Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

Directly editing article

What should be done when a known COI editor is directly editing the article? This page does not make it clear what should be done if anything. Are COI editors allowed to directly edit an article but are only strongly discouraged from directly an article? QuackGuru (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

If their edits appear to be pushing a point of view or promoting something, then revert and warn. If they continue to do it, report it ANI for a block. If they start talking to you, then describe the appropriate steps to take for them to contribute to the article.--v/r - TP 23:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Curious if we need a WP:AIS for admin intervention for spam. Or change AIV to cover both topics.--v/r - TP 23:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I think this page needs to be more clear on this before any steps are taken. The editor was warned to stop editing the topic area because he was pushing a point of view. QuackGuru (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The COI Noticeboard is another place you may want to try. Coretheapple (talk) 19:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

They were reported to the COI Noticeboard and later warned to not edit the articles directly. QuackGuru (talk) 22:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

That's really all one can do is ask them to not edit the article directly, as it is not prohibited. Usually there are other issues raised in COI editing that involve policy. This is just a guideline. If an editor is aggressive in pushing a POV or being a pest they can be topic banned. That came up a while back with one COI editor, but there was no follow-through and the situation petered out. Coretheapple (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

(@TParis: Note that AIV covers most cases of spam.)

Editing against a coi isn't a blockable offense in itself if no policies/guidelines are clearly being violated. In most cases, COI violations are an exacerbating factor to existing content and behavioral problems. --Ronz (talk) 23:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

COI editing and advocacy editing has been a problem on a topic for over two years. Admins know about it and continue to support it. The next step for this page is a section titled "Admin support". Admins who protect COI editors who violate policy can be blocked. Thoughts? QuackGuru (talk) 19:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I fail to see how admins may exercise their admin power to "protect" something except a page. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Since this is a guideline, one that in the past has been flouted by admins, I doubt very much that what QuakGuru is suggesting would be very effective. Also he's talking about admin conduct more than COI. Coretheapple (talk) 21:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Yep. I am discussing admin conduct. Where is the page to include remedies for admin action against admins who are protecting COI editors and advocates who replace sourced text with original research and delete MEDRS compliant sources without any rationale explanation? QuackGuru (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I guess WP:ADMIN. Coretheapple (talk) 13:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Writing about yourself

One area in which I actually would concur with some of the previous comments, concerning excessively harsh tone, relates to a narrow but important issue. At COI/N there was recently a posting complaining that an SPA, apparently aided by socks, was making vandalism-type edits removing sourced info from a BLP. This was obviously the subject. As I examined the edits in question, I found that actually the SPA and his socks were right. The article had serious BLP issues. I certainly would have no objection to adding a few sentences to address this particular situation and show greater sympathy to subjects who are getting slammed. The subject in question had obviously not a clue as to how to deal with such a situation. The current wording is correct, and helpful, but I think it can be tweaked.

However, I do believe that this is not a common situation, in fact the first that I have ever encountered. Far more frequently what you see are subjects writing autobiographies, not defending themselves. Coretheapple (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I added a couple of sentences to make the section a bit more sympathetic and informative, but I don't feel that strongly about it, so feel free to revert. Coretheapple (talk) 15:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

IMO your addition is a wee too verbose. Just refer to WP:BLP for the rules about negative information. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not really clear on how you've made the section sympathetic: your sentences seem to reinforce the type of content that must not be removed by the article's subject or associates. (I guess the question is sympathetic for whom?) Regarding the use case you described, by definition, such changes are not vandalism-type edits. To detect this, though, the editor checking the edit must do a more in-depth investigation. isaacl (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm really not in love with what I added, so feel free to remove. My aim was to simply provide more positive and sympathetic guidance in that kind of situation. Coretheapple (talk) 19:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

If you mean sympathetic towards editors removing the incorrect information, then I don't think it will make them feel better to know that properly sourced negative information is appropriate content, which is kind of the opposite of what they are removing. I will revert the changes, pending a better understanding of what message you want to send. isaacl (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

That's fine. I'm just thinking that it might be a good idea to make that particular section less brisk in tone. Here is my thinking: ordinarily COI is self-aggrandizement. That's the vast majority of COI situations that we find. People write articles about themselves or someone who pays them. The aim is to advance their interests in a very particular way, through puffery or by putting themselves before the public with a "prestigious" Wikipedia article. Even a neutral Wikipedia article on a mediocre little company can elevate it above its peers.

We also have situations in which a BLP is negative, quite justly, and the subject or his rep strive to take out material that belongs there. That's just a mirror image of the first scenario.

Then we have a third scenario, in which the COI is a correct and justified reaction to BLP violations. That is what I was hoping to address. It just occurs to me that here we have a situation in which, yes, SPAs and IPs have an agenda, but their agenda is not self-promotion but justified self-defense. I was thinking we might want to tweak the guideline to make it a bit less terse in such situations. Coretheapple (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Your addition seemed to address the second scenario, though, and not the third. In general, concise messages are more likely to be read and digested completely, so I see this as an advantage. I don't frequent the noticeboard for the biographies of living persons, but it seems reasonably active. I think trying to connect any well-meaning editors who are encountering difficulties with volunteers who can assist is the best way to provide guidance, so perhaps putting more emphasis on the noticeboard may be desirable? isaacl (talk) 23:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps there is some way COI editors cam run up a distress flag more noticeably on the BLP board. Perhaps even a special BLP/COI noticeboard, or section of the BLP noticeboard? Coretheapple (talk) 01:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Editors can then comb through such edit requests and separate the wheat from the chaff. The idea being to give article subjects a place to go if they have a problem, where they can get noticed. Coretheapple (talk) 01:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

RfC - Should paid editors always be obligated to have copyright permission sent to WMF?

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.

---

In December 2015, following discussion at the Talk page here about concern over the ownership of content posted anywhere in WP by paid editors, the following content change was made in this dif and then subsequently edited:

The existing language at that time:

Copyright, licensing Editors are reminded that any new text they contribute to Wikipedia is irrevocably licensed under the terms of a Creative Commons-Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 license and the GNU Free Documentation License. Any new writing, including article drafts and talk-page comments, can be freely copied, modified, deleted, reproduced, altered and quoted by third parties for commercial and non-commercial use, with the sole requirement that the work be attributed to Wikipedia contributors.

Was initially changed and then changed further, and and is currently):

Copyright of paid contributions

Further information: Work for hire

Editors are reminded that any text they contribute to Wikipedia, assuming they own the copyright, is irrevocably licensed under a Creative Commons-Attribution-Sharealike license and the GNU Free Documentation License. Content on Wikipedia, including article drafts and talk-page comments, can be freely copied and modified by third parties for commercial and non-commercial use, with the sole requirement that it be attributed to Wikipedia contributors.

Paid editors must ensure that they own the copyright of text they have been paid to add to Wikipedia. If the text is a work for hire, the copyright resides with the person or organization that paid for it ("the employer"). Otherwise the text's author is assumed to be the copyright holder. It is important not to assume that the paid editor is the author, because companies may provide paid editors with approved texts.

Paid editors, the employer, or the author should forward a release to the Wikimedia Foundation (permissions@wikimedia.org). The release must include the name(s) of the author and copyright holder, and that the copyright holder has released the text under a free licence. See WP:PERMISSION for how to do this.

The notion in the 3rd paragraph that paid editors should always -- whether they own the copyright in the proposed content or not -- forward a release to the Wikimedia Foundation, was discussed at the talk page of the Copyright policy, also in December 2015 starting the same day the content was initially added. That discussion is here.

I have proposed to combine and change the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs to read as follows:

If the copyright for a text that a paid editor wishes to add to Wikipedia is owned by someone else (such as the paid editor's employer), the paid editor is responsible for ensuring that they have the right to grant the required license for the content, or that the copyright owner has granted permission for the content to be used in Wikipedia. See WP:PERMISSION for instructions.

That version does not include the general obligation but makes it clear that paid editors, like everyone, are responsible for getting clearance to add content to WP that they don't own.

The question: Should paid editors always be obligated to have copyright permission sent to WMF for content they wish to add to WP, whether they own it or not? Jytdog (talk) 20:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC) (fixed some errors Jytdog (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

!votes

• no. Neither paid editors nor any one else has an obligation to provide permission notices for content they own. This is the same for everyone. This general obligation was rejected at the Talk page of the copyright policy linked above, but it remained in this guideline anyway. One of the issues pointed out at the Copyrights Talk page is the burden this would place on the community to manage the permissions and check them. It does this guideline and the project no good to invent obligations for paid editors. Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• No Doesn't make any sense to create this unnecessary obligation.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC))

• The current language is fine and the "question" posed in this RfC is bogus. Guidelines do not create obligations. The best practices set in this portion of the guideline are about as harmless as can be. Coretheapple (talk) 20:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC) There have been some changes in the proposed language but the essential problem remains: a "solution in search of a problem." Current language still fine. Proposed change still makes it worse. I tried to soften the language, but that's not good enough for the proposer, so this RfC appears to be nothing more than disruption. Coretheapple (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support the current language per Coretheapple. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - A solution in search of a problem. Current language is fine. Carrite (talk) 21:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• I don't get what the problem is I understood the section from Dec 2015 as, 'if you don't own the copyright, you have to provide a the licence release from the owner' (just as we do for images), and that is in fact always required (here, it was just made more explicit guidance for paid editors as they might well be in a situation where they don't own the text). -Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

discussion

The current language makes no demands on anyone. This is a guideline, setting best practices. It says so at the very top of the page. So the way this RfC is drafted, in this section header and in other ways, is just flat-out misleading. The "new" text that he talks about was established by consensus in 2015. Apparently Jytdog just got wind of it. Coretheapple (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:PAG. Policies and guidelines express the consensus of the community -- the more consensus they have, the stronger they are. Adding "rules" like this to try "regulate" paid editing weakens the guideline and turns it more into an essay. If you want to create a "Best practices" essay please feel free. Jytdog (talk) 21:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

and by the way "should" has a very clear meaning and use across all the policies and guidelines. If people consistently don't do what they should do, that is a behavioral problem that the community will end up addressing. It is not some hand-wavy thing. It creates obligations. Jytdog (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

So we have an RfC over one word that you have not previously mentioned? And by the way, please, spare us the lectures on the holiness of rules and regulations. If you had only one indefinite block over the past two years I might be able to stomach it, but you've had two. Coretheapple (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

It is what i have been talking about this whole time. Jytdog (talk) 21:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

If your objective was to change one word, then you should have simply come to the talk page and raised that issue. You might have actually gotten somewhere. Instead, as seems to be your style, you edit-warred to totally rewrite it and generally behaved disruptively. That's how you roll I guess. Coretheapple (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Like it or not Coretheapple we have an open RFC which any editor has a right to open. So please let it not degrade into personal attacks and muddying of the RfC waters. Thanks.(Littleolive oil (talk) 21:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC))

The RfC waters are already completely opaque, due to the manner in which this RfC is worded. In the event that any editor makes his way through all that mush, he or she will have been given an inaccurate and skewed statement of the issues. This one should be shut down and re-commenced. Or not, for as you know, any editor can commence an RfC on any subject at any time.Coretheapple (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

They are only opaque to you because instead of dealing with the issues, you have just been lashing out at me. So it goes. I won't respond here further. Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Well you keep on saying that this guideline obligates people to do stuff, which is like saying that an infant can order armies into the field. It's just not accurate, but you keep saying that. Why? Coretheapple (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

In your comment at 21:06, 15 December 2016 above, you completely misstate the purpose of behavioral guidelines such as this, which is expressly to set forth best practices. That is their purpose. You seem to be taking the position that if a guideline isn't precisely the way you want it, it should be downgraded to an "essay." Or something. Coretheapple (talk) 21:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• If the question is whether to remove the change made a year ago and include the new paragraph you've suggested, then you've just voted against yourself. Please try again, the RfC is confusing to the point of being unreadable and will confuse people. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Smallbones, my proposal just shows that the obligation can be easily removed. If you identify a problem it is best to show it can be solved. The problem - the question here, is clearly identified in the title and the last line of the RfC. It is: Should paid editors always be obligated to have copyright permission sent to WMF for content they wish to add to WP, whether they own it or not? You don't appear to be engaging with the issues either. Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I just find this fascinating. Why do you repeatedly say "obligated" when you know perfectly well that behavioral guidelines do not obligate anyone to do anything? Really quite amazing. Coretheapple (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• User: Carrite if you oppose on the question, you are opposing the current version. Please double check your !vote. My apologies and i have redacted to clarify that. Jytdog (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• His !vote could not be clearer. Coretheapple (talk) 21:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• I've revised the language of the text in question to read as follows: "Paid editors, the employer, or the author are strongly advised to forward a release to the Wikimedia Foundation (permissions@wikimedia.org). The release should include the name(s) of the author and copyright holder, and that the copyright holder has released the text under a free licence. See WP:PERMISSION for how to do this." (boldface added) This removes all the "obligated"-type language. OK? Can we stop this ridiculous waste of time? Coretheapple (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

That is disruptive, and it still doesn't solve the problem. You are still trying put some kind of obligation on paid editors to always do something that is not required in policy. Jytdog (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive? I was trying to make you happy. In any event, I was about to self-revert when I notice that you decided to go into 4RR territory by reverting. Coretheapple (talk) 21:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

IMHO folks are misinterpreting the current wording

• "If the text is a "work for hire," the copyright resides with the person or organization that paid for it ("the employer"). Paid editors or the employer should forward a release to the Wikimedia Foundation (permissions@wikimedia.org)."
  • This is indisputable. If the text is a work for hire, the editor here does not own the copyright and *must* provide a copyright release. The only thing in the current text here that we could quibble with is that it only says *should.*
• "Similarly, if paid editors use text supplied by the employer, the author or someone acting on the author's behalf must forward a release to the Wikimedia Foundation."
  • This is absolutely correct, if somebody else supplies the text the editor here does not own the copyright, and must provide a copyright release. We don't use copyrighted material without a release.
• What is *not* in the current wording is if the editor here writes the text and has a contract specifying that his work is not a work for hire (in the legal sense). Then he doesn't have to provide a release.
• What Jytdog seems to want to do is create an exception to our rules on copyright, saying that if the text is a work-for-hire, or if somebody else provides the text then the paid editor does not have to get a release.
• One of my major concerns is that somebody might be doing a Joe job on a company, claiming to write for them, but actually trying to embarass them. The current wording gives us at least some protection against that. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

No, the version I proposed is perfectly in line with policy - it says if you don't own it, you need to get a release. You all have supported an addition to this guideline that has no basis in policy or broad community consensus - that paid editors always should have permissions sent regardless of whether they own the content or not, and both of you are confused about basic policy matters. I am really not responding here anymore. Jytdog (talk) 21:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC) (fix Jytdog (talk) 22:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC))

It is not an "addition" to the guideline, it is the current language and has been so for a year. Also, since you decided to wander into 4RR territory by removing my softening of the language - which I had thought would resolve your "concerns" - the assumption of good faith on your part is being stretched to epic proportions. Coretheapple (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear The Terms of Use (Section 4) state that the following is prohibited: "Committing Infringement

Infringing copyrights, trademarks, patents, or other proprietary rights under applicable law."

If you post copyrighted material without a release you are committing infringement.

Also

7. Licensing of Content requires attribution under both b. Attribution and c. Importing text

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Yep that is what the ToU says. The 3rd paragraph goes beyond that by obligating paid editors to send permission, even if they don't need to because they own it or have the right to license it. Jytdog (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• note - I clarified a couple of things in the RfC and have notified everyone who !voted. Jytdog (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• If you want to rewrite your RfC, then shut this one down and rewrite it. You shouldn't be making substantive adds because it's going against you. Your changes don't help even one bit. The current language is still fine. Coretheapple (talk) 22:11, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

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.

Copyright and paid editors

The paragraph being reverted was discussed here. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

This paragraph

Paid editors, the employer, or the author should forward a release to the Wikimedia Foundation (permissions@wikimedia.org). The release must include the name(s) of the author and copyright holder, and that the copyright holder has released the text under a free licence. See WP:PERMISSION for how to do this.

places a fake burden on paid editors. If they own the copyright on what they add there is no reason why they "should" forward a release to anybody, any more than any other editor "should".

Do mistakes in a guideline matter? Sure they do. Instructing people that they "should" do X generally, when there is no basis in reality for that, discredits this guideline and undermines every instance of "should" in every policy and guideline in WP.

With regard to enforcement, I have never seen anybody even ask a paid editor if they have a release as they "should" do, and we have no way of knowing who actually owns the copyright on content a paid editor adds. We assume they have the right to add it, just like we do every submission to WP.

This was added without discussion and is wrong. So I fixed it to make it clear that in the instance when somebody else owns the copyright (not generally), paid editors need to get permissions taken care of. That is what the copyright policy actually says. Jytdog (talk) 16:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC) (redact, per the above it was discussed. My apologies for that mistake Jytdog (talk) 16:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC))

You don't get to blunder in a year after consensus is reached on a guideline, scream "mistake!" and edit war to take it out without further discussion. But I guess your block record speaks for itself. Don't edit war over this anymore and do not remove it until after there has been discussion and if and only if you persuade the community to adopt your point of view on this. No one appointed you czar. Coretheapple (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Huh? Why should a paid editor have to "own" (v. odd term in this context) the copyright? Alexbrn (talk) 16:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Every time you edit and click "save" you are granting a license to the content you just added. To grant a license, you have to own the content. The possibility does exist that a paid editor is adding content given to them by their employer (who owns it) or that the paid editor and the employer were stupid or ignorant enough to include an explicit "work for hire" provision in the contract between them. Granting a license to something you don't own is fraud.

In cases where some editor copy/pastes out of, say a book, that is a problem for WP, as it puts the Foundation in legal danger if the copyright owner ever wants to enforce their copyright - this can happen and people have made noises about bringing suit, since book publishers are generally not in the business of giving away their content. (as well as being fraud on the part of the editor who added it)

The likelihood that the employer of a paid editor who owns the content would try to enforce their copyright seems pretty minimal (since they hired the person to add the content) and the likelihood that they would win if they tried a bring a suit is vanishingly small, since it was clear that their intent was to have it added. But it is a good thing to remind paid editors of the legal issue and how to resolve it. Jytdog (talk) 16:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Core thanks for making it explicit as you did above (diff, which I am now gathering) that your reversions have not been on the merits. Jytdog (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

That's correct. My concern is solely with process. If the community amends a guideline after extensive discussion, one editor doesn't become a self-appointed "mistake-fixer" and yanks it out. Even if you were not aware of that discussion, which is inexcusable given the availability of something called "the archive," you were aware that it was a longstanding part of the guideline and was the consensus version per WP:EDITCONSENSUS. I was not part of the discussion a year ago and have no opinion on the underlying issue, but consensus must be respected, especially with regard to guidelines. I would have thought that you might have had a chance to study such core policies during your last lengthy hiatus. Perhaps not. Coretheapple (talk) 16:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Not valid. it is also obviously because you don't like me, which is also invalid. Like I said, i am gathering diffs. Your behavior is not acceptable. Jytdog (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

(ec) Really? How does WP:EDITCONSENSUS not apply to this portion of the guideline? Why not take out some time from your diff-gathering (productive as I am sure it is) and review the policy and WP:BRD. The latter is just icing on the cake given that you should not have removed the text in question in the first place. Also I see that you have just, again, edit warred over the text in question. I strongly suggest that you self-revert. P.S. If the text was added during one of your "indefinite block" periods that does not justify your edit-warring over the text at this time. Coretheapple (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Core's behaviour isn't acceptable? You arrive here, remove or change the meaning of a section, claim it was added with zero discussion when it was discussed in some detail, then revert three times in 41 minutes. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I "arrive here"?? You have no idea how bad your WP:OWNership of this guideline - which is increasingly becoming your essay - has become, do you. Jytdog (talk) 17:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually making substantive changes to text in a guideline that was established by consensus a full year before, and edit-warring to remove it, is pretty serious. I'd suggest you self-revert, but I guess if you want to edit against consensus there's not much anyone can do about it. Coretheapple (talk) 18:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The section addresses two issues:

1. Paid editors sometimes act only as vehicles for text the article subject has written. This might be a text written specially for Wikipedia, or it might involve combining bits and pieces from a company or personal website to create an article;
2. Paid editors who create articles as a work for hire don't own the copyright of the text and therefore can't release it. In the US, a work for hire includes "a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment". As I understand it, this refers to staff, not contractors. So the social-media manager of company X who creates an article about X does not own the copyright and therefore needs to get a release before they can add it to WP.

We should probably draft a question about this for the legal department. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:58, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

In the US, copyright is federal law anchored in the constitution and there is a strong presumption in case law that the author of a work owns that work. "Work for hire" law in the US is extremely clear that a work is only a "work for hire" if there is a contract explicitly stating this. (screwing this up has destroyed many a software startup).

Yes a social media manager for a company will have signed such a contract as part of their employment contracts if the company has a competent HR department. A competent HR department would also make sure that a social media manager had the authority to grant licenses to company content. Whether a "work for hire" clause is included in a freelancer's contract is something we cannot know (it would be foolish - stupid or ignorant) if it were. In any case, yes it is great to warn paid editors to be mindful of who owns the content they want to add.

But it is unacceptable for this guideline to say that paid editors should always provide a release. Jytdog (talk) 17:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

(2 x ec) This is a reply to the post you just changed. Please stop doing that.

I didn't say anything about freelancers. I said above that it refers to staff. We don't know to what extent it applies to freelancers, because we don't know what they've signed. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I am addressing paid editors generally, as this guideline should do in the section dealing with paid editors. Even with regard to employees the general obligation to always send a release is not appropriate as i noted above. If the employee has the authority to grant the license there is no issue with the copyright policy. We cannot know that either. Jytdog (talk) 17:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

So the editor provides a release. So what? What is the problem here? Editors who are paid to contribute do not need a red carpet toward Wikipedia. This might inconvenience them. Tough,. This is a reasonable rule to prevent copyright violations. If they don't like it, they don't have to contribute to Wikipedia. The purpose of this guideline is to regulate paid editing, not to put wind in its sails. Coretheapple (talk) 17:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Really importantly, this "obligation" the guideline is trying to impose on all paid editors to provide releases goes way beyond the Terms of Use and would require an RfC to enter this guideline. That was wildly presumptuous to add. The chance of it getting through an RfC is about zero.Jytdog (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Even more importantly is that this is a guideline, which means that the whole thing can be and is ignored all the time. This guideline sets best practices, in this case a totally reasonable polite and ignorable request that paid editors provide proof that they not violate copyright. Coretheapple (talk) 17:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Here is what is says at the top of the guideline, in case you haven't noticed: This page documents an English Wikipedia behavioral guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page. By the way, note what it is in boldface. Why did you make substantive edits to this page without obtaining consensus? Coretheapple (talk) 17:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

So you are saying that your goal here is not to reflect community consensus, but instead invent a bunch of "rules" and per your penultimate note, if those rules are inconvenient for paid editors, all the better. ( diff and diff). Gotcha. Jytdog (talk) 17:50, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

More broadly Core, see WP:PAG which is actual policy. If you are going to try to impose this kind of "rule" on a bunch of people that needs to get community consensus. This was a very radical move to say paid editor should always provide releases. Jytdog (talk) 17:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

This guideline does not impose a rule, as I pointed out above. Nor was this rule "mine" and I didn't even participate in the two lengthy discussions a year ago that established consensus in this area. Nor did you, even though indeed you were not in either your 2015 or 2016 indefinite block period, but were free to edit Wikipedia. Your 2015 indefinite block was terminated a full month before this text was adopted, which makes your disruptive screaming about it now even stranger. Why did you remove the text in question, a substantive edit, without obtaining consensus? After the policy you violated was pointed out to you, why did you continue to edit war to remove it and why haven't you self-reverted? Still awaiting your response to that. Coretheapple (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

SlimVirgin constantly makes wide-sweeping changes to this document (ahem, with regard to your note about the boldface instruction at the top of the page) and I don't always keep with them, and they end up moving and obscuring key changes like this one. Also the way I am treated here is pretty shitty so I don't come around too often. But all that is beside the point, in that a far-reaching obligation was added to this document that was rejected at a policy page. (note, it was added here on Dec 5, a few hours before the discussion at the copyrights talk page began) It should not be in here without getting broad consensus. This kind of thing weakens the guideline as it adds stuff that doesn't have broad consensus, which is what policies and guidelines need to express. This is PAG 101 stuff. Policies and guidelines are not for inventing and imposing "rules" on the community. They don't "regulate" anything. They record community consensus. Jytdog (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Stop the personal attacks. I added that after a detailed discussion, as you'd have seen if you had looked. Discussion began at 23:19, 2 December 2015. I added the text at 20:19, 5 December, with the edit summary "expanding per talk", and posted that I'd done it at 20:30, 5 December. Smallbones continued the discussion elsewhere at 21:22, 5 December. This took place during the period you went awol during the ArbCom case against you. That's why you missed it, not because anyone was "moving and obscuring key changes".

It's perfectly fine to question it, and it's something we should check with legal anyway. But turning up here out of the blue with personal attacks is out of order. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I found a mistake and fixed it. Thank you for addressing the problem a different way. The lashing out against me here was completely crazy and personalized. Look in the mirror and look around - again disruptive editors are staying close to you and attacking me, and you do nothing. Your admonition has zero credibility because of that, and your INVOLVED status with me is ever more clear. Jytdog (talk) 22:34, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

• i just read the discussion at WT:COPYRIGHTS (now in the archives here) and I see that this general obligation to get permissions cleared was shot down there and resulted in no change to the policy, and the arguments raised there were similar to the ones I have been making. They also emphasized the burden on the community. You all need an RfC if you want to add this general obligation to the guideline here. Jytdog (talk) 18:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: You've now made 4 reverts on the guideline page: [reverting without discussion a 1 year old part of the guideline], [1], [2], [3]. See WP:3RR, I will report you if you revert again.

Looking at the comments above, you certainly do not have consensus to make the change. If you want to make the change, you should either get consensus on this page (the normal way, as was done last year to put the paragraph into the guideline) or start an RfC.

As far as the discussion last year at WT:COPYRIGHTS, it was about making a change to the copyright policy rather than just having it here. By my count the majority was for the change to the policy, but there was not a consensus. There was, and is, a consensus to include it here.

I do think that this paragraph should be in policy, rather than just a guideline, so perhaps I'll start an RfC at WP:Paid. One request - if we do start RfCs, let's post a link to the other RfC on each page and keep each one open for a week.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Wow, you guys like to twist logic, but this is a bit extreme even for you. The copyright policy is where an RFC on copyrights belong. It's also where policy regarding copyright belongs. This policy must conform to that one with regard to copyrights. Not the other way around.--v/r - TP 19:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

"This policy must conform...." This is not a policy, but a guideline that, as I know you know, is not binding. Coretheapple (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The notion of obligating paid editors to always send a release was rejected at the Copyrights page, both with respect to what WP needs with regard to the copyright policy, and for the burden it would place on the community. It is not a good idea anywhere in WP and it needs an RfC to come in, anywhere in WP. Jytdog (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

in response to Smallbone's edit restoring this, i just tagged it as disputed. This is worse for the guideline, but better than having something with almost no chance of passing an RfC being present. Jytdog (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

When was this silly change added to this guideline and where was the consensus to support it? If the consensus was "no one complained when we did it" then I'm taking this to ANI.--v/r - TP 20:08, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

See the first line of this section. It's best to read something before you threaten taking it to ANI. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Rejected is not the right word - the proposed policy change was "no consensus" a year ago. The proposed guideline change a year ago was easily passed. I believe that the proper place to include a change in policy on paid editors is at WP:Paid

Jytdog, please remove the disputed tag when your RfC fails.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

You don't think this belongs here, but you restored it anyway. Riiiiight. I will take it that you have reviewed and are Ok with the draft RfC. I will give it time for others to review. Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Break

I've clarified the text here, and as there was an objection to "should", I've changed it to: "Where there is doubt that the paid editor owns the copyright, they (or the employer or author) are advised to forward a release from the copyright holder to the Wikimedia Foundation ..." The section now says:

Editors are reminded that any text they contribute to Wikipedia, assuming they own the copyright, is irrevocably licensed under a Creative Commons-Attribution-Sharealike license and the GNU Free Documentation License. Content on Wikipedia, including article drafts and talk-page comments, can be freely copied and modified by third parties for commercial and non-commercial use, with the sole requirement that it be attributed to Wikipedia contributors.

Paid editors must ensure that they own the copyright of text they have been paid to add to Wikipedia; otherwise they are unable to release it. A text's author is normally assumed to be the copyright holder. Companies sometimes provide paid editors with text written by someone else. Or a paid editor might write text for Wikipedia within the scope of their employment (a "work for hire"), in which case copyright resides with the employer.

Where there is doubt that the paid editor owns the copyright, they (or the employer or author) are advised to forward a release from the copyright holder to the Wikimedia Foundation (permissions@wikimedia.org). See WP:PERMISSION for how to do this and Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a sample letter.

SarahSV ^(talk) 22:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

That's much better. The third paragraph should be more clear and aligned with the copyright policy and say something like "If the paid editor doesn't own the content and doesn't have the right to grant the license to WMF, they must have a release sent" or the like. The "doubt" thing is vague. But this no longer places obligations on paid editors that are not otherwise present so I have withdrawn the RfC. Jytdog (talk) 22:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

That took me a few minutes of writing. You could have arrived at the page today and said "I think the copyright section implies an obligation on the part of all paid editors; should it be tweaked?" Then we could have exchanged ideas, and spent that few minutes editing it. Instead look what happened. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes I could have done that. That also could have happened even after I made my bold edit, but for the editors whom you did not admonish, who even now don't seem to have understood what the issue was. I can work with you. As I said I am glad the issue is mostly fixed. Thanks again. I was incorrect about the "no discussion" and again I apologize for that mistake. Jytdog (talk) 22:43, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any idea how you wasted everyone's time with this unnecessary drama? Do you have any idea how disruptive you've been throughout this? Coretheapple (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The drama is caused by the underhanded tactics used to edit this guideline w/o broad community consensus, edit warring used to keep it that way, and the hostility meant to drive everyone else away. That Jytdog managed to stick through it, even well past when I lost my cool (a long time ago as we all know by now), is a testament of his cool temperament.--v/r - TP 01:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Even Jytdog has abandoned that line of rubbish. Do you have anything positive to contribute or are you just interested in picking a fight? Coretheapple (talk) 01:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

After SV more or less fixed the problem, you still said "the current language is fine. You haven't understood the problem this entire time. I'm done for now, the problem is fixed enough. Jytdog (talk) 02:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

The previous language was fine and the current language is fine. Your change was not fine, it made the text worse. As usual, you behave as if you are the fount of all Wikipedia knowledge when in reality you spend half your time either sulking or trying to talk your way out of indefinite blocks. Great job you did here, wasting everybody's time. Coretheapple (talk) 02:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

draft RfC - Should paid editors always be obligated to have copyright permission sent to WMF?

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.

---

In December 2015, following discussion at the Talk page here about concern over the ownership of content posted anywhere in WP by paid editors, the following content change was made in this dif:

Copyright, licensing Editors are reminded that any new text they contribute to Wikipedia is irrevocably licensed under the terms of a Creative Commons-Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 license and the GNU Free Documentation License. Any new writing, including article drafts and talk-page comments, can be freely copied, modified, deleted, reproduced, altered and quoted by third parties for commercial and non-commercial use, with the sole requirement that the work be attributed to Wikipedia contributors.

Was changed to:

Copyright of paid contributions

Further information: Work for hire

Editors are reminded that any text they contribute to Wikipedia, if they own the copyright, is irrevocably licensed under the terms of a Creative Commons-Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 license and the GNU Free Documentation License. Any new writing, including article drafts and talk-page comments, can be freely copied, modified, deleted, reproduced, altered and quoted by third parties for commercial and non-commercial use, with the sole requirement that the work be attributed to Wikipedia contributors.

Paid editors must ensure that they own the copyright of text they have been paid to write. If the text is a "work for hire," the copyright resides with the person or organization that paid for it ("the employer"). Paid editors or the employer should forward a release to the Wikimedia Foundation (permissions@wikimedia.org). The release must state who the author is, that the author is the copyright holder, and that the copyright holder has released the text under a free licence. Similarly, if paid editors use text supplied by the employer, the author or someone acting on the author's behalf must forward a release to the Wikimedia Foundation.

The notion in the new 2nd paragraph that paid editors should always -- whether they own the copyright in the proposed content or not -- forward a release to the Wikimedia Foundation, was discussed at the talk page of the Copyright policy, also in December 2015 starting the same day the content was added. That discussion is here.

I have proposed to change the new 2nd paragraph to read as follows:

If the copyright for a text that a paid editor wishes to add to Wikipedia is owned by someone else (such as the paid editor's employer), the paid editor is responsible for ensuring that they have the right to grant the required license for the content, or that the copyright owner has granted permission for the content to be used in Wikipedia. See WP:PERMISSION for instructions.

That version does not include the general obligation.

The question: Should paid editors always be obligated to have copyright permission sent to WMF for content they wish to add to WP?

There you go. a draft.Jytdog (talk) 20:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog - do you actually expect folks to be able to read this. One big problem is that your "new 2nd paragraph" seems to be one year old. But the new paragraph you want to replace it isn't identified (presumably you'd call the new new paragraph the "old paragraph"?) Please just calmly state right at the beginning what you want removed and then what you want to replace it. You can then give your reasons below that. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I forgot what it is like to try to work collaboratively on this page. I am just going to launch this. Jytdog (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for drafting this Jytdog. What about simplifying to include only the question without the revision you made. I my experience a revision can allow the discussion to side step the issue. Maybe deal with the issue first then a draft. I agree though that this is a silly addition to the policy and your draft or something like it is what should be there. I'm not sure how this kind of change came to be an issue/ addition to the guideline in the first place without wide community input. Are we actually agreeing on something? :O)(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC))

User:Littleolive oil it appears that we are. Hm! Jytdog (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@Littleolive oil: Three people have appointed themselves the curators of this guideline and frequently make slow gradual changes that over time amount to huge changes and try to avoid a community discussion whenever possible. If they have a discussion, it's mostly amongst themselves and is not widely advertised. They usually cite the ToU as their rationale, or they'll say "the guideline is unenforceable so what does it matter anyway" despite running around with their COI Banhammers every chance they get. Sorry to make this seem a bit dramatic, but it's been nonstop for several years and it's wearing on my patience and my good faith.--v/r - TP 22:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Aw, why don't you cut out the "I'm not naming them but you can figure out who they are wink wink" whiny personal attacks. Or keep them up. They diminish you and make you seem really, really grudge-holding and small. Coretheapple (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Any editor can commence an RfC on anything at any time, and word it however they wish, in your case in overlong and non-neutral fashion. Coretheapple (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh shove off. You used that filibustering tactic two years ago. Why don't you and Smallbones try not bulldozing this talk page? You aren't the COI Czars despite how you imagine yourselves.---v/r - TP 22:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

How gratuitous of you. Try putting your grudges in your old kit bag and smiling for a change. OK pardner? Coretheapple (talk) 22:26, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I smiled a heck-of-a-lot more before I met you.--v/r - TP 01:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I believe the last time I "met" you was two years ago. Just a suggestion, but I really don't think you should be an administrator. Just my opinion, mind you, but I just don't think you have the temperament. As I recall, after you "retired" you left a personal attack against me, Smallbones and other editors on your user page. That's just no good. Frankly I think it it worse for you than the objects of your bile. Coretheapple (talk) 01:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Coretheapple:, I fail to understand the paradox in your concerns for COI: despite your 825 posts in COI related discussions, you apparently vehemently oppose any proposals for measures to combat it. That said, any further discussions regarding people's attitudes would best continue on their talk page, and Smallbones should be left to speak for herself. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

You have no idea what you're talking about. Can you cite one example of my opposing an effort curb COI? ireCoretheapple (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Kudpung, I hesitate to plunge into these waters, but I find your intervention here to be curious. TP and Jytdog both fight tooth and nail against COI control and both are aggressive and attacking. I was one of the editors referenced by CTA who was attacked on TP's page. Your comment is not just unfair, it is borderline gaslighting. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 03:31, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

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.

COI situation

I have come across an odd situation. An editor has prepared a series of articles, declaring clearly on the talk page of each that there is a COI situation in each of them because of his connection with the organization featured in the articles, but giving detailed reasons why (in his opinion) his articles do not breach the COI standards. He does not state the nature of his COI - it is in fact that his paid job is to publicize the organization to which the articles refer. In my view it could be argued that the articles do not pass standards for WP:NOTABILITY, and are extensively packed with WP:UNDUE material, but that is not my main issue here. One by one this editor has been putting up these articles for WP:GA and WP:FA. They have been passed by editors who stick to the letter of the rules for promoting and have not bothered to consider whether or not the articles meet notability standards; nor have they considered any COI issues. My point is this: is not the seeking of promotion of these articles to FA and GA status a form of unacceptable WP:PROMO? - and should not the editor's acknowledged COI be a bar to seeking to advance these articles to FA and GA status, thereby reflecting some sort of glory on the organization he is paid to promote? I would welcome views on this, and also advice on what (if anything) should be done about it.--Smerus (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd suggest moving this to WP:COIN, which is intended to handle cases like this. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks for this advice, have done this.--Smerus (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

And now in other news . . .

The guideline, it is now reliably sourced, is "clear".[4] Well, done. :) Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very, very much for posting that! It should be required reading for any editors involved in these discussions. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Interestingly the author said "Admins and editors are not paid" which is quite false. We have plenty of paid editors, disclosed and otherwise. - Brianhe (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Request the correction, then. Also, AFAIK paid editors are tiny minority. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

This is even funnier, [5] says to click the "report corrections" link at the bottom of an erroneous article, but there isn't any such link. So the factually incorrect article about deliberate factual errors on Wikipedia, due to its being crowdsourced, can't be corrected by a reader, because it isn't crowdsourced. - Brianhe (talk) 21:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, it worked for me, a nice pop-up fillable form popped up. Must be your browser. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Or maybe missing a social media plugin?? <shrug> - Brianhe (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Leave it to Wikipedia editors to over-analyze anything! Let's just say that if administrators get paid here, I'll start my own RfA. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Tryptofish and Brianhe: Please see Wikipedia_talk:Administrators/Archive 15#Proposed change - "No paid editing" for admins. This was a proposal with significant opposition from admins, that no admins be able to work as paid editors (with the usual reasonable exceptions, e.g. for GLAMs) By my count the !votes were 15 supporting, 13 opposing, with 1 or 2 of the opposers going that way because it wasn't strong enough. To my knowledge, no admin has declared that they are paid editors since the ToU change, so I think all the opposes were for very theoretical reasons. With a bit of support here, I'd list this as Concrete proposal 3 above. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes think it is worth listing this proposal again. It would be good for companies who think they are hiring an admin to be able to see a statement saying that this is either not the case or the admin is breaking the rules. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:09, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Replying to the ping, I'm confirming that I went back and read it. I'll indicate my opinion above. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

And, with apologies that I apparently didn't make my original comment clear enough, I feel like editors are failing to see the forest for the trees, so I'll try to clarify what I see as the important part of my reply to Brianhe. I get it, that the author of the linked piece seems to think no one is getting paid to edit. But what I think she is really saying is that no one gets paid for protecting NPOV or enforcing COI or the like, per se. In other words, there isn't much financial gain to be had for editing in good faith. But the problem resides in editing in bad faith, of course. The author is arguing that it's an uneven battle: between unpaid volunteers trying to maintain our standards, and paid operatives trying to subvert them. And the article shows how the outside world is taking notice of the negative impact on Wikipedia of the kinds of bad-faith edits that can come with undisclosed paid editing. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

"Editors are failing to see the forest for the trees. No one gets paid for protecting NPOV or enforcing COI or the like, per se – there isn't much financial gain to be had for editing in good faith. The problem resides in (paid) editing in bad faith. It's an uneven battle: between unpaid volunteers trying to maintain our standards, and paid operatives trying to subvert them." That bears repeating. It's like relatively unpaid candidates-for-the-people trying to win elections against obscenely-paid candidates-for-the-special-interests. Who's winning that battle? wbm1058 (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: No. The battle is between those editing in bad faith (paid or unpaid) and those editing in good faith (paid or unpaid). Wikipedians in residence and chapter employees are just two examples of people being paid to edit in good faith. The problem with the proposals to deal with the issue presented on this page will either (a) prohibit all forms of paid editing (including editing by anyone receiving travel grants, out of pocket expenses, etc) due to massively overbroad definitions) which will either do nothing for or even incentivise undisclosed editing; or (b) very seriously compromise the privacy (and therefore safety) of editors, in some of the proposals all that is required to cause real world harm to someone is to make an accusation that they are an undisclosed paid editor with no requirement for any evidence. I'm frankly disgusted and horrified that anyone thinks this is appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 10:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: Right at the top of this "(milieu 1)", the premise is that this is about "investigating paid (or COI) editing". I generally agree with "An editor's contributions should be judged solely on their merit." The premise implies that "paid editing" ≡ "COI editing". As you point out, that's a bad assumption. I would support paying editors to "judge the merit of certain contributions" (the criteria for this needs better definition, though) and paying editors to investigate copyright issues, as the volunteer crew is falling short in these efforts. The work (edits) of such paid editors would periodically be reviewed (perhaps an RfA-style review) to determine whether their "contract" to work for pay should be renewed. Just brainstorming here. I would not support hiring editors to be private investigators of people (paid or not). The focus should be on the encyclopedic content. wbm1058 (talk) 14:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

If the two of you want to continue to argue about who is battling whom, please don't let me interrupt you. But the significance of the article isn't about that. It about the fact that Wikipedia is facing a whole new category of disruptive editing, is poorly prepared to deal with it, and the outside world is taking notice of this problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Why do you think that a blurb by a Meghan Sali is enlightening for "any editors involved in these discussions"? It is good for educating common public and big guns who don't know how to combat fake news. But we here know all what Meg wrote already and she brings no extra argument. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry if I wasn't clear about that. Please see, on the one hand, WT:HA#Break 3, and on the other hand, the arguments by other editors that undisclosed paid editing is much less of a concern than are violations of the outing policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Note on the threshold for these proposals

I'd just like to note that WP:PAID and WP:Harassment are both policies, and both are heavily affected by many of the proposals here. Per WP:PGCHANGE, the threshold for these passing is "widespread consensus", a bar which is quite different than most discussions. Ideally, we should have an uninvolved and experienced panel of closers close this. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you, and I think that a panel of three closers, rather than one single closer, should be recruited. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Rob, I can't see how this would affect WP:PAID. As for anything else, I don't think sufficient consensus for policy change can emerge from this because of the wording.

For example, Milieu 1: "Wikipedia Outing and (Harassment) policies always trump investigating paid (or COI) editing. An editor's contributions should be judged solely on their merit." Well, yes, to the first part because that's already policy. The second part is a separate issue. So far, 7 say yes, and 28 no. But what are the 28 saying no to? One opposes because it's not policy, but the first sentence is policy. That whole section will have to be declared no consensus because of the lack of clarity.

There are similar problems in other sections. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:27, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: For the PAID bit, I was referring to the concrete proposal 3, which proposes a new requirement related to paid editing (specifically, disallowing it for admins). That seems to require either a change to PAID or WP:ADMIN. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 00:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Rob, thanks. WP:PAID is Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure, so that's the only issue that covers. Any decision that admins should not take paid work would affect WP:ADMIN and WP:COI. But it doesn't look as though there's consensus for that anyway. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Concentrating on the practical question: how should these proposals be closed? The various milieux are so vague and sometimes self-contradictory that I don't think that they can be closed, or were even meant to be something to be put into a policy or guideline. Casliber, please correct me if I'm wrong on this. Among the concrete proposals, concrete proposal 2, might gain enough support, but I suspect there is too little total input so far. Only Concrete proposal 1 seems to have enough !votes to pass right now 22 supports, 6 oppose, equalling 78.6% supports. I think the closer(s) would have only 2 options here, close it as passed, or request more input. I think if more input is requested the margin in favor will only grow, so I've requested that other people request the input (to avoid an accusation of canvassing). Whether there are 3 closers or only 1, those are the only 2 choices. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:17, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Ideally, I'd like to see this discussion as a sort of brainstorming and advance the best proposals to an RfC at a broad venue (village pump). That seems to be the more input bit you mention above. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

(EC)If you mean calling off an RfC, that you opposed, when it already has overwhelming support. No. We don't have a rule that says certain RfCs have to pass twice in order to be implemented. Let people cast their !votes here, this has already been widely publicized.

If you mean that we should take the other questions addressed here and properly format them into concrete proposals, and then have them very widely publicized (e.g. via a banner) and kept open for a month. Sure, let's talk specifics. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the vagueness of the milieus is such that nothing can emerge from most of them. I don't want to see a self-appointed panel of three administrators in effect "make law" given the poor way most of these were drafted. Especially since one of the more specific proposals directly affects administrators. Coretheapple (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

The way that I see it, there will have to be some sort of close and interpretation, but it need not be that there is consensus to take a particular action. I'd rather have three people work together on that than leave it to one person. I expect that a likely result will mostly be that the community feels negatively about x, y, z, and that a, b, c, should be followed up on by way of the next round of discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, if there is no close here, then this has all been wasted time and it actually moves the process backwards. It will look like arbs can discourage editors from having any impact on how the site is run. So a panel of 3 long-time editors should step up if no admins will do it. That said, all the milieux put together couldn't be made into anything concrete enough to put into a policy or guideline. They are only "a way forward" to concrete proposals.

Let me review the milieux

• M1) Outing policies always trump investigating paid editing. An editor's contributions should be judged solely on their merit.
  • firmly rejected here and again as restated in M5
• M2) "Concerns over paid (or COI) editing mean that investigating suspicious activity should be done openly to ensure transparency."
  • more-or-less rejected, some folks apparently taking this to mean "all investigation"
• M3)"The balancing COI and privacy/outing means that the only option is that people investigating COI must submit information in private to the relevant people."
  • Some support for a new body, some support if the word "only" is ignored, some other support, and some oppose. Altogether a misstated proposal.
• M4) Restated as concrete proposal 2
• M5) same old, same old. firmly rejected as was M1)

Taken together all the milieux say neither doing it the same old way, or willy-nilly disclosing pii is acceptable. We should try again, only allowing concrete proposals this time around.

The concrete proposals can't be ignored. Concrete proposal 1 has gained consensus and only needs to be closed. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:34, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Concrete proposal 1 has gained consensus only if you count noses. If you read the actual arguments there is no consensus there either. Thryduulf (talk) 13:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Providing editors with a walk-through?

I've noticed that there seem to be a large number of editors with COIs who come to this page and quickly become lost because of its length and (to them) complexity, and end up continuing to edit covertly and hoping they just won't be discovered. I don't think the following will necessarily change that, but I think it might help:

I'd like to propose that we add a link to a page that gives an example of an editor who has a COI and what that person does when he/ she wants to make a COI edit. The page might read something like this:

Worked example of an editor with a COI: Let's say there is a user named Steven Washington who has a user account under the name "SteveWa". Steven notices one day that someone has written a Wikipedia article on the company he works for named "Maker of Good Stuff" (of course, Steven should never start off by writing that article, as that would almost certainly be a policy violation). Steven also notices that the article has several errors in it, and he wishes to see them corrected so that the article is up to date. Steven has a COI with regard to this article, and the changes he wishes to see are more than simply grammar and spelling. The first thing Steven does is go to his own userpage and edit it. Then, somewhere near the top of the page, he places the Userbox-coi template like this:{{Userbox-coi|1=Maker of Good Stuff}}. Then he saves the page. His user page now has a proper declaration on it. Next, Steven visits the article talk page. Here he writes the following:

==Proposed changes== {{request edit}} I am requesting the following series of edits to this article, with which I have a conflict of interest. Please contact me if you have any questions. Thanks! 1. The company was founded in 1965, not 1966 2. The company's best selling product is actually the Nordbrekker tabletop, not the Salvbreker chair and side table 3. The company's current environmental record should be included under the "Environment" section, and it should read like this: "Maker of Good Stuff instituted a stringent environmental program in 2004 that carefully monitors and channels all of its own waste products. They have won a number of awards for this program, including the [[Happy to Save the Earth]] award and the [[Waste Not]] award, both given annually by the government of Denmark." I have a reference to support these claims, which should read like this: <ref>{{cite newspaper|newspaper=Danish Times|date=3 March 2005|Author=Miles Frugal|title=Makes Good Stuff does it again!"|url=http://danishtimes.com/2005/3March/Frugal}}</ref> Thank you for considering my edit request. [[User:Lowercase sigmabot III|Lowercase sigmabot III]] ([[User talk:Lowercase sigmabot III|talk]]) 01:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

(Since Steven has never edited this article before, he does not need to place the {{connected contributor}} template here).

Steven clicks on "Save." His proposed edits now appear on the talk page.

Now Steven simply waits. Another editor with the username "SusanK" then comes along, has a look over Steve's proposed edits, decides that none are controversial or unsupported, changes the article page to match the request, and comes back to the talk page and modifies Steve's message by putting a |A into his "request edit" template, like so:

{{request edit|A}}

She saves the talk page, and the entire edit has now been properly disclosed and implemented.

....Thoughts...? The page could also have more complex and controversial examples on it for those editors who want to know what happens when you walk outside the lines. I don't think it should go on this page because this page is already too long. KDS4444 (talk) 23:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

In a general sense, I think that the more we do to provide guidance to editors who have a COI but who are not basically malicious would be a good thing. One could do something like what you describe as a "help" page, as in Help:Conflict of interest or something like that. Another approach that has already been discussed, and which I'm planning to re-raise, is having a notification system provided at the time of account registration. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)