Talk:Chen Arieli

UPE tag
Hi. Can we have a discussion on this? here and I did a lot of work on this article since the original issues, which is why I removed the tag. Do you have particular remaining concerns? Neither of us is connected to the topic and are both relatively longstanding editors. Thanks! Star  Mississippi  15:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , hi there. I'm coming from the position of detesting UPE, or even Paid editing. I didn't see that you had removed the tag (missed that, my apologies - I saw your edit summary and didn't take the time to see what the edit actually did), and I saw that it went through AfC, and you and Politanvm did quite a bit of work on it. My issue is that I feel that UPE should never be rewarded or encouraged. There is still a bit of the article remaining from the original involved editor, including the pic.  I feel that it should remain, but you are a very fine editor, and if you feel that it is no longer pertinent, I surely won't argue with you about it.  Onel 5969  TT me 15:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. That makes total sense . I think I had a different understanding of the UPE tag, in that it reflected tone/content still to be cleaned up, not that it was something to reflect the early history. So that's why in my mind the it may require cleanup element was addressed and tag could go. I'm not sure how to solve the photo issue unless someone who happens to be involved with WIR/LGBT/Israel projects and is able to get a photo of Arieli that meets our photo requirements. Would you recommend removing the existing one until that happens? I have no issue with that. I think the broader AFC issue (which touched on was similar to the UPE one you raised: this article had a rough start, but is now in better shape. UPE is frustrating, but sometimes it does bring articles on topics for notable people who (and this is purely opinion, not policy) are notable and we should write about. Probably the broader question (similar to sock G5 deletions) is how we navigate needing the content but not rewarding bad faith editing.  Star   Mississippi  15:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I see your point as well. And I trust your judgement if you feel the tag is no longer warranted, if you do, I would suggest removing the pic. I hope for the sake of the essence of WP, at some point all paid editing is prohibited. But not sure that will ever happen. I've been approached a dozen or so times to write articles, and have been offered payment. I usually direct them to the Requested articles for creation page. I did write one at the request of a COI editor, Trevor Haworth, but that was because he interested me. They also offered payment, but I suggested they make a donation to the foundation. The COI editor, his son Anthony, supplied the pics for the article. I had no problem with that, since he totally stayed away from the article creation, and hasn't edited since it was created.  Onel 5969  TT me 16:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I’d suggest keeping the image. Releasing a high(ish) quality image with a compatible license is probably one of the most valuable contributions a CoI editor could make. Usually we have to actually ask nicely for an image to be released under a CC license. In this case, I think the improvement of having an image justifies the slight reward for the CoI editor.
 * For the tag, I support removal. My heuristic is “if I read this article with fresh eyes, would I think a CoI editor wrote it?” And at this point, I’d say it reads reasonably well. POLITANVM talk 17:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


 * am fine if you restore the image. I can see your case for it. Part of why I removed it besides this thread is the alignment issues that I couldn't solve (same too with the infobox). I've definitely worked on some articles where I was familiar enough with the subject to know we could improve our article, but distant enough that the only COI was "I've been inside the building in its current iteration" or similar. I think UPE frustrates us because if we had money we could all improve articles (for example, paywalled articles), but for most of us, this is just fun and the battle against blatant COI/UPE wears us down.  Star   Mississippi  17:56, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I’m lost. What is UPE? And I was getting so dam frustrated because one editor would say something about reputable sources. So a lot of work went in to getting sources from places like the Times of Israel and Haaretz. Resubmitted and then a different editor gave a different reason for not approving it. The one even a week or so ago was ready to delete the article. It was a moving target of reasons and I really couldn’t figure out what to do with the article that hadn’t already been done. BostonMensa (talk) 20:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * the first editor (long before any of us found the draft) may have created this article for pay without disclosure, hence s/he is an Undeclared Paid Editor. and I saw the usage of the tag differently, but that's been resolved. Basically you and I seemed to feel same-the article had issues, which have been addressed so assess it as is v. as it was.  Star   Mississippi  02:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , Just so we're clear, I'm fine with whatever you and decide.  Onel 5969  TT me 02:48, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's what I assumed, and thank you! Star   Mississippi  13:12, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I’m removing the template. As written, it indicates that the article “may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view.” The issues of neutrality have been addressed and if anyone is concerned about an undisclosed paid editor, they can take it up one to one with that editor. BostonMensa (talk) 16:49, 29 July 2021 (UTC)