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

Main discussion

@Voorts, The question is less about this specific scenario, and more "does having CU and performing paid editing lead to a situation where you effectively have the power to deanonymize and ban your competitors (and leads to a scenario where a wolf is guarding the sheep pen)". I'll also note that enwiki community (and arbcom) has historically taken a extremely hard stance against administrators engaging in paid editing of any kind, and in my head, CUs were to be held to a higher standard to your average administrator due to their ability to access privacy-compromising data.

As it currently stands, the policy says nothing about paid editing, even the paid use of CU tools (which I think? we can all agree is bad), my goal here is to tighten/clarify the policy motivated by the srwiki mess. Sohom (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

My question was rhetorical; paid editing has nothing to do with advanced permissions. Anyone can abuse being a paid editor and anyone can abuse their permissions. Your concern that a CU doing paid editing can unmask perceived opponents is entirely hypothetical. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:28, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

(This is written in an individual capacity.) The Arbitration Committee does not remove adminship solely because someone is a paid editor: it only does so because they either fail the disclosure requirements or they use their tools in partnership with the paid role. While there may be social pressure, I therefore don't see how there is an extremely hard stance against administrators engaging in paid editing of any kind (emphasis mine) in actual policy. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:50, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I was referring to the social pressure and scrutiny placed on admin/non-admin actions in that sentence. While the letter of the policy is what you say, the enwiki arbcom has repeatedly gone out of their way to scrutinize actions taken by administrators in the context of paid editing in a manner that would not be cognizant with the statement Paid editing is compatible with adminship. Sohom (talk) 02:11, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I would argue that the Committee tries to carefully examine paid administrators because it covers two of our core responsibilities: To handle requests for removal of administrative tools [and] To resolve matters unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal, or similar reasons. As you're probably aware, identifying paid editors usually involves private reports to prevent harassment, and if an administrator properly discloses that they are paid and do not use their tools with regards to their employment, I doubt that the Committee would have any basis to sanction them. The hard reality is that administrators can be paid editors if they follow the rules. I don't think that it is right to assert otherwise. Sdrqaz (talk) 13:48, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

@Sdrqaz This argument reminds me of the Server Side Public License MongoDB argument (TLDR, the folks at MongoDB crafted a license that put up a impossibly high standard for cloud providers who wanted to provide MongoDB as a service and then claimed that "yes, it is theoretically possible to jump through the hoops and still offer our software as a service"). Yes, it is theoretically possible for administrators to perform paid editing and follow all the guidelines, but come a arbcom case or community discussion, the community/arbcom will take a extremely uncharitable (even adversarial) view of your contributions and will go out of their way to find violations. You've yourself voted in the relatively recent Conflict of interest management case, where it appears that FoF3.1 was passed even though (based on the comments in the proposal) there was a possible AGF interpretation where the administrator in question could not have been paid editing. The way "paid-editing as a administrator" is treated on enwiki would more closely align with Paid editing as administrator is heavily discouraged than the statement Paid editing is compatible with adminship. Sohom (talk) 15:49, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I think that we are looking at this from very different perspectives: social pressure may be a reason to avoid something if you don't want to be subject to pressure, but it isn't a good reason to prohibit something. For me, discouragement ≠ incompatibility: of course paid editing is discouraged, but that doesn't mean that it is incompatible. Even if people take a extremely uncharitable (even adversarial) view of your contributions and will go out of their way to find violations, why is that a reason to prohibit paid editing?

Maybe you're approaching this with the view that since the Community takes this stance, we might as well codify it in policy, but that's a good reason to start a discussion, not a good reason in its own right to support it. As for Conflict of interest management, obviously there were members who thought that he wasn't a paid editor, but the Committee works by majority vote and so I don't think that it's surprising when we have disagreements. I think that the main issue that informed members' votes for the desysop was the evasion when asked about his conflicts of interest / paid editing, rather than due to whether it had occurred. Sdrqaz (talk) 14:34, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm unsure where I land on CU, but I really don't see TAIV (global or local) as on the same level as CU. So, in my opinion, TAIV is compatible with disclosed paid editing, as long as the tool is not used for pay or in other inappropriate ways. Toadspike (talk) 06:03, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

My rationale there was that global temporary account IP viewers appears to be framed as a permission that is only granted checkusers or global sysops per WMF policy. I agree local TAIV might not need to be held to the same level as the other rights being discussed here. Sohom (talk) 01:12, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

mediawikiwiki:Extension:ContactPage/SiteGround_and_SES is an article I wrote that would come under paid editing (because I wrote it on behalf of a client); MediaWiki does not require disclosure so this is not against WMF rules. According to the current proposal, I would not be allowed to be a CU or similar for making an article like that (which I wrote to help other people with similar issues). I don't think this is correct. Leaderboard (talk) 07:54, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

@Leaderboard If you don't mind, could you explain what the nature of the work you were doing was? -- Could you claim that the page creation was done out of your own volition and not a condition for your employment? Sohom (talk) 01:17, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

@Sdrqaz I was working with a client who had this issue (they were using SiteGround and did not know why people couldn't use Special:Contact to message them). Yes, I can claim that the page creation was not a condition for my work (I think I suggested documenting the fixes because I could see evidence more people were running into the issue, and my client helped a bit as you can see on the history). Leaderboard (talk) 04:54, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

@Sohom Datta Sorry, quoted wrong person. Leaderboard (talk) 04:57, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

"Could you claim that the page creation was done out of your own volition and not a condition for your employment" uh, sorry Sohom, hope you don't mind me getting squeamish here, but that line of thinking ("yes, I'm making edits for somebody who pays me, but it is really paid editing") is exactly what gets people into trouble. If I've misinterpreted, sorry. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 02:12, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I get the discomfort about this being a slippery slope and that's fair criticism. I think in this case the argument is probably as solid as gonna get (partially motivated by the fact that documentation is typically exceptionally dry and really hard to subtly bias with WP:COI). If this was enwiki, I wouldn't have dreamed of making the same argument. Sohom (talk) 03:26, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

This proposal needs a definition for paid editing. For example most Commons photographers will sometimes upload photos they made during a paid photographing session (upload to Commons is mostly secondary use) or where they got some compensation, maybe just a meal. If this disqualifies for having advanced rights Commons would not have many advanced rights holders left. --GPSLeo (talk) 06:43, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

The current exception needs to include working for chapters. This should definitely be treated the same as working for the WMF. GPSLeo (talk) 06:50, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

That was a oversight on my end, I've amended the statement to include "and affiliates". Sohom (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

There is still the problem with the missing definition of paid editing. If you define it to broad and consider all photo uploads where the photographer got a coffee or a bread roll for taking photos at an event as paid editing this would be a huge problem for Commons. If everyone who made sich "paid editing" would be ineligible for any advanced rights Commons would have no admins anymore. Commons currently does not require any paid editing disclosure. GPSLeo (talk) 08:51, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I feel like we shouldn't be including comped beverages or snacks in your example as "paid editing". Abzeronow (talk) 02:03, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

@Abzeronow (friendly banter) Some anti-corruption organizations might like to have a word with you about that idea. Slightly more seriously, no, gifts or other compensation for edits should always count as paid editing; as in the real world, creating little gaps like that just allow bad faith actors more wiggle room. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 08:36, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

If we adopt such a strict definition as a global policy without the possibility for adaption for projects like Commons we would have to close Commons as we would not have enough moderators any more. We can discuss mandatory disclosure rules but entirely banning users who disclosed their free food from advanced rights would break the project. GPSLeo (talk) 12:39, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Agree. We should regulate performing paid checkuser actions and not penalise checkusers duly because they have been paid for some of their contributions. A09|(pogovor) 13:07, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify, do you refer to checkusers doing regular paid editing, or using their checkuser tools for pay? I understand the case for the first one (even though I personally disagree with it), but the second one is much more worrying as it means selling access to the personal information of editors. Chaotic Enby (talk) 02:47, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Agreed - it would break a lot of stuff, and hence why I'm on the same side as you and A09. Unfortunately, many people either don't view compensation like this as something they'd have to disclose as paid editing. (which is very very very troubling!) GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Mandatory disclosure would probably be good, but in general, paid editing is in direct opposition to the principles of Wikimedia projects. But as GPSLeo says, there has to be some sort of practical guidelines so we are not breaking the projects that we are serving either. Abzeronow (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

@Abzeronow, I don't think that's true. I think that promotionalism is in opposition to the principle of NPOV. However, some employers want strictly NPOV articles.

Fun fact: When the paid editing rules were being adopted, I considered hiring someone to do several hundred tedious edits (i.e., adding "____ is a rare disease", followed by a citation to a really excellent source). Would you have considered adding relevant, neutral, factual information along with a high-quality medical source to Wikipedia articles to be "in direct opposition to the principles of Wikimedia projects"?

I wouldn't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:16, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

@GPSLeo, I agree with you: This needs a robust definition of "paid editing".

The proposal says that it "does not include the Wikimedian in Residence program or employment/funding from the WMF or its affiliates", but does it include being a professional photographer who edits in compliance with c:COM:PAID? The staff of Wiki Education Foundation, which editors are often surprised to learn is not an affiliate? An English teacher whose class project is to edit Simple English Wikipedia? An aspiring professional writer who needs to send potential employers proof that they can write well, and so sends them a permalink to a Wikipedia article instead of posting it on their personal website? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:12, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I have a feeling this is very much enwiki oriented discussion, at least judging by mentions of ArbCom and every other discussion venue that exists only on the largest Wikipedias. What we should strive is to have global policies written loose enough to accumulate for these infrastructural differences, if not we only get hegemony of enwiki. Please be careful when implementing policies with inspiration from such big projects.--A09|(pogovor) 16:27, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I'll try to do some notification of non-english wikis to help bring in other viewpoints. Sohom (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Notified simple, de, it, fr, kr and bn. (In no particular order) Sohom (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I notified Commons and Wikidata yesterday. 〈興華街〉📅❓ 01:26, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I have notified vi at local VP, see vi:WP:TL. – Phương Linh (T · C · CA · L · B) 01:10, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I have notified ru: https://ru.wikipedia.org/?diff=145901087 Le Loy (talk) 22:16, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

I was getting the same feeling, @A09. Thank you to the people who have notified other wikis. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:50, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Several of the replies in the No column read to me as "we should ban paid editing altogether, and this is a chance to get closer to that", rather than a genuine concern over the intersection of paid editing and CU specifically. The argument that paid editors might use their access to PII to undermine/expose financial competitors feels especially hollow because you could replace financial competitors with 'people on the opposite side of heated political, religious, or nationalist conflicts' and it would seem like a much stronger argument (CUs would have stronger motivation and more concrete opportunities to misuse the tools compared to paid editing). The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

@The Squirrel Conspiracy: Undisclosed paid editing leads to an indefblock in most large Wikipedias. Being on the opposite side of a heated political conflict does not. A checkuser regularly blocking accounts for being undisclosed paid editors or socks of previously blocked undisclosed paid editors is usually highly valued by their local community. A checkuser regularly blocking people on the opposite side of a heated religious conflict will likely quickly lose their rights. Finally, creating obstacles for other paid editors bring you a very likely monetary gain, while creating obstacles for the opposite side of a nationalist conflict can bring you at best a short-lived moral satisfaction. (Otherwise I agree that (s)electing users with radical views on heated conflicts is also a bad idea, but this is significantly harder to codify) — NickK (talk) 22:52, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Except none of this parade of horribles has occurred. You're just encouraging anyone who wants to do paid editing as a CU to not declare it. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:48, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Also, presumably a CU that is taking the time to disclose exactly what they are doing, precisely in accordance with relevant policies, would recuse from any cases where there might even be an appearance of a COI. voorts (talk/contributions) 13:55, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

@Voorts: Yes, good point about not declaring. I think that your last sentence might be a suitable solution, but it should probably be a proactive request from a CU to the local ArbCom, and not a post factum discussion on Meta. I would consider this is a valid way of approving an exception.

However, my story is not fully theoretical: I know at least one case where there is significant evidence of a former CU being involved in undisclosed paid editing, as well as of a (different) CU ending up indefblocked due to playing a major role in a heated political conflict. These horribles are decently real, and we should obviously prevent them from becoming a parade — NickK (talk) 23:15, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Did either of the two cases you're citing involve misuse of the CU tools? I agree with you that admins and others sometimes abuse the trust of the community. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:33, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

@Voorts: Hard to track. Assuming good faith, they probably didn't misuse the tools, but I can neither control nor deny whether CU logs were leaked or not, and we will never know exactly — NickK (talk) 13:10, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't know that there is currently a rule that allows editors like Боки, who belongs to user groups: autopatroller, check user, interface administrator, patroller, rollbacker, autoconfirmed user, to publicly declare that they are paid to edit Wikipedia, and that they are paid by his own company that he founded himself, which is essentially self-promotion of his own company to third parties who have no connection with Wikipedia, where it offers top-notch SEO content writing services, which improves your brand's online visibility and engages your audience in an effective way. 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) 16:48, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

A declaration for paid editing is required so Боки did not violate any policies here regardless of his user rights. Furthermore, such declaration is not selfpromotion as what you're trying to accuse of him. Last, paid editing policy does not prevent anyone from running for a post, so your request is against at least three policies. Your fear of SEO optimisation is baseless, every external link on Wikimedia project has a nofollow rule so these don't work at all. A09|(pogovor) 18:50, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Agreeing with @A09 here, I don't think Боки specifically broke or violated any policy. Publicly declaring that you are paid editing is something required by our Terms of Use and is a good thing, not a bad one. This RFC is narrowly focused on gauging if the communities expectations surrounding paid editing are higher than those outlined in existing CU policy and amending the policy to match community expectations going forward. Sohom (talk) 19:37, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I am not accusing anyone, I am not a judge. I am stating the facts. This is not about Боки declaring that he is being paid by a third party to edit Wikipedia, which is not the case. This is a case where Боки says that he is paid to edit Wikipedia, and he is paid by his own company. He states this publicly on Wikipedia and on his website where he offers services to third parties in exchange for money. If that's not self-promotion, I really don't know what is. In explaining his candidacy for U4C, he did not state that he pays himself through a company he founded to edit Wikipedia, thereby deceiving the editors who voted for him, who perhaps would not have voted for him if they had known this information. I believe that his candidacy should have been annulled. Зорана Филиповић (talk) 23:02, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

This is outside of the scope of this RfC and no, you're stating your opinions, not facts. Drop the stick here (as in this RfC) regarding this matter. A09|(pogovor) 19:12, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't believe that writing an article is a very effective SEO activity. Modern SEO work involves using HTML structures effectively, and that's not something any editor can do, no matter how advanced their permissions. If you want to know what works, then read about what the devs are doing: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/project/view/1163/ WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:59, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Writing an article is very obviously SEO in the snake-oil 'growth-hacking' sense. Your company floats up to the top of search results over competitors and folks can then recognize your brand as one that they saw on a website that they trust. Sohom (talk) 02:52, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Your company floats up to the top of search results ...if the reader already knows and is searching directly for the name of your company. If the reader is instead searching for the subject ("Indian restaurant near me"), it will make no difference. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:47, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Except that Google will still probably prioritize it, I typed in "buffet restaurants in raleigh nc" and the second result in the search is a outlet of en:Golden Corral and the third result is the Wikipedia article for en:Golden Corral :) -- Even though I'm pretty sure there are many more buffet restaurants in Raleigh. Sohom (talk) 19:19, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Putting "buffet restaurants in raleigh nc" (without quotation marks) in Google got me zero wiki pages. (Do you have personalized results enabled? If you do, then Google might have 'learned' that you like Wikipedia results.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:43, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

That is possible, tho I do find the fact that is recommends Golden Corral aggressively suspicious (I am not into golden corral or buffets). -- Especially since it one of the more prominent ones to have a Wikipedia article. This appears to hold true even when I use a incognito window of a web browser. Sohom (talk) 23:12, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I just tried, and Golden Corral was also the top recommended one for me, although its Wikipedia article did not show up at all on the first page. Chaotic Enby (talk) 23:43, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Not to defend Google or anything, or get too offtopic, but it's not exactly surprising that this search phrase would bring up Golden Corral specifically; it's one of the largest fast food chains in the US, quite possibly the largest buffet restaurant chain other than Pizza Hut, and it's based in Raleigh. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 01:18, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:38, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, I'm not really knowledgeable about US restaurant chains, but that does make sense. Chaotic Enby (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing, @Sohom Datta: SEO optimisation doesn't work on Wikimedia as external links have a nofollow parameter. Don't let spammers know this though :) A09|(pogovor) 18:31, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

There's more to SEO work than following links.

We have been publicizing the nofollow setting for years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Checkusers and TAIVs potentially impacted by this RfC

Inspired by Takipoint123's message above, I looked into who this might actually impact. This is by no means an exhaustive list, but I had a look at editors who disclose that they have been paid for edits either now or in the past, and who also have either global TAIV, are checkusers on one or more projects, or have power over checksuers at one or more projects.

• User:Jake Park - esWiki admin, crat, and checkuser, global TAIV (paid for their contributions to es:Promotora de Comercio Exterior and en:Costa Rican Foreign Trade Promoter; has disclosed this prominently on their userpages in compliance with local and WMF paid editing policies; contrary to popular belief paid editors aren't actually required by local policy to go through AfC so direct mainspace publication is technically fine)
• User:이강철 - koWiki admin, OS, and Checkuser (disclosed on enWiki and koWiki userpages that they have been paid by the Korea Press Foundation and Gangwon Provincial Office for some edits)
• User:Revi C. - ko sysop/ ko OS / global TAIV / Ombud / VRT agent (in 2018 they were paid by the Korea Press Foundation, Gangwon Provincial Office to make edit(s?) to Wikipedia, as disclosed on their enWiki and koWiki userpages)
• User:Twotwo2019 - ko sysop / global TAIV. Discloses on koWiki and enWiki userpages that they were paid by the Korea Press Foundation, Gangwon Provincial Office to edit Wikipedia)
• User:Venzz - ukWiki Arbcom member (not a CU but has power over them on ukWiki), ukWiki and ruWiki admin. Has had a separate paid editing account since 2021 which they have used to make edits paid for by the Kharkiv Korolenko State Scientific Library. They've so far made one undisclosed paid edit about the library to enWiki - see here for the evil undisclosed spamming (sarcasm alert) whereby they fixed a name.

There's also a fair number of former admins/VRT/OTRS people, former (global) account viewers, current admins, current VRT/OTRS people and similar who appear to be in good standing who have engaged in disclosed paid editing, but I wanted to keep this list fairly on track. It's by no means exhaustive, given that I only did a brief, google-translated assisted skim of a handful of projects. That being said, if we're going to make a global RfC about the actions of one checkusers, I think it's fair to look at more examples of other Checkusers/TAIVs who have been paid for their edits. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 21:36, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

I never thought I had power over CU. The interaction between the Arbitration Committee and CU takes place in a different way. Venzz (talk) 22:04, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

@Venzz Really? In that case, my mistake; I was working through google translate and it says Arbcom members are in charge of granting and revoking the rights. It's more nuanced than that, I take it? (Feel free to respond on my talk if this is getting too off-topic). GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 22:14, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Even if this were to show a consensus that paid editing is incompatible with CU/other advanced permissions, I don't think it would be fair to penalize people who did it in the past, before that was made clear. Those who have already stopped doing such work would just need to stay stopped; those who are doing it currently or considering it in the future would have a choice: Give up the paid work or the advanced rights. Seraphimblade (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Exactly that, I don't think we should be penalizing folks who have done this before. Sohom (talk) 22:51, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

@Sohom Datta ...But above, you are calling for a U4C case against three of the editors? Sorry, could you clarify? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

The concern above was with the sentence but I know in Korea official government organizations such as Tourism Korea pay editors at time for promotion. which implies a systemic violation of NPOV on Korean Wikipedia, that is separate from this which is us talking about whether to penalize folks who have done disclosed paid editing (for the most part) while holding the CU (or a CU equivalent) role. Sohom (talk) 23:08, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Firstly, several of the editors I mentioned are the ones I believe Takipoint was referring to, given that they are highly respected editors who have "received paid contributions by such public entities and government organizations". Secondly, the word "promotion" can have multiple meanings, and the enWiki one where it essentially means "spamming" is not actually the most common. For example, just talking about how the word is used on Meta, you can see from their own description that [[Wikimedia LGBT+] "promotes" LGBT+ related content and editors on different language Wikipedias. If I try and follow that by, writing 1k+ word articles on LGBT history or putting LGBT+ related articles on the front page, am I inherently editing in a non-NPOV manner because I'm trying to promote LGBT+ topics to a wider audience? Are editors who join the Wikimedia Ghana User Group also going to be introducing systematic NPOV violations, or people who are recruited as part of the WHO's campaign to promote the spread of information relating to hearing loss? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 03:29, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Or, a slightly different way of putting it - I'm fairly certain what they're describing is what you might term a WiR-like job, but not in the proper Wikimedia Language tm. And what other editors might, in good faith, describe as blatant promotional editing. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 03:51, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, Venzz's position is similar to a Wikimedian in Residence, as he is literally paid by the library to edit Wikipedia. There is also a disclosure on his Ukrainian Wikipedia page — NickK (talk) 23:09, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, he has fully disclosed the fact he's a paid editor, or I wouldn't have brought it up publically out of fear of oversight. Also, while he is similar to a WiR, it's a longstanding customs [1] that WiRs are treated as regular paid editors when it comes writing about the institution paying them. There's a lot of grey area, but an undisclosed edit to an employer's page is a violation of enWiki UPE rules, no matter how you spin it. Not that anybody should care about that edit; I certainly don't, given that it made the article undisputable better. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 03:29, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

New policies and guidelines are rarely applied retroactively. Therefore, I don't think this RfC can impact these users, ie., lead to their permissions being revoked. – Aca (talk) 23:47, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

While they can't have their permissions revoked for past paid editing, I believe they would still be subject to it for future edits, meaning, as Seraphimblade mentioned above, that those who are still being paid would have to choose between paid editing and advanced rights. Chaotic Enby (talk) 23:59, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Completely agree. – Aca (talk) 00:01, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I believe Wikispecies has several who either are or are similar to a Wikimedian in Residence, or who are professional scientists who edit on their own time, but may edit about work that they are paid to do. I'm not sure about the status of all of Wikispecies' admins or 3 CUs, but I'm fairly certain there's at least one WS admin who is listed as a WiR. --WrenFalcon (talk) 00:30, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I would like to thank GreenLipstickLesbian for having made the partial compilation at the top of this section, which made me aware of the existence of this RfC. That said, I would like to make it clear that I have never used, do not use, and would never use the checkuser permissions for the kinds of acts that many of the editors above have argued should not be allowed for users with Checkuser permissions who engage in paid editing. I believe that if the community granted the trust needed to give those permissions to the user in question, that is sufficient reason to trust that this user will disclose if they are being paid to edit, and will not engage in actions that could be considered a conflict of interest. Having said that, if the RfC concludes that paid editing and having checkuser permissions are incompatible, I will resign that permission. I do not agree with drawing a line solely for checkusers; sysops have equally “heavy” tools they could misuse in conflict-of-interest situations. This kind of policy that is being proposed only contributes to keeping paid editing hidden, in violation of global policies. --Jake Park (talk) 01:11, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, even in your case, you were willing to bend the rules a bit. You should have created a draft and gone through AfC for your paid editing, and instead you created straight in mainspace. So, that kind of "I'll play fast and loose when I'm getting paid" is, I think, exactly why you see people not so fond of this practice. (And I don't think admins should be doing paid editing, either.) Seraphimblade (talk) 01:55, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm generally morally okay with lying to most paid editors and telling them they have to use AfC (morally fine as in "won't correct that misconception in front of the paid editor"), but no, nowhere in in the enWiki PAGs do we make editors with a financial COI, even paid ones, go through AfC. Yes, I believe they nearly always should, but you shouldn't accuse somebody of bending a rule that doesn't actually exist. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 03:29, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Seraphimblade: I request that you withdraw that accusation. Although English is not my native language, I have enough knowledge of it to know the difference between "should" and "must". Jake Park (talk) 03:32, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

"Should" does not mean "unless I just don't happen to feel like it today." It basically means, absent some really exceptional circumstance, don't directly edit mainspace if you're paid/COI; get review by someone who isn't COI. As another example, the opening paragraph to the policy on civility says editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect and They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates. That doesn't mean "Well, I can just ignore it if I don't feel like it". The "should" in COI is for something like, say, a paid editor directly taking care of blatant vandalism, BLP violations, something like that—sure, something like that, don't wait on an edit request to get answered. But outside some case like that, paid edits should be reviewed by non-COI editors, not just made directly. And again, that type of deliberately obtuse and legalistic "Oh, but it's should, not must!", is exactly why I don't want paid advocates anywhere near sensitive data. Seraphimblade (talk) 04:03, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Again, I want to be absolutely clear: I did not play fast and loose with anything. I complied fully with Wikimedia Foundation terms and local policies, which explicitly allow paid editors to make disclosed mainspace edits without requiring AfC. That's not a loophole or an evasion, it's the policy as written. If you believe the policy should be stricter, that's perfectly legitimate to argue. But accusing me of wrongdoing for following the actual rules is simply unfair. This kind of rhetoric risks turning a policy discussion into personal attacks. I'd appreciate it, again, if you would withdraw the accusation that I bent or ignored any rule. Accusing those who follow the existing policy of dishonesty is unfair and unhelpful to the discussion.. I will not accept being personally smeared for following the actual rules. (Finally, the article in question, (about a public institution of Costa Rica) was also reviewed by a reviewer, who didn't pointed to any problems in it). Jake Park (talk) 04:21, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the confusion is here. From the lead section of the conflict of interest policy: COI editors are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly, and can propose changes on article talk pages instead. However, our policy on matters relating to living people allows very obvious errors to be fixed quickly, including by the subject. (internal wikilinks omitted) You were not correcting very obvious errors; you were creating an entirely new article, and that requires prior review by a non-COI editor, not NPP review (which is much less stringent) after the fact. So, I absolutely will not retract anything, because you violated at least the obviously clear spirit of the rule, whatever the legalistic interpretations of its letter. Seraphimblade (talk) 05:07, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

So, as an en.wiki admin, what would you do about that violation? Jake Park (talk) 05:33, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

In a first instance, pretty much what I'd do about any—move it to draft and advise the paid editor they need to have it reviewed. Wikipedia has a lot of policies, so except for blatantly obvious stuff that one shouldn't do (using racial slurs, doxing people, something like that), I'll always start from the assumption that "Maybe they didn't know that." Once I tell them that, and they do then know, then if they persisted there would be tools like protection of the article title, a partial block from editing mainspace, something like that, but usually just the "Hey, maybe you didn't know, but now you do" will suffice and nothing more is necessary. I think one should almost always reach for words before reaching for the big red buttons. Seraphimblade (talk) 05:38, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

"Legalistic interpretations" is a real interesting way to describe somebody reading a text written in their second language and making the mistake of taking it literally. Should Jake Park have used the AfC method? Yes, IMO - it helps re-assure other editors and the public that there was more scrutiny on the draft (the actual scrutiny is very variable as we all know, but the illusion is a nice thing to have), and it makes things easier on the entity the article is about should the media pick up on the fact that the article was paid for. But no, "must" and "should" are not the same word for a reason, and they are not used as synonyms in the policy. Please bear in mind this is coming from a person who believes that AfC/3rd party review should be mandated for all financial-COI edits relating to products/businesses, and all COI editing related to BLPs where the edits are not made by an account verified to belong to the LP in question, which I think is a step farther than most people in this discussion would be willing to go. But even I have to unfortunately admit that prior review is not a current requirement, no matter how much I wish it was. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 08:52, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

@GreenLipstickLesbian: To be completely fair, AfC as a process and a safeguard against paid editing is something feasible only on big wikis as it requires a large editorial mass. I cannot imagine the waste of technical resources and volunteer time to implement such systems on small wikis where there's only a chance that some edits might be paid. I feel like we need to find a viable and acceptable solution on paid editing for smaller wikis as well. A09|(pogovor) 09:22, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Well... given my experience with a couple of very small wikis, the "solution" is: Special:RecentChanges. When you can easily review every single new article in the space of a few minutes, and you know all of the regular and recognized the names of all the occasional editors, it's not difficult to spot inappropriate content (paid or otherwise). For example, the Haitian Creole Wikipedia has received 6 new articles in the last month. Most are okay; one is poor quality but notable (an article on the grammar element of "sentence"). When you see NPOV problems, you just fix them (assuming you read the language, which in this case, I don't). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

@A09 Oh yeah, sorry, that probably is only something I'd support on enWiki; while I'd love a a similar system on smaller wikis, you're right that it's just not tenable. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 00:23, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

WiR (or WiR-like) folks/programs imo are fine (and are something I intend to keep in mind for later) -- I think it's fairly obvious now (to me atleast) that there is a bit of nuance here surrounding navigating this. (especially in the context of Wikispecies or Commons). Sohom (talk) 02:48, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

@Sohom Datta And that definition of WiR programs is the major issue, in my view. This RfC will do little to dissuade bad actors from abusing the CU tool (as they'll just lie). This will be used to abuse or threaten good faith editors who engage in WiR-programs or perhaps use Wikipedia as part of their jobs (such as for teaching) because actually defining a WiR-like position is a lot harder than it seems, as we can see from the fact that you thought koWiki's version of WiRs needed to be investigated, because they didn't use the WiR language. This will be used against teachers who have their students submit work for course assignments (at least on enWiki) because by the letter of the law the teacher is a paid editor, often not working through WikiEd, and student assignments are annoying to deal with and I think we all know at least one powerful former admin who would absolutely run with this against teachers. This will be used against anybody who makes an edit about their employer - for example, you made a COI edit request a while ago; due to massive amounts of wikilawyering from bad faith actors, many Wikipedians (myself included) treat any edit made by an employee of an institute about that institute, whether they admit to being specifically paid to make that edit and whether or not it's a COI request, as a paid edit. Should you not make such requests as an admin, because it can plausibly be construed as paid editing? We can already see from a few !votes that many people are very wary of specifically governmental influence, with one person specifically calling out "Indian Checkusers", not just editors paid by the Indian government to make edits. So we can see already how this will be used against people who gets jobs in their government, or even just people who live in an area with a government that has a history of pressuring Wikipedia admins to do their bidding, whether or not they do paid editing. For example, the French government threatened to detain and prosecute a frWiki admin if they didn't delete a certain page; should @Chaotic Enby not ever be an admin or given advanced rights because we know there's a risk of their government doing the same thing to them?

And more broadly, how about other people who work for bad employers? On a very personal note, I'm not comfortable with any have a CU on any wiki who works for companies like ExxonMobil (accused of torturing people in an Indonesian village[2]). Picking another example, I'm sure somebody who survived the Srebrenica massacre and now writes about it wouldn't feel safe if somebody working for the Serbian government was also a CU, regardless as to whether or not they made paid edits or not. And what happens if a company or government could fund a WiR position, but could plausibly also be a bad actor? In cases of government-sponsored positions, the ways to see abuse should be obvious. However, in Alaska where I live, a lot of museums and cultural stuff that could plausibly have a WiR are funded by oil companies as a way to distract from their human rights abuses. Either that or they might be sponsored or otherwise deeply intwined with our Native Corporations. One of them, NANA, has been in the headlines because helping to run a detention centre for migrants on the US border. I don't know about you lot, but I'm certainly also not comfortable with a CU working for them who is, at best, "strongly cautioned" from running a check on editors who might be writing about that particular set of civil/human rights abuses, whether or not they are technically a WiR or not. Somebody writing a draft about Bettersleep? As crappy as that it, a WiR working for NANA or a regular employee of ExxonMobil or a CU vulnerable to pressure by government with a documented history of going after Wikipedia admins scares me a lot more than somebody saying "yo, I was paid by company X to write an article on an app". Because CU stuff is logged, and by taking any form of action against that draft, I basically guarantee that they'll never be able to CU me again and while they could surreptitiously view private data, when we get into that level of deceit that just means they'll lie about being a paid editor. If they'll sell my data (they're already banned from doing that, BTW), then this RfC won't stop them because they weren't ever going to disclose that. Some people in the against section speak about CUs not having any financial COI. Quite frankly, unless the WMF hirers checkusers as full time employees, we can't stop people from having COIs related to their jobs, that's an absurd thing to argue. So it can't do much to prevent bad-faith uses of the CU permissions, but as we can see it can be used to target editors paid by the Korean government to write stuff about historical sites or Korean culture. And the proposed text carves out enough exemptions that these local Wikis can, after maybe a quick internal discussion, just allow their advanced rights holders to do paid editing anyway. So it's not actually going to accomplish much in the way of what many of those against CUs doing paid editing wish it would do. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 21:59, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Consider rules against drunk driving. Certainly, we don't think that making it illegal means that no one ever does it, or that no one ever gets away with it. We know that happens every day. The point to the rule is not "The rule will stop this bad thing from ever happening". It is, first, to express clear disapproval of it, and secondly, that if someone is caught doing it, then it is clear that it is prohibited and action can be taken regarding it, and the fact that some people do get caught and penalized may discourage others from doing it to begin with, or at least from doing it as often or as flagrantly. Seraphimblade (talk) 05:10, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Voting templates

@Sänger: Hello! Just wanted to clarify my bold edit, as you noted here. This survey offers two options: "Yes, it is compatible" and "No, it is not compatible". The use of voting templates can be misleading and quite confusing in this context, and putting "Oppose" within "No, it is not compatible", for example, can be variously interpreted. To be fair, templates here don't really add clarity or value, given how the discussion/survey is structured. That's why I boldly removed them. Also, adding bold text or icons doesn't give actual weight to the arguments one side has provided—it just adds visual clutter. Since there are no vote templates in the "Yes, it is compatible" section, I believe it is fairly reasonable and consistent to remove them from the "No, it is not compatible" section. Thank you for your consideration! :) – Aca (talk) 15:31, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Don't touch my comments (or any others). Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 15:36, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Sigh... – Aca (talk) 15:47, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

That was not quite civil, and it is neither a valid argument to prove your point. I understand that you may be attached to your comment. As you noted, I won't edit it, but I would kindly ask you not to speak for others, especially since you haven't even read my reasoning. Thank you. – Aca (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Touching anyone's comments without reasons like NPA or such is a no-go. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 16:57, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Alright. Appreciate the clarification regarding your stance. – Aca (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Outside extreme and egregious cases, you do not ever alter another editor's comment. You can of course make suggestions for them to do so, but it is up to them whether to implement them or not. Seraphimblade (talk) 13:39, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Mhm, fair enough. – Aca (talk) 14:12, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that's true. It's quite normal across the wikis to boldly fix broken links in other editors' comments. I would not describe that as "extreme" or "egregious", and nobody complains about it. I regularly fix w:en:WP:LISTGAP problems, including problems within a single comment, and nobody complains about that, either. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:19, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Advocating for home rule

This is an interesting and important discussion, and certainly relevant for projects which lack the more traditional CU appointment methods. But I can't help but feel that this goes beyond the usual scope of what is appropriate for the global community to decide for everyone. If this discussion comes out as a yes, does that mean that communities that are firmly against paid editing must allow their CUs to be paid editors? If this discussion comes out as a no, must communities remove the permissions of their CUs in good standing? Will local Arbitration Committees be forbidden from appointing otherwise qualified candidates because they were at some point paid editors? How will we address edge cases, editing that took place long ago, consulting that didn't result in editing but was still paid? I understand the need to create a default rule for communities without the usual means of CU appointment. But for communities with existing appointment processes, these difficult questions are best answered locally. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:14, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

From what I understand (although it isn't perfectly clear), the proposal is about paid editing while being a CU – it wouldn't demote current CUs because of previous paid editing, as rules aren't retroactive in that way, nor prevent people from becoming CUs because they previously edited for pay. I don't think "paid editor" should be interpreted here as a status that stays attached to someone indefinitely, but rather as an action that someone can take. Chaotic Enby (talk) 09:31, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

This RFC appears to be wanting to amend the global checkuser policy. A "yes" response would not change the policy, as there isn't anything in the policy about this today. Regardless of outcome, community appointed/elected checkusers would continue to be required to gain sufficient affirmative support from their community, who can withhold that support for any- or even no- reason. A "no" result will need more review, my first glance read would be that if someone is currently a qualified paid contributor they would fail a brightline rule for holding this permission - which could result in revocations. — xaosflux ^Talk 09:39, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

The main question is whether this proposed new policy overwrites the current opt-outs from the disclosure requirement in the terms of use or not. GPSLeo (talk) 10:49, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

That's a good question (if this closes as a 'no'). I suspect that it would certainly not due away with those local policies in general, but may add a new mandatory disclosure to the global checkuser policy that would only the minority of users that opt-in to that function. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:47, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I'd see it like the paid editing disclosure policy in general. The default would become "People with advanced permissions can't edit for pay", but if a particular community wants to loosen or opt out entirely from that restriction, they may do so, just as they may with the mandatory disclosure policy. Seraphimblade (talk) 14:28, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

That (if local opt out of such would be allowed) would need to be decided, as checkuser has cross-project implications. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:03, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

That's interesting, @Xaosflux, because I expect the opposite outcome: The Global Community™ has banned all CUs from "being paid editors" (except official Wikipedians-in-Residence, affiliate staff, and WMF staff).

There is no exception for "professional photographer who uploads his own work to Commons" or "professional coder who is being paid by their regular employer to fix an extension they use on their internal corporate wiki" or anything else that someone might construe as "paid editing", and I expect it to be enforced as written, even when that's not what the voters had in mind. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting additional RFC's are necessarily required - but that the closing should take these concerns in mind when determining what policy changes are necessary based on the totality of the discussion. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:51, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

This is also my concern. Half the oppose votes are based on the example provided, which in my opinion is not the situation for a lot of people that are impacted. Leaderboard (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing I trust the closer (and whoever subsequently proposes a amendment to the CU policy, I'm willing to be that person) to read between the lines and keep the community concerns in mind when drafting the final policy. I think it's very clear that the community seems to be fine with some level WiR-like paid editing. The question should be more: "how do we encode that properly into policy". Sohom (talk) 18:25, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

The main issue is that it isn't clear whether there can be a one-size-fits-all policy wording, given how different projects have vastly different goals to begin with. Someone contributing, say, professional photographs on Commons, or structured data about their company on Wikidata, would have a harder time being overtly promotional than someone writing a Wikipedia article, although that isn't impossible either. The question of the role of CUs in these projects also matters – how much of their tool use, if any, goes to fighting UPE? And what would the implications be for that "paid CU" scenario?

While I do believe that the proposed default restriction is a good baseline, there should be some degree of liberty for projects to adapt it to their needs (both from the point of view of the project on which CUing takes place, and the one on which paid editing takes place), and I don't think that is something we can legislate in advance when writing the global policy. Chaotic Enby (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

This is a rough wording I came up (assuming a future where the "No" version passes):

CheckUsers must not engage in paid editing while holding the CheckUser permission. For the purpose of this policy, "paid editing" is defined in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, encompassing any contributions made in exchange for compensation, services or goods whether directly or indirectly, including consulting or employment arrangements that involve editing, using CU tools or administrative actions on Wikimedia projects. This restriction applies only to paid editing conducted during a CheckUser's tenure. Individuals who previously engaged in paid editing may still be eligible to serve as CheckUsers, provided they have fully ceased such activity prior to appointment. Past paid editing is not necessarily disqualifying if disclosed, reviewed by the local community or elected Arbitration Committee and clearly no longer ongoing. Certain exemptions to the above apply. Wikimedia Foundation staff or the staff of any of Wikimedia Foundation's affiliates and community members participating in the Wikimedians-in-Residence programs are exempt provided these affiliations are clearly disclosed and all editing done as a part of Wikimedian-in-Residence. Community members participating in Wikimedian-in-Residence programs are strongly cautioned against using their tools in areas where they might have a conflict of interests. Additionally, the local community or elected Arbitration Committee can on a case-by-case basis come to a consensus to create exemptions for specific paid-editing activities for Checkusers on their wiki (for example, the commons community could come to a consensus to allow a user to continue being a professional photographer and upload pictures to commons while being a CU). These discussions must be publicly documented in a way such that the rest of the global community can access them.

This is more a brain dump but I think we can work from this. Sohom (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I could work with this! Regarding the last sentence, I expected all wikis to already publicly document their policy decisions – did you have specific cases in mind? Chaotic Enby (talk) 19:11, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Exemptions from the default paid editing disclosure rules are documented at Alternative paid contribution disclosure policies. (That's a list for convenience, not a mandatory requirement, but it appears to be complete as far as I know.)

An exemption from the global rules would presumably require some changes to the local CU policies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:55, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it would! That's by design. Sohom (talk) 23:12, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

This is a good staring point of a final policy with the option for different local policies. (But I still think we do not need such a policy.) The in exchange for also indirect compensation is a bit problematic. What if someone edits the article about an organization and years later applies for a job at this organization? This is something that might happen quite often and it is impossible to say if the person got the job because they liked that particular contribution to their article or because of other qualifications. The edit was very likely not made with such an intention to get a benefit from it. GPSLeo (talk) 21:10, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I think this is a good start, but it could use some improvements. For one, I'm not convinced that every editor in a WiR-like role is documented as such (and IMO that's fine on certain wikis with a no-disclosure-necessary policy). Additionally, for the second-to-last sentence, is there any particular reason why it's specified as a case-by-case basis? It feels to me as though deleting "on a case-by-case basis" could give wikis a little bit more freedom, e.g. to make exceptions for a broader class of people, rather than the strictest interpretation of "on a case-by-case basis" (deciding eligibility for each and every potential CU).

I also think further input is needed to hammer out the specifics. Wikispecies (scientists who edit as part of their job, or edit about the work they do), Commons (professional photographers), and the other projects with a no-disclosure-necessary policy may have more people who can provide valuable input, feedback, and concerns. For Wikispecies, please also see this archived discussion about changing the local paid editing policy and some concerns raised there. --WrenFalcon (talk) 22:38, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

@WrenFalcon A project (that is not enwiki) will have very few CUs in general and the WMF/stewards mandates CUs should be decided by consensus. Deciding whether to approve a person's paid editing is in terms of process just a question of asking CU to mandatorily disclose their conflicts as part of their Request-for-CU discussion that is already mandatory. The change in process in relatively minor and I don't see a reason to make it wider. Sohom (talk) 23:27, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. That's a satisfactory answer for me. --WrenFalcon (talk) 23:56, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I think previous permissive ADP (alternative disclosure policies) should be grandfathered in the new clause, and should not be required to obtained additional consensus for paid editing. Leaderboard (talk) 04:31, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

I see two sets of concerns in the discussion:

• the role of CUs in addressing POV pushing/undisclosed paid editing
• the risk of CUs giving sensitive information to a malign actor (e.g., a repressive government)

The first of these only applies to a small group of wikis. The English Wikipedia has a pervasive problem with COI/paid editing (both disclosed and undisclosed). But most wikis are unattractive targets for commercial or ideological manipulation (e.g., too few readers, irrelevant subject area). For example, the English Wikipedia is attractive to commercial interests, because people read about articles about businesses and products there. But the English Wiktionary is not attractive to commercial interests, because changing a dictionary definition does not improve their sales.

I don't think that "ban paid CUs, because they might expose only some paid editing rings but not their own" makes sense for most wikis. Individual wikis could adopt/reject this as they please, without significantly affecting anyone outside their community.

The second applies to a small group of editors, no matter which wiki they're usually editing. A local exemption for Commons CUs doesn't protect these editors, if one of Commons' CUs secretly works for the police in those editors' country. One edit at Commons (perhaps someone pinged you with an innocent question?), and the Commons CU has some identifying information now. This is obviously an extreme example, but it's not an impossible example.

Unlike the above, "ban paid CUs, because they might have an evil employer" is a problem that could affect everyone, especially on central wikis such as Commons, Wikidata, and here at Meta-Wiki. The decision made by the Commons community is a decision that affects all communities.

It's also a decision that is toothless. It is naïve to believe that the malign actors will recuse or self-disclose, just because we write down a rule that says 'you can't be a CU unless you aren't paid by anyone'. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikimedians in residence

While I believe that self-disclosed paid editors should be eligible to be CUs, I don't see the reason to have a ban that exempts Wikimedians in residence. The argument against allowing this (other than from those who, it seems, would gladly place any burden or penalty on paid editors) seems to be that there is an inherent conflict of interest. Why is that considered to be less so for an (also paid) Wikimedian in residence? - Jmabel (talk) 05:37, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I believe that the supposed "inherent conflict of interest" comes from this line of thinking:

• The most important job of a CU is to find and block bad (secretive/deceptive) paid editing business.
• If the CU owns/works for a bad paid editing business, then the CU will not block their own bad paid editing business. Their interest as a CU conflicts with their interest as part of that bad paid editing business.
• That CU will find and block their competitors' bad paid editing businesses.
• Therefore, the CU's bad business will gain a financial advantage over other bad businesses.

Of course, there are always 2+ CUs at a wiki, so the more likely scenario is:

• PaidCU blocks the other bad businesses.
• VolunteerCU blocks PaidCU's business.

But I don't expect the facts to matter; people are reacting primarily from their emotions and personal values here, rather than from facts and logic. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:22, 5 July 2025 (UTC)