User:MER-C/Paid2019

Amendments to the paid editing policy

I am also thinking of bundling these and a few other sections as subsections of a new section "Behavioral expectations".

Disclosure necessary but not sufficient

Paid editors, and those that deal with them, are often under the impression that disclosure permits or gives leeway regarding existing policies and guidelines. It doesn't. While this is already stated in the policy, it needs emphasis. The last sentence is descriptive, not prescriptive - a paid declaration may help establish an editor is WP:NOTHERE, for instance.

It is proposed that the following section is added to WP:PAID:

Disclosure is a minimum requirement for paid editors to contribute to Wikipedia. Paid editors, like all other editors, must still put the interests of the encyclopedia first and abide by all core policies and guidelines. Similarly, paid editors must respect the volunteer nature of the Wikipedia community and meet behavioral expectations. In particular, paid editors must not edit Wikipedia for advertising, advocacy, marketing, promotion, public relations or publicity purposes, follow the conflict of interest guideline scrupulously and must not edit tendentiously. Failure to do so may lead to blocks or bans. Administrators may take paid status into account when issuing sanctions.

Commercial editing and paid advocacy

This, too, is a restatement of existing policy needing strong emphasis. Nowhere in the current paid editing policy does it mention that spammers are not allowed to promote their clients. This proposal is both a restriction and a symbolic measure whose audience is not Wikipedians - a way of unambiguously telling the outside world we do not want this behavior here, even though spammers will ignore it anyway. The examples are typical behaviors of paid spammers and are called out explicitly to counter the advertising of paid editors.

It is proposed that following section is added to WP:PAID:

The terms commercial editing and paid advocacy refer to a subset of paid editing where:

a party commissions an editor who; and/or
an editor, in the ordinary course of their employment and irrespective of whether the editor was explicitly directed by the employer or on the editor's own initiative,

edits Wikipedia to advance the client or employer's agenda at the expense of the goal of the Wikipedia volunteer community to create a free-content encyclopedia. Paid editors, like all other editors, must put the interests of the encyclopedia first and must not edit Wikipedia for advertising, advocacy, marketing, promotion, public relations or publicity purposes. The creation of drafts or articles, insertion of internal or external links and removal of properly sourced but unflattering information about or substantially related to the commissioning party are all regarded as promotional activity and constitute examples of commercial editing.

Commercial editing and paid advocacy are explicitly forbidden. Accounts suspected of these behaviors should be reported to administrators and they may be blocked indefinitely.

Commentary:

I'm also thinking of an exception similar to WP:3RRNO for obviously non-controversial edits, as they are not in conflict with Wikipedia's goals to be a free encyclopedia.
I've written up a blanket ban to stop paid editors engaging in tendentious behavior outside of mainspace, such as repeatedly resubmitting drafts at AFC and wasting volunteer time on talk pages.
COI will need to be substantially revised if this passes.

Content review

The following section is added to WP:PAID.

Editors may not accept or solicit payment in return for content appraisal, such as:

Nominations, reviews or promotions as part of any featured content appraisal process or good content appraisal process;
Nominations for, and reviews or selection of items for the main page (e.g. In the News, Did you know? and today's featured article, picture or list);
Content screening, such as at new page patrol and articles for creation;
Nominations, !votes and closures as part of any deletion process as well as any other informal petitions for undeletion.

Commentary:

Explicit prohibitions on paid reviews are already written into the NPP and AFC guidelines. This section is added to be more comprehensive and again partly as a symbolic measure.
If the prohibition against broad commercial editing passes, this may be redundant.
Should we allow paid editors to comment in some of these processes, but not vote?
Should an exemption be made for funders who are here to improve Wikipedia?

Presumptive removal

The following section is added to WP:PAID.

If an editor has a history of undisclosed paid editing, then it may be assumed that all of their major contributions are undisclosed paid editing and they may be removed indiscriminately.

Commentary:

Copied from Wikipedia:Copyright violations
UPE destroys an editor's credibility and that of the content they write.
This is for the rare case that an established editor is caught spamming. I don't want to use it, but we should have this on the books just in case. See e.g. Wifione.

Wikipedia:Autopatrolled

It is proposed that paid editors not be eligible to hold the autopatrolled right. Should an established editor wish to retain the autopatrolled right and conduct paid editing, they must register a separate account under the WP:SOCKLEGIT to conduct the paid editing. The two accounts must clearly be linked on their user pages and the paid account has to be clearly labelled.

General sanctions

Standard sanctions

The following provision is copied from WP:GS/Crypto and included for reference only.

Any uninvolved administrator may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length, bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict, bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics, restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor shall be given a warning with a link to this decision and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
Additionally, any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict page protection, revert restrictions, prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists), or any other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project. Administrators should add an editnotice and talk page notice on restricted pages. Editors who ignore or breach page restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator only if the editor was warned about this decision and an editnotice describing the page restriction was placed on the restricted page.
Sanctions imposed may be appealed to the imposing administrator or at the appropriate administrators' noticeboard.

Article creation prohibition

This is a new form of general sanction. The purpose of this sanction is to stop spammers from creating spam pages in topic areas prone to spam. Comments are welcome.

Editors with less than 500 edits and 30 days tenure are prohibited from creating articles within the topic area.
Editors who do not meet this requirement may create a draft in user/draft space and seek review at Articles for Creation.
The moving of a draft (in any namespace) within the topic area to article space and any edit that intends to create an article without creating a new page both count as creating an article and explicitly fall under these restrictions.
Articles created in violation of this restriction may be deleted at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator under CSD G5. However, administrators and other editors are advised to consider other measures, such as listing at Articles for Deletion, moving to draft/user space, improving the article or declining to delete with no action, if doing so benefits the encyclopedia.
Deletions to enforce this restriction are reviewable at Deletion Review.

Draft creation prohibition

This is a new form of general sanction. The purpose of this sanction is to stop spammers from creating spam pages in topic areas prone to spam. Comments are welcome.

All IP editors and registered editors with less than 10 edits and 4 days tenure are prohibited from creating drafts, in any namespace, within the topic area.
Drafts created in violation of this restriction may be deleted at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator under CSD G5. However, administrators and other editors are advised to consider other measures, such as listing at Miscellany for Deletion, improving the draft, declining to delete with no action or moving the draft to mainspace, if doing so benefits the encyclopedia.
Deletions to enforce this restriction are reviewable at Deletion Review.

General prohibition

The following provision is copied from WP:GS/IPAK and is included for reference only.

All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing articles related to ______. Administrators may apply extended confirmed protection for any length of time or indefinitely to enforce this prohibition on any article they reasonably believe to be related to _______.

General sanctions proposals

Rationale for general sanctions

GS do not discriminate between paid and unpaid - only the behavior matters. GS moves the emphasis from determining undisclosed paid status to just spamminess.
Promotional activity, spamming and tendentious editing are much more readily observable than an undisclosed (financial) COI and don't involve outing to establish.
Commercial editors are more motivated than volunteers to edit Wikipedia simply because it's their job. Making it easy to swing the banhammer goes some way towards leveling the playing field and increasing the cost for spammers. Article creation prohibitions also serve this purpose by denying the spammers their product and making it easier to dispose of the rubbish.

New CSD

This may require the creation of a new general WP:CSD which is simply "Pages created in violation of a discretionary sanctions regime imposed by the Arbitration Committee or a general sanctions regime imposed by the Wikipedia community."

Which topic areas?

I have nominated the following topics based on the criteria below:

Where spammers have caused significant problems in the past
Highly prone to spam
Where spam has a outsized potential to harm the public or cause reputational damage to Wikipedia.

Blockchain and cryptocurrencies

Topic area: all pages related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed.

General sanctions are already authorized for this topic based on highly tendentious and promotional editing, the use of Wikipedia to tout cryptocurrencies and potentially commit securities fraud and the harm to the public caused by highly speculative investments. Blockchain startups (no cryptocurrency involve) have also been promoting themselves on Wikipedia in the usual manner.
Sought remedies: article creation prohibition

Speculative financial instruments

Topic area: all pages related to speculative financial products marketed at retail investors, broadly construed.

Binary options have a history of highly tendentious spammers: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive834#Banc_De_Binary, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive840#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Banc_De_Binary, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive843#Banc_De_Binary,_HistorianofRecenttimes,_Smallbones,_Okteriel, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive844#Banc_de_Binary,_Round_2, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive943#Proposal_to_ban_FoCuSandLeArN_due_to_undisclosed_paid_editing, etc.
Retail foreign exchange trading is also a problematic area.
It is highly plausible that the next lightly regulated and leveraged financial instrument coming along will be heavily spammed on Wikipedia (and indeed we saw that with cryptocurrencies).
There is clear potential for the public to be harmed by spammers touting highly leveraged instruments, margin trading and highly speculative equity (e.g. penny stocks). Wikipedia may be used as a vehicle for committing securities fraud. Speculation in these products carries a high risk of losing your money.
Sought remedies: general sanctions, article creation prohibition

Medical topics

Scope not yet fully defined. I expect this to include erectile dysfunction, supplements, anabolic steroids, cosmetic surgery and other procedures that are heavily spammed.

Discretionary sanctions are already authorized for complementary and alternative medicine. Would it be appropriate to use this regime against spammers?
General sanctions are already authorized for coronavirus disease 2019.
Discretionary sanctions are already authorized for all articles that are biographies of living people and would cover living surgeons. The intention behind the sanctions is to prevent and counter the addition of (usually negative) material that does not meet the biographies on living people policy. Would it be appropriate to use this regime against spammers?
There is a clear potential for the public to be harmed by spammers promoting procedures that are dubious, harmful, do not work and/or medically unnecessary. Many procedures are targeted at vulnerable people with mental health problems, chronic illnesses or terminal illnesses.
Sought remedies: general sanctions for areas not covered by WP:ARBCAM, article creation prohibition

Online gambling

Topic area: all pages related to online gambling and gambling in video games, broadly construed.

There is a clear potential for spammers to cause harm to the public. Online gambling is highly regulated or illegal in many jurisdictions because it is addictive.
Sought remedies: article creation prohibition

Startups

Topic area: all pages related to privately held companies not more than 20 years old as of January 1st of the current year, reasonably construed.

This topic area is a favorite of paid spammers.
Sought remedies: article creation prohibition

Businesspeople and investors in startups

Topic area: all pages related to businesspeople and investors whose interest is primarily in privately held companies not more than 20 years old as of January 1st of the current year, reasonably construed.

This topic area is a favorite of paid spammers.
Discretionary sanctions are already authorized for all articles that are biographies of living people. The intention behind the sanctions is to prevent and counter the addition of (usually negative) material that does not meet the biographies on living people policy. Would it be appropriate to use this regime against spammers?
Sought remedies: article creation prohibition

Digital marketing

Topic area: all pages related to digital marketing, broadly construed.

Put simply, digital marketing is a topic prone to spam because that's what spammers think they are doing when they spam Wikipedia. If spammers are able to promote themselves on Wikipedia, then they will get the idea that they will be able to promote their clients. A zero tolerance approach is needed.
The scope includes influencers and social media platforms (which are simply glorified ad networks). Spammers believe that having a Wikipedia article makes it more likely to be verified on Instagram.
While abuse in this area is not tendentious, it is constant. The use of general sanctions will lean towards liberally applying ECP.
Sought remedies: article creation prohibition, general prohibition.

Retail debt

Topic area: all pages related to high interest consumer and small business lending, broadly construed.

High interest consumer credit poses a risk to the public because of predatory lending and debt traps. Scandals involving high interest credit are constant and of large impact and include the subprime mortgage crisis.
While abuse in this area is not tendentious, it is constant. The use of general sanctions will lean towards liberally applying ECP.

Covert advertising problems

It is proposed that a new deletion process, Wikipedia:Covert advertising problems be created to function in a way very similar to that of Wikipedia:Copyright problems.

A page may be tagged with, say, {{paid-for spam}}, if it is promotional and is reasonably suspected that it is the product of undisclosed paid editing.
The editor tagging an article with {{paid-for spam}} must list it at the appropriate daily subpage of Wikipedia:Covert advertising problems.
The {{paid-for spam}} tag must not be removed unless by an administrator (or other trusted user).
The {{paid-for spam}} tag blanks the problematic content and places NOINDEX so the page doesn't get into Google (therefore depriving spammers of their product).
If, after seven days, the paid editing problem has not been resolved by a complete and non-promotional rewrite by a trusted user, the problematic text may be removed and if the entire article is affected it may be stubbed or deleted by the closing administrator. The content may also be referred to a deletion debate if UPE is disproven or not considered likely.
Pages deleted by this process are subject to G4 speedy deletion if a substantially similar repost is made in any namespace.
Pages deleted by this process cannot be undeleted via WP:REFUND. Deletions may be appealed at Wikipedia:Deletion review.

This process, like that of Wikipedia:Copyright problems does not consider the notability of the topic.

Routine coverage for BIO

THOUGHT BUBBLE ALERT - incomplete

simple listings or compilations, such as:
- of event schedules or results (such as theater performance schedule, score table of a sporting event, compilations of sports statistics, listing of award recipients),
- of family members or spouses (notability is not inherited)

standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as:
- changes in employers or job responsibilities
- participation in industry events, such as trade fairs or panel discussions,
- founding of organizations and companies
- funding and donations to, or purchase or divestment from organizations and companies
- participation in marketing activities

brief or passing mentions, such as:
- of non-notable awards received by the person
- in quotations as story sources,
- as an example of a profession or group of people being discussed (e.g. "As a result of the pandemic, many self-employed workers such as John Doe have seen their income streams dry up completely.")
- acting as a spokesperson for an organization or company

inclusion in lists of similar people, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "30 under 30", etc unless the list is in itself carries notability,
inclusion in collections that have indiscriminate inclusion criteria (i.e. attempt to include every existing person instead of selecting the best, most notable examples), such as databases, archives, directories, dictionaries, bibliographies, certain almanacs,
presentations, speeches, lectures, etc. given by the person