User talk:Nosebagbear/UPE Proposals

Exclusion of WiR

Since this applies to several proposals rather than one, I'll put it here rather than at each one. Why are we automatically excluding WiR? Especially after the Gibraltarpedia fiasco, I really don't see any good reason that WiR shouldn't be considered as paid editing, subject to normal disclosure and COI restrictions. I would, instead of automatically putting into these "WiR is excluded", like to see a separate proposal something to the effect of "Editors working for the Wikipedians in Residence program are exempt from the paid editing regulations for edits in their capacity as WiR." I'm not sure support of that will be automatic; I know I would oppose it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to see it as a separate motion (it would probably make sense as an affirmative, rather than a confirmatory, motion, as that would let you attach actions to it more logically, including revoking exemptions in the other proposals. I do believe that WIRs commit significantly fewer, per person, issues that not merely per PE but per editor, so I back the exemptions. But it is an area that warrants dispute. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I suggest just re-using the definition of paid editor from the terms of use. If a Wikipedia in residence is being paid to edit, then they have to disclose, and they should comply with any new guidance being created for paid editing. (If a separate subcategory of commercial editing is created that specifically excludes Wikipedians in residence, then of course they will be excluded from commercial editing restrictions.) isaacl (talk) 23:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Enforcement

For enforcement proposals, there's also the bold step of authorising DS in every spammy area. Might be worth adding that to the list, as it's an interesting idea? Also there's the step of authorising 500/30 article creation prohibition (like IPAK and IPA) in spammy areas. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The key question is what is a "spammy area"? This could easily encompass all new articles about companies or people, which would place really broad areas under a framework allowing single administrators to impose editing restrictions (bans). isaacl (talk) 16:52, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It also would be an unprecedented expansion of GS/DS, which seems rather too unfeasible (along with the specification areas) to add (sort of the flip side to the "abolish UPE limits"), but if "spammy areas" could be defined, specifically authorising EC article creation in those areas might be worthwhile. The issue being is that unlike most editing restrictions, it's tough to learn of that before you've already put in all the effort in writing your content. So we'd have a significant, ongoing, level of genuine frustration and anger. Still, if it can be tightened up it would be worth adding the create aspect as a proposal. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The list of "spammy areas" used at that link was: blockchain and crypto, speculative financial instruments, medical topics, online gambling, startups, businesspeople and investors in startups, and digital marketing (incl SEO and stuff, I suppose). I think this is a narrow scope of spammy areas but also the areas of biggest concern. I agree with the DS quirk, but it's an interesting proposal.

Though, an article creation prohibition in these named areas seems worthwhile (IPA-like, but allow created articles that go through AfC). I think that would be pretty tight, not overly expansive in authority and take care of spamminess. Many UPE articles are in these areas, but are not G11 worthy, so this would expand the net a bit to catch those. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so specific areas of concern are being suggested. It's still fairly broad but less expansive than it could be. I suspect a narrower set of remedies would be more likely to gain consensus support. General sanctions gives wide discretion for a single administrator to devise any restriction. isaacl (talk) 18:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I raised the same concern on the talk of that proposal. I agree DS for all those areas, for all editors, is unlikely to pass. But an 500/30 article creation prohibition (or, requiring AfC rather), also exempting WP:PERM permissions (eg autopatrolled), for those topic areas is narrow enough to pass imo and would probably be pretty helpful. Both for spam and UPE. Perhaps that part is worth listing as an idea here? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, as an idea under the "Restrictions/limitations" section. isaacl (talk) 19:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MER-C's proposals

Has anyone here read User:MER-C/Paid2019? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 20:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Worth revisiting. Along with all of the basic technical improvements MER keeps kindly highlighting for attention. – SJ + 23:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery shoppers

Hi all,

I'm probably going to submit the Mystery Shopper concept in the next few days. I'll expand on what areas will need to be considered (with thanks to at least 3 of you who have dropped me emails expanding on comments here), but not in the form of a "this is the exact protocol that will be followed" etc. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since this already happens on a number of wikis, why don't we explicitly indicate a version that is in active use, how it's working, and a tiny handbook for implementing a version? I've definitely seen some paid editors trying to weaponize "no outing" to protect themselves or their friends, so that nomic-move should be called out up front and defended against. – SJ + 23:07, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While this isn't a bad idea, we'd want to make sure we were using the exemplar that otherwise most matched en-wiki. Fr-wiki would be the logical example - this is definitely going to be a trading game between finding an effective version and finding one that has sufficient safeguards to make the Community willing to give it a go. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]