Template talk:Edit COI/Instructions

Request edit system

It's still fairly rustic, but I feel the request edit process, system and instructions are much better now. I'm interested in feedback on how we can continue improving it. Corporate Minion 00:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The Raymond W. McDaniel Jr. (request) has been resolved. But I can't modify the template because I don't see the template on this page [1] What am I missing?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The table is created by a BOT. I think it only updates at certain intervals. Corporate 15:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Request edit

I'm now wondering if it was such a great idea for me to write the {{request edit}} instructions myself. Being that I am a heavy user of it personally and am simultaneously providing instructions to those reviewing my COI contributions - that seems like a COI issue. I've worked on a substantial overhaul (below) in my effort to create better guidelines for submitters and reviewers. And this time I'm using Request Edit to suggest the changes to the Request Edit template ;-)

Also, can we move this from "COIinstructions" to just "Instructions" as the instructions are both for the submitter and the reviewer. CorporateM (Talk) 15:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi CM, I took a look at some of these pages as you asked, but I'm a bit confused as there are so many of them, and so many instructions. I don't know which ones you created or how much they're already in use, but I'd suggest streamlining them into one template if possible, or at least not many more. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Just the two: These are instructions for {{request edit}} and not an actual template. The other is for use like this[2]. CorporateM (Talk) 23:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking of all the instructions at Template:Request edit/doc. The second template, User:BigNate37/TM/Extant organization content notice, looks fine and I think is a good idea. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes. You're right, we could probably delete this page entirely. CorporateM (Talk) 00:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't really judge what to do, because I never use them. It's just that all the options seem overly complicated from an outside perspective. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. And we have way too many essays, guides, etc. I think WP:COI needs an "instructions" section that the template could link to. OTOH, someone else will come by eventually with an opinion and there's nothing wrong with leaving it until someone else boldly does something with it... CorporateM (Talk) 01:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Extended content

How to submit a Request Edit Location of the talk page tab To submit a request to make change(s) to a Wikipedia article where you have a conflict of interest, start by clicking on the Talk button in the upper left-hand corner of the article-pane. Then click "New Section" near the center of the top toolbar. Add a title to your Talk page comment and place "{{request edit}}" at the top of the body of your comment. Describe the request or factual error as precisely as possible, ideally following a "please replace X with Y" description and provide appropriate source(s) where the correction can be verified. Links to press articles, scholarly works, books and other sources can be provided in your comment as follows: "This can be verified [http://www.examplesource.com here]." Also, please end your comment as follows: "~~~~" to sign it before saving. Before proposing a major re-write to an article, please take the time to read our guide called The Plain and Simple Conflict of Interest Guideline. Make sure your contributions are neutrally-written, well-researched, balanced and meet Wikipedia's content rules. How to review Request edits that have been closed can be updated using the following format: {{request edit| A}} Completed Request Edits are added to Category:Implemented requested edits, where other editors may still overturn or continue discussing the Request. Other options for closing a Request Edit are as follows: A is for implemented Request Edits G is for "go-ahead" and make the edit(s) P is for partially implemented request edits D is for declined edits, which may be followed by a reason using the following format: {{request edit|D|Insert custom reason or a letter from below}} ADV for advertising V for sourcing O for obvious omissions or bias R for requests that remove sourced content D to ask the editor to discuss with involved editors or subject-matter experts first S if the request is not specific enough T for requests that are not an improvement for other editorial reasons C for no clear consensus has been reached Reviewing a substantial contribution or re-write will take more time. For large contributions, consider using the following four-point check system: Check Comment Promotion Y While there is some room for improvement, the request does not contain advertising. Suppression Y The request does not inappropriately suppress good content from the current article. Accurate representation Y Based on a comparison with this profile story, this appears to be generally an accurate representation of what is available in secondary sources and does not contain spin or one-sided content. General editorial and policy Y The content is sourced, neutrally-written, in a proper format and does not contain copyright infringements. The level of involvement and standards of the reviewer may vary depending on the importance of the article. As a guideline: Low priority articles with 11-30 articles should be approved as long as it does not contain advertising. Medium priority articles with 30-60 available sources should be checked more thoroughly with higher quality standards. Most articles at this level will have some controversies, negative reviews, etc. High priority articles with 60+ available sources should involve a high degree of independent editing and involvement, preferably by editors with an interest in the subject, while the PR participant may provide first drafts, sources, images, and other resources. Reviewers should be careful not to let the current article influence their judgement of what is neutral for the topic. Also, keep in mind that what is neutral is unique to each article based on how it's presented in secondary sources. Alternatively, if the contributions are an improvement to the article, but contain significant problems that the editor doesn't want to work on right now, consider making the edits, but adding tags for bias or sourcing that encourage the editor to improve those problems.

After the "go ahead"

Could we add instructions for a person with a conflict of interest who posts an edit request, gets a "go ahead" ("G"), and makes the edit? For example, should they then change the flag to "A" for implemented? Should they remove the tag altogether? Or should they leave the tag in the "G" state (and does someone else then change the flag from "G" to something else)? Granitegreg (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

This would work:  Done CorporateM (Talk) 21:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

signalling that I'm working?

I'm working with a COI editor at Talk:Committee for Economic Development and while I'm neither accepting nor declining, I'm working with that editor. How should I handle the edit request so that others know I'm working there? valereee (talk) 12:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Valereee! Very belated response, but here's my two cents: Edit requests should only be open when they fulfil the SUNS criteria at WP:EDITXY, i.e., if they are ready to be implemented. They are not intended to generate attention, they are meant to be an indication that a proposed edit is ready to be implemented and the last hurdle is merely a technical (or COI policy-based) one. When there is ongoing discussion or modification or something along those lines, the request should be closed until a consensus version of the proposal is found. Actualcpscm (talk) 09:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion of expiration

Looking at some edit requests, some go back to 2021. This needs to addressed. I've noticed some requests go unanswered for weeks to months but the template is still up, increasing the edit request backlog. I propose that there should be an expiration the requests go unanswered by all parties. The template would be changed to a message stating the request has been declined due to inactivity but another user can open a request again so as long as there's new participation. I believe this would decrease the backlog tremendously. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 23:42, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from, but I would make the counter-argument that edit requests are like maintenance tags - they're probably important, someone will get to it eventually, and if it sits around for a year or two it's not the end of the world. If anything old requests should be cross-posted somewhere more noticeable like BLPN or COIN (depending on why the request is being made); I did this recently for a discussion that was dead and within 10 hours had six new participants and a great discussion forming. Primefac (talk) 07:23, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Then, how about a section is open at the appropriate WikiProject and if after a certain amount of time the discussion on the talk page goes unanswered, then it's closed for lack of activity? Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 19:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I could see a bot running like with deletion sorting for AFDs, wherein if a request sat for more than X days the WikiProjects listed on the talk page get pinged. Primefac (talk) 19:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

That's an idea. As I see it, an edit request that goes unanswered for 4 months ago, it's no longer important. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 21:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

As a COI editor, I'd ask that if this is implemented, it is done with the option for expired requests to be resubmitted. Often the older requests are valuable, they've just been avoided by editors because they are unusually nuanced or substantial. Just my .02. Mary Gaulke (talk) 01:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

"The template would be changed to a message stating the request has been declined due to inactivity but another user can open a request again so as long as there's new participation." I've written just exactly that. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 16:38, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Additional response option

Having gone through some of the COI requests, I have noticed that the response options for the COI request template are quite limited. I would suggest adding a response option for cases in which reviewers are waiting for an update from the requester, something along the lines of "closed pending reply/update from [User who requested edit]". This would additionally help to keep the COIREQ backlog more manageable by allowing reviewers to close update requests without declining them. Actualcpscm (talk) 13:46, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 28 August 2023

−

suitably-free

+

suitably free

Per MOS:HYPHEN "Avoid using a hyphen after a standard -ly adverb". Hyphenation Expert (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done SWinxy (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)