User talk:MER-C/Paid2019

Article creation prohibition
Notwithstanding the "covert advertising problems" section, the article creation prohibition allows for deletion of articles (the general sanctions does not). But, if my understanding is correct, this article creation prohibition can only be enabled if a user is warned, and continues to commit violations. Since UPEs tend to be disposables, it's likely we'll never reach this stage, so the article won't be eligible for deletion under that prohibition? And I imagine there'd be some disagreement if the ability to delete was added as a standard sanction instead (not requiring notification), since that caused this RfC? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4 does not require notification before reverting or deletion. This is supposed to be similar. MER-C 12:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I see. Thanks for clarifying! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

CSD
The proposal suggests using G5 for article creation prohibition. There was notable opposition to bundling UPE deletions under existing CSD criteria here. Hence, perhaps it be more accepted if a new CSD were created for this purpose? There seems to be enough support to pass Proposal 2 at that link, if it was a new CSD. This would also fix the concern in the section above, and would mean that deletion doesn't require a general sanction but could be eligible under CSD instead.

I think this proposal is already pretty complete in terms of the stuff it addresses, and methods of review/accountability, if you're happy with reviving this proposal? with perhaps some modifications ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The new CSD, if necessary, is simply "page created in violation of a general prohibition, either imposed by the Arbitration Committee or community consensus". A CSD specifically for UPE is contentious because it is hard to define. This isn't - it's either about a spam-prone topic or it isn't. MER-C 12:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , that seems good to me. The reasoning is that it's just a bit confusing to add deletions under this to G5. Though, on that note, does it need to reference a CSD at all? I assume, though I haven't checked, ARBPIA deletions just give the deletion reason 'Arbitration enforcement' like with other page enforcement actions. I presume a reason like 'Community sanctions enforcement' may be sufficient? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Suggestions
, some thoughts... Feel free to reject any/all if I'm off the mark. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Layout
Move various principles and rationales to a Principles section at the top, to separate principles and driving ideology from the specific proposals and wording for those proposals. Perhaps accompany principles with vague solutions (which are elaborated later into concrete policy points).

Disclosure necessary but not sufficient
Disclosure is necessary but not sufficient to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia. perhaps -> "Disclosure is the minimum requirement for paid editors contribute to Wikipedia." In the next sentence, "must put" -> "must still put"

Commercial editing and paid advocacy
This change is already well-worded imo, if I understand it correctly. Regarding the commentary bullet, I’m not sure an explicit exemption is needed for non-controversial edits, since (going by "restatement of existing policy needing strong emphasis") the definition already seems to exempt those contributions which aren’t primarily advancing the client’s agenda. I suppose it could be clarified, since right now the wording (at a glance, without the explanatory paragraph above it) seems like a blanket ban on commercial editing.

Regarding revising WP:COI, in what ways do you mean it’d need to be substantially revised?

Content review
Link WP:GA / WP:GAN for the good content part? Featured article should perhaps link to WP:FAC, rather than the portal? “New page patrol” -> “new page patrol” “Articles for creation” -> “Articles for Creation”

I think this section is still helpful as clarity, even if commercial editing passes.
 * It links to featured content in general because featured pictures, lists and topics and good topics must also be covered. I don't want to exclude the possibility of new featured or good content processes. MER-C 15:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe Featured content covers the FA star only (various featured content), not GAs, as referred to in the next part of the sentence. Shouldn't good content appraisal process link to WP:GA, in the absence of a "good content" page? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Standard sanctions
impose sanctions on any editor Although I doubt any admin will try to apply these sanctions to established editors, this should be clarified to only apply to editors who both: (a) are not extended-confirmed; and (b) do not hold any WP:PERM permissions (excl confirmed), or EFM/EFH.

Create a new section for the above, so this isn’t repeated in article creation prohibition (article creation prohibition should also exempt editors with extra user rights, particularly autopatrolled for example).

Additionally, any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict page protection, revert restrictions, prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists), or any other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project.

These sanctions should only be performed against editors who meet the scope (described above). e.g. an admin shouldn’t be able to prohibit the addition of content by an editor out of scope under this sanction, even if that content is problematic (should be addressed by existing policies, in that case). An admin shouldn't be able to perform GS actions on pages created by editors in good standing (though, actions on such pages against edits by users within the scope are permitted). Another example: if content is prohibited from addition as a GS, after its addition by an editor within scope, an editor out of scope should be permitted to re-add the same content, and that re-added content should not be subject to GS.
 * The tenure of edits doesn't matter. If I catch a 1000 edit user, a new page patroller or even an administrator adding a dodgy link to search engine optimization, they should be treated as a spammer. In fact, the more edits they make and privileges they hold, the less excuses they have. MER-C 16:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree in principle, but we have existing policies to use to revert their edit. If they persist in restoring it, or mass-spam, admins can use current policies to enforce to the degree they can, otherwise editors can go to ANI. This policy should focus on paid editing and new editors spamming. General sanctions in any area is already a very broad administrative power, I don't think this proposal will be approved if all editors are subject to this 'discretion' in every edit in all of these areas. Besides, I suspect we're less likely to see 1000-edit users or NPPs spamming, at least not to such a great degree that it overloads our other processes if we couldn't deal with these editors using GS and instead had to use our current processes on them. I suspect most spam is caused by "in scope" editors. There's still a balance to be had here, and such broad authorisations of administrative power aren't appropriate or likely to pass imo. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Article creation prohibition (draftspace/userspace)
Pages originally created in articlespace and moved into draftspace or userspace should be covered by this prohibition. So that admins can still delete articles which were moved by another editor. (while editors should follow the covert advertising process, some may not or be unaware. often articles are AfD’d when they could’ve been speedied, then due to the AfD other admins are reluctant to early-close, and so we're stuck with a 7 day process, since often nobody wants to SNOW-close).

Article creation prohibition (extended confirmed)
Some new editors can contribute well to new articles in the topic area. And AfC is already fairly backlogged. Some contributors get autopatrolled before extended-confirmed, so requiring it may be detrimental for these areas.

Possible alternatives:
 * You can create an article, but if it’s spammy this prohibition is then applied to any of your creations. (downside: they’ll just create a new disposable account)
 * Lower the threshold from 500 edits and 30 days. (downside: harder to check than just looking for extended-confirmed/other perms)
 * Permit creation of further articles once you get a single approved AfC in any covered topic area. If they’re problematic, the editor may still subject to general sanctions if applicable.

Other concerns
Due to requiring auto confirmed for article creations, we get accounts which add grammatical errors (wrong commas, random dashes, etc.) to spam their way to auto confirmed. 500 edits is a high bar, but I wouldn’t be surprised if we get bots that spam-add commas, or other means of achieving that status, and then keeping dormant accounts until they’re needed (due to the 30 day bar). Perhaps they’ll just disclose and use AfC, but I’m not completely counting on it.

Draft creation prohibition
I'm not so sure about this section. First, we know the tricks for gaming autoconfirmed, and a lot of the more competent UPE folks do too. Second, it basically says "if this is breached it may be deleted, but if it is breached, we don't necessarily care and might leave it," which comes off as fairly weak. I'm guessing the point is to give admins another tool in the "quickly dealing with UPE" kit, but overall I'm not sure how likely it is to actually resolve the issues. GeneralNotability (talk) 17:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This was something I added for completeness. I can live without this provision. MER-C 19:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)