User talk: Spintendo

Float idea - organization request board

Hello, thanks for addressing the COI queue. I hope that you find this process flow satisfying.

I volunteer at WP:OTRS where by email several hundred people write in requesting COI edits. OTRS is stable in some ways and changing policy in other ways. Different people address these requests in different ways, and I think that this space may be open for policy proposal and suggesting best practices.

I know that you respond to {{Request edit}} and the workflow around that. While this has worked for you, I think you would understand if I said this is a non-standard wiki workflow. I know it is based off {{Help me}} and follows that precedent. Personally, I view noticeboards to be more traditional and accessible for being a single place where anyone can see a rolling list of issues and responses.

I am writing to float a potential workflow to you and ask you what you think. Here is the process -

1. COI editor wants to do something
2. for all requests, direct them to first post on the talk page of the article which they want to edit
3. now they must request review
   1. currently, the next step is that they post {{Request edit}}
   2. proposal for change - instead they post to a noticeboard, maybe "request edit for organization"
4. people from that noticeboard respond to the edit
   1. noticeboard is a permanent public searchable archive of all requests through this queue
   2. mark outcome, resolved, etc
   3. archive in the manner of a noticeboard

What do you think? Does any part of this strike you as problematic or unorthodox? Thanks.

I really would like to separate requested edits for COI organizations versus COI individuals versus everyone else. The "everyone else" requested edits could be a positive space that many regular wiki people would like, I think. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:41, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: Thank you for your question. As I understand it, you're framing the issue as the difference between a single person answering edit requests in the de-centralized style of {{help me}} versus the more centralized style of noticeboards. But before I comment on that, I wanted to understand more your assertion that you would like to separate requested edits for COI organizations versus COI individuals versus everyone else. I'm not sure that I understand what those differences are, or what a COI organization is. I'm guessing that a COI individual is anyone with a COI, although I'm not sure how that is different from everyone else. If you could define those terms better it would be most helpful. Thank you! Regards,  Spintendo  02:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Spintendo: I am proposing two layers of complication. I might be mistaken that this would be useful.

One layer is just applying the noticeboard model to this recurring issue.

The other layer is not just applying one noticeboard, but several. Now that I think about this, maybe this would not be a good way to start. It would be better to have one board then split it if it is overwhelmed.

A "COI organization" is an entity with paid people trying to make the edits. A "COI individual" is a person who wants edits about themselves. To me, the big difference between these is with individuals a wiki discussion will include some familiar elements of routine person to person human interaction. With organizations the conversation is business to business, so typical wiki customs like peer to peer favors go to robots which cannot really appreciate them or socialize. Another big difference with administration is that we have a greater need for data management around corporate requests because those get much more traffic (probably 1000x on average) and there is greater public demand to scrutinize entities of broad public interest.

I think I want to revise my proposal - while I think that that multiple boards could be useful, maybe it would be simpler to start with one board.

If there were one board and we directed all COI requests to get logged there, could you see a net benefit in that? Any major drawbacks? Is this a reasonable thing to do? If it is reasonable, why has this not happened before?

You do not need to answer all this, but I would like your overall impression. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification, it's much appreciated. Use of a noticeboard raises some practical questions as I see it. It's my understanding that a noticeboard already exists for making edit requests. Although it's probably true that the current noticeboard doesn't really function in that manner, it still holds the potential for doing so — based on the response given by the {{request edit|D|S}} template (which urges the requestor to "escalate" their request to the noticeboard) as well as advice at the noticeboard itself which suggests that This page is not for ... material that can easily be fixed or removed without argument... (which implies that contentious material may be brought to it). So my first question would ask how this new noticeboard and the current noticeboard would work, together or separately?

Another question would be the role of consensus in this new noticeboard. Would consensus be required only for larger requests? If smaller requests need only the participation of one reviewer, and if that one reviewer handles the shorter request and the COI editor comes to find that they don't appreciate the outcome, does the COI editor need only ask for more editors to weigh in, in an attempt at a different outcome? When that happens, what is to be done with the initial decision made? Is it held in abeyance until everyone is satisfied? Those are some of the questions which come to mind, and I look forward to your reply. Regards,  Spintendo  03:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the continued discussion.

My motivation for proposing the board is to promote cataloging and discovery in a new place but to leave the community discussion process the same. I prefer to direct everyone to discuss on the talk page of the article which is the target of the request. The role of consensus in the new board is that posting to the board would constitute sufficient notice of making a request with a COI.

I am not imagining overlap with WP:COIN, because that is a noticeboard for flagging and escalating problems. It is not a board for logging edit requests. I see continued value in COIN, because there is a community there who responds to problems, whereas at a request board most posts will not be problems.

Some benefits that I want from a new board are the following:

1. A central board where we can direct all COI editors to post their edit requests (we would require two posts from them - one on talk page, and one on this board only to bring attention to the talk page). Currently there are many workflows. One that I really want to end is requests by WP:OTRS, and to instead direct the many emails going there to on-wiki posting.
2. A central board would make requests discoverable to more editors who would address requests. Responding to posts on boards is an intuitive workflow in wiki; the current template request process has to be learned or taught
3. having the board log requests would establish a searchable index of edit requests, which does not otherwise exist with our technology
4. The board would divest some labor burden from the wiki community to COI editors. COI editors would learn that when they want attention, they have to make a request on a talk page, and they have to flag the board. When they go to the board they can see posts from their own kind and gain some insight into their place in the broader system.

Thanks for your feedback to this point. I see you as an authority in this space for the number of requests you have managed so speak up if I have an error or gap in my thinking. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:51, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Article talk page

Hi Spintendo,

Would really appreciate it if we could progress these proposed edits Talk:Brahma_Kumaris#Hospital_and_UN_items_to_be_placed_at_start_of_Activites_section.

If there is a problem please let me know

Thanks Bksimonb (talk) 12:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page.  Spintendo  13:11, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I have made an attempt to address the remaining concerns at Talk:Brahma_Kumaris#Reply_14-JUL-2019.

Regards Bksimonb (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Responded again.

BTW, do you want me to post on your talk page or do you already have the article Talk page on your watchlist?

Regards Bksimonb (talk) 14:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not watchlisted for this article, so notifying me here is fine.  Spintendo  03:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

OK will do. I just responded to the "University" question. Regards Bksimonb (talk) 11:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Just done a search for UN verification. Thanks Bksimonb (talk) 15:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

 Request implemented  Spintendo  03:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for doing this. Apologies that it took me some time to understand exactly what was required but in the end we got there and I learned something! Appreciate your patience and understanding during the process. Regards Bksimonb (talk) 11:04, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Australian Theatre for Young People, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alastair Duncan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

   WL to DAB corrected    Spintendo  08:45, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

In search of CoI advice

Hi @Spintendo:, I'd like to ask for your advice as you are an experienced Wikipedia editor and often deal with Conflict of Interests issues. After a recent change of Axel A. Weber's photo I received feedback from German-language editor that I could have changed it on my own (which I didn't consider fine in the context of CoI).

Is it ok for me to implement some minor factual changes on my own? I feel that this could save the time of other Wikipedia editors but I don't want to cross the line. Could you please share your opinion on this?

[Another example of a seemingly minor edit is a change of Sergio Ermotti's role at the Swiss-American Chamber of Commerce (from Chairman and President to Board Member only) which I'm about to propose.]

Best, WROanna1862 (talk) 09:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Reply 24-JUL-2019

@WROanna1862: Thank you for your question. If I read it correctly there are two parts to your question:

1. Is it OKAY for a COI editor to change the photograph of the subject of an article for which that editor has a conflict of interest?
2. Are there other instances where it's OKAY for a COI editor to make changes on their own to articles where they have a conflict of interest?

My answer to your first question is YES, I would agree with the German language editor here. A photograph of a person is a visual representation of that individual, and unless the person pictured in the photograph is obviously shot with different angles, expressions, etc, there is virtually no way that a visual representation can be affected by a conflict of interest. Quite simply put, a photograph of actress Halle Barry smiling while looking into a camera would be indistinguishable from any other photograph of Halle Barry smiling while looking into a camera. Thus if the COI editor wanted to change between two photographs, this would not really need the assistance of a neutral third party editor to make the change.

My answer to your second question is also YES, there are indeed edits which the community finds acceptable for a COI editor to make themselves. Those are known as uncontroversial edits and they are listed under WP:COIU. It's important to note that the edit would only be uncontroversial if you are correcting already established information. For example, in the case of the member of the Swiss Chamber of Commerce who is no longer chairman and president, that would be an uncontroversial edit if the article already states that the person is chairman and president and they are no longer in these positions. However, if the article does not already state that they are chairman and president, and you would like to add that they were formerly chairman and president, that edit should be proposed as an edit request — because in that instance you would be adding information to the article. Uncontroversial usually means correcting something that's already in the article. Make sure that your edit summary notes WP:COIU along with your description of the change made as being an uncontroversial edit (i.e., "The subject is no longer chairman and president, per NYTimes source. Reference added and title changed to read "Former chairman and president (2012–2019)" as an uncontroversial edit, per WP:COIU") would be an excellent edit summary in that circumstance.
Regards,  Spintendo  14:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Notes

Reply 25-JUL-2019

@Spintendo: Thank you a lot for the comprehensive explanation. I'll proceed as advised.

Best reagrds, WROanna1862 (talk) 12:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Art Peck (birth date/age)

Hi there - thanks for providing feedback on the proposed update to Art Peck's page. I'm hoping you can provide a little guidance here: if there are no online publications that list his actual birth date/age, what's the recommended approach for updating this information?

Benzeeful (talk) 21:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page.  Spintendo  00:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this further! Appreciate your help.

Benzeeful (talk) 16:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I added references for the National Constitution Center

I added references to the edits i had previously suggested on the National Constitution Center wiki page.Housefinch1787 (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page.  Spintendo  20:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your help editing the Upfront Ventures page! I believe I will not have to request any more edits for this page now. Spncrinc (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Mariana Atencio request

I went ahead and inserted the changes where they should appear if approved. Thanks Rominotmichelle (talk) 02:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

@Rominotmichelle: Please remember that requests are supposed to be placed on the article's talk page and not the article itself. Every main page of Wikipedia has its own talk page. Think of it as the back side to a regular piece of paper. On the front of that paper would be the main article. The other side of the paper would be the talk page. It's on the talk page that editors are able to post messages to each other when discussing anything having to do with the main article. All requests to add content should be placed on the talk page. Regards,  Spintendo  06:57, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

My apologies for all the back and forth. I think I was able to make it correctly on the talk page. Thank you for your patience. Rominotmichelle (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

 Request partially approved. Specific details are available at the article's talk page. Regards,  Spintendo  01:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for your helpful guidance in improving our page revision requests on the Hillrom talk page. It's much appreciated. I have revised the requested inclusions. Have a great evening.

Jack at Hillrom (talk) 03:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page. Please note that any new edit requests at the Hill-Rom talk page ought to be placed at the bottom of the page under a new level 2 heading.  Spintendo  01:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks again for your help, Spintendo. Jack at Hillrom (talk) 12:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Your revisions are great. Much appreciated, Spintendo. Jack at Hillrom (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

On the Rahul M Jindal page.. Note

Hi Spintendo. When I edited the talk page today I chenged the answer from yes to no as you mentioned, but it said T|D there prior I think. Not sure I did that right, and my apologies if it screwed something up. Also, if you need me to make any changes I'll be watching the talk page. Thank you for all your help, I really appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuuzi (talk • contribs) 15:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

 Response given at the article's talk page.  Spintendo  17:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

corrections in Omniscriptum Wikipedia page

Dear Spintendo,

thank you for all the advices and implemented corrections. Could you please, once you have time, take a look on the following request: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:OmniScriptum

I wanted to know would it be possible to re-add a list of imprints that belongs to Omniscriptum publishing house. I made a request some days ago, but maybe my request is missing additional details. In any case I will be glad to hear from you.

Kind regards, Varis

 Response given at the article's talk page.  Spintendo  21:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Requesting Assistance (COI)

Hi, there is a pending COI request at Hack Forums talk page. I would very much appreciate if you could review it and come to a conclusion on what is to be done. Also, I created the Hack Forums page, can I review COI requests as well? I don't know this because it is literally the first time I have to deal with something like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AvalerionV (talk • contribs) 18:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@AvalerionV: Just because you created the page doesn't mean you have a conflict of interest. The now banned editor has stated at COIN that Recently the creator of the page was banned from my site for violating policies then threatened to alter the Wikipedia page unless unbanned and then went ahead with his threats by doing so. I believe you when you say that they are wrong and that they are mistaking you for someone else. While you have no conflict of interest here, sometimes local editors can be "too close" to an article. It's my feeling that sometimes it may be best to leave the request to someone who has never edited the page before. But that is purely up to you. That being said, since you are a frequent local editor who knows the page well, your input on those requests would be very much valued by whomever handled the request. Regards,  Spintendo  20:32, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I understand. This is exactly why I needed your assistance on the matter. Thank you so much for your fast response. AvalerionV 21:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Scotts Miracle-Gro Company, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roundup (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

   WL to DAB corrected    Spintendo  07:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Maskless lithography edits

Hello, Spintendo. Thanks for your time reviewing my edits, and for your patient clarifications of the declined request.

Since I'm still a novice here, I am not sure what is the right way to proceed. I would like to address the point you made and add more substantial quotes, since I do think it will improve the article somewhat. Shall I add another edit request to the article talk page or create a new section with a new version of quote text?

Best regards, Quantum quirrell (talk) 11:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)