You wouldn't take this task on for the money. You do it for the lulz of entrapping gullible Wikipedians, who will of course believe anyone creating these articles is a sock or meatpuppet of Paul, and try to have you whacked.
Those who are so accused, you are instructed to do the following.....
1. Deny it (you obviously won't be sock, and nobody can ever prove you are acting for or with Paul)
2. Politely but firmly ask the accuser to substantiate their accusation with evidence, or retract it (physically strike through)
3. When they explain their evidence, which will simply be their belief that creating one of these articles is evidence you are Paul or his meat puppet, politely but firmly point out that Everipedia is sufficiently well known for this to be a clear and obvious failure to assume good faith and consider plausible alternate explanations
4. When they double down, report them to the local AN/I, explaining you feel that their accusation that they are a sock, or are a willing associate of a sock, is damaging to your reputation as an editor in good standing
5. When the local Administrators fail to do their duty, state that you are not going to let this drop, you will be escalating this to the level of an ArbCom case, or whatever the local equivalent is, because you consider this a retiring issue
6. Drag out the issue out for as long as possible, spreading the names of the abusive users and the disputed content far and wide.
7. Retire. Or not. (it won't matter).
The plan should work for any editor of any experience (success being measured in disruption, not articles getting created), although obviously don't do daft things like spouting perfect Wikipedia policy in your first ten edits. And don't embark on the plan until you can create the article yourself. If fully locked, create it under a slightly different title.
For those who are wondering why I am posting my Dastardly Plan out here in the open where they can see it, well, it is in line with the greatest Dastardly Plan of all. The best, most fun, way to fuck with Wikipedia, is to make yourself indistinguishable from a good faith user who is simply being screwed by the paranoid Wikipedians who find it incredibly hard to assume good faith or respond correctly to perceived threats where there is no smoking gun evidence.
The more people who appear to be innocently trying to document a competitor of Wikipedia, who then appear to get unfairly treated by Wikipedia for doing so, the better. If they are not our loyal troops but actual innocent victims, well, even better.
Cannon fodder, to your vehicles!
