User talk:Doc James

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
(Redirected from User talk:Jmh649)
Jump to: navigation, search

Formulating proposals[edit]

I am very disappointed by the proposal on interlinking of accounts. Many of the concerns of opposing users should have been obvious and taken into account when formulating the proposal, and such a proposal should have a discussion explaining why the specific wording was chosen and what concerns are handled by it and what concerns remain. It is very frustrating to have a long discussion on issues that could have been handled by a little more work put down in the proposal itself: hundreds or thousands of lines instead of a few paragraphs. --LPfi (talk) 08:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC

User:LPfi The proposal will help a great deal with with undisclosed paid editing. If we at Wikipedia wish to maintain our independence from the subject mater we write about this is a critical step we need to take. We are currently being over run on EN WP by undisclosed paid promotional editors (with problems less severe in other languages). We have lots of people pretending to be Wikipedians in good standing when they are permanently banned. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
This might be true. But then it is even more important that the proposal is well though out so that it fulfils its object, and that is accompanied by a thorough enough discussion from the start. It is no reason to word the proposal carelessly, so that it has bad side effects or so that we get 100k discussion about possible side effects. --LPfi (talk) 14:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
User:LPfi I am not sure what you are requesting? We have had multiple discussions about the issue of paid editing across multiple projects including EN WP and Meta and what potential solutions there are. The wording of this proposal was run by the legal team at the WMF and the safety team plus a few people on EN Arbcom before the RfC started.
I am not seeing any potential side effects and neither did they. One often only get people weighting in once the RfC officially launches. Do you believe there is wording that would garner greater support? And what wording would you prefer to see? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
By the way added details of a case in which this would help[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

But to summarize IMO our readers deserve an indepedent and advertisement free Wikipedia. We need to take measures to achieve this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Links we discussed[edit]

Project closures

A couple of members have commented on each of these, but without anything resembling a consensus discussion. See the two discussion threads, such as they are, at this page.

In neither case are there any comments supporting project closure, and in neither case would closure be consistent with policy. Historically, plenty of project closure proposals have stayed open months and even years. But the tone of these is such that I think the proposals should be closed promptly (as unsuccessful, of course).
Project approvals

In both cases, the tests have met requirements for content, activity of community and interface translation. (Frankly, I haven't checked activity levels for October. But there's only so much patience that test communities can have while waiting for LangCom to act, too.)

Thanks for your help. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

There is clear consensus here[2] not to close it.
I will send this to the rest of langcomm. They are actively discussing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Some of these should be dealt with in the next week or so. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the nudge. As a practical matter, I know there is not consensus to close either project. But I needed a statement of that in LangCom and a formal start of the seven-day clock. Now I have those.
I'm going to see if the Gorontalo project has a reasonably disinterested language expert with solid credentials who can verify the language for that project. As for LFN, we'll have to see how that plays out. But maybe at least they will start discussing now. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Pop-up showing authorship info on every article in mainspace[edit]

As per your suggestion, I added the idea to the 2017 wishlist here. Do you have any further recommendations? SashiRolls (talk) 22:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

RfC[edit]

Reading Requests for comment/Interlinking of accounts involved with paid editing to decrease impersonation/Votes I wonder why you go after people that oppose your RfC? This isn't just a few clarifying remarks, this is a very clear trend. — Jeblad 11:12, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

So User:Bluerasberry appear to state that I have not addressed the concerns raised and you are here to state I am not to address the concerns raised regarding the proposal?
Those who oppose the idea already get at least twice the vote as those who support it (and some are claiming those opposed deserve four times the vote as those who support it).
Meh Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)