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:

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:

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.

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.

Commentary:
 * Copied from 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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:
 * 1) Where spammers have caused significant problems in the past
 * 2) Highly prone to spam
 * 3) 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: Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive834, Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive840, Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive843, Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive844, Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive943, 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, Covert advertising problems be created to function in a way very similar to that of 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 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 Deletion review.

This process, like that of 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