Removal of paid contributions template

Stop removing them. See my comment on the template talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:50, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question: In every case, someone put the template there for a reason. The primary reason is to inform the reader something about the provenance of the content of the article. By removing it without even bothering to examine the content for problems, the edit history, user talk pages, or to contact the editor who put it there, is disruptive. You have removed useful information based solely on a cursory litmus test that you interpreted as a mandate for removal, which it isn't. That is disruptive. Hiding the fact that an article's content may be maintained or written by a paid editor is disruptive.
Further discussion is needed, to reach a consensus on better wording in the template documentation. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think a different template entirely is needed. ((paid contributions)), as worded, is a neutral point of view warning (hence the requirement to start a discussion so editors can know what needs to be corrected). If you want an informational template that simply lets readers know an article has contributions by editors who were paid (but does not suggest the article is biased), that seems like a useful new template to me. And I'd certainly be more than happy to help add it to articles I removed the other template from. You may want to assume good faith, my concern was that editors were adding this template without providing even basic guidance on what prompted the addition, and editors that may be interested in the subject would not know where to begin to correct the problem that got it there in the first place... —Locke Cole • t • c 02:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Locke Cole, I would consider ((paid contributions)) to apply anywhere ((UDP)) would. The UDP tag states what the paid contributions one does, just with the extra bit of information that the payment is undisclosed. (That is, the paid contributions template is a "parent category" to the UDP template.) This is just my opinion, though. I'll leave the second part of your question to someone else, as I feel I'm too tired to adequately respond to it. Perryprog (talk) 02:19, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Locke Cole, when you said you wouldn't stop in spite of the replies I gave you on other talk pages, you made it more difficult to assume good faith. :)
However, that's now in the past, and I do understand you were trying to clean up something you perceived as needing cleaning up. However, instead of surgical removals based on careful examination, you were swinging a broadsword wildly, removing the template from articles (one of which I reverted) that came across as biased, simply because there was no talk page discussion.
I agree that perhaps another template is needed, although my preference would simply be to modify the documentation on the existing template, because there are so many instances (as you have discovered) where the template is there simply to inform readers that content in the article was written not just by someone with a COI, but a paid contributor. A new template would mean much work replacing them in existing articles, whereas changing the existing template documentation would fix the problem. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I'd whittled down the usage of ((paid contributions)) to less than a dozen. :( That being said, if we can come up with a reworded template it wouldn't be difficult to re-add it/reverse. From reading the TFD discussion around this template though (Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_19#Template:Paid_contributions) it seems like this template literally just needs to say the article has contributions made by an editor that was paid to make them. It should not include any other language about the quality of the content, whether or not it is neutral, or in any way suggest something needs to be cleaned up. Those issues are all handled by other templates like ((peacock)), ((advert)), ((NPOV)), and so on with much greater effect (and with much better guidance for uninvolved editors looking to resolve article issues). We should move this discussion to Template talk:paid contributions though before we get too deep into the weeds on this. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Locke Cole. I'm a bit confused (very confused, even) about why you made this edit. I understand that you were frustrated with the ambiguity on the addition of the paid contributions template on Embarcadero Technologies, but this is—in my opinion—a really unacceptable way to try to essentially get "your way" in a dispute. The discussion on Talk:Embarcadero Technologies § Paid editing seems pretty clear-cut, and I had hoped the later discussion you had above had helped clarify things for when the use of this template is appropriate, but I'm worried this still isn't the case. Calling a justified addition of this tag vandalism is, to me, a really inappropriate accusation. Would you please mind explaining why you made that edit to the template, and what your justification for that was? Perryprog (talk) 19:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no justification for that template being placed on Embarcadero Technologies. None whatsoever. The placing editor, GSS (talk · contribs) has declined to participate in the discussion there to explain what prompted the addition beyond vague claims of offsite evidence, and none of the ping'd editors has responded to clarify what issues are on the article, at present, to warrant that tag. As to why I modified the template... *insert Dave Chapelle "modern problems require modern solutions"*. The template is completely inappropriate on that page, and NO editor has provided any valid reason for it to remain beyond just WIKI-bullying. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There was no justification for you to modify the template to single out one article. Templates are global in scope; they are applied to articles, and don't have exceptions carved out in the template code. As for its presence in the article, there is nothing that says you have to be privy to everything going on, particularly with respect to risking violation of WP:OUTING. Details have been shared with administrators; that is sufficient. If an administrator with the relevant off-wiki evidence feels that the template is misplaced, that administrator can remove it. As I stated before, the template instructions are invalid. Removal of a template must be considered on a case by case basis, not by applying a crude litmus test based on template documentation. Nowhere is there a requirement to remove this template if talk page discussion doesn't exist. Stop interpreting it as if you have a mandate for removing them. You don't. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:51, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to try and say this as nicely as I can: I 100% do have a mandate to remove it, and will do so until I'm blocked. Otherwise, I'll go place ((paid contributions)) on Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and revert war anyone who decides to try and remove it, because clearly my word is beyond reproach when it comes to claims like this... your claims are untenable and unjustifiable. You do not have an argument here for keeping the template placed on that page. WP:ILIKEIT is not good enough. DO BETTER. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Perryprog and Anachronist: I went ahead and updated the template documentation. I'm fine with it now. I'm glad we cleared up that there doesn't really need to be any justification for this template whatsoever and it can be added indiscriminately and without justification. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not sure why you're digging yourself into this hole, Locke. Again, I get it that you're frustrated with the ambiguity and opaqueness that areas that involve off-wiki evidence often have—no one likes that sort of thing. The fact remains, though, that it just simply isn't appropriate to edit disruptively in response to facing those barriers (if that makes sense—I need to eat, so my thinking isn't super great right now). Perryprog (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Perryprog: @Anachronist: says the documentation is incorrect. I tried proposing new language for the template at the template talk page, but that discussion has gone stagnant. The current documentation is explicit that the template is a neutrality template that should only be placed when there are confirmed "paid contributions" **AND** unresolved neutrality concerns with the content added by the "paid contributors". There is no option for just slapping it on any article and walking away without looking back like some action hero walking away from an explosion. I am not a paid contributor. I do however engage in software development and have used Delphi since the days of Turbo/Borland Pascal. I would like to fix this article to resolve whatever neutrality issues @GSS: saw to prompt him placing that template so it can be removed. I cannot do that without knowing what is wrong. I've read the article as it stands and other than some missing citations, I do not see any issues of neutrality with the article. The world will not explode and society will not collapse if ((paid contributions)) isn't on that page while we figure out where GSS (talk · contribs) disappeared to without meeting the minimum requirements of the template as it stands. WP:STATUSQUO says we're to leave articles in their original state (without that template) while a dispute is being resolved, assuming we want to even treat this as a content dispute (which it wholeheartedly is not, as no content has been provided as an example of what is wrong). —Locke Cole • t • c 21:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion has not stagnated. Not everyone can be on Wikipedia every day. I have a career and a family, and I rarely have time anymore to spend the 20-30 minutes I do have on discussions about maintenance templates. But since I came here in an administrative capacity, I must see it through. I apologize if my participation is sporadic, especially once Monday arrives. I'll ping a few other admins who may have some familiarity with the subject: @Plastikspork: @ToBeFree: @Anomie: See also the section above as well as the discussion at Template talk:Paid contributions.
The problem here is that you failed to do any due diligence. I see instances where you didn't bother to check whether the article was indeed neutrally worded. You apparently failed to check whether a talk page archive had a discussion related to the template. You didn't check to see if a valid rationale was given in the edit summary when the template was added. And you failed to consider that off-wiki evidence (to which you are not privy) absolutely cannot be discussed on a talk page.
Your claim that you have a "mandate" doesn't hold water. Four paragraphs up, you have threatened to continue your disruption until you are blocked. I am asking you as an administrator, do you seriously mean that? I'd rather avoid the need to block you or drag this into the ANI WP:CESSPIT. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Anachronist: As the template and its instructions are worded now, I have a mandate. This is a maintenance template, not the "scarlet letter" template the editors placing it seem to think it is. In my research I found that most of the instances were invalid (no discussion, and nothing in the edit summary that would give an editor any idea what is wrong with the article that needs to be resolved to remove the template). You appear to also think this is a "scarlet letter" template, one that is permanent. If you feel otherwise, you've not really made it clear to me, because you continue to defend it being placed in the absence of details about what in the article is not neutral (which the current instructions for placing the template require). If it's a "scarlet letter" template, then we need to fix the template and I'll reverse the removals I've done. If it's to be a maintenance template (temporary) then we need to hold editors accountable that blindly add it to pages without providing any details about what prompted the addition in the first place (NOT the off-wiki evidence or proof that it's paid contributors, though I do find how much faith you're putting in that highly disturbing; but rather what about the article was added by an editor who was paid that would be considered an NPOV issue).
PS: I do not appreciate you portraying my removals as being blindly done. If you could point me to a page where I removed it where there was an archived discussion that was placed by the editor who placed the notice, please let me know, but I don't think you have any. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of instances where it simply did not make sense for the template to be removed. As I mentioned earlier, you removed the template on this article, when in the edit history there are two users in the last ten edits that are clearly undisclosed paid editors. Perryprog (talk) 01:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Perryprog: I added ((undue weight)) and ((UDP)) which should address your concerns and provide interested editors the information they need to proceed. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. Tough. Policy considerations: WP:ONUS applies to article content, arguably not to maintenance templates. Neither WP:STATUSQUO nor WP:WNTRMT are guidelines nor policies. WP:EW and WP:DR apply to all edits. WP:BLOCKEVIDENCE is about blocks, but if we want to take a quote out of context, "The community has rejected the idea of individual administrators acting on evidence that cannot be peer-reviewed." Also, the COI guideline has a section about handling COI, saying "If revealing private information is needed to resolve COI editing, and if the issue is serious enough to warrant it, editors can seek the advice of functionaries or the arbitration committee by email."
Taking these into account, if Locke Cole continues to edit war about the tag, whether directly on the page or indirectly by modifying the template, they'll be partially blocked from the article and the template to prevent further edit warring. GSS should contact functionaries or ArbCom, not (or at least not only) individual administrators, about their evidence. Neither MER-C nor GeneralNotability nor Praxidicae nor me belong to these two groups. The insistence on the specific template, which appears to be for openly disclosed paid contributions, also doesn't seem to be appropriate, unless there was an open disclosure and the entire discussion could be resolved with public on-wiki evidence. If you're comfortable enough to add ((Paid contributions)) and insist on its placement, yet have to rely on private evidence, you're likely using the wrong template. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, perhaps I get it. Are we talking about paid contributions made before the disclosure requirements were created? In this case, if problems persist in the current version of the article, you could just tag or fix them without relying on any conduct-based information. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ToBeFree, I don't believe this is the case, at least not for most of the articles where the tag was removed. Perryprog (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I have only looked at Embarcadero Technologies so far. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea why I was pinged here, but as far as I can tell you're both in the wrong. @Locke Cole: You crossed the line described in Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point with Special:Diff/1012108905 and Special:Diff/1012137254. If editors are ganging up on you in violation of policy, take it to an appropriate dispute resolution forum. @Anachronist: The template's documentation clearly says that the onus is on the tagger to start a discussion describing what is non-neutral about the article, and has since September 2020. Discussions on a user's talk page are not sufficient as they are likely unfindable from the article. OTRS reports don't give anyone outside of OTRS any hint as to what would need to be done to fix the problem, and if there is a relevant ticket it should be linked. ((Undisclosed paid)) is no different from ((Paid contributions)) in this respect.
So, if you want my opinion, Locke Cole is justified in removing tags where there's no sign of discussion. But if there's pushback, don't edit war. Give it a deadline (3 days seems arbitrarily reasonable) for anyone to say what exactly needs cleaning up, and remove the tag if that is not provided. As much as some might think so, we don't need a "badge of shame" on every article that has ever had a paid contribution, we need a tag to help editors correct any non-neutrality. Whether the contribution in question was actually paid or unpaid is not actually relevant to the article, and I suspect that's all the "private evidence" in this case is related to.
If there's a conduct issue with whichever editor added the paid contributions, tagging articles isn't the way to address that. Take your private evidence to ArbCom if nothing else. Anomie⚔ 02:12, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Anomie: I pinged you simply because you were one of the few editors who ever made an edit to that template. The discussion about proper usage and possible modification of the template is going on at Template talk:Paid contributions, where it should be. The discussion about behavior is taking place on this user talk page, as it should be. In this case, the behavior in question is mass removal of the template from a huge number of articles as if lack of talk page discussion were a hard inflexible mandate for removal, neglecting rationales that may exist on the paid editor's talk page or in edit summaries. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More