Wikipedia talk:Paid editing (guideline)/Archive 8

Participating in policy discussions
Participating in policy discussions for compensation of any kind is strictly forbidden. Is there any policy supporting this? Can it be reworded to make it NPOV and accurate or should it be removed? -- Banj e b oi   12:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is certainly defensible as both (i) current practice, (ii) in the guidelines and policies currently in existence and (iii) a good idea (to cover my bases as far as what this page represents). --TeaDrinker (talk) 14:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please help show which policy spells out that paid editors are forbidden from editing or even participating in policy discussions. Also can you tie this into how we would know someone is a paid editor without them telling. -- Banj e  b oi   19:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's obvious that if someone has a COI regarding paifd editing that they should disclose that fact. Regretably, some editors here refuse to do so, even while they strongly defend paid editing. At some point the facts become so obvious that disclosure is no longer necessary.   Will Beback    talk    20:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Benjiboi, on either possible point: it's not forbidden by current policy, and it should not be forbidden by policy. However, I would strongly support an effort to require that financial COI's be disclosed when participating in policy discussions. It has a great deal of value regardless of enforcement concerns. -Pete (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Absent any different information maybe we should adopt similar language to COI and rewrite this to accurately reflect these sentiments, I would leave out the "financial" part as the real issue is any COI and money is only one aspect of COI. -- Banj e  b oi   22:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We should narrowly construct this document to focus on paid editing, not broadly replicate a range of other policy documents. --TeaDrinker (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't suggesting that. Similar to COI we can suggest that paid editors disclose COI including paid editing status on policy discussion and XfD. It's completely unenforcible but we can recommend it as a good faith gesture. I've removed or participating in policy discussions is forbidden, etc. The admin statement may be needed and may be accurate but there doesn't seem to be policy supporting this statement. -- Banj e  b oi   02:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There's policy to support both cases. You may be approaching things with the mind that everything has to be spelled out in the policy.  That is, it seems you believe if the policy doesn't specifically describe the circumstances, it doesn't apply.  Fortunately policy and guidelines don't work that way.  Trying to get around something like "disclosure is not mandatory" by pointing to something that says it is "strongly encouraged" and may be considered disruptive if you don't, is simply Wikilawyering (I realize you haven't said this, but for an example).  If you have any doubts about the accuracy of the statements, let's discuss them.  But I don't think it is helpful to try and find every possible eventuality in policy. We just do what is good for the encyclopedia. --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Outdent. Um, not exactly. Please indicate which policy forbids paid editors to edit policy. I can't imagine that is policy or enforcible. Also we don't state disclosure is mandatory because it isn't - also likely because it's unenforcible. -- Banj e b oi   13:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:COI and WP:DIS both forbid it. Can you imagine a scenario where a person has a paid conflict of interest and is not disruptive?  If someone is paid to get a specific policy outcome, they have a conflict of interest.  As surely as policy-makers can't take bribes in government, editors involved in policy writing here can't take money for specific outcomes either.  --TeaDrinker (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's presuming that all paid editors are inherently conflict of interest and or disruptive which is a leap of bad faith. You're also assuming the paid editors are inherently working towards a specific outcome besides improving the policy, that also seems to be bad faith. -- Banj e  b oi   16:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it is not bad faith to assume people who are paid to establish a particular policy don't have the project at heart. I'm sure you will find www.spammylinks.com really keen to hire people to "improve" WP:SPAM.  Someone who is trying to change policy, when their pay depends on a particular outcome, is not really a discussant editing in good faith.  They are simply an advocate.  --TeaDrinker (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between someone who is a paid editor who happens to also edit at a policy page and someone who is paid to edit a particular policy page, I hope that difference is obvious. Personally I would want to know who was paying for edits to particular policy pages and why but if the edits are good we'll still take them. Being a paid editor does not inherently make someone an advocate, COI or otherwise disruptive. Again I think you need to prove that all paid editors are inherently bannable before you can prohibit them from editing a policy page. As a rule all editors are encouraged to freely edit across the project. -- Banj e  b oi   18:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the wording "No editor is permitted to edit policy for pay nor advocate for a policy change on a talk page without disclosing their conflict of interest." That is covered in the policies and guidelines above and addresses your points.  (I should add that being a paid editor in general does not pose a conflict of interest on many policy pages, but certainly does on this one, despite your protestations to the contrary.)  --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Being in the category of a paid editor does not inherently mean a COI on this page, it might but we extend good faith and accept the edits at face value. I don't think a topic-ban on all paid editors from all or even just this policy page is likely let alone enforcible. To address your wording above, COI is a guideline which "strongly encourages" self-disclosure. It doesn't require it thus we can't either, we even use the language from the COI page here - Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests.  -- Banj e  b oi   19:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, being a paid editor does mean you have a conflict of interest in working on policy about paid editing. We've covered this.  Failure to declare conflicts of interest is a violation of community trust.  If an editor I see no reason to assume good faith with someone who is trying to trick me.  --TeaDrinker (talk) 17:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you believe that and we have discussed it but there remains no policy to support this. There is nothing that says that "failure to declare conflicts of interest is a violation of community trust" besides you. I'm not sure what your last sentence is saying, there may be a typo or a dropped word somewhere. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   03:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Last sentence of the first paragraph
The last sentence of the first paragraph seems to be up in the air. The two wordings which have gone back and forth are "Advocacy on behalf of a client is strictly forbidden" and "Advocacy of any kind is strictly forbidden" (correcting the grammar in the last one). I favor the former, since it is constructed to focus on the content of this page. Benjiboi has indicated that (i) all advocacy is indeed forbidden and (ii) there may be some kinds of paid editing which do not involve clients. For myself, I don't factually dispute either point, however I'd say it was preferable to do the more narrowly focused on the topic of the page. It is a small point, but general advice like "follow npov" is less useful than specific advice tailored to the specifics of the discussion. While there may be scenarios, as Benjiboi points out, which don't involve a client, I think it is reasonable to cover the big issue first. --TeaDrinker (talk) 02:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * For all intents and purposes, the person who does the paying is the client. Any possible exception can be dealt with later (i.e. WP:Beans).  I'm still trying to think of exceptions however.  Give us a hint, does it involve a will or a leprechaun?
 * The first point is more important. As I understand BB's argument, it is that we only need to say "Advocacy is strictly forbidden" because that's all the NPOV policy says; adding anything specific on paid editing is not needed.  By that logic we can't write anything here except quotes from policies, which would make this whole project pointless.  I reject that logic totally.  Smallbones (talk) 03:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I think this point is a pretty important one, and I think there's an important distinction to be made here. While advocacy within a Wikipedia article is prohibited by WP:NPOV, the prohibition primarily has to do with article content, and only secondarily deals with editor behavior. In the current discussion, though, I believe we're primarily trying to establish what parameters do or should guide or restrict editor behavior.

In common practice, there are numerous cases where even though the content may be reverted, the behavior of adding a POV to an article is tolerated -- or even is regarded as a perfectly healthy part of the collaborative editing process. Consider a scenario that does not involve payment. In the process of working on an article about a political topic that she's just beginning to learn about, Jane inadvertently repeats a phrase that is loaded in favor of one side of the issue. Paula, who is more experienced with the issue, might thank Jane for her general contributions to the article, but point out that one sentence advocates a point of view. She might then rewrite the sentence; the NPOV issue is resolved, but nowhere in the process does Paula believe that Jane was behaving poorly. There was advocacy, it was against content policy, and it was reverted; but there is no reason whatsoever to judge Jane's actions or intent negatively.

But what is at issue for the present discussion, I think, is the idea that paid editors might take advantage of that kind of dynamic -- without even intending to do anything wrong. If it's nowhere stated that the behavior is problematic, consultant Sue could "innocently" insert 50 POV edits into an article, in the hopes that 4 or 5 of them "stick." If this gets discovered and all 50 edits are reverted, she could easily walk away from the situation feeling that she acted in good faith, that she lost that perfectly legitimate battle, but is ready to go on and take the same approach (maybe with a few refinements) on behalf of her next client, all the while believing that she is acting in good faith.

So, I guess this comment is mainly directed to BenjiBoi. I am not going to insist that TeaDrinker's phrasing is the exact right way to put it -- there may be further distinctions or points that suggest a third, more nuanced way of addressing the issue. But BenjiBoi, does the general concept make sense -- that WP:NPOV, being primarily directed at content, may not sufficiently describe or address the kind of behavior that can be involved in paid editing? -Pete (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I may be missing the nuance here ... but so might those using the "on behalf of a client" phrasing which I think remains problematic. I've seen quite a few volunteers, paid or otherwise, who I would consider a paid editor as we're outlining. They are compensated in different ways, their motivations may be pure but still quite POV. They might happily inject piles of positive fluff and cruft and some of is certainly welcome. Thy likely gloss over well-sourced negative content. They likely will never see themselves as advocating for a client but should, IMHO, be considered paid editors in the spirit of things here. Technically they might be COI but possibly not terribly so. A reality check that positive and negative sourced content is what we aim for should occur and if they are directed here it should be obvious to them that even if they are not paid cash we look at the content to NPOV and COI editors can contribute but need to do so in line with NPOV policies. Ergo "on behalf of a client" hurts more than helps here. Same scenario applies to "Mom", who does similar activity because she wants her son to stop worrying about the criticism section on his BLP; or a loyal customer who cares about a company and edits their article. They may never see themselves as "paid" with "clients" but we might. I think we should be open enough and welcoming enough to try to win these folks over to being good Wikipedians, that is be reality-based that these things happen all the time and our goal should not be to push them away, which simply won't work, but to help them do the right thing. If we're lucky they'll stay and add good edits to many articles. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   20:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Those all sound like straight forward COI's to me. If we can just get simple paid editors covered I'd be happy - no need to re-write COI.  BTW, it's been mentioned several times above that we might do an essay format, where a bit more of this touchy-feely stuff might be better suited.  I'd be in favor of having a "double essay" where both "sides" of this could present their positions in an organized form, thus letting everybody see all sides of the issues.  Smallbones (talk) 21:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * IMHO, they are COI-ish and handled case-by-case. Everytime the issue of possibly just redirecting this to COI comes up I think we miss the points that many paid editors are not COI and aren't doing something on behalf of a client. For instance, the Avocado Growers Association hires a pr firm to help promote the benefits and attributes of avocados ostensibly to boost sales of their products. The firm in turn hires an editor to specifically raise several avocado articles to GA or FA status. They do so. The editor is clearly paid, wasn't advocating anything but better articles, and clearly has benefited Wikipedia and may or may not have ever been outed. COI doesn't really fit there but paid editing does and this page should reflect that they need to abide by content policies and work to build consensus, not oppose it. I do agree we need to represent multiple possibilities without presuming motivations, etc. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   22:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't really follow the point you're trying to make. We don't need to cover every conflict of interest, only ones which relate to paid editing.  An important case, perhaps the important case to me, is people who are paid to edit on contract implicitly or expressly for a specific end (promote the company, improve PR, etc.).  That seems to be the bulk of the odious forms of paid advocacy we're discussing here.  I think a front and center clear declaration is in perfect order.  --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * TeaDrinker, you may be right that "the bulk" of paid editing is "odious" -- I don't know. But this page should do more than scold those doing "odious" stuff, it should serve as a resource for people who want to do paid editing in a way that is compatible with the policy, letter and spirit, of Wikipedia. Even if that is a minority activity, it's important. (Yes, in my ongoing effort at disclosure...that will include me, but I say this also because I believe it's important to the future of Wikipedia. I'll try to write out an explanation of what I mean by that, as it's something that seems to be lacking in present discussion.) -Pete (talk) 02:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the only way presently acceptable to get paid to write Wikipedia content is to write content with a compatible license. If independent Wikipedia editors choose to incorporate it, great.  If not, sorry.  There may be some obscure ways to get paid when you contribute directly, but winning prizes is going to be a hard way to make a living.  The "MyWikiBiz" model of setting up an editing service, or bidding on contracts to edit, etc. is just not going to work. It is forbidden both by Jimbo and any number of policies and guidelines.  That is not, and never will be allowed.  As such, I'm not sure how to write a policy to tell people how to win prizes, but I welcome suggestions.  --TeaDrinker (talk) 02:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We may be approaching the issue from oppositional views, I think we should explain what paid editing is as well as the issues it raises. If someone feels they have a COI issue then this page directs them there. And again you seem to interchangably use paid advocacy for all paid editing we should be clear that advocacy in any form is forbidden and that paid editing is not by default advocacy. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   01:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I do use the terms interchangeably, since it does not seem to cause confusion. You make this distinction with obscure and hypothetical cases in mind, when nearly all of the cases before us of paid editing are paid advocacy.  If you're pay or future employment depends, implicitly or explicitly, on a particular outcome of a page, you're a paid advocate for that position.  Plain and simple.  These nonsensical what-ifs sound like politicians when they are caught taking bribes: "sure I took the new boat, but it didn't influence my policy."  --TeaDrinker (talk) 02:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Paid editing is not to be presumed to be paid advocacy. If that's your stance there's really no reason to have this page at all. Just heap bad faith on all editors and redirect to WP:Advocacy. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   14:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Are bribes a conflict of interest? --TeaDrinker (talk) 15:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see our article on the subject. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   16:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)Let's not confuse the article Conflict of interest with the policy WP:COI. The article says that bribes are worse than conflicts of interest.  The policy is very clear Coi says that editing related to payments is very strongly discouraged.  If we were to stick with the clear reading of that section of the guideline, we'd be half way through writing this page.  Smallbones (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you agreeing then? Taking bribes is a conflict of interest?  --TeaDrinker (talk) 16:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You seem to baiting with leading questions, perhaps if you have something to state you should simply try to express it. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   16:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We seem to have trouble communicating, since what is absolutely plain in text for me seems to be a haze of uncertainty for you. The article you point to specifically says "Accepting bribes can be classified as corruption."  I would probably word that more strongly to say "taking bribes is corruption."  Do you agree?  More to the point, however, I want to know if you see taking bribes as a conflict of interest under our policy?  --TeaDrinker (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I fail to see the relevance of that topic here. Is someone suggesting we should encourage bribery? -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   18:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your equivocation is very expressive. The fact that you're unable to bring yourself to say that bribery is wrong tells me that you, personally, may have issues which prevent you from participating in a meaningful conversation. --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Outdent. I have no problem stating I think bribery is wrong, same with rape, murder, extortion, hit and run car-jacking et al. I just have no idea why we're digressing into crimes that seem tangentially off-topic. And this seems like a back-handed personal attack on my morals or something, especially when you and I have had many meaningful conversations. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   19:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you see bribery as problematic. My example was comparing your claims that an editor could remain free of corruption while taking money under the table to claims that politician could remain free of corruption while taking money under the table.  I'm glad the latter is wrong in your eyes.  --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Conflating all paid editing with bribery seems quite unhelpful to any constructive efforts. Bribery is a crime, no form of paid editing seems to be, shall we more forward. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   04:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Section removal
I went ahead and removed a section on "in-progress" issues. While I can appreciate the bold attempt to summarize the issues, such a section will inevitably be read to mean the rest of the content is settled. Very little of the content is settled; there's opposition to portions of it, and insistent requests to add more to it. As such I felt it was necessary to remove the section entirely. --TeaDrinker (talk) 02:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you're right, that the appearance is that there's more agreement than there actually is. However, I feel that the action you took is the opposite is what's needed. I believe much of the contention results from the fact that we're trying to express consensus when we don't have it yet.


 * I believe that transparently building a document, noting and exploring the areas of disagreement or confusion, is the best way to move past the kind of paralysis we're currently in. If you find that incompatible with the text already on the page, maybe the best thing would be to mothball that text for a while, and try a different approach. -Pete (talk) 16:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree in principle, although I am not sure what we have that is both agreed upon and meaningful. I am hesitant to put in incomplete material and say we have consensus on it when the meaning differs substantively.  We all agree people with conflicts of interest should declare them, but some editors don't think getting money contingent on "winning" a discussion on content is a conflict of interest.  In such circumstances, saying "follow COI" is meaningless.  For purposes of hyperbole, people debating "No Dogs Allowed" vs. "Dogs Allowed" can not be said to have consensus on the wording "Dogs Allowed."  At present, it is not clear whether this page is even intended to express consensus.  Some people believe it should summarize policy, others think it should summarize practice, and others still think it should be a new policy.  I can appreciate the effort, however.  I feel at this point dispute resolution is inevitable.  Contentious editing on this page has scared many well intentioned and thoughtful editors off the page.  Would you be interested in participating in that process?  --TeaDrinker (talk) 17:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm confused by the suggestion that I enter into dispute resolution. TeaDrinker, do you see me as being party to a dispute? If so, what "side" do you see me on? Or who do you see as my adversary(s)? You? Benjiboi? I guess I decline resolution, because I don't know what the dispute is. To me, it looks like we just haven't (yet) found the best way to approach our discussion, and building a document. These things usually take time, and don't always proceed in a linear fashion. -Pete (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Mediation is just a formalized process which has uninvolved parties try and ensure the discussion stays on track. There are a lot of issues floating on this page, and each person has their own viewpoint.  At present I feel people have trouble expressing their viewpoints because of the structure of the discussion.  Mediation would hopefully help that.  --TeaDrinker (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. Just above you said you think dispute resolution is inevitable, that's what I was responding to. I don't object to any formal process, but I think our challenge is much more in figuring out the best way to structure our approach to the topic, rather than resolving disputes. I do see that you and Benjiboi have a disagreement about how to behave in editing the main page. That's fine, but I'm not sure it qualifies as a dispute. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.
 * But rather than trying to fix the behavior within the current approach, I suggest this. There are ways to structure the document and the discussion that are less likely to invite that sort of contention, and facilitate focusing our attention on areas where there is not sufficient clarity, or where we disagree. That's the only way I know to get to consensus. We could do it ourselves -- the section I added was one kind of approach to that. The "alternative text" sub-page that Smallbones just started is another. Inviting some kind of formal facilitator would be another approach; it would undoubtedly be helpful, but I don't think it's something I'd call "mediation."
 * I've been involved resolving in a lot of conflicts both on and off Wikipedia, and to me, what is going on here does not appear primarily to be a conflict or a dispute...it's just a topic that we haven't figured out how to address effectively yet. -Pete (talk) 22:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We all do not agree that people with conflicts of interest should declare them. I side with our current COI policy that encourages some disclosure but also feel labeling editors as COI has stifled productive dialog in many cases. And assuming that a paid editor has only the interest in "winning" some policy is also assuming bad faith. Just because you seem unwilling or unable to imagine paid editors doing so in good faith and without advocating hardly makes your POV true. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   14:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should make one last try for some sort of agreement before going to dispute resolution, that is an agreement to work here according to some other procedure. We seem to be using solely WP:BRD (termed above "argument by exhaustion") as if it was the holy grail of editing. Actually, the essay WP:BRD recognizes that this is only one type of editing model and that it has some potential problems and is not always the best model to use. I'll list a couple of ideas on changing the editing model below and encourage other to add to the list, but request that nobody subtracts from the list, or clog it up with negative comments. In other words this is brain storming and all ideas are welcome, since the current model is not working. Once several ideas come out, we can discuss them below the list, and if no consensus emerges, either go to dispute resolution, or at least temporarily, decide by a pure vote. Voting is a last resort, but something has to be done. Smallbones (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to see fresh ideas on the page. I feel the purpose of dispute resolution is to get us out of the cycle.  Straw polls are one step of dispute resolution, and I welcome more of the same, but I think we have ample evidence that the level of rancor on this page is keeping people from adding their ideas, even in straw polls.  I would like to see us move to the next step of dispute resolution, mediation. --TeaDrinker (talk) 15:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Brainstorming for a procedure for editing this project (feel free to ADD)
Please add others, and don't think they are a package or mutually exclusive.
 * 1) Temporarily impose WP:0RR or WP:1RR  Smallbones (talk)
 * 2) Firmly ask anybody who reverts more than 3 times in one week to take a break from editing this page for a week.Smallbones (talk)
 * 3) Aim for an essay expressing 2 or 3 different points of views in separate sections.  Editors who do not agree with 1 point of view should not edit that section.  In the future the sections may be merged or reconciled, but for now at least they should express the full view of their advocates. For example we could have 3 sections 1. Those who feel that a broad range of paid editors should be severally restricted; 2. Those who feel that some types of paid editing could be encouraged, even if they are monitored and some rules are applied. 3. Those who feel few or no restrictions on paid editing are needed or even implied by current policy. Smallbones (talk)
 * 4) Just redirect the page to WP:COI, or even more extreme
 * 5) Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass which might mean in this case asking that the whole page be deleted.  Smallbones (talk)

Comments on Brainstorming
I don't see #1-5 as helpful actually, waving dispute resolution as an ultimatum also seems counter-productive. What do you think is the problem and how should it change? -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   15:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe the problem stems a failure to see eye to eye. For myself, I don't see a WP:3RR issue developing on the page (hurray!) so I don't see one or two as needed.  I dislike three and five in that they would move us away from the page, but provide no additional guidance to editors.  Four seems possible to me, although editors here seem to have unusual readings of that policy so I am hesitant.  --TeaDrinker (talk) 15:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly not waiving dispute resolution, in fact I've asked for it several times and haven't received a real answer to my requests. I just think we can make a final attempt to work on this; if BB wants dispute resolution now we should do it now.  Actually I think a molasses slow 3RR is a problem, one editor reverts just about everything, other editors keep on trying to put something new in and are reverted, I may be a bit more hot headed than other editors and revert the reverter at times, but feel that I've backed away from potential edit wars 3 or 4 times.  I have brought the problem up several times, and suggested several alternatives.  The current situation, where most editors are being denied the opportunity to contribute, is unacceptable.  Where shall we go from here?  Smallbones (talk) 16:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I reread the above. BB means "waving dispute resolution" not "waiving dispute resolution," also I thing TDrinker might have switched numbers 3 and 4. Smallbones (talk) 16:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed waiving to waving, it was a typo. And setting me up as "the main reverter" or similar is unhelpful. I've only reverted things that I felt were inherently wrong or misleading and all the issues are being discussed. I'm in no rush and I stand firm that when summarizing community consensus we have to try to get it right. I will keep trying to do so and both the page and talkpage bear this out. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   16:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Going back to my question - What do you think is the problem and how should it change? I think it's fair to say in any dispute that folks aren't seeing eye to eye. Could you clarify what you feel is the locus of dispute and what should change?
 * It's very clear - one editor, BB, has taken ownership of this page. He should back off and let other people edit, and limit himself to WP:1RR.  He should show some respect to Jimbo's pronouncements on the topic of paid editing, rather than say he is "just another editor." I'll also ask that he refrain from pontificating about how he is upholding Wikipedia's ideals by reverting anybody who wants reasonable limits on paid editing. Smallbones (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I'm sorry that you seem to persist in seeing me as adversarial to apparently everyone else. As you describe it that is a behaviour issue and not a content issue thus dispute resolution would be inappropriate. Would you like to have this discussed at an admin board to try to resolve what you see as the problem? -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   16:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a friend who is quite possibly the most frustrating person to try and convince of anything (and readers of this page will know that's saying something). She refuses to concede on any point, no matter how small, so it is impossible to start from a common set of assumptions or views of the world.  Discussions about shoreline erosion on a local beach, for instance, might in a series of logically connected steps, become a discussion about whether we're brains in jars.  It is frustrating because anything put forward as common ground (surely studies on beach erosion indicate x... well surely scientific methodology usually works... then I am sure you'll agree reliable knowledge is possible... etc.) is questioned, right down to the fundamental nature of the universe.  Once we reach the point of questioning the existence of the table we're sitting at, any question about beach erosion has been lost.
 * Fortunately this discussion has not been that bad. But I feel many things which are really obvious, so then good starting points for discussion, are questioned.  To be perfectly frank, Benjiboi, I don't understand your position at all.  It seems to be a single-minded pursuit of anything goes.  Trying to find common ground has been met with what to my mind is mental gymnastics.  When we can't seem to agree that getting paid for taking a particular position in a discussion is a conflict of interest in that discussion, I don't know much where to go.  Maybe someone more detached from the moment and breviloquent than I can see where to go.  That, in my view, is what mediation is intended for.  --TeaDrinker (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've remained calm despite the ever-ratcheting innuendo and IMHO, baiting tactics. When I asked above for specific content that I removed (editing on policy pages is strictly forbidden by paid editors) to be defended as actual policy, you have failed to do so. I'm not saying you don't mean well or wish that to be policy but simply that we can't declare something is a policy if it actually isn't. Conflating that all paid editing is wrong in some way is clearly not a view shared by the majority of the respondents on the RfC. Would it do any good for me to leave it only for the next person to come along and pull it out? Dispute resolution won't help you defend indefensible positions. There seems to be no policy forbidding paid editors from editing a policy page. There is policy forbidding advocacy of any kind and a few editors here persist in claiming the two are the same but that has clearly not been upheld by the community as seen in the RfC on this very issue. You seem to suggest I'm somehow tricking or forestalling progress by insisting we base the page not in our personal wishes but in the community's response to the issues. Aren't we suppose to represent the community's wishes here?  -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   18:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your serenity is appreciated. I am not going to respond here to the complaints which are well trodden, to keep the discussion focused, but will above in the appropriate sections. However let me turn the question around and ask what you see as the source of our conflict? --TeaDrinker (talk) 18:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I see the main problems as a few editors, yourself included, seem to be missing that many - most? - paid editors go completely undetected, likely because they don't cause obvious problems, and actually are a welcome part of the Wikipedia community. We have many editors already who are paid, some cause problems and others do not; in the future we will have more of each. I found this from a 2007 meet-up report:

There was a general sense the Wikipedia is attempting a "Just Say No" policy and that, like the U.S. government War on Drugs, it isn't working. While there was no love of public relations flacking, the general sense was that efforts to ban it merely drive it underground, and that we need to have some way for people to participate openly.
 * Similar to tracking any other kind of problem editing this is much easier if they actually have a set account rather than remaining completely anon. The obvious promoters and spammers are never the real problem, IMHO. The smart ones who slip in partial mis-truths are the real concern. We need to welcome them so they edit with transparency whatever their motives and we work to improve their editing to iron out any problem areas and civilly show them the door if they can't. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   19:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't want to put words in your mouth Benjiboi, but that argument is predicating on paid editing being undesirable. If that is your position, and we differ only in how best to control it, we're in good shape.  If, however, you're just throwing around anything you can to get your view put in place, I suggest achieving your end is more important to you than participating in the process here.  Perhaps that is the root of the problem.  --TeaDrinker (talk) 15:23, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You do seem to be implying things I don't intend and adding in, yet another, bad faith jab - that I'm deceiving you to get my way. I have no interest in applying my views as I think that is both inappropriate and unproductive. I think you are quite mistaken in that we may be able to control paid editing, in short that would seem impossible. Even if people were required to fill a lengthy survey and submit financial information, tax forms and edit under their legal names we would still have these issues of people being able to game the system. We let completely anonymous editors add content and frankly some of it is fine and even welcome. No, paid editing will not be abolished, the best we can do is encourage good editing and deal with problem editors when they have no interest in following the wiki ways. This page should serve to bring anyone up to speed on the issue and how to handle perceived problems. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   04:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think saying you're editing in bad faith is a stretch. In fact I would hold it is demonstrable in this and many other sections you've edited. Here's a prime example: when asked for the key fact that was holding up the debate, you said it was our resistance to an idea you yourself do not adhere to.  What I mean by that, if we were to mandate disclosure (on the conscience of the editor, of course) because we all agree payments corrupt Wikipedia, you would not be satisfied.  I recognize the tactic of offering a false compromise, then when people agree, push the goals a bit further away.  I submit it is manipulative and bad faith.  That is the latest in a long series of problems, some of which others have pointed out, some that have caught on my radar.  I would be happy to discuss ways in which you could turn that around on your talk page.  That said, I propose a real compromise.  Between us, we have together made more than 90% of the edits on this talk page.  I propose we each only make one edit per day on the talk page, limited to one section only (excepting fixing typos or answering direct questions from other users).  Let's let other people have a chance to get a word in edgewise.  --TeaDrinker (talk) 07:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We do not "all agree payments corrupt Wikipedia" and as evident in the RfC that statement is not supported by the wider community either. I'm not somehow misrepresenting, falsifying and now corrupting anything. What if i did walk away and the page devolves into the mistaken beliefs that all paid editors should be blocked and banned, etc. It would only be soon dismissed as historical, hysterical or failed - job well done indeed. When others have missed the opportunity to defend content with actual substance and lobbed in the ever-helpful "all paid editors are COI" I actually looked to see where that actually is supported, and it's not, etc. etc. Until content is based in what the community is actually saying and represents multiple viewpoints neutrally this page will find rejection to efforts demonizing all paid editors. I encourage you to report my apparently bad faith efforts here anywhere you see fit. Please do me the honour of letting me know when and where you do. I'm sure those efforts will be just as fruitful. One more crack about me editing in bad faith, etc and I'll look to getting more eyes on your comments towards me. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   12:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)