Requests for comment/Should paid editing as a CU be allowed

This is a subpage; for more information, see the Requests for comments page.

---

Is a user engaging in paid editing of any kind on any wiki compatible with them holding checkuser permissions on any other wiki (or the global temporary account IP viewers permission) ?

Context

Note: This RFC isn't about the conduct of Боки specifically, this is for background on what prompted this RFC, the actual policy question is the one above

Recently, @Боки, a checkuser on Serbian Wikipedia created their own company and appears to be taking commissions for Wikipedia contributions. As of today, they have created two articles on English Wikipedia that appear to have been paid for by the company (to their credit they have disclosed this on the talk pages as required by the Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use, though they failed to follow WP:COIEDIT the English Wikipedia specific policies related to creating new articles as a paid editor). The two articles BetterSleep and Draft:Sleep app were directly published into mainspace, both have/had made up references, references with misleading titles and also some of which are taken from paid-for ad placements by news agencies. (See this discussion thread at another parallel RFC) All this was done during their tenure as a Serbian Wikipedia checkuser.

However, as it currently stands, there is no policy that provides a standard operating procedure in this kind of a scenario. The Checkuser policy does not explicitly mention paid editing even though a portion of the work that checkusers do is to find paid editing rings (at least on enwiki), an area where having your own paid editing business could have conflict-of-interest implications. As a result, I would like to ask the global community to help clarify this policy blindspot by voting in this RFC.

Clarifications by Боки

I want to respond to the concerns raised here about my role as a CheckUser on Serbian Wikipedia and my involvement in paid editing.

Let me be absolutely clear: I have never used my CheckUser rights for anything related to paid editing. I take that responsibility seriously, and I understand the level of trust that comes with it. Every time I’ve used CheckUser tools, it’s been for valid reasons and within the scope of policy. I’ve never used access to private user data to benefit myself, my company, or any client — and I never would.

It’s true that I started my own company and have done a small amount of disclosed paid editing, including on English Wikipedia. Specifically, I created two articles (BetterSleep and Sleep app) where I clearly disclosed my involvement on the talk pages, as required by the Wikimedia Foundation Terms of Use. I admit I didn’t fully follow WP:COIEDIT in terms of process, especially when it came to publishing new articles directly to mainspace, and I accept responsibility for that. It was a mistake in procedure, not intent.

I’m also aware that some of the references used in those drafts may not have been ideal, and I’m open to improvements or even deletions if the community believes they don’t meet the standards. That said, these were honest attempts at creating meaningful content, and nothing about them was connected to my CheckUser role or tools.

Right now, there is no policy that says someone can’t be both a CheckUser and a paid contributor, as long as both roles are handled responsibly and transparently. If the community decides to create a rule about that, I’m more than willing to respect it. But I do believe it’s unfair to assume bad faith or imply wrongdoing based solely on the fact that I’ve done some paid work — work that I’ve disclosed and never tried to hide.

If anyone has questions about my actions or needs clarification, I’m available and willing to talk openly about it. I care deeply about Wikimedia projects and the trust that comes with holding advanced rights.

Боки ✉ 06:38, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Survey

Yes, it is compatible

• I do not see any particular right (including stewardship) as necessarily being incompatible with paid editing. What matters is whether all disclosure requirements are being followed (admittedly not applicable for wikis such as Commons where disclosure is not required), and whether the right is used - at all - for anything related to their paid editing. Leaderboard (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
• Paid use of the CheckUser tool is of course inappropriate, but I don't see why gaining advanced permissions of any kind should necessarily entail sacrificing rights to do things not using those permissions. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 17:20, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
• What does any of this have to do with CU? Paid editing isn't prohibited and individual communities can easily deal with fake citations etc. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:11, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

  I'll also note, I could very easily edit in topic areas related to my work, but I don't. I've also never abused my admin rights against someone who makes edits in an area related to my work that I happen to dislike. It is really not that hard to not be a jerk and not abuse the tools. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:10, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

  I see many opposes arguing about the appearance of a conflict of interest or the misplaced financial incentives. As for the appearance of conflict, there is none if a CU publicly declares that their COI exists and does not take any CU/admin actions in relation to their COIs – the latter of which we'd expect from all admins/CUs who don't do paid editing, but might work for a notable company. As for financial incentives to abuse CU tools: (1) nobody has presented evidence of this ever occurring; (2) most adult admins/CUs with jobs have some sort of financial incentive to make their workplaces look good, but we expect them not to abuse their authority or tools RE their employment; (3) our usual processes are almost certainly sufficient to deal with this; and (4) as long as editors follow relevant COI rules, this is a moot point. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:29, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

• Concur with Pppery above. Being paid to use CheckUser is not within the rulebook, but I don't see why an account having access to that permission should be banned from paid editing. --JackFromWisconsin (talk) 03:34, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
• CU rights and paid editing are not related. They fill two different niches. Though I agree that paid CU-ing is fully inappropriate and should not be tolerated.--A09|(pogovor) 21:02, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
• Making paid edits with the or a different account is absolutely fine as long a the rules for paid editing are followed. If a user does not follow the policies they have to be blocked resulting in also the removal of any advanced rights. Any abuse of advanced rights is prohibited anyway independent of if with a monetary background or not. I would even appreciate if we had some paid moderators including check users to reduce the workload of volunteers who then can focus on the content generation instead of moderation. --GPSLeo (talk) 06:30, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
• Per Pppery. aqurs 🍧 07:00, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
• While I'm sympathetic to the don't give off the illusion of impropriety argument made in the no section, there hasn't been even an allegation that CU has been misused by this or any other editor that's been paid [to do so], so this feels like a solution in search of a problem / general hand-wringing over paid editing in general. I find Leaderboard et. al.'s comments above far more convincing. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:50, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
• No issues have been identified. So long as the CU-operative avoids cases where they have a CoI (as non-paid CUs would be expected to do), none are likely to. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:17, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
• I do not see a fundamental incompatibility, per the reasons stated above. I would add:

a) All established users and advanced permission holders will have topics on which they have a COI (for instance, strongly held ideological beliefs) in which they should avoid tool use (and we need reasonable audit and consequence policies if they do); paid editing is just one form of COI in this regard.

b) Apart from this, our biggest challenges with paid editing are from editors who have minimal interest in building an encyclopedia other than through contributions they are paid for; if there must be paid editing, it is healthier it be done by established users who are hopefully better informed on our norms, more aligned with our mission overall, and have a longer-term and deeper reputation at stake if found to be misbehaving.

All of which to say, we should impose specific restrictions about checkuser (as one specific advanced permission) and paid editing (as one specific form of COI) only if there is a specific problem that emerges about their intersection, and I don't think that bar is met. Martinp (talk) 11:27, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

• As long as all rules are followed then I don't see a problem with any user performing paid editing. If rules are broken then the user should be dealt with as any other user would be dealt with. Anyone with admin or higher rights must not use those rights for paid editing and if they do then they should lose those rights. fr33kman 18:11, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

  For clarity, as stated on my user page, I am a current CU on simplewiki and a former Global Sysop and former Steward fr33kman 02:59, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

• Can be. Sometimes isn't. Undisclosed paid editing is obviously incompatible and nobody should be acting as a CU anywhere they may have a financial COI - but that financial COI doesn't suddenly become more or less relevant if they make a a fully disclosed paid edit. However, a rule this broad would potentially mess with editors involved in stuff like OKA (not a WiR type thing!) or even professors or teachers who run courses and therefore make are paid to make edits on Wikipedia. Also, the line between "is a WiR" and "other paid editors" is not as clear as the lead sentence would have us believe - while WiRs generally stay clear from adding content about their home institutions directly to mainspace, sometimes they may organically add links, mention exhibitions held at their institution, perhaps make an edit request to correct something out of date, or otherwise make edits that many reasonable Wikipedian would see as much more classical paid editing, but that many reasonable Wikipedians also wouldn't care about. They are also expected to make a paid editing disclosure. Similarly, and this is listed as an example in our page about paid editing, somebody working as a WiR may be pressured to censor documents/distort historical facts(whether that's by the instruction of their employer or government or just through social pressure). In that case, being able to CU potential enemies would be even more of an issue, despite the fact that they'd be exempted under this RfC. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 02:12, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

  Also, while I get the comments about how it's hard to monitor CUs for abuse... that's certainly true, but it's actually much easier to monitor a fully disclosed paid CU. An undisclosed paid CU is not going to be watched. And, ultimately, there are almost certainly going to be CUs who have been paid or otherwise forced to do checks on accounts for nefarious purposes. We all know that. Wikipedia is ultimately a platform where you edit at your own risk, and if you create too convincing of a security theatre, then you make editors and readers feel a lot safer than they actually are. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 02:45, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

  @GreenLipstickLesbian: "ultimately, there are almost certainly going to be CUs who have been paid or otherwise forced to do checks on accounts for nefarious purposes." That's a pretty big accusation to make, do you have proof to back that up? fr33kman 13:49, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

  What is OKA? The best I could do was Open-Knowledge-Advocacy, but that would/could be broadly considered WiR-like/adjacent activities. I'm aware of the problems with WiRs that you outline, but I'm not sure how to word a proposal to properly capture that (rather small group). Sohom (talk) 03:38, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

  Apologies, should have left a link - yeah, that's right OKA! (en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki/OKA). I do consider then WiR adjacent, but they are classified as paid editing group on enWiki, expected to go through AfC upon fear of blocking, and many editors distrust them. You are right that it's hard to come up with a wording that properly deals with edge cases, but given that these edge cases are the ones most likely to get advanced user rights in good faith (most SEO spam farms max out at autopatrol or NPP), I think it's important that any proposed guideline actually deal with them. Sorry that I can't do much more than poke at existing wording, however. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:05, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Sohom Datta Also (and you participated in this) as far as strange edge cases go, en:Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Admins and being paid to advise on editing I think would also need to be accounted for. Many of the same issues voiced in the "no" section would absolutely be relevant to that case if had involved the admin being a CU as well. In fact, even more so (from my POV) because paid consultancy work does not require an on-Wiki declaration AFAICT. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:23, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

• I see no reason to believe that properly disclosed paid editing is a red flag of any sort. - Jmabel (talk) 02:17, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• If properly disclosed, yes, it is policy-compatible. Content inclusion criteria should be separately assessed by the community. If not disclosed, they lose credibility as an editor, hence as a CU as well. But there should also be more oversight on how the CU permissions are being used. —‍(ping on reply)—‍CX Zoom (A/अ/অ) (let's talk|contribs) 16:42, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• I don't really like that the two options here are "yes, it is compatible" and "no, it is not compatible", since "yes, it is compatible" sounds more like more of an endorsement than I'm willing to give. I think paid editing is a red flag and a common reason for conflict of interest. But being a CU who is a paid editor isn't inherently any different from being a non-CU who is a paid editor. The question is whether tools are being misused and whether there's been a breach of trust. The CU has more tools to misuse and more trust to breach, sure, but those are issues that can happen whether paid editing is involved or not. -- asilvering (talk) 22:01, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• There are multiple ways in which paid editing can cause conflicts of interest, however none of them mean that someone is paid to edit is inherently unable to apparopriately perform the duties of a checkuser. If the editor in question is careful to follow all the relevant rules regarding paid editing and all the relevant rules regarding the checkuser tool then there is no problem. If an editor does not follow the rules related to paid editing they should not be editing, regardless of whether they are a checkuser or not. If a checkuser does not follow the rules when using that tool they should not be a checkuser, regardless of whether they are paid to edit or not. It is also worth noting that following or not following the rules for one does not imply that someone is or is not following the rules for the other (except where identical actions are required/prohibited for both tools). Thryduulf (talk: meta · en.wp · wikidata) 01:44, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
• Per the comments above, since they have disclosed their paid editing, I don't see any issues.--Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 10:45, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
• Like Asilvering, above, I'd rather not think of this as a binary. I see a lot of potential nuance in how to decide whether or not it is compatible in any given instance. I'm putting myself here, because I do not see this as an automatic or universal disqualifier. (Obviously, undisclosed paid editing violates the Terms of Use, and is completely incompatible.) But I read with interest the argument below about how having a strong content POV could also lead to misuse of the CU tools to investigate or harm an opponent, and I think that's just as unacceptable for a CU as using the tools against a financial opponent. I'm sympathetic to the argument that CUs need to avoid the appearance of impropriety, so I actually tend to think that properly disclosed paid editing creates a sort-of the burden of proof is on the CU to demonstrate that the activity is not going to create a problem, but without quite rising to the level of being an automatic disqualifier. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:45, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

• It's overly restrictive to ban paid editing completely. It obviously depends on the nature of the COI in question, but I know in Korea official government organizations such as Tourism Korea pay editors at time for promotion. I know plenty of skilled administrators in Korean Wikipedia who have received paid contributions by such public entities and government organizations, and there hasn't been any problems with it. It'd be unfair to prevent them from ever being a CU.--Takipoint123 (talk) 11:23, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

  Wtf, this reads like the starting of a U4C case. "Lots of people do it so it's fine" is not a valid excuse for breaking WP:NPOV on any Wikipedia (regardless of whether that is English or not). Sohom (talk) 22:25, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

  (Please let me know if I am misreading what you are saying here) Sohom (talk) 22:26, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

  Paid editing ≠ breaking NPOV. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:25, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

  but I know in Korea official government organizations such as Tourism Korea pay editors at time for promotion. - is about as clear as it gets unless there is some misunderstanding. Sohom (talk) 02:41, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

  "Promotion" is a wide concept. Providing neutral, factual information can be part of a promotional effort. Think about a new smartphone: the company wants to say it is the best, the most amazing, the best value, etc. That is obviously not NPOV.

  But the company also wants to say: This phone will be released on 12 September 2025. This phone is 70 mm wide. This phone uses the Android operating system. This phone has 128 GB storage. This phone has 8 hours battery in a standard test. All of that is information that some potential buyers want to know, but none of that breaks NPOV.

  If the government agency is paying people to add ordinary, encyclopedic facts about tourist attractions or historical sites, then those additions can be both compliant with NPOV and also consistent with the agency's goal of promoting Korean tourism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

  Ok, hold up there. They've disclosed their edits as required by WMF policy including disclosing their client and employer. U4C wouldn't even have the authority to intervene in paid editing disclosed correctly. Takipoint123 (talk) 08:22, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

  This is such a rude statement. LR0725 ( Talk / Contribs ) 05:51, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

  This is a very worrying statement: promotion is exactly what we want to avoid from paid editors, and a problem by itself. This being, as you claim, a systemic issue on Korean Wikipedia is even more worrying, and I agree with Sohom (who I asked for a second opinion about this before writing this reply) that this might warrant a U4C referral if there hasn't been a misunderstanding here.

  Would it be possible to clarify what you mean by pay editors at time for promotion, both in terms of the goals and of how this takes place in practice? There is a major difference between paid editing to make a Wikipedia article more complete, and promotion which by definition seeks to make the material non-neutral. Chaotic Enby (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

  Years ago, one of the European tourism destinations had a paid contest to see who could create the most related Wikipedia articles. They didn't demand that the material be non-neutral. Perhaps the Korean program is taking the same approach. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:27, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

  I do not know very well about how the users are paid, as I have never been contacted nor employed as part of such paid editing. However, I have confidence that the administrator/users in question are following local policy regarding COI and paid editing. I do not mean promotion in the sense of TV advertisements, but rather simply mean the creation or expansion of articles in a balanced and factual way. Takipoint123 (talk) 08:29, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you for the clarification, that is reassuring to know! Chaotic Enby (talk) 14:46, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

• I honestly don't see a problem with it as long as the CU permission and the paid editing take place on different wikis. I get that paid editing creates (at least the appearance of) a conflict of interest that is hard to square with advanced permissions, but I don't see the issue if the permissions and payment are on separate wikis. The actual conflict of interest is narrow and can be handled by purely local (and even often informal) restrictions on their tool use. E.g. no use of tools to benefit clients or in the specific topic within which they have accepted commissions. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:01, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
• I think this should be a wiki-specific issue. Wikispecies does not require disclosure of paid editing, and due to the nature of Wikispecies, paid editing is not really much of a problem. If someone contributes to Wikispecies as part of their job (as a number of people do, I believe), I don't see any reason to restrict them from having CU access. Within the context of other projects, there may be a reason for paid editing and CU access being incompatible, but I believe that does not apply to Wikispecies. I will oppose a policy which blocks users who engage in paid editing from having CU access, as long as that policy applies unilaterally to every wiki/project. --WrenFalcon (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

  I suppose the role of paid editors on Wikispecies that I am trying to describe here could be seen as similar to the WiR program, though I am not sure if all of them are explicitly "Wikimedians in residence". I might be neutral or supportive of a proposed policy which makes clearer distinctions on who is a "paid editor" here. --WrenFalcon (talk) 00:09, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

• Two thoughts:
  1. Some forms of paid editing are acceptable. For example, c:COM:PAID permits professional photographers to upload images to Commons, even though this is sometimes "paid editing". Do we now say, "You are a bad, untrustworthy person, because you followed Common's policy"? That would be hypocritical of us. We should expect CUs to carefully follow all the rules of the project(s) where they are CUs – and if Commons' rules say that CUs at Commons can be "paid editors", then that's okay.
  2. Nobody should get paid for doing Steward, CU, or admin work (i.e., by anyone except the Wikimedia Foundation, because obviously they have to pay their Trust & Safety and technical employees). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:19, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
• I've never been much of a fan of the moral panic over paid editing, and I don't particularly appreciate how this RfC was formatted (for example, I need to reply in a section titled "yes, it is compatible", which is a loaded statement). I generally don't think that CUs should be editing for pay where there might be a conflict, but nor do I think this requires a change to the global checkuser policy. Local communities should be free to set a higher standard (like no paid editing for CUs) as they see fit. – Ajraddatz (talk) 22:02, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
• per above. – Svārtava (tɕ) 06:56, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
• There's paid editing and paid editing. A CU shouldn't be a paid government intelligence agent trying to spy on Wikimedia users. However, that's not what we usually mean with paid editing and this requires other means than a policy. In normal speak it can be anything from a commissioned job for a photograph, payment as a WiR to writing articles for some kind of marketing bureau. The first two are deemed acceptable while the latter isn't. Could a CU conducting paid editing be deemed immoral. Maybe. But individual projects can determine the morality of the issue themselves. The morality of some doesn't outweigh the ability to self-govern (within the allowed frameworks) for all. Would a CU be involved in paid editing be a risk. No. The information you have as a CU is too limited to actually use to gain an unfair financial advantage or business advantage. Claiming otherwise would be grossly overestimating one's own importance. There are no serious safety risks or realistic scenarios where regular paid editing by a CU would lead to irreparable harm. Sure, a CU can go rogue. So can any user to make some low-value spamfarm a bit of money. But that's why we have existing checks and balances in place that sufficiently mitigate this risk. Forbidding any form of paid editing by CUs adds no extra protection. So yes, it's compatible. Morality says nothing about compatibility and is up to the individual projects. Natuur12 (talk) 11:20, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
• Like others in this section I don't quite endorse how the RFC question is being posed, but I'd have to say that there's nothing inherently incompatible here. I respect the argument that CU is a position of trust but then so is admin, oversighter, bureaucrat, etc. That would be a better argument to make at a proposal to restrict COI editing for all advanced permissions, but of course that would have to be a separate RFC. Pinguinn 🐧 17:29, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
• Per Pppery. --Divinations (talk) 02:50, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
• Also per Pppery. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:25, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
• If it's properly disclosed I see no reason why checkusers shouldn't be allowed to edit when they have a COI. They should be held to the same rules and expectations as the rest of us. Gommeh (talk) 16:07, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
• A paid editor who discloses is already demonstrating their willingness to follow wikipedia policies, for no reward other than the suspicion and disdain of their fellow editors. They should stay a mile away from anything that might possibly look to anyone like it touches on their paid work, of course, including things far outside of the central COI area. There are many possible behaviors as a paid editor I would consider incompatible with the rights, but not the mere fact of being paid. I would, incidentally, support a ban on advertising one's credibility as a paid editor using advanced rights, as that creates some distorted incentives with regards to getting and keeping rights, but that seems out of scope here. Rusalkii (talk) 01:42, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
• First, I feel it pertinant to disclose that I have, from time to time engadged in paid editing (as disclosed clearly and in full compliance with the applicable policies)-- obviously, I have a COI as it would (potentially) effect me should I ever go for advanced permissions. That all being said, I think a blanket policy that would seek to ban all paid editing by advanced users would be grossly inappropriate. I would however support a narrower policy-- one that seeks to differentiate an editor who makes paid edits and a paid editor. Essentially, I have contributed many, many, many substantive edits to Wikipedia. I have worked to expand essential information pages, I've even caught mistakes that scientists doing additional research on subject didn't while researching and editing. I have also done a handfull of paid edits. These paid edits have never been biased, they've always been someone simply paying me to improve their page (or a page related to them) as I see fit. I don't think the four constructive edits I've been paid for should outweigh the more than 900 constructive edits I haven't been paid for, and I would assume most editors who are paid, and who are disclosing it, are also editing outside of paid editing follow similar practices. I would propose a percentage rule. If any more than X% (5 perhaps, maybe 10) of total edits are paid edits, than the account is ineligible for advanced permissions. A blanket rule would only incentivize the non-disclosure of paid editing. If you look at my disclosures, I could have easily gotten away with not disclosing my edits. Why should my willingness to follow the communities policies (even to the point of reporting pages for protection where biased paid edits have been solicited from me, putting me at risk) disadvantage me? Foxtrot620 (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
• If a Steward or Bureaucrat makes a spammy article for pay, how is that different than if a CheckUser like me does it? I just don't see the difference. The other hypothetical scenarios people are posting below sound like Bond villain antics, and nobody should ever do them, regardless of permissions. Just put that Bond villain stuff in a global policy somewhere, like "do not use any special permissions granted by a user right to a) obscure or hide anyone's paid editing; b) make it more difficult to supervise anyone's paid editing; or c) directly gain a financial benefit". There, done. Now Stewards can't do Bond villain stuff, either. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:06, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

  Stewards have the checkuser permission, so the question includes them. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:13, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

• good faith disclosure of COI is necessary for any advanced privileges, but until such time as its clear CU is being abused by COI actors, it really doesn't seem like adding another rule on will really do much. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 04:37, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• as a fellow Serbian Checkuser myself, I can attest that Boki hasn't abused his CU rights since he's become a CU himself. Also, I agree that there isn't anything inherently conflicting when it comes to CU and paid editing. Both can be policed in separate ways, so abuse is unlikely. --FiliP ██ 20:00, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

No, it is not compatible

• I think paid editing and advanced permissions should remain as far apart as possible. Given the sensitive nature of the CU (and GTAIV toolset) even the appearance of a conflict-of-interest or impropriety (even when none was intended) can be enough to undermine trust in the wielders of the toolset. Any CU engaging in paid editing on any project should resign their checkuser permission. Sohom (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Sohom Datta en:GTAIV toolset?? MBH (talk) 00:45, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

  @MBH Global temporary account IP viewers toolset :) (maybe the WMF was setting us up for the pun) Sohom (talk) 00:49, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

• Considering that functionaries such as Checkusers have access to non-public information, any paid editing from them should be considered incredibly suspect at best. Even assuming best practices are followed (and barring an investigation, we're stuck with "just trust me bro" on that front) you still have a template for someone to potentially misuse their tools to figure out PII of someone who contests or otherwise makes undesireable edits to "their" page. Even if the use of the tool is logged, all it takes is enough off-wiki harassment to drive a potential contributor off forever. Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 17:24, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
• This is a potentially very sensitive situation, especially since an editor with advanced permissions has declared to a third party that he is a paid editor on Wikipedia and is thus advertising himself to potential clients, which puts volunteer editors in a subordinate position. This relationship, I am sure, can result in the accelerated departure of especially experienced editors who volunteer to contribute to the project, as well as a decrease in the relevance of the articles to the readership. In this way, a small group of privileged editors gain the exclusive right to edit Wikipedia in a way that suits them, presenting facts that may not fully reflect the current moment, especially when it comes to biographies of living people. The damage to the project outweighs the potential contribution, especially if a significant number of privileged editors take this path. In this particular case, Боки submitted a candidacy for U4C 2025, and given these circumstances, I believe that his candidacy should have been annulled and his advanced permits revoked. Зорана Филиповић (talk) 22:43, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
• I don't think it's compatible at all with any advanced permissions, let alone checkuser. A CU should be finding socks of the many paid editing farms. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 07:47, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
• CU involves access to sensitive nonpublic information. It requires the highest level of trust between the CU and the foundation on the one hand, and the CU and the community on the other. A CU who is a paid editor has an additional relationship in play that's not subject to the same oversight. Could a user balance these interests appropriately? Sure, but it's asking a lot for the community to trust that everything is above board. Mackensen (talk) 13:33, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
• My own view as an enwiki checkuser is that it is not compatible. I also feel confident in saying that enwiki wouldn't tolerate a checkuser doing SEO. I recognise there may be different types of paid editing, and this may need further definition, but running an SEO operation strikes me as the archetype of incompatibility. I'm with those who talk about appearances. I also want to add: checkusers can still have unlogged access to private information, through logs, mailing lists, and cuwiki. Information can also be obtained in other indirect ways: running a check on a large range can yield an enormous amount of private information, especially in a small country. Private information can be obtained and used surreptitiously, which is why trust and priorities are so important. At the very least it appears that operating the tools where there is a conflict of interest may be a loophole that needs patching. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:36, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
• While I'm sympathetic to Leaderboard's comment below, the fact is that being paid to create content on Wikipedia and having access to back-end, private data are fundamentally incompatible. Now, a previously paid editor, who currently is not, that would, IMHO, be fine. But an editor who is actively soliciting payment for editing services or who is actively receving payment for editing services should not have access to non-public information or permissions. - The Bushranger (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
• I share Sohom's concern above. I believe paid editing and advanced rights are not compatible. Paid editing often involves a conflict of interest, and I don't think it's a good idea to compromise when it comes to access to private data. CheckUser access includes the ability to view logs, the CU wiki, mailing lists, and other sensitive information, much of which is not publicly logged. The increased risk of this information being compromised by someone editing for financial gain is, in my view, sufficient reason to consider the two incompatible.--BRP ^ever 06:53, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
• In agreement with the points made by Sohom and Jéské Couriano. "Potentially misuse their tools to figure out PII of someone who contests or otherwise makes undesirable edits to "their" page". Clearly misuse is very possible, when there is a financial incentive to do so. Once someone's PII is leaked, it can not be undone. It opens the door to all kinds of political and legal entanglements from many different directions. Wukuendo (talk) 09:27, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
• In most parts of life it often doesn't end well when volunteer work and commercial interests are mixed, and I think this also applies here. --Krd 19:36, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
• Imagine an Indian checkuser doing paid editing for Asian News International or the Indian government or one of the radical Hindutva groups (which are seemingly already doing paid editing)... If personal information were leaked in such a scenario, affected Indian editors would end up being sued for defamation or even threatened with violence by groups like Hindurakshadal (as was the case with the ANI defamation suit). Paid editing and having CU rights might work in some cases, but they could be also quite risky in some other cases. Nakonana (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
•  Oppose CheckUsers are part of sensetive permissions, and their user accounts are always need caution, paid editing means that they are(were) editing under financal supports, which broke the principle of wiki sites, such as 5P of Wikipedia. Same oppose also apply to Oversighters, Stewards, etc. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 21:32, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
• I generally oppose the idea of paid editing conducted from accounts with extended permissions. I can see potential exemptions for a few disclosed activities such as editathons (contests with monetary awards) and Wikipedians in Residence, but they must not include the use of admin or CU tools in any capacity. Le Loy (talk) 22:15, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
• I would say that most forms of paid editing (including the one used by Боки) should not be allowed. The forms I think should be covered are all forms of paid editing that require disclosure (i.e. not photo upload to Commons), probably excluding non-controversial work (anything Wikimedia-affiliated, maybe small actions like editing a paid-for Commons photo to a Wikipedia article). The reason is: if you are in the business of paid editing and you are a checkuser yourself, you have the perfect set of tools to eliminate competition. You are in a situation of conflict of interest when you offer your paid editing services to others and at the same time can identify and block undisclosed paid editors, or, worse, block people who you accuse of being socks of undisclosed paid editors. While you get private data of undisclosed paid editors for legitimate reasons (they actually violate rules), on the same occasion you get valuable data about your major competitors (which other paid editors clearly can't access). I don't see how any community can trust a checkuser in such a case — NickK (talk) 22:44, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

  Any CU offering general paid editing services obviously shouldn't be viewing accounts engaging or (or suspected to have engaged in) similar practices; taking that or similar administrative action against a competitor should already be covered by current COI policies. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 18:34, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

  @GreenLipstickLesbian: This will be very difficult to implement. There should always be at least two active checkusers for cross-checking, thus a checkuser involved in paid editing should not count for this limit. But even if the checkuser involved in paid editing abstains from the checks you mention, they will still be able to see the (private) logs and results of checks made by fellow checkusers. The only way to remove this access to logs is just to remove checkuser rights — NickK (talk) 19:21, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

  @NickK True, but the ability to see private logs is relevant to any CU with a conflict of interest, financial or otherwise, with the subject of an article, or even another editor. At least when an editor has a fully disclosed COI (and I would support mandating much more expansive COI declarations for CUs/admins than we have now, even it's just in private) we can monitor it. However, any editor who is a CU, we already have to trust them that they aren't going to checkuser say, somebody who voted against them in stuff like RfAs, we trust they won't CU or otherwise view data of ideological opponents, and we already trust that they won't CU or view private data on an account belonging to, say, an ex. Like you said, the only way to remove access to that private data in those cases is to remove CU rights - which I don't think is a practical solution, especially because we'd only end up removing rights from those who do disclose. Better to promote full and free disclosures of any form of potential conflict of interest and, when in doubt, to recuse from running checks and avoid viewing data in areas where they could be viewed as having a conflict of interest. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 01:19, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

  @GreenLipstickLesbian: As I mentioned below, I can imagine a CU keeping their rights despite being a paid editor if their local ArbCom establishes a robust COI protocol. What is, however, special about paid editing is that knowing locations (incl. potentially travels) and types of devices used by your competitors can give you an advantage. Knowing location of a person who voted against you in an RfA is hardly usable for anything legal: it is only of value if you run an institutional harassment campaign, but if a CU does something that illegal, we have more significant problems — NickK (talk) 20:22, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

  Just going to divide my response into two points: smaller wikis without robust systems for handling conflicts of interest probably shouldn't have checkusers at all, if I'm being honest. Which is somewhat unfair, I know, but if there are no systems in place to monitor how a COI might impact a CU, then there's not likely enough of a system in place to monitor for more serious abuses, especially by bad-faith actors who have gamed CU. Which is much more of a risk than it appears (In recent enWiki memory, a sock of a particularly nasty WMF banned user almost got elected as an admin (and many users think they were attempting to gain CU access), and a sock of a UPE actually did get elected admin and also attempted to get CU access via Arbcom election.)

  And no, hardly usable for anything legal. But it's really hard to prosecute most internet-based harassment campaigns (or harassment or stalking in general), so you'll have to excuse me if I don't have much faith that it would be viewed as illegal. Stalking and other harassment can go unnoticed very easily, especially on the internet and especially if the person doing the harassment is smart enough to keep quiet about the fact they're orchestrating it.GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 08:59, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

• Per NickK, a CheckUser having a financial stake in a company creates a major conflict of interest, and, for such a sensitive position, any risk of tool use being influenced by a conflict of interest is something that should be avoided. This is especially the case for non-logged uses of the CU right (mentioned by BRPever above), where we can't verify whether the CU actually misused their tools. Paid editing just isn't compatible with the level of trust we require. Chaotic Enby (talk) 23:42, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
• I don't believe paid editing is compatible with advanced permissions like Checkuser. Although I think we can exempt things like what Le Loy lists. Abzeronow (talk) 23:48, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
• If you're involved in paid editing, being a sysop in my books is not acceptable, let alone a CU, which requires a much higher level of trust, including the one used by Bojan. There is also no way of verifying if a CU misused their tools (at least in public) and that CUs deal with sensitive data. //shb (t • c) 01:03, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• Per above, paid editing is COI and is not acceptable, as it would harm community trust. 〈興華街〉📅❓ 01:40, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
•  Oppose - CUs must be non-partisan and should not be involved in any COI. Mixing functionary permissions with COI could put the whole editing and reading communities in danger. Ahri Boy (talk) 03:59, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• I would say that CUs have to appear clean as well as being clean from corruption. So best not to combine being paid to edit and being a check-user. So if some cu wants to be paid for doing something on Wikipedia, best to resign that CU capacity first. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:22, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• Strong oppose PE is something detrimental to the Wikiverse, it's tolerated, but should be kept as far any from any advanced permissions as possible. And for CU it should be a complete no-go, that's far too sensitive to let those commercial raiders of the Wikiverse get their foot in. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 08:51, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• Being a CU requires not only that the person is squeaky clean, but also that they appear to be squeaky clean. Johnuniq (talk) 08:55, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• Paid writing isn't prohibited, but it doesn't fit with the work of trusted users. Anyone who writes for pay is fundamentally subject to a conflict of interest. This arises from the task they are tasked with fulfilling.PE is not forbidden, but it is not compatible to volunteer work. --Itti (talk) 09:06, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• Strong oppose CU rights are granted with a huge load of trust of the community for the user in this role. Paid editors can't be trusted in any way like you could trust an independent author in the wikipedia. They are paid to be loyal to their client, not to the community. Being a CU and being a PE are mutually exclusive. --Beobachtungsliste23 (talk) 09:21, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• I do not think that paid editing or any serious conflict of interests agrees with any advanced privileges and surely not with checkuser rights. The appearance is of importance here. Hence, we need admins and functionaries including checkusers that are (to the best of our knowledge) working independently. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:16, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• It should be in the self-interest of the Paid Editor to not have any advanced rights at all. While I do agree that Paid Editors are regular users with the same rights as everybody else, it should be clear that advanced rights such as checkuser and admin rights do bring the opportunity to use them in the context of paid edits. And to avoid even the possibility of that happening, any Paid Editor should return their advanced rights prior to engaging in any business around Wikipedia. (I would make one exception, in particular for small Wikipedias: When an editor received the advanced rights through regular community processes after he / she has declared the potential COI. If the community gives someone advanced rights even so he / she is a Paid Editor, than that is a community decision)--Schreibvieh (talk) 10:52, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Note that I and others had to clean up the BetterSleep article, which was promotional and badly sourced. Being a CU is incompatible with getting paid for posting spam. Polygnotus (talk) 14:36, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• Regardless of what the facts actually may be, the fact that someone with access to sensitive data is also acting as a paid advocate raises a strong appearance of impropriety. The two are just not compatible; you may either act as a paid editor (with proper disclosure) or have advanced permissions, but you must choose one or the other. Seraphimblade (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Paid editing has to be watched very carefully in our project anyway. And giving CU-rights to a paid editor is an absolute no go. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wosch21149 (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• I'm partially convinced by the argument above about the appearance of impropriety. You see, the mere perception that a CheckUser may be influenced by their paid editing work or have an interest in some outcomes could undermine the trust in them, as well as in their investigations. Furthermore, I believe paid editing, although tolerated if disclosed, is not compatible with holding advanced user permissions. – Aca (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• Nope, not compatible. I would even go a step further and say that admins should not be allowed to engage in paid editing at all. I agree with the comment(s) above that even if the CU/admins aren't abusing their tools, this still gives off an appearance of impropriety, and raises ethical concerns. Some1 (talk) 22:49, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
• They're not compatible. There is such a big potential for conflicts of interest that we shouldn't be touching this with a 5m pole. I don't think anybody with higher levels of user rights, such as checkusers, admins, bureaucrats etc. should ever be engaging in paid-for editing. This also puts the foundation and/or project at risk of appearing to take bribes from people to edit in their favour. This risk is minimal with users with essentially no user rights because even the person that paid could just take 1-2 days to learn the basics of editing and get it done; however, if a person in a position of power takes money to create and/or edit an article, it seems really sketchy. I agree with one of the replies above that if an editor wishes to do for-profit editing, they should give up their advanced user rights. It would be acceptable for them to be autopatrolled, but nothing beyond that. If you are looking to earn money by editing, good for you, but you shouldn't be trusted with positions of power within the project — IмSтevan ^talk 00:20, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
  • And now we run into an issue. If the conclusion ends up being that this shouldn't be an allowed practice, any further edits by Boki from that point on will be under a huge question mark - did somebody pay for it and he failed to disclose it or is it a genuine effort? The can of worms is wide open — IмSтevan ^talk 00:38, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
• I'll choose not to speak for other wikis, but on English Wikipedia admin candidates (as part of their acceptance of RFA nomination) generally make a statement which avows their non-paid editor status in perpetuity. Since at least on en.wiki all checkusers are admins, I'd say we've created institutional barriers between the categories "checkusers" and "paid editors". I would make exceptions for those folks who are wikipedians-in-residence (though a rising number of contributors, I'm not aware of a WiR being an admin). Once upon a time I tutored a declared paid editor User:CorporateM, who is a public relations professional and adhered rigidly to the PR professionals' code of ethics. I still regard that fellow as an excellent example of PE (and a wikifriend), but I wouldn't nominate or vote for him as a sysop since his focus is NOT primarily the community's health and well-being. At least on en.wiki, a paid editor is unlikely to obtain advanced permissions; we did have one WiR (a former sysop) who ran for admin in the last AELECT but was not elected. BusterD (talk) 01:16, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

  The mere appearance of conflict of interest does not match up well with our community's reliance on trusted servants. BusterD (talk) 01:21, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

  There are (current and former) Wikipedian-in-Residences who are currently admins at enwiki. They include (but are not limited to) Andrew Gray, Charles Matthews, Dominic, Missvain, Sadads, and Wittylama. Then consider someone like Romaine, who has been involved in GLAM activities for many years, and who holds bureaucrat or sysop permissions at a dozen wikis. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:44, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

• how different would this be from having your rights as an editor (and more importantly, a checkuser) bought? the way i see it, the traits of cu perms and paid editing having any possibility for overlap at all makes it nowhere near different enough to justify having both. we already frown on nearly all paid editing and place massive piles of massive caveats on even the idea of it, so i don't think it's worth twisting our current policies into pretzels to make an exception (or even a contingency plan) for one of the most powerful types of editor around, and i really can't imagine other people (admins or otherwise) being too happy about them getting paid for what is, to them, extremely sensitive volunteer work. i also don't intend on finding out what their higher-ups could convince them to do behind our backs consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 01:26, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
• Someone who engages in paid editing for such blatant advertising (excluding WiRs and the like), absolutely cannot be trusted to help freely sharing the sum of human knowledge, given they apparently care more for money. And thus cannot be trusted either with what's about the most advanced permission around. I also agree with the above arguments on the appearance of impropriety. — Alien  3
  3 3 11:20, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
• NO Their is risk of misuse of tools may harass or block competitors. Andh Namazi (talk) 11:21, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
• Paid editing and access to critically sensitive personal information is not and will never be compatible. Summer ^talk 11:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
• No - Paid editing, even when declared, is cause for no more than limited trust. Neither an individual with conflicting loyalties nor the community can be expected to partition an editor into a paid editor and an honest functionary. A paid editor cannot be trusted enough to serve as a functionary on any wiki. A functionary must have one loyalty, to Wikipedia, and cannot edit for pay even in another corner of the movement. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
• No. Just take a step back and look at it from someone who is running to be an admin in a RFA. Editors will demand admins to be as unbiased as possible, and having a disclosed paid editing and having a conflict of interest, without looking at any other details, may be enough to derail the RFA. I am quite sure having political infoboxes showing your bias to a certain political stance can sink your candidacy as well, surely having a paid editing is more confirmation of a bias. Bottom line is that such actions may not survive a RFA, it surely can’t survive a CU right. CU is an advanced right, it’s not just rollbackers. And while the editor in question (or anyone) may claim that they only use their rights lawfully, the trust had been lost. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 06:46, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
• Being a CU is incompatible with paid editing. One of the tasks of a checkuser is to investigate (and block) paid editing farms. A CU with a conflict of interest could greatly boost their own business by eliminating the competitors and hindering investigations about their own sock farm. Another good way of earning money is to offer a "protection service": anybody who dares to touch such a protected article in an "inappropriate" way, will be declared being a sock puppet and/or block evader. And not to forget the most obvious and lucrative option – selling the private data to the highest bidder. -- Q-bit array (talk) 10:44, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
• Paid writing always involves a conflict of interest. This is problematic enough in normal article editing. Combined with extended rights, it has the potential to undermine the foundations (NPOV) of Wikipedia. Therefore: No extended rights for paid editors. --Zinnmann (talk) 14:09, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
• Absolutely not compatible, no. Paid editing in general is already a net negative to the project, that we have to tolerate because a very little set of paid editing activities can be legitimate, though only if tightly monitored. I already think the individual example discussed here is absolutely not acceptable. Anyone who has engaged in paid editing should not be granted any level of trust above healthy suspicion, let alone hold advanced permissions like admin, or even worse like here, CU. Choucas0 🐦‍⬛ ⸱ 💬 ⸱ 📋 14:33, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
• No. My thoughts are that paid editing (whether disclosed or not) and advanced permissions (which require strong community trust) are incompatible due to the inherent conflict of interest in play, and even more so for a permission as sensitive as CheckUser. Agreed with many above me that such a situation gives off an appearance of impropriety as well. Having someone with access to sensitive PII also be someone with a massive conflict of interest is an incredibly bad look, regardless of whether any actual abuse has taken place. Noeruchan (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose. Per Sohom, Jéské Couriano and Zinnmann: advanced permissions are not compatible with paid editing. — Jules* ^talk 18:17, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
• No. CUs are elected based on a high level of community trust, whereas paid editing undermines that trust by creating an unavoidable conflict of interest. I assume this RfC refers to a situation where a current CU engages in paid editing, not one where a known paid editor is appointed as a CU. I do not believe the latter would ever happen, because the editor's impartiality would be highly questioned from the start. If there is no ladder one can climb, there is no way to come down from the top. This case sounds to me like someone climbed the ladder and then broke it, leaving others unable to reach them. Dragoniez (talk) 18:32, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
• Essentially as Q-bit array says, the role of a checkuser is to look, among other things, into alleged paid editing farms. If they are paid to edit, then how would I expect them to be proactive in fighting paid editing farms? On the one hand, a CU blocking paid editor farms could be seen as eliminating competitors and basically a hypocrite; on the other, a CU not blocking these farms could be seen as trying not to seem as a hypocrite but renege on CU's duties (unless of course they strenously avoid such SPI cases, but the only guarantee we have is "I pinky swear I won't be involved here" - not a great standard). It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't case. Which is why the roles are incompatible. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:23, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
• No, let someone paid by government become a Checkuser, then take all the opponents to the prison? What a joke! Don't forget the current issue on Uzbek Wikipedia. Lemonaka (talk) 03:21, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
• Tell me it's a nightmare ? Strongly oppose. How could anyone imagine entrusting private data to users with such conflicts of interest, and the risk that CU tools could be used for the benefit of a client or contractor ? Intrinsically, by construction, paid editions by a government, a company or an individual are not compatible with advanced rights. --Pa2chant.bis (talk) 04:36, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
• No. A paid editor is here with a different purpose from the rest of us – not to contribute to a world repository of knowledge and information, but to contribute to his/her personal bank balance. Paid editing – of any kind – should not be permitted anywhere within the projects of the Foundation, but we just don't seem to have the courage and resolve to achieve that. Meanwhile, paid editing is fundamentally incompatible with advanced permissions of any kind – CU, admin, VRT agent, whatever. It should be straightforward to make it obligatory for anyone required to identify him/herself to the Foundation to undertake at the same time not to edit for lucre. You don't set the fox to watch the geese. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:57, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
• No per above. A paid editor may have a financial incentive that can negatively affect his/her CU work. Brandmeister (talk) 12:26, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
• Per Sohom & Jéské Couriano. --OPHYRIUS ^⚔ 12:33, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
• Definitely not. Even if this user doesn't plan to abuse CU to help with their paid editing, a person in a position of power should never be allowed to make paid edits. We try really hard to avoid this, but admins and users with advanced rights are given much less scrutiny with their edits, and easily get away with things a new editor would be instantly blocked for. And finally, as others have stated, paid editing as a whole is a net negative to this project, and should be made as difficult and frustrating as possible, so we definitely should not be having experienced editors help these people. ChildrenWillListen (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
• No checkusers should not be tempted by the potential of a financial COI. Lepricavark (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
• Strong oppose there is a conflict If interests, paid editors doesn't have the required neutrality. --ɱ 09:11, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
• A functionary or an admin doing paid editing looks bad for the integrity of the project (Wikimedia related editing excluded). I see that Боки has mentioned their interface administrator user right on their website to gain more credibility as a paid editor, and that just doesn't feel right to me. Also, the prospective clients don't know what, if anything, holding that user right actually means, but it's clearly meant to make the paid editor seem more authoritative. And, it often happens that volunteer users have to spend their own time fixing the paid article's issues or discussing its deletion. To have a functionary being paid to create more issues for volunteers to deal with is frustrating, to say the least. Some users might also find it somewhat intimidating to address issues in an article that is created by a user with advanced permissions, which would make it even harder for the volunteer community to tackle problematic paid content. kyykaarme (talk) 11:59, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
• Per Sohom, conflict-of-interest rules exist to not only cover the response to impropriety but also remove the appearance of it. Боки (and similar CUs per GreenLipstickLesbian’s talk page comment) can be forgiven for making an assumption in the absence of clarification, but in the future, a financial incentive to abuse CU rights is corrosive to our editors’ trust that they can contribute without doxxing. I interpret “paid editing of any kind on any wiki” as referring to the Wikipedias, not Commons, Wikispecies, etc., which have a lower potential for conflict-of-interest abuse of CU rights. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 20:21, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

  a financial incentive to abuse CU rights If someone is a white hat paid editor, disclosing their COI, drafting articles for particular clients and using proper means to have those articles published (on en-wiki, en:WP:AFC) and updated (edit requests), and (per the COI policy) avoiding using CU on any editors who have edited pages within the scope of a COI, where is the financial incentive to abuse CU? voorts (talk/contributions) 19:22, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

• I wrote out most of the below thoughts before realizing that they effectively copy Sohom and others above. So, for brevity, per Sohom. Ed ^{[talk] [en]} 04:25, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
  • I actually think that in theory, if a checkuser follows all COI rules, it's fine. The problem is that we don't live in a theoretical world. Paid editing* by people we have explicitly designated as our most trusted users carries the appearance of impropriety and would potentially open us to significant external criticism. As such, the two aren't compatible. (*If this is codified, we'd have to be extremely careful with how we distinguish problematic paid editing from innocuous [per WhatamIdoing above]) Ed ^{[talk] [en]} 04:25, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
• Strong oppose I wouldn't trust someone (who is doing paid editing) to become a checkuser in the first place. Checkuser is a highly trusted position. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 13:28, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
• No. There is only one reason why I think disclosed paid editing should be allowed: paid editing will inevitably exist, and allowing disclosed paid editing will hopefully reduce the amount of undisclosed paid editing (the latter being more harmful). I do not think this argument could be applied to CUs (or any small, highly-trusted group); I do not think that paid editing by functionaries is something inevitable. Janhrach (talk) 17:56, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
• No, Per above, advanced permissions are not compatible with paid editing.--Vladimir Solovjev (talk) 06:09, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per above advanced permissions are not compatible with paid editing.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:52, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Next up, Paid Editors as Admin please.... as soon as someone here takes money or similar for their work, they have a conflict of interest.--Der.Traeumer (talk) 16:32, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
• Strong oppose No way, paid writers should not be allowed to have any special rights in Wikipedia at all --Lutheraner (talk) 16:42, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
•  Oppose per above --Isderion (talk) 18:44, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
•  Oppose per above Let'srun (talk) 03:49, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Users who have been trusted with CU/OS have a much stronger obligation than administrators to avoid even the appearance of COI specifically because they have access to non-public information. Paid editing inherently comes with COI, and proper disclosure does not remove that conflict. I would not go as far as Lutheraner and say that paid editors can have no advanced permissions, but they certainly should not have CU/OS or administrator permissions. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
• It's my understanding that Checkusers can find me, or at least pinpoint my location to a degree that it would be easier to find me. If there's money involved, there's an incentive for me to be harassed or worse in real life, depending on how much money is involved. A person who is involved with profiteering and who can find me... that's not a good combo.

"I have never used my CheckUser rights for anything related to paid editing" doesn't cut it. Anybody can say anything. Finally, I think that profiteers are skeevy. "Skeevy" and "extremely trusted and given special power beyond what even admins generally have" also do not go together well. Herostratus (talk) 07:46, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

•  Oppose Per above; this issue needs to be resolved, and new rules should be implemented going forward. — Sadko (words are wind) 10:42, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
• Having access to checkuser will mean they know how checkuser works better than the typical paid editor, which would help them evade it for their spamming. MER-C 18:15, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
• This is a huge can of worms that must be avoided. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:12, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
• No. Being paid to create promotion is not compatible with Wikipedia being not a means of promotion. If you are not sticking to that basic tenet then you shouldn't have advanced permissions. Duffbeerforme (talk) 01:21, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
• Strong oppose - I'm glad this has come to light and now it can be addressed. The discussions above have highlighted all the potentials for abuse, and for an appearance impropriety that could undermine trust and sully the reputation of Wikipedia. Plug the "loophole" and prohibit paid editors and those with a financial interest in paid editing from CU privileges. ERcheck (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

This section was moved to the talk page.