I am wondering what everyone thinks of making COI disclosure on one's user page mandatory? Based on my experience at WP:COIN, the problem with having three different methods of disclosure is that when a serial COI editor is found, without a user page disclosure it can take hours to track down all their COI contributions. At the moment, the latitude given for disclosures makes ample space for hiding disclosure. An editor might, for example, just put "I Have COI", or "I know them" or "this is about a friend" in the edit summary, thus satisfying the disclosure requirements. Or they might tag the talk page as connected contributor. All of these are hard to find when, for example, someone on a mission to document their family history is found. Having the user page list of COI articles as standard would clarify the process a lot, and perhaps make it more viisible when someone is on a bit of a COI binge.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ThatMontrealIP, I think your idea is an excellent one. Let me suggest some enhancements to your idea, which I think make it even better: We could make two new rules.

The first new rule:

• If you have a COI but are unpaid, you must include a {{UserboxSomeEditsCOI}} or {{UserboxAllEditsCOI}} template somewhere on your user page.
• If you have a COI and are paid, you must include a {{UserboxSomeEditsPaid}} or {{UserboxAllEditsPaid}} template somewhere on your user page.

And the second new rule:

• If some, but not all, of your edits are COI edits: You must provide us with a list of affected articles somewhere on your user page. You can do so either inside or outside the userbox template.

Once the new rules become final, perhaps:

• We could make a small tweak to the navigation-popups gadget. When you hover over an affected user's username, the hover popup could show the text "COI" or "Paid" next to the user's edit count.
• And, if all of a user's edits are COI or paid, we could tweak the MediaWiki software to automatically add "(COI)" or "(paid)" to their signature.

Regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 15:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that would be helpful. I work at a university library editing Wikipedia. Are all my edits COI? Are my edits on historical figures with ties to the university COI? What about edits on individuals whose only tie is that their papers are in our archive? Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 15:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Rachel Helps (BYU):

Which of your edits are COI? Dunno. It's a gray area.

We could exempt all GLAM editors from having to provide a list of COI articles (and maybe we could also exempt all Wikipedians-in-residence). You could simply add {{UserboxSomeEditsCOI}} to your userpage and then return to your usual routine.

We're not actually worried about GLAM editors here. Instead, we're worried about other COI editors, such as Greghenderson2006.

Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm okay in favour of the userpage bit (there's probably a few editors with a broad set who would need a "I have COIs, please click this link for a subpage listing all of them"). I'd be okay with the paid hover popup addition but it seems to discourage the COI declarations if it's always going to be associated with their popups, for eternity. Now if you could find a way to limit it so that it only appear on popups if you happened to be on that page/its talk page that would be phenomenal and really beneficial. But otherwise I think the negatives outweigh the positives. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nosebagbear: Fair point. On second thought: Let's show the popup message only if all their edits are COI or paid. If only some of their edits are COI or paid, let's not show any popup message at all. —Unforgettableid (talk) 18:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a very good idea. I help a friend out with his aquarium shop and have added my own COI statement to my user page as I have created some articles about bettas. It would be best for everyone who may edit in a particular space but has even an unpaid COI should disclose it on their user page. A standardised template would be very helpful! - Chris.sherlock (talk) 07:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all!

The guideline is somewhat long. Various user warning templates link to it, but I think it may be difficult for brand-new Wikipedians to understand. I think it makes sense for us to offer a short unofficial summary, in order so that new Wikipedians can more easily know what to do. I think that adding a summary might improve compliance with the guideline.

Per WP:PGBOLD, I added a summary to the top of the guideline. (Diff.) Soon after, ThatMontrealIP reverted me. Despite the fact that WP:PGBOLD asks him to give a substantive reason for reverting me, he didn't really do so.

Dear ThatMontrealIP: I assume you probably disagree with my reasoning above. If so: why?

Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 16:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a nice idea but I agree with MontrealIP that it is a bit strange to put the unofficial version before the official one. This page isn't designed purely with new editors in mind and neither should it be. Also, we already have Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide hatlinked - should we maybe make this more prominent and link to it from the {{nutshell}}? SmartSE (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the idea that the guideline is confusing to new editors. However in terms of this edit, I reverted it because first, as it says in the header, Any substantive edit to this page should reflect consensus. Second, we already have what you were trying to do, in the form of the Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. What your edit did was basically add a set of unofficial points followed by the established guideline, which makes the page more confusing: First, the unofficial summary... The above unofficial summary is not part of the official guideline below. The edit deleted the lede that summarized the guideline, and replaced it with your own disclaimer-framed short guide to COI. I'll leave it for other editors to comment. (Also, small note but the bold on strongly discouraged isn't needed: and WP:MOS suggests we don't use bold for emphasis in that way.) ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unforgettableid's edits appear to make the assumption that COI editors are too stupid to understand the guideline. Also, if a user is reading the "guideline", placing an "unofficial summary" at the top of the guideline will likely confuse readers, not help them. "Here is the official guideline, but first, the unofficial guideline". It just looks kinda sloppy. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Magnolia677: What if we keep the summary on a different page, but we put an obvious link (not just a hard-to-notice hatnote) somewhere within the lead section? I could add the link. —Unforgettableid (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Unforgettableid: We already have the Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide; what you are proposing duplicates that page. I'd support making the link to the plain and simple guide clearer, as SmartSe suggests above. What would you think of that?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ThatMontrealIP: This would be a good idea. Let's not link to it from the {{nutshell}} template; let's link to it from the main text of the lead section. Ideally, please don't do this yourself; please let me do it, a bit later on. Regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Let's get consensus on that first.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a link to the plain and simple guide in the hatnote at the top of the guideline? How much easier could it be? More important... why? Imagine the COI editor. They are either completely naive, and enter obvious COI stuff about themselves or their garage band. Then along comes another editor who tags their talk page. Same deal with a less-naive COI editor. Their talk page gets tagged, and they have been warned. Why make so much effort to simplify the COI guideline? Anyone who ends up there has been caught, and the naive newby will make the effort to find out what they did wrong, although it's usually unbelievably easy to figure it out just from the warning on their talk page. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Magnolia677: A) How much easier could it be? Well, there could be a bold link in its very own paragraph in the prose part of the lead section. B) Why? Well, naive COI editors may get a talk page message which sends them to WP:COI. They'll know they did something wrong. But there are quite a few of rules for COI editors, and they have to read a lot of the guideline to learn them all. Some new editors may not bother, and may give up. If we include a prominent link from WP:COI to WP:BPCOI or WP:PSCOI, they can learn a good summary of the rules in much less time. This may reduce the chances that they'll give up on their reading and know none of the rules. ❧ In short: The guideline is like an official user manual, sprinkled with legalese jargon, that many people won't bother reading. A summary "quick-start guide" would be better for most newbies. Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ThatMontrealIP: A) It's true that one of the header templates does say that substantive edits should reflect consensus. B) It's also true that WP:PSCOI already exists. C) I didn't delete the lead section; I moved it downwards into a new "Introduction" section. D) MOS:BADEMPHASIS indeed says not to use bold for emphasis, as it's too distracting. Matthew Butterick, on the other hand, points out that, when using a sans-serif font, italics don't stand out enough. In practice, WP:COI does use bold for emphasis. Also, I don't think the MOS is mandatory for guidelines, or in fact for any part of project space. Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• We already have a lead and a {{nutshell}} that summarises this policy. Then there's also WP:PSCOI and numerous message templates that explain it in various levels of detail for new editors. Adding yet another resume makes it less clear, not more. – Joe (talk) 19:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A few months ago, this guideline was changed to replace the word "should" with "must", and now advises WP:PAID editors: "you must put new articles through the Articles for Creation (AfC) process instead of creating them directly". The purpose of the RfC is to determine whether this change has consensus, or if the previous guidance should be restored. –xeno^talk 12:24, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• They should not be allowed to create articles at all, especially directly in mainspace (unless they are Wikipedians in Residence or similar roles where the interests of the encyclopedia and the funders are aligned). Only volunteers should make inclusion decisions for this volunteer curated project. When paid editors start making inclusion decisions, Wikipedia ceases to be an encyclopedia and turns into an advertising medium that is nothing more than an extension of the subject's websites and social media profiles. MER-C 12:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • But that's what AfC is. A process where volunteers make inclusion decisions before an article goes live, particularly when dealing with Paid or COI editors who require an additional layer of scrutiny. If this is what you want, it's unclear to me why you would not support the proposal and would rather ban them from creating articles in the draftspace, under volunteer scrutiny. Banning paid editors from creating articles in good faith does not eliminate paid editing, it just leaves paid editors the singular option to create articles without us ever knowing their status. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 13:30, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It certainly seems to go in the opposite direction of what the paid editing disclosure requirements are meant to accomplish by pushing potential paid editors back into 'undisclosed' territory, causing more work administratively. –xeno^talk 13:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• They should not be able/allowed to make articles in mainspace, all should go through AfC. There are those that do make good articles, but those are rather few, and for them AfC should not be a hurdle at all. If only we could go as far that they should actually also must not add anything to mainspace with the articles that they have a conflict of interest with, but use a {{edit request}} on the talkpage then we would get somewhere suitable. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think such a change would need to come in the context of graduating this from a guideline to a policy (with the number of "musts" already present in the guideline, that should probably be raised anyway). –xeno^talk 13:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternatively, that wording could go into WP:PAID, in which case WP:COI follows the policy. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's probably easier, yes. –xeno^talk 14:18, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The paid-contribution disclosure (WP:PAID) page started as a place on English Wikipedia to document the paid-contribution disclosure requirement in the terms of use, including the option for the project to adopt an alternate disclosure policy. It then got a lot of stuff added from other guidelines, which has made the section describing the alternate policy somewhat confusing, as it doesn't apply to the other stuff. I strongly suggest not hanging more guidance on the paid-contribution disclosure page. I think it is better placed on this page or an explicit guidance for paid editors page. isaacl (talk) 07:02, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I think ALL editors should be forced to use AFC at this point. New and old, volunteer and paid. Wikipedia is almost 20 years old, if a topic is isn't considered notable by now it probably isn't. So validate all notability on creation instead of retroactively at AFD. Also AFC should be better at funnelling non notable topics to suitable alternate wikis so free content isn't lost. 2A01:4C8:51:4FCD:80BE:1419:F86B:1661 (talk) 14:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sounds a little extreme. I don't think expirenced non-COI editors need to go via the AFC process. Not only would that cause a huge strain on the AFC process, but that might discourage editors from creating articles since they would have to wait 6 months before their article could be created. That being said, I think we should keep the AFC requirement for creating articles with a COI. Without this, there may be widespread PR articles on Wikipedia. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 15:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that's silly. There are thousands of experienced editors who know how to create perfectly acceptable new articles. That's a bridge too far. --Jayron32 15:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every year there are thousands of new topics that immediately meet our notability criteria. It would be a mistake to force the start of such topics into draftspace where they would miss the collaborative editing that is the strength of this crowd sourced site. Spam and other COI articles are a different matter, I see no harm in shunting them into draftspace, providing we can come up with better ways to identify COI editors, or we accept that there will be some COI editors who are so good at writing in a Wikipedia way that their COI is not obvious. ϢereSpielChequers 11:35, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are literally millions of valid topics still to cover before were get close to the sum of all (Wikipedia-notability-endorsed) human knowledge. And instead of having to go through the not-a-bottleneck of thousands of capable contributors, everything would have to go through the few dozen (is it about that?) volunteers at AFC. Silly idea. (Anyway, that's not what the RfC is about, so it's off-topic). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Normally, I'm reticent to use obligatory language with anything at Wikipedia (I live IAR in real life and at Wikipedia...) but I also think that this is one of the rare cases where a bright line rule is useful. Forcing paid editors to go through a review process is ideal and will allow us to both pass on good articles to the main space (since some paid editors are perfectly capable of writing a proper article and will find the process to be only a minor inconvenience) and will also allow us to slow or stop the crap advertising that some people try to pass off who have no experience with writing in our house style. This seems like a good idea. --Jayron32 15:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• No, of course not. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• This exact topic was discussed recently elsewhere. I don't have a link to that one but my impression is that based on that discussion, the change made here does not have consensus. (I participated in that discussion also, so if someone could find and link it...) --Izno (talk) 15:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Izno is it Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 158#Paid editing? –xeno^talk 15:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That appears to be another, but no, I am pretty sure it is not that one I was thinking. Good find there though. --Izno (talk) 16:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• While we can sort out a few details of where this exact language should go, I'm generally supportive of having a strict rule to make paid editors go through AfC. As Dirk Beetstra notes, this won't adversely impact the paid editors who are good contributors and know how to play by the rules, and provides firmer ground for dealing with editors who are engaging in bad faith. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Is this a serious proposal that anyone thinks is going to work or is this just to make us feel righteous? Are we really going to expect PR firms to say to their clients, "Yes, Mr. Bigwig, we've created the biography article you paid us $200/hr for. What's that? Why can't you see it yet? Well, we're waiting for the very stringent review of Randy from Boise. No, I'm sorry. even though it would be trivially easy for us to go around waiting on Randy it would be wrong of us to do that." Really? Does that sound reasonable to anyone? This is feel-good instruction creep and bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. Note: I don't actually think the folks at AfC are Randys. They do great and important and generally thankless work. I simply don't think that paid article or PR firms nor their clients will know or care about the difference. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Eggishorn, There are also problems with the AfC process. I've seen notable topics rejected, drafts rejected for silly reasons, and editors unfamiliar with certain topics weighing in inappropriately, among other issues. Not to mention, some drafts take months or even years to be reviewed... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Another Believer:, thank you for pointing that out. Your last point (the backlog) has unfortunately become endemic and permanent at AfC and that reason alone is, I feel, enough to ensure that this proposal would be a miserable failure in practice. This proposal would, in fact, incentivize the very behavior is is supposed to stop. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:36, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Eggishorn, I share the frustrations. I think we all know at some level that what's needed to combat paid editing is better techniques for catching UPEs or shaming companies, not more rules. People focus on rules because legal action is in the hands of WMF and other sorts of action require getting creative. But I'd really prefer to see us focus on things like setting up sting operations like the one French Wikipedia used to remarkable effect or coordinating off-wiki shaming campaigns (image if The North Face had faced a serious boycott effort, not just scattered disgruntled tweets). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Feels like it will shoot us in the foot in the long run. Responsible paid editors will follow the rule and wait forever to have drafts reviewed. Bad faith paid editors will not. This incentivizes paid editors to not disclose their COI because it will be more expedient to keep it concealed. Verifying UPE is hard, and so incentivizing non-disclosure seems to be stacking the odds against us. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Wugapodes, Well said. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm late to the party, but is this only applicable to editors who have submitted a Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure and not to suspected paid editors who have not disclosed their status as such? wbm1058 (talk) 02:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• A distinction should probably be drawn between entry-level paid editors and experienced paid editors. Maybe make a professional editor put their first five or ten articles through the review but once those have passed, exempt them if they've demonstrated competence? I can envision the possibility of some paid editors having more experience and competence than our newer volunteer reviewers. Spot checks could be made on the exempted pros to make sure they aren't abusing their privileges. – wbm1058 (talk) 03:16, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the surface this seems like a common sense idea, but the problem it actively contributes to UPE. Will a company chose a disclosed editor complying with the rule who says that their article will take 2 months of review and more if it is declined, or an UPE who says they can get it up immediately? We shouldn't be putting in barriers that only disclosed paid editors have to face, in order to actually get compliance with any of our policies at all, if not absolutely necessary to NPOV. Zoozaz1 (talk) 03:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosed paid editors should go to the head of the line. We should give them a priority queue to ensure their submissions are promptly reviewed. Knowing that professional edits are more promptly reviewed than amateur edits should incentivize disclosure. Hopefully the volunteer reviewers aren't outnumbered; if they are then we'll need a way to incentivize reviewers too. – wbm1058 (talk) 03:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wbm1058:, that's an awful idea - it treats paid editors better than volunteer, newcomer, editors (or non-paid COI editors). It also would logically encourage false paid-coi claims. I would specifically refuse to work on any paid editor priority queue were this to be introduced and I suspect a good number of reviewers would join me. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This would further encourage nondisclosure. Benjamin (talk) 06:53, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, absolutely, as both the idealistic and pragmatic solution. Idealistically, we should always be reviewing any writing which we use that is not independent (another example would be incorporation of freely licensed text). Pragmatically, this is a quicker banhammer to those who are trying to subvert our fundamental principles. Almost all paid editors will not know or care about us changing "should" to "must". Any AfC or NPP editor I've seen is already leaving a paid editor with the impression that AfC is mandatory. The point is that having this as a hard rule makes it easier to take action against what previously may not technically have been sanctionable. (Of course, anyone who breaks the rules in good faith does not have to be sanctioned.) — Bilorv (talk) 15:49, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Must, unless experience criterion met - I suspect there are very few disclosed paid editors who wouldn't have disclosed if they'd had to do AfC - we functionally force people down that queue anyway. Whereas I'm staunchly against any attempt to ban paid editor creations entirely (which absolutely would bump the UPE rate). If we want to say "after 10 articles have been accepted through AfC, a paid editor may submit directly" I'd be in favour of that. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Paid editors must use AFC for new articles. I tried to find how many editors actually use the paid editing template on their user page. Seems to be around 4,000. Obviously, most paid editors are not disclosing. The argument that requiring AFC will drive them underground is not relevant here, as the majority of paid editors are already underground, from what I have seen at COIN. As mentioned above, French Wikipedia found a couple hundred of them recently. Requiring AFC is not gong to solve the problem, but it gives us some tools to work with the undisclosed paid editors that get discovered. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use of that template is not mandatory. It is perfectly possible - and acceptable - to make a compliant disclosure without it. Your "around 4,000" figure tells us no more than how many people use the template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Must. Relatively few paid editors seem to understand COI policy. Their articles tend to be riddled with issues, from notability to spam. Require AfC. Wugapodes' point is fair, however, and I've made the same point myself before on one of those PAID policy talks. Such articles would probably just get draftified. It would be easier to enforce this if the guideline on draftifying, accompanying this requirement, focused on general promo spamminess (not rising to G11) rather than requiring 'proof' of COI. In effect, the point of such a PAID AfC rule is intended to prevent the former, and only the former can be determined anyway. If that is not done, then this would be impossible to enforce, and hence just contribute to causing more UPE. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Must I was the one who changed the word, using BRD, , because I thought that my change represented the clear policy of what we were requiring them to do, and that saying anything short of that was giving them advice or instruction that would lead to their work being rejected. It was not I who started insisting they do it--I followed the lead of the other editors who consistently did, and tried merely to match the wording of our statement with our actual guideline, which is the way the policy is in practice applied.
  I don't want to downgrade honest PR or honest advertising.; I respect both professions as having a place in the world if done properly. I am aware -- and even wikifriends--with several of paid editors, and I find that none of them can be fully trusted to do acceptable work on paid articles. A few of them do very acceptable work when they work on articles that interest them as volunteers, and have no need whatever of using AfC when writing in that capacity; in principle they have the knowledge and experience that it seems would enable them to do similarly good work on paid articles also--but they almost never do. I have done paid writing outside Wikipedia, though never after I joined. The purpose of my writing generally was to write a fair evaluation of a product, and I did so, and I think I was totally honest, and I was not usually paid even indirectly by the firm whose work i was evaluating, and I was paid even when I produced a negative evaluation. Nonetheless, I knew very well that if i did not generally produce results that could be interpreted positively, I would not often be hired, because my job was to tell people about what to buy, not what to avoid buying. People can do honest paid advertising: there is indeed honest advertising. But the purpose remains advertising, and the skill is how to do the work in such a way that people will think it a fair advertisement. The paid editors I know in Wikipedia tell me that in general they have difficulty finding enough business, and are forced to turn down most requests because they know they cannot produce an honest job: one of them has left for another profession--others do this as a minor part of paid PR. I know people who write bios of professors hired by universities--they are always positive. Now, it is true that someone who was not an excellent academic would not get an article on WP, but the emphasis is different. A proper academic biography here presents a description of. the person's work, and is not devoted to explaining how good they are; a proper PR writeup for a university is devoted to explaining how good someone is, and how the university was fortunate enough to be able to hire them. It is not all that difficult to convert on for to another, and I've done it if the person is excellent enough and interesting enough to me to be worth the trouble. But I would not trust myself to do it properly for money. Money is important, and writing for money is a potentially honest activity, but it has no place on Wikipedia . Any work done for this reason needs to be carefully evaluated--and almost always rewritten--by experienced editors here who are fully aware of the origins of the item.
  The place where this is done is AfC. Before we had AfC, it was very tedious to pick out those articles that needed this scrutiny, and any look at out earlier articles will show how many got missed. We still miss them--reviewers are sometimes careless or inadequate, but much less often. Most paid work submitted to AfC is never accepted, even when it would in theory be possible to have an article. We need this as a first line of defense. (And I would as a minimum modify the immediately prior statement of exception, to when 10 consecutive articles over a period of a year have all been accepted without significant changes by the review or subsequently---and that very rarely happens. the exception would be so rare and so difficult to administer that we'd be better off without it.)

Problems in review have been pointed out, and they're real enough, for I spend considerable time looking for. just such problems and trying to instruct the reviews. But the reviews are now not any random editor, but are subject to selection, and inadequate ones get taught to do it properly or removed. Where we need to put our effort is in better, faster, and more consistent reviews, and in providing real help, not just a form acceptance or rejection. We need more of our best people reviewing, and more of us checking other people's reviews. Even so, the delays are about half of what they were a year ago, and that's no accident: a few of us make a special effort to look at the reviews they day they are submitted--both to remove the impossible before they accumulalte, but much more significantly, to immediately accept the clearly acceptable. The reviews that take the longest are those topics where nobody is interested, or nobody competent to judge. DGG ( talk ) 00:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am 100% in favor of requiring paid editors (except Wikipedians in residence at academic/cultural institutions) to use the AFC process for all new articles, and I think that the wording should be clear and unambiguous. Yes, AFC has had problems, and yes, we will always have to deal with undisclosed paid editors. We need to try to do better rather than leaving any loopholes. In addition, paid editors should be explicitly forbidden from editing articles about their employers/clients, except for reverting indisputable vandalism or flagrant BLP violations. Edit requests are the way to go in the vast majority of situations. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:56, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Articles for Creation is a failure, just like previous incarnations such as Nupedia and the Incubator – there are hundreds of articles there which are months old and so no-one with any sense submits work there. Its name is Orwellian, as it is really Articles for Delay, Denial and Deletion, and its whole conception is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia which is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, which welcomes imperfection and which is not a bureaucracy. Javerts and jobsworths are a bigger problem than paid editors as they threaten to smother the entire project with such creepy rules and regulations. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:28, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Andrew Davidson, the queue sizes are indeed an issue, and so many get around AfC, but if you look at many of the articles in the AfC queue which clearly aren't acceptable it's clear to me that AfC is a success. The load in AfC is just representative of the load we are saving from AfD + the articles that likely would've gotten past NPP. Can AfC be done more efficiently? Probably. A bot which can do quick-fails, or flag stuff to be quick-failed, might make queue sizes smaller. But no doubt AfC is a net plus. There's imperfection, and then there's stuff so hopeless that it would almost certainly be deleted. Wikipedia today isn't Wikipedia in 2005. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:04, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  An article at AfC came to my attention recently: Draft:Amei Wallach. The subject seems to be a respectable author and critic and the article seems quite good compared to many or most of our biographies which are commonly perfunctory stubs such as these. But an AfC reviewer declined this draft and so it languishes in purgatory waiting to be deleted. I've no idea if anyone involved is being paid but I doubt it as the process seems so amateurish. Dr Johnson explained centuries ago that "No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money" and so our processes need to be foolproof rather than expecting professional-level quality for free. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Andrew and because it makes no sense to make paid editors drain even more resources from the community by making them through an expensive process. Nemo 14:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • But surely this will result in their product contaminating WP. Are we really not prepared to do the work of maintaining the encyclopedia ? DGG ( talk ) 20:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • We are. The encyclopedia is maintained in namespace 0. The rest is a distraction. Nemo 14:51, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose because my comments above will likely not be considered a !vote by whomever closes this. This puts compliant paid editors at a competitive disadvantage to non-compliant ones, giving all paid editors incentive to become non-compliant. The end result will be more UPE that will be harder to find. Why do that to ourselves? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:31, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This would only be reasonable if compliant paid editor usually produced satisfactory work. They generally do not. (to be fair, perhaps one article out of 20. Almost all paid work at AfC is either drastically improved or removed. Surely the ones that attempt to bypass it are even worse. )
    I'm going to make a guess that this is an unsigned comment from DGG, yes? Either way, it does nothing to address practical consequences. Whether or not the work of compliant editors is competent, it is throttled by waiting on AfC. There is literally no reason why any reasonable person who edits Wikipedia for money would want to comply with AfC review and stating "but thou must" changes nothing about that. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Mandatory WP:NPP yes, mandatory WP:AFC no, and I think that should be applied to every new article and every editor, except maybe auto-patrolled editors. One of the keys to these two systems is that one is mandatory and the other is voluntary. That distinction should remain. Lev!vich 19:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • NPP is already not just mandatory but automatic, and always has been. But when we depended on it alone there was too much work in one place for it to be effective.. Segregatting the material least likely to be satisfactory is the only practical approach to dealing with it. DGG ( talk ) 20:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Wug·a·po·des makes a good point and so does Andrew. Dream Focus 19:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we do not screen them out at AfC, we have two choices: to screen them out at New Page Patrol, or to let their work remain in WP. When we tried to do it a NPP, NPP was backed up to a extent that made it almost useless, and. the encyclopedia was contaminated with promotionalism. To suggest that sending ing the work of editors who usually produce unacceptable articles directly into WP is a preferable course, does not realize the impact upon the level of what is supposed to be a NPOV encyclopedia.  ? DGG ( talk ) 20:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • If they are paid editors, then they know how to use Google news search, find two references to prove notability, and toss up an article that won't get deleted. Also any regulations would be ignored, they'd just create a new account through a proxy and post for a bit in random articles, then create new articles without admitting they were paid to do so. Dream Focus 20:48, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • De facto AfD still regularly deletes otherwise not G11 content for UPE/sounding too promo. 2 sources isn't enough. The concerns about UPE raised are correct so long as we don't add enforcement mechanisms. The only reason paid editing policies will keep failing is because they don't focus on how to enforce. The only way to prevent UPE is to focus on the type of content, that is it reading like promo-y or spammy paid editing, because obviously it's usually not possible to say something is definitively UPE (assuming they're not complete amateurs, which is often actually the case: people just not knowing/caring about the purpose of Wikipedia, rather than actively trying to bypass paid editing policy). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • The claim "If they are paid editors, then they know how to..." is made without any evidence, and has no basis in fact. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Getting editors to disclose is a deep problem we have. Most paid editors already use AfC anyway, because they are newbies and have no other choice. I don't think that we should advertise that articles can directly be put into the mainspace. But I think the option should exist, especially for the more experienced paid editors. The NPP process will catch those that are garbage, and tag those that are notable but problematic. As much as I like AfC, I think the process has become broken and needs fixing or replacing.
  I think this is part of a wider group of reforms necessary around paid editing. We have a serious problem with paid editing: because we make the rules around it so onerous, the smart paid editors don't disclose. We want to make the process as easy as possible for paid editors, so that they will actually disclose. It is much easier to deal with paid editors when we know who they are. Allowing experienced paid editors to create right into the mainspace will hopefully cultivate a crop of quality disclosing paid editors. I also think we should let paid editors edit articles directly, but with some form of automatic disclosure in the edit summary, but that's another can of worms. I would much rather work with a disclosed paid editor who knew what they were doing than the garbage we usually get. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:57, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be very good to develop a group of competent paid editors, but I think it impossible. As I explained, anyone writing for pay will write what their employer wants, which will usually not be actually untruthful, but is most unlikely be NPOV. At best, WP will become an encyclopedia with a sympathetic-to-the subject- but-fair POV, which is a reasonable definition of good PR. Is what the world really needs another place for PR? DGG ( talk ) 02:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Must I am generally sympathetic to the Eek/Wugapodes POV that we can't make things too onerous on disclosed paid editors otherwise they'll just turn into UPE and at that point we should just ban paid editing and make everyone UPE. However, it is, as Cullen, notes already our norm that we want paid editing to go through AfC. So this isn't some new burden we're placing on good faith paid editors, it's what we're already expecting. We're serious enough about it that COI is a reason to send it from mainspace to AfC via WP:DRAFTIFY. I think all of us in this conversation can find examples where AfC has protected our encyclopedia - by avoiding NPOV if not outright SPAM/PROMO. I would be curious if those who are opposing this change can point to real examples where we benefited from paid editors directly creating their articles in mainspace? I can't think of any off the top of my head and indeed think the small pool of paid editors who I respect for following community norms and expectations all have a relatively easy time at AfC (and/or represent clients who volunteers have already created articles on and thus are requesting changes to mainspace articles rather than writing something new wholesale which is even better). Handling paid editors is where AfC is, on the whole, at its best and we should lean into that competency not shy away from it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Examples? I've already produced an example of AfC suppressing a respectable topic. Now, as requested, here's an example of a paid editor not going through AfC. The article is Workplace hazard controls for COVID-19 and I know about this because I reviewed it for DYK. The article was actually started in draft space, as a sandbox, but then was moved into mainspace a week later, without any formalities, and then marked as patrolled by CaptainEek, four days after that. It was then nominated for DYK where it got several reviews. In addition to these formal reviews, the page also got some attention from other editors such as Doc James. That's presumably because this is an important topic. user:John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) has been working on a variety of topics related to the pandemic and this is a good thing as they are a reasonably qualified and competent professional working for a respectable organisation. Why would we want to put bureaucratic barriers in their path when they are doing good work for the project? Delaying this work would be disruptive and so fails our core policies and guidelines such as WP:AGF; WP:BITE; WP:BOLD; WP:CIVIL and WP:IAR. The word "must" in question is clearly a dead letter as it's being ignored in such cases and so fails WP:BURO; WP:CREEP; WP:NOTLAW and WP:TLDR. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:50, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I mean, WiRs are usually exempt from many extra paid editing proposals, so using a WiR as an example of a good paid editor is kinda not the best case. This policy is alluding to paid editors for companies/products/bios/etc, not the very narrow niche of WiRs and individuals working for academic institutions and/or scientific governmental organisations. Do you know of non-WiR examples? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Andrew, thanks for pointing that out. I do not think WiRs, or others mentioned in"Wikipedians in residence, reward board" should have to go through AfC. My comments were not not about mission aligned paid editors. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • So, some paid editors are more equal then others, eh? And who decides that then? Supposing some rich tech company like Apple or Google decide that it would be cool to have a Wikipedian in Residence? Or a team of them? Who's to say that's not ok? But someone suggests that it has to be a governmental organisation. Like one of Putin's troll farms? Or the Chinese social media censors. Or a media balance agency created by President Trump? You see where you're going with this. Instead of Wikipedia being the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, it's the encyclopedia that privileged people can edit. And they can get paid for it too if they have the right connections. No thanks. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Must Wikipedia is not the place for paid editors to implement spam articles; there needs to be a second opinion on articles that are conflict of interest content. Reywas92^Talk 03:11, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Must. Among other things, that would force to AfC reviewers take checking paid editing disclisures and complying with the terms of use requirements more seriously before approving an AfC submission. Nsk92 (talk) 10:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I agree that requiring paid editors to go through AfC would simply encourage them to not disclose their paid status. If we as a community are serious about vetting new pages before they're "live", it would be more effective to make everyone go through AfC. If this requirement is passed, I would like the proposed exception for WiRs (being one myself). I'm not active in page deletion though, so I'm not aware of the extent of the "damage" done by other paid editors. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm neutral about this, as new page patrol and draftification, combined with the technical restriction from WP:ACPERM, should already be sufficient to deal with paid editors creating mainspace articles. Those who have the technical ability to do so are either already violating policies or properly disclosing their compensation details. The rule has absolutely no effect on policy-abiding new paid editors; it only affects experienced users or those gaming the autoconfirmation system (almost always sockpuppets, meatpuppets or blatant advertising-only accounts whose contributions are covered by A7, G5, G11 or G12). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• MUST - how else are we going to know what's going on. They not only need to disclose, they should be required to submit their via AfC to relax the COI issues. It certainly shouldn't be the sole responsibility of NPP as we are already over-burdened with backlogs. It will also help slow down these mass creations by editors looking forward to their next almighty dollar. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Wugapodes. Forcing people to go through a process with huge backlogs will drive good paid editors away (and yes, those do exist) while bad-faith paid editors will just ignore it. AFC is not Wikipedia. It has its place for those who want to use it but it should not be mandatory for those who prefer Wikipedia as it was made what it is today, an encyclopedia anyone can edit. That is why forced draftification is equally a bad idea. Spammy new articles will already be caught by NPP in most cases with multiple speedy deletion criteria on hand to sort out the worst of it but if a paid editor creates an NPOV article about a notable subject that warrants inclusion, allowing them to do so is indeed in the project's best interest. Regards SoWhy 19:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As an AfC reviewer, PAID/COI editors make up a large number of our current backlog and it grows daily. Do I prefer this to having them run rampant undisclosed in mainspace, yes! However, and this is perhaps my main point PAID/COI editors are relatively easy to spot, because the tone of their articles runs contrary to Wikipedia tone. You can sniff out a WP:DUCK pretty easy. Whether they disclose or not, they will be found and we will block them. Bkissin (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tiny point: if paid editors were that easy to spot, we would not need this discussion. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - This will increase the number of paid editors who will not disclose, and thus actually exacerbate this issue. It is good in theory, but only if all paid editors disclose. They know very well their article will get declined at AfC, and will never disclose, thus leading to more COI articles, except now without a disclosure at all. --IWI (talk) 03:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• A while back we made a technical intervention to stem the tide of problematic new articles (multiple in fact: autoconfirmed, npp, etc.). If it has not sufficiently done so, and people aren't sure (as I am not) that this rule will solve the problem, maybe it's time to take the community's pulse on The Evil Thing we maybe dancing around: again raising the bar for page creation. e.g. Require extended confirmed to create pages in mainspace for all users, then maybe rework the relationship (or even consolidate) NPP and AfC. By the time someone makes 500 edits we'll have a good sense of whether they can be trusted to create pages. Or perhaps not ECO but a different user right that has to be requested/manually applied based on evidence of competent article creation akin to autopatrolled. I'm not necessarily saying I would support that, but it minimizes the question of self-disclosure and seems worth discussing another technical intervention. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose #1 I consider AfC to be a non-ideal thing. I was going to go with "failure" but it isn't quite that bad. Still, I don't like the idea of forcing anyone to use a broken thing. #2 This will just drive paid editors to lie. Hobit (talk) 05:06, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• They should Paid editors have already written advertisements on this site before. Look at this [2] mess (ignore the criticism section, as that was added by other editors later). The amount of advertising and self-promotion is astounding. While I cleaned this up, there are far worse examples. Look at this [3]. It is completely an advertisement. If you saw it on a billboard, you wouldn't be surprised. Paid editors need to disclose their status, or this happens. I-82-I | TALK 02:02, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Must paid editors mostly create articles according to the instructions given by their clients, so, for the sake of naturality they must put their article through AfC. GSS ^💬 08:06, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Must paid editors create articles according to the clients request and specifications do feel they should go though AFC after coming through AFC the issues of COI and NPOV will be over as the articles will be thoroughly reviewed.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Do they get special treatment because they are paid, which itself is a form of bias. However, it doesn't address the increasing number of paid editors that are subverting Wikipedia from the inside-out, almost like a 5th-column. scope_creep^Talk 08:26, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - especially (but not only) in the case of Wikimedians in Residence (of which I am one) and curators, staff trained at a Wikimedian in Residence event, etc. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: What are we going to do, if this passes, and a paid editor makes a valid disclosure, then creates a good, neutral, verifiable article, citing numerous reliable sources, about a notable subject, without using AfC? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Must, with an explicit exception for Wikimedians in Residence, if only for the sake of clarity. 'Should' is always a bit woolly - it suggests good practice, but leaves a lot of questions unanswered like 'under what circumstances is it OK not to', or 'what happens if I just ignore this?'. If we need to have a rule (and I think we do), it should be clear and easy to understand, so that everyone, including new paid editors looking to get their clients' page picked up by Google, Wikimedians in Residence writing in good faith about subjects related to their employers, and sysops who are expected to take action when rules are flouted, knows exactly where they stand. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Must. Let's not leave the door open to Wikilawyering. Paid editors are already working for a purpose orthogonal to that of Wikipedia. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I wouldn't recommend the AfC process in general (too slow/bureaucratic/conservative), it definitely shouldn't be obligatory for anyone to have to use it. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose forcing anything through AFC. No disrespect meant to any of the individual volunteers at AFC, but I think it's a broken process. I agree with User:Andrew Davidson who sees acceptable articles being rejected, and with User:Mike Peel who describes AFC as "too slow/bureaucratic/conservative". AFC should be a voluntary process only, with the option of bypassing it for those who disagree with the way it works, and should not be an obligatory part of the article creation process for registered users. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose strongly any proposal that forces the use of AfC, as it will act as nothing but a deterant, and will ultimately see a rise in the number of non-disclosing paid editors. The knock-on effects to WiR and those they work with would be stark, and while some commenters have proposed they would not be effected, an interpretation of the rewording could be welded against them - echoing Andy Mabbett's comments above, this is ultimately damage the work of many great WiRs and the work they are able to do for the benefit of the project as a whole. Smirkybec (talk) 11:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: AFC is not suitable for this purpose, it takes a very long time to have an article reviewed and in my experience many perfectly good articles get rejected for minor issues. Adding additional barriers to to good faith contributors would further discourage disclosing paid editing and/or encourage ignoring other rules. John Cummings (talk) 11:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I need someone who can help my client create a wikipedia page he is a public figure how much will it cost me Emmanuel Enoch Iroegbu (talk) 17:53, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It will cost you nothing because we do not accept such articles. Whether you client is a public figure or not they must qualify for an article under the Notability criteria. "Notability" on Wikipedia means something slightly different from its meaning in regular English. Instead of "worthy of notice" it means "has generated notice in third-party reliable sources". Wikipedia is not for promotional purposes. If your client is actually notable, then an article will likely be created by an independent person. If you want to speed the process, you can try to request an article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]