Talk:St. Xavier's Higher Secondary School, Thoothukudi

COI Tag
has placed the COI tag on this page. Both myself and removed, but  has added it again. I've removed it a second time and am opening this discussion to try to reach consensus over the long term solution.

I feel that COI is inappropriate for two independent reasons.

First, I feel that the article creator,, does not automatically have a conflict of interest becuase he is a retired Jesuit priest and this is a Jesuit institution. I feel that the Catholic Church is such a broad and diverse organization that employment with one branch does not automatically create a COI with a different branch. I feel that Jzsj's situation is more akin to a civil servant editing articles about an otherwise unrelated government agency

Secondly, I feel that the article has changes significantly since Jzsj's last edits. As pointed out, over 15 editors have contributed since then and Jzsj's verbiage is almost completely gone. There may be a COI question related to the retention of the article given the affiliation, but I feel that any such question has been rendered void by the consensus reached to retain the article at the recent AFD.

I will be posting a notice at WP:COIN to invite more editors to contribute to this discussion. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 22:18, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * As you can see in his list of articles started he (nearly??) always creates articles about jesuit-related subjects. When you challenge an article, he nearly always comes up with jesuit-related sources. In the first version of his userpage he clearly states that he started editing on the request of a bishop. The Banner talk 22:41, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , Jzsj is currently topic-banned from this subject material, and in addition the version they wrote has been almost entirely replaced since 2016. Even if they did start it, and even if there was a COI, it's a moot point at this stage in the game. There is no need for the COI tag. Primefac (talk) 22:59, 11 August 2018 (UTC) I just realized that most of my arguments were listed above, and I somehow managed to miss them... but I guess that means they're valid arguments. Primefac (talk) 23:15, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That topic ban is not from here to eternity. So sooner or later he is allowed to edit again what can be problematic. The Banner talk 04:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC) Topic banned? Why is he than editing here?
 * Yes, and at that point we can revisit the issue. Primefac (talk) 04:34, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


 * This discussion belongs at WP:COIN, along with the long list of agenda-produced articles on Jesuit subjects, sourced by Jesuit and Catholic publications. As all editors say above, there was a COI issue in this article that is resolved. However the ongoing agenda-based COI editing, to promote and advertise Jesuit articles, is alive and well in hundreds of other articles created by the editor.96.127.243.251 (talk) 23:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What you insist on judging to be conflict of interest is actually poor sourcing, using the only sources I found on Google search at the time. The solution is to find better sources if they can be dug up, as happened here after much effort. As I've repeatedly explained, this issue of sourcing just arose in January 2018 and I would blame those who reviewed the articles without placing a sourcing tag if the sourcing was unacceptable. Try to understand that because of the lack of tagging, not because of any COI, I continued sourcing as was being accepted by reviewers at the time. If you had appeared in the first 30 months of my initiating articles I'm sure the articles would have been different. Note though that on my talk page at least one administrator had some praise for my work during that period. Jzsj (talk) 02:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You have been warned about COI, sourcing and notability literally for years. Here is Jimfbleak warning you in April 2016 about using poor sources, your COI, and creating a promotional article. It only took me five minutes to find that.96.127.243.251 (talk) 03:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Quite interesting that you are now editing here, Jzsj, as this is in breach of your topic ban... The Banner talk 04:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Both and I felt that it was acceptable in this instance. If you wish to raise the issue higher, you are welcome to take it to WP:AN. Primefac (talk) 04:34, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the general discussion about Jzsj's and Jesuit related articles belongs at WP:COIN, but the I think the discussion about COI should remain here because of the significant changes since Jzsj's last edit. I would not be opposed to both discussions occurring at the same time. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 23:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * :: The last edit made by Jzsj appears to be 20 January 2017 after that over 15 editors have edited it.Further the article is just about a stub.See no need for tag.Further 4 of the references added me . International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Modern Education,Government of Tamil Nadu Commissioner of Archives and Historical Research,South India Teachers's Union ,The Hindu and Shodhganga are clearly not connected with the subject hence even the may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject is not required   Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:16, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Whether the editor in question has a COI in general on Jesuit topics or not, I see no need of a COI tag on this article just because the editor created it. He has not edited it in more than one and one-half years and the article has since been extensively edited by others. There is no justification for a COI tag. Meters (talk) 02:36, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I shall refrain from readding the COI-tag. But I have no doubt that soon enough there will be trouble again due to the COI of JZsj. That some people prefer to ignore it, is sad. The Banner talk 14:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * In fact, this is another case of the behaviour "if I close my eyes for it, it will not happen." The Banner talk 08:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a discussion of whether the COI tag is justified on this article. It seems that it is not. If you want to discuss any general COI issues relating to the editor in question then open a discussion at COIN.  Otherwise WP:DROPTHESTICK. Meters (talk) 09:03, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * In agreement, don't assume but wait until it happens. I've written repeatedly in the past month responding to your deletes with the truth that I was misled by those who reviewed articles usually without tags and more so without questioning their notability. If you find me acting against my newfound understanding of how notability will be interpreted, make your charges then, not now in what may be a rash judgment, certainly against the evidence of my current behavior in accord with my newfound understanding of how consensus works.  Jzsj (talk) 12:11, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Catholic Commons, as an example. And the way you keep defending your articles with social media, own websites, clearly related Jesuit-websites etc. etc. The Banner <i style="color:maroon">talk</i> 12:21, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The fact that I see some of these sources useable for some purposes in Wikipedia referencing and you don't, doesn't prove that I have a conflict of interest and you don't have a conflict of interest. Jzsj (talk) 12:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Any discussion beyond this particular article belongs on WP:COIN — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 15:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)