Talk:Requests for comment/Interlinking of accounts involved with paid editing to decrease impersonation

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Translation[edit]

@Doc James:, would it be possible to get this started in translation? I think given there have been German comments and because of the size of de.wiki that would be a necessary one. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

  • As a technical note, this can be done by moving the voting/discussion page to a subpage and making the introductory statement translate-able. Unfortunately, the discussion will still be in English, but at least that way people would be able to read the proposal in their language of choice. – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Yes, I don't think there's much way around an English discussion. Letting people read what they are commenting on, though, would be helpful. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay marked for translation. Let me know if I did it wrong. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Changed statement of issue[edit]

In this edit Doc James changed the Statement of Issue without identifying the change or notifying people who had previously commented. This change fundamentally changes the scope of the RfC from specific impersonation incidents to broader misrepresentation. Because this change was not identified, many of the previous !votes are !voting on a different proposal and some of the discussions make less sense. It has created an RfC with moving goalposts and renders it invalid.

Doc James, you should not have done this and you should have known better than to do it. Obviously this situation cannot stand as is but I'm unsure of the best way to fix it. Perhaps the RfC should be closed and a new one started. Ca2james (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. That was not a meaningful change to the "statement of issues" in question only a clarification. Some of the links to upworks "broke" after they were used in this RfC, likely because the undisclosed paid editors are paying attention. You have gotten your one oppose vote and this looks like simply an effort to find a technicality. What is proposed has not changed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Obviously you disagree or you wouldn't have made the changes to the statement of issue in the first place. The original proposal was about paid editors impersonating particular editors. You changed it to be paid editors claiming to be Wikipedia editors in good standing. The two are different, and !votes for one do not necessarily correspond to !votes for the other. This is not a technicality but goes to the heart of this RfC.
Your change wouldn't even be an issue if you'd indicated that you'd changed the statement of issue, or if you'd contacted previous !voters about the change. You didn't do that so here we are.
My question remains: how can this be addressed in the RfC? Perhaps by adding a note that the statement of issue was changed from x to y is such and such an edit, and pinging each editor who !voted before the change was made? Closing this RfC and starting from scratch? Split the Supports and Opposes into before and after the change?Ca2james (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
You can raise this to the closing admin(s). I will leave a note on the talk page of each person who has supported before the change. (done) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Could you leave a message for the people who opposed as well? Just so it's clear to everyone what is being proposed. Ca2james (talk) 02:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Linking to external advertising accounts[edit]

No idea where people got the idea that there was consensus for a self-created policy for all wikis. Nemo 12:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)