So, @Snow Rise, to be clear (and honestly could you please please try to write shorter? That is not a little too long) you're against even requiring an editor disclose they're soliciting paid advising if they aren't required to disclose who they're advising? Valereee (talk) 11:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

With respect Val, I don't feel that my response was unreasonable or inappropriate in these circumstances. This is the discussion section of a major community discussion for a proposal that I feel has been made hastily and without sufficient evidence gathering or consideration of the almost certain to be massive longterm implications. Sometimes in such situations it takes much more time and detail to point out why an idea is bad and why it's negative consequences are likely to be so widespread than it does to simply throw that idea out there or support it for the perceived up sides. On top of this, I am not in a position this week to routinely follow this discussion and comment piecemeal: if I am going to share my perspective on this (maybe the most important community discussion I have seen in the last year), it will have to be in a couple of larger posts, rather than distributed more evenly over time, alas.

Anyway, if you didn't like that one, better shield your eyes. Because I'm about to response to Joe below with the longest response I have ever made to anyone in my history with the project, so powerfully do I feel about this topic and so many distinct issues did he raise. In any event, to answer your question, I would probably oppose a blanket disclosure requirement too if an !vote were raised on that issue, but at the same time, I would find it vastly more paltable than a requirement to disclose specific associations. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@Snow Rise: I've already observed here that calling the concerns of fellow editors things like histrionic is a fairly spectacular failure to remain civil and assume good faith. If you've "racked your brains" trying to figure out why ~30 experienced Wikipedians are worried about something, and the conclusion you come up with is that they're all suffering from emotional instability, chances are its your comprehension that's the problem, not their mental state.

Put simply, a conflict of interest is where an editor can be reasonably seen to be motivated in their actions here by something other than improving the encyclopaedia. Our policies already recognise that this is the case if you are paid to edit, or if you have a personal or professional relationship with a topic you are editing, especially if that relationship involves money. If an admin is paid to consult with a client, that creates a professional relationship, one that definitionally involves both money and a party that has an interest in how they are represented on Wikipedia. It is obviously a conflict of interest under our current policies. I could sketch out some specific scenarios of problematic editing that such a conflict of interest could encourage, but that'd be hypothetical, and honestly nobody but you, on either side, seems to question that what we're talking about is a COI. The question is more whether it's severe enough of one to warrant proactive disclosure.

As for whether the "phantom problem", I believe you picked that phrase to try and dismiss it (see above), but it's actually quite a good one. This is indeed a phantom problem in that we don't know if it exists or not, or if it does exist then to what extent. That's because we only have one admin who has owned up to doing this, and since he's not willing to disclose his clients, we can't tell whether it has led to any problematic edits/admin actions. So, we have two options, we can assume that Cullen is the first and only editor ever to think of this business strategy, and trust that he has never succumbed to the temptation to make edits on his clients' behalf. The other option is to require paid consultants to disclose themselves and their clients, so we can then investigate related articles and know for certain whether it's a problem or not. Many above seem happy to go the trust route; that's fine, apparently they have a lot more faith in humanity than I do. But wanting to know whether something is a problem, rather than just hope that it isn't, isn't irrational or making rules for rules' sake.

Yes, people could be dishonest and avoid disclosing. But every norm and rule of conduct we have on this project can be gamed, and we don't give up on them. As with other forms of dishonest editing, like sockpuppetry or undisclosed paid editing, we have tools that could help us detect undisclosed paid consulting. Even if we didn't, we'd benefit from the deterrent effect – in our sample of one, 100% of paid admin consultants have already said that requiring disclosure will stop them doing it. Yes, people could use this as an excuse to harass and out admins, but people already use anything as an excuse to harass and out admins, and we have strong policies and processes against it. We're a project that tries to protect people's privacy up to the point it starts impinging on our ability to achieve our mission, not some deep web collective that pursues anonymity for anonymity's sake. – Joe (talk) 14:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

"I've already observed here that calling the concerns of fellow editors things like "histrionic" is a fairly spectacular failure to remain civil and assume good faith. If you've "racked your brains" trying to figure out why ~30 experienced Wikipedians are worried about something, and the conclusion you come up with is that they're all suffering from emotional instability, chances are its your comprehension that's the problem, not their mental state.

I reject in the strongest possible terms any implication that my comments come anywhere near being uncivil or implying bad faith, and frankly your observations massively distort the subject, intent and tone of my comments. I did not call anyone histrionic. Indeed, none of my observations referred to any one community member in particular. I certainly didn't opine about anyone's "mental state". Rather all I did is observe that the proposal is, in my opinion, a huge and unjustified overreaction to a non-issue, advanced hastily and without due consideration for factors that make the "solution" an extremely dangerous idea with a poor cost-benefit return for this project and community. And I stand by that assessment.

And if I feel a given idea is terrible and share that perspective with the community, I am not thereby making personal attacks against those who support it: if that were the standard for WP:CIV on this project, we would get absolutely nowhere with resolving any divisive issue. I am merely sharing my (admitedly extremely critical) view of the proposal. Not only does that not consitute "assuming bad faith" in any sense relevant to this project, but I believe that any community member in my position (who thinks an idea would have as far-reaching negative impacts and knock-on effects, as I believe this one does) should not only be free to describe their impressions in frank terms, they in fact have an ethical burden to the community to do as much. Saying that an idea is poorly considered is not the same thing as saying those who support it are mentally deficient, or any such nonsense. Please do not put words in my mouth as relates to my fellow community members: I do not appreciate it, especially as I work hard to respect my rhetorical opposition even when I have to disagree with them in very strong terms.

"Put simply, a conflict of interest is where an editor can be reasonably seen to be motivated in their actions here by something other than improving the encyclopaedia."

Yeah, their actions here, operative word. Advice giving to third parties off-proect does not constutute "actions here". This community has long mantained a strict firewall between on-project and off-project activities, and we do not pry into the personal lives of our contributors (including the portions of their professional lives that involve discussion of Wikipedia). For numerous reasons far, far, far too important to abrogate in some overkill rush to quash run-away fears about an unproven and unlikely category of administrative malfeasance.

"If an admin is paid to consult with a client, that creates a professional relationship, one that definitionally involves both money and a party that has an interest in how they are represented on Wikipedia."

Possibly true, but far from dispositive of an issue needing addressing, let alone through such radical means as proposed here. Teaching a third party about Wikipedia in no way implies inappropriate motive on the part of the person receiving that instruction and it certainly doesn't constiute anything in the same universe as substantial cause to believe the admin providing the instruction would then go on to abuse their tools/community standing to aid that individual.

"It is obviously a conflict of interest under our current policies."

Really, then would you care to cite the policy language in question that you feel supports this position? Because I have many long years of familiarity with community consensus on COI, going back to the formation of our formal standards, and I can recall no community discussion which reached the conclusion that discussing Wikipedia off-project leads to a COI (in any context), or anyhting remotely similar. Let alone consensus captured in a PAG.

"I could sketch out some specific scenarios of problematic editing that such a conflict of interest could encourage, but that'd be hypothetical, and honestly nobody but you, on either side, seems to question that what we're talking about is a COI."

If that's genuinely your take-away of the discussion, I'd read it (or at least the oppose section) again more closely. Regardless, please feel free to stop by my talk page to share such scenarios if you want to discuss them. The lack of any such concrete specificity in the majority of the support !votes is a cause for serious criticism of the position, imo. This proposal is coasting on a very vaguely defined supposed source of disruption/bad faith activity. But I'm certainly open to hearing better-defined explanations of the concerns here.

"The question is more whether it's severe enough of one to warrant proactive disclosure."

Ok, let's assume that you and I were closer together in our opinions as regards the last couple of points. I'd still be strenously opposing this proposal on a "cure is worse than the condition" basis. On a "lobotomy to address a headache" scale, bluntly.

"This is indeed a phantom problem in that we don't know if it exists or not, or if it does exist then to what extent."

Right. And changes to policy that massively undermine existing community priorities and commitments to privacy, with huge impacts and knock-on effects to our outing and harassment standards, are not fit solution to an unsubstantiated problem that seems to be springing more from imagination than evidence.

"That's because we only have one admin who has owned up to doing this, and since he's not willing to disclose his clients, we can't tell whether it has led to any problematic edits/admin actions.

Meaning no disrespect, but that's both circular logic and begging the question. The very question at issue here is whether or not it is useful, practical, or necesary in any sense to require an admin to disclose such information, and the fact that Cullen has not done so voluntarily is hardly evidence that it is.

"...or...we can trust that [Cullen] has never succumbed to the temptation to make edits on his clients' behalf."

That's right. We could do just that, since we have absolutely no good reason to believe anything else.

Incidentally, your use of "editor" rather than "admin" in this context only enhances my concern that most of those supporting this policy for admins would be looking to support it to cover all community members in time. I don't even want to think about how many valuable community members we might lose on principle, were that to ever come to pass.

"But wanting to know whether something is a problem, rather than just hope that it isn't, isn't irrational or making rules for rules' sake."

You're right: it would certainly be nice to empirically know the answer to this question. Even those of us here pointing out that these concerns lack any substantiation or good cause to believe, and who think the threat here is likely illusory and the concerns similar to a moral panic--even among those editors, I am sure I am not the only one who would love to know for sure, if that knowledge came without cost. In fact, in that hypothetical sense, it would be really nice to know a lot about the motivations of our fellow editors.

But I for one am not prepared to authorize a fishing expedition standard that would irrepairably undermine our respect for the privacy of our contributors with regard to their personal associations, just to assuage what are (yes, in my sincere opinion) likely to be histrionic fears without significant basis. You can't put that genie back in the bottle: at a minimum, a much larger showing of an actual and truly massive issue should proceed such a monumental change in community priorites. Regardless of whether you feel that puts us at a disadvantage in proving the matter either way.

"Many above seem happy to go the trust route; that's fine, apparently they have a lot more faith in humanity than I do."

I don't feel that characterization holds water. There are many historical cases where the spectre of a threat has been utilized to justify invading the personal privacy of individuals in a community. The people in said communities who push back against such measures do not necesarily do so out of an especially "trusting" nature, but typically because they do not feel such inquiries are justified in the circumstances and proportional to the supposed threat. The "if they have nothing to hide" line of reasoning in these cases has historically not aged well...

"Yes, people could be dishonest and avoid disclosing. But every norm and rule of conduct we have on this project can be gamed, and we don't give up on them."

It's not just that people "could be dishonest": you hypothetical (and I believe probably fictional) admin who has so lost sight of their priorities as a figure of trust in this community that they would block someone on a client's behalf would almost without question be willing to lie about it. It would be absolutely inevitable that they would be reversed if they took action on behalf of a dislcosed client they and would almost certainly be desysoped for their trouble, so there would be no reason for them to take said action (and destroy their illicit source of income-via-administrative fealty to their clients) unless they had already refused to disclose the relationship. That's just a fact: it would be such a pointless thing for your theoretical admin-for-hire to openly carry out administrative activities on behalf of their client, so no admin willing to do so would ever disclose such a relationship.

"As with other forms of dishonest editing, like sockpuppetry or undisclosed paid editing, we have tools that could help us detect undisclosed paid consulting."

Please explain to me which tools you think would be effective here, then? Because there is no technical tool that would catch evaders in this context, and if you believe that behavioural analysis would catch administrative acts done for the benefit of the acting admin's off-project client, then what are we even doing here? The disclosure wpuld thereby be unncesary even for these highly speculative bad actors, and therefor the requirement would eviscierate privacy concerns (and welcomes all manner of harassment and outing disruption for the remaining admins) for absolutely no purpose.

"Even if we didn't, we'd benefit from the deterrent effect – in our sample of one, 100% of paid admin consultants have already said that requiring disclosure will stop them doing it.

You're again begging the question. Part of the inquiry here is whether we need or want a deterrent for advising people of Wikipedia's functions. That "100% of paid admin consultants" happens to be constituted of one of the most respected admins and community members in the history of the project. The first to be voted into the position by the community with a 100% support ratio, if I remember correctly, and carrying that vote with nearly 400 community members. Someone who to my recollection has never been accused of betraying that community trust. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that his instructions and advice for his clients urge them to aquaint themselves with and respect project guidelines (including those for COI editing, a much more real source of potential issues!), to avoid gamesmanship, and to understand the consensus-based mechanicsms of this community. The fact that he might be chased away from pursuing such relationships (that benefit all stakeholders) for completely fanciful reasons is by no means a positive for us, if you ask me. If anything your requirement will stop him from potentially stopping actual problems.

And sure, not every admin can be assumed to be above reproach, nor does everyone in this community necesarily hold this particular admin in such regard, I expect you would respond. But neither do we have any reasonable cause to believe such activities by admins would be anywhere near probelmatic (rather than healthy and helpful) in the aggregate such that we should celebrate their being discouraged from these activities as an automatic boon to the project. And even if we did agree that it was a per se benefit, it would still not be remotely worth the costs.

"Yes, people could use this as an excuse to harass and out admins, but people already use anything as an excuse to harass and out admins, and we have strong policies and processes against it."

Yeah, policies and processes which would be substantially more difficult to enforce once we give bad actors a motivation to start digging into the offline activities of our admins. The fact that people will "use any activity to harass and out admins" is precisely why we don't need to give them a greenlight to view the offline associations of other contributors as fair game to investigate in order to "protect" the project.

"We're a project that tries to protect people's privacy up to the point it starts impinging on our ability to achieve our mission, not some deep web collective that pursues anonymity for anonymity's sake."

Here's the thing: those privacy protections you are so quick to treat as disposable are vastly, immeasureably (I mean it's not even in the same universe) more imporant to achieving our mission than this disclosure rule you want to implment. That's true even if we assume a realistic worst case scenario for paid advisors taking administrative action on behalf of clients, let alone the vastly more likely has-never-happened reality. The privacy of this projects contributors is vital in a world where untold numbers of them face vulnerabilities relating to their associations and communications. Punching holes in those protections is not a reasonable price to pay for conspiracy theory-adjacent reasoning regarding an unproven threat.

So, I repeat, a terrible, terrible idea. And I'm not saying that you are terrible, terrible person (or community member) for supporting it. I recognize your perspectives have been shared in good faith: I ask you to do the same for me. But that doesn't change the fact that it's a bad notion on so many levels, for so many reasons. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:55, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going to hat this divergence of ours about the nature of goodfaith dispute, as it is not really directly germane to issue in discussion here, and can only serve to force further scrolling in an already bloated discussion. If you have further thoughts for me on this subject, Joe, I would respectfully suggest we can discuss further in good faith on user talk, where arguably we should have been discussing this from the start. SnowRise let's rap 19:13, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I did not call anyone histrionic. No, you called everyone who thinks this is a problem histrionic, right here: this has got to be one of the worst cases of histrionic overeaction [...] that I have ever seen in my time on this project. If you don't see why that is uncivil or a comment on other editors' mental state, I suggest you look up the word histrionic in a dictionary. I don't have time to read the rest of this, sorry. I echo valereee's plea above; trying to write concisely is another way to show respect to other editors. – Joe (talk) 13:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC) Ok. In case you want to TLDR after the first paragraph again, let's try this as a concise summary of what I think of your dogged insistence on taking personal offense on behalf of everyone here, where none should be taken (and just generally assuming bad faith left, right, and center, to the point of being on the border of WP:ASPERSIONS even after I took the time to explain the distinction between my criticizing an idea versus criticizing an individual, or individuals): "Wow. Just Wow." Short, but about sums up my feelings about how you are approaching this discussion at this juncture. I 100% stand by my assessment that this proposal was in fact a histrionic overreaction to an unproven issue, the proposed solution for which could have many, many problematic implications for the project. Not only is that fairplay comment (and nowhere near uncivil as we use the term on this project, as you continue to imply) but I am in fact ethically compelled by my loyalty to the project to say as much (in frank terms) if I think the idea is poorly reasoned and dangerous, as here. Sometimes bad ideas just take on a life of their own: that's what I think clearly happened here. Just because I think a proposal is a stupendously bad idea does mean I am making general assessments of the mental faculties of other editors, as you keep implying. I mean, this is rhetoric and consensus-building 101, friend: it is not a WP:PA for me (or anyone here) to say that we think the idea you support is a bad one, based on poor reasoning during a rush to make an unecesary and possibly disastrous rule: it's merely my opinion (and clearly the opinion of others as well). And sometimes you need to say as much about such ideas, even if it incidentally reflects upon someone else's opinions. Now, if you don't want to read my response, that's wholly your prerogative. To be quite blunt, I didn't really write them so much for your benefit (frankly you appear quite dug in on this and not looking to make even small concessions to the possibility that there may be issues that crept into this proposal in the rush to create a new rule). It suffices to me that I addressed what I viewed to be numerous flawed conclusions in your (also quite long, btw) comments. Those were for the benefit of the community at large, not you in particular. As for the length of my comments: I'll tell you what I told Val: sometimes it takes a lot more time to explain why an idea is bad and could have unintended consequences than it does to just throw that idea out there and jingoistically imply it is necessary to protect some interest. And considering that since I made the post in question the ratio of the !votes has switched from slightly supporting to increasingly opposing, with several other community members citing my views as aligning with or influencing their own, I'd say my comments were relevant and useful to the resolution of this community discussion. I may not be about to win any awards for my brevity on this one, but I do try to save the walls of text for occasions where they are appropriate and necessary. This just happens to be one such case. Happy editing Joe: I hope we can be on the same side of the next issue. SnowRise let's rap 19:05, 6 October 2023 (UTC) (EC) Maybe in the future use a word other than histrionic? The ambiguity of the term is not doing you any favors in the civility department and seems to be largely what people are reacting to. I'm pretty sure if I used histrionic to refer to a co-worker (especially a woman) my boss would be poking his head in for a chat. As a general rule if its also a common recognized personality disorder don't use it colloquially. At the very least it isn't collegial or respectful. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC) Except again, I didn't call any indvidual or group of individuals histrionic. I referred to the proposal as histrionic. And it is an apt description of how I feel about the proposed course of action: a hand-wringing (if well-intentioned) overreaction, likely to lead to much more serious problems than the speculative concern itself. That's precisely what I meant to imply and I stand by that asessment. And that's not a colloquial use, but the older, more common, and plain meaning: it's much more niche meaning in clinical psychology is the newer and more idiomatic usage (not the other way around), and I clearly didn't mean it in the sense of a personality disorder... Look, my friends, I can appreciate that you feel the phrasing puts an idea you both support in a less than postive light and that it apparently feels hyperbolic to you. But bluntly, it was meant to cast the idea in a negative light. But not to do so to any editor, and this is the third time I've made that distinction (which indeed I think was clearly reflected in the wording in the first instance). I'm not sure what more I can do for you here except to politiely suggest we aren't going to have a meeting of the minds on the implication that it was incivil or ABF as the terms apply on this project. I'll grant you I didn't mince words about what I felt about the proposal, but that was very much the point--but also a very different thing from characterizing the qualities or value of a fellow editor, which is a line I make serious effort to stay on the right side of in my discussion style here. I'll take your thoughts under advisement, but beyond that, I think it's time to move on. This can only serve as a distraction to the actual topic of this discussion at this point. SnowRise let's rap 22:13, 6 October 2023 (UTC) Yes, you are being told that your choice of words is grossly offensive no matter how you intended them... You need to AGF that we're telling the truth and modify you behavior accordingly. If you want to communicate that something is a "a hand-wringing (if well-intentioned) overreaction" then simply use those words. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2023 (UTC) Jack, that's not how AGF works: I can stretch myself (and honestly, it is becoming a stretch to continue to do so at this juncture) to assume you two are telling the "truth" about how you two perceive the statement in question. But AGF does not require me to grant that such an interpretation is facual or a reasonable read of the content or the tone of the comment. And "grossly offensive" isn't even on the distant hroizon of a reasonable read. The two of you seem determined to take umbrage for a comment that didn't name you or a single editor--or even grammatically/semantiucally allow for it to apply to a human being at all, but rather a very bad idea. So I'm done with this conversation. SnowRise let's rap 18:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

In the spirit of accuracy, my RfA support was (316/2/3), Snow Rise. Cullen328 (talk) 23:12, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I stand corrected, Jim: merely 99.4% support. ;). And lest I give the impression that I think you are some sort of Wikipedia ubermensch, let me hasten to add that you and I actually disagree on some fundamental policy issues quite strongly, especially of late. But what I can say in support of you is that I have not the slightest doubt that when you advise your clients, you attempt to educate them fully on this project's culture and the need to comport with out policies and guidelines to the letter.

So to see the notion that the proposed rule is already proving its potential value because it would put an end to those relationships is just frankly such an analytically and pragmatically backwards way of doing the cost-benefit analysis here, that I'm at a loss to fully convey how poorly thought-out I think that particular observation was. It fundamentally frames any work you might do in educating others off project as presumptively a bad thing, insofar as your inability to continue those relationships is being positioned, in that comment, as a per se victory for the project's interests.

Honestly, it's pretty close to an expressly ABF statement asserting that your work educating these third parties can be presumed to be a net-negative, and that we are better off assuming that you are more likely to commit bad acts hurting the project (to serve these clients) than you are to aid the project (by educating them). I personally feel that crosses the threshold from cynicism to paranoia, and a misanthropic presumption of ill intent on your part. I'm sure you have thick enough skin not to take it too personally, and i'm aware of the pitfalls of taking umbrage on someone else's behalf, but I still find the way that conclusion was framed inappropriate all the same. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

In the spirit of completeness, could you cite the words you used in your RfA to describe your intention to advertise your admin credentials on upwork if promoted? I couldn't find the standard declaration that you had never engaged in paid editing, which I read above was a requirement (perhaps Candidates are also required to disclose whether they have ever edited Wikipedia for pay. was added since your RfA?) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 15:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

SashiRolls, there are no such words going back six plus years because I did not even think about offering off-Wikipedia consulting and training services until October, 2022, and did not make the decision to do so until November, 2022, after disclosing my plans at WP:AN, and receiving no negative feedback. Cullen328 (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328: About your disclosure at AN, I think a lot of this controversy can be explained by an inadvertent miscommunication. It's laudable that you took steps to disclose in advance, both at AN and on your user page. However, your disclosure did not state: (1) you were planning to advertise consulting services on a job board website, and (2) the job board posting would expressly advertise your status as an admin. I believe that if your disclosure had said, "I am planning to post on a job board that I am a Wikipedia admin available for hire as a consultant," you would have received a lot more feedback. Just speaking for myself, I remember reading your disclosure at the time, and I did not think that what you were planning to do was make an admin-consultant-for-hire post at Upwork. I thought it was something more like an existing client of yours found out you were a Wikipedia editor and wanted to ask you some questions about it.

In short, the disclosure didn't disclose that you planned to solicit work based on your status as an admin (and, to add a third minor point to that, that the solicitation would be made on a job board website that also hosts ads for actual paid editors, including WP:UPE). In my view, those were two key details (maybe three) that weren't disclosed in the disclosure, and I think that's why so many editors were surprised to learn of the job posting, despite your earlier disclosure. To add a fourth point, your disclosure was made at WP:AN, which I think is a strange place to make such a disclosure (why would admins need to know about this and not non-admins?). I think WP:COIN would have been a better place to make such a disclosure.

Now, I'm not suggesting you intentionally omitted those details (for all I know, you hadn't even decided to make a job board posting, or written it, at the time you made your disclosure) or otherwise acted in any sort of duplicitous way--I think it was a good faith mistake--but I also think that's why there was little little feedback when you made the disclosure vs. the large amount of feedback now.

And now I'm starting to think that maybe it would help to have a rule that any editor (admin or otherwise) soliciting work on a job board website must disclose same at WP:COIN. Levivich (talk) 17:38, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you think that your RFA would have been successful if you'd declared at the time that you intended to profit off of your position through consulting? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

@SashiRolls @Horse Eye's Back Cullen's RFA was in July 2017, the requirement for candidates to disclose whether they have ever edited for pay was not introduced until January 2018. Have you considered the possibility that Cullen's decision to start advising for pay was made more recently than the 6 years ago they passed RFA? Thryduulf (talk) 15:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

You appear to be conflating two questions, mine isn't about that requirement at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:44, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Your question is about what someone might think the perception of the ethicality of this behaviour is, not about the ethicality. As this discussion shows, there are good faith differences about that. I would expect most of the supporters here to oppose an RfA where the candidate declared they might do paid advising. I don't know if that would be enough to prevent an RfA passing, but either outcome should make no difference to anyone's opinion on the ethical question itself. I hope you're not saying that every question or preference raised at RfA represents a valid concern that all admins ought to abide by. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library)

My question is about whether they think they would have passed RFA. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:52, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I will decline to speculate about what might have happened six years ago, because I had no such plans or intentions at that time. I came up with this idea about a year ago, disclosed it at WP:AN and on my user page without objection, and proceeded on that basis. I am willing to discuss the facts, as opposed to engaging with the ABF evidence-free speculation that has proliferated in this sprawling discussion, Horse Eye's Back. Cullen328 (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

So if I've understood correctly you are saying that the tally concerning your RfA is unrelated to this discussion about paid advising, insofar as you had not yet decided to advertise for your services as an admin advisor. That's why I wasn't sure why you mentioned it above. Please dont assume bad faith when others point out that things said in the spirit of accuracy may also be incomplete. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 19:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

SashiRolls, another editor brought up the tally and I furnished the correct numbers. No more and no less. Cullen328 (talk) 20:04, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Cullen mentioned his pass rate to correct an earlier recollection by myself that he had passed RfA with a 100% support ratio, when in fact the support ratio was just over 99% (and involved around 80 fewer participants than I recalled). I mentioned his high level of support (still one of the highest in the history of RfA) in the context of responding to an observation that presumed it to be a per se good thing if Cullen was forced to not consult on Wikipedia if this proposal passed, insofar as it seemed to assume that the impacts of said advising could be assummed to be a net negative for the project. Now, I understand how that part could have gotten lost in the mix with as long and complicated as the discussion has gotten, but to be clear, Cullen was not invoking his pass rate himself to bootstrap his position. To the contrary, he was correcting me and pointing out that his RfA bonafides were (ever so slightly) lower than I suggested. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

But pivoting to the other, etangled inquiry of whether or not Cullen thinks he would have passed RfA if disclosing his (then non-existent) intent to consult for pay (or whether he could pass RfA today with such a declaration, now that he does consult, or however else you might want to reframe the same basic question)...I think it's a giant red herring. It may not be accurately described as a "bad faith question", but it is certainly an example of bad rationalization for a proposition. The entire point of asking that quasi-rhetorical question is to imply that the person asking it feels that there is at least a decent chance that a candidate would not pass RfA if disclosing such an intent. Possibly even as strong a candidate as Jim. But that line of reasoning does not have persusasive rigor regardig the underlying inquiry here, imo:

For starters, it's a complete argument from authority--and not even one's own authority, but rather originating with a supposed likely outcome of a speculative poll. Well here's the thing: putting aside for the moment the fact that I don't think we have the information to arrive at such a broad conclusion--I think it would very much depend on the candidate and how they handled inquiries at RfA--the relative popularity or unpopularity of an idea (even real established popularity, let alone presumed, untested popularity) is just not the same thing as a rational, first principles argument for that idea. Bad ideas sometimes get popular support; good ideas sometimes run afoul of unreasonable opposition.

At RfA in particular, though I broadly support it being a tough vetting process to foreground the project's needs over the candidate's, it's undeniable that some candiates routinely face excessive scrutiny for sometimes bad reasons. So, implying that candidates (or a particular candidate) would face a stiffer vetting process under such circumstances doesn't help us one whit in making an a priori analysis on whether or not the proposal being made here is a good one or not. It's an empirically and rationalistically weak argument based on speculative evidence that wouldn't even directly support the proposition even if we had hard data on it. Asking Cullen himself to speculate on the question is even one level more abstracted and pointless.

This discussion should rather be focused on the following questions: are the prospective problems being speculated about here likely to be real and substantial enough to justify such broad community action impacting many longstanding policies and fundamental community priorites? If so, is the proposal actually a reasonable and effective tool for dealing with such concerns? Is the suggested approach as minimally invasive of the contributor and third party's established privacy interests (and related concerns about harassment and outing) as recognized by prior community consensus and existing rules and processes, or would the proposed approach substantially aborgate other more important protections that also protect project and community interests? Clearly, respondents are all over the place when it comes to those questions, but at least those sorts of considerations directly inform upon whether this is a good idea, unlike wildly speculating about hypothetical counterfactuals regarding past RfAs, or asking Cullen to do it himself. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

The last two RfA I watched had similar rates: 313/1/2 (one I supported) and 315/3 (one I did not participate in). Eostrix/Icewhiz had similar numbers (132/1) until their run was shut down by an ArbCom investigation. These numbers are a red herring. The question of whether these numbers could be achieved by someone straightforwardly announcing an intention to advertise on upwork as a private contractor is not a red herring. Here are the facts as I see them: policy discourages people from making undisclosed paid changes to the encyclopedia. The word "change" is what is meant on en.wp by "edit" (on simple.wp the word "change" is used, other wikis use "contribution", etc.) There is nothing, as far as I am aware, in policy that prevents paid contractors from affecting content as long as they do not themselves effect change by pressing the save button (either on talk pages, mainspace pages, or in the dialogue box allowing admins to protect pages / block users, etc.) The precedent being set by doing nothing to shut down this admin advising "loophole" (you can do what you want and your privacy rights allow you to avoid disclosing who your clients are since you yourself are not pressing "save" for them) is to add a new official perk to getting through RfA (at least in terms of the hourly rate the market will bear), because an RfC said it was OK for admins to advertise their services on upwork. Let's be clear though, there is nothing preventing advising from including providing fully rewritten articles to clients, suggesting talk page strategies, counseling on how to rid pages of annoying gadflies, how to get pages protected, how to argue at RS/N, NPOV/N, etc., etc.

At the moment, the going rate appears to be under 100€/hr for admin advising, so it won't represent big budget overruns for the big-endian lobbies to hire the hierati, while the little-endians are always welcome to have the tea leaves read to them. :) -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 22:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Well as to the empirical value of speculation about past RfAs, I'm sure we can pleasantly agree to disagree. That said, what you have described as a "loophole" in regards to the community's decision not to include advising under the same umbrella as paid editing, I think is more realistically characterized as an express feature of community consensus. Afterall, the discussions in which the current rubric of COI/PE standards evolved are among the most widely attended and consulted-upon in project history. And the very express divide between on-project versus off-project conduct defining the barrier between what we can and should be looking into in behavioural discussions of most sorts goes back to the earliest days of the project and has been maintained consistently since--up to an including major proposals have been shot down as recently as a few months back.

Protecting the privacy of contributors and third parties against well-intentioned but overzealous efforts from community members seeking to "bust" supposed malfeasance, but at the cost of violating that barrier is not an oversight: it's an expression of community will about our order of priorities regarding competing considerations that have varying levels of potential harm for the project, the community, individual contributors, and third parties. The current standards did not come into existence haphazardly, including the existing particulars when it comes to paid editing and what conduct does and does not constitude such activity. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:40, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

It is astonishing how sprawling this discussion has grown, and in my view, a significant amount of it is based on evidence free speculation. So it goes. I do want to state that I have consistently insisted that my few clients make either a WP:PAID or a WP:COI declaration on their userpages before editing, according to the specific circumstances, so any speculation that I am helping bad faith actors evade scrutiny is false. All of my clients have expressed a desire to improve and not to damage the encyclopedia, even to the extent of a couple of them paying me US $150.00 to explain to them in great detail why they are not eligible for a Wikipedia biography at this time. I also want to state that no paying client so far has ever asked me to use my administrator's tools in any way, and I would have refused instantly if they had. None of them has shown much interest in me being an administrator, except as seeing it as evidence that I actually know what I am talking about. Cullen328 (talk) 02:38, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

But we only have your word for it, Cullen, can't you see why that makes some of us uneasy? We're speculating because you've given us no choice. Please understand that I'm not accusing you of being dishonest or doing anything wrong, but the community has given us extra tools with the expectation that we use them on their behalf, and that requires transparency – we need to be able to see that you've been forthright here. Even checkusers and oversighters, that have to work privately, have their actions logged and reviewed by ArbCom, who answer to OmbCom, and so on. – Joe (talk) 06:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

My word, my reputation, my track record and my honor, Joe Roe. Those are the things that I care about the most. Checkusers, oversighters and ArbCom concern themselves with on-Wiki behavior, or demonstrably inappropriate and provable off-Wiki behavior like harassment. There is zero evidence of any misconduct by me. Again, I have never edited Wikipedia, not even a single keystroke, on behalf of a paying client. What is the precedent for forcing disclosure of off-Wikipedia activities like training and consulting? Why would you want to infringe on the privacy of my clients, who never agreed to by be scrutinized by a howling mob? How does that fit into the Wikipedia ethos? To repeat myself, if the consensus is that intrusive disclosure of consulting and training conducted entirely off-Wikipedia is required, then I will comply and stop offering that service, because I would never expect any client to agree to be subjected to this extreme level of scrutiny by people engaging in evidence-free speculation. Cullen328 (talk) 07:20, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Again, it's "evidence-free" because you're blocked the possibility to gather evidence. You're a very highly trusted editor, likely one of the most well-regarded admins there is (at least before this). But frankly I think you're exploiting that reputation, because the average editor and admin is never extended this level of blind trust – the rest of us have to work transparently, and answer to the community. I don't really accept that you telling us who you worked with is a meaningful breach of anyone's privacy, but if I were in your shoes, I'd have advised your clients that scrutiny is the name of the game here. – Joe (talk) 07:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Joe Roe, you are asking for a whole new level of intrusive scrutiny of off-Wikipedia activities, that, to the best of my knowledge, has no precedent in the 22 year history of this project. Please correct me if I am wrong. As for advising my clients that transparency and scrutiny is the name of the game here, as I said above, I have always required that any of my paying clients who wanted to edit Wikipedia make either the WP:PAID OR WP:COI disclosures, according to the circumstances, so that the normal level of scrutiny of the contributions of such editors can take place. I recently hit 100,000 edits and I welcome scrutiny of every single one of them. You and those who support this policy change want to take the widely accepted scrutiny of on-Wikipedia activity, and extend it off-Wikipedia to places where transparent disclosure and scrutiny has never before been accepted let alone required. As for accusing me of "exploiting" my good reputation by engaging in off-Wikipedia activities that violate no known policy or guideline, that just seems like a bizarre argument to me, but I suppose that it must make sense to you. As for your snide remark, (at least before this), I will proceed as always with my head held high, because I know that I have provided policy compliant consulting and training services to a handful of clients, for the purpose of improving this encyclopedia, no matter the dark suspicions that some editors harbor. Entirely off Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 08:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

@Joe Roe remember we also have the exact same level of evidence (i.e. none) that you are not engaging in anything untoward off Wikipedia, including taking payment for advising clients how to engage with Wikipedia (properly or otherwise). Given this complete lack of evidence that your offwiki activities are doing anything to damage the project we trust that you are not. Why are you not able to extend that same trust to Cullen? Thryduulf (talk) 08:47, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not exactly the same level of evidence, is it? Because I don't have an Upwork profile declaring that I'm an active Wikipedia administrator who will assist you behind the scenes every step of the way for a fee. I'm also perfectly willing to disclose all my clients to you right now, because there are none.

Nobody forced you to make yourself the guinea pig for this exciting new way to make money from your admin status, Cullen, and nobody can force you to be transparent about what you've been doing after the fact. If you were willing to be open with the community, we wouldn't have to scrutinise every single one of your edits from here on. That's another choice you've made. – Joe (talk) 09:02, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

It is exactly the same level of evidence. You are exactly as equally likely to be lying that you have never advised anybody inappropriately as Cullen is. Thryduulf (talk) 09:21, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

If its the exact same level of evidence lets see that evidence equivalent to the Upwork profile. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Firstly I need to know what evidence an Upwork provides that Cullen is doing anything untoward, on or off Wikipedia, and/or is more likely to be doing such. In this entire discussion nobody has yet answered this question with anything factual. Thryduulf (talk) 18:18, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Its the "more likely" scenario, doesn't mean I think they've done anything wrong just that they've put themself in a more difficult to manage situation therefore inherently increasing the risk of even inadvertently having COI become an issue. As I've said I think that Cullen made the right call in asking the community for input and I will note that the community has been overwhelmingly supportive of them at the same time as expressing a healthy skepticism of those in positions of power. This isn't about Cullen, this is about the abstract issue and perhaps it would be wisest to decouple the discussions from each other... Or wait until this particular discussion closes before having a calmer and less personalized discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok, now explain why disclosing that you are being paid to give advice about Wikipedia makes it more likely that you will be doing something untoward than someone who gives the same advice to the same people without being paid, or to people who don't disclose whether they are giving advice (pair or unpaid) or not. Thryduulf (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Someone who only has a social COI seems less likely to become involved in sketchy editing than someone who has both a social and financial COI. I would say that the risk would be significantly lower than for editors who don't disclose paid advice. I would also challenge you to answer why someone would pay of something they could otherwise get for free? The presumption here is that the client is not a friend or family member of the consultant and so would have no way of getting that same advice from that same person outside of the paid channel. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Why someone would pay for something the could get for free has been answered multiple times in this discussion by multiple people (including by me earlier today), repeating myself here seems unlikely to add value.

So the answer to my question is that no, there is no evidence that someone disclosing they give paid advice is more likely to do anything wrong, just vague speculation based upon assumptions about the user's faith. Which means we have exactly the same level of evidence that Cullen and Joe are telling the truth that they have never engaged in undisclosed paid editing. Thryduulf (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand, how can it be the same people? How can they both have never met the consultant and be a family member or personal friend? Also note that you appear to have moved the goalposts, they've shifted from "anything untoward, on or off Wikipedia, and/or is more likely to be doing such." to "engaged in undisclosed paid editing." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I never said anything about being the same people, or about being friends or family members - that was you. It's irrelevant for this point how in practice the adviser and client connected, because it makes no difference. If person A gives person B advice C and gets paid for doing so, they are exactly as likely to be telling the truth about whether they acted inappropriately regarding it as if the same person A gave the same person B the same advice C but did not get paid for doing so.

After undisclosed paid editing in my previous comment please add "or other untoward conduct", because there is the exact same evidence for both.

Regarding goalpost moving, you challenged me to back up my comment that there is the same evidence regarding Cullen and Joe, and then said it's not about Cullen but an abstract issue. Thryduulf (talk) 08:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

"someone who gives the same advice to the same people without being paid" Do you genuinely not believe that payment increases the risk of corruption? And if so do you have any literature to support that extraordinary contention? Basically all the research on this topic finds that value transfers increase the risk of corruption and the risk increases proportionate to the scale of the value transfer. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Is there a slightly increased risk of corruption? It's not impossible. Is that evidence that an editor who discloses they have given advice in exchange for money is less trustworthy than someone who doesn't disclose? No. Is it evidence that Cullen is more likely to be giving inappropriate advice than Joe? No. Will requiring admins to disclose who their clients are make it any easier to detect whether they or their clients have been engaging in inappropriate edits? No (see explanations given repeatedly elsewhere for details). Thryduulf (talk) 17:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Not sure why you want to keep making this about Cullen and Joe when this isn't about Cullen and Joe. I find that sort of personal rather than professional focus off-putting. We established that it does make it any easier to detect whether they or their clients have been engaging in inappropriate edits, perhaps you need to re-read above? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not trying to make it all about Cullen and Joe. I used the two people as an example and then got asked as series of questions specifically about that. It makes no difference to the point whether the people are Cullen and Joe or John Doh and Fred Smith.

Also We established that it does make it any easier to detect whether they or their clients have been engaging in inappropriate edits except you haven't. You've tried, but the only thing you've actually come up with is a very long list of articles that might or might not be relevant, and which any edits to might or might not be made in relation to the advice by someone who may or may not have been advised and, if so, may or may not have been made inappropriately. So in practical terms, no you haven't established that it achieves anything useful Thryduulf (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

In practical terms it can't be established one way or another without actually trying it, purely theoretical otherwise. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

For those not paying attention, Cullen has by his own admission earnt $1,290 for only 22 hours work servicing only 8 clients. That is an hourly rate of nearly $60. It is also an average of around $160 per client. This work includes twice charging $150 to tell a client in "great detail" that they do not merit a Wikipedia biography. We can therefore speculate he spent no more than 2.75 billable hours compiling and explaining that detail. That is amazingly lucrative work. Work that is as far as I can tell, not very difficult. Why even be a volunteer Administrator with all the hassle of having others looking over your shoulder, when you can earn $60/h for giving out the same advice but with zero oversight? Even if it hasn't affected how Cullen approaches being an Administrator, and all we have is his word for that, it will affect others. Edson Makatar (talk) 15:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

It's really not that lucrative. Freelance gigs will always attract a higher hourly rate than an employee because of the inherent lack of job security. That's a very (very) reasonable rate for a freelancer. Try hiring a plumber or an accountant or a web designer and tell me they don't charge more than that. Aspersions about nefarious motives aside, you've yet to demonstrate that this a problem, much less one that can be eliminated with a policy change. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

If this is not that lucrative what would be the level at which you would feel uncomfortable? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

It's self evident what the problem is. Cullen isn't earning $60 an hour as a plumber or an accountant or a web designer. He is earning it as a Wikipedia consultant. And he is doing so in complete secrecy. He answers to nobody but himself. It is debatable whether even his clients have recourse. The comparison to plumbers, accountants and web designers is deeply insulting to those who have done what needs to be done in their respective industries to earn thet kind of money. And that always includes being transparent to somebody other than the client. There is no Wikipedia regulator or trade body. There is no rate card or accreditation scheme for Wikipedia consulting. It's also deeply insulting to all members of the Wikipedia movement, who pride themselves in not being part of a business, even though they are now unwittingly all part of an umbrella organization for authorizing and facilitating entirely unaccountable freelance consultants it seems. Edson Makatar (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

$60/hr is low for a business consultant. Honestly, if you can't get someone to pay you $60/hr for advice, your advice isn't worth paying for. Nobody wants $20/hr advice. (Unless you're invoking Levivich's Price-Match Guarantee! $100/hr advice at $20/hr prices! Sign up today!) Levivich (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Cullen is not a business consultant. Cullen is earning $60 an hour to tell people things they can already get for free, because the sprint of Wikipedia is to be a non-profit encyclopedia run by volunteers in a transparent way. He has apparently twice already spent less than three hours to tell someone "in great detail" they lack Wikipedia notability, charging $150 for that service. Nobody knows what he did to earn that money. Nobody knows what contractual arrangements exist by which a dissatisfied client of his can seek recourse if they later learn how little Cullen did to earn that money, relatively to what a half way competent volunteer could or would do. Nobody knows even if Cullen has compiled with the license requirement be clear he does not represent nor is he affiliated with Wikipedia in any way, and this advice is given entirely on the basis of him being a man on the street who could very well simply be, as one person put it, looking to eat. He has no relevant qualifications or record of business that would give a client independent reassurance he is fit to provide this service, and he is keeping the details of it secret from the very people who can give that reassurance. This is why comparing him even to a lowly plumber, people he has presumably sub contracted before in his real life, is deeply insulting. If he were a business consultant he could be challenged by the entity (without which he could not earn a single dime in this fashion) to prove he really is acting in its best interest and there really is something about this service that can only be provided by him charging this fee. As a Wikipedia Administrator, a status that he has admitted gives his clients confidence he "knows what he is talking about", he has a moral obligation to explain why the addition of money to the equation means he can keep secret that which would be reviewable by anyone were he doing it as a volunteer Administrator. Inadvertently casting him as a business consultant perhaps gets to the heart of the ethical issue here. Would it surprise anyone to learn if every single one of his clients has a commercial motive for being on Wikipedia? If not, the world really does need to know if Cullen has taken it upon himself to be a proft driven broker between non-profits, and he really does need to give a better accounting of how that can possibly be ethical if he intends to shroud that activity in complete secrecy. He certainly needs to prove that this combination of secrecy and profit not only has a long history within Wikipedia, efforts to bring transparency to it have historically been met with fierce resistance. Because that is an extraordinary claim. Edson Makatar (talk) 08:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't feel insulted at all, by the way. And I have no illusions that this is other than a business. Jimbo's done quite well out of it, as have others, so I hear. Wehwalt (talk) 16:46, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

As someone who has been part of the Wikimedia movement for over 15 years, and who has invested literally thousands of hours into it over that time, the only thing about this discussion that is insulting is people being outraged on my behalf. Once you look past the hysteria you realise that this [advising people how to correctly interract with Wikipedia] will benefit Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@Edson Makatar I find it offensive that you proclaim to speak for all Wikipedians. I've blocked literally thousands of people who have tried to use Wikipedia to promote their business so I can tell you two things: first, you're focusing on a moral panic about admins advising clients instead of the real problems that those admins are busy trying to address at the coalface; and second, no matter what rules we put in place, there will always be a market for these kinds of services, much the same way as there will always be a market for cocaine, regardless of the law. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

What does any of that have to do with the inherent problem with someone earning $60 an hour for a service nobody can review but which is intrinsically linked to a non-profit movement built on transparency and volunteerism? Edson Makatar (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

What inherent problem? Stating that something is an inherent problem doesn't make it so. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Your manner of debate is an example of the problem. How many opportunities have you had now to show you can actually address the points raise by me, and you have seeminy deliberately ignored them. Yet you can go out tomorrow and advertise your services as an ethical Wikipedia consultant, because you too are an Administrator. How does that not inherently damage the reputation of Wikipedia? People like you charging $60 am hour to waste everyone else's time having to deal with celebrities and companies who learnt from you that the best way to deal with criticism is to deflect. Edson Makatar (talk) 13:31, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what kind of oversight or recourse one might expect should Wikipedia consulting be appropriately regulated. The hypothetical client, if anything egregious should occur, has (I assume) the option of mailing paid-en-wp or going to COIN or one of the administrator's noticeboards. If this is made clear, would this be sufficient oversight? Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

It is correctly written "advising people how to correctly interract with Wikipedia for money and in complete secrecy". Those last six words are the issue. As is the fact it also involves using Administrator status as a USP in that endeavor. Edson Makatar (talk) 09:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

RfA scenarios

Seraphimblade raised a question in their support !vote above that I think is interesting. They said If someone announced during their RfA that they intend to do this type of thing, would that RfA stand any reasonable chance to pass? I'm pretty certain the answer is "no", and so that indicates this is not a practice the community really wants to see admins engaging in. Given that RfAs require at least two-thirds majorities to pass, they may well be right. What if (as I expect will start to happen) someone were to pose a question at RfA of "Are you willing to commit never to work as a paid advisor to clients who want to be advised about Wikipedia?" and the candidate answered "I do not wish to answer this as it relates to off-wiki behaviour, and so is an inappropriate question". If I were to run for RfA I would be tempted to answer that way regardless of whether I would be willing to make that commitment. Is there precedent for RfA questions about off-wiki behaviour? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

To answer your question, I looked at the last four RfAs on the list: Hey man im josh, theleekycauldron, Pppery, and Firefangledfeathers. All four of them made a statement that they had never edited for pay in their nomination acceptance. So it seems to be a de facto expectation that not only will candidates discuss such off-wiki behavior, they will do so without needing even to be asked. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

They made those statements because they're required to. —Cryptic 22:16, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Are they? The only requirement I can see on that page is Administrator tools may not be used as part of any paid editing activity, except as a Wikipedian-in-Residence, or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF. That clearly can't be anything a candidate at RfA would need to comment on except to commit to as they don't yet have the tools. Declaring that they have never edited for pay is not the same as declaring they never will (presumably not using the tools, if they did so). In any case editing for pay is on-wiki behaviour. I'm trying to ask about questions at RfA relating to off-wiki behaviour. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Paragraph two of #Becoming an administrator. Candidates are also required to disclose whether they have ever edited Wikipedia for pay. —Cryptic 22:27, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

There's a big difference between "I have never edited for pay" and "I will never advise anyone about Wikipedia for pay". The first is a reasonable requirement for admins (and, in my dreams, all editors). The second is a much higher bar: why shouldn't any editor, even an admin, write and sell a How to Edit Wikipedia book or give paid seminars on the topic? I admit that the sequel How to Make your Promotional Edits Stick Without Getting Blocked is more of a grey area. Certes (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Neither of those scenarios (publishing a how-to book or giving general seminars) are covered by this proposal, are they? Espresso Addict (talk) 23:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

That depends how you interpret terms like "paid", "soliciting", "Wikipedia-related", "consulting", "advising" and "services". Giving a general seminar in exchange for a free lunch is definitely not covered by the spirit the proposer intended (as indicated by their support comment it's intended to cover only secenarios where an admin puts up a website to find clients or goes onto upwork, or the like., but it's very clear that views about what the spirit of the proposal is and/or should be cover a very wide range. By the letter of the proposal, if you advertise that you are available to give general seminars (for any non-zero fee) then this proposal would (I believe) require you to disclose. If you write either of those books and make it available for free then this proposal does not cover you. If you do charge for and advertise either book, then the proposal would probably require you to disclose, although I'm not sure who the client would be in this scenario (maybe the publisher if you solicit money from them?) unless you want to argue that selling a book is not service (but that feels wikilawyery to me). If you write the book, charge people for a copy, but do not advertise it's available then it's anybody's guess whether this proposal would cover you. Thryduulf (talk) 23:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I think the primary concern here is personalized advice to individual clients (whether people or organizations) in exchange for a fee, and actively soliciting such business. So, if you advertise your services, and Acme Corp. hires you to be their in-house advisor, that's covered here. If you write a book, or give a seminar, or write a blog and make a few bucks on ads from it, or anything else involving giving general advice to the public, that's not a problem and not what this is intended to address. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:38, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree giving general advice to the public is not what Barkeep intended this to address when making the proposal however the proposal as worded does not restrict it to that intent, and I am absolutely certain that there are multiple different views about what it does and should cover (both in letter and in spirit). Thryduulf (talk) 00:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

In terms of the spirit of wikipedia nobody has yet explained why these wannabe consultants aren't just putting in shifts at the help desk or other public forums. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, I am the administrator in question, and I have been heavily involved with the Help Desk and the Teahouse for many years, and remain heavily involved. I have 10,355 edits to the Teahouse and 1055 edits to the Help Desk and my participation is unabated. My volunteer time is different from my work time. I edit Wikipedia mostly from my living room with my smartphone. I make money in my home office using a desktop computer. My paid Wikipedia consulting and training work has taken me less than 20 hours in the last 11 months. Cullen328 (talk) 03:33, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

So its substantially different because it happens on a different device in a different room of your house? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I have been self-employed for 30 years, Horse Eye's Back, and to me, my paid work is very different from my hobbies and my social life. Not just two devices, but two bank accounts, two email addresses, separate financial records, and so on. I have worked from a home office ever since 1993. Cullen328 (talk) 23:19, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

And if you had not spent those 20 hours doing wikipedia related work what room would you have been in? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, I will decline to answer a question that is, in my view, ludicrous, intrusive and unknowable. Cullen328 (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back I endorse Cullen's characterisation of that question and also add "irrelevant" to the list. Thryduulf (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

And no one's saying you shouldn't be permitted to do that, even. There's no proposal here to outright bar it. The only requirement would be that, as with all WP:PAID type activity, you say who is paying. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Because they want pay to benefit (or in the words of contract provide consideration) to those who can and will pay --- which, unless it is a fraud, has to be a benefit/consideration those who can't or don't pay, don't get. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Who says they aren't? Even if they don't, if they spend their volunteer time improving the encyclopaedia in other ways how is that not within the spirit of Wikipedia? If someone feels they are a better educator in person than online then why should we force them to do something they are bad at before they're allowed to do something they're good at? Thryduulf (talk) 00:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Its not possible to be two places at once, if they're helping people off wiki they aren't on wiki helping people. Making money off of wikipedia (especially making a living) outside of the organization is against the spirit of wikipedia (as it is with nearly any charity), we're all supposed to be self-supporting and thats one of the project's greatest strengths. Its supposed to be a charitable pursuit, not a job. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Making money off of wikipedia (especially making a living) outside of the organization is against the spirit of wikipedia (as it is with nearly any charity) By that argument everybody employed by the WMF or a chapter is making a living that is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia, and everybody employed by a charity (in any capacity) is doing so against the spirit of that charity.

Its not possible to be two places at once, if they're helping people off wiki they aren't on wiki helping people. they are not doing so simultaneously, but that still does not mean they are not doing both. Thryduulf (talk) 01:22, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Both of those examples are of someone making money inside of the organization. I said outside of the organization. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Sensible charity's don't allow people placed in central positions in the organization, to potentially work either in a way that brings them into disrepute or could cause internal conflict, not without disclosure. And, hello, all WMF personal are publicly disclosed on the pedia, everyone knows what the relationships are, and it is no secret they own the site. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that non-personalised instruction for a general audience, whether in the form of a book or a seminar, is a different kettle of fish, even if remunerated. In particular, it doesn't seem to generate any obvious conflict of interest. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

According to other comments in this discussion, anything involving money in any way automatically and inescapably generates the strongest possible COI. You and they cannot both be right, but the wording of the proposal gives no firm guidance as to which it is. Thryduulf (talk) 00:18, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

But COI for what??? Espresso Addict (talk) 00:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

You will have to ask the people making that argument that question. I don't understand how simply teaching someone how to properly engage with Wikipedia automatically gives the teacher COI with regards the articles the student is (or might be) interested in editing (whether they actually edit them or not), yet multiple people are arguing that it is vital we know the clients so we can check both parties are not engaging in paid editing. Thryduulf (talk) 00:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

The public presentation is public, so obviously even were there a paymaster, such info need not be kept secret. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

• No they would never pass adminship, because they are most defiantly not trusted for that. And the actual question might be more like, 'If during your adminship you consult about Wikipedia for pay, would you publicly disclose the identity of who is paying you or share that information with the rest of Wikipedia, like in PAID?' (Also, if someone is publishing a book, whether someone want's to call that consulting (which seems nonsensical) or not, they do it in public.). Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

This RFC is to determine whether or not we want the "disclosure of the client's name" requirement. (which I opposed as being a partial self-outing requirement) I think that the three possible answers are: Consensus to do that, no consensus to do that, and a consensus against doing that (e.g. to explicitly reject that idea). The result of the RFC (which we do not yet have) would substantially affect the topic of this conversation. This might be useful discussion regarding the rfc, but it's hard to hypothesize the results of a "what if" when there will be impactful news affecting it in 1-2 weeks.

BTW, it's been said that "The promises that are most carefully made are the ones that are the least likely to be broken." For such a broad/vague eternal promise, I would tend to trust the thoughtful person more who didn't just jump in with a simple "yes" to the question as written. North8000 (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Is it ethical to personally profit from Wikipedia in ways that your fellow Wikipedians cannot review? Framing the question that way is how to get to the heart of the matter. Edson Makatar (talk) 14:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia's license explicitly permits anybody to profit from Wikipedia, including in ways that Wikipedians cannot review. Thryduulf (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Any Wikipedia editor can review the way a commercial re-user of Wikipedia content uses their work. Specifically, they can check whether the use falls with the spirit of Wikipedia as embodied by that license. Namely that Wikipedia content is free to distribute and the people who made it retain their copyright no matter how many times it is repackaged for whatever purpose. A small thing perhaps, but an important thing to anyone who donates their time and effort for free. Nobody can review how Cullen uses his Wikipedia knowledge for personal profit. Up to and including whether or not he distributes training materials derived from Wikipedia content without fulfilling the license conditions. Perhaps he does. Nobody can know (unless they pay him I suppose). Needless to say, charging a fee for such a review is unambiguously against the license conditions (yet another reminder of how people can use this simple question to determine whether someone is operating within the spirit of Wikipedia or not). Hopefully Cullen is getting some idea of all the things he could have done and could still do to reassure people his ethical consulting is actually ethical in the Wikipedia sense. It's a shame he didn't think to do so before he did it. But as we have seen, somehow he got the idea that combining secrecy with personal profit is within that spirit. I really doubt he came to that conclusion by thinking about the Wikipedia content license. Edson Makatar (talk) 19:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Any Wikipedia editor can review the way a commercial re-user of Wikipedia content uses their work. really? It is an awful lot of effort to check whether anyone who ever sells copies of books containing my articles or who reposts my articles on other websites is complying with the letter of our CC license. There is no way I can check Wikipedia reusers who print one of my articles on a T-Shirt and sell it for hundreds of dollars on their personal yacht. Yet that is allowed by the license, as long as credit is given and further use of the content is not restricted, and Wikipedia authors can check neither. Why would you expect Cullen of all people to violate the license when there is absolutely no advantage for him to do so? Or do you not understand what license Wikipedia is under? —Kusma (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Any Wikipedia editor can check whether a T shirt with a Wikipedia article on it is complying with the license conditions. Any Wikipedia editor can determine if your rights have been infringed and alert you. This is transparency. This is review. Difficulty is irrelevant. It would be difficult to review whether Cullen has given anyone poor advice, or if that advice had been tainted by his personal views. Currently, it is impossible. This would be possible for any assitance he provides a volunteer Administrator. Edson Makatar (talk) 19:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

This would be possible for any assitance he provides a volunteer Administrator. That's yet another factual error. Not all advice is given on-wiki, much is given every day in person, via email, on social media, etc. formally and informally, and most of this cannot be verified. Separately, knowing which clients have been advised will not enable anybody to review whether Cullen has given anyone poor advice, or if that advice had been tainted by his personal views.. In some cases it will lead to edits by the client being able to be identified, but there is absolutely no way for anybody (even Cullen in at least some cases) to know whether the advice given was followed. For example, if the client is User:MegaCorp_PR_Supremo, and after getting advice they create a non-neutral article about MegaCorp, we have no way of knowing whether Cullen had told them this was permissible or impermissible. Thryduulf (talk) 20:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

If Cullen is giving advice as a Wikipedia Administrator in a way that nobody can subsequently review, that is clearly a problem. Nothing is impossible if he keeps the proper records. Edson Makatar (talk) 21:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Please can you give an example of the sort of records you think should be being kept so I can better understand what you mean by this comment. Thryduulf (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Any Wikipedia editor can review the way a commercial re-user of Wikipedia content uses their work. only if it is publicly available where they are and contains no elements that are available under a more restrictive license (e.g. Wikipedia is not required to share the media it includes under fair use principals)

Specifically, they can check whether the use falls with the spirit of Wikipedia as embodied by that license. What matters is the letter of the cc-by-sa license, not the spirit of Wikipedia (these are not the same thing).

Namely that Wikipedia content is free to distribute and the people who made it retain their copyright no matter how many times it is repackaged for whatever purpose. Sort of. "You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if any changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your contributions under the same license as the original." there is no requirement that it is Free (gratis).

Nobody can review how Cullen uses his Wikipedia knowledge for personal profit. Up to and including whether or not he distributes training materials derived from Wikipedia content without fulfilling the license conditions. Nobody can review how anybody uses their Wikipedia knowledge, whether for personal profit or otherwise. I don't even know how you would go about doing so. Whether someone charges for advice is completely independent of whether they fulfil the licensing conditions, and they are neither more nor less likely to do so.

Needless to say, charging a fee for such a review is unambiguously against the license condition No it isn't, read the license.

It's a shame he didn't think to [reassure people his consulting was ethical] before he did it Except he explicitly did seek that feedback, and the feedback he got indicated that nobody had any issues with it.

somehow he got the idea that combining secrecy with personal profit is within that spirit. [citation needed]

I really doubt he came to that conclusion by thinking about the Wikipedia content license. unless you have evidence to the contrary, nothing Cullen is doing is in any way contrary to the license. Thryduulf (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Cullen said on this very page that he believes what he is doing is within the spirit of Wikipedia. He is charging for advice and is doing so in confidence. Nobody can review anything he does, and I thank you for reminding everyone that one of the things people might want to review is whether he is complying with the license conditions of making it clear that Wikipedia does not endorse him or his use of Wikipedia materials (just another aspect of this tangled web of conflicts that makes it pretty clear the stakes are potentially very high if Cullen isn't meticulous in his activites). Which is itself a perfect opportunity to remind everyone that in every single case where someone is being officially endorsed as a Wikipedia trainer, transparency is a given. You can determine who, where, when, what and even how much. The spirit of Wikipedia writ large. Cullen frankly needs to think long and hard about why every single one of his clients apparently insisted on anonymity before engaging his services, and whether it is tenable in the slightest to say this is within the spirit of Wikipedia. Edson Makatar (talk) 20:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I never said that all of my clients insisted on anonymity. What I said is that none of my clients consented to their personally identifying information being disclosed on Wikipedia for training and consulting services conducted off-Wikipedia. To be frank, the subject never came up until this thread began. I have been professionally involved in the construction industry for 40 years, and self employed for 30 years. The only times that I ever revealed the names of clients was when they were so pleased with my work that they told me in writing that they would recommend me to potential customers. If you contact a plumbing contractor or an accountant or a physical therapist and ask them for a list of all their clients in the last year, you will be told "no", either politely or not so politely. As for hourly rates, in my business unrelated to Wikipedia, I charged $100 per hour and then $120 per hour for many years and raised that to $150 per hour early in the pandemic. At age 71, I no longer work on construction jobsites, but I charge $150 per hour for my son's time, who works for me four days a week and teaches one day a week, and people all over Northern California have been willing to pay that type of rates for our expertise all these years. Frankly, this discussion should not be about rates in a market economy. The issue here is whether mandatory on-Wikipedia disclosure of off-Wikipedia clients should be required. Cullen328 (talk) 18:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, it would probably have been better to start an RfC with the question Should those consultants advertising their admin status for paid work be required to go through RfA again in order to see if they have the community's approval for such a practice? That would have perhaps been more likely to reach consensus one way or another, because there wouldn't have been privacy issues allowing the fundamental issue to be dodged. Oh well, hindsight is 20-20. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 18:35, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what this "fundamental issue" some people seem to have with this is? An administrator, who has been judged trustworthy, is using the knowledge they've gained to provide a service that (a) people want and (b) benefits the project. Why would we not want that? Thryduulf (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

By the current tally 44-39 of this non-consensus RfC, I'm not sure it would make it to a crat-chat, but there's no point comparing peaches to nectarines. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 18:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that the proposed question is fundamental. If the work were unethical, then disclosure of specific clients would not change that. And since such a disclosure is tantamount to outing, we're talking about violating something that is strongly, high-priority prohibited by Wikipedia and which would do a lot of damage to both the admin and the ability to obtain/keep high quality admins to solve something that IMHO not a problem. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

There is nothing in the skyish blue question above requiring a recalled admin to reveal any personal details in their reconfirmation RfA. They need only ask the community (canvassed on watchlists -- as with all RfAs) if it has at least 65% confidence in their ability to juggle paid advising with moderation given that they state that their honor is their fundamental motivation. (Other admins may approach convincing people of their good egginess using other terms.) It's not a complicated proposal, and privacy/outing does not enter into it at all because nothing requires anyone to advertise online under their given name before such reconfirmation. Granted, the more secretive types might have to create a shell company, but that's apparently not too hard to do. Moreover, I'm not sure that privacy/outing concerns really are an issue for the admin in question here and now as they have had their name on their userpage for years. Only by requiring disclosure of clients does privacy become a distraction to the basic question of community approval (or lack thereof) for the mod's practice. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 19:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

I have never expressed any privacy concerns about myself in this particular discussion although the occasional waves of targeted harassment and threats against me and my family are certainly irritating and sometimes deeply worrying. Trust and Safety has the records. To date, this conversation has resulted in none of that. My privacy concerns are for my past clients. None of them agreed to be subjected to the heightened scrutiny of the baying hounds of Wikipedia. They are not foxes. They are human beings who do not deserve to be harassed, and disclosing their personally identifying information would surely subject them to intrusion and abuse. Cullen328 (talk) 08:29, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

A rule such as that proposed here would apply to all admins, some of whom would may privacy concerns for themselves as well as their clients. Even though they would be able to make a choice, choosing between privacy and advising people how to properly engage with Wikipedia is not a choice one should have to make as there is no reason for them to be mutually exclusive. There is definitely no justification for requiring clients to give up their privacy in return for being allowed to pay someone to advise them how to ethically contribute to a project whose ethics include a very strong regard for personal privacy. Thryduulf (talk) 08:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be responding to a different proposal. As worded, the skyish blue question above does not require the admin to reveal any personal details, nor does it require them to disclose the name of their advising company, even after they get the requisite approval through their reconfirmation RfA. In my opinion, Cullen could set an honorable example/precedent by agreeing to seek community approval to advertise his adminship. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 15:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I was confused by the mixing in of other comments regarding the original proposal (a separate section header may have made things clearer). I still don't get what benefit there would be to the admin, the community or anybody else from requiring a reconfirmation RFA (which have generally not gone down well as concept, although I personally have no issues with them). If we trust admins to be admins why would we not trust them to advise ethically? If we don't trust them to advise ethically, why have we not sought their desysopping? Why do we automatically trust non-admins (whose trustworthiness has not been formally vetted) but not admins? Thryduulf (talk) 15:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

We don't trust admins with what they do with money or how it affects them. Adminship is unpaid. And that anyone on Wikipedia would suggest we assume Wikipedian's vouch for admin's money handling and ethics with money involved is an absurdity. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

On what basis then would you evaluate someone's trustworthiness with regards to money and how it affects them? Thryduulf (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

With money? It's always done by disclosure. Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Well first off if they didn't feel like they needed to disclose that would be a massive red flag when it comes to someone's trustworthiness with regards to money. That would suggest that they don't trust themselves or their activities. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Cullen has disclosed substantial information, which just goes to show that disclosure is compatible with advising and the ethical thing to do. The real difference is not disclosure, it is what to disclose (and in no system does it make sense to leave that solely up to the admins decision). Disclosure rules seek to manage ethical and potentially ethical issues -- the identity of the payor rule is simple, it is already done in multiple situations on the Pedia (eg PAID, WMF employees, teachers, affiliates, WIR's, etc) and it allows others know who is paying admins to effect or potentially effect Wikipedia, to do what Wikipedia always wants to do transparently manage itself, and transparently let the world know how it is done (and the admin consultant can easily tell any potential client the payor will be disclosed.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The proposal being discussed appears to explicitly exclude disclosure of past clients: "This expectation will only apply to administrators after the passage of the RfC." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

• Noting that I've listed this discussion at WP:ANRFC. There has only been one !vote in the last week and the last comment was nearly 2 weeks ago, but with circa 50k words (including 90 numbered !votes) to read I don't expect it to be closed quickly. Thryduulf (talk) 01:51, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Historical aside

In 2008, John Broughton was paid by O'Reilly for an entire book, Wikipedia - The Missing Manual advising people how to edit Wikipedia. It's interesting to think how the standards propounded by some above would have affected the notion of giving an entire book-full of advice for payment to people. Uncle G (talk) 10:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how anything here would affect that. The author's name literally appeared on the book; I don't think anyone could claim Broughton failed to disclose what he was doing! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

That would depend on what was disclosed on wiki. The only way to comply with some of the proposals here would be for the author to regard themselves as having a conflict of interest regarding anyone who read the book and any topic those readers edited and/or had a conflict of interest regarding. Thryduulf (talk) 12:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

That doesn't appear to be a good faith reading of any of the proposals here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Another 2008 book, How Wikipedia Works, was written (for pay, I assume) by three Wikipedia editors,one whom (Phoebe), became a member of the WMF Board of Trustees in 2010. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 04:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

For my book I didn't get a commission or the like but I did get royalties (which were rather small indeed) but yes, I got some money for writing and selling HWW. Jumping in without following the thread of whatever has been talked about above, but perhaps worse yet: I've spent plenty of time talking about Wikipedia at my day job, which is in a library, where the work we do is quite close and relevant to the work we do on wiki. Did that experience make me a better board member, as someone able to bring knowledge of how cultural professionals and the GLAM sector thinks about working with Wikipedia? It did indeed, I would argue. I have always edited under my real name, with my real affiliation posted; professional as well as personal ties to Wikipedia are not always detrimental to productive contributing. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 19:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think any reasonable person would call talking about Wikipedia at your day job "paid consulting or advising services". This is a very specific proposal to require disclosure for (i.e. not forbid) for a specific type of paid work. It's not going to affect people like you (and me) who engage with Wikipedia in good faith in a professional context, just like our existing paid editing requirements don't. – Joe (talk) 09:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

And yet, there are many unreasonable people in the world; and I think there will be many questions and challenges, both from editors on a hunt for issues and from good-faith GLAM contributors who want to follow the increasingly-arcane rules. I think that folks will see this as yet another barrier to contributing. -- phoebe / (talk to me) 15:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Arcane rules? What? We have had COI and potential COI disclosures for a very long time (PAID is more recent but we had disclosure in COI long before that). Also, academics and indeed anyone who writes, knows of COI disclosure rules. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Come off it, in what world would requiring disclosure for soliciting clients for paid Wikipedia-related consulting or advising services apply to someone writing a book about Wikipedia? You can just oppose the proposal if you don't like it, there's no need for these absurd hypotheticals. – Joe (talk) 20:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

A world that multiple people who have commented in favour of this proposal explicitly wish to see. Thryduulf (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

No they have not. In no world is private paid consulting remotely the same as publishing a book. They are two well known and very different activities, that are easy to distinguish for anyone who is honest. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

It's the same every time we talk about COI editing. Should we try and stop government officials taking bribes? No, because my great uncle's wife's brother works for the tax office and sometimes sells hand-carved miniature kittens on the side – where's the harm in that? – Joe (talk) 08:31, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

It is a completely different situation. You don't have a COI regarding everyone who purchased a book., You do have a COI with someone who has specifically employed you, as an individual, to provide advice to them about their actions on WP. - Bilby (talk) 04:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Register of ethical Wikipedia consultants

If ethical Wikipedia consultants are going to be allowed to operate in complete secrecy, with the only safeguard being whether or not they are a trusted member of Wikipedia, it is perhaps worthwhile starting a register to identify all those people who currently possess that trust. There are presumably very experienced editors who are not Administrators who deserve the same opportunity to monetize their Wikipedia expertise as Cullen. There are also presumably some Administrators who are for whatever reason not likely to be endorsed by the community as an ethical consultant. Rather obviously, this register would be entirely unenforceable and carry no legal standing where that might be relevant (not the U.S. I gather). Anyone can call themselves an ethical Wikipedia consultant if they think that will be profitable for them. But by having a register, potential clients seeking consultancy services can at least know who is trusted by the community to perform that role. Edson Makatar (talk) 20:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

As previously mentioned, there is a list of paid editors at Wikipedia:WikiProject Integrity/Editor Registry, but it is updated very infrequently. isaacl (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Given the above discussion, I doubt such a register would attract the necessary consensus and buy-in from the community to be effective. And then it would require a structure to be formed, when the community has generally shot down new structures with real or apparent authority. All this over one admin earning a few hundred bucks with a side hustle for which the market seems to be very limited indeed. Wehwalt (talk) 06:33, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

• There is a register at WP:PAIDLIST. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Closing (Admins and being paid to advise on editing)

I am willing to close this, but I made three comments much earlier in the discussion. If anyone believes that makes me too involved to judge consensus here I'll leave it for someone else. I'll leave this here for a while before I act one way or another. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

• No reflection on you, ScottishFinnishRadish, but this seems like a topic where we should seek a non-admin experienced in closes. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

  No worries. Glad to let someone else handle the 2.5 tomats discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

  I have no preference for an admin or non-admin, but agree that this is not one for an inexperienced closer. I would strongly encourage whoever does close this to leave a detailed closing summary to reduce the likelihood of challenge to the closure. Thryduulf (talk) 09:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

  Agree with Thryduulf. And emphasize that this is important.North8000 (talk) 12:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I am a wholly uninvolved non-admin. I have had some experience in non-admin closing, but am not highly experienced. I have drafted a 350-word closing summary and would be happy to implement it: there is always the revert button if I mess up. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Robert McClenon is probably one of the most experienced non-administrators who is uninvolved; if he's up for it, I'd ask him. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this needs a non-admin, and don't love the idea of naming a specific person to ask to close something. Sounds like Steelpillow has already offered and should really just go for it if they think they have a good close. If not, someone else should just do it rather than ask first. Can always add the closing template while you work on the statement, which gives people a chance to object if there's going to be an objection. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

To say a non-admin must closed seems to me is to say that all admins are ex officio involved which is arguable. Let anyone close. Wehwalt (talk) 14:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

reverted closure

There is consensus that the policy on WP:COI should be widened to include off-wiki paid advising for promotional purposes, but litle else. The OP asked about admins in particular, and whether they should be distinguished from ordinary editors when it come to off-wiki paid advising and is "pretty troubled by this all the same in the way I wouldn't be with a non-admin". The key question is whether paid advising is consistent with adminship. The grey area between paid advising and offering one's thoughts freely was noted. For example being paid to go to a conference. On the other hand, more direct payment for advising to a given end certainly raises a COI. The notion of promotional activity (on behalf of the third party) as a motivation featured strongly in this distinction. The main discussion shows a clear consensus that anybody, be they admin or not, should declare a COI where paid advising off-wiki, for promotional purposes, relates to their activity here. There is less agreement on non-promotional purposes. Suggestions were made for updating various policy pages accordingly, WP:COI, WP:ADMINACCT, WP:TOOLMISUSE, but with no clear agreement on any proposal. RfC: Required disclosure for admin paid advising, proposing a change to WP:PAID, is embedded in this discussion. Opinion is split. Arguments against hinge around excessive interference and being a solution in search of a problem. The ensuing discussion suggested various changes to the proposed wording, and had this been agreed one might have expected greater endorsement. However the mandate for clarifying the issue over COI declaration is clear. I would therefore close this discussion with three findings: There is no consensus to ban admins from off-wiki paid advising, as such. There is a consensus to tighten up our policy on paid advising for promotional purposes, in particular to declare a COI. RfC: Required disclosure for admin paid advising has no consensus for change. My suggestion is to expand WP:COI to cover all activities, be they editing or advising or whatever. A new discussion/RfC should be started to agree the wording. Other RfCs may then fall out for other pages, such as WP:PAID. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC) }}

Since I was pinged and possibly requested to close this, I will note that I think that I concur with the close by User:Steelpillow and thank them for the work, and relieving me of the work. I think that I concur because I wasn't active and haven't reviewed the thread in detail. I thank User:AirshipJungleman29 for the nomination. I will add that, in my opinion, paid advising is not very different from paid editing, and both may be corrupting. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, it's been reopened, so do you think you could close it? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

There is a follow-up discussion about my closure on my user talk page. Constructive criticisms/comments are welcome. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:34, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

There is also now a closing challenge at ANI. Not sure why the OP didn't post a link here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 21:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Just hadn't done it yet. Thanks. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:19, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Close reverted, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1185724050#Close_challenge:_Required_disclosure_for_admin_paid_advising. I am not going to attempt a reclose myself. Fences&Windows 16:55, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

We should determine who is going to close this. I had offered, but it would take me a few days to read it all. If someone else is going to close it anyway I don't want to waste the time. Same if people would oppose me attempting to close this. Or if there's someone with more experience who wants to do it. Spoiler: my close wouldn't include any policy changes. That I can say before even reading it all, for any policy change a new and narrow RfC should be created. No attempt should be made to extract community consensus from a broad novel-length discussion. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

How about a three-member closing panel with both uninvolved admins and non-admins? BD2412 T 21:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

BD2412, I'd suggest at least half of the panel (however many members it ends up having) should consist of non-admins. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 21:37, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I am wary that if you make the close complicated or involve many people in it, there will be the temptation to make of the close more than it should be, a proposal that did not gain consensus by a very comfortable margin. Wehwalt (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

+1, I haven't fully read through this discussion but if there's clearly no consensus for anything there's no reason to invent a consensus, or to put the effort into making a close that says more than it needs to. Just have one person close it as no consensus and we can be done with this. Galobtter (talk) 23:08, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd only summarize the discussion if I'm asked to close it. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 23:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with uninvolved admins participating, as a minority or a majority. I generally presume any editor who is engaging in non-admin closures of discussions as a potential admin anyway. There's no policing that. BD2412 T 21:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree with mandating that multiple persons be involved in determining the consensus view. Of course, if the volunteers determining consensus feel more comfortable with a group of people being involved, they are welcome to choose this approach. isaacl (talk) 02:28, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not clear that there is any determination of consensus to be done. It seems to be fairly universally conceded that the outcome is "no consensus", and that really is the upshot of the AN thread as well. Let's just get on with it. Wehwalt (talk) 02:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

My apologies for being overly concise. By "determining the consensus view", I meant determining if a consensus view had been reached, and if so, what that consensus is. isaacl (talk) 04:19, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

We are probably disputing over theoreticals, but I see the outcome of no consensus as not only justified by the discussion, but dictated by the snow close of the AN thread. Accordingly, there is no determining of consensus to be done, as it has already been done by the community at AN.Wehwalt (talk) 13:33, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, this has all the hallmarks of a no consensus close including the milling crowd kicking at the dust after the action is over but the decision isn't in. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps what would be simplest is to hat the discussion with a note like "An initial closing statement was offered [here]. It was overturned by a discussion at WP:AN, found [here]. The RfC resulted in no consensus." Wehwalt (talk) 22:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Since I was again pinged by User:AirshipJungleman29. I am willing to close it, but I don't think that I will have time to read it in enough detail to close it until Saturday (New York time) or Sunday. It will be a public holiday where I am and will be on Thursday. If someone else closes it in the meantime, that will be good. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Again, can we not try to solicit specific individuals to close a contentious discussion. This is an excellent example of why it's a bad idea: AirshipJungleman29 supported the RfC and is requesting someone to close it who has already expressed support for the closure that was overwhelmingly rejected on review. Neither the request nor acceptance of such a request are things we should see as promising for a sound closure. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I concur entirely. All that is needed is for a brief finding of no consensus, possibly along the lines I outlined above. The community on review made it very clear what it expects the closing to look like. Perhaps it would not be unreasonable to ask any potential closer to post a draft for feedback from the community and only if there is approval close it with that language. It's unusual to do that, but this is an unusual RfC. Wehwalt (talk) 14:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Draft closure by User:NYKevin

I've skimmed much of this discussion without participating. I'm not sure I'm well enough informed to close it myself (and at least one person on AN seems to think that NAC is inappropriate for this RfC anyway), but I'm willing to write a first draft (see below). Anyone may edit this draft in-place, and I have no objection to a modified or unmodified version being used as a closure rationale. It is probably incomplete, biased, misleading, and/or otherwise wrong, so please make all necessary efforts to improve it before actually using it as a closure. To be clear: I do not intend to actually close this discussion myself, but if everybody likes this closure as-is, I have no objection to somebody just copy/pasting the closure rationale with a brief endorsement note or something like that. If you use a modified version, please ensure that the closure is signed by you and not by me. --NYKevin 17:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Draft closure

The result was no consensus. The participants have taken a wide range of positions on paid advising. At one extreme, some participants are of the opinion that some forms of paid advising should be seen as no better than paid editing, and at the other extreme, some participants have said that those very same forms of paid advising can be beneficial to the project, and they trust administrators to make the right call. From such diametrically opposed viewpoints, consensus was frankly never going to emerge. Supporters generally are concerned that entities paying for advice are hoping to influence specific articles or topic areas, and center on COI concerns in relation to that potential influence and on lack of disclosure limiting community awareness that someone might be trying to influence a particular article. Concerns from the opposers generally focus on privacy (specifically outing), that policy should not regulate actions taken away from the encyclopedia, and that proponents have failed to show that there is a problem which the proposal would solve. This is not a complete record of all arguments made in support or opposition, but merely the most oft-repeated arguments that seem best grounded in policy. A previous, now reverted closure of this RfC found a consensus to "tighten up our policy on paid advising for promotional purposes," and suggested making edits to WP:COI to reflect that purported consensus. AN overturned this part of the closure, because it was not properly discussed in the RfC, nor did participants in the AN discussion see such consensus, regardless of whether the matter was among those being considered by the community in this RfC. Nevertheless, there may be sentiment in the community for a review or extension of conflict of interest principles, and such might be the subject of a future RfC. Such an RfC, if opened, would need to explicitly describe the wording in WP:COI that is to be changed, and the justification for the change. Other than that, it is difficult to suggest how we move forward from here. In my judgment, the changes most likely to make this acceptable to a significant number of opposers (e.g. dropping the requirement to identify clients, narrowing the policy to "promotional purposes" as described above, etc.) are also likely to alienate many supporters as not going far enough. It may also be the case that the strong views expressed on each side will make a compromise infeasible.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.