[04:04:24] Drewmutt, hello! [04:12:50] StormyWaves: Hi there! [04:13:09] Drewmutt, how's things going? Anything fun this week? [04:15:32] StormyWaves: Meh, not really. Which is good and bad :P [04:20:10] Drewmutt, so random question because I think I haven't asked this before. But would you ever support deletion even if the subject was notable, but deletion was needed because of ToU violations? [04:20:29] I was thinking about this earlier and I wondered what your thoughts were. [04:23:41] StormyWaves: It's a good question. Usually ToU vios translate to CSDs, no? Is this a specific case? [04:27:30] Yes, it's a current AfD: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MySupermarket_(3rd_nomination) . Not only were the edits clearly undisclosed company COI but at least one of the votes at the previous AfD was an undisclosed employee (the IP voter). [04:27:31] [WIKIPEDIA] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MySupermarket (3rd nomination) | "..." [04:28:51] In this case also, someone offered their own improvements at a sandbox but they actually seem equally promotional or worse. [04:33:39] * Drewmutt (in case you prefer a ping to quickly notify you :) , I know someone like to be pinged on each message). [04:42:42] Lookin.. [04:55:51] Meh.. I know people have views on this.. [04:56:12] But, personally, I "try" to keep a clear distinction between editors and their content. [04:56:51] The whole "delete because a paid editor made it" doesn't carry a lot of weight for me. [04:57:46] Well, I definitely think the fact a Keep at the last AfD having undisclosed COI definitely shows a red flag. [04:58:09] Sure, but a red flag of what? [04:59:29] I know it's not popular, but if a paid editor can write a NPOV article, let 'em. [04:59:35] That the company knows about the undisclosed editing but thinks the article will be accepted. At best, a sign a user offered an equally promotional version with equally similar PR sources, suggests a good improvable may not be possible to do. [05:02:02] But, to me, AfD isn't the place for those kinda issues. I mean, I'm not saying it's nothing, but deal with the users and content seperately, imo. [05:02:13] I know someone who I spoke with offered a view that convinced me and that was: If a paid editor can make a promotional page and they were paid for it, and then a volunteer editor can make an article for free but can only manage to find the same information found anywhere online, it shows no one, even a volunteer, can make an article completely separated from he company's own preferred choice, [05:03:06] Well, as the history shows, there were also multiple COI users including 1 company account. This is also why I believed the company likely knew about it especially it's such a strong presence. [05:05:14] Oh totally agree. Reference-wise it feels like a leaner. [05:05:53] Like, I wouldn't be surprised if it's closed no consenus 50/50. [05:08:31] Got disconnected. [05:10:26] Drewmutt, one thing I also thought of when you said "If a paid editor can write a NPOV article", but they didn't comply with the disclosure policy. And given the history, there were likely several undisclosed paid. [05:11:19] Oh yes, if they didn't disclose, they're buh bye, legally. [05:11:52] But would you agree that an article with that extensive undisclosed editing would qualify for deletion? [05:12:32] Not by that reason alone. Heh, I know opinions are all over the place on this :) [05:12:35] After all, the ToU said we can enforce this as an encyclopedia. [05:12:50] Yep, so we kick 'em. [05:13:16] But it's a bit much, imo, to (and using this loosely) "deprive" Wikipedia of an article as punishment. [05:14:07] I remember there was actually recently a proposal about deleting paid articles but even a few people opposed because of the lesser severe cases. But, I especially thought given the extent here, the company definitely did not have good faith intentions. [05:14:36] *deleting undisclosed paid articles [05:15:37] Oh sure, and the parties should all be kicked as a result. But one could argue, (if a subject is notable) it would of been written by a neutral party anyway (eventually.. maybe). [05:16:16] Heh, and btw, I might not be best person to ask, since I'm on the liberal side of paid / coi. [05:17:25] StormyWaves_: Oh, and only because it's relevant, I'm currently proposing a redesign of the article wizard in a (perhaps) feeble attempt at combatting these things. [05:17:30] Would you agree to some degree though this sets a bad example for people to basically accept their undisclosed paid article, because they think it will be accepted because of an exception? [05:17:30] Or at least driving them to disclose. [05:18:13] Eventually, if so, they would catch on that that the advert would be accepted, which is what they and the company want. [05:18:45] Well, FWIW, the people behind the MS article are either long gone or blocked. [05:19:02] I don't disagree with that. But it's not really an "exception", and imho, I don't think we make it terribly easy to know that you have to disclose. [05:19:41] The disclosure rate is pretty good for the folks coming into -help, they just legit didn't know about it. [05:19:57] Well, in MS's case, they edited it even after the last AfD which made it clear the disclosure process. [05:20:01] Granted, that's not a good sample of all the paid / coi folks. [05:20:20] Yeah, then there's no excusing that. [05:21:00] Not that it's the case here, but I think generally, we're a bit ABF with the paid/coi folks. [05:21:05] Not that it's not deserved. [05:22:57] As far as it being a bad example.. hmm. [05:23:28] I get the motivation there. But it says more about us than them if we let in adverts. [05:25:51] "but it says more about us than then if we let in adverts" You mean the undisclosed ones? [05:26:36] For example, I know we've automatically supported and have deleted articles by the sockfarms and all those. This wouldn't be any different, I believe. [05:28:44] Pains me to say it, but if the sockfarms are generating good content and they're disclosing, let 'em do it. [05:29:09] Well, actually I can't think of one article that we kept from sockfarms since all of them were clearcut G11 or A7. [05:29:20] Well, actually I can't think of one article that we kept from sockfarms since all of them were clearcut G11 or A7. [05:29:34] I remember we actually deleted some education subject articles recently since they applied given the promotionalism involved. [05:30:02] Since they were educational, I personally voted to keep them but it was deleted by someone being bold, in the end. [05:31:20] Yeah, I mean G11 A7 should apply with really no regard into who sumbitted it, imo. [05:31:44] I know there are some editors who'd punch me for saying that :P [05:32:20] For example of mass undisclosed paid, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nextiva_(3rd_nomination) [05:32:21] [WIKIPEDIA] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nextiva (3rd nomination) | "..." [05:33:35] Then also https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&page=Draft%3ANextiva for the Draft [05:34:09] So it's obvious that Nextiva isn't good faith making an article if they can't understand each deletion as it is happens. [05:34:42] Wow. [05:34:47] One sec, hopping on mobile. [05:34:48] Especially when each of these are happening back to back. Hardly good faith if it 's all for their own PR gain. [05:35:29] I know I'm a self-confessed deletionist but it's not without a reason, given these pages in the past. [05:41:42] In Nextiva's case, the article has come back again so that's why I've actually tried so hard with the MS article. [05:42:57] I actually have to go now, but I'll be back tomorrow if you have any thoughts on any of this. See you. [17:38:07] Drewmutt, hello!