Wikipedia talk:User pages

• UI Spoofing archive (2007)
• Temporary userpage template archive (2008)

How do I find another user page?

Noone has answered this.140.198.45.43 (talk) 01:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The search box in the left sidebar can be used. Entering "user:cush" without quotes goes to that user page. Clicking the Search button displays a page where you can click Advanced and choose to search only User pages. Ask questions like this at WP:HELPDESK. Johnuniq (talk) 01:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Old IP talk pages essay

Some people watching this page may be interested in this (new) essay: Wikipedia:Old IP talk pages. This essay formed as the result of discussion at WT:CSD. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

May sanctions that are actively in effect be removed from a user talk page

There is a re-occurring question as to whether notices regarding active sanctions in effect against a user may be removed from that user's talk page. The current revision of the policy indicates that a number of sanction related notices may be removed, including: active block notices, and community imposed editing restrictions (non-arbcom). Is this consistent with the views of the community?

Comments

• Active sanctions, including block notices and community imposed editing restrictions should not be removed. It is important that editors interacting with the user have access to such information, and particularly in the case of editing restrictions, it is unlikely an editor will think to search talk page history for removed notices. I support going back to the version

  Sanctions that are currently in effect, including relevant information about a currently active block or ban, declined unblock requests regarding a currently active block, ArbCom-imposed edit restrictions, and confirmed sockpuppetry related notices

  as I think it reflects the most widely understood interpretation of policy. Monty₈₄₅ 17:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• No. I understand the reasons for permitting the removal of warnings, but they're substantially different: unlike them, block notices and editing restrictions are of such importance that other users who interact with the "owner" of the talk page should be aware of them; this is esspecially true if sanctions must be applied, as the existence of previous sanctions might properly influence current and future visitors. Nyttend (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC) Does this make sense? I'm sleepy. If it's gibberish, notify me on my talk page and I'll fix it.
• As with Nyttend, I'm certainly in favour, in principle, of a policy that any community-imposed restrictions on a specific user should be documented in such a way that they can be easily found from the relevant userpage. (Blocks, less so; they're system-logged and usually fairly visible through things like popups.) That said, two questions:

a) Does "relevant" apply simply to the notices informing the user of those sanctions - "This is to inform you that you have been banned from editing articles on XYZ"? - or does it apply to any related/subsequent discussion about those blocks? If the latter, I can see some potential for abuse - there are plenty of cases where people post inflammatory/insulting comments regarding a dispute, and if we have a firm rule that "related" material should not be removed, it's hard for the affected user to respond appropriately (ie, by archiving/removing them)

b) How does this apply to archiving? If "removed" includes archiving to a subpage, which it probably is intended to, then there'll have to be some plan for how the various archive bots will handle these discussions. Shimgray | talk | 18:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Responding to b) first, that is a somewhat separate question that impacts both the current version, the old version I suggest going back to, and any other version that requires the notice. As for a) I think related only applies to sock puppetry notices, whereas for the other categories of notice the question is about the notice itself. Monty₈₄₅ 20:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• I used to be vehemently in favor of forcing users to maintain block notices on their talk pages, but given the level of pointless acrimony that it causes, I have changed my mind on this. If a user deletes their block notice, who cares? It is in the page history, and can be found easily. If a user has an active ban, log it on the ban log. They tiny little bit of convenience we get from having such notices visible is more than overcome by the general inconvenience of having to monitor this and deal with the inevitable backlash and silly debates that go back and forth every time this happened. If we just eliminated this restriction altogether, it would end all of the dramah. Just let it go. Blocked and banned editors are best left impotently ignored anyways: fighting with them only feeds the fire. Let them delete their block notice. Then, when you don't restore it, there's nothing left for them to do. Problem solved. --Jayron32 20:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• This again already? Allow removal - If you edit their page, you'll see that they're blocked. If you look at their recent contributions, you'll see that they are blocked. If you look at the page history, you'll likely notice that they had been blocked. I've never understood the argument that people who are actively trying to work with an editor need to have these block notices in place or they won't be able to figure it out. Requiring them leads to pointlessly stupid edit wars between upset blocked users and people who apparently have nothing better to do with their time. --Onorem♠Dil 20:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

  The guideline was changed [1] recently, removing the provision that a number of editors have been using to justify restoring active block notices. The last major discussion as I far as I can find occurred more then a year ago and resulted in a non-consensus close. Furthermore, as currently written, the guideline does not prohibit the removal of community imposed sanction notifications, which I think is clearly wrong. Monty₈₄₅ 20:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

  • That long ago? Hmm...could've sworn it was more recent. I guess it just seems that way because I think it's such an unbelievably stupid thing for people to war over. --Onorem♠Dil 21:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

    Actually I was mistaken, it ended last August, so less then a year, but not that recent. Also it was rather inconclusive. Monty₈₄₅ 21:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

    • I do agree that notices about editing restrictions should not be removed. That's not necessarily information that would be simple to find. --Onorem♠Dil 21:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

      • WP:BANLIST. You're welcome. --Jayron32 22:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

        • While a useful link, I don't think it's quite the same. Maybe I worded it poorly. It's not hard to find. It's hard to know when you'd need to find it. If you don't know that you should be looking for restrictions, you'd have to continuously go back and scan for the names of people you're working with. If you don't know that someone is blocked, a massive box pops up at the top of the page if you edit their talk or look at their contributions. --Onorem♠Dil 22:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• No, users shouldn't be able to remove active sanctions. I understand that most or all of those sanctions are logged but I see no reason why editors should be forced to search through multiple logs when it's easier to just retain the relevant Talk message(s) or template(s). While I am sympathetic for editors under sanction(s), the need for other editors to easily and quickly know that an editor is under sanctions outweighs the embarrassment and shame of the sanctioned editor. I would certainly be amenable to a banner shell that minimized the visual impact of sanction messages/templates. And I would likely change my position if (a) all sanctions were logged in a central location or (b) a tool created that could search all of the relevant logs and easily display sanctions for a particular editor. ElKevbo (talk) 06:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
• No Hey look! It's the perenial "Let's be nice to editors who haven't conformed with the rules/policies/guidelines of wikipedia by allowing them to hide their misbehavior while it's still an active problem" proposal. The active sanctions are supposed to be on user's talk pages. Any expired (or reversed ones) are fair game for removal. Hasteur (talk) 20:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
• No. Do we want to start talking about moving this into policy? Ironholds (talk) 06:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Irrelevant question - An admin shouldn't depend on the content of a user page as an ironclad fact of that user's status. The idea that you're going to get anywhere by being more overbearing with a user who is already unhappy with things is just setting up a WP:BATTLEGROUND situation. In addition, if an admin only relies on the text of a user page for guidance, there's no guarantee it wasn't modified to say whatever the user (or another editor) might want it to say. In other words, it is best to use other means to determine the TRUE situation and to do anything less is simply not due diligence on the part of an administrator. -- Avanu (talk) 07:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment - Advertising on user pages

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This proposal is for a minor rewording of a part of this guideline, to clarify that advertisements for products or services should not be allowed on user pages, regardless of whether or not they are related to Wikipedia. WP:NOTADVERTISING (a policy) clearly states, "Wikipedia is not... a vehicle for... advertising... This applies to... user pages." Wiktionary defines advertising as "communication whose purpose is to influence potential customers about products and services". Therefore, we can logically combine these two sentences and come to the conclusion that "Wikipedia user pages should not be used to communicate information about products and services to potential customers." In other words, if something is being sold for monetary gain, it should not be advertised on a user page.

The part of the guideline which this proposal deals with is under the "What may I not have in my user pages?" section, in the table under "Excessive unrelated content" (quick link). The row labeled "Promotional and advocacy material and links" currently reads as follow:

Promotional and advocacy material and links	Advertising or promotion of an individual, business, organization, group, or viewpoint unrelated to Wikipedia (such as commercial sites or referral links). Extensive self-promotional material, especially when not directly relevant to Wikipedia.

The wording of the first bullet point is ambiguous. It can be interpreted in a way that conflicts with WP:NOTADVERTISING, implying that it's ok to advertise products and services, as long as they are related to Wikipedia. This proposal aims to clarify the wording by adding an additional bullet point. The proposed wording is as follows:

Promotional and advocacy material and links	Advertising or promotion of an individual, business, organization, group, or viewpoint unrelated to Wikipedia (such as commercial sites or referral links). Advertising or promotion of a product, service, or any other for-profit, money-making venture; regardless of its relationship to Wikipedia. Extensive self-promotional material, especially when not directly relevant to Wikipedia.

Please note: It is not the intent of this proposal to decide whether paid editing (or otherwise making money from Wikipedia-related activities) is acceptable, nor is it the intent of this proposal to limit an editor's ability to disclose that they are a paid editor. The intent is only to clarify this guideline so that it is in line with the policy on what Wikipedia is not, to make it crystal clear that user pages are not to be used for advertising purposes.

Please indicate whether you support or oppose this change below.

Advertising discussion

• Support as proposer. ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 20:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support as an apparently necessary restatement of the rules. --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I disagree with making the guideline turn on the exchange of money. In my opinion, editors should be given broad discretion as to what content they want on their user page so long as the content is related to the editing of Wikipedia. We would allow an editor to place a notice on their userpage inviting others to solicit their assistance in editing generally, or in editing topics they are interested in due to the editor's profession, ethnicity, religion, place of residence, or any of a variety of other motivations, what is so fundamentally different about a notice inviting readers to solicit their editing assistance based instead on financial remuneration? I just don't see the fundamental difference, to the extent that editors are permitted to be paid for their editing, they should be allowed to post related information, up to and including what they expect to be paid, on their userpages. Monty₈₄₅ 20:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The fundamental difference is that there is a policy (WP:NOTADVERTISING) which forbids using user pages as advertising space. The definition of advertising is given above. Advertising does not include soliciting help with editing, or displaying notices which communicate a user's interests, profession, ethnicity, religion, or place of residence. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 20:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

To the extent WP:NOTADVERTISING does apply in the situation we are discussing, I think we should carve out an exception for advertising in userspace, that is directly related to the purpose of editing Wikipedia. To what extent NOTADVERTISING should apply is I think fairly within the scope of this RFC. Monty₈₄₅ 20:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTADVERTISING is pretty darn clear. It says (among other things) that user pages should not be used for advertisement. Period. There isn't much to discuss about that. If you think there should be an exception for user space when the advertisement is directly related to Wikipedia, then I think you need to start another RfC at WT:NOT to get the policy changed. I highly doubt you'd find consensus for that change. ‑Scottywong| babble _ 20:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Question - Pete Forsyth is a current admin and former WMF employee who now runs Wiki Strategies, a consulting firm which advises clients "advise on opportunities to engage with the Wikipedia community", as you can read on his user page. I don't mean to pick on Pete, but I see very little difference between his user page and the user page which started this discussion. If the proposed change were adopted, would Pete need to remove the link and reference to his company? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It depends on whether there is a consensus on whether the text on his user page constitutes advertising. It's a grey area. On one hand, it's a statement of his profession, equivalent to "I'm a programmer at IBM." On the other hand, it's an external link to a business that he presumably owns, which some might construe as an advertisement. Personally, I would be ok with that user page if the external link was removed, but I think it would merit more discussion. The one thing we can agree on is that it's not as clear cut as "I'll write a Wikipedia article for your company for $1000. Here's my email address." ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 20:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see Pete's page as advertising. In a multi-paragraph bit of prose that gives a bit of history about himself, he mentions where he works. On the other, bold font tops the page offering a specific service for a specific price asking that people contact him in specifics ways if they'd like to hire him. --Onorem♠Dil 20:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

So would it be fine if a userpage said I currently work as a paid editor improving articles at Wikipedia followed on the next line by a {{Mail}} template? Just so long as there is no direct discussion of money, and its left to the reader to decide on a way to contact the editor? Monty₈₄₅ 21:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

As long as it isn't an advertisement for a product or a service, then it's ok. Having the {{Mail}} template right next to the statement about how you're a paid editor would be a bit suspicious though. I'm not sure how useful it is to nitpick about individual, extremely specific examples. ‑Scottywong| communicate _ 21:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it.

I'm not going to begin to attempt to clearly define with no grey areas what is or isn't advertising. I do think there is a difference between blatant advertising and mentioning where you work. --Onorem♠Dil 21:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support -though there will likely be grey areas such as those already being discussed above that would have to be dealt with case by case. --Onorem♠Dil 20:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Advertising break1

• Oppose – The advertisement on User:Cla68 goes towards improving articles. That advertisement is going towards Wikipedia's benefit. The policy should exclude advertising that goes towards improving Wikipedia. Instead of trying to disenfranchise paid editors, you guys should work with paid editors in order to construct a "Wikipedia Paid Editor Code of Conduct" or something. Pecunia non olet. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

By "the policy", do you mean WP:NOTADVERTISING or WP:UP#PROMO (which is a guideline). If you were referring to WP:NOTADVERTISING, then it currently does not exclude advertising that goes toward improving Wikipedia. Whether or not it should exclude it is another topic for another debate (preferably on WT:NOT). If you were referring to WP:UP#PROMO having a specific exclusion for advertising that goes toward improving Wikipedia, how would you justify such an exclusion when you consider the language of WP:NOTADVERTISING, particularly keeping in mind that policies trump guidelines?

Also, I don't think there is unanimous agreement that Cla68's advertisement is benefiting Wikipedia. I certainly don't agree. I don't believe that Wikipedia would benefit from paid editors, but that's just my opinion. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 22:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to say "guideline." WP:NOTADVERTISING doesn't mention userpages, and the word "article" is used several times. Given its language, I believe that WP:NOTADVERTISING only applies to the mainspace. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Try reading it one more time. It clearly says at the top: "This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages." (my emphasis) ‑Scottywong| comment _ 22:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Whoops, I didn't read the content outside of the ordered list. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Policies aren't ends in themselves; they're means. Policies are meant to help Wikipedia, and if a policy gets in the way of improving Wikipedia, then one is free to ignore that policy. WP:IAR. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 03:59, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Care to explain how allowing advertisements on user pages improves the encyclopedia to the extent that we have to invoke IAR to ignore a long-standing policy? ‑Scottywong| confabulate _ 19:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Personally, from the sentence: "Advertising or promotion of an individual, business, organization, group, or viewpoint unrelated to Wikipedia (such as commercial sites or referral links).", I find the unrelated to Wikipedia bit informative, and compelling.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

That is not an answer to the question, "How does allowing advertisements on user pages improve the encyclopedia?" An answer to that question would explain how it improves the encyclopedia, rather than things that you find informative and compelling. ‑Scottywong| communicate _ 21:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Hypothetical situation: Someone seeks to improve an article, but is unable to do it on his or her own. That persons sees an advisement on a freelancer's userpage offering aid in exchange for money. That person hires the freelancer, and that freelancers improves the article without violating Wikipedia's policies. If an ad on an usepage results in an article's improvement, then let that ad exist. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

If a hypothetical user wants to pay a hypothetical editor to make hypothetical NPOV edits to an article, that sounds like a hypothetically awesome situation. Realistically, people aren't going to pay for NPOV edits for NPOV reasons. And making hypothetical adverts acceptable brings up hypothetical complaints when the product isn't delivered. --Onorem♠Dil 22:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

That's why there must be negotiation between client and contractor. A contractor isn't the client's slave; a contractor is a sovereign and an equal. A contractor may push terms and refuse any POV requests from a client. It's wrong to believe that all businesspersons are unscrupulous. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I never said they were. My point is simply that you can make up a hypothetical for anything. Should we allow advertising services for pay on userpages? --Onorem♠Dil 22:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• Opppose and endorse Michaeldsuarez view. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Advertising break2

• Opposed - The current wording is fine, and pulling out parts of the text from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not out of context to support the position is misleading. There's just no need to change anything regarding this, right now (there may be in the future, but there haven't been any demonstrable problems yet).
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

  Exactly how is the material quoted from WP:NOTADVERTISING taken out of context and/or misleading in any way? What makes you think that WP:NOTADVERTISING doesn't apply to the subject of advertising products and services on user pages? ‑Scottywong| babble _ 22:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

  I didn't say that NOTADVERTISING doesn't apply.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

  Ok, so if it applies, then how did I mislead people by taking it out of context? ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 13:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

  Pulling out bits and pieces of a text in order to create the interpretation that you desire is misleading. The sentence WP:NOTADVERTISING (a policy) clearly states, "Wikipedia is not... a vehicle for... advertising... This applies to... user pages." is a problem, especially since the section there doesn't say specifically that anywhere. If you want to say that you think NOTADVERTISING already applies to user pages, or that it should, then that's fine. What you've done here is clearly misleading, though. This is a ham-handed propaganda technique, straight out of a political operative's playbook!
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 16:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

  Removing the extraneous bits is not misleading. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages. The statement isn't changed by leaving out the parts that aren't directly related to the discussion. --Onorem♠Dil 16:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

  It changes the context though (even if only slightly), and it does so in a way specifically designed to bolster the position being argued. SW just now mentioned himself that he thought that "misleading" was a poor word choice on my part, and I'm willing to admit that I did quite a bit of hunting for that word. I don't think that SW was trying to deceive, or lie, but this is a good example of... polemical is probably a good word here, sort of. Propaganda, certainly. After all, why not quote the whole sentence as you did just now?
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

  I'm at a loss. How exactly is the context changed? It's concise, not misleading. Why not quote the whole sentence? I'd guess because this has nothing to do with soapboxing, battlegrounds, propaganda, showcasing, articles, templates, or talk page discussions... --Onorem♠Dil 17:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

  By highlighting the specific bits that are directly relevant to this discussion, and completely omitting the other elements, it makes it appear as though the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy and the Wikipedia:User pages policy are contradictory, which isn't true in my opinion.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 19:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

  WP:USER was not brought up. How was trimming a simple statement from WP:NOT misleading? --Onorem♠Dil 19:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

  Also, WP:USER is a guideline. WP:NOT is policy. If there is a difference in what they say, the default position should be based on the policy while discussion is ongoing. --Onorem♠Dil 19:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

  Um... this is a proposal to change this page, so...
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

  Still not answering the question. Oh well. I'm done. --Onorem♠Dil 20:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)I'm not sure why this is so difficult. Let's say the original sentence was "Wikipedia is not A, B, C, D, or E. This applies to F, G, H, and I." I am simply condensing this down to only talk about the most relevant parts by saying "Wikipedia is not C. This applies to H." There is nothing false, misleading, or out-of-context by doing that. The meaning has not been changed. This is very, very simple to understand. The real question is this: Tell me whether or not you believe the following statement is false: Part of WP:NOT instructs us that user pages are not to be used as a vehicle for advertising. If you believe that statement is false, then I'm done with this conversation, because then we'll be at the level of debating basic rules of the syntax of the English language, and that is not something I'm interested in debating. ‑Scottywong| communicate _ 21:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

  Part of WP:NOT instructs us that user pages are not to be used as a vehicle for advertising unrelated to Wikipedia. The last part is vital.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

  WP:NOT includes no such qualifications or exceptions for certain types of advertisements, therefore your statement is false. WP:NOT is a policy, WP:UP is a guideline. Again, if you'd like to update WP:NOT to include such an exception, please start a discussion on WT:NOT to get consensus for it. Until that time, advertising for products and services on user pages is a violation of WP:NOT, regardless of how many guidelines exist which can be twisted to say otherwise. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 22:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

  Not exactly true. WP:NOT only takes the hard line that you're expressing here if you're unwilling to give the numbered points any weight. Even before that though, it's understood that policy is not written to be all inclusive. There's always room for interpretation in it, and if needed there's always the "safety valve" of IAR. Besides that, this guideline can be taken as the wide interpretation of this specific aspect of NOT, and the distinction here is crystal clear, and is also built on long and hard fought experience.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Policies don't exist for their own sake; they exist for Wikipedia's sake. Don't enforce policies for the sake of enforcing policies; enforce policies when something beneficial to Wikipedia results. As I've stated earlier, when a policy is in the way of improving Wikipedia, then one has the right to ignore that policy. This discussion needs less policy-citing and less wikilaywering. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Advertising break3

• The founder of Wikipedia did state he was against paid editors in a previous discussion I remember reading years ago. I thought there always was a rule against this. I don't really care one way or the other, as long as they announce what they are doing, who they are working for, and aren't trying to remove negative things and add in fluffery. Of course, a lot of people who freely edit Wikipedia articles look for and then add in positive or negative things depending on whether they like the subject of the article. And we don't want any massive spamming done, where a newspaper hires someone to go through every single Wikipedia article imaginable and add in a reference to an article on their site. Dream Focus 00:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

This discussion isn't about whether or not paid editing should be allowed, it's about whether you should be able to advertise a product or service on your user page. ‑Scottywong| speak _ 00:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

What else would they be advertising? Is this a real problem? Any links to show? Dream Focus 01:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Making money or not is irrelevant to our no-advertising policy that many people have linked; why throw this page into discord with others? What's more, blatant advertising anywhere is subject to speedy deletion, regardless of what this discussion concludes. Nyttend (talk) 05:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose I really doubt there is money to be made, but if there is, no valid reason has been shown for preventing editors (who often throw a good deal of money into articles) from making it.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

No one is trying to prevent anyone from making money. This proposal is about advertising only, not outlawing profiting on Wikipedia. ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 13:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support - This is an appropriate response to the recent "Will Edit For Cash" brouhaha at ANI. I am not opposed to paid editing at WP, but I am opposed to the commercialization of the site. Failing to slam Pandora's box shut now would be a great mistake. Carrite (talk) 14:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 14:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support provisionally: my caveat is that enforcement should err on the side of permitting truly ambiguous material. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 16:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

  That's actually why I "oppose" this proposal, because I think that the current wording does a fine job at doing exactly what you're saying here.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 17:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support. The purpose of Wikipedia is to write an encyclopedia, not to promote private business, no matter on which page or what kind of business, or whose.  Sandstein  17:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I have no time for the wikilawyering claims that advertising an editor's services for sale on a user page is ok. It's not, because the moment an organisation or individual can buy an article on Wikipedia, our contract with our readership is broken, as the assumption of impartial editing is no longer sustainable. If we need this change to make it clear that we don't accept user page advertising of any sort, then let's make the change. --RexxS (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Advertising break4

• Support – If people are being paid to edit Wikipedia, fine. The moment they advertise their services on their user page, that indicates that they are not able to edit with a neutral point of view. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

  You'd rather paid editors be forced to live in hiding?
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 20:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

  Yes, and hunted down like dogssock-puppets. --RexxS (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

  This proposal is not about disclosure of paid editing. Disclosure and advertisement are two very different things. Editors can disclose that they have been paid without advertising their services. ‑Scottywong| soliloquize _ 21:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

  OK, so what pushes the limit to make something "advertising", exactly? Is it the mention of a specific amount, the inclusion of a link to the users email, what?
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

  You see: that's precisely the reason why we shouldn't be allowing any paid editing. As soon as the toe is in the door, then we get the wikilawyering about "how much of an advert is an advert". The answer is obvious: any form of advertising - be it rates, email, links, or even a humorous limerick announcing that payment is accepted - is totally unacceptable and should not a appear on a user page. --RexxS (talk) 22:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

  If "wikilawyering" is such a problem, then we need to quit pushing our policies and guidelines in the direction of becoming legislation. Note the "wikilawyering" above over what this proposal is about, and the "wikilawyering" about what constitutes advertisements on just ab out everyone's part.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

  Common sense applies. Disclosure looks like this: "FYI - I am occasionally paid to write articles." or "FYI - I have been paid to write this article." Advertisements look like this. Disclosure is a simple statement. Advertisement has clear intent to attract a buyer. Advertisements often include prices, terms, methods of off-wiki contact, external links to company websites, etc. Disclosures include none of these things. An easy solution would be to create an acceptable template or userbox which states that a user is a paid editor (I'm sure one exists already). Then, we won't have to worry about whether a custom statement is too "adverty". ‑Scottywong| chatter _ 22:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

  Common sense seems a little naive here. In the absence of advertisements, disclosures simply fulfil the same function, but in a less open and transparent way. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose If people are being paid to edit (which likely has been going on a long time) an announcement of that fact on their user page would provide on-wiki, readily-accessible disclosure. Kablammo (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

  This proposal doesn't limit anyone's ability to disclose that they have been paid to edit. It only limits their ability to advertise products and services. Advertising and disclosure are two different things. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 21:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

  • You keep repeating that line, but it's factually inaccurate. In this instance, advertisement and disclosure are inextricably linked, and to try to pretend otherwise will cause more problems than it solves. If there is a notable problem here, the solution is either to ban paid advertising editing, or to ensure that our policies and guidelines give us every chance to control it. —WFC— 21:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC) Error corrected. —WFC— 22:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. There is a huge difference between advertising and disclosure. Disclosure looks like this: "FYI - I am occasionally paid to write articles." or "FYI - I have been paid to write this article." Advertisements look like this. Disclosure is a simple statement. Advertisement has clear intent to attract a buyer. Advertisements often include prices, terms, methods of off-wiki contact, external links to company websites, etc. Disclosures include none of these things. ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 22:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure, and then somebody puts something like this into an "About me" section on their user page:

* You can buy my services to edit any article.

* My email is enabled (links to Special:MyEmail).

and then you have egg on your face, because they will argue that there's no advert there and that the two statements are unrelated. Whereas all you have to do is ban the first line and the problem is solved. --RexxS (talk) 22:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not necessarily arguing for a ban on paid editing, but I agree with RexxS's logic. —WFC— 23:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I do too. Let's at least be clear about what we're doing here.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. I do recognise the work that has gone in here, and that the intention is a noble one. But there are multiple issues. Firstly, for as long as paid editing is not explicitly banned, I would rather information on a user's involvement in that activity were contained on wiki than off of it. Then there's the fact that we have been known to enter into arrangements with organisations which take payment in exchange for products or services, Highbeam for example. Partnerships in which the benefit to Wikipedia is free, but however strongly the foundation distances itself from the other partner's financial affairs, the other party's objectives are clear. In short term, the organisation would hope for its profile to be raised, with the longer term hope that the connection will help the business grow (which, for anyone who doesn't understand the euphamism, means "make more money"). That concept might not be to everyone's tastes, but it does happen, and this proposal could call those into question.

  Finally, I do concede that there is an ambiguity in the existing policy. However, I don't think it's a good thing to shift the ambiguity from a judgement on whether the questionable material can justifiably claim to be trying to help Wikipedia, to whether the questionable material which definitely intends to help Wikipedia can reasonably be described as promotional in nature. —WFC— 20:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Advertising break5

• Support...advertising editing services for a fee anywhere on this website is the wrong way to go.--MONGO 21:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Question for clarification Another editor has suggested that if an editor is paid "he creates a legal liability upon himself that can no longer be avoided by the free-nature of the editing...he has lost all protection". Does this mean that once an editor is paid for writing something in an article he or she is legally responsible and so could be personally sued for libel (or whatever, e.g. leaking some government secrets)? Or is payment irrelevant to legal culpability. And which jurisdiction would be involved here- Florida, USA or wherever that editor lives? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
    • That question is completely irrelevant to this discussion. ‑Scottywong| gab _ 22:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
      • Thanks so much for the invite, Scotty. Advertising seems to carry no legal implications, then. Great discussion. Not sure that makes it easier to vote. I would have thought that knowing there was more or less legal responsibility involved might well affect the number of editors who might want to advertise. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose The Intent behind this proposal would only harm Wikipedia, because knowledge of editor's intentions are obviously important. It's amusing that people complain about paid editors who are working under the radar, but then put up this proposal. If the "advertisement" is meant to be advertising the improvement of Wikipedia, then there's no issue. Silverseren^C 22:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
  • You don't need to have a blatant advert to avoid hiding your intentions. Whether there's no issue or not is a topic of discussion for somewhere else. --Onorem♠Dil 23:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
    • This proposal doesn't simply cover "blatant adverts", it covers "advertising". There is a gaping chasm between the two. A disclosure from someone who has provided any sort of contact information whatsoever could be reasonably interpreted as advertising. —WFC— 23:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
      • This proposal is obviously provoked by a specific case of blatant advertising. Saying we need adverts (blatant or not) so we have disclosure is not a useful argument. Step one is to decide if we allow adverts. Step two, if step one says we don't, is to interpret what those are. --Onorem♠Dil 23:29, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
        • If we're going to do it that way, the two steps need to be done simultaneously. Step one is actively negative for as long as we have no agreed definition, and it remains to be seen whether the community is capable of reaching one. —WFC— 23:51, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
        • This seems a bit remarkable to me. If what Cla68 has done is "blatant advertising", then there's no such thing as non-blatant advertising.
          — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 15:25, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
          • You see no difference between User:Peteforsyth and User:Cla68? That's amazing. --Onorem♠Dil 19:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
            • I was tempted to post a like-for-like response. Something which mentioned lead balloons perhaps. But look, while there's no doubt that the way in which Pete Forsyth tackles the subject itself is classy, it would not be pedantic wikilawyering to regard the way he covers it as a high-class advert. He provides an eloquent description of what he does, and straight after provides contact details. —WFC— 23:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support Advertisments for paid work on Wikipedia should be just like any other sort of commercial advert on here. If someone was to place an advert for their taxi business or legal services, then they would be removed. There is also the danger that allowing adverts may give the impression that Wikipedia is encouraging and supporting activities that may not have the support of consensus. Declarations of any COIs resulting from paid editing should be made in some sort of central register somewhere on en:wikipedia - advertisements should be off wikipedia.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
  • A central register of paid editors, and a ban on mentioning it anywhere else on-wiki (even your userspace)? You might be onto something there. —WFC— 23:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I think that we're getting way ahead of ourselves here. Cla clearly intended to spark exactly this discussion, and it's working. However, I have yet to see any proof that anything is actually happening, let alone any proof that any sort of disruption has occurred that needs to be dealt with. I agree that this train of thought it a good direction, but it seems decidedly premature.
      — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
• support the wording to bring this guideline more clearly into alignment with the policy WP:SOAP -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:39, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• Strongly support, I frequently G11 userpages because there are ads on them. Granted, those are generally from users who did not edit anything else, but no one should be using any Wikipedia page, including user pages, as a billboard. If editors want to advertise their services, they can go purchase ads from any advertising service of their choice, but they may not place them here. I've always been against Wikipedia selling advertising, but allowing people to place them without even making the money off it is even worse! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Advertising break6

• Oppose - Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community of individuals interested in building a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect. Wikipedia isn't a WP:SOAPbox, but we're also not a WP:BUREAUCRACY. If you want to spend all your time deciding whether a user's personal page meets your personal idea of what's right and wrong, you probably shouldn't be here. It reminds of the little old ladies who go to the library to check out books just to mark through the 'dirty' words. I'm not going to agree with everything people might have on their user page, but unless it harms the encyclopedia, and I mean truly harm, I'm probably not going to worry about it. We don't need to police for every loophole. We already have a rule (WP:IAR) that covers such things. What we do need is people to lighten up, and if something is really a problem, address it, if not, then let it be. Aren't there a couple of pages on this encyclopedia in need of proofreading or editing? Maybe Wikipedia is only 5 pages now and we don't have other stuff to do anymore. -- Avanu (talk) 00:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment A distinction needs to be made between disclosing a conflict of interest, which we encourage and actually advertising ones services (or prices no less), which is more controversial. It should never be prohibited to say that your work might impact your impartiality, and that might only be the difference between "I am paid to work on Wikipedia" and "You can hire me to work on Wikipedia". Ocaasi ^{t | c} 02:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• Question: Could I ask, for The Signpost, whether the distinction intended by this proposal is between (i) telling other editors "what you do for a living", and (ii) actively promoting your service/product on your user page? Tony (talk) 03:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The proposer said it is not "the intent of this proposal to limit an editor's ability to disclose that they are a paid editor", but just to prevent user pages being used for advertising purposes. -- Avanu (talk) 04:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, I still don't see what all the fuss is. Cla68 said he could guarantee to bring an article to FA status and since pretty much everything is controlled by consensus ultimately, I don't see how one could do this unless you have a collective of editors working as meatpuppets or sockpuppets (or its actually a great article, which is good for Wikipedia anyway). Since people could already be doing this without saying so, it seems ultimately better to know people are doing this for pay, rather than encouraging it to go underground more. -- Avanu (talk) 04:06, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Follow-up question, then: isn't there going to be a big fat grey area on this one? What if an editor "discloses" that they do paid editing at the top of their user page in lush detail? Would that count as informing the community about their role on WP rather than advertising? Where does the boundary lie? Is it the mention of $$ that pushes Cla68's notice over the line of acceptability? What if it had been, for example:

Part of my activity on Wikipedia is as a paid editor: I use my expertise in written English, in particular my experience in negotiating competitive text with clients in all areas from basic to highly technical, to assist clients to create and/or improve balanced, neutral, and high-quality articles in which they may have a stake. I combine this background with my close knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to navigate through the maze of issues that often bewilder outsiders who have information that should be exposed on Wikipedia.

Many of my clients are companies, other organisations, public relations professsionals, and individuals such as university researchers, artists, and writers. My work often involves the provision of source material by clients, and if images and other media files that are relevant for an article need to be released and uploaded, I assist in this complex process. I always declare at those forums and on the article talk page that I'm working for financial compensation. By arrangement with a client, I watchlist an article after initial work to ensure that it remains of high quality and up-to-date. If requested and appropriate, I prepare and nominate articles for DYK or featured status (which can lead to main-page exposure). By request I train a client or their representative in how to deal with Wikipedia's bureaucracy.

Potential clients typically contact me via my email from this account, so that we can discuss their needs and I can give them an idea of costs, which are on an hourly basis.

Which bits are starting to become unacceptable here? Tony (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

All the bits after ""Part of my activity". It's only my humble opinion, of course, but there's no grey area: we either ban paid editing, or anything goes. --RexxS (talk) 23:04, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd second that last bit, despite the fact that my gut feeling on which we should do differs to RexxS's. Updated by —WFC— 00:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

While I still don't feel like trying to define rules for what does or doesn't qualify...I'd probably be ok with the first sentence of each paragraph. The simple statements without the salesmanship. [edit]I suppose I'd like any discussion of costs to be removed...even if no numbers are given. --Onorem♠Dil 16:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I don't care if people are paid to edit Wikipedia, but WP:NOTADVERTISING is a policy and it states: "content hosted in Wikipedia is not for: ...recruitment of any kind: commercial... or otherwise." Kaldari (talk) 07:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
  • So just announcing that you're "a paid editor" does about the same in terms of advertising, doesn't it? I wonder whether the detail in the example really changes anything in terms of defining it as personal information vs advertising. Tony (talk) 13:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I think most people have a pretty good idea of what constitutes advertising and what doesn't. Kaldari (talk) 08:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• support. A key distinction been information about oneself and advertising is talking about money or its equivalent. This would apply just as much is it were promotion for a charitable cause,or for a unrelated business. If I were to say I make widgets, and give a link to my website, that's information. If I say, see my widget site for a price list, that's advertising. If I say I support the Republican party, that's information. If I say, I support the Republican party, and suggest that if you agree with me you contribute to its national committee, that's promotion. For the material in the box above, the details are sufficient that it's advertising. Cla68's current page is advertising. Pete's page is not. whether the use of one's experience at DNK or AfD or a similar process for money is permissible is a separate question--my own view is that it is as inappropriate as the use of admin powers would be. The use of one's technical ability here for money is permissible; the use of one's prestige here for money is not, and this casts a special burden on people in respected positions here, whether formal or informal--I think they have more need for great caution in this regard than ordinary contributors. DGG ( talk ) 00:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

So which bits of the grey box would have to go to qualify as non-ad. BTW, I see plenty of "ordinary" admins; what do you mean by "ordinary contributors", please??? Tony (talk) 01:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support- I strongly oppose the commercialisation of Wikipedia. Reyk _YO! 01:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Because then we'd just have to argue about what is and isn't "advertising." And for all those folks quoting WP:NOTADVERTISING -- are you going to tackle all the opinions and personal discussions in userspace? Nobody Ent 02:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

You can't possibly misunderstand policy to that degree. Just because the shortcut link is WP:NOTOPINION doesn't mean that everyone is prohibited from expressing their opinions. Why don't you actually read the policy instead of just the shortcut link. ‑Scottywong| soliloquize _ 02:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Clearly you have read the entirety of this discussion. So must surely be aware that, whatever you initially intended, this proposal is considered by all sides unlikely to materially impact on anything other than paid editing? Could you please therefore stop repeating that this is not about paid editing? —WFC— 02:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

1. The "You disagree with me so you must be lazy or stupid" meme is not a compelling counterargument.
2. Frequent contrarian replies to oppose views reminds me of childish "Did not!" "Did too!" rhetoric.
3. No wiki anything stands by itself but is interpreted in context of other policies. The examples I provide clearly show the guideline is, by widespread and longstanding consensus, much more rigidly to article space than user space. Nobody Ent 12:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

There are parts of it which apply much more frequently to articles than to user pages. However, that doesn't mean it doesn't apply at all to user pages. It just happens to be much less likely to encounter an advertisement or an opinion piece on a user page. Sorry to keep arguing, but this is textbook wikilawyering. It says in plain English that user pages are not to be used as a vehicle for advertising. That people are trying to claim, "Yeah, but that's not really what it means" is baffling to me. ‑Scottywong| express _ 13:47, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

If the policy is so clear why was an RFC opened to change the wording? Nobody Ent 19:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The policy at WP:SOAP is crystal clear. The current wording of this guideline is not clear, hence the RfC to bring the guideline and the policy into accord. -- The Red Pen of Doom 20:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion (even for itself) -- Avanu (talk) 20:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Except when it is. And please stop shouting. Nobody Ent 20:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

No one's shouting, that's how its formatted on its own page. Sheesh touchy people you act like you never seen a panda before. -- Avanu (talk) 20:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support Users should keep their personal business matters off Wikipedia. ThemFromSpace 02:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support We do not allow advertising this includes of oneself.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. Taken literally, this would imply that the page User:HBC Archive Indexerbot fails the guideline, since it advertizes a service. I understand that that is not the intention, but isn't it better if one doesn't have to guess the intention behind an awkwardly phrased clause?  --Lambiam 15:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• Question. Consider:

1. COI disclosure: I run a business to copy edit pages on request.
2. I am an experienced Wikipedia editor and will copy edit your page for a reasonable price.

Will both be equally disallowed under this proposal? If not, what is the difference?  --Lambiam 15:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Well what I wanted from people when I wrote the grey boxed material above was their opinions on where the boundary lies. But I received no serious response. Tony (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

@Tony: You received a serious response from me. It is abundantly clear from examples such as the one that Lambiam suggests that drawing a line somewhere will lead to wikilawyering a form of words that breaches the spirit of our ban on advertising services-for-sale. The only rational solutions are either to prohibit paid editing, or to allow advertising. There is demonstrably no middle ground, and my opinion is that we should prefer the former solution. --RexxS (talk) 16:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

And I would repeat that while I have no objection to the latter solution, RexxS has hit the nail on the head logic-wise. —WFC— 04:44, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

• Support the proposal; strongly oppose commercializing the project. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Disclosure is a must for paid editing. Discussion here has been prompted by User:Cla68's disclosure of his paid editing, some users in the MFD argued to delete the disclosure, but to keep the page! That is flat out ridiculous. Just saying you're a paid editor is not good enough, I want to know who you work for, and how to contact you off wiki - through emails which your employer is legally liable for, and not some woolly user talk page. Those who are arguing support here, are arguing against clear disclosures of COI - being up front that you work for Bell Pottinger is not an advert, even if they can click on your link and hire you. I'm clearly against spamming your ebay auctions in the user space, but this is not what the discussion is about - the discussion is about tarring disclosure as advertising. - hahnchen 18:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • You don't need to advertise your services to disclose your COI. That is flat out ridiculous. --Onorem♠Dil 18:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
    • So then what, a disclosure of "I work on paid articles", but no disclosure on the employer and how you may be contacted? How useless would that be? - hahnchen 18:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Useless for who? (though I never said saying who you work for and how to contact you shouldn't be allowed) --Onorem♠Dil 18:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Useless for everyone. Who did you think it'd be useful for?! Scottywong, who proposed this change even views contact links as suspicious.[2] That's where this discussion is coming from. - hahnchen 18:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
          • Disclosing a COI is useless without making it into an advertisement? I'm sorry...I'm a bit slow. You're going to have to explain that more clearly for me. I'm not seeing how it's useless for us to know about a COI on wiki without also allowing the person with a COI to advertise their work. --Onorem♠Dil 18:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
            • You have users arguing that contact links form an advertisement. - hahnchen 18:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
              • I do agree that's a bad argument. I don't agree that because a bad argument has been made, the only answer is to disagree with the position of the person making it. This entire RfC is basically useless. Until we focus on either 'what qualifies as advertising' or 'do we allow advertising' first, it's just bickering with no set standard to what we're actually discussing. As far as I'm concerned, no RfC was needed. The change should have simply been made to make the guideline match the policy and discussion starts from there. --Onorem♠Dil 18:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
                • I agree. I voted oppose in order for no changes to be made. This whole RFC was a way to wikilawyer away Cla68's user page. We should be forming a standard disclosure agreement, that includes the necessary info such as employer, contact details and nature of editing. Anything other than that, we can blanket away as advertising - but we need to be clear on disclosure first. - hahnchen 18:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
                  • I (clearly) disagree with what you think needs to be included in a 'standard' disclosure, but agree otherwise. I have no idea how it'd be possible to actual keep a discussion on one track long enough to make that work. --Onorem♠Dil 19:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
                    • I would limit statements on the editor's user page to a statement that they are (or have been) a paid editor, together with a link to some sort of standard disclosure register. Disclosure of each paid commission would be needed here, with sufficient detail on who commissioned the work and what work was commissioned so that anyone who needs to know can tell what COI risks the editing entails. This would not restrict an editor from stating what areas they generally edit in, or what there personal beliefs are (within current guidelines) but would preclude pricing or direct contact details.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
                      • It seems entirely inconsistent for COI to say that editors should disclose, and then ban them for mentioning that they edit for hire. B^e——C_ritical 21:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
                        • Disclosure in a strictly, agreed, controlled manner does not equal advertising.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support - long overdue (and yes, that includes Pete or anybody else if they are advertising, not just disclosing COI). --Orange Mike | Talk 19:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

How is "This user's favorite color is orange." related to Wikipedia? Don't stretch (; How about "This user is thankful that the good guys won the Civil War †"? B^e——C_ritical 19:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The proposed change is to add "Advertising or promotion of a product, service, or any other for-profit, money-making venture; regardless of its relationship to Wikipedia." How would "This user's favorite color is orange." come into it at all? Are colors paying users to advertise for them now? Amazing. --Onorem♠Dil 19:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I said, strong oppose to current and proposed. Under the current, his userpage is against policy. But I'll add a bit to oppose the proposed change as well. B^e——C_ritical 20:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Strong oppose This bans far more than advertisements for commercial gain. It could be used for many people's userpages. Many Wikipedians have userboxes unrelated to Wikipedia, for example (See the first one on User:Delicious carbuncle, or the userboxes on User:Equazcion. These promote viewpoints unrelated to Wikipedia. So a strong oppose to current wording. Also oppose proposed wording, as it makes absolutely no difference to practice, but makes honesty impossible. B^e——C_ritical 20:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• It doesn't ban viewpoints unrelated to Wikipedia. It bans Advertising or promotion of those viewpoints. I don't understand why "This user's favorite color is orange" would qualify. I don't understand how "This user has no particular interest in Marilyn Monroe, Marilyn memorabilia, or memorabilia collectors." would qualify. What are these users advertising or promoting with these statements? --Onorem♠Dil 20:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

As with many people's userboxes. The key word is "promotion." The "orange" example may not be the best, but it's arguably promoting in the same way as a model saying "I love X." Depending on how much you like Mike (; How about the "George W. Bush" or the promotion of his livejournal, or homosexual marriage? B^e——C_ritical 20:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess I just don't agree that a simple statement of "I like GWB" or "I like homosexual marriage" is promotional. If we're going to be that picky about what qualifies as advert or promo, I guess we should just reduce everyone to rednamed userpages. --Onorem♠Dil 20:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this text is not new: "Advertising or promotion of an individual, business, organization, group, or viewpoint unrelated to Wikipedia (such as commercial sites or referral links)." That text already exists in the guideline, it is not part of this proposal. ‑Scottywong| babble _ 20:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Provisional oppose until it's clear how this idea and paid editing expectations will coincide. I do not believe that the proposer would intend this to be used, in combination with a disclosure requirement, to backdoor ban paid editing (disclosures required for paid editing, and disclosures prohibited, thus paid editing is disallowed). However, I do not believe that we should approach a contentious topic from two separate angles at once, to avoid such an outcome. Also, nothing in the above passage cited as "advertising" is, in fact, advertising: if it doesn't contain a price, a pitch, or contact information, it's not an ad. Saying "I fix cars" is not the same as saying "I will fix your vehicle for money; email me for details". Jclemens (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Which 'above passage' is it you're talking about? (I do agree that there is no chance this discussion with its randomness has any chance to be useful now.) --Onorem♠Dil 20:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Userboxen are in part to openly disclose that one has a viewpoint: that I might reasonably be considered to have a jaundiced viewpoint towards articles on neo-Confederates, or Unionism (Irish sense); or a favorable one towards the University of Chicago or Firefly. They should not be advertisements (coy or otherwise). --Orange Mike | Talk 21:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and I of course have no problem with them. Although that's usually their purpose, they do in fact advertise and promote, due to the nature of humans. I think the phrasing is too broad. Look at my userpage: does it say what my POV is, or does it promote? I think it promotes/advertises my POV, and therefore is technically against policy. One should be able to have a literal interpretation of policy and be right about what that policy actually is. B^e——C_ritical 21:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - given that this is a very long page without a threaded discussion section and I've not scrolled from top to bottom recently will say per JClemens. Furthermore, in my view there is plenty of paid editing going on, whether or not we agree or like it, and my view is that full disclosure is better than nothing. Finally, am not convinced this falls under WP:NOTADVERTISING - but that's a minor point. The two most important points are the angle from which to address this issue and the importance of disclosure in general. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support. I see no reason to allow anyone to place text on their user page, which will could result in some financial gain for them or their company. If this is not stopped now, then it could be the thin edge of the wedge.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. If certain behaviour (e.g. paid advocacy) is not allowed, then obviously we should block editors who offer such services. Blatant self-promotion is also already disallowed. We don't need to change the guideline for that (which is only a guideline anyway). But users who remain within what is acceptable behaviour under our policies, should be allowed to disclose that they will accept payment for Wikipedia-related services. If this proposal is accepted, the problems of drawing a bright line between such (commendable) disclosures and advertising these services will lead to wikilawyering and only more unnecessary drama. It will not keep for-hire editors who don't care about our core policies from advertizing elsewhere.  --Lambiam 21:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• Question Does allowing advertisements for the profit of outside parties put Wikipedia's tax status in jeopardy? If so that is a no - contest argument right there. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:23, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I tried to ask about legal implications and was told that my question was "completely irrelevant to this discussion". So I am keen to see the response, if any, to your question. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose The Law of Unintended Consequences could bite Wikipedia in the nethers if you tighten up the rules in this way. Enforcement will be haphazard, hilarious and habitual. →StaniStani  23:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support but a disclosure of being a paid editor is obviously not advertizing. --PnakoticInquisitor^talk 02:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

'Closing: Uneeded -- WP:SOAP already addresses this issue perfectly well. Advertising is not allowed on User pages.

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.

‑KoshVorlon| Angeli i demoni kruzhili nado mnoj... - 16:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Advertising File Sharing Drug War

Doesn't the heading say it all? You can't thwart the law of supply and demand by making up rules: you can only drive it underground. Wikipedia has one choice: underground, or aboveground? As with drugs, if its aboveground, you gain the right to regulate it and study it... that is to see what's happening. Are there any good things about banning people from saying that they do paid editing? Knee-jerk reactions like "I oppose the commercialization of Wikipedia" are divorced from reality here. They are possible in that we can viably ban advertisements for products and most services, but in this particular case we can only choose to know what goes on or to not know.

I said if we don't ban it outright we can regulate it: somewhere above there is a suggestion to the effect that we could regulate it something like this:

Allowed:

• This editor is available for paid editing
• This is how I go about my paid editing

Not allowed:

• Contact me at X
• Price list

This is a bit more than User:Peteforsyth, but less than Cla68. Cla68 would have to tone it down, and Peteforsyth could reveal more information. This would benefit the WP community to know what Peteforsyth is up to, and yet would not really allow advertising. We need to moderate our drug warrior tendencies which tell us "Failing to slam Pandora's box shut now would be a great mistake." B^e——C_ritical 01:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

So we're now proposing to ban people whose intention is to improve the site from being contactable off-wiki? —WFC— 04:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

No, just not advertising it. Anyone with an email can be contacted off-wiki. It seems to me too close to the kind of advertising we don't want to have Wikipedia link to a site with unknown content. And I thought that even including an email address in the add itself might be too much. B^e——C_ritical 15:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)