User talk:Ocaasi

Click here to leave me a message...

Leave me a message, ask me a question, share your thoughts, or concerns, leave me some WikiLove...

I am a new administrator. If you think I messed something up, please let me know where and how!

• It is 5:09 AM where this user lives in the United States

Highbeam

Hello Ocaasi. I was notified on my talk page that I had been approved for a Highbeam account and a Credo account. I received the Credo email with instructions and have been using it, but I never received an e-mail from Highbeam. Is there any way to get this taken care of? Thanks. Strebe (talk) 04:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I resent your code. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• I saw on someone else's talk page that someone had been granted a one year test subscription to highbeam. That note implied that this would allow them to see the whole text of those articles, for that year. Can you tell me what one has to do to qualify for one of these one year test subscriptions? Geo Swan (talk) 11:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • One year, and 1000 edits? I am 8+ years, and 70,000 edits. Will that do? Geo Swan (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Idea

So here's the idea I had. It's very rough, and I know a thousand holes could be shot in it, but I wonder whether it could be made to work. It seems to me that we would have a win-win situation if we could iron out the wrinkles. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, this is a bold and novel idea. It's indeed a rough sketch but I want to think more about this. Very creative thought, Slim. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 14:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Library-related

Hello, Ocaasi. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

The Interior (Talk) 19:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Did you get this, Ocaasi? The Interior (Talk) 16:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Awesome! The Interior (Talk) 16:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• I actually moved on to Serrano ham for a bit, then, after going back to school and getting poor again, I was forced into prosciutto salami territory. Oh the ignominy. I'm writing this in the Calgary airport after all the restaurants have closed; I've been staring at the link you left for the last five minutes. I also would injure people if they stood between me and dry-cured pork products. The Interior (Talk) 03:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Declaring COI

Ocaasi,

Is there a list of editors you have connected with articles, like with the NDAA 2012, that we can see? Like on the BP talk page, each of the pages where you have placed a special interest helper should have a declaration of that, and no - the archives are not the place for that declaration.

Further, would you consider perhaps that edits made on behalf of, in this case the US Congress, state that in each edit summary? For example, this diff - the edit summary which states This vote counts and mention of Jerry Moran do not belong in the lead, let alone in the first paragraph. could in the future be: "Edit on behalf of the US Congress; This vote counts..."

That would make it easier for editors to identify these helpers. Even with the requested talk page declaration, it would help to have each edit identified in this way too, since many editors don't bother looking at the talk page at all and usually it isn't needed.

Along with the talk page tag stating (for ex:) NDAA 2012 talk page at top (not archives) "User Darouet was assigned to help the US Congress by User Ocaasi; please contact Ocaasi at my talk page if any concerns arise". That would feel more supportive of the indie editor and acknowledge the fact that you can't ensure your editors are completely NPOV nor can you effectively monitor each page yourself.

My concern is that your editor removed information about which Congress people voted, saying it just didn't belong in the Intro, but without moving the information to a proper place. It was simply deleted. Do you stand behind this? Do you feel you have any responsibility for the edits made by your appointees?

Are you the only Admin or editor on Wikipedia taking part in this matchmaking service? If not, can I assume there is a list of all this activity somewhere? Transparency has got to be foremost in our minds when taking part in something like this, no? petrarchan47tc 19:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey Petrarchan, I keep a list on my userpage under What I've done here (Eli Lilly, Monitor Group, Occidental Petroleum, NDAA 2012). Of those only NDAA 2012 went through OTRS, the rest originated on-wiki from either talk page activity or someone asking me to evaluate a suggestion. Aside from common AfC drafts, of which there are hundreds, I've provided this kind of guidance to fewer than ten company representatives and even less so through OTRS (less than 5). I don't know how many others are doing this, but if you want to work together to craft guidance for people doing so I'd like to work with you on it. I did just add the Template:Connected contributor template to the NDAA 2012 and BP articles so that the COI declarations are easier to find. For future situations I will add the connected contributor template to the talk page. I think that's sound and fair.

Changing edit summaries should be taken in context, because I advise these editors to not make changes themselves, as WP:COI suggests. If a talk page editor reviews a suggestion I assume it's not 'on behalf of someone' as in editing by proxy, but because they individually take responsibility for the content of that edit. I do like your idea about edit summaries though and will think of a way to add that guidance into WP:PSCOI. We need a better way of formalizing the review process and edit summary notifications makes a lot of sense in that regard. I have to wait until the WT:COI discussion about drafts completes before proceeding into the details here.

I want to make sure there's not an overstatement of my 'assigning' roles. Darouet replied on the talk page and he had a history of working on the article, so I left him to work with Quirin42 (the U.S. Gov employee). I didn't deem Darouet responsible, he was just active at the time. I think a reasonable compromise is that when such a connection happens to also post to the COI noticeboard so that it's easier to track all this in a central place. I really have made extensive suggestions about making COI declarations robust--on userpages, article talk pages, at the COI noticeboard, and even in user signatures. I've added to that guidance just today to use the Template:Connected contributor on the talk page.

So Darouet, was not my editor by any means. And what I facilitated was just normal talk page discussion, with full disclosure, and no special powers. I did this as a volunteer fielding a request from OTRS, and OTRS has zero special powers over content (unless it's a legal office action, which is quite rare).

OTRS editors do sometimes communicate with corporate representatives and we direct them to community discussion processes. The goal of OTRS is to direct conversation to the community in almost all cases, rather than to influence it ourselves. Any time I make a suggestion which relates to OTRS, I make that abundantly clear on the talk page or noticeboard where I post. OTRS is not all or even most shadybusiness. We handle hundreds of BLP violation complaints and other copyright requests. Many are mundane and deal with notability (can I have an article on me...). A minority are sensitive and deal with controversy or libel. The OTRS rule is to use the community as the engine for response, not to just swoop in and make changes from afar.

I've also been reminded this week how critical it is that a corporate representative is engaged on talk pages by a variety of voices, including critical ones. Finding only a single editor to work with a corporate representative is a weak point that creates the perception of bias and may lead to non-neutral results. This outcome is less about intentional deception or strategy and more the fact that it's tough to find anyone in most cases to respond on talk pages. BP was an exception because it is so highly trafficked. We need a way to direct attention to these situations while they are ongoing so that there is sufficient review. Template:Edit request and COI noticeboard are one way to do that, and I encourage them both.

Transparency is critical and I've taken this week's discussions as a serious criticism of the lack of transparency that appears to have crept into these processes. It's my next goal to make as many stages of this process as I can suitable open to review and even easier to discover. I think that's vital to addressing the issue or at least perception of something inappropriate going on. Please continue to let me know how I can do that better. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ocaasi, I can't see where you added the "connected contributor" tag to the BP page. I think it should be added to alert the reader.

I think Petra's ideas are good ones. I particularly like the idea of adding in an edit summary: "Added at the request of Company X". It's not ideal because it doesn't alert the general reader (and in my view it shouldn't be happening at all), but at least anyone looking at the edit history would know.

I also think it's really important that you're transparent when you direct editors who support paid advocacy to certain articles at the request of the company or a PR rep, whether it's done via OTRS or in some other way. Otherwise it does look like some kind of behind-the-scenes PR pipeline. The appearance matters here as much as the reality. It does appear that you directed companies to Rangoon11 (you mentioned it here to Rangoon and he didn't contradict you). The problem with that is that I think few people would argue that he is a neutral voice on the articles he edits, including BP. So either it would have been better to choose someone else, or to choose more than one person (editors with different perspectives), or at least to leave a note prominently on the talk page, so that people can see this has been arranged. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The connected contributor tag is a talk page template. It's on the talk page header. I offered the Template:COICOI template for article space, but like other NPOV templates (there is one on the article now), it requires an actual discussion about the neutrality. Other editors also pointed out that Arturo has not edited directly. I am ok with either the COI or neutrality template being on the article while the recent changes are reviewed.

I'd quibble on the language of "at the request of" but I'd certainly accept something like "Working with a representative from the company". The editors who make changes take responsibility for them and a mere request is not sufficient review. It has to be vetted. You've raised fair points about the potential of fully vetting a suggestion, but the key point is that a request is just a suggestions, it's not supposed to be editing by proxy. It presents a proposal for others to evaluate.

To avoid the behind-the-scenes PR pipeline, I will make sure these editors use article talk page COI disclosures, connected contributor templates on article talk pages, COI noticeboard disclosure, and either a username which discloses a connection or a COI declaration in the signature. That's about as robust a review process as I can create. I think the COI noticeboard is the best place to manage these disclosures and then locally at the article as well. I have to frankly think about whether its feasible that for any time I advise another editor, to post such a disclosure myself. Regardless, I've taken your criticism very seriously that "handoffs" to talk page editors should not just be to a single person if there's any question about their POV. The practical question is: how do we get more eyes on talk pages? Should we create a new template to put on a talk page such as so they're all categorized together?

Slim, about the note I left to Rangoon, I was at that time still genuinely confusing my prior work with Rangoon (across several articles), my OTRS work, and my general interest in Arturo's approach. I have checked all my email, contributions, and OTRS tickets and I have zero record of reaching out to Arturo and connecting him with Rangoon. I specifically confirmed this with others just to double-check, and I'm happy to leave a note asking Rangoon to do the same. Of course, after such a serious conflation of events in my own memory, I can't prove a negative, but I can tell you that it didn't happen, and ask Rangoon to offer his recollection as well. Take it as such: you asked such piercing questions that you actually had me believing the worst, when the reality was not as bad as that. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 23:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

"I didn't deem him responsible, he was just active at the time" - if one were to scroll up this talk page just a bit, about Darouet you said he (along with Rangoon11) was "an active, non-POV pushing editor at the article's talk page/history whom I respect". I'm not sure you appreciate the trickiness of this situation. You are involved in a matchmaking service between special interests (in this case, the US Congress, on a page about a bill that is in the courts now, and is perhaps the most controversial decision the Congress has ever made in terms of changes to the US Constitution). It is a really big deal that a Wikipedia Administrator is 'helping' the Congress but won't stand behind the editor chosen to do the work. If you don't deem him responsible, and since I have pointed out that the article might be being scrubbed of damming info about the group you are helping to represent, what action will you now take? This project is so loose that you aren't even sure whether you are the only one participating? This is all very upsetting to hear. Are you willing to receive new information about the editors you choose for this project? Would you like to see how your trusted Rangoon11 treated me, so that perhaps we can avoid this happening to others? Or is your faith in your own ability to sense good, non-POV pushing editors so strong that input would not be persuasive (as I gathered by your comments at SlimVirgin's page)? petrarchan47tc 22:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, I just noticed the tag you left at the NDAA 2012 talk page is regarding someone other than Darouet, someone who is no longer active. Why have you not disclosed instead the editor who IS active? Why do I even have to ask such obvious questions? petrarchan47tc 22:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Petrarchan, I am not aware of any U.S. government employees working on the article since Quirin left. I called his office and he was no longer present, I was not informed of anyone who took his place, nor did I have future contact with anyone from the government. When a COI editor wants to engage with Wikipedia (using disclosure, stick to the talk page), please tell me how they should do this is a more transparent way. I have long advocated article talk page COI disclosures, COI noticeboard disclosure, and either a username which discloses a connection or a COI declaration in the signature. I've added to that connected contributor templates. What else should we do to make you feel the process is sufficient? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 23:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I was not more clear. Am I correct that you had Darouet help the US Congress on the NDAA page? If so, this needs to be posted clearly on the top of the talk page, and that his edits are on behalf of the US Congress should be noted in his edit summaries, imo. It would help with transparency tremendously. petrarchan47tc

I put the template connected contributor COI declaration at the top of the NDAA talk page. But there is a lot of misinterpretation here. I didn't "have" Darouet "help" the US Congress. I introduced a government employee on the talk page with a COI declaration, and then Darouet, who had been quite active previousy at the article responded, and this kicked off an intense discussion over what coverage was appropriate and sourced. Neither I nor Darouet were implementing edits "on behalf of" anyone. We were doing what Wikipedia editors do which is ruthlessly (politely) argue what's the most fair presentation of facts and present sources which back that up. There was no editing by proxy from US.GOV to Darouet. There was actual discussion and then editors without a COI made changes when there was consensus. For the record, I was personally extremely concerned about NDAA 2012 and went out of my way to let the government representative know that we were not going to parrot their views, that we would cover the controversy precisely as published sources had an in no way would simply make the changes they wanted made.

What's going on here is COI disclosure from representatives, presentation of sources and suggestions, and individuals making changes they see as reasonable, and non-COI editors taking responsibility for them. You've made your point that COI declarations from representatives could be more visible, but that's something I've always worked towards. Seriously, these people are doing what they're encouraged to do, in the WP:COI guideline! When Jimmy Wales, who's been as firm as anyone about a bright line against direct editing says, "I think that accusing [BP employee] Arturo of ‘skirting’ Wikipedia’s rules in this case is fairly ludicrous – unless ‘skirting’ means ‘going above and beyond what is required in order to be very clearly in compliance with best practice....” then I think it's maybe a sign that the concerns here are getting blown out of proportion or are misdirected towards the wrong party. I have to leave it there for now, because there other projects I want to spend time on. I still would like to incorporate your feedback into future guidance. I think it should happen on the WP:COI and WP:PSCOI pages, so that we can bring in others input and move towards constructive changes to those texts. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 16:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi all: Ocaasi has written on my talk page to let me know that there is a discussion here on his editing of National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, also writing that he'd like to give me the opportunity to respond if I see that necessary. I'll write below what happened, as I best remember it. I first read about the NDAA 2012 legislation while it was being drafted, and was concerned about it, and surprised to see that wikipedia had no article on it. So I wrote the first draft and was heavily involved in the article for some time afterwards. The article received a lot of traffic because of the understandable controversy that emerged over the legislation, and some of that was reflected in editing of the article. At some point, Ocaasi posted on the talk pages of the article, writing that he had been contacted by someone (later User:Quirin42) who didn't want to edit directly, and had a conflict of interest. As far as I can tell, Ocaasi obliquely suggested, but did not directly state that the party he was bringing to the talk pages was someone affiliated with and working for the American government. Ocaasi did make it clear that he did not necessarily endorse their views. When Quirin42 began editing, he made it clear he was working for the American government.

Ocaasi responded very politely to all inquiries and collated a very impressive list of sources, and I engaged with the editor, Quirin42, on the talk pages. At one point I was willing to make a compromise with Quirin42 that I wasn't very comfortable with, at which point Ocaasi intervened and stated that all changes would need to be rigorously backed by sources. At that point asked another editor whom I very much trust, Thucydides411, for his opinion, and he wrote that Quirin42's proposed changes obscured the effect of the legislation and contradicted most available sources. At that point, Quirin42 stopped contributing.

So, I certainly never worked for Ocaasi, and in the end I think he acted according to wikipedia's policies, by demanding that all statements be rigorously sourced and therefore verifiable. I do wish it had been a little clearer, for me and from the very beginning, that Quirin42 was working for the government. Also, though Ocaasi didn't represent Quirin42's position and explicitly stated this, as a slightly greener editor at that time this wasn't wholly clear to me, and I was embarrassed to feel obliged to change the article for Quirin42. I'm thankful to Ocaasi and Thucydides411 for preventing that, and teaching me something.

Note that I'm also posted this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Direct_COI_representatives_to_talk_pages:_disclosure_and_review. Thanks! -Darouet (talk) 19:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

See my response there. And this is regarding this talk-page exchange at Talk:National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012. I hope we can keep these discussions in one place. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

No worries Ocaasi, and thanks for notifying me. I think something that might help editors on a page, when you begin this process, is making even more clear that you and other editors will reject edit requests that are unreasonable according to wikipedia's core policies. You might furthermore make it clear that neither you nor other editors are obliged to represent the COI party's POV, and that their COI should be taken seriously. I know you're trying to make this process transparent and are therefore trying to make it appear less onerous or wholly unfavorable to the COI party, but that should come second to maintaining transparency on our end, in my opinion. I'll be interested to see how things turn out. -Darouet (talk) 21:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Assuming the process is kept, of course. I understand (I think) and respect why OTRS for COI was established, but would also understand if the community decided against it in the end. -Darouet (talk) 22:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Request to restore your post

Hi Ocaasi, I've just noticed that you changed a post of yours after I had replied to it, making my reply seem meaningless. Would you mind going back and restoring your original post, then clarifying/updating underneath it? Otherwise, I look as though I responded to something that you didn't say. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure Slim, I will try and make it very clear when the addendum was added, I'll strike the incorrect piece, and leave a note at the bottom. No confusion intended. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:18, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good, many thanks. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:25, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Course you might be interested in

Coursera is offering a course on gamification that you might be interested in. [1]. Ryan Vesey 04:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Ryan, the content and timing of this course could not be more perfect. Werbach is one of the best gamification experts bar none (he's also down the road from me at UPenn), and I will look into this course seriously. Thanks for your continued great tips. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Your comment

Hi Ocaasi, I thought that your comment on WBB's talk page was very astute and productive and I took the liberty of quoting you in my comment here at the WBB RfC. I hope this is alright with you. If you find it objectionable in any way please contact me and I will remove it ASAP. Thanks for your kind consideration. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response and nice to meet you! I have also seen your work on other WP pages as well, from time to time, so its not the first time I have been impressed with your thoughtful approach :-) I look forward to working together sometime in the future. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 March 2013

• WikiProject report: The 'Burgh: WikiProject Pittsburgh

• Featured content: One and a half soursops

• Arbitration report: Two open cases

• News and notes: Sue Gardner to leave WMF; German Wikipedians spearhead another effort to close Wikinews

• Technology report: The Visual Editor: Where are we now, and where are we headed?

• Recent research: "Ignore all rules" in deletions; anonymity and groupthink; how readers react when shown talk pages

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 01:43, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

COIReview

Just a note to say I've now read Slimvirgin's talk page, so have a deeper appreciation of what you are going through, and what motivated your desire to write the draft on COIReview. However, it hasn't changed my views. I am sorry you are taking some abuse. but my opinion is that some have an unreasonable expectation of how Wikipedia works and should work. If widespread, it needs addressing, but if one or two, it does not need boilerplate, it needs pointed responses to one or two. If I can help, let me know.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Sphilbrick. I'm going to keep working on tweaking language over the next few months, while avoiding a counterproductive battle. I'd appreciate your comment on any of the involved pages, including WP:PSCOI which seems to be the newest involved page in this debate. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

hey

thanks. i enjoyed the interview and learning how to set up an account.--Chasedavidsonsmith (talk) 19:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

March Grants News

Grants News

VOLUME 1

MARCH 2013

ISSUE 1

Eight projects have been awarded grants in this pilot round of the Individual Engagement Grants program. You can read more about them in our blog post. Many thanks to everyone who participated in this round! We look forward to seeing even more of your ideas and input in preparation for round 2, which begins on August 1st.

Grants News is brought to you by the Wikimedia Grantmaking Team. You can change your subscription to this update on the list.

HighBeam

Hello Ocaasi! Last year I got the activation code for HighBeam Research; do you know if it is possible to renew the 1-year free period? Thank you very much, --Delfort (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)