Benjiboi, several editors have suggested compromise is the way to go. Part of me is glad this is the case, since I feel the only "compromise" you've gone along with in the past month (whether adminning for pay was permitted) you had to go all the way to Jimbo before accepting it. However reality is I have a hard time trusting you, given the more than a month of intensive editing. It is one thing to argue with a stubborn editor, it is another to argue with an editor paid to be stubborn. I submit it is pointless to ask someone to compromise if that compromise would undermine that person's business plan. I know you have in the past refused to disclose whether you are a paid editor. But to build trust, Benjiboi, I would ask you to indicate whether you're currently paid or have plans to get paid in the future for editing Wikipedia, and if so, how. -- TeaDrinker ( talk) 14:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply

This seems exactly in line with one of the key points you seem to be missing. The reason that paid editing issues are not as easy to suss out is because any policy is likely unenforcible as it would inherently punish only those people who self-disclose they are paid editors. This is why traditionally we have focussed not on editors' motivations but on the content of their editing and on their behaviours. If someone is a paid editor but they make good edits we would likely never know they are a paid editor. I appreciate your zealousness in advocating against all forms of paid editing but I really think you are headed in the wrong direction.

As for paid admining you'll note that without the three advocates involved there has actually been heated but healthy exchange of ideas, and still no policy forbidding paid admining although we can express which policies people think should apply. If I get no response to my follow-up on Arbcomm actions I'll seek assistance from Arbcomm themselves if they have any information beyond the one case - which was about using a second account with paid editing being a subtext. Thanks for suggesting I was doing anything but simply trying to get the best answer possible - really, do you think I would ask Jimbo in hopes he would say paid admining is fine? Ridiculous.

At this point I simply look forward to when I can see your user name and feel positive about our interactions, or at least not dwell on your mistreatment and further badgering me. As for trusting me? I'm not sure what to say about that, I've earned trust many times over and part of that is being willing to work through tough issues to write better content regardless of the outcome. If you read many of my statements you hopefully will see I have no vested interest in the outcome except that it remain accurate. To suggest otherwise is a mistake. To me the sensible compromise is that you three keep looking to enact some policy, rename and launch the alt page so it can stand and develop on its own and let those of us who wish to just present the current state of things do so. If your efforts at proposing new policy is successful we would then logically update WP:Paid to reflect whatever policy you get accepted. Let me make that crystal clear - WP:Paid refers to the past and present status of all paid editing issues whereas Wikipedia:Paid editing/Alternative text should likely be renamed as a stand alone page to refer to the future status of some paid editing issue(s). -- Banjeboi 16:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I recognize that in political circles it is acceptable to "respond to questions" rather than answer them. I am familiar, after a month of discussion, with your position that paid editors don't need to disclose their status. I am asking you, personally, to disclose whether you're likely to gain financially from the outcome of the discussion. -- TeaDrinker ( talk) 16:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I think I've answered that actually although if you don't trust me I'm unsure why you would trust anything I write. -- Banjeboi 16:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm asking you to give me a reason to trust you as a sign of good faith. I don't trust editors to see the value in a compromise if they have a financial stake in opposing the compromise. All I am asking is for you to indicate that you do or do not have a financial stake in the outcome of the discussion. -- TeaDrinker ( talk) 17:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I'll reiterate my point in the RFC, which is that this type of discussion is precisely the sort unlikely to result in anything productive. Moreover, I disagree with the idea that any editor must "give you a reason" to trust them before you're willing to engage on the underlying subject matter -- to the contrary, it is my view that we should assume good faith unless given a reason not to. (And I don't see disagreement as a valid reason not to assume another editor's good faith.) -- TheOther Bob 18:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I wholeheartedly agree that editors in general don't have to give a reason for others to assume good faith. Do you think dispute resolution or mediation would help? -- TeaDrinker ( talk) 18:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I don't know. Sometimes additional community input can be more useful than simply returning to the discussion on the talk page -- but those involved in the day-to-day editing likely know better than I do where things stand. Either way, though, my view is that regardless of the approach you guys use, it should shift away from the people involved and towards finding a way to compromise on the subject matter. -- TheOther Bob 19:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm glad to hear you say that. My initial approach was to assume good faith of course, and focus on content. However I for one feel like I have hit a brick wall. My usual approach of discussion is to try and find common ground. However suggestions which seem like, to me, should be uncontroversial (e.g. an editor getting paid to ensure a specific content was put into a policy would have a conflict of interest under Wikipedia:COI#Financial, [1]) were met with resistance or equivocation. I expressed this sentiment here; stepping forward post by post is actually me losing my assumption of good faith. I have always held that secret agendas and ulterior motives are incompatible with editing in good faith. It was only on 22 August that I came to the realization that Benjiboi had such issues. Evidence of that, couched in the specific terms of policy and behavioural guidelines, is what I was trying to convey in this RfC. Do you think my assessment of Benjiboi lacked evidence, or that my belief that ulterior motives are bad faith editing? Maybe I was not very clear in my writing of this RfC (I'm long on the project, but I've not had this sort of trouble before). -- TeaDrinker ( talk) 19:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I understand the disagreement about what paid editors can and cannot do to be more technical and nuanced than you've expressed it here -- but I think you guys can sort that out. I do agree that it can be frustrating when each side thinks the other side hasn't heard their position. But where I think you may go off the tracks a little is attributing that frustration to "secret agendas and ulterior motives." It's not that your assessment lacks evidence - it's that I read that evidence very differently than I think you've come to read it. I read it as evidence of people talking past one another -- frustratingly so, certainly, but in good faith. -- TheOther Bob 20:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply

both parties have failed to clearly explain to outsiders what the problem is.

Shouldn't this RFC be renamed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Paid Editing? Ikip ( talk) 16:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply

No, actually. That's part of the point. There was a RfC on the issue and I have been working to present the consensus from that RfC directing readers to relevant policies and guidelines at WP:Paid while the three editors have been advocating for some policy change. The page itself has stated it is not a proposal but a status quo page so these editors started a subpage to work on building a policy. Working on creating some policy is fine, just do it in a new space as the efforts can peacefully co-exist. For the past month however they have systematically been harassing myself and generally making the talkpage an exercise in tedium. Now that more eyes are on the situation that hopefully will change. -- Banjeboi 16:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply

If this is the case, you need to document the harrassment in this RFC. Ikip ( talk) 18:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Ben's sections which need to be documented with edit diffs:

1. All three editors have variously accused me of all manner of COI, being a paid editor, purposely deceiving them, etc.
2. TeaDrinker and Smallbones have also been waving dispute resolution as a threat when myself and others have expressed we really don't feel that will get anywhere on the current issues as indefensible positions are rather hard to defend. I have patiently and civilly expressed this every time they push the issue.
3. They have also worked to characterize me as a paid editor - repleat with, of course COI concern - while simultaneously trying to require all who edit the page must disclose if they are a paid editor, a rejected proposal, and insisted that COI requires disclosure, it doesn't.
4. Rather than respect the community's comments they have insisted on pushing a POV that is not supported by policy or the community.
5. Bold edits introducing material that compromises the page, even from me, have often been removed.
6. After multiple requests from me for any proof that many of the dubious statements they wished to insert were, in fact, based in policy, I was tired of getting stonewalled so read through everything I could on these issues. I doubt any of them have.

Ikip ( talk) 20:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC) reply

• 1. It's all in the talk archives or easy enough to track down. Hopefully this will not be needed. IMHO, it would be even more wasted energy. -- Banjeboi 02:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Hold up!

Asking someone to disclose whether they are a paid editor seems to be focussing on the editor rather than their edits; an attempt to out them maybe. Yes I do realise that this is a request for comment on a user, but still whether that user is paid is surely a minor concern.

Bear in mind that, absent real-life contact, none of us know a damn thing about any of the rest of us. Such is the magic of the interwebs. A user could present an unpaid editor (which most of us are) and be trousering millions from his or her edits. If the edits are shit then you have a RFC. If not - you don't. The question is inappropriate.  pablo _hablo. 22:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC) reply

I asked it because I didn't believe Benjiboi is a liar or a cheat. We have those on Wikipedia and I am sure that we all agree that we could do with fewer of them. He could prevaricate as you note, but why would he? Asking if someone has a conflict of interest seems perfectly appropriate to me, even if there is no way to be sure they are telling the truth. -- TeaDrinker ( talk) 18:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I think you've come around to understanding the issue better - "there is no way to be sure they are telling the truth." To me this is the core issue with almost all paid editing issues. This is why efforts to pass guidelines have to have this as part of their basis. Really we have no way of telling. If you have some compelling evidence I am a paid editor and in turn this has compromised Wikipedia in some way then please present that. Otherwise this is a pile of bad faith which seems only to intimidate. -- Banjeboi 02:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC) reply

What I have I have presented on the RfC. Make no mistake, I hold it is your behavior which has been unacceptable. This is not an RfC on paid editing, this is an RfC on your behavior. -- TeaDrinker ( talk) 17:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Since Ikip has asked for clarification, on what I think is wrong with User:Benjiboi's editing, I'll include this explanation here. Please let me know if it should go on the main page. I think it should be very short so that you are not overwhelmed with the reading.

Article ownership and constant reversions From June 27-Aug 6, when there were only 18 edits (counting consecutive edits by the same editor as 1) from editors other than Benjeboi, he made 11 reversions - essentially taking ownership of the page and eliminating all the other editors' contributions: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]

I pointed out the problem on August 6, and have asked for some type of dispute resolution with him, where he could choose the forum. I've been turned down flat on this at least 3 times now.

Since that time I've made 6 edits to the page and Benjiboi has reverted 5 of them (The other was reverted by another editor) 8/21 8/12 8/12 8/11 8/08

Users:WillBeback and TeaDrinker have had similar experiences. The main page is now 100% Benjiboi's text. He has effectively denied each one of us the opportunity to edit the page. All I ask of the RfC is a way in which I will be afforded the opportunity to edit the page without having every one of my edits reverted.

Bizarre positions - Benjiboi's constant reversions might not be considered so terrible if he were presenting standard material, and the others were trying to make bizarre changes to current policy, but it is exactly the opposite. If you only read 2 things before commenting on the RfC, please read Benjiboi's version and the alternative version (now switched places) that I've put together with 4 other editors (including a brief and talk page entry from User:Jimbo Wales)

The brief version of the differences is:

• Benjiboi believes that PR firms should be able to edit their clients' articles; I don't
• Benjiboi believes (or did believe) that Administrators, etc., should be allowed to accept pay for their work on Wikipedia; I don't.
• Benjiboi believes that editors are allowed to accept pay for work on policy pages; I don't.
• Benjiboi believes that Jimbo's stated policy on paid editing is not Wikipedia policy ; I believe that it should be considered policy unless over-ruled.

My questions, His reply

I understand that this page is about behavior rather than content, but constant reversions of widely held beliefs on policy is a very serious behavioral problem.

So, can you do anything to ensure that editors other than Benjiboi have an opportunity to edit WP:Paid editing?

Smallbones ( talk) 17:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC) reply

In short, the main page is where you would make such a case. In answer to the beliefs you are trying to put into my mouth I think the simple statement is that I'm working to present the community's views on these complex issues whereas you seem to want to cast me as presenting something else. I don't feel my views are any more right or wrong than anyone else's - what I am working towards is presenting the community's views rather than what you or I think should be thought in regards to the issues. All your other charges here have been addressed previously. -- Banjeboi 02:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Unfortunately there is no agreement that we should be summarizing the community views, nor do you agree with what my and other editors views of what existing policies actually say. As such, I would ask you not represent your position as the "community's views." Nevertheless, the focus of this RfC is on the behavioral appropriateness of these reverts, not their content. -- TeaDrinker ( talk) 17:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I am confused by a few statments. First, there are three of you, and only Ben. In edit wars, numbers win. Why didn't the three of you simply revert Ben's version out?

Please correct me if I am wrong, but there was no consensus in the RfC about this. Ikip ( talk) 20:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC) reply

It takes two sides to make a real edit war. The side with the 3 editors always withdrew before a real edit war started - that is we always let Benjiboi have the last revert - which he always took. I may have been slightly more aggressive than User:Will Beback or User:TeaDrinker, sometimes reverting one of Benjiboi's reverts, but never approached 3RR. Instead of being sucked into an edit war, I asked Benjiboi to stop and then through the talkpage asked other editors to help. TeaDrinker and WillBeBack did help, but they were always careful not to be sucked into an edit war. I hope you aren't saying that we were wrong in not responding to Benjiboi's reverts with our own reverts when we were constantly being reverted.

As far as the the RfC on Paid editing goes - there was nothing like a consensus. Benjiboi's article (which he obviously thinks he owns) took an extreme view and presented it as if it was consensus. Smallbones ( talk) 22:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I obviously disagree with your assessment, and perhaps predictably, see your approach as actually being the extreme and unsupported by community consensus position. -- Banjeboi 14:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC) reply

"Why didn't the three of you simply revert Ben's version out?"" -- I hope because they realize that would have nothing to do with reaching consensus, but only with edit warring... As I have said before, the topic at hand (paid editing) is way to important to be decided by a mere 3 vs 1 dispute, which is unlikely to represent the actual distribution of consensus in the community, simply because the number of editors involved is so low... -- Reinoutr ( talk) 16:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I think that other editors were put off by the discussions and may return once progress ensues. I have started a thread to make WP:Paid editing/alternative text independent - rather than a subpage - so that editors wishing to push for a policy change can do so and negate the need for competing efforts. -- Banjeboi 19:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Actually Benjiboi has reverted again! A simple "see also" notice to WP:Paid editing/alternative text. There is no excuse for his constant reversions! Smallbones ( talk) 23:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC) reply

1. • A bit much for me to endorse I'm wonderful but I very much appreciate the kind words. -- Banjeboi 02:12, 4 September 2009 (UTC) reply

As per Reinoutr: "I have to point out that this outside view is just as unrelated to the actual RfC as the one by A Nobody." I suggest both editors remove or rewrite their sections. They really have nothing to do with this RFC, and shed no light on this case. Ikip ( talk) 13:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC) reply

I believe you're incorrect. I've clarified my view to explain why it's germane to the RfC/U. Feel free to not endorse my view, if you in fact think that "he likes kittens therefore he's blameless" views actually help move RfC/Us forward. ++ Lar: t/ c 18:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC) reply