The state-of-the-art in conflict of interest engagement is commonly called the "Bright Line" rule, from a quote by Jimmy Wales when he first outlined the concept in 2012. It basically goes like this: "I am opposed to allowing paid advocates to edit in article space at all, but am extremely supportive of them being given other helpful paths to assist us".

We immediately embraced this new development. After all, our greatest challenge over time was not the research and writing, nor aligning client goals with Wikipedia's mission, but rather the uncertainty involved in navigating a community that has as many views on paid advocacy as there are members. The Bright Line was an elegant solution, simplifying the process and making it more comprehensible for editors and clients alike.

It had other benefits, too: more feedback makes for better articles, and volunteer editors can help clarify things for a "lay audience". Sometimes clients are pushy, and it’s helpful to be able to use editor review as a backstop. Occasionally, it will even spark a great collaboration: identifying additional areas for improvement neither side would have found alone.

The Bright Line can work, and we (and others who have embraced it) are proof. But after three years of following its prescripts, we are all too aware of the times when it does not. Jimbo's elegant solution comes with its own limitations, challenges, and even contradictions. Here are several reasons the status quo can and should be improved:

• The Bright Line has not actually reduced uncertainty—Not all volunteer editors are familiar with the Bright Line, which creates uncertainty surrounding the community's response to COI editors. This is exacerbated by the fact that the Bright Line has never become guideline or policy, so there is nothing definitive for adherents to point to when seeking help.
• The Bright Line places a significant burden on volunteers—With volunteer time as scarce as it has ever been, it is somewhat perverse that established community members are asked to take time away from their own projects to work on someone else's. Sometimes this is unavoidable, but in our experience it often lacks common sense. Some real-life situations where we have had to avoid making uncontroversial edits: de-orphaning a new article, fixing typos, fixing broken formatting, updating navboxes and infoboxes, repositioning images, disambiguating links, and fixing non-obvious vandalism.
• The Bright Line has no infrastructure to support it—With no clear advice on how to best ask for help, no specific guidelines for volunteers, and no active wikiproject or noticeboards, few ask and fewer respond. The closest thing to it now is the little-known "Requested edits" category, which is backlogged in spite (and because) of its obscurity. We think more editors would help if a better process existed, especially one that turned it from the lonely responsibility of one volunteer at a time into a collaborative review effort.
• Paid editing prohibitionists frustrate the process—Sometimes, the only responding editors are anti-paid editing, or are motivated by POV themselves. Not only do some COI editors choose not to disclose because it puts a target on their back, but some volunteers avoid offering help for the exact same reason. This can prevent edits being made that are genuine improvements, to the detriment of the encyclopedia.
• It perpetuates the atmosphere of distrust on Wikipedia—The Bright Line was formulated in response to the Bell Pottinger scandal, and so its framing focuses on the worst actors, while giving scant consideration to the possibility that "paid advocates" might be simply looking for an accurate and fair representation of the brand, not necessarily a promotional one. It actually requires editors to assume bad faith, which is fundamentally at odds with Wikipedia's five pillars.