View source for Requests for comment/Interlinking of accounts involved with paid editing to decrease impersonation/en

{{rfc subpage
 |status  = closed
 |comment = Given the lack of closing after the [[Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat/Archives/2017-12 #Request for closure|second request]] (dated 11 December 2017 by {{u|Rentier}}), I am making this close as an uninvolved editor, as I indicated.

'''Statement of issue'''

The issue that the proposal seeks to address is that of paid editors falsely claiming to be particular established Wikipedians, Wikipedians in good standing, or Wikipedians with certain rights and abilities. There are sites such as Fiverr and Upwork where they advertise for work editing Wikipedia.

The proposer claims that sites such as these would be willing to remove accounts making such false claims. The proposal is therefore to require paid editors to provide a link on their Wikipedia user page to any accounts that they operate on external sites like Fiverr and Upwork.

The intention then is that where there is no link from the Wikipedia user page, it would allow us to ask external sites to take down accounts that make what would be visible as a false claim.

'''Analysis'''

There are currently 88 supports (plus 1 duplicate) and 34 opposes. That is a 72% support rate, but the arguments are more important than raw numbers.

Most of the supports can be presumed to be "per nom", although Jytdog makes the point the burden involved is comprable to what the organisations at [[en:Wikipedia:Statement on Wikipedia from participating communications firms]] already do. In addition, some sympathy was expressed with opposers who had privacy concerns.

The oppose votes, on the other hand, raised several different, well expressed concerns. I'll try to summarise some of these.

Fae has concerns that there would be a requirement to keep these proposed links indefinitely even if a paid editor ceases to edit for pay. But also a concern that if the period were time-limited, having too short a period would open up the possibility of abuse. The propose suggested that there would be a time limit, but it seems clear that the exact period after paid editing had ceased would need to be determined.

Andy Mabbett expressed a concern, echoed by others, that a side-effect of the requirement might be to victimise innocent editors who are being impersonated on external sites. When being impersonated, having to then defend oneself against suspicions is already problematical; this proposal could be used as an additional "stick" by accusing an editor of not linking to an external account, when it does not actually belong to them.

Bilby makes the point, echoed by others, that a link such as is proposed would force a paid editor to link to their personal information on an external site, despite their preference to edit pseudonymously on Wikipedia.

Ajraddatz notes that there is a convention which expects something like 80% support to establish clear consensus.

Other opposes seemed to be based on venue (meta rather than each individual Wikipedia) or the supposition that it would be unenforceable.

'''Conclusions'''

Nobody argued that there was no problem with paid editors making false claims on external sites. Evidence of the problem was presented and I find consensus that the issue should be dealt with if possible.

Some of the opposes were related specifically to the implementation of this proposal, rather than its principle.

In raw numbers, the proposed wording enjoys a super-majority of support, albeit short of a raw 80%. However, I would not be prepared to give much weight to opposes with weak reasons such as "paranoid witchhunt". I find that some of the oppose arguments to be sufficiently weak that, based on strength of argument, there is a consensus in favour of the proposal.

Nevertheless, there are some concrete concerns with significant rationales that need to be addressed in the implementation of the proposal. I recommend that there be supplementary guidelines produced to:
# specify the minimum time period that a link has to be maintained after an advertisement for paid editing has closed (and I would suggest a period of perhaps seven days);
# make it clear that on-wiki accusations of "failing to provide a link" without evidence is considered harassment and is thereby sanctionable;
# make clear to paid editors that Wikimedia's commitment to support pseudonymous editing does not extend to disclosures made on external sites that we require paid editors to link to.

I understand that the close will not satisfy all parties, nevertheless I hope that a way forward now exists that most can live with. I am happy to discuss my reasoning in further detail on the [[Talk:Requests for comment/Interlinking of accounts involved with paid editing to decrease impersonation|talk page]] should anyone wish to. --[[User:RexxS|RexxS]] ([[User talk:RexxS|talk]]) 00:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 |date    =2017-09-13
}}
<languages />

==Statement of issue==

We commonly see paid editors pretending to be established Wikipedians in good standing when they are not, or even impersonating specific Wikipedians.

==Proposal==
{{quote|1=We require those involved with paid editing on Wikipedia to link on their user page to all other active accounts through which they advertise paid Wikipedia editing business.}} 

This means that, should we discover an account on a site such as Fiverr or Upwork which state they are involved with paid editing of Wikipedia, however there is no account on Wikipedia that discloses that account, then we can more easily get these types of sites, some with whom we currently have good relationships, to remove those accounts. This will help those here who are being impersonated to stop the impersonation.

===Example of a case===

Here we have a Wikipedia user page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Salamuddin_Z._Shaikh&oldid=746268221 of an undisclosed paid editor] who claims to be in compliance with our policies and TOU. They do not mention that they are paid, are using socks, have been community banned, or the intermediaries they are using for paid editing. His simple EN page is [https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Salamuddin_Z._Shaikh still live] and he remains unblocked there.

Here is one of their [https://www.upwork.com/freelancers/~0135b499d53ffd7dc2 Upworks profile]s where they say they are [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wdWbqSSYmfYk1Id16ta3y4EQo5kdR9gGd_SA0p0RUEw/edit?usp=sharing "fully in compliance to Wikipedia policies and terms of service"] which of course they are not. Here is their [https://www.guru.com/freelancers/salamuddin-shaikh Guru profile] where they also claim they are following the rules.

Here we have a [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YavjYn0iKjs video of theirs on Youtube] where they misuse our trademark to promote their business. As they are not in the USA it is a tough case for legal to deal with.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive254#Community_ban_proposal_for_paid_editing_firm_wikiexperts.us Here is where they were community banned by the EN Community in 2013.]

How will this proposal help with the above case? While a Wikipedia user page would need to link to the Upworks profile in question. As [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3Ahttps%3A%2F%2F1.800.gay%3A443%2Fhttps%2Fwww.upwork.com%2Ffreelancers%2F~0135b499d53ffd7dc2&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&searchToken=e0uv7jlgvg0hqdmkh9ssxpkls one does not] we would have an easier time getting Upworks to take down this profile which is in breach of the TOUs of both our sites.

===Comments from legal===

Hi all, popping in to help provide some clarification on the Privacy Policy issue. The key part here is at the beginning under [[wmf:Privacy_policy#What_This_Privacy_Policy_Does_.26_Doesn.27t_Cover|"What This Privacy Policy Does & Doesn't Cover"]] where it states that it applies to "our collection and handling of information about you that we receive as a result of your use of any of the Wikimedia Sites." The "our" in that quote refers to the Wikimedia Foundation. A community policy that asks individuals to link to an account such as this proposal wouldn't be covered by the Privacy Policy because that's not the Wikimedia Foundation collecting private information. -[[User:Jrogers (WMF)|Jrogers (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Jrogers (WMF)|talk]]) 00:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ARequests_for_comment%2FInterlinking_of_accounts_involved_with_paid_editing_to_decrease_impersonation%2FVotes&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=17241708&oldid=17241677] 

{{Requests for comment/Interlinking of accounts involved with paid editing to decrease impersonation/Votes}}
{{Requests for comment/Interlinking of accounts involved with paid editing to decrease impersonation/Discussion}}