Employees of CMS Minds could use some training assistance

I don't think README MR's should be categorized as gaming the system by default. Feel free to participate in the discussion in 🌱 Categorize contributions that could be considered 'gaming the credit system' and propose solutions (policy, automation, etc) Active .

I think it's important to discern between spammy, Drupal 7, no users, README MR's, and a clear improvement, for example by adding a README.md to a popular project without a README, in the first place.

I don't think README MR's should be categorized

@ressa but this issue is about the different question: a company which farms credit which also includes readme among all other tactics. This is not acceptable behavior.

Or more sophisticated negative contributions which wastes everyone's time like this 🐛 Improve explorer styling Needs work .

@smustgrave

We'll take care of it next time.

Thank you!!

Yes, you're probably right @mindaugasd ... I saw README mentioned in the Issue Summary which triggered me. I should have checked more thoroughly before posting.

I agree that negative contributions are wasting everyone's time, like the one you link to. They should be flagged and the offender called out, absolutely. Always.

The problem arises when great contributions are being flagged as credit gaming, merely for being a README MR. As an example, see #3343722: Clean up documentation → . A great contribution, perfectly executed, and a clear improvement. But it was rejected, and on top of that, the creator called out as being a credit gamer:

@gajendra_sharma thank you but I don't accept tickets like these for projects I manage as this is viewed as a credit farming technique and doesn't bring value to the project. If you wish to get involved please work on actual issues.
Linking this because I know employees of the company have been warning before #3339883: Employees of Dotsquares are posting mass re-roll patches which are invalid and/or incomplete →

The MR looks great, and reads better in my opinion:

• README original
• README markdown

Please also see the discussion I linked to. Anyways, sorry that I hi-jacked this issue.

On the one hand, companies who contributed to Drupal should be recognized in the listing, on the other hand, credit farmers sophistication grows, which means it may be better for Drupal to remove those advantages companies gain with credits and solve this problem.

Previous example I gave yesterday I was familiar with, but today I am wasting time trying to figure out what same people are changing here (1 line change) 🐛 Unable to install modules: module 'search_api_ai_simple_chatbot' is missing its dependency module jquery_once Needs review

They removing a dependency saying it causes error. But there would be no error, if they would install it with composer. Kinda inventing an error which does not exist. But maybe that dependency is really not used. It is fine line here, but what is their underlying motivation - a credit or help and improve Drupal?

Similar to your example about documentation 📌 Minor code documentation fixes Fixed - did it actually improved Drupal or wasted time?
I am sure there is 100 of places like this in my modules where few lines could be changed like this, but it is worthless to change them.

I have posted an official first warning per the Contribution Credit policy to all the users recently involved in the issues linked above, as well as the CMSWeb leadership as best as I could find their contact information.