User talk:Pdxrose24

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Reneforportland. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Rene Gonzalez (politician), you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 01:37, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Understood and have added some comments under "campaign feedback" thread. Let us know what questions you have an happy to provide materials. Reneforportland (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

Your account has been blocked indefinitely because your username is a clear violation of Wikipedia's username policy – it is obviously offensive, profane, violent, threatening, sexually explicit, disruptive, attacks or impersonates another person, or suggests that you do not intend to contribute positively to Wikipedia. Please see our blocking and username policies for more information.

We invite everyone to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, but users are not allowed to edit with accounts that have inappropriate usernames, and we do not tolerate 'bad faith' editing such as trolling or other disruptive behavior. If you believe that this block was incorrect or made in error, or would otherwise like to explain why you should be unblocked, you are welcome to appeal this block – read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the following text to the bottom of your user talk page: {{unblock-un|new username|your reason here ~~~~}} UtherSRG (talk) 01:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact you admitted that this account was shared was itself enough to justify a block. Wikipedia accounts can never be shared for any reason. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Pdxrose24 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

reneforportland2022 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

not a shared or paid account

Decline reason:

The chosen new username is no better than the current username UtherSRG (talk) 13:23, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. This account was originally setup with the EXPECTATION it would be a shared one (as the 2022 election was wrapping up), not realizing shared accounts were prohibited. The goal at that time was to get accurate information on the story of the 2022 election (There was and still some real unfairness in the way the wikipedia page describes that election).

In reality this account is associated with a single person and email account not shared with any other person (and always has been).

How do you recommend I proceed? The sole intent of this account would to make requested changes as appropriate to update about Rene Gonzalez the person and election history with appropriate COI disclosures. If there is another way to do so please let me know.

Also note - a separate person working at the City of Portland is a registered user and has made requested changes. Separate person, separate email, separate account. Frankly separate voice.

There seems to be some confusion among admins on this point:

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Rene_Gonzalez_(politician) and here https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Rene_Gonzalez_(politician). This has arisen based on an Oregonian article, which the author has since corrected, about city office retaining outside help to train staff on how to submit suggested changes to page and comply with acceptable COI rules. There is a separate user who has disclosed their COI (see discussion of paid there), but this one is NOT paid. Reneforportland (talk) 12:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

adding a number was specifically mentioned as a solution to deemed promotional accounts: “widgetfan”to “widgetfan97”. Reneforportland (talk) 13:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

need help resolving a couple of related items:

1. Decision to Block - This account is not shared. It was intended to be when setup (was new to Wikipedia and did not realize prohibited), but in fact has only ever been associated with one person, one email address, and neither have been shared.

2. I have submitted a requested name change in order to make the name clearer it is not shared.

3. A COI exists (attempted to be disclosed above in 2022) but it is not paid. There seems to be a great deal of confusion on this here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Rene_Gonzalez_(politician) and here https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Rene_Gonzalez_(politician). This has arisen based on an Oregonian article, which the author has since corrected, about city office retaining outside help to train staff on how to submit suggested changes to page and comply with acceptable COI rules. There is a separate user who has disclosed their COI (see discussion of paid there), but this one is NOT paid. Reneforportland (talk) 02:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an administrator, but I can assist you with these queries.

1. You need to complete a request to unblock and put the information you have given above in that request; instructions are in the block notice above.

2. I'm not sure what you've completed, but it's often easier to place a username change request here on your talk page - that is also covered in the block notice above.

3. Even if you are not being paid, you do need to declare a conflict of interest. The easiest way to do this is to put {{UserboxCOI|1=Wikipedia article name}} on your user page, substituting the article name.

It should be possible for you to do all of these things while you are blocked, so that when an administrator comes along to look at your unblock request everything will already be in place for them. Good luck and, I hope, happy editing very soon! StartGrammarTime (talk) 08:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) What exactly is your relationship with Rene Gonzalez? It's still unclear. If you are a staff member and he is your boss, then you are a paid editor - regardless of whether you are being paid specifically to edit Wikipedia. Your employment by itself would be considered compensation sufficient to require disclosure.

If you are a completely unpaid volunteer, then you would not be considered a paid editor, but the usual COI regulations would apply. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 13:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not paid directly or indirectly to edit or request edits.

Unfortunately, the Oregonian article has simultaneously created confusion and attracted a bunch of trolls to the page. The Oregonian article has since been corrected but still much cleaning up to do (I am far from an expert but not understand how whole sections of the page comply with rules for bios on a living person). Reneforportland (talk) 13:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Pdxrose24 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

rosepdx24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

not shared or paid account

Decline reason:

I'm satisfied you are the only one operating this account, and your choice of new username is fine. But you need to read WP:COI and tell us what will change about your editing, as well as any other topics you might edit about as a general contributor. 331dot (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have reviewed WP:COI a number of times and have not edited or submitted a requested edit in 20 months (at which time disclosed COI).

What do mean by "tell us what will change about your editing"?

This account was blocked without warning 20 months after submitting on talk (not editing directly) with a good-faith attempt at disclosing COI. Since then, have made good-faith attempts to explain situation while attempting to get account unblocked. In the meantime, a biography of a living person has been attacked by trolls and a number of aspects of the bio do not meet Wikipedia standards . . . feeling like tremendous double standard being applied here.

If there is another way to provide facts about the bio and prevent trolls from taking over the bio, please let me know. But I am at a loss. Reneforportland (talk) 17:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moved your unblock request to the bottom of the page. New postings should be placed at the bottom to preserve the chronological order of discussions. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drm310 Even volunteer work can be considered "paid editing", usually when the work is put on a resume; the compensation is the experience. 331dot (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Work on campaign not listed on resume. Reneforportland (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So your connection is that you work on his campaign? 331dot (talk) 09:26, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how much more can be said and preserve some level anonymity: there is a finite number of folks who work on campaign much less do so unpaid.

Happy to disclose conflict when proposing edits. Reneforportland (talk) 14:41, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need your name and contact information, or even your specific role, but you must disclose if you work on his campaign(paid or unpaid) 331dot (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have not answered the question, what is the exact nature of your relationship with Councilor Gonzales? 331dot (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UtherSRG Was your only concern here the username? I guess I was confused and thought it was a UPE block. 331dot (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Name and COI, yes. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

trying

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Pdxrose24 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

pdxrose24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

Not shared or paid just trying to navigate this perplexing situation.Reneforportland (talk) 16:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Per the below extensive discussion, I am not satisfied that you will meet the requirements spelled out by the Terms of Use relating to conflicts of interests disclosure, as per 331dot's 18:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC) comment. Daniel (talk) 10:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've proposed a different choice of new username here than above, which do you want? I can carry out the rename once I know. 331dot (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

pdxrose24 is great - thank you!

is there a way to update the disclosure on the rene gonzalez (politician) talk as well? Reneforportland (talk) 19:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the disclosure on the talk page for you. 331dot, am I correct in thinking that the talk/contribs associated with this editor will update automatically when the username changes, and so there's no reason to link specifically Renefromportland's talk/contribs page because they'll go to the same place as pdxrose24? If I'm wrong, I'm happy to fix that - just don't want to make the notice wieldy with unnecessary info. StartGrammarTime (talk) 04:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the contribution history will update to the new name(though actual posts containing the username, like talk page posts with signatures, will not). 331dot (talk) 08:17, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you Reneforportland (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-admin). I object to the unblock of this account still given vagueness in COI disclosure, because it already has a history of having been shared by multiple users, so this would be a transfer of ownership and usurping someone else's account so a new user can appear to be an established editor which is not allowed. I think they should be required to start with a NEW account. Special:Diff/1122770017 Hi there, this is a shared account from commissioner-elect Rene Gonzalez to provide feedback until his communications team takes over (late 2022 or 2023)..<- evidence of shared use. So, the associated edit history already present on this account can not be tied to a specific individual, which seems like retiring this account permanently is a good idea. Graywalls (talk) 05:20, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot:, Is account transfer to someone else even allowed? i.e. of someone created an account The Smith Company that was used by multiple people and used for years, then realized they can't use it, it shouldn't be allowed to be taken over by anyone, right??? Graywalls (talk) 05:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user stated above "Hi there. This account was originally setup with the EXPECTATION it would be a shared one (as the 2022 election was wrapping up), not realizing shared accounts were prohibited." And if this account is renamed, it will be renamed to a specific name for a specific person. 331dot (talk) 08:16, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hmm ok. @Reneforportland:, is the person who requested the unblock the person who created the account, and the only one who ever edits from it? The CITY OF PORTLAND will not be given password to it, ever, correct? Graywalls (talk) 12:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The other thing we could do is that, if the other concerns are resolved sufficiently, we could soften this block to permit account creation so this individual could create their own account themselves. It just doesn't seem necessary to me, but we can do that. 331dot (talk) 12:44, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would made sense actually. It sets the line straight and sets a precedent (of a sort... I know it's not formally binding or anything) discouraging people from converting shared accounts (that have already bee used by multiple people) into a personal account. How I see it is that if there's even a single edit made from that account that was not by the same person requesting the unblock, then the account is "compromised" and should be condemned as such. Graywalls (talk) 14:33, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence do you have that this account has been shared that contradicts the claim of the operator? 331dot (talk) 23:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of your comment above, are you asserting that this user's claim it hasn't been shared is incorrect? 331dot (talk) 23:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the talk - the account has never in fact been shared despite the original intent to be a shared account.

They amount I have been through the ringer here despite attempting to comply with coi rules is remarkable while trolls continue to vandalize a bio and violate a number of standards applicable to bios of a living person. Reneforportland (talk) 22:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is currently protected from editing by unregistered users or new accounts. 331dot (talk) 23:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, the person who created this account is the only person who has ever used this account since the time it was created on 18 November 2022? Is that the only person who will ever have the login credential? If the answer is yes to both of these, then I retract my objection. Graywalls (talk) 06:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yes and yes Reneforportland (talk) 17:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, what exactly is the nature of your relationship with the Commissioner Gonzalez? You stated Not paid directly or indirectly to edit or request edits. School principles aren't paid to "talk to students and their parents", but they're still paid to do so, because that is still a broader extension of their scope of work even if there's no itemized invoice. Is what you're doing a broader extension of "work related activity" ? Graywalls (talk) 18:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All due respect - none of your business. Wikipedia affords some level anonymity and if you had read the talk here you would see what questions have been asked and answered.

While you get all high and mighty why don’t you apply the same level of questions to trolls editing living bio. Because the double standard applied is rank. Reneforportland (talk) 18:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beware of making personal attacks. I understand that this is frustrating, but we have policies for a reason. Again, if you are unable to comply with the Terms of Use, you are not permitted to edit.

Again, the article is currently protected from editing from IP users and new accounts, so no "trolls" are editing it. 331dot (talk) 18:30, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While the steps are appreciated they have proven insufficient to assure the article meets Wikipedia’s standards for living bio.

Frankly from the very early days of that article it has had a slant - still has up a 2022 tabloid coverage if a social like without giving any context to the like.

. . . and the response from the wikipedia community to Oregonian article has actually made the article more slanted, not less so.

I have been pretty patient working through a block made without warning - 3 attempts working through multiple admins with evolving justification. This started as a block over the name and purported share status (fully recognizing I created the confusion in 2022 when account was setup).

Then it was COI-based (didn’t make sense, the account has long had a COI disclosure).

Then it was answer 2 questions in affirmative - which I have done.

. . . and now new justification.

This looks more a part of the community really wants to make an example out of those with COIs, even if disclosed (and other parts of community recognize COI should not be a value judgement and those with them can contribute positively with guardrails in place). Reneforportland (talk) 23:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the general information about your relationship with Commissioner Gonzalez is our business, though your identity is not. The Terms of Use require you to disclose if you are editing as part of your job, whether you were specifically asked to or not. I understand that you may fear disclosing that may reveal your identity even if your name and specific role is not posted here(posting your identity against your will would violate policy), but if you are unable to comply with the Terms of Use, you are not permitted to edit. 331dot (talk) 18:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC) Add, restoring this comment that was lost 331dot (talk) 18:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC))[reply]

holy moving goal posts batman Reneforportland (talk) 23:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've renamed you. No one's moved the goalposts here except you. You can be unblocked if you're willing to comply with the Terms of Use; you've thus far indicated you don't wish to do that. This will be up to another admin to review, in any event. 331dot (talk) 23:58, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

referring to graywall - he literally changed reason for objecting to removing block in edit to his comment. Pdxrose24 (talk) 00:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(non-admin comment) Actually, you created a new reason in this discussion through your refusal to make the required disclosure. Graywalls (talk) 11:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you: if a and b are true, I retract my objection to unblock

me: a and b are true

you: what about c

That is literally moving the goal posts and has been the story on this talk since the Oregonian article (when account was blocked without warning almost 20 months after last edit requests). In the end, It looks liked some editors/admins wanted to make an example and they have done so - at this point I am out.

Having said all of that I appreciate some of the changes you made on the article. I recognize some folks in the community are trying to adhere to your Wikipedia standards, even if I disagree as to whether it is being done on this talk.

edit away Pdxrose24 (talk) 13:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an issue that Graywalls brought up. That's been an issue this entire time; you've resisted making the Terms of Use required disclosure. You literally are not permitted to edit here until you do that. That's the only thing left to resolve. You can wait to see if another admin disagrees with me- but I don't think they will. I understand your concerns- but you should have considered that before you began editing. I stress that it would be a violation of policy to post your identity here against your will. 331dot (talk) 13:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the dialogue, but I am likely done here.

Just some quick clarification:

1. You keep say "editing". My last activity 20 months ago were suggested revisions in an attempt to comply with COI rules. When you say editing is that the same thing as suggesting revisions?

2. I was blocked because of perception (caused by me) of shared account. I have tried to remedy that while also complying with COI disclosure requirements - some admins/editors felt I have satisfied the requirements, some do not. But the editorial here is that some of you are giving a much harder time to folks who attempt to comply with the COI rules than vandals/trolls on that article. Some of the dynamic existed before the Oregonian article, but it has certainly become worse since then. Pdxrose24 (talk) 16:33, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to withdraw your request, that's your option.

Yes, "editing" refers to any change to any page on Wikipedia.

Yes, it is harder for those with a COI to contribute, this is due to efforts to maintain the appearance of neutrality. 331dot (talk) 17:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]