Wikipedia talk:Administrators/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Conflict of interest proposal

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

---

Proposal

What if we added something like the following:

Conflicts of interest

Administrators who choose to edit topics where they have a financial conflict of interest, or a conflict of interest arising from employment or personal relationships, should follow the guideline and disclose their external interest, and submit edits on that topic for prior review via talk page proposals for existing articles or through WP:AfC for new articles. They may, like any other conflicted editor, revert vandalism or make noncontroversial corrections on those topics.

With regard to paid editing:

• In their RfA opening statement, candidates should disclose if they have edited for pay in any capacity, to ensure that this is discussed as part of the community deliberation.

• If someone who is already an administrator wishes to begin editing for pay commercially or on behalf of their employer (for example, someone at a university who is asked by their supervisor to keep content about the university updated as part of their work), they should obtain consensus for that activity at WP:AN before they commence doing it, and should abide by the close of that discussion. There is no need for an administrator to obtain prior consensus before taking on a role as a GLAM or Wikipedian-in-Residence editor but like other such editors they must be mindful not to promote the institution with which they are associated but rather use its resources to further Wikipedia's mission.

• An administrator must not use their administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity.

Thoughts? This is not an RfC but rather am looking for discussion that might lead to one. The goal here is not to ban paid editing by admins which as we have seen has failed to gain consensus repeatedly, but rather ensuring that this is discussed on a case-by-case basis -- to strike the balance between people being free to do stuff but obtaining and following consensus. There is no doubt that paid editing by admins is controversial -- that the community is divided, and it is just common sense cluefulness in WP to get consensus before starting to do something controversial. But this is something that apparently needs saying... Jytdog (talk) 19:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• I think it is a pretty reasonable reflection of the views the community has expressed in recent weeks and a proposal to codify the above into written policy is likely to find support, mine included. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 20:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• My initial thought is that if it's going to work, COI needs to be defined explicitly and relatively narrowly for this specific purpose. (Paid editing is relatively easy to define; COI is a lot harder.) Per my comments at the arb case, the "official" Wikipedia definition of COI—Any external relationship—personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial—is intentionally very broad because it's tempered with "use common sense". When it's being made into a formal policy there's less leeway for common sense, as anyone holding a grudge against any given admin can—and will—claim that their interpretation is the common sense one. Retaining the broad definition has the potential to lead to a situation where practicing Christians could be hauled off to arbcom for writing about churches, or college graduates could be hauled off to arbcom for writing about alumni of the same college. Yes, the cases wouldn't go anywhere, but it would provide a mechanism for sustained harassment whilst still claiming to be acting in good faith, and you know there are at least some people on en-wiki whose minds work like that. ‑ Iridescent 20:43, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
  • User:Iridescent Thanks for your thoughts. I agree that COI can abused that way. What if the first line were "where they have a financial conflict of interest, or conflict of interest arising from employment or personal relationships, should..." Jytdog (talk) 20:57, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Yes, that would work. Per my "fan club" comments on the arb case, I'm very wary of creating any situation where "subject matter expert" becomes equated with "conflict of interest" in a formal ruling or policy statement of any kind; anyone who's watched the more argumentative areas of Wikipedia for any length of time will be wearily familiar with all the variants of "you're from Spain so you can't be neutral when writing about a Spaniard" or "you work for a hospital so you have a COI when you claim magic healing crystals don't work" that regularly crop up. ‑ Iridescent 21:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
      •  Done without redacting since we are in the early days... Jytdog (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

TBH I think that admins should not be allowed to edit in exchange for money. Forcing people to disclose their past paid editing on WP:RFA sounds like a good idea, but desysopping if someone fails to is gonna be difficult. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

User:The Quixotic Potato please see below. We have very recent evidence that trying to bar admins from editing for pay will not get consensus and I do not intend to take up the community's time with that. If you or others wish to oppose on the basis that this doesn't go far enough, so be it, but I will warn you about the perfect being the enemy of the good. I think this proposal could pass and would serve the purpose. Jytdog (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I understand and agree. I do not always agree with the majority of Wikipedians. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes per your username :) my dear spud. Jytdog (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. :) (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. I would support the first (disclose at RfA) and the third (don't use the tools for pay), but not the second (admins must gain consensus at WP:AN if they want to edit for pay). This penalizes people for being admins, even though the editing would have nothing to do with adminship. There's also a real risk that people opposed to paid editing would turn up at AN to say no, regardless of the merits. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:43, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your thoughts. Again the problems that have arisen have all been when people started editing for pay after they got the bit or didn't disclose it beforehand. And yes paid editing by admins is controversial, and that would indeed be aired every time an admin wanted to start doing it. It is better for everyone to engage with that reality rather than ignore it or leave people exposed to it. Also I do not believe the editing community is actually a pitchfork-bearing mob, and if someone really has widespread trust they could appropriately manage having the bit and editing for pay commercially, that would be expressed in the close. The close is important. The discussion would also provide a basis to sanction any fervent opposer who started hounding the person who obtained consensus, which would be a good thing for everybody. Jytdog (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
• I agree with SlimVirgin. I could get behind points 1 and 3. Point 2 would be difficult to enforce or lead to too much drama, and might make it difficult to achieve a full consensus for this proposal. Either we ban paid editing by admins or we don't. An in between isn't really workable. Banning use of the tools for pay I think has broad consensus in the community, even if it isn't in policy yet. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:58, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
  • So long as a paid editor doesn't use the tools, it makes no difference that they're an admin. The way to ensure they don't use the tools is to require that all paid editors set up a dedicated paid-editing account that is auto-confirmed but otherwise has no advanced permissions. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Under current policy, yes. The difficulty with the current ArbCom case is that an administrator used his tools to grant the paid account advanced permissions. ArbCom will tell us if they already see this as a violation of INVOLVED or another part of this policy, but I think we wouldn't lose anything by spelling out that use of the tools for pay is prohibited. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Tony, I don't see us getting consensus to ban admins from paid editing. That leaves saying nothing, which is just unwise. We should provide a path for people who have the bit, who are considering starting to edit for pay. This is kind of legislating clue, as any admin who wants to start editing for pay should get consensus first, on a practical level to avoid drama later (as anyone should do when they want to undertake anything controversial) but also as a wise way for the community to manage this particular structural issue - which we should do, as a knowledge-producing organization. Jytdog (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
        • That might be the case, but I also typically oppose comprehensive updates because those sometimes prevent good steps from being taken because the more controversial steps they are packaged with don't gain consensus. I think we already have consensus for points 1 and 3 that just needs to be formalized. Insisting on point 2 which is iffy would be letting the perfect get in the way of the good, in my view. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
          • The 2nd bullet is actually the most important point here and is the heart of the issue. If you reflect on this I think you will agree, but we will see about that, and we will also see what other folks say. I only opened this an hour ago and there is a lot more feedback that will come in. Jytdog (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• • • • I think the proposal that admins must gain approval from AN before editing for pay wouldn't work. Those opposed to paid editing wouldn't want to vote yes, but many would be reluctant to say no just because the person is an admin. So these votes would put people who oppose paid editing in an awkward position. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
        • Yes, we are in agreement. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
• I am afraid the COI formulation is still not going to work even in the new redaction. It might work if by "a conflict of interest arising from employment" we understand the situation when the individual's employment explicitly includes editing Wikipedia. Otherwise - my personal situation it that I am employed by a university, and my employer knows I am a Wikipedia editor, but they do not expect from me in any way edits in the article about the university and I suspect they do not know my username - if I am required to go to the talk page every time I need to revert vandalism or correct wikimarkup (I do not think I am doing anything else in that article), I would rather unwatch the article and hope that someone would notice the disruptive edits.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

The first paragraph about COI specifically allows direct fixing of vandalism and uncontroversial errors as does the COI guideline generally - even though i put in what i thought was excessive detail you still flogged the dead horse there.... Jytdog (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

What dead horse do you mean? Did I advocate the paid or COI editing before? Not that I remember. In any case, I do not like the current formulation and can not support it.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Still do not understand about the dead horse, but I misread the proposal. I fully support SarahSV: I would support the disclosure at ANI and prohibition to use tools to facilitate paid edits, but I would not support a requirement that an administrator would have to aak permission for paid editing (though they obviously have to inform the community that they get engaged in paid editing).--Ymblanter (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Admins editing for pay is something people care about. It is already discussed at RfAs (see below) and successful RfAs are really deals between the community and an individual. We have looked at you, we trust you, now we will give you privileges to take care of stuff we need done, and you will be accountable, etc etc. If an admin later changes their volunteer status - the terms on which they were approved by the community as an admin, this should prompt a discussion and the community should have the opportunity to consider things in light of the individual making the change. It is like any deal. This happens in marriages, at jobs, in deals between companies, etc. It isn't fair or reasonable to expect that it is OK to make such a change unilaterally (when I quit my job to join a startup this was only after a long discussion with my wife and with her consent). Again the proposal is about keeping things in balance between individuals doing what they like and consensus, and it honors the fact that a consensus about giving X the bit was made with an understanding about what the person does and who they are here in WP. Jytdog (talk) 22:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Like other editors above, I think the first and third points are desirable, but not the second one. More broadly, I think it's appropriate to disclose at RfA, but otherwise, editing by admins should be governed by COI and PAID the same as for other editors: not more, not less. That's for editing. On the other hand, the use of admin tools is of course something that is specific to admins. And for that tool use, I do indeed think that we are at the point where we need to make it policy that admin tools may never be used for paid editing. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
• I'm very happy to support the first and third points - certainly I can't imagine a typical situation where an admin should ever use the tools for pay, and would be happy to see that formalized. However, I agree with the concerns about the second point, and can't support that aspect of the proposal. - Bilby (talk) 04:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
• I can support the first and third dot points, but the second point I share the concerns above, and the lead paragraph casts and absurdly wide net over what constitutes COI. Declarations are required of course, but we already have ways of dealing with inappropriate edits that don't involve putting people in Hannibal Lecter style cages. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC).
  • This kind of rhetoric is unhelpful. Re-visiting consensus if one party wants to change the terms under which an agreement was made, is not "star chamber" or "caging". It is deep in the guts of this place - keeping the balance between individual freedoms and community-driven consensus. Jytdog (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
• Let's limit this to paid editing, not a broader COI. Point 1 is already required - at least a paid editing declaration is required elsewhere - so no reason not to have it also required at the RfA, it would come out anyway. Point 3 shouldn't need to be said, but it appears that we have to say it. Point 2 would allow some admins to do paid editing and I am completely against that. Per Tony B, we either have to completely forbid paid editing by admins (with exceptions for being paid by the WMF, Chapters, the one guy who runs the bot for Internet Archive fixing deadlinks, and simple declaration for WIRs)

RE: the background below - I think we've had 2 admins declare paid status since the ToU change in 2014, so it's not like admins will be losing anything real. Also the RfCs which I put forward to prohibit paid editing by admins had results of 16-16 in 2015 and 19-15 in 2017. The majority of editors don't want admins editing for pay. I think this underestimates the strength of the desire to prohibit what would be an obnoxious practice. The 1st RfC was on this page and it looked like the majority of the opposers were admins. Once admins get involved in opposing something like this it scares away supporters. Similar with this year's RfC. It was held at WT:COI but was part of a big ArbCom supported move to prevent people from reporting obvious UPEs (which failed). Again, admins were the main opposers of the prohibition on admin paid edits.

So do put forward points 1 & 3, but please don't have anything that suggests that paid admin editing is acceptable. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 06:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. This is about structurally sound management of COI and paid editing. Admins are not just like other editors, and indeed per this policy are expected to lead by example. The statement of COI for admins, and bullet #2, are the heart of the proposal for people who already have the bit. They are why I proposed this. Bullet #1 is really about establishing a process that is good and looks good; it really isn't necessary as this kind of stuff gets asked about, dug up, and discussed anyway. Bullet #3 is something that if anybody did it they would get pounded on anyway and is really legislating clue. What we should have is the COI thing and bullet #2 and they are why I proposed this. I thought the community was ready for them but perhaps I am wrong.

With respect to your Point 2 would allow some admins to do paid editing and I am completely against that., this is just an odd thing to write, as any admin can start editing today for pay. There is no bar to that and to be frank I doubt there ever will be one. What Point 2 does is put some structure around that, and make that a case-by-case thing. Jytdog (talk) 17:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Background

The stuff below is copied from my evidence at the current arbcom case including some stuff not there, that I trimmed.

• The abstract proposal that "admins should not use their bit for pay" has found no consensus twice recently, here in July 2017 and here in October 2015.
• Discussion in August 2017 about paid editing and NPP/autopatrol, spurred by KDS4444. Consensus against paid editors having these privileges.
• After the KDS444/OTRS scandal emerged, an RfC was opened at VPP which is getting high level consensus but is vague.
• That is dealing with stuff abstractly. In every specific instance that I know, people who were entrusted with advanced privileges and did extensive underhanded things for pay had rights stripped and some have been indeffed. There aren't many.
  • Nichalp (crat, oversighter, admin, OTRS), used a sock for paid editing. Not indeffed but all privileges stripped by Arbcom in 2009 here
  • Wifione same deal as Nichalp, except that Wifione was desysopped and indeffed via the arbcom case in Feb 2015. Times change.
  • Malunrenta was a New Page Patroller working with a big UPE sockfarm. Indeffed for socking.
  • KDS4444 voluntarily gave up NPP and autopatrol after being asked to, was stripped of OTRS access rights by the OTRS admins off-WP, but after the OTRS stuff emerged here on WP, was indeffed here.
  • The current case, of course Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors which is not resolved.

The only exceptions I have found have been:

• User:Seicer, an admin who is not too active per edit count, last edit was Feb 2017, who in this diff in June 2009 acknowledged editing for pay; explained here on 11 June that they work for a university and I only add content or modify content with information that is sourced directly from our publications and web-sites, or from accompanying articles.. That diff says that they gave up the bit and they did, but they asked for it back in Nov 2009 log). I think nobody cares as their activity has been so limited.
• The other odd case is that of User:TParis who disclosed in July 2013 here that I have a WP:COI with this subject as well - "the subject" was Alex Zhavoronkov who is here in WP as Biogerontology as disclosed by that person earlier in that thread in this diff and elswhere, here. TParis disclosed on 10 Sept 2013 at the DYK nomination for Dennis Lo, here, that Full disclosure: I was paid by a friend of the subject to write this article. However, this DYK nomination was an afterthought and not part of our agreement and done in good faith for the encyclopedia., and TParis also disclosed here on 5 Nov 2013, Dennis Lo was written by me and published by someone else who paid me for it.. The Dennis Lo article was indeed created by user Biogerontology. I'll note that TParis has a section on their userpage about the hounding they received due to that disclosure. That hounding is a bad thing.

The purpose of laying that out, is to show that while the community cannot agree on a policy about advanced privileges and paid editing in abstract discussions, the issue is controversial, and there are a few (only a few) instances of admins editing for pay commercially, and all of those involved people not disclosing they were doing it when they got the bit, or started afterwards.

Also I did a search of RfA for "paid" and have looked through the results. here is what i found.

• The only !vote where i saw a concern raised about paid editing was an !oppose vote, here back in 2013; that was a concern about a possibly paid article (raised very gently) and was one among several concerns raised. It failed for other reasons with !votes 21/23/17.
• this RfA was for someone who was paid to research WP. Passed. (GLAM/WiRish)
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sadads GLAM/WiR editor, passed.
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Zappaz, failed. Mostly for POV editing; claim of possible paid editing by one opposer.
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Kevin_Gorman, GLAM/WiR, did a lot of work on Wiki-PR matter, passed.
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Keithbob, withdrawn with about 50/50 support/oppose, with opposes driven by ...unresolved concerns about a cluster of issues on the border of COI and advocacy, and additionally unresolved sock/meat/GANG whatever, all related to the transcendental meditation movement.
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Brianhe failed, probably due to concern about overly fierce pursuit of COI/paid editing. The only one like this I found.

It is something frequently brought up in the questions - for example (these are links to whole RfAs - just search for "paid") asking what they think about paid editing and how to manage it, eg. here, here, and here, sometimes asking if the person ever edited for pay here. Saying that you are not opposed to paid editing, is not a death sentence, per this one and this one and this one. Although, in this one a relatively inexperienced editor had a userbox supporting paid editing (Template:Paid editing supporter) (added here) , and the those two things - inexperience + this support for paid editing, gave several "opposes" pause. Mostly failed due to inexperience/youth... I think.

Paid editing was extensively discussed in the questions at one of the most recent RfAs.

That is what i found. Jytdog (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Please don't respond to the proposal down here, but rather up above this subsection, which is just here for background. Jytdog (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

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

Claiming a salted page

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Hereby I claim creation of page Template:Z (now salted) for chemical elements, WP:ELEMENTS, usage. This is not to open debate, this is to claim the name (first by date). Wiki usefulness?: it is to be used as the template that provides chemical element properties. Like: identities, wikilinks, chemical & physical properties, external links, and more. (today, those are done through sub-optimal things like Template:Infobox element/pronunciation/format &tc.). Z is the symbol for atomic number, the main organising principle of the periodic table. WT:ELEMENTS is a very active project/community and has produced 88% out of 121 elements being FA/GA. Expect creation & content for template:Z in a few weeks. RHaworth. -DePiep (talk) 19:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC) That's not actually how it works. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC) Thanks for your helpful advise (I'm so new here). Actually, I think it does work so. (BTW the page-creation top notices did not work or link well -- could you fix that?). My point is that I want to claim the name, by datestamp. And as I said, filling will follow. - DePiep (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC) As it says in the editnotice, and mentions at the top of the page, PLEASE NOTE: This talk page is not the place to post questions for or ask for help from administrators. For questions, go to Wikipedia:Questions. If you are involved in a conflict you can pursue dispute resolution.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:23, 30 January 2018 (UTC) I did not "ask a question". I did datestamp my claim. -DePiep (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC) ...which is completely meaningless.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC) Comment User:DePiep, I believe you're supposed to go to Requests for page protection and request a lowering of the page protection. If it's going to be a highly visible template, you may want to request template editor protection (as I see you already have that userright) or if it's going to be on only certain chemical pages, then perhaps extended confirmed or even confirmed could be adequate. It all depends, but yeah, the talk page of the Administrators' page isn't the best place to "claim" a template, which I assume you mean you want to create it. Tutelary (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2018 (UTC) Furthermore, DePiep, while you wait for a request for unprotection to be processed, you might decide to create a draft of your template in your own user space, for example at User:DePiep/Z, which an administrator or page mover could move over the salted template for you. Also, that way others could see what it is you're trying to do (I admit I don't really understand, but I'm no chemist). Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 20:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Notes regarding December 2017 reconfirmation discussions

From:

• Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Question_on_"clouds" (Special:PermaLink/817778715)
• Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Harrias 2

Right now I'm trying to make a list of discussion points that came up in these areas that either lack clear policy definition, or there were conflicting opinions regarding. Feel free to add to the list. This is not a vote, straw poll, rfc, or anything of the like. As usual, anyone is welcome to open an RfC as they wish. Please feel free to add to this list. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:05, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Items

1. If an admin voluntarily resigns, then subsequently fails to succeed in an RfA, should they be ineligible for automatic resysoping?
2. Should voluntarily reconfirmation RfA's for sitting admins be allowed?
3. If a sitting admin voluntarily participates in a reconfirmation RfA and fails to succeed, what should happen?
4. May a resigning admin declare themselves under a cloud without details?
5. Should the community create an involuntary desysoping process?

General Comments

I would like to ask the question "can an administrator who is resigning declare himself to be resigning under a cloud?" This could come up if an admin fails reconfirmation and considers that to be enough to put him under a cloud whether or not the 'crats agree. It could also come up in a case where an admin does something that he knows will lead to a desysopping but which hasn't been discovered yet (perhaps someone contacted him privatly and he knows that the secret is about to be revealed, or perhaps his conscience is weighing on him). In such a case the admin may wish to resign under a cloud and avoid the embarrassment of everyone finding out what he did. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

I believe that decisions on what is under a cloud or not are made by bureaucrats on the resysop request where the question comes up. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Summary of this added to list. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

In the absence of a community-approved reconfirmation procedure, editors relinquishing their administrative privileges based on a reconfirmation discussion should clarify that they are doing so under the condition that they must pass a new request for administrative privileges before receiving the privileges again. isaacl (talk) 22:11, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Re #3 - that's why I resigned the bit before running RFA 2. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

That leaves the #1 question without an strict policy statement to enforce it. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• I think the big take-away from those discussions is that we need some sort of policy surrounding confirmation RfAs for them to be useful. With the current mess of policies and practices surrounding the role of bureaucrats, what constitutes a "cloud", what constitutes a failed reRFA, and whether there should even be a community-initiated desysop process, I don't think that these questions can get good answers - certainly not answers that will survive til the next reRFA, where I imagine this debate will spark up again. The way forward here is making a policy in one of the following directions - allow voluntary reRFAs and empower bureacrats to close them, create a different form of community-initiated desysop process, or disallow both. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Our policy is already clear in that only ArbCom can remove admins. The simplest solution would be to require that admins resign before a reRfA. HJ Mitchel 2 occurred under these circumstances, and was able to be closed by a 'crat. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
    • That would be ideal, though still subject to some debate over whether the resigned admin could still request the tools back after failing the reRFA. Perhaps the best policy solution here would be to propose and clarify that a) resignation is required before confirmation, and b) the results of the new RfA are binding, forming the current consensus regardless of the circumstances of resignation. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 23:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
      • Would just need to say it is binding and empower a closing crat to -sysop if not successful. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
        • The community will never accept that because it would be equivalent to a community-based desysop process. Despite the musings, we are not going to have community-based desysoping on en.wiki anytime soon. It has been repeatedly rejected, and while it has some vocal proponents, there are enough who oppose it that barring the dissolution of ArbCom, all a new RfC on it would do would be to waste a month of our time. Boldly updating either the admin or 'crat policy to state that bureaucrats will not close a reRfA unless the bit has been resigned beforehand would not require an RfC (that is already the consensus) and would update the documentation for the next time this comes around. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
          • If an administrator decides to relinquish administrative privileges and explicitly states the privileges cannot be restored without a new RfA, I don't believe the community will refuse to accept this. Sure, in theory it could refuse to allow the new RfA to proceed and reach a consensus that the editor should just have administrative privileges restored, but I don't think this is very likely. What the community has not reached a consensus on is a community-initiated process to remove administrative privileges. isaacl (talk) 04:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
            • • Yes. We agree. I was saying the community will not give crats the ability to desysop involuntarily without an arbcom ruling. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• Re #3: Before a successful RfA, people cannot switch between being a non-sysop and being a sysop. After a RfA they can freely change between sysop and non-sysop by resigning or asking for the bit back. So, the only logical answer is that after a failed RfA, a sysop can no longer resign, and they are stuck as being a sysop forever or until they manage to pass a new RfA. Κσυπ Cyp   07:00, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• It seems quite clear to me that a) if an admin has resigned the bit before re-running (as Harry did), then it would be treated as a normal RfA and the 'crats would close as appropriate; while b) if the admin has not yet resigned the bit, however way the consensus goes, he is not obliged to do anything (unless he promised to hand in the tools in the case of 'no consensus'). Only Arbcom can instruct the 'crats to pull the lever, and that would need an Arbcom case. So to summarise: I don't believe this really needs much discussion or any changes/additions to current policy - it's not as if it's something that happens every day.

On another note however, what is perhaps needed is a community desysop system, but all suggestions have failed. Even WTT and I tried out one theory a couple of years ago to see how the community would react. Arbcom would probably still have to procedurally agree to a communty consensus, and a 'crat would have to press the button. The answer is to keep trying new ideas. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Related: Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Harrias 2#Removal from Category:Successful requests for adminship. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:00, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• I'd be very interested in a discussion barring recalls/reconfirmation from using the WP:RFA page to prevent confusion on whether a reconfirmation RfA is a policy-based discussion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

  Likewise. And I'm going to copy my comments from WP:BN below for posterity. –xeno^talk 02:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• Late to the party (happy UTC new year!). Some thoughts...
  My feeling is that Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Harrias 2 should not be considered an RfA proper: it was an informal discussion that took the form of an RfA, was hosted in a subpage of WP:RFA, was listed as an RfA, and the community apparently tolerated this - but if this is to become a regular occurrence, an RFC to determine if this is a permissable use of the space should be undertaken (especially given the substantial ambivalence shown in the neutral section, general comments, and talk page discussion).
  "Under a cloud" is a rather subjective term, and I think it should be removed from Wikipedia:Administrators#Restoration of adminship and replaced with either the language used on the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats process page or better, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Return of access levels (I think I've made this argument before).
  I agree that bureaucrats do not have a mandate to involuntarily desysop an administrator who stood for reconfirmation but held onto their tools despite the outcome; first, because it's not one of the permitted situations - but also because there is no established consensus on what level of support (or opposition) would constitute success/failure. (Are we being more lenient, because they might have cultivated adversaries merely from taking good and proper administrative actions, or more strict because there is an existing body of administrative work available for review that shifts the burden of proof?)
  I agree that the resignation of an administrator either a) immediately prior to an RfA that a bureaucrat closes as unsuccessful (I would consider this a bona fide RfA) or b) resigned following a an "informal re-confirmation discussion held in a subpage of WP:RFA" (such as Harrias 2) should be considered "controversial circumstances" and the administrator would not be eligible for simple restoration of privileges.
  On a community de-sysop process apart from arbitration, I modified one of EVula's proposals some time ago, but was convinced by Risker (at User talk:Xeno/Archive 31#Additional bureaucrat tasks) not to bring it forward for consideration. It can be viewed at User:EVula/opining/RfA overhaul if anyone is interested in either developing it further or presenting it to the community as it. –xeno^talk 01:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

RfC about paid use of administrator tools

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

---

Based on the above proposal and leaving out point number 2. Should we do the following?

Under "Becoming an administrator" after the 2nd paragraph as a separate paragraph include:

"Administrator candidates must disclose in their RfA whether they have ever edited for pay."

And under "Misuse of administrative tools" as the 3rd sentence in the 1st paragraph, include

"Administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence, or the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF."

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. If people want to tweak the wording - while keeping it simple - I'll gladly withdraw this. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

  Can you help clarify: is this a simplified proposal for an RfC? Your "support" statement makes it seem like an RfC rather than a proposal. isaacl (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

  It's an RfC, based on the proposal above where almost everybody said they liked points 1 and 3 but didn't like point 2. So I left out point number 2 and simplified the wording of 1&3. No need to stand on ceremony, you can !vote for this or propose something different. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

  Smallbones, I've added an RfC header then. This should probably be advertised on CENT and notice posted at VPP. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

  I've also bolded the proposed additions so people can see them easier. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support per above, whatever the status of the consensus on admins editing for pay, there does seem to be a pre-existing consensus that admins should not use their tools for pay. Support this to formalize that already existing consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
• Question - Should point number two also list WIRs, or is that intended to be covered by the "affiliates" clause? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Wikipedians in Residence typically edit from a distinct account, so I suppose the question there mainly would be with granting themselves permissions. I wouldn't oppose adding it to the exemption, but it also wouldn't likely come up that often. Smallbones, before this gets too big, you might want to consider tweaking the wording on that point. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I doubt it would ever come up, and if it did come up I wouldn't be against it. So why not? I added the exemption. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support clause two only I don't think there is consensus for "paid editing" witchhunts at RFA, which I think will result if people are required to disclose at that point. My biggest concern has always been about admins using their tools for paid editing, so I'm limiting my support to that clause. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support. I strongly support the second point. I support the idea behind the first point as well, but I see some reasons for revising it. I'm not sure whether it must be in the opening statement, just so long as it's somewhere. Should it instead be a fourth standard question? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Regarding the first point, in the wake of recent events it was my intention to ask all viable RfA candidates that question, but since I could get run over by a bus at any time, it might be better to have it be an official inquiry. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• I think that the current wording is flexible enough for us to either have it in the acceptance or as a 4th question. I consider the standard questions to be part of the "opening statement", especially if one doesn't self-nom, so one could meet this proposal that way. FWIW, I would prefer it as a 4th question. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• When I read this RfC, I took "opening statement" to mean where the candidate says thank you to the nominators and accepts the nomination. I don't think of answers to questions as a "statement". But I can also see it the other way. So I think that there might be a problem with clarity of wording here. It would be a simple matter to change: "Administrator candidates must disclose in their RfA opening statement whether they have ever edited for pay." --Tryptofish (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• I've IAR tweaked it since everyone who has commented in support seems to be fine with the 4th question option, and I don't think Smallbones would mind based on their statement proposing this. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Checking back, I now strongly support all parts of the proposal. I've also considered the oppose rationales, and they do not change my mind. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support - I would like to see WIRs be mentioned, but I can support at this time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support, echoing the request for WIR clarification. Would also support the first point as a standard fourth question in RfA. --AntiCompositeNumber (Ring me) 00:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support I would prefer to expand the first line to include even current administrators rather than just admin candidates. In my opinion, current administrators should also disclose on their respective user page whether they have ever edited for pay. Thanks, Lourdes 01:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Under the ToU, they are already required to disclose any paid editing they engage in. - Bilby (talk) 08:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support Admining for pay sounds like the ultimate COI. Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support Perfect common sense. And agree completely with Dlohcierekim above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support Mainly for the second point but I guess RfA disclosure is a good start. I would like to see a requirement that all admins disclose whether they are editing for pay. The history of a candidate is less of an issue than what they are doing now or what they may be doing after they get the tools. I would be much more likely to support an editor who disclosed they had edited for pay but undertake that they will not than one who says they have never edited for pay but would not undertake not to.

  I have, in the past, said I feel that paid editing and adminship do not mix. At least now, well over a year since I last looked at Wikipedia, there seems to be a solid consensus that admins can not be paid for admin action. Now we just need to get people to recognize that the admin bit is monetizable not just because of the tools but because of the actual and perceived authority they wield from the explicit endorsement of the community that a successful RfA brings. To me it is a 'God or Mammon' thing. Jbh ^Talk 03:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support quite strongly. I also support Lourdes' proposal that this should be expanded to all administrators. Ifnord (talk) 04:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Any concerned about the first point should realize that whether it's mentioned in the self-nom/acceptance statement or not, paid editing will (1) be the subject of a question and (2) get found out anyways. So making it a required disclosure in an RfA doesn't change anything, but shifts the onus of presenting the fact away from !voters and onto the candidate themselves. Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 04:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support - This should have been done a long time ago, and I commend Smallbones for the Rfa. I also support Lourdes' proposal to extend this to all current and retired admins who may return. Jusdafax (talk) 04:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support This should help against any future administrators fucking up as badly as Salvidrim did. PeterTheFourth (talk) 06:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• I can support the second statement. Originally I didn't mind the first, but on reflection it seems like a bit of overreach so I've moved to oppose, given that paid editing is not prohibited, we're not banning it from admins at this stage, and this could be easily managed by those who care via asking the candidate if they've engaged in paid editing as one of the questions in the RfA. I also note that if the paid editing was before the change to the ToU, it is so historical as to be unlikely to be relevant. If it was post the ToU, then if they were going to disclose they would have already done so, and accordingly we just need to check their user page to get the answer to this question. - Bilby (talk) 06:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Sandstein 08:31, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• Strongly support both points -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 08:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Although this feels like more spreading of moral panic-itis concerning paid editing, it is a serious issue. However, I think it needs to be modified to reflect on being paid only for content creation. This disables people like Cyberpower678 recieving perfectly legitimate and positive contributions from the Internet Archive, which allows us to have continued usage of his very good archive bot. Nothing wrong with that. The problem is that paid editing for creation of content cannot be neutral, but in other areas (like the example above) getting paid is actually quite a positive. !dave 08:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC) (changed vote)

• To my knowledge, the only time Cyberpower678’s payment comes up is in policy debates when someone is trying to make a point without actually clicking on his name in the paid editors category. No one opposes the excellent work that he does and the work on IABot is done only with local community consensus. On top of that, to the best of my knowledge, IABot is not an adminbot, so would not at all be impacted by this. At the current AC case Cyber said he didn’t really appreciate being drawn into it, and I think we should also extend to him that same courtesy in discussions like this: to the best of my knowledge his work would not be impacted at all by this proposal, so holding him up as an example of why to oppose isn’t really fair to him or a good argument. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• @TonyBallioni: With this I am probably therefore going to change my vote, but I must be missing something -- how can a bot be paid? The money is going to Cyber, no? !dave 14:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• A bit confused as to that question, but yes, the money would be going to Cyber (I’m assuming, I don’t know his personal finances). TonyBallioni (talk) 14:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Right, right, my mistake. I re-read the proposal. !dave 14:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support, very emphatically, and I am amazed that this isn't already enshrined in policy. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support, providing we make it very clear that opposing an RFA candidacy simply because a candidate has engaged / is engaged in disclosed paid editing, which is within policy, is not a valid reason for opposal, and any such opposal should be ignored by the closer. fish&karate 10:16, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Like !dave, I have concerns about the very limited range of freedom in that second point.. I don't think we should care where that money comes from. We should care about the reasons. Just disclose the paid editing activity, answer questions when people have them, back down when you have to and take away someones tools when they abuse them. Common sense really. We want to stop abuse, not people's ability to be productive. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support both statements. MER-C 11:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• Weak support first statement - we encourage disclosure but should only add as much red-tape as minimally necessary. Strong oppose second statement's separation of Wikimedians in Residence from other forms of paid editing, as if wearing a "Wikimedian in Residence" hat would absolve the act of paying from community scrutiny. Deryck C. 11:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support 2nd point, on admins not using bit for pay (and fine with WiR etc exceptions). Oppose 1st point as unnecessary drama-magnet. If someone at RFA is currently or recently editing for pay, then if they are TOU-compliant, this should be highly visible already. If they have done so in the distant past, this is irrelevant now except insofar they violated TOU or community norms while doing it, which is just as important as other skeletons they might have in their closet and I'm not sure why to elevate this one. So therefore this is only likely to "have teeth" insofar as being a drama and RFA Oppose-!vote target for users who in a transparent and TOU/norm-compliant way edited for pay noncontroversially in their distant past. (Of course, nothing stops concerned RFA participants from asking RFA gauntlet-runners about paid editing or other COI they might have had....) Finally, I could get behind a stronger "legislation of clue" type add to the admin policy, if needed, that admins are (of course!) to lead the community in avoiding any actions with a COI, except most noncontroversial use of tools e.g. responding to clear vandalism. Shouldn't need to be said, but recent events show it may be best to be explicit - and the type of stuff that has prompted this discussion is unacceptable whether the COI is $, personal friendships, or merely firmly held political or other beliefs. Martinp (talk) 12:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support both, but oppose the WiR exception. Wikipedians-in-Residence should not directly be using their admin tools in connection with their paid position either. It's a conflict of interest. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose #1, Support #2 with change. As for #2, I agree with Rob above: Using your tools in connection with paid editing is always a potential COI, no matter who pays you. Don't make it more complicated than it needs to be. I oppose #1 on policy grounds. Per WP:SOCK#LEGIT you are actually allowed to create a second account and not disclose it if you wish to keep certain editing secret from people who might otherwise judge you negatively. This imho includes established well-known editors who wish to engage in allowed paid editing without "sullying" their reputation. Since a significant portion of the community abhors paid editing in general and wishes to treat such editors worse than others, it's understandable that some editors might not want to disclose what they don't have to disclose. That it will become another unnecessary drama magnet as Martinp points out is another good reason to oppose this point. Regards SoWhy 13:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose #1 support #2 The first as pointed out by Bilby is unnecessary. Also a drama magnet. #2 is fine, advanced tools shouldn't be used in the process of paid editing. !dave 14:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support These things are already expected but it does not hurt saying them again, we already expect admin candidates to stand openly on thier Wikipedia history (the 'drama' objection is make-weight, unless your objection is RfA is 'drama'), and we already expect tools will not be sold, we did not make you buy them and we do not expect you to sell them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support the first point in spirit, the second in letter, per recent events and basically what TonyBallioni said. On the first point, I would rather simplify this even further and just add a standard Q4 to the RfA template which asks the question. Something like: "Q4. Have you ever received or expected to receive payment for any edit you made on Wikipedia?" Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Expanding: yes, there are a significant number of editors who would flat out oppose any candidate who discloses that they have ever made a paid edit anywhere ever. In exactly the same way, there are already editors who flat out oppose because a candidate hasn't created 12 featured articles from scratch, or has too many edits at WP:ANI, or they once said "fuck", or they can't explain in perfect detail how to perform a history merge. And with the recent events I and others have referred to, I'm pretty sure you can count on this question being asked in every future RfA whether it's automatic or not. It remains up to the community to decide what to do with that information. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• I'm fine with it. GMG^talk 15:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• *Support both, but oppose the WiR exception. Wikipedians-in-Residence should not directly be using their admin tools in connection with their paid position either. It's a conflict of interest. (as per Rob above). Hchc2009 (talk) 15:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support both. SarahSV ^(talk) 15:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support both, oppose the WiR exception. Rentier (talk) 15:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• Comment on the RfA point: I think one of the reasons why the RfA point matters is because what has been found over the last year and even over the last few months as the community's focus has turned to this topic is that what we are seeing is that even the white hat commercial editors who have been long time community members (and I am not just referencing Salv and the current ArbCom case) are unable to actually follow our core content policies when working in Wikipedia for their clients. This is true even of the ones who want to do so. While opposing on the grounds that an individual was a commercial editor who edited in line with policy would not be useful in my opinion, we can't actually know if someone edited in line with policy until we actually review the content they have contributed. I know it has been my mantra for the better part of a year, but disclosure is only the bare minimum first step that allows you the right to hit the save button.
  Once that step has been complete, an editor must comply with local en.wiki policies and guidelines. In particular, they must comply with NPOV, NOR, BLP, and NOTSPAM. The contributions that have been paid are the most likely to not follow these local guidelines, even by the white hat commercial editors, and the community has a right to review them before deciding whether they trust the individual with the tools. Making it required disclosure in an RfA simply makes this much easier to do, and I think that is a positive. This is not about punishing people for disclosing or causing drama. This is about recognizing that en.wiki policies are as applicable to commercial editors as they are to volunteer editors, and making it easier for the local community to review a candidate's work. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support both. Anarchyte (work | talk) 15:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support both the first and second clauses. --Joshualouie711^talk 16:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• Likely futile as everyone seems to be caught up in the frenzy over paid editing, but oppose #1. It will only encourage people to dig up dirt on others' personal lives, we don't need more reasons to oppose RfAs, how volunteers make a living is none of our business as long as it doesn't impact the encyclopaedia, and the corporate spamming rings that are the main problem with paid editing aren't interested in adminship anyway; more importantly, it's a meaningless gesture to ask someone to make a completely unverifiable statement. There's absolutely nothing to stop an unscrupulous person from making a false statement, and once we find out that it's false there's no sanction we can levy that will affect them in the least. All this will do is lead to witch hunts against good editors and discourage people from disclosing their paid 'status'. I'm ambivalent on #2 as it's much less likely that admin actions done with an ulterior motive will be in the encyclopaedia's best interests, but we already have a policy on admins with a conflict of interest and we should be careful not to get fixated on the "paid" aspect. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose #1 on the grounds of "are you now or have you ever been". Kind of support #2, but I'm a bit concerned about the possibility of WMF affiliates not necessarily acting in enwp's best interest. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• Strong support for both 1 and 2. Not perfect, but it's a start. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• What does "edited for pay" mean? Does it include editing/admin-ing while on the job? The wording is too vague. (Which I haven't done at my current job, but I have done in the past at places where it was okay to do so, hi crazy Wikipedia stalker sites). --Rschen7754 16:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• I don't believe it's the least bit vague. It means to receive compensation in return for editing Wikipedia. Unless your job, or part of it, is editing Wikipedia, simply being located at work while editing is obviously not that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• It does not mean that you simply edited at work, if the editing wasn't actually related to your job. However, if part of your job is editing on behalf of your employer, then that certainly counts as paid editing.--Aervanath (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Strong support that editors should be forbidden from accepting compensation in exchange for use of advanced tools. Weak oppose to adding the proposed statement to the RfA.--Aervanath (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• Neutral as written on #2, because I'm tired of endless slicing at this topic. I would support a flat prohibition of holders of admin or advanced rights on en.wp making money off their connection to Wikipedia or WMF, which would obviously include the proposal above. Making money does not include programs such as WIR, The Wikipedia Library's programs, or reimbursements of expenses. I oppose #1 since nothing has been done inconsistent with the terms of use or policies, and such things can be asked about in the standard questions.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - It takes hundreds if not thousands of hours to become an admin. Why not get paid? Oshek asher ashak (talk) 18:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• — Oshek asher ashak (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Actually, it's their only edit, and on that basis I am striking it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support both but with two reservations. Firstly any restriction on paid contributions shouldn't apply only to administrators, but to all rights above auto-confirmed. Secondly, the aim should be for this principle (and all others) to be followed rather than enforced, so we're really barking up the wrong tree here. See here for more on this. But these are improvements on the current (imperfect) processes. Andrewa (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support #2 and neutral on #1 as it strikes me as a little pointless. If a candidate is following the COI guideline then they should have disclosed any conflicts of interest already (and if they aren't than that is itself an excellent reason to oppose an RfA). I support the exemptions from #2, it doesn't make any sense to prevent an admin from using their tools in an area which is generally seen as harmless. Hut 8.5 18:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• Strongly support both. Administrators should not edit for pay. Ever. James (^talk/_contribs) 18:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Shearonink (talk) 19:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support both, though I wouldn't mind an additional clarification that "I'm a WiR" or "I'm an employee of WMF" isn't blanket license; all other tool-abuse concerns still apply.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  19:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
  PS: I support the idea of adding #1 to the standard RfA questions.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  05:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. The issue is not ripe and not a significant problem right now. How many paid editor admins do we have right now? The prohibited activities are vague. Yes, Warp Drive, Inc. hiring a PR firm to improve its image and exposure on WP is a no-no. Joe should not have a business of writing articles for hire. Those are the bad activities. Such activities should also be pretty obvious. They are also pretty narrow. A candidate will not be viable if he has only edited the articles about Acme Products, Inc. or done a series a fluff corporate articles. Candidates need to have contributed to many articles. What about Warp Drive, Inc. employee J. Q. Engineer contributing to many articles but also adding content to articles about faster-than-light travel? Warp Drive is paying her salary, but her duties may not include editing WP. She is interested in warp drives and wants others to know how they work. If J. Q. E. adds some factual details to the article on Warp Drive, Inc., does she automatically become tainted and non-admin worthy? What if J. Q. E. has been using a pseudonym and the disclosure about paid editing will identify her because she is the only engineer at Warp Drive? A university pays a mathematics professor to teach and do research. He writes a WP article on an obscure topic in his field and continues to improve that article while collecting a university salary. He writes some well-received journal articles. Is that paid editing? What if Mojo, Inc. notices his work, has a commercial application for it, and hires him as a part-time consultant? Does Mojo money disqualify him for adminship the next time he edits the article? What if Jim worked for and was paid by the Red Cross during Hurricane Harvey. If Jim edits anything about Harvey, is he now tainted? What if Jim updates the Red Cross article to say that the Red Cross spent $148.6M on Hurricane Harvey relief? There's huge difference between editing articles to include encyclopedic content or editing articles to promote a company or a viewpoint. And why pick on just paid editors? Unpaid editors with polar political, religious, or ideological viewpoints can be just as bad. The admin question should be based more on what an editor contributes rather than who signs her paycheck. The thrust of this proposal seems to violate WP:AGF. Glrx (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
  • See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors, an open ArbCom case that involves this issue and that raised the profile of this topic. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

    That case does not change my opinion. The proposal is too broad (captures too many innocent, well-intentioned, editors) and misses others (e.g., COI editors). The exceptions are not broad enough. What about User:CFCF, who has been a WiR but has also separately taken WMF grant money to supply Commons with medical related images? Do you really want to put a well-meaning medical student in the paid editing camp? Direct the RfA question to the bad behavior rather than a correlation that ignores WP:AGF. Glrx (talk) 20:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

  Both of those circumstances are explicitly allowed under this proposal. I also prefer the term commercial editors to make a distinction, but it hasn't caught on yet. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

  No. The proposal labels CFCF as a paid editor in an RfA (CFC has edited for pay); it permits CFCF to use tools on behalf of WMF. See User:SarekOfVulcan above. I have no problem with stripping the admin bit from somebody who misuses it for paid editing, COI advocacy, or edit warring. I'd even support fast-tracking such an action. I don't want a big bucket of bad people. A paid PR person for Democratic/Republican party would be noncommercial. A NASA employee/contractor could be improving the encyclopedia; the employee could also cross the line by puffing NASA. Glrx (talk) 21:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

  "Not ripe"? Does the community have to be in flames, with hundreds of users staging an editorial sit-in? This has been ripe for a long time and is now verging on rotten.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  05:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support with the understanding that "editing for pay" is understood in a narrower sense than in Glrx' examples. If we prohibit or restrict to non-admins "editing pages related to your paid work", that comes close to prohibiting experts from contributing to the topics they are experts in, and we certainly shouldn't do that. —Kusma (t·c) 20:17, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support on both points. The 'pedia is a volunteer project and a form of community service. It takes a certain state of mind to be a productive and contributing part of this community. If this sort of question weeds out those who see it as a commercial enterprise, maybe they don't have the right temperament for the job. (And yes, this should have been formalized long ago.) - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 21:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support both and ban anybody who has ever edited for pay from being an administrator. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:34, 21 December 2017 (UTC).
• Support both. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. The existence of the WIR clause demonstrates that there is no logical equivalence between being paid and not acting in the interests of the project. Any hard rule will have so many exceptions that it becomes unenforceable and/or drives otherwise good editors into avoiding declaring potential conflicts of interest. Every situation must be judged on its own merits - what matters is the content not the contributor. Thryduulf (talk) 22:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• First, I am opposed to proposal two without a narrow and clear definition of paid editing. It is very important to clarify what exactly paid editing is—does this include COI edits? If so, do we go by the nebulous definition laid out in Wikipedia:Conflict of interest? This is far too broad. If this only includes paid editing as defined in Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure, then I would support the proposal wholeheartedly (though even here the language is vague: "If you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for your contributions to Wikipedia, either directly or indirectly..."). Second, I am opposed to mandatory disclosure of paid editing at RFA. This is an additional barrier to becoming an administrator. I am much more supportive of having a rule that administrators cannot use the tools as part of paid editing, narrowly defined, which makes mandatory disclosure pointless. If administrators cannot use their tools for paid editing, why should this question be an issue at RFA? Malinaccier (talk) 00:33, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• What is nebulous about "receiving compensation in return for editing Wikipedia"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• I am not sure what you are quoting, but WP:COI conflates having any degree of financial conflict of interest with paid editing. Even the more narrow definition of paid editing at WP:PAID includes the vague phrase "directly or indirectly". If an administrator works in a field producing widgets and comes across an article about a startup widget producer that does not assert notability, does deleting it under A7 count as paid editing? The administrator is indirectly being compensated by reducing the amount of exposure the competitor has. Similarly, any administrator that is an academic would be prohibited from using page protection on articles within his or her field—depending on how broad we interpret direct or indirect compensation. These seem like unhelpful restrictions to me, but maybe I worry too much. Malinaccier (talk) 01:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• Our official and specific Wikipedia-wide policy concerning paid editing is not at WP:COI but at Wikimedia:Terms of Use, which says:

Paid contributions without disclosure

These Terms of Use prohibit engaging in deceptive activities, including misrepresentation of affiliation, impersonation, and fraud. As part of these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways:

• a statement on your user page,
• a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or
• a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions.

Applicable law, or community and Foundation policies and guidelines, such as those addressing conflicts of interest, may further limit paid contributions or require more detailed disclosure.

A Wikimedia Project community may adopt an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy. If a Project adopts an alternative disclosure policy, you may comply with that policy instead of the requirements in this section when contributing to that Project. An alternative paid contribution policy will only supersede these requirements if it is approved by the relevant Project community and listed in the alternative disclosure policy page.

For more information, please read our FAQ on disclosure of paid contributions. (Emphasis added)

The FAQ answers the inevitable questions, including yours, such as what "compensation" is. Our WP:COI policy is an addendum to these Terms of Use, which are binding on anyone who uses the WMF sites. There's really nothing very nebulous about this, it's quite concrete. It's also only tangentially relevant here, because we're not discussing whether paid editing is allowed, but what should be done about admins who are paid editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• Re: Widgets and academics: "Compensation" is, according to the FAQ, "an exchange of money, goods, or services." If there's no quid pro quo, then there's no compensation, and no paid editing. Far-fetched changes in the real world which could, might, maybe, possibly occur as a result of editing are not compensation. If the widget boss says "Hey, you're a Wikipedia administrator, go make our competitors look like fools, or maybe you could even delete their articles. I'm sure you can come up with some rationale that looks reasonable", then you're an admin editing for pay, because it just became part of your job, and you're paid for your work. That's compensation.
  Let's keep this discussion grounded in reality, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:18, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to the TOU language, I definitely find it to be more clear. That being said, "editors who receive payment for their edits or actions on the English Wikipedia must comply with both the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use and the local policies and guidelines of the English Wikipedia" (from WP:PAID). If our local enwiki policies are different (which, they do appear to me to be), then it is not clear what this proposal means by paid editing. Thanks again for the link! Malinaccier (talk) 04:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

What I'm not sure about in terms of real world examples are editathons where there is a free lunch, or where travel costs are refunded for classroom assistants. I get that if I attend an editathon and use the tools then I have to decline any lunch, I'm less sure about travel costs as the only person to mention that said that expenses are not pay. I suspect that the next time I'm at an editathon and someone says "oh the article on professor X has already been deleted" nobody really minds if I view deleted and say "was he a pro skateboarder in his adolescence? If so just make sure the article concentrates on his adult achievements". People probably regard a free coffee as de minimis, but sandwiches? ϢereSpielChequers 13:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support #2 only. #1 is likely to incite lots of drama and #2 sounds like a reasonable proposal. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
• Comment/Support I would still prefer a blanket 'You may not hold advanced tools if you are a paid editor'. Support 1 regardless, but 2 implies that administrators can still be paid editors, and the conflict of interest in being paid to edit is too much of a risk. It should be either/or. You can edit for pay, but you cant be an administrator. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:14, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support both - in principle. It's common sense, and it's a shame it even needs instruction creep to spell it out. That said, in the current climate anyway, an RfA candidate would have to be crazy to admit to PE. And similar to Only in death, I would also prefer a blanket policy on the lines 'No user may hold any advanced tools on any of their accounts if they are a paid editor' (WIR excepted, of course). We have to be careful that the wording would not be construed by other editors who don't enjoy advanced privileges, to mean that paid editing is expressly permitted and/or encouraged; it is not, and if condoned, only barely tolerated. I make no secret of the fact that I am strongly opposed to paid editing whether declared or not.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: If the "Administrator candidates must disclose in their RfA whether they have ever edited for pay." then this means that they have been an undisclosed paid editor. This is inconsistent with adminship and seems to be reason to terminate the RfA for violations of the ToU. No RfA could proceed with such admission. If they hide it and then get adminship and it is discovered later, they will be indef blocked. This admin would not allow Super Mario effect under a deceptive RfA.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 12:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Not necessarily. If they edited for pay prior to the disclosure rules coming into effect, they would only be an undisclosed paid editor if they continued to edit for pay afterwards. There has not been a policy or TOU anywhere that says if you have ever edited for pay you must disclose it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:42, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

@Only in death: is correct that the first point covers disclosing paid editing before June 16, 2014 when paid editing disclosure was not required. I don't think it's a big deal - many editors want to know what an admin candidate's attitude is toward paid editing. The proposed point is *not* a statement that "no candidate that ever done paid editing" will be rejected. There are enough editors supporting the 1st point that we can be absolutely sure that the question will be asked in every future RfA, so why not make the question automatic?

@Kudpung: makes an important point "We have to be careful that the wording would not be construed by other editors who don't enjoy advanced privileges, to mean that paid editing is expressly permitted and/or encouraged; it is not." In particular WP:NOTPROMOTION prohibits almost all paid editing that I've seen. Putting this point into a bright-line rule has not happened yet, but not gaining consensus for an easily enforced rule against something is not the same as a policy saying that the something is allowed. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I see the distinguishment and understand that this is strictly about those that edited before the disclosure rules changed.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, it is for every candidate: paid, past, present, never -- all, should be open in experience and demonstrate understanding of the issues. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support both to disallow any conflict of interest and require transparency through disclosure.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 15:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
• Question... I already !voted above but for those who try to argue that adminship and paid editing are mutually exclusive, I submit the following scenario: Imagine I somehow become very rich (for example if I had bought some bitcoins years ago) and I set up a charitable foundation whose whole goal is to encourage people to create quality articles on subjects that are still in need of an article (using the most requested articles list or some other random metric with no connection to myself or the foundation itself). The foundation offers a bounty of $100 for every FA created, paid to the editor who created it. No other obligations, just creating. You can also choose your own subject as you like. Are all those editors who participate in this unfit to be administrators when their actions only benefit the project? To spin it further, WP:BOUNTY already existed at some time, with the difference that the money went to the WMF. Are all editors who participated unfit to be admins? Or are all editors who participated in the last WiR edit-a-thon, just because the top article creators received some compensation? I'm genuinely curious where the line is drawn and why. Regards SoWhy 15:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
  • This is where I draw the distinction between paid and commercial editing (and yes, I know there are flaws there too, internal employees wouldn't be commercial, etc. but I think it is at least more nuanced than the current paid editing construct). Having dealt with a lot of these cases, commercial editing is very rarely ever done in accordance with local policies and guidelines, even by those with good faith and who want to follow them. It's a structural problem more so than a bad person problem. I'm not sure if I would say it necessarily makes one unfit for adminship, but if one engages in it because of the tendency for it to overlap with policy violations, it gives the community a reason to look closer at the commercial contributions. I'm not sure if that answers your question as I'm not really advocating the position, but I think it hopefully brings some nuance and puts it in a perspective as to why people might feel that way. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I raised this scenario recently, using the case of Historica Canada funding its own online encyclopedia as a similar initiative that under somewhat different circumstances I could envision funding the creation of Wikipedia articles to improve coverage of Canadian history. The lone response was that it sounds like the Wikipedia-in-residence program (which it isn't exactly). I think the distinction is not so much commercial versus non-commercial, but educational from a neutral point of view versus non-educational. isaacl (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

To tweak your point, maybe a good illustration of what Tony is trying to formulate is not commercial editing v volunteer editing, but rather commercial editing v educational editing. If you are lucky enough to wind up getting paid precisely to advance the goal of making more knowledge more free to more people, then our goals perfectly align. But if they don't then they don't, and we are right to be suspicious of anyone here with any goal in mind but exactly that. GMG^talk 20:23, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Agreed with GMG. That is the distinction that I think we miss when we discuss paid vs. volunteer. Commercial vs. educational misses somethings and isn't a perfect dichotomy (and none will be), but it is the distinction I think most people have in their mind when they are talking about "paid editing". TonyBallioni (talk) 20:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support though some tweaking may be needed. AnAwesomeArticleEditor (talk) 16:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
• Strong support. I would like to go further, but this is a good start. I do wish people would stop citing this pedantic, entirely spurious strawman that equates WiR etc. with paid editing. – Joe (talk) 22:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose for being too weak As someone who was pinged into this discussion by Glrx as being both a WiR and funded by the WMF I can say I have no problem disclosing these things, and it is not something I try to hide (in fact I feature them on my talk-page). If all that is needed at RfA is disclosure, and this not disqualifying me I don't see the issue that Glrx raises. While I appreciate the wish to spell out exceptions for good paid editing in WiRs and through the WMF, I don't think this is how we should do it. Especially not when we don't even have a proper definition of what a WiR is (COI disclosure: I'm working on such a definition for Wikimedia Sweden now and will likely be presenting something soon). What is stopping a major publisher from getting a WiR to promote their books by citing only their books on Wikipedia? We need a proper definition before we reference the role in official texts. Without that we'll just see corruption of what a WiR is.

  The addition in change 1 seems superfluous, because we already require everyone, and not only admins to disclose such things. Regarding 2, I've never seen the need in either of the abovementioned projects to use admin tools. Granted, I do not have access to such tools, but if I did I would still not see the purpose of using them within the tasks I have in my projects. If I wanted to for example move a protected page as part of any role, I would feel that I could not do this using admin tools — as this would be dishonest and in violation of both my job-role as a WiR (by endangering the community reputation of my employer) and my role as an admin. The idea that it would ever be okay to use admin tools as a WiR displeases me, and it might even promote the idea that it would be better to employ admins as WiRs, which I think goes against the non-heirarchical nature of Wikipedia. I'd like to ask if there are any cases where using admin tools would be appropriate as a WiR? I'm even tempted to say that it is often inappropriate for WMF employees to use admin tools in that role.

  If I understand it correctly consensus has not been found to prohibit admins from engaging in paid editing, but I can't find anything about no consensus for prohibiting admins from using admin tools for paid editing. Why can't we just have that? Carl Fredrik ^talk 02:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

  CFCF thanks for the feedback. The reasons I included the exemptions are a) for WMF employees - they need to do office actions sometimes, keep the servers running, and many misc. tasks that might require admin tools. I expect that this will be entirely transparent and that the WMF will police this, b) WMF affiliates - probably much less common and should also be completely transparent. The one example that comes to mind involved an edit-a-thon and a chapter employee was there to help create new accounts. This needs special permission if too many accounts are created from the same IP address on the same day. WIR - there are WIRs who are admins, but I can't imagine them needing admin tools for their WIR duties, unless it would be similar to the example in the last sentence. Nevertheless, some WIRs do complain that COI or WP:Paid rules restrict their activities. I don't see how (unless they are just not very familiar with the rules) - but I don't want to discourage WIRs in any way and several people mentioned this at the start of the RfC. BTW, I applaud your efforts to make the definition of WIRs a bit more formal. Your question "What would prevent ..." The answer now is "self-policing by other WIRs and the GLAM community," which is probably adequate now, but with GLAM-Wikipedia cooperation growing a formal definition of WIRs can only help everybody.

  As a practical matter, supporting both proposed points will probably move enWiki in the direction you'd like, even if they are not perfectly written. Any help appreciated. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:59, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

  @Smallbones: As a pedantic practical note, an exemption for office actions or WMF-related actions is unnecessary. Per WP:CONEXCEPT, office actions and the actions of the WMF are not subject to consensus, and so any consensus reached here does not affect them. We could safely drop that from any phrasing without mucking anything up if that is a point of contention. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:18, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

  The perfect should not be the enemy of the good here. This is a step in the right direction in that it formalizes an existing consensus against this within the community. Additional conversation can take place over time to tweak it, but in general these principles are a positive, even if not perfect. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:41, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

  • If you wish to compare WiR to PAID, you need to ackowledge that WiR is already highly regulated and disclosed, down to the very details of their duties (we do not get that kind disclosure with PAID, we get a much more limited disclosure) - it's not that WiR are regulated like PAID, WiR are much more specifically regulated and cabined by guideline. They are treated differently because that is the set-up, we have designed. If you wish to regulate WiR even more, then go ahead and propose that but propose it, and get consensus for it in the WiR guidance, not in the PAID sphere. As for your outlandish scenario with the publisher, the user would be blocked and likely banned but no policy or guideline can make you ethical. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:48, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker — It's an open secret that WiRs are not regulated whatsoever, which is an even bigger problem if people like you incorrectly believe they are. The only reason they seem to work is that by being mostly set up by Wikimedia chapters they have been set up by people with understanding of the issues involved. However, no regulation exists and we have nothing that stops anyone from any organization calling themselves a WiR. As for the publisher example, those things are happening today under the guise of the visiting scholar program and some other programs, so it isn't a deluded example — it is fact. I think your comment was very rude, especially as it tries to refute my comment by disseminating falsehood. Carl Fredrik ^talk 23:28, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

If this is happening right now as you say, bring it to AN or ANI, for that person to get blocked or banned. It's, shall we say rude, for you to make vague charges against unnamed people. If you have a proposal to tighten the regulation of WiR, make it at VPP, but the WIR program is quite clear about what we expect, and so it is highly regulated, in that we regulate through guideline. There is no falsehood about it. Unless, what you are actually suggesting is there are no problems now with WiR, and it works well currently - 'because those people know how', in which case, you're being very free with your charges. As for rude, I don't think disagreeing with you is rude - I think you should act on these WiR concerns you have, if they are actual concerns you have - please, go to the admin notice board and VPP- so, we all may collectively act on it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support both, oppose WiR exception They both seem necessary to maintain our credibility. The WiR exception is underspecified, and I'm not sure they should be using admin tools for pay anyway. Tamwin (talk) 05:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support 2, neutral on 1 - No administrators should be using their tools for pay; as stated above, it is too much of a conflict of interest. WiR should be exempt from this, although, as the organizations that have WiRs should have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart; otherwise, they shouldn't have a WiR. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 16:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support both: admins must not only act fairly, they must be seen to be acting fairly. Admins using their tools for pay looks wrong, however well they actually behave. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support both This is Ethics 101. Johnuniq (talk) 22:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
• Question With regard to point 1, how would this be verified? I ask because I cannot see any way you could get someone to virtually put a hand on the Bible and swear an oath that they have never done it and confirm it. For point 2, does that mean as in taking payment to block a particular user or protect a specific page? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
• Strong oppose #1, which may lead to editors being forced to involuntarily out themselves, no opinion on #2. See also this. ansh666 05:40, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• How do you figure that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:45, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• Well, if it's a simple yes/no "have you edited for pay" with no followup whatsoever then it won't, but I get the feeling that that's not what people would want as an answer. If for example someone maintains an undisclosed legitimate alternate account for COI editing for privacy reasons, it's one thing to disclose it privately to ARBCOM as is already required and another altogether to be forced to reveal said identity to the peanut gallery at a place where literally everything about you could possibly be scrutinized for not-so-kind purposes. This is in essence the same as SoWhy's argument above. ansh666 06:54, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• I think you're wrong. If the answer to the question "Have you ever edited for pay?" is "Yes, I've made paid edits using a legitimate alternate account for privacy reasons", then the follow-up question "What was the name of that account" would not be allowed because it would be an attempt at outing. Probably the only legitimate allowed follow-up question would be "Are you willing to disclose your alternate account to ArbCom or an individual arbitrator?". Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:35, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• Which will likely be followed by !votes that can be summed up as "Oppose - didn't disclose his alternate account" or "Oppose, has admitted to editing under another account and since we don't know which one that is, we have to assume that he will use the tools to help that account". Ansh666 is right, no variation of #1 will lead to anything good in the long run. Regards SoWhy 16:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support Paid editing has to be disclosed. There's nothing wrong with this proposal. --QEDK (愛 ☃️ 海) 06:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
• Strong support Paid editing must be disclosed per the TOU. Undisclosed paid editors is incompatible with being an admin. Admin tools should never be used for pay without explicit permission by the community. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose #1 as McCarythism, Support #2 if and only if the WIR exception is removed. They are paid editors, treat them the same as any other paid editor as they have the exact same COI pressures. Ravensfire (talk) 18:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
• support both, and with regard to #1, doing this by making it a new standard question #4. This is something that is a) obligated to be disclosed per the ToU anyway, and b) would generally get dug up anyway; the purpose of including it is to have a sound process in which we ensure this aspect of conflict of interest discussed with regard to the specific person becoming an admin. Jytdog (talk) 06:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

  I thought that a new standard question ought to be proposed at WT:RFA not here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Well WT:RFA has been notified and this is pretty well-advertised RfA so a standard question could be added (though currently it looks pretty mixed) Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Meh. The proposal here is simply that disclosure must occur during the RfA with no requirement where. If that part happens, given that there has been substantial support for that format when anyone brings up a preference for the way it should occur, it could likely just be implemented as a bold edit without an RfC. I doubt it would be reverted and if it was local consensus there would likely restore it without the need to have a round 2. Not a bureaucracy and whatnot. TonyBallioni (talk) 10:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• No particular opinion on any of the other issues (it doesn't seem like my opinion is needed anyhow) but strong oppose to any paid editing standard question. I know that the "admins being paid" issue is "in the headlines" so to speak, but we can't add a question for every common admin behaviour problem. We have removed admin status from many admins for many reasons in the past, not counting people resigning while about to be sanctioned or people failing in RfAs due to concerns about future behaviour problems. These removals/non-grantings of admin access happens for many reasons ranging from outing or civility problems oor edit warring or performing involved or otherwise problematic admin actions to this, and I am not being comprehensive. None of these have led to their own standard questions, not even the last one which consumed a lot more community time than the Mister Wiki case did and arguably involved far more severe damage to the encyclopedia. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:36, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support both as per COMMONSENSE, It's a shame it all needs to be spelled out really but there we are. Support both. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 22:32, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
• support both - per much of the above. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 02:41, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support per common sense. Our continual half-assed kinda-sorta policy weakness on paid editing has been our Achilles' heel for awhile now, and I support any steps in the right direction, even small ones. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support both as common sense. Double sharp (talk) 08:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support both, because such undue influence on editing is inimical to WP:ADMINACCT. GAB^gab 20:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose #1 and support #2 with modification. RfA is already enough of a gauntlet without requiring the disclosure of stuff that's happened in the past. If editors who are voting care enough about it, they'll ask a question about it. We don't currently require editors to disclose all of their accounts at RfA and I don't think we should move in that direction (especially since having an undisclosed alternate account is completely within policy). Regarding option 2, I agree with comments above that using administrative tools in conjunction with any paid position creates a noteworthy COI and so should be prohibited. Therefore I support something like "Administrators may never use administrative tools in conjunction with any activity for which they are receiving money or other inducements" (wording from WP:PAID). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:23, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose  This isn't bad, but it comes from a draconian attitude that Wikipedia can't coexist with moneyed interests, which may lead to court challenges that take out autonomy.  I think that the spirit of the above proposal would be preserved by adding a safety valve to #2 that reads, , or is authorized by the WMF.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose #1 as giving license for witch-hunts, SarekOfVulcan has already used the exact words I would have. Support #2 as a reasonable limitation on editing for pay that is consistent with the expectations and role of administrators. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:41, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support both for better transparency and reducing any future conflict of interest.  —  Hei Liebrecht 22:52, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support both -- Euryalus (talk) 02:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support #1 as a new Q4 in RfAs because it's asked so often. Support #2 because there's a pretty clear consensus that paid admin work will not be tolerated, but with the caveat that this isn't a prohibition on admins receiving pay for non-admin editing. Frankly, I would also support a prohibition on WIRs using the admin tools for WIR work unless there's a compelling reason to authorize it; I don't think WIR work should require admin tools, and when it does, it should be subject to a high level of scrutiny by the community in advance. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:42, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
• Strong support #1 and first half of #2. I am neutral leaning to oppose on the exception. It is well intentioned but I think we should at least have some oversight over such actions, especially as the exception covers WMF affiliates, which strike me as a very large group of fairly informal organisations. Daß Wölf 04:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose #1, Support #2 - Tool use is a big deal. Carrite (talk) 13:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support both. - Mailer Diablo 16:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
• support #2 moreso as it absolutely should not be possible to purchase admin actions. #1 seems difficult to enforce/prove. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
• No/No (more work on the details needed)

"Administrator candidates must disclose in their RfA whether they have ever edited for pay."

Must, or what? Do the paid edits have to be disclosed? Privacy concerns? Very old, early day edits? Is the connectivity between the payment and the edit completely objective a yes/no? what if, five years ago, my employer asked everyone to check the employers page for vandalism or inaccuracies? I removed typos on work time. Is that paid editing? I think this one crosses into "unenforceable" and even "unworkable". Also, it has retrospectivity problems.

"Administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence, or the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF."

Prohibition never works, instead to leads to underground activity. Timely disclosure is a much better answer. I suggest instead:

"Administrators using administrative tools in connection to any payment must disclose this in the edit summary"

There is no reason to carve out WMF or WiR. In fact, WMF-funded staff surrepticiously interefering with the community of volunteers is far more dangerous to the project than a small degree of paid editing in mainspace. To satisfy disclosure, WMF staff and and WiR editors should be required to use "(WMF)" and "(WiR)" suffixed accounts when editng in that capacity, with an explanation of their role on their main userpage.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose 1 Support 2 per Bilby. feminist (talk) 09:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
• Question how can the community limit something that is expressly permitted by the WMF TOU? Mr Ernie (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

  Easily. Next question? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Unhelpful sass? Excuse me? Please help me understand. What a ridiculous way to respond to a good faith question. Misunderstood Sarek’s edit summary - struck where needed. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Virtually every local policy that we have on en.wiki is a further limitation of the WMF terms of use. Different wikis have different behavioral guidelines. On ru.wiki I've been told they have a speedy deletion criteria for poor translations from en.wiki: obviously those articles are permitted by the TOU (we host them on en.wiki), but the local community has decided to enact stricter standards than the foundation requires. A similar thing can be found in regards to admin rights and potential non-admin arbitrators. The foundation views the en.wiki ArbCom election as being an RfA equivalent process for legal reasons, and thus would have no issue with a non-admin arb being granted the bit. Local English Wikipedia policy, however, does not permit this even though by foundation policy it is allowed. The Foundation also explicitly allowed for local communities to remove or strengthen the paid disclosure requirement of the TOU. This is not doing that (it is a behavioral policy for sysops rather than an alternative PAID policy), but if we wanted to, en.wiki could allow for undisclosed paid editing (Commons has), or we could ban it completely. The TOU are the default and the minimum, but local communities are free to create local policies to build upon them, and in certain circumstances, replace their requirements. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

To add on a bit here, local policies are allowed to be more restrictive than global policies. For example, a wiki could decided to make a 6 month activity requirement for CheckUsers instead of the one-year requirement in the global policy, since that would be more restrictive. But local policies cannot be less restrictive; i.e. introducing a two-year activity requirement for CheckUsers. If the TOU explicitly allows something, it can be disallowed in local policy - but something that is explicitly disallowed in the TOU can't be allowed in local policy. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 01:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support both - The integrity of the project and the trust of its contributors are at stake. This shouldn't have to be part of written policy, but recent events have made it clear that common sense is not so common. - MrX 00:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support both - Editing for pay is one thing, but the responsibility that comes with the bit should be separated entirely from money. Spencer^T♦C 03:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support One, oppose Two without mods. Proposal one only asks that wannabee admins disclose a potential COI; no harm in that. Proposal two is a little too strict. Every admin should be able to do stuff like squashing vandals. Perhaps even implementing page-moves for which there is a definite consensus (eg. closed RfC with clear result). Basically, routine admin tasks that wouldn't make anyone blink if an involved admin carried them out should be allowed here too. Zero^talk 03:16, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support the first, oppose the second. I am strongly in favour of restricting admin privileges in a paid editing situation, but I don't see why there are exceptions for Wikipedians in Residence or people working on WMF/affiliate projects. I am not an administrator but I have been a paid WiR (at a GLAM). During that period, if I needed an administrator to do something (and I don't recall if I did), I asked in the usual way for that administrative function to be performed just as I normally do as a volunteer. I don't see why WiRs or WMF-funded people who happen to be administrators should be exercising those privileges in relation to any activity they are being paid to perform. If the nature of their WiR/WMF role requires constant access to admin privileges (that would make it terribly inefficient to not have them), then let that case be made at RfA so everyone knows and gets the opportunity to discuss if it is reasonable or not in the specific circumstances. Otherwise every PR firm will be in the market seeking to employ administrators as their Wikipedian-in-Residence. We have had some paid COI scandals in chapters so I don't see projects they fund should be exempt from the rule. To summarise, no administrative functions should be done by paid editors and this applies to everyone with exceptions to be specifically approved through RfA process. Kerry (talk) 07:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support both statement #1 and statement #2 to be added. Disclosure of a paid editing history is a necessary part of transparency for an RfA—it should be part of the record and scrutinized like every other of the candidate's actions on Wikipedia. Use of the tooks are granted with the undersstanding that this priviledged access to the operations of Wikipedia can only be used to build the encyclopedia—not in the service of a COI. Neonorange (Phil) 09:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support in full, it is entirely reasonable. Stifle (talk) 10:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support clause #2 wholeheartedly. It presents the wrong image for an administrator to engage in paid use of the tools, regardless of how this manifests itself. As for clause #1 - mandatory disclosure of past paid editing - I'm on the fence. While I do think it's reasonable to expect RfA candidates to be upfront and honest about their history, there's nothing to prevent anyone from lying about it. We've had sockpuppets and paid advocates become administrators before; a request for disclosure would not have changed anything. Kurtis ^(talk) 14:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support clause 2 only Prior to the change in the Terms of Use, editors (like me) didn't have to declare paid editing. There's no reason to enforce our current puritanical consensus retroactively. (Are you now or have you ever been a paid editor?) The WiR exception makes sense as it's a declared CoI that the WMF doesn't care about. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support clause #2, support clause #1 in principle but oppose in practice sorry it's a bit wordy, but clause #2 is entirely reasonable, as long as common sense is applied in enforcement. Clause #1 would be reasonable, but too many editors seem to only want perfect editors as admins and that would just give them another small blip on the record to complain about. A lad insane talk 17:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose #1. Support #2 in spirit, unsure in letter. Κσυπ Cyp   17:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support. It isn't nearly enough, but it's a start. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:05, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:CREEP. The proposals seem poorly drafted and might interfere with good faith or necessary activity. For example, other big sites such as Facebook are being forced by outcry and legislation to employ thousands of moderators to deal with dodgy content. Such activity might be outsourced and so payments to such staff will be made by third parties. It's not our business to constrain such developments in a blanket way. Each case should be dealt with on its merits using more fundamental policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:V. Andrew D. (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
• Question I don't understand why a WiR would need to use admin tools. My impression is that suggestions from various commenters should be taken into consideration for better language that emphasizes clear disclosure. --The Cunctator (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

  Whilst I've not been a WIR I have been involved in many editathons, including some while I did a stint as chapter staff. Two main scenarios where the tools are useful are 1 when you have more than half a dozen newbie attendees at an editathon per IP address. There are throttles that limit newbie edits per minute and editathons can collapse from the instructor saying all hit save now. Having an admin setting accounts as confirmed is one workaround, having several mobile phones acting as mobile hotspots is another. 2 when one person at the editathon asks why their article was deleted. In both scenarios it is easiest if your admin is there as a classroom assistant, but I can see it sometimes being the WIR. ϢereSpielChequers 22:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

  • While I don't disagree with you that these are issues for running events, why not give those powers to those who have the course coordinator and course instructor right? I run events all the time (not as a WiR) and have to put up with these problems all the time. This proposal exemption should not be seen as a way to fix the problem of events for WiRs who also happen to be admins. We should fix that problem everyone who runs events whether or not they are admins and whether or not they are WiRs. Kerry (talk) 03:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Setting attendees as confirmed is a clutzy workaround, we really need the event organisers userright - but that won't happen unless the WMF decide that GLAM is a program they want to promote and put IT resource into. Good luck with that! Looking at deleted edits is sometimes incredibly useful for having an admin at editathons, we can usually get one or two to ones in London. But view deleted isn't going to get unbundled. ϢereSpielChequers 13:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support #2 except for WiR exception. WiRs can ask for admin help, like the rest of us. (Different RfC, I guess, but #2 should also apply to use of the rollback and reviewer tools by non-admins.) Oppose #1 as written. Probably could support with an added time limit—e.g., paid editing within the past five years. (The ToU change isn't a good boundary line, since the community largely disapproved of paid editing long before the WMF acted.) In the unlikely but possible event that a user engaged in paid editing in the distant past but ceased all such activity long ago, disclosure shouldn't be required at RfA. If someone has good reason to suspect it and can provide a compelling rationale for asking, they can ask away, and then the candidate can choose to answer truthfully or decline to answer. But all sorts of wonderful people did stupid things once upon a time, and there's no reason to compel them to pin a badge of shame on themselves in advance of a valid query (i.e., not a fishing expedition). Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 06:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose #1 as written the reason several of the editors above, whom I now join, have stated they are opposing this is witch hunts. This is not an academic concern, but a sane reaction to the open hostility to all paid editing expressed by many community members. Since RfA is a percentage vote, the mere disclosure of paid editing, regardless of the past age or circumstances, can be expected to both increase opposes (likely phrased pretextually if we ban people from opposing on disclosed past paid editing grounds) and decrease support (who wants to go on the record as supporting a paid editor?). Thus, any editor standing for RfA has a choice of lying or being a target of a witch hunt, thus rewarding dishonesty in admin candidates, a perverse incentive if I ever heard of one.

Instead, how about Do you certify that any past paid editing that you may have done has been disclosed in full to the Arbitration Committee via email? It works for undisclosed/unlinked alternate accounts for functionaries, so why not give ArbCom one more similar protected oversight task? Jclemens (talk) 06:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• You seem to misunderstand the role of the ArbCom, and overestimate the amount of time and manpower they have available to deal with this kinda stuff. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 06:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Former arbitrators tend to have a good appreciation of the entire workload of the arbitration committee, particularly given that a lot of it is not visible to the general community. isaacl (talk) 07:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Not all of them. Q.E.D. We shouldn't talk about former arbitrators, because inevitably someone will mention stuff like this. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 07:34, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support #2 minus WiR exception, oppose #1 - As has already been stated, if a user at RfA has already been following procedures concerning paid editing they will have disclosed it (if they don't, then whose to say that they wouldn't lie at their RfA anyway, either way being found out for not disclosing paid editing would be grounds for blocking their adminship anyway). And as Rob has explain, Wikipedians-in-Residence could have a potential COI if they use their admin tools to expedite their work—if they're doing nothing malicious than surely an admin could be found to make the proper, objective decisions necessary. So no exception for WiRs, please. And I guess the WMF exception already covers this, but lets just be sure that this proposal doesn't conflict with WMF-paid/granted/compensated/[insert possible PAID coi] users with admin tools carrying out WP:Office actions on behalf of the WMF. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose 1, support 2 without WIR exception. 1 is redundant to the longstanding, required terms of disclosure, and encourages witch hunts as currently worded and is not nuanced enough to cover edge cases. Oppose WIR exception per Indy beetle above. Admins being paid should never use their tools where there is a COI. If it is non-controversial, an admin without a COI can be found to carry it out, or if it is, would necessitate a community discussion anyway. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support - Any advanced privileges and conflict of interest are incompatible, and, in the words on the anti-freeze container, "Cannot be made non-poisonous". Robert McClenon (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - with regard to the WIR etc. exception in #2, I think it is justified, not to allow admins to take controversial actions regarding articles about their institutions, but to allow routine ones. For example, are reverting vandalism using the rollback tool, or moving an article from draftspace to mainspace which uses the review permission, or creating an article as autopatrolled l, to be considered "administrator actions" because those tools come with adminship? Newyorkbrad (talk) 10:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @Newyorkbrad:. It's a long way up to the original wording Administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence, or the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF. If an admin is being paid as a WIR by a cultural institution, he or she would not be doing a "paid editing activity" unless it was related to that institution. So most routine actions the admin does wouldn't be considered part of a "paid activity". But the routine activities you mention, if they are related to the institution, would be exempt according to this rule. WIRs do regulate themselves however. As I see their current practices removing real vandalism would not be a problem, but creating a new, auto-patrolled article would be against their current practices which is "don't edit articles pages on your institution" - but letting another editor (not selected by the admin), e.g. through AfC, approve their draft wouldn't be a problem. In general, moving somebody else's draft to article space, might be more controversial. But I trust all the WIRs I've run across, and I trust the GLAM movement to police themselves. From what I've seen they do a great job. @CFCF: (Carl Frederick) above doesn't agree that there is enough structure to the WIR/GLAM rules, but I certainly trust the GLAM and the general communities to catch any problems and make rule changes if needed. In short WIRs are just nothing like the usual commercial paid editors we run into. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
    • @Smallbones:: Thank you. I understand your general points, but thanks for the cross-references. My comments were aimed mostly to those who suggested taking the WIR exception out of the draft. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support both per Terms of Use this is mandatory and actually should have done much earlier. If the "Administrator candidates must disclose in their RfA whether they have ever edited for pay." then this means that they have been an undisclosed paid editor. This is inconsistent with adminship and seems to be reason to terminate the RfA for violations of the Terms of Use .Further Admin doing paid editing is a inimical of WP:ADMINACCT.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting this! If I may, I'll give a technical correction though. An admin candidate might have made a declared paid edit - perhaps under a different account name - or he or she might have made an undeclared paid edit before the ToU change (June 2014) without having broken our rules. If so, I hope they'd be willing to discuss their attitude towards paid editing, but paid editing in itself is not a reason to disqualify a candidate. That said, I don't think there will be many candidates who will say "I'm a paid editor and am proud of it." Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to ask for a "snow close" here - certainly not, given the weather on the east coast. And everybody should feel like they've had a chance to comment on this. WP:Admin is a very important policy. That said, this RfC has been open for 18 days and the consensus looks clear. May I ask that a long-time admin close this in due course? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose: With or without this policy, admin paid editing would be a case for ArbCom anyways, and they can assess the case and see if it is harmful or not. In most cases, the admin is stripped of the rights anyways so this policy just adds more red tape without being useful. The fact that Wikipedians in Residence are considered to be non-harmful implies that paid editing ≠ harmful, even though most of the time it is, and all admin cases should be assessed not by a mob of editors but formally using ArbCom. Esquivalience (talk) 02:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support Administrators have been specifically entrusted with extra tools, and should be using these tools only for the benefit of Wikipedia, not for that of their own bank balance: Noyster (talk), 23:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
• Weakish Oppose, per User:HJ Mitchell and User:Thryduulf. While I appreciate the sentiment and what those supporting this are trying to do, I do not agree with the idea of substituting rigid and possibly unenforceable rules for simple common sense. I'm also not sure what problem this is supposed to solve; in the recent Salvidrim case the problem was quickly identified and the admin in question was stripped of their roles, so it's not like there is any pressing need for these steps. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC).
• Support both as a matter of common sense. jcc (tea and biscuits) 15:45, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
• Mixed Oppose 1st clause as being irrelevant and prying. I support clause 2, but without the exception for WIR, per Rob above. This is consistent with only stopping admin from using their tools for pay, which is the real goal. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support second as a basic requirement to ensure integrity/ Support second as closing a possible loophole DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)`
• Comment - since this RfC has now been open for 30 days, and the last !vote was 8 days ago, I'll request that it be closed. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support point 2. No opinion about point 1. Carrite (talk) 05:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Hi Tim, you've previously commented supporting point 2 and opposing point one. Just pinging to remind you. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:19, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Damn, this has gone on too long, hasn't it? Carrite (talk) 05:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

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