Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Conflict of interest reports/July 2024 appointments

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

Bilby

Bilby (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Nomination statement (Bilby)

Hi! I would like to put my name forward to assist with the Conflict of interest VRT queue. I have been assisting in managing paid editors on Wikipedia for about 12 years now, and in that time I've gained a picture of the overall scope of the issue, as well as many of the pitfalls we can encounter. It is a constantly growing problem, and there is not currently an approach to managing COIs and paid editing that works on anything other than a case-by-case process. I see the new queue as potentially an excellent tool for managing COI editing while respecting privacy and avoiding outing. However, as always we need volunteers to step up and take on these tasks, and I am hoping that my background with paid editing will assist with keeping the queue manageable. I am willing to provide my personal details to the WMF, and I have prior experience working with and protecting confidential information.

Standard questions for all candidates (Bilby)

Please describe any relevant experience you have for this role.
I been working in the UPE area since about 2013, and over this time I have gained a good understanding of both the relevant policies and how paid editors work to get around them. I have experience in identifiying paid editors, and in identifying when someone is not being paid - in particular when paid editors claim to have an account on WP which they do not own. In regards to maintaining privacy, as an academic I have had experience in maintaining and securing personal data, and I have worked under NDAs on many occasions.
Please list any advanced permissions (checkuser, oversight, bureaucrat, steward) you hold or previously held on any WMF project.
I have not previously held any advanced permissions. My only advanced role has been as an administrator.
Do you have VRT permissions? If so, to which queues?
No. I did consider it at one stage, but I have never been interested in getting additional permissions and not use them, so I have not worried too much about it. The change this time is that this is for an area where I do feel that I have something to offer.

Questions for this candidate (Bilby)

Have you read and signed the Wikimedia Foundation Access to Nonpublic Personal Data Policy and the VRTS Users Confidentiality Agreement? If you have not yet done so, are you comfortable with the terms of each agreement, and do you plan to sign them should you be granted an appointment to this role? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've read both, I have no issues with signing them, and I will do so if this is successful. - Bilby (talk) 03:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Considering this relatively recent community discussion, can you give some basic impressions on your thoughts about "paid advising" (community members receiving compensation for discussing with a party, and helping them to understand, Wikipedia's processes, community, culture, policies, and administration, but without taking any direct editorial, representative, or functionary action on said party's behalf on-project)?
Let me frame that inquiry by saying that my impression is that presently the community is opposed to permitting on-project punitive actions or investigations into such activities, whether the purported activity involves rank-and-file editors or admins. Or at least, there's certainly no consensus to greenlight such actions at this time. But there's what the open community has decided is proscribed for the present time, and then there's what happens in the less easy to openly scrutinize VRT spaces, which can still set precedents and influence ArbCom's thinking. Is it ever acceptable to dig into the off-project identity and activities of an community member when the only concern raised has been purported 'paid advising'? In as broad a level of detail as you'd be willing to indulge, how would you respond to a report of concern about such activity. Do you agree with the assessment that paid advising is an activity not covered by our COI policies as they currently read?SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is certainly a complex issue. My apologies if this is a tad long but I think it warrants a considered response.

In regard to the core question: is it ever acceptable to dig into the off-project identity and activities of a community member when the only concern raised has been purported 'paid advising'? The short answer is no. What people do off-wiki is their business unless it affects their editing here, and only so far as it raises concerns with community expectations. The job of a functionary is not to randomly investigate editors for things that are not considered by the community to be relevant. If the only allegation is that they are doing something which the community does not prohibit there is no reason to look further, and I would not.

That said, I think I should be fully transparent and be clear that I had seen the user advertising their services on Upwork some time before this was raised on WP. I had come across the ad while looking through other job ads, recognised who it was, and chose not to take action for the simple reason - as you outline - that we have no policy that prevents someone charging for their advice on editing WP. I did not report them, nor would I have done so. Furthermore, as it could constitute private information, I regarded the information about them as confidential, and would not (and did not) share my knowledge that they were working in an advisory capacity

Now for the problems. The first is that I have encountered many paid editors who take what is described as advisory roles through sites like Upwork, but in reality they are hired to make direct edits on behalf of the client. I also have seen many paid editors accept jobs to create articles but then subcontract the actual edits and claim not to be engaged in paid editing. So when I personally encounter a job for a wikipedia adviser I dig a little bit further to confirm that advice is all that is happening. If it is, as I said, it is not my concern. In the specific example referenced, I did check to see if there was editing involved, determined that there was not, and thus took the (lack of) action that I did. I can think of several examples where the result was different because it was clear that they were not advisors but undisclosed paid editors.

The second issue is a practical concern. If I was paid to advise a client about editing WP and I became aware that they had hired a long-term UPE editor, I would have conflicting loyalties - on the one hand as an admin on WP I might be expected to block or at least report the paid editor, but on the other hand I have been paid by the client and have a degree of loyalty to them. I don't think it would be a puzzle for me, but it does create a COI and people engaged in paid advisory roles, especially where they hold advanced permissions, should be aware of the potential issues that such a role may create. It is not impossible to navigate this issue, but awareness is always a good thing. - Bilby (talk) 10:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (Bilby)

For what my opinion as a solitary community member is worth to the Committee's analysis, I believe (even just on the basis of the cogency and nuance of their responses to questions so far, as well as their existing bonafides) that this user would make a fine fit for the VRT role they are seeking. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extraordinary Writ

Extraordinary Writ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Nomination statement (Extraordinary Writ)

I'm Extraordinary Writ, and I'm applying for access to the new VRT queue for conflict of interest reports. Undisclosed paid editing is a serious and large-scale problem for Wikipedia, and I've been helping to investigate it for several years, both before and after my 2022 RfA. This has involved such things as identifying patrollers who misuse their permissions for pay, reporting UPE-related groups of sockpuppets, and sending information to paid-en-wpwikipedia.org. Off-wiki evidence is important but dangerous in the UPE/COI context, and I think COIVRT has potential to let us deal with it in a way that's more efficient but doesn't compromise editors' privacy. My promise is to move cautiously and conscientiously in sensitive situations, as I've tried my best to do during my time as an administrator and editor. Looking forward to any questions or comments.

Standard questions for all candidates (Extraordinary Writ)

Please describe any relevant experience you have for this role.
As mentioned above, I've dealt with various forms of undisclosed paid editing over the last few years. Oftentimes this has involved investigating from the on-wiki/SPI side; for a smattering of examples old and new, see [1][2][3][4]. I have also made a handful of off-wiki paid editing reports and am generally familiar with the dynamics of how paid editing works, although I'm sure I have plenty more to learn. The main thing I've taken away from this sort of work is the importance of being diligent—not just digging up enough diffs or checking all the boxes to justify a block, but looking at the totality of the evidence, genuinely considering alternative explanations, searching for biases and holes in your reasoning, and seeking out others' opinions. If you're not serious about that, innocent people are going to end up blocked, and that's a prospect that always weighs on me.
Please list any advanced permissions (checkuser, oversight, bureaucrat, steward) you hold or previously held on any WMF project.
No advanced permissions (beyond +sysop).
Do you have VRT permissions? If so, to which queues?
No.

Questions for this candidate (Extraordinary Writ)

Have you read and signed the Wikimedia Foundation Access to Nonpublic Personal Data Policy and the VRTS Users Confidentiality Agreement? If you have not yet done so, are you comfortable with the terms of each agreement, and do you plan to sign them should you be granted an appointment to this role? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the relevant agreements and am willing to sign them if this process is successful. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Considering this relatively recent community discussion can you give some basic impressions on your thoughts about "paid advising" (community members receiving compensation for discussing with a party, and helping them to understand, Wikipedia's processes, community, culture, policies, and administration, but without taking any direct editorial, representative, or functionary action on said party's behalf on-project)?
Let me frame that inquiry by saying that my impression is that presently the community is opposed to permitting on-project punitive actions or investigations into such activities, whether the purported activity involves rank-and-file editors or admins. Or at least, there's certainly no consensus to greenlight such actions at this time. But there's what the open community has decided is proscribed for the present time, and then there's what happens in the less easy to openly scrutinize VRT spaces, which can still set precedents and influence ArbCom's thinking. Is it ever acceptable to dig into the off-project identity and activities of an community member when the only concern raised has been purported 'paid advising'? In as broad a level of detail as you'd be willing to indulge, how would you respond to a report of concern about such activity. Do you agree with the assessment that paid advising is an activity not covered by our COI policies as they currently read?SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the question. WP:COI and the Terms of Use only require disclosure for "editing", making a "contribution", "seek[ing] to change an affected article's content", etc., and that means pure paid advising (which, to be clear, is extremely rare) isn't required to be disclosed. Participants in the RfC had radically different ideas about whether that's a good idea, but ultimately most people agreed that the admin in question wasn't running afoul of the policies/guidelines as written, and there was no consensus for any changes. Do paid advisers have a COI? Absolutely. But if they never act on that COI by editing, there is no policy basis for requiring disclosure.
You ask how I'd respond to a report concerning this kind of behavior. If there's no evidence of actual editing, then that's the end of the line, of course; I would explain to the reporter the same things I explained in the previous paragraph. But I think you're mainly asking what constitutes "probable cause" in this context to go snooping around for off-wiki evidence of misconduct. It's policy that the community has rejected the idea that editors should "investigate" each other, and respect for privacy is key to building social trust. But sometimes there are exceptions, and ultimately we can't regulate the Google searches people run in their spare time, so people have to make that judgment call for themselves. In the context of paid advising, the answer would depend on the circumstances, particularly whether anything in Special:Contributions suggested that the line between advising and editing had been crossed. Sorry if that's not a very satisfying answer, but it really does depend on the situation.
For what it's worth, my opinion about charging large amounts of money for Wikipedia advice is about the same as my opinion about charging $300 a month for fish oil: I understand the incentive structure that causes it to happen, but that doesn't keep me from finding it an awfully unethical way to extract money from people. The Teahouse, the Help Desk, and countless friendly editors' talk pages remain available for free. But I don't think there's an effective way to stop this off-wiki behavior, and changes to our on-wiki guidelines do risk causing issues that greatly outweigh their small effect on this very small problem. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (Extraordinary Writ)

As with Bilby and for substantially the same reasons, I'm happy to provide an advisory endorsement to Extraordinary Writ for this role. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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