Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Requests for comment/Alternative paid contribution disclosure policy

< Commons:Requests for comment
The following discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.

Community consensus is approved.

Normally major proposals such as this would be left open for a longer period than eight days. However, in this case there is no need to hold the RFC open since the community's approval is already quite clear. The result of this RFC is that Commons will retain its traditional position of not requiring disclosure of paid contributions. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The new policy can now be found at Commons:Paid contribution disclosure policy

Background edit

The Wikimedia Foundation have amended their Terms of Use earlier today (see blog post).

According to the newly-added section, each Wikimedia project (through its community) has the ability to adopt an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy. Given the very special nature of Wikimedia Commons, I hereby suggest that we do exactly that and adopt a policy that allows paid contributions without any disclosure whatsoever.

Commons is — like other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation — very different from Wikipedia: we do not, for instance, require our content to be neutral, and highly value original works created by our own users. The issue of paid contributions isn't therefore as touchy for us as it is on (the English) Wikipedia; on the contrary, content submitted by users who receive compensation for it, such as Wikipedians-in-Residence or people involved in cooperations with GLAM institutions, is often of excellent quality and educational value.

It would be a huge loss for us and the whole free content movement if people were discouraged from contributing to Commons due to bureaucratic requirements that do not apply to this project. Therefore, I suggest that our contributors only need to comply with the project scope and licensing policies when submitting content (and other official policies and guidelines whenever applicable, for instance COM:PEOPLE when submitting photographs of identifiable people).

Please have a look at the proposed text of the policy below, and thanks in advance for your time and feedback! odder (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed text of the policy edit

The Wikimedia Commons community does not require any disclosure of paid contributions from its contributors.

Discussion edit

Overall edit

  • @Fæ: that is a good idea, but one which is best done outside of this discussion. This states that the WMF ToU applies from now on, so if we can get quick consensus on this, it would be best I think. Deal with other stuff like your suggestions separately. russavia (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, consider this a post-it so we remember to revisit the supplementary aspects. --Fæ (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What I don't want to see is this habit of trying to sanitise files of any potentially promotional aspect. I have seen several cases lately where people wanted links to the uploader's websites removed as being promotional. Saffron Blaze (talk) 14:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen worse than mere requests. Commons users and others are being globally locked for "promotion," without anything that is spam, sometimes with no cross-wiki editing at all. See this expanded comment for a start. --Abd (talk) 19:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question 1. Is this a part of discussion or votes? 2. How can I violate wmf:Terms of Use that is visible on the page footer of every page stating "By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy."? Jee 17:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi @Jee! Given the new amendment, I believe you can violate the Terms of Use by receiving compensation for uploading content to Wikimedia Commons and not disclosing this fact to the community. As I do not believe that there is anything wrong with submitting new files to Commons and getting paid to do so — as long as the files are in the scope of the project and don't violate our policies and guidelines — I submitted my proposal as visible above. Thanks :-) odder (talk) 17:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    But can a Common policy can be contradicting to WMF policy or resolution? I think people said exact opposite in the URAA issue. :) Jee 17:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This diff is imho verry clear ;) --Steinsplitter (talk) 17:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, yes; thanks. :) Jee 17:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - I think I'd go with "encourages but does not require". But yes, sure. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - While I think it's good for some of the other projects I think Commons is fine without. I would also prefer 'encourages but does not require' like Mattbuck but I'd support either way especially since I think in 'most' cases where this type of uploading happens it's disclosed/obvious anyway. Jamesofur (talk) 17:40, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support per @Odder: , and as I discussed in the English Wikipedia Signpost. -Pete F (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Tens of thousands of files on Commons have been contributed by paid "editors"; many of them are professional photographers, and a significant proportion of featured media are from paid contributors. Many of them already disclose by linking to their professional sites in the file descriptions, and/or making specific requests for attribution or notification of usage. (I've heard some people refer to this as "advertising", but I prefer to assume they are acting altruistically in a manner similar to tithing by releasing a portion of their work to the world at large.) I concur that Commons should seriously consider a full exemption. Risker (talk) 17:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"I concur" is normally shown with {{Support}} rather than {{Comment}}, which will probably not be counted as a support. --Fæ (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, see my comment here. -- Thekohser (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - I agree that most of the concerns that apply to paid editing on other projects don't apply to Commons. I can imagine situations in the future that might require this to be revisited, but think Commons opting out for now is probably a good idea. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - Paid contributions are more relevant to Wikipedia because of the potential for promotional articles. Commons has a partially overlapping scope but any "organization" that wants to "promote" itself will almost certainly be happy to license its images. To be honest, there have been a few trojan horse editors in the past and doubtless there are a few "sleeper agents" but most paid contributors are quite easy to spot with give-away names and peacock styles of editing. Green Giant (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I agree in principle that members of GLAM partner organizations and other rights holders looking to release works do not necessarily need to self-declare, because the attribution in the file description page is essentially the same thing from an accountability standpoint. There is a tremendous difference between that and what the text of the above proposal says. I appreciate the power of "keep it simple", but I am concerned that a declaration would be important in some cases that don't directly involve uploads. I would like to know if the people voicing opinions about how the project handles URAA cases, for example, happen to be a paid employees of an organization (file repository, content creator, etc.) that would stand to gain from one interpretation or another. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    In the light of the fact that Commons has been active for many years, could you link to some examples of cases on Commons where this has been an issue, so that we can judge how much of a risk this is? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Fæ: I'm not sure whether major rights holders have ever tried to influence Commons policy or not. I do remember an OTRS ticket where a company asked us to delete images of competitors' products (no I don't remember which, and no, I don't think we did it), so I do know that Commons isn't entirely immune to corporate shenanigans. I don't think that really matters though. What is important is that we make a statement of principle that it is how we expect users to behave. Much like a deadbolt on your home isn't going to stop a determined criminal (they'd just as soon break a window), the declaration requirement is almost entirely unenforceable, as it relies on the cooperation of people that have little incentive to cooperate with it. I would rather get the more honest editors with conflicts of interest to declare them than get no one at all though. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sven Manguard, this is a good point. I support this effort to very quickly pass a policy that reestablishes the status quo now that the TOU update has changed it, but along with Fæ's note above about best practices, I think this would be a very good topic to return to, for a possible future clarification or amendment. I do generally think requiring disclosure of any conflict of interest (financial or otherwise) related to policy advocacy would be a good idea. -Pete F (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, this is another post-it. For example, it would be sensible to ensure that WMF employees and contractors are more clearly identifiable when taking part in community discussion that is used as evidence to support changes to Commons features or policies, the new TOU appears to make this an expectation. Now raised at meta:Talk:Terms_of_use#Impact_for_WMF_employees_and_contractors. --Fæ (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sven Manguard: I definitely see your point, though I think that the point that you make is about a conflict of interest, rather than about being paid to edit. I am happy for someone to argue their point of view paid or not, I just want to know where their interests lie. So I can live with the one liner.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support It's not really relevant to Commons, especially with the separation between content creator and content uploader that often exists on Commons. Nick (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Seems fine. Legoktm (talk) 20:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support. When I first read this, I thought that people should still have to disclose if doing administrative actions for money. On reflection, I think simpler is best, so support. Bawolff (talk) 20:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support although I think that noting when doing any kind of paid activity should be encouraged; not as a requirement, however, unless we get a precedent that teaches us the opposite. -- Rillke(q?) 21:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support as this would very likely be detrimental to the aims of Commons. We have already and use Commons:Project scope to delete blatantly promotional/advertising material. --Túrelio (talk) 21:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support There's not a big problem here demanding a fix.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I describe some of the problems with the new terms, on the talk page on meta (and declare my interests in my user space on en.WP). Andy Mabbett (talk) 22:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Are you proposing the addition of this as a one line policy, or as part of another document, or possibly the start of a compendium of a short policies page. It is behavioural when we look at Commons:Policies and guidelines  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Billinghurst: , this is clearly intended as a stand-alone policy, presumably Commons:Alternative paid contribution disclosure policy, specifically as suggested in the new TOS, to be linked from meta:Alternative paid contribution disclosure policies --Abd (talk) 00:13, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not clear, and it should be explicit as part of the proposal. I would also suggest that we have Commons:Disclosure policy, and if we ever expand to cover conflicted or vested interest (per @Sven Manguard: above), then it is a simple addition, and not a rename. No need for the words "alternative" nor "paid", we put forward a positive policy and just need to cite the variation from the terms of use, and that allowance by community consensus. That is what I am preparing to put forward to the enWS community, and the above discussion is useful to frame thinking.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@billinghurst: Please have a look at the #Background section, in which it is clearly mentioned (I think!) that this one-liner is supposed to be our new policy. If you have an idea on how to make this more explicit than that, please do go ahead and implement it. Thank you! odder (talk) 08:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support and snow close without prejudice. The reason for fast close is that the TOS just changed, today, in a way that is very widely seen as harming Commons, and until Commons exempts itself with a formal policy, the new TOS is in effect. There may well be situations where Commons wishes to require disclosure, but that's complicated; it could be worked out at leisure; the few who oppose this change, with others, may wish to present arguments and evidence. Not today! --Abd (talk) 00:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even if I supported this, I would tell you that a SNOW close is unacceptable here. Major policy changes, of which a change to the terms of service undoubtedly is, cannot be rushed like that. If there was a need for urgency in this matter, and I am not convinced that there is, we could have started this weeks ago. Everyone that followed the situation knew that this change was likely coming. On the other hand, I would not oppose a moratorium on enforcement that would last until this is closed. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support To properly apply this amendment to Commons, or any project other than the very big Wikipedias, will be an unmanageable amount of new maintenance work for very little gain, and it invites harassment to occur. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose It's unclear to me why the standard new ToU are a problem here, and I don't see why an exception needs to be made (which muddies the water for new users, rather than keeping things simple and the same across all the projects). It would be a good thing if people uploading work from GLAMs officially indicated that on their user pages, if they don't do that already. I'd be worried if there were users here that wouldn't be willing to disclaim that they were being paid for their edits. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mike Peel: I explained a little bit why I think Commons does not need this new amendment in the #Background section. To quickly re-cap my thinking, the amendment was primarily targeted at the English Wikipedia, from which Commons differs significantly, in that we do not require our content to be neutral and in that we accept original content from our users (among others). Installing additional bureaucracy in a project that relies on original work that often comes from people who are paid to upload or create it is, in my opinion, needless and even detrimental to its goals. Thanks, odder (talk) 08:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @odder Yes, I read that. The bureaucracy's already been added, though (the clause is in the terms), so this would need an additional bit of bureaucracy to avoid (having the special exception). What additional bureaucracy is needed if the opt-out clause isn't added? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mike Peel: I think you answered your question with your first sentence. If you need me to rephrase it, then I would say that the additional bureaucracy is the requirement that our users have to disclose their employers, clients or affiliation when submitting new files to Commons. By opting out of this amendment, we restore status quo and get rid of the additional bureaucracy the new amendment imposes on us. odder (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mike Peel: Bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake it too bureaucratic. Although Odder is a bureaucrat, I think he rejects bureaucratic bureaucracy for being simply too bureucratic. Bureaucracy! russavia (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I am not a regular contributor to commons anymore, but it is wonderful to see a project take a stand against this ridiculous push against paid editing by the WMF. Surely a contribution can be judged by its inherent worth, not the motivation for making it. Ajraddatz (talk) 06:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - The "new user terms" would only scare uploaders away. If it is in scope we can host it, no matter who donated it. Natuur12 (talk) 08:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support The proposed text is so simple and clear that I love it :) --Jaqen (talk) 08:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support The new ToU is a concern for all and hinders the growth of WMF projects as a whole, but creates further issues for those who contribute to Commons. Bidgee (talk) 09:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Taivo (talk) 09:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I'm wondering longtime how can be Commons work without. → Perhelion     10:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - but would second mattbuck's suggested wording above of: "encourages but does not require". Storkk (talk) 11:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 11:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I've spent enough years helping GLAM contributes to Wikimedia Commons, and to tell them that this is totally part of their mission. Léna (talk) 11:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support It is already hard enough getting people outside the community to donate images. HelenOnline 12:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support The problem with paid editing is that someone may be paid to write a Wikipedia article about a living person or a company, which will then not be written from a neutral point of view. However, on Commons, the only "problem" would be that we may get a photo of the person, which is not a problem at all. There may be an issue if a paid editor participates in deletion or policy discussions and tries to affect what files we want on Commons. If this becomes a problem, then we may need to revisit the policy. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Makes sense, given the nature of Commons. Neutrality is less of an issue and so therefore is paid editing. We should welcome donation of images, whether it involves money or not. If unforeseen situations occur, we can always amend the policy as needed. On the issue of the current situation, a two week RfC seems justified for major policy changes of this nature. There seems to be agreement that enforcement activity is inappropriate until this is settled. CT Cooper · talk 15:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose clearly we do require disclosure of who owns the work. So, the policy, here should be "Paid editors are subject to the general disclosure requirements about the donated work that we require of all contributors" And then put that up as the "Paid Editor Disclosure Policy" in the linked page. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't typically require disclosure. When an uploader holds copyright to what they upload, they may choose a license that requires attribution; but in a great many cases, the uploader chooses a pseudonymous username for that attribution anyway. Even when real names are used, they needn't include anything about an employer, etc. And, a great many files are uploaded by somebody who does not hold the copyright, either because it was released under a free license by somebody else, or is in the public domain. The only circumstance I can think of where disclosure is required, is when somebody needs to prove that they are the publicly known rights-holder of a well known work of art, or similar -- as is typically handled by OTRS. -Pete F (talk) 01:24, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We always require disclosure for original work of who owns the copyright on the image: the uploader either identifies him or herself as owning the image, or discloses the third party that does and the licence they have given. Otherwise we cannot host it. (Your comments about attribution and name is beside the point) As for old work not covered by copyright, we ask for provenance, so that all copyright questions are settled. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst obviously we do require copyright information, this RFC is on the subject of disclosure of them being paid to contribute to Commons. These are completely different issues and it appears you have misunderstood from the outset what this RFC is discussing. russavia (talk) 03:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not misunderstand it. You have not read what I have written. The issue is disclosure, and we expect honest and appropriate disclosure of information from all contributors. We cannot know all facts, which may have to do with copyright ahead of time. But, yes those facts sometimes include who paid for the work and if the payment also was made in consideration for transfer of the copyright, so that it can be a valid contribution to this project. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure all 3 of us agree here on the basic dynamics; what I think is the point of disagreement is a semantic point, about what kind of information is properly called "disclosure." @Alanscottwalker: I understand your point to be, "saying that we don't require disclosure is inaccurate, because many of our licenses do require the uploader to disclose some information." Is that correct? If so, I concede the point, and would gladly support an effort to amend this policy after passage to more clearly express what is and isn't required. -Pete F (talk) 19:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it's simply wrong to adopt this vague and overboard policy proposal, given that disclosures must occur. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral I agree paid contributions may not affect Commons that much compared to Wikipedia. But I see some concerns in areas like Featured pictures. Chances that some firms offer compensation to our volunteers to promote their products pictures. Once a picture is promoted to FP, it helps to replace their competitors' pictures from many language Wikipedias, silently. See this example. The user succeeded to promote two pictures by contacting regular reviewers (including me) with neutral tone requests on talk pages. Later he was caught and blocked. So I doubt people can use Commons as a platform to continue such promotional activities even if Wikipedia follow the amended ToU. Jee 07:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Per nom, though I can definitely see the reasoning behind requiring a disclosure for non-upload contributions. I think Jkadavoor has given an excellent example of how not having that requirement could cause issues. I would support this with an amendment requiring disclosure of non-upload contributions. Nevertheless, as the problem isn't terribly problematic, I would also support this policy change as is. Zellfaze (talk) 12:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I consider that this proposal is ambiguous. People who do things here, it is usually for passion. I think the pay could harm the project. Instead of paying aid could be provided and mechanisms to improve the quality of contributions, for example, a better camera. The exchange of cameras and lenses between commons users supported by the foundation would be better than just pay. When you pay someone for their work this usually kill creativity when creating your incentive selflessly free content this is done with passion, like that the best things are built. --Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 13:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Considering the nature of Commons and how it differs from Wikipedia(s), especially the lack of a requirement for neutrality in contributions, I believe this proposed policy is suitable and sensible. Michael Barera (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - PKM (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - I have no love for Commons, putting things mildly, but I am happy to see the precedent established and curious where it will lead. Carrite (talk) 01:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - Not a problem really. There are more pressing matters.... José Luiz disc 02:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I feel that disclosure of paid contributions may be useful in some cases. I saw upload of real estate or goods advertisement quite often. Explicit images is other area where "education" value is more then doubtful. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 12:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @EugeneZelenko: in such cases we would simply delete the images as spam or being out of scope. If they are possibly useful images we keep them. Do we really need to know whether they have been paid to upload the images? It wouldn't make any difference would it? russavia (talk) 13:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support. Yes, please! Ralgis (talk) 23:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Images and other media created for promotional purposes are generally of limited use in other Wikimedia projects due to their inherent bias, and it is reasonable to expect that people who upload such media here to declare their conflict of interest so that individuals can make a properly informed decision on whether to use the media or not. Given the cross-cutting nature of Commons, this proposal also creates a mechanism which spammers can use to circumvent restrictions on their activities on other Wikimedia projects. Nick-D (talk) 02:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nick-D: , my experience is that media created for "promotional" purposes are in high use on Wikimedia projects. And dare I say it, that a huge chunk of media created for promotional purposes are amongst the most in-use images on our projects -- I'm talking about government works -- which by their very nature are promotional. Or take Category:Files from Korea.net Flickr stream -- Korea.net's mission is to promote South Korea and it's culture around the world, and their images have been put into massive use around Wikipedis (on English Wikipedia largely to myself doing so). We also have imagery from companies, such as LG, Superjet, Maersk Line, Jetstar, etc on Commons and these are promotional in nature but still in use. COM:SCOPE is what this project uses to remove materials which don't have potential usage on Wikimedia projects, or outside of the project for educational purpose. Junk advertising is routinely removed from this project. I don't see how forcing people to state they are being paid to upload materials is going to improve this project. Paid editors, would of course, have to follow that policy on other projects if the project has it in place. russavia (talk) 08:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose on the grounds that it is likely that PR firms are already quietly donating high-quality image or other media which cast its clients in a positive light on the reasonable assumption that Wikipedia editors will find and use those images over lower-quality images without realizing that they are being used. This possibility was discussed on the English Wikipedia Signpost on May 7 and May 14, 2014 (here and the "In brief" section of this). Even though the examples discussed were probably not real, it shows what could easily happen and what is likely quietly already happening. Davidwr (talk) 04:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, but I don't think this is a problem at all; on the contrary, this could be a way to encourage people to release as much high-quality media as possible under a free license! The one (whether corporation or individual) who donates the best photo gets it displayed most prominently on Wikimedia projects. If our goal is to encourage production of as much and as good free material as possible, then your scenario is a feature, not a bug! Of course, if you find it more important that no corporation ever gets to influence Wikimedia projects, then you are right, but I don't find that more important. darkweasel94 09:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Our goal is to obtain high-quality free media. As a resource, Commons is less of a coherent entity like an encyclopedia, but rather a repository of potentially useful images. It is up to end users to decide whether to use a particular image. The existence of a promotional article on Wikipedia harms all other articles on Wikipedia; the same cannot be said of a promotional image on Commons (though something overly promotional and unlikely to be useful should be deleted of course). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose this new unlimited exemption. (I also oppose counting this set of votes, because it was changed in the middle, but see below for that.) A "blanket" exemption is far too broad: We need to limit the exemption to file uploads and maybe some extra minor things. But Commons is not just uploads! There are plenty of ways to be biased and corrupt: We have deletion discussions, abuse reports, votes to change Commons' policies (just like this discussion!), and votes to add and remove the admins and bureaucrats who judge what our consensus was. It's only by luck that Commons hasn't been rigged by paid astroturfing yet. (Or maybe it has, and we don't know it. Do you think people care about sockpuppet blocks more than cash?) When the off-wiki funding of some controversy on Commons is discovered, do you really want to cripple the Wikimedia Foundation's legal recourses, because it looks like "the community" granted a complete and unconditional exemption? It's probably just a matter of time before this happens. Consider the following:
    1. What if the copyfraud industry decides that Commons should become more "business friendly", and appoint paid employees to encourage pro-deletion arguments for files, and generate dissatisfaction and on-wiki controversy for any Commons admins who don't have a high enough percentage of "speedy deletes" and "copyright-friendly" closures? How long will it take us to discover that it's meat-puppetry/astroturfing, when it's funded by the same professionals who create fake "grass-roots" political organizations by the dozens every month? Don't you think the WMF should be allowed to sue these people once they're finally caught?
    2. What if some of the administrators or bureaucrats on Commons are already being "sponsored" off-wiki? If there are no legal repercussions, do you think they'll ever admit it? Even worse: If it turns out that a bad admin was bad because his off-wiki employer was anti-Commons and wanted to discourage public support, don't you think WMF should be able to recover compensation for all those Commons:GLAM contributors and major donors that were run off by that admin? --Closeapple (talk) 07:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    3. Risker (talk · contribs) and Jkadavoor (talk · contribs) (Jee) already mentioned Commons:Featured pictures being good for the creators' reputations and advertising off-wiki. I wonder how much money an "online marketing consultant" could get for arranging for their client to receive "the official Featured Picture award on Wikimedia Commons". Don't you think the Wikimedia Foundation's lawyers should be allowed to punish that?
    In addition: I've seen some people say that the Wikimedia TOS creates more work for Commons admins. I don't see how it's a burden on admins directly, except if users constantly complain about other secrely-paid users. (I can see how it would be a burden on the file uploaders themselves, though.) --Closeapple (talk) 07:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The concept that *anyone* should be punished for contributing free-use images in absolute accord with the attribution requirements of Commons is so far outside of the principles and purposes of the Wikimedia movement that I believe you do not understand the movement at all, Closeapple (talk · contribs). I am very disturbed that you should suggest that anyone ever be punished for making good-faith contributions. It also shows that you do not understand the featured image and picture of the year processes on this project. Your comments appear to be deliberately inflammatory, and I hope you consider retracting them. Risker (talk) 19:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstood: I am not talking about the uploading at all. Uploaders who do it for a living are valuable. There seems to be confusion about the word "contributor" in this policy. My concern is about user behavior other than uploading. In this case, I meant paid rigging of the voting/discussions; not comments that are clearly by the artist/uploader, but by shills. Eventually, some marketer is going to try "enhancing" the votes with some form of astroturfing, either trying to bribe existing users (which will probably fail because the typical experienced Commons user would raise the alarm if they were contacted), or more likely, making a long term "investment" in meat-puppet accounts that build up reputations as good users but are really for seeding the voting on Commons. Obviously this would be completely corrupt, and is unfair to both unpaid and paid uploaders who contribute their work and aren't cheating. --Closeapple (talk) 22:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support the "copyfraud industry" will rather go to english and take down fair use under fraudulent means, and use DMCA / false claims for deletion in commons. when you see the "piracy" claim then you know what it is. don't need a pecuniary interest when incompetence will do; your faith in "legal sanctions" is quaint, even amusing. one size does not fit all. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 14:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair use on Wikipedias is usually accompanied by a low-resolution photo; that's not as much of a threat to an photograph archive's sales. But the downloads on Commons, that are of similar resolution as the commercial archive's available versions, directly compete with the commercial archive. Making Commons unwelcoming or difficult for people, and particularly for uploaders, is in some industries' interest. While lazy, fraudulent DMCA takedowns are effective with "cooperating" Internet service providers, they are not so effective with the Wikipedia Foundation, which is not a pushover. I'm sure the WMF pays attention to each one specifically. And if pushed too often, the WMF might threaten legal action on false DMCA notices (which are signed "under penalty of perjury"). In short, DMCA fraud is a waste of time against Wikimedia projects. Some organization may decide on a more efficient "campaign" to undermine Commons from inside. --Closeapple (talk) 22:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - Everyone's arguing for the benefits of paid contribution, but that's not the issue, as requiring disclosure doesn't prohibit contributions. While the WMF wording requiring disclosure may sound a little hostile to potential paid contributors, that could be fixed by better wording. Perhaps we could ask for disclosure that you're working for somebody, without detailing who that somebody is. Maybe only require disclosure for certain types of contribution (e.g. administrative tasks). But, so far, nobody has explained how politely asking somebody if they're working for someone other than themselves is harmful to the project? Do we think people who are being paid to contribute will stop doing so, and quit their paid job, just because they don't want to admit that they're doing a paid job? I don't have the "right" wording myself, but I don't think anybody does yet. --Rob (talk) 23:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the wording, it's just another hoop people have to jump through to donate their work for a good cause and potentially get a slap in the face for their troubles if they overlook it. HelenOnline 07:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Rob: But why would you ask if someone is being paid to contribute to Commons if they're doing a good job here? If there is no disruption being caused to the project, it is none of our business who the user is, not to mention who they work for. odder (talk) 08:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@user:odder: You say *if*. But, the proposal has no "if". I don't see treating all contributions as exactly the same. Making guidelines/policies, administering files (deletion, etc...), and file uploads are all very different things. I want to be most accommodating with uploading of files, but not so much with other things. Perhaps we could have simple wording that says "The Wikimedia Commons community welcomes all contributors regardless of whether they are paid. Uploaders of files are never required to disclose whether they are being paid. However, if you wish to take part in administrative tasks or policy setting at Commons, we ask that you disclose if you are being paid to do so." I'm still not sure what wording we should have, but I just don't see the need to be so absolute in saying we never ever want to know who somebody works for. --Rob (talk) 08:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support paid advocacy / editing is a major issue on the Wikipedias (especially the English Wikipedia). Commons is a different animal and requiring disclosure is wrong for Commons. Images uploaded under a paid-for-hire scenario are still helpful as long as they stay within Commons' scope. I agree that admin tools should not be used in a paid advocacy situation but that would be addressed as a misuse of admin tools if appropriate. Royalbroil 13:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I don't care if someone is paid to upload images. I do care if someone is paid to influence policy and decision making processes on Common. The changed wording seems to allow the later. It should only allow the former. Saffron Blaze (talk) 14:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I don't see much of a problem if someone doesn't disclose that they are being paid to upload media here. However, the proposed blanket exception to the disclosure policy would allow paid editors to contribute to discussions on the development and application of policy, or even to wield administrative tools, without revealing their conflict of interest. This opens the door to paid advocates trying to shape policies, delete content, block users, or to influence others to do the same, in order to suit their employers' interests. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Under the MWF-imposed policy, it is sufficient for an editor to put a note on his user page saying "I am being paid by XXXX to contribute to the Wikimedia Commons." Davidwr (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Quartl (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support the simplified proposal. Gyft Xelz (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I am totally supportive of paid contributions to Wikimedia projects. I care about the quality of the contribution, not the motivation. Libcub (talk) 19:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support (of course), but it's a very strange text …    FDMS  4    15:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Change of wording edit

  •  Info Thank you all for voicing your opinions on the idea. Following @darkweasel94's comments, I went ahead and simplified the proposed text of the policy to just one sentence to reduce possible confusion (with the help of @russavia). The change is merely technical, and doesn't change the spirit of the policy, so apologies for the trouble. odder (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Odder: I am disappointed that someone who proposes a policy change can open and close that discussion in a day, AND implement it. Whether I agree with the policy change or not, it is policy, all are entitled to have an opinion, so it should be open for a reasonable period. You should not have closed, and implemented, neutrality is an important part of Wikimedia principles, and I consider that disrespectful to the broader community.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I may be missing something, but the discussion above has not been closed, it is still running. --Fæ (talk) 23:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I clearly have misread, clearly too early. <sigh> My apologies.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I just want to put it here that I agree with mattbuck's suggestion of using the wording "encourages but does not require" (mentioned in the #Overall discussion), seeing as how this is the "Change of wording" topic. - MiscGezork (talk) 17:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose counting the original vote on this text, unless re-done as a new vote in a new section — or unless, at least, the voters who came in before the change are notified that what they're voting for has been changed, so they can re-confirm. The voting on the original proposal seems to be invalid: The last half of the new policy was removed after more than half the people voted on the longer version! Two points:
    1. I don't agree that the wording change was "merely technical": It removed a major limitation. The original proposal was one that said "Specifically ... relating to uploading new files." (Granted, it was ambiguous about whether it was a limitation or an explanation, and possibly shouldn't have been proposed with that wording in the first place.) The changed version now clearly exempts everything from disclosure, including — for example — people who have a paid conflict of interest in policy discussions like this one. That's not the impression given by the original version that most people voted on. If Odder, in good faith, thinks that it means the same thing, then it should be simple to contact the people who voted before the change, and ask them if they agree and still want to vote the same way; or we could just put up a site notice for people to re-vote because it changed.
    2. On the subject of another user, however: This sudden mid-vote change was done with help from russavia (talk · contribs), a confirmed sockpuppeter on Wikipedia who was forced to resign as bureaucrat on Commons after doing some things off-wiki to influence controversial Commons content, then declaring as a bureaucrat that off-wiki instigation was not the community's business. (See "Eveything else is irrelevant" comment at Trolling?) This user getting involved in this policy subject, by rewriting the policy in the middle of a vote, is highly irregular. --Closeapple (talk) 04:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And eager to know whether Odder consulted any other crat before making this "quick and dirty" proposal, considering it's high influence and importance. Why such a hurry? Jee 05:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jee: With no evidence to the contrary, you can assume that everything I do on Commons is my own action and my own responsibility. odder (talk) 09:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Odder: That is good. But do your ever thought it is better to discuss with the community on VP or with other crats in the list prior to make this proposal. I've no doubt in your capabilities; but overconfidence is not a plus point. Even a low level user (like me) can open your eyes with a bug in your point of view, some times. I know you people have much experience in this project than me, may regularly participating in other channels like IRC, etc. But I see you are weak in many arias like "own media contributions", "assessment projects" like FP, etc. In fact, I'm surprised by the first 5 votes fallen just after initiating the proposal. I've to ask a question; but I experienced several "edit conflicts" while trying to ask that question. I see no discussion here; only overwhelming blind support votes. Only later I saw the formal announcement from WMF about the ToU change. So you can't expect an ordinary community member is not aware or prepared to respond to it on the very next day. So it seems you concluded that "you the experienced users will take decisions, ordinary people have no voice; they just need to follow you". Or you think a quick policy is needed to override the immediate effect of the ToU? It is true; but the "Moratorium on enforcement" below is enough for it. We need a slow discussion, considering all pros and cons than such a swift and hurry proposals. Further I failed to see the gentle and wise comments from our legal experts like Clindberg, Asclepias, etc. here. Jee 10:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jee: You seem to be making a lot of assumptions in your comment, and that is, of course, your right — and I hope that you will understand that I have no intention to respond to any of them. Thank you! odder (talk) 10:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Closeapple: you know what, most of the Commons community doesn't give a rats about the issues you bring up. If it helps to sooth obvious sensitivities around your posterior to my minimal involvement in helping to formulate a Commons policy which already a large amount of support since I simplified it a little bit, I am more than happy to ask each of those editors to re-affirm their "vote". If that fails to change your mood, then I'll happily give you something that will help your condition. russavia (talk) 09:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

+

#1 was more aimed at odder (talk · contribs), who has not given me any reason to be suspicious. In point #2 I was trying to emphasize that the rewording, which is already unusual in the middle of a vote, involved a user who has been involved in similar issues in the past. But I guess your reply is good enough that nobody needs any further explanation about point #2 now. Thanks — I think. --Closeapple (talk) 11:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moratorium on enforcement edit

I don't believe, not matter how much support this has, that aboce the discussion should last for anything less than a week. A speedy close would be a bad precedent to set for a major policy change. It is clear, however, that this proposal is going to pass. Therefore I suggest a moratorium on enforcement. In other words, while this RfC is ongoing, we will not investigate or block accounts for violating the disclosure requirement (as if the above proposed change were already in effect). Thoughts?

  •  Support As proposer. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:17, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support  Oppose Not that I think the new TOS should be enforced! What I see in the main poll is support of a level such that it could be quickly closed, as to an immediate effect. The problem is that the TOS regarding paid editing is a change, it is already in effect, and that change explicitly allows us to create a different policy, which, as proposed here, is simply status quo ante. If the main proposal passes, it is a moratorium, until we decide something else. It does not stop us from continuing to consider a policy that is more nuanced. Could Sven's proposal be passed and become policy sooner? I don't see how! (The TOS exception requires a local policy, clearly community accepted.) It is not clear that TOS enforcement will be local. It might be global, through stewards, or through office actions. They need guidance from the Commons community, as to editing on Commons. (The idea that policy cannot be implemented quickly is an error. It can, with clear snow consensus, which is obvious above.) The direction here is not going to reverse. (But if it does, it would be easy to rescind or amend the alternative policy, which will have done little or no harm.) --Abd (talk) 01:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC) Changed to support to not stand in the way of what looks like unanimity so far. --Abd (talk) 15:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Abd: I would argue that this is nothing to do with stewards, this is blocking criteria, not locking criteria, as communities are allowed their decision-making space. Stewards are just global moppers to the community. It would only be stewards if we are talking the escalation to global nuisance (vandalism/lta/...)  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support a week, and that no enforcement activity while the community comes to an agreement (we need a central notice for a policy change) and in case there is some restriction placed in this proposal that a grace period to allow compliance. Such that all active accounts should be compliant with the policy as of 1 July 2014.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support per the nom and billinghurst. There is a central notice running at the moment; see meta:Talk:Terms of use#Retrospective, but it probably should be replaced by a site notice that is more specific to the situation on Commons. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I agree that it should run for a week but not much longer given that there is some pressure due to the installment of the new terms. Even if there is a (so far) a wide majority supporting the proposal, it is always worth to read minority opinions. And if some minimal time frame is given, we have also the time to check if we are perfectly happy with the exact wording of the proposal. As long as this is running here, the amendment of the terms should not be enforced at Commons. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support a moratorium and for the main discussion to run at least a week because it does not make sense to be enforcing the changes whilst we are having a discussion about them. I would prefer a longer stretch of two weeks for the RfC and a more flashing-twirling-spinning notification of this discussion to Commoners so we get a broader slice of opinions, but I suppose I can't have my cake and eat it. Green Giant (talk) 08:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Furthermore, I think any admin trying to enforce the WMF policy right now, on this project, would be mass-trouted. Andy Mabbett (talk) 13:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Per AFBorchert arguments. --PierreSelim (talk) 14:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I can't see any reason to enforce this while there is a discussion going on that, at the moment at least, appears like it will be widely supported. I agree that the discussion above should continue for at least a week though. While I suspect we could snow-close it, I also don't like the precedent that sets. I think its best to just not enforce the new ToU for a week or two while discussion above continues, who knows, maybe someone will come up with a really great point and change all of our minds. With a policy this important, I think its important to give time for that possibility to happen. Zellfaze (talk) 12:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - Perhaps I'm getting my wires crossed, but what you are planning on having a moratorium on is... doing nothing. That's nonsensical. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:28, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, the moratorium is based on the assumption that the change in the ToU by WMF is already in effect and thereby would formally require us to execute it. To stop the latter makes sense, considering the above voiced opinions. --Túrelio (talk) 20:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support using the WMF policy pending a "clean close" successful passage of the main proposal (which is to not require disclosure). A "clean close" in this context means the proposal is open for discussion for several weeks. Disclaimer: I am against the main proposal, but I acknowledge it has strong early support. Davidwr (talk) 04:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC) Striken, I misunderstood the intent of the moratorium and got it completely backwards. Thanks User:Closeapple. Davidwr (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confused by this vote: Are you voting to support the immediate enforcement of the new WMF Terms of Use (and therefore opposing the temporary moratorium), or voting to support the temporary moratorium (and therefore opposing immediate enforcement of the new WMF Terms of Use)? --Closeapple (talk) 08:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Weak support for this temporary exemption, only for behavior that was already permitted on Commons: If someone turns out to be a paid sockpuppet, paid block evader, or otherwise obviously violating existing Commons rules for profit, let the WMF hit them with everything right now. (I would give stronger support if the temporary exemptions were more like (1) file uploads; (2) discussions about the user's own content; (3) users who have already agreed to the rules for Wikipedians-in-Residence, upload liasons with GLAM institutions, or other Wikimedia-approved projects. That would exempt 99% of normal user interaction, as well as the 99%+ of Commons users who have no paid conflict. It wouldn't give relief to people truly paid to influence Commons' consensus: like, say, anyone arguing on this RFC to continue hiding their own corruption.) --Closeapple (talk) 08:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose a formal moratorium during this discussion, as we already have a WMF-imposed policy in effect and we should not formally ask administrators to ignore policy (even if it is imposed from the Foundation) without a full discussion (which usually means a full 30-day discussion period). As a practical consideration, I won't complain if administrators adopt an informal stance of "we have more important things to do than investigate undisclosed paid editing" when it comes to non-egregious, non-high-profile cases. In other words, if a blatant or otherwise high-profile case comes to the attention of an administrator before we adopt a superseding policy, then action should be taken in accordance with the existing policy which the WMF imposed on us earlier this month. If a low-profile, non-blatant case comes around, just prioritize any investigation below your other duties, knowing by the time it gets to the top of the priority list the discussion above will likely be closed, possibly rendering any action required under the WMF-imposed policy moot. Disclaimer: I prefer the WMF policy over the proposal above, but I am open to a proposal that "meets in the middle." However, given the trend, I expect the "our policy is to opt out of the WMF policy without adopting any replacement policy" will have a strong consensus when the discussion above closes after the usual 30-day discussion period. Davidwr (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Quite simply put, it's not our job to do the WMF's job. Enforcement of their as-is-now ToU is up to them, not us. russavia (talk) 23:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the closer edit

Plese keep this requests for comment remain open for at least 30 days per Commons:Requests_for_comment#Ending_a_Request_for_Comment. Jee 10:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

30 days is excessive from my viewpoint, and not supported by a significant consensus. Adding notes to the closer is not intended as a means to by-pass the consensus process. The proposal above was for at least 7 days and there seems little reason for much more than this, considering the overwhelming consensus view that is readily apparent. --Fæ (talk) 10:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly support Jkadavoor's request for a 30-day discussion on both procedural and "it's just the right thing to do" basis: Adopting a new policy is a big deal and is something that should be discussed for well over a week. Any shorter discussion period would be the Commons version of en:WP:Ignore all rules, which should not be done in this case. I was mostly off-Wiki last week and this kind of caught me off guard. It is far better to delay implementation of this "ignore the WMF policy" policy another 3 weeks (with or without a moratorium on enforcing the WMF policy) than to be open to allegations that the policy was ram-rodded through. We already have one possibility for an objection due to the wording being changed, we don't need to add another. Davidwr (talk) 18:21, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The section Jkadavoor points to on keeping an RfC open for 30 days is for an "unresolved" RfC, where consensus is in doubt. Whatever else may be in dispute here, consensus is not in doubt, as Fæ pointed out. The idea that the status quo ante (no Commons requirement for disclosure of paid editing), simply being formally expressed, would have been "ram-rodded" through if this is closed as it shows now, is preposterous. If people want to work on a policy that does require some kinds of disclosure, that would not be prevented by the adoption of the RfC proposal now, and there would be no time pressure.
Davidwr, this is not a "new policy." It is the de facto policy that has existed here until the WMF announced the new Terms of Service. It just wasn't formally stated, but the WMF requires, now, a formal statement. That's all that is happening here, and that is why it's snowing support in June.
And this is not "ignore the WMF.* The new WMF policy, unmodified, could cause immediate harm to Commons, The WMF was quite aware that the new TOS would not suit all the wikis, so they provided for any wiki to create a different policy, stronger or weaker than the TOS. This is following WMF policy. --Abd (talk) 04:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I should perhaps note that my original intention when starting this RfC was for the discussion to remain open for at least 30 days. I have no plan of closing the discussion myself, and certainly not in the coming days. I voiced my intention to the other bureaucrats when informing them about this RfC (on the bureaucrats' mailing list), but if any of them wants to close it sooner than that (for instance because they believe community consensus allows such a closure), then that's fine with me. odder (talk) 15:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Jee 15:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Odder: I am puzzled by your comment. Why does this RFC need to be closed by a bureaucrat? This is not my understanding of how RFCs work, i.e. anyone can close an RFC, nor part of the defined role of bureaucrats. If there is new policy here, I suggest we reflect that in the on-wiki published policies.
Unless you are going to publish the emails, please avoid referencing correspondence on a closed email lists as a form of rationale for how an open and transparent on-wiki discussion should retrospectively be managed. We recently saw this problem with references to unpublish IRC discussions as a justification for admin actions. Off-wiki discussions should be minimized, rather than be the norm when open channels are readily available, such as the bureaucrats noticeboard. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is just a "common practice" we are following, as in the last one we closed on last Saturday. It is good to avoid COI and WP:INVOLVED arguments as people with higher rights in a projects are more trusted as being neutral and capable to behave without emotional interests. If the case is more complicated (not talking about this case), a bench of crats is more preferred. Jee 16:12, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Commons has a long history of avoiding cliques, even when grown by accident. Anyone should be welcome to close and summarize the conclusion of this RFC, so long as they are uninvolved. This is an RFC with an overwhelming consensus, and is not dependent on confidential information. Limiting the closure to someone with access to closed channels is unnecessary and not an established Commons "common practice". As for behaving without emotional interest, bureaucrats are not elected based on evidence of their lack of emotional interest, indeed I would hope that Commons has a diversity of bureaucrats, some with the benefit of emotional interests and the ability to express them. --Fæ (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then please rewrite the "Community role" and "Mailing list" at Commons:Bureaucrats. :)
We have lot of experience on "pretended to be uninvolved" users jump in and made controversial closes.Jee 17:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The bureaucrats policy you link to does not mention a lack of emotional interest in the issues of this project. Bureaucrats are not literally superhuman, nor do they need to be nothing more than dull grey lawyers. The policy does mention that bureaucrats should be seen to not impose their will on significant discussions such as this, in that regard I see no need to spend my time rewriting this policy, it nicely supports my viewpoint. Please do not confuse how some recent discussions have functioned, with how Commons norms have evolved over many years. Anyway this is getting tangential, my question was marked as being for odder and odderis best placed to explain his words. --Fæ (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question Who is responsible for enforcing the terms of use? The page wmf:Terms of Use is a contract between the contributors and the WMF. On the other hand, COM:BLOCK lists situations where a contributor's behaviour towards the Commons community is unacceptable. This would suggest that wmf:Terms of Use instead lists situations where the Foundation may choose to block or lock an account under an office action. If the idea is that COM:BLOCK and wmf:Terms of Use are two separate documents, one enforced by the community and the other one enforced by the Foundation, then the question on a moratorium is up to the Foundation to decide about. On the other hand, if wmf:Terms of Use is a document which only governs office actions, then it seems strange that communities can have influence on its requirements by creating a local policy on paid contributions. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Stefan4 is correct about TOS enforcement. I originally opposed the moratorium quite on this basis, but withdrew that because a moratorium is harmless at worst. As to strange, it would be strange indeed if we were doing this and the TOS didn't mention exceptions! But it does.
m:Terms_of_service#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities
A Wikimedia Project community may adopt an alternative paid contribution disclosure policy. If a Project adopts an alternative disclosure policy, you may comply with that policy instead of the requirements in this section when contributing to that Project. An alternative paid contribution policy will only supersede these requirements if it is approved by the relevant Project community and listed in the m:Alternative paid contribution disclosure policies page.
I think this has been mentioned previously in this discussion, but it can be easy to overlook. --Abd (talk) 01:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the terms of use also state that "We do not take an editorial role". Therefore, I would expect the terms of use to only contain regal requirements, and stuff like that. For example, the DMCA takedown procedure says that the Foundation is required to block accounts of editors who repeatedly upload content which is deleted in takedown requests. If a community can change the meaning of the terms of use at will, then it seems that the Foundation indeed does take an editorial role. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone, close please edit

Why is this still open? Anyone can close an RfC, the consensus is super-clear and we've already spent one week over it. 30 days wait would be needed only if the RfC was stale, per policy, and it obviously was not. The ToU change gave people exactly 0 seconds advance warning, IIRC; 8 days is infinitely more. --Nemo 14:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is closed, and will be archived soon.
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Requests_for_comment/Alternative_paid_contribution_disclosure_policy&oldid=127422367"