Admins paid to advise clients

[Ron Lybonly]

See:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped ... on_editing

[Hemiauchenia]

The Upwork profile in question:

https://www.upwork.com/en-gb/freelancer ... 1ea4c44ef4
https://archive.ph/Rnbpc (permanent archive)

It appears the admin in question is Cullen328 (T-C-L).

[Ron Lybonly]

The Upwork profile in question:

https://www.upwork.com/en-gb/freelancer ... 1ea4c44ef4 (appears to have been removed shortly after I archived it)
https://archive.ph/Rnbpc (permanent archive)

It appears the admin in question is Cullen328 (T-C-L).

Seems like a good guy. I hope he’ll either publicly quit this work or step down as an admin. In other words, spare himself drama.

To his credit, he spells out on his user page that he does advising but not editing for pay. He also says who else is using his IP and what his COIs are from his regular job.

I can see how ArbCom might be squeamish about coming down on this particular admin.

[ltbdl]

It appears the admin in question is Cullen328 (T-C-L).

oh no. oh nooooooo.

[Vigilant]

Here we go again with the, "Buh, buh, buh, he's my friend..."

There is either equitable treatment seen to be meted out or there is not.

[Boing! said Zebedee]

As far as I can see, he isn't actually doing anything against any Wikipedia policy. He's not doing anything on-wiki for his clients, just advising them off-wiki on how to do it themselves. And he's open about what he's doing on his user page.

People might think that policies need to be updated (as Barkeep49 suggests at the Village Pump), but what's he actually done that's against the current rules?

PS: Even if Barkeep49's two suggestions (a disclosure at RfA, and a transparency requirement for paid advising) were adopted, Cullen would still be in line with even those new rules.

[Disgruntled haddock]

Imagine all the unethical things one could do with the admin toolkit that don't result in "an edit" or "an administrative action" (or whatever the inactivity standard is).

Mike Christie raises a hypothetical that amounts to "but what if my boss asks me whether a subject is notable oh no don't desysop me!!!". Yeah, there's a bit of a difference between talking with your boss and literally posting on Upwork trying to get the bag on the strength of your admin bit. Don't fool yourself.

Evidently the smartest course of action is for WPO to launch a Wikipedia consulting / advisory service priced at $74/hour.

[ArmasRebane]

As far as I can see, he isn't actually doing anything against any Wikipedia policy. He's not doing anything on-wiki for his clients, just advising them off-wiki on how to do it themselves. And he's open about what he's doing on his user page.

People might think that policies need to be updated (as Barkeep49 suggests at the Village Pump), but what's he actually done that's against the current rules?

PS: Even if Barkeep49's two suggestions (a disclosure at RfA, and a transparency requirement for paid advising) were adopted, Cullen would still be in line with even those new rules.

Yep. I think there's solid reasons to tighten up the requirements to mention "hey I was paid to advise on this topic" in the interests of transparency, but I also don't think Cullen is running afoul of anything here.

I've had enough conversations with people over the years about their company pages or bios that I can't imagine anyone being happy with payment for consulting services, because it's basically them asking how to get content removals to stick, you explaining Wikipedia's rules, and that conversation basically boils down to the editor saying "you likely can't get it removed, and if you try you're likely to only draw more scrutiny".

[eppur si muove]

I've had enough conversations with people over the years about their company pages or bios that I can't imagine anyone being happy with payment for consulting services, because it's basically them asking how to get content removals to stick, you explaining Wikipedia's rules, and that conversation basically boils down to the editor saying "you likely can't get it removed, and if you try you're likely to only draw more scrutiny".

The other option is to find out the identities of enough of the people who have been maligning you and send them legal letters. That has worked for Orsini for three months so far. Though it was very convenient for him that at the time Bramfab was an officer of WMIT though he seems to have been replaced this Monday link

[PackMecEng]

Maybe I am missing something but the Village pump discuss starts with Barkeep saying they found an admin offering advice for money but do not want to say who because of outing. Now it does appear to be Cullen but he has his real name, personal info, and declarations all over his user page. So I am not sure why it would be considered outing?

[Bezdomni]

So if I've understood correctly Cullen328 is charging $75/hr for Wiki-consulting, but is not engaging in paid editing, because that, he says, would be unethical.

Cullen328 has shown his character on a number of occasions, as one of the first to engage in armchair psychology concerning people he doesn't know.

At the risk of stooping to his level, I would say that the psychological underpinnings of this desire for recognition (and remuneration) as a wise old man are a not-all-that-abnormal part of the aging process.

[Randy from Boise]

Here we go again with the, "Buh, buh, buh, he's my friend..."

There is either equitable treatment seen to be meted out or there is not.

Highly entertaining that it's my friend Jim doing this.

I actually just about chased after a couple consulting "jobs" bidding basically zero dollars for the service but I can't be arsed going through Upwork's personal validation gibberish.

But that's something that's really needed — just somebody who has a black belt in notability doctrine and no dog in the fight that can take a quick look at a subject and the potential sourcing and tell the WRITER either "yes, this will fly" or "no, this will not fly, and here is why."

It's about a fifteen minute "job" to do that and an extremely important thing: (1) so that motivated writers know whether or not they are wasting their time; and (2) how to fix things notability-wise if a subject is on the borderline; and (3) to help winnow the useless chaff before it makes its way to AFC limbo or the New Articles queue and its inevitable fate in the deletion process.

If one is just consulting in this way, I don't see how Wikipedia's COI rules apply — either to my friend Jim in particular or in general to any Wikipedian.

t

[AndyTheGrump]

I suspect that most people are more likely to listen to advice if they have paid for it. Doesn't necessarily make the advice better. Or make charging for it legitimate. Just makes people think it has value.

People are weird.

[Disgruntled haddock]

But that's something that's really needed — just somebody who has a black belt in notability doctrine and no dog in the fight that can take a quick look at a subject and the potential sourcing and tell the WRITER either "yes, this will fly" or "no, this will not fly, and here is why."

It's about a fifteen minute "job" to do that and an extremely important thing: (1) so that motivated writers know whether or not they are wasting their time; and (2) how to fix things notability-wise if a subject is on the borderline; and (3) to help winnow the useless chaff before it makes its way to AFC limbo or the New Articles queue and its inevitable fate in the deletion process.

This already exists, #wikipedia-en-help on Libera Chat (formerly on freenode). From personal experience, no reason to be charging $75/hour for it.

[Randy from Boise]

But that's something that's really needed — just somebody who has a black belt in notability doctrine and no dog in the fight that can take a quick look at a subject and the potential sourcing and tell the WRITER either "yes, this will fly" or "no, this will not fly, and here is why."

It's about a fifteen minute "job" to do that and an extremely important thing: (1) so that motivated writers know whether or not they are wasting their time; and (2) how to fix things notability-wise if a subject is on the borderline; and (3) to help winnow the useless chaff before it makes its way to AFC limbo or the New Articles queue and its inevitable fate in the deletion process.

This already exists, #wikipedia-en-help on Libera Chat (formerly on freenode). From personal experience, no reason to be charging $75/hour for it.

People get so worked up about the price. Who cares if it is free or $75 an hour or $375,000 a year on a professional service retainer?

There are a steady stream of "clients" on Upwork needing such expert advice and seeking it through that venue.

I myself would advise any paid or COI editor to stay far, far away from official on-Wiki advice from Wikipedia churchladies... Kick $20 to my local animal shelter ($80/hr. — DEAR GOD!!!!) and I'll sell ya 15 minutes of my day and write you a little outline of what's wrong with yer piece and how to fix it... Or tell ya it ain't gonna fly no matter what, if that's the case.

t

[rnu]

I myself would advise any paid or COI editor to stay far, far away from official on-Wiki advice from Wikipedia churchladies... Kick $20 to my local animal shelter ($80/hr. — DEAR GOD!!!!) and I'll sell ya 15 minutes of my day and write you a little outline of what's wrong with yer piece and how to fix it... Or tell ya it ain't gonna fly no matter what, if that's the case.

t

Absolutely. The chances of a COI editor receiving good advice or even help on Wikipedia is practically zero.

[casualdejekyll]

Yeah, I don't really see a problem with this as long as capitalism exists. If you can make money off of your hobby, more power to you, and Cullen is a good guy who probably understands most of the ramifications of this.

I was gonna point out that "our very own" RfB did CyberArts International (T-H-L) for some charity money, but he came here himself to point that out. Of course, 40 bucks for a charity is a whole different beast from 75+ bucks for a bank account, but I'd generally agree with what Randy said back then: paid editing is not automatically evil.

Now, anyone who'd be willing to hire a paid editor could probably get better advice for free, but maybe it's best not to tell them that..

...now that I think about it, anyone willing to hire Cullen for 80 an hour could probably get the same advice by just registering an account and posting on his user talk... lol

Wish we had something like a "make it a blog post!" smiley with all these good threads we've had this week. I've made my own homemade one by blatantly ripping off this one .

Make it a blogpost!.png

[Bezdomni]

Maybe No Ledge would know if there is one user category for admins who give free advice and another for admins for hire.

[Randy from Boise]

I was gonna point out that "our very own" RfB did CyberArts International (T-H-L) for some charity money, but he came here himself to point that out. Of course, 40 bucks for a charity is a whole different beast from 75+ bucks for a bank account, but I'd generally agree with what Randy said back then: paid editing is not automatically evil.

I think I squeezed $50 out of him for that, didn't I? Ironically, it was Jim that was the non-COI Wikipedian that I pointed towards the article to check my work — which I think should be part of the process for all paid editing.

I did the job as sort of an experiment and a demonstration. I found the editing process unenjoyable and the reaction by virtue-signaling churchladies entirely predictable. One dimwitted defrocked administrator made sure to go ad hominem on me as a "paid editor" during one on-Wiki debate, most memorably.

I've still got two potential paid jobs of the three I announced in reserve — but my first foray into the sordid world of paid editing already revealed what I figured it would reveal: Wikipedians are assholes to paid editors, even though COI and fan-writing makes the content world go 'round...

t

[eppur si muove]

Wikipedians are assholes...

Fixed that for you.

[Mojito]

The COI disclosure for the paid consulting seems to be the last paragraph here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cull ... f_interest

I think that good COI practice would involve listing the articles for which you have been paid to advise about. Especially as an admin, where there's more potential to affect the article without actually touching it (eg blocking editors).

Cullen328 probably isn't doing anything bad, but the precedent is worrying.

[Banderas22]

What happens when an admin "discloses" for whom they're "consulting?" (Doesn't seem to be the case here.)

A "disclosure" could be construed as a warning not to mess with the consulted page, otherwise, some misfortune might befall the editor in question in a different area of Wikipedia, unconnected from the consulted page. If I were Walmart I'd be keen to hire a few admins to "consult," provided they agreed to "disclose" it.

[Beeblebrox]

I told the rest of the committee I was actually kind of impressed. He found a loophole, assuming he is telling the truth, which I think he probably is. That's the real problem. Cullen has always seemed like a straight shooter and someone who actually enjoys helping other people understand Wikipedia. The sad fact is I can easily think of several admins I wouldn't trust to be that way.

[SamX]

A "disclosure" could be construed as a warning not to mess with the consulted page, otherwise, some misfortune might befall the editor in question in a different area of Wikipedia, unconnected from the consulted page. If I were Walmart I'd be keen to hire a few admins to "consult," provided they agreed to "disclose" it.

Maybe on another project, but enwiki has enough of an animus toward paid anything that I think, if it had any effect, it'd be the opposite: admin actions in relation to that editor would probably be subject to greater scrutiny. I suppose one could argue that the admin's friends might intervene on their behalf, but the optics of that would be very bad and I don't think anyone would seriously consider pulling that sort of stunt.

[Vigilant]

How many admin consultants would you need to pay for to own the article about your company?

[Banderas22]

Depends on how much activity your article gets. At the high end, maybe four? That'd be cheap.

The most effective ones will be legacy admins ... those RfAed pre-2008 They're the most erratic and people know they're the most erratic.

A quad of legacy admins who have announced they're "consulting" on your page could be enough to make seasoned editors decide it's not worth any potential future drama to edit there. And new editors can be dealt with in other ways.

[Banderas22]

Anyway, that's all hypothetical.

I don't have any problem with what Cullen is doing.

Wouldn't we want Acme Co. to actually speak with someone who knows how Wikipedia works rather than just diving in the deep end and DIY'ing it, leaving a mess for everyone else to clean up? And if it's a good thing if Acme gets some expert guidance, we shouldn't expect the people who commit their time to giving it to do so on a voluntary basis, at least where a for-profit company is involved.

[rnu]

How many admin consultants would you need to pay for to own the article about your company?

Two if it only deals with some pseudo-neo-celtic bullshit. Probably more when it's something real.

[The Blue Newt]

How many admin consultants would you need to pay for to own the article about your company?

Two if it only deals with some pseudo-neo-celtic bullshit. Probably more when it's something real.

“Twenty-five, same as downtown”
”Only one, but the article has to really want to change”
”THAT’S NOT Funny!”

[PackMecEng]

Now an RFC on it.

[rnu]

Having the most experienced and most trusted Wikipedia users provide advice on how to follow our policies and guidelines is something we should all want.

I didn't edit Wikipedia very long. But I learned pretty quickly not to trust anyone with more than 40,000 edits, or more than ten years experience, or any admins.

[Beeblebrox]

Now an RFC on it.

currently deadlocked with more or less equal levels of support and opposition. Could be interesting to see where this goes.

[thekohser]

Obviously based on this unprovoked attack, I hope that everything goes very poorly for Jim Heaphy on Wikipedia and on Upwork.

[Cullen328]

Greg Kohs, I wish you good health, happiness and prosperity.

- Jim Heaphy

[Ron Lybonly]

Greg Kohs, I wish you good health, happiness and prosperity.

- Jim Heaphy

[Elinruby]

Greg Kohs, I wish you good health, happiness and prosperity.

- Jim Heaphy