Talk:Olivia Wensley

Political Career -> The question of what to include
I initially included the publicised link between Wensley and her father-in-law, as it started to pop up on the campaign trail. Since my initial edits, more media attention has been given to this. I find how the entry is currently to be quite balanced. However, a number of IP edits from a variety of addresses have reverted it, saying that it is inconsequential, despite the publicised link and the way other candidates have been using it. I requested the page to be given a level of protection, because myself and other registered users reverted these changes. However, an admin suggested we first use the talk page - which is yet to be done. I'd invite the user(s) who are making their edits from IPs, and any other interested users, to leave their comments below so we can engage in a meaningful discourse to address this issue. Nauseous Man (talk) 07:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I’ve watchlisted the page temporarily. Say if intervention is needed.  Schwede 66  20:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Part-time according to source or full-time according to subject
@Dumuzid Is it dangerous to make edits we don't really agree with when requested by political subjects of articles? Wikipedia has a process to deal with COI:RFEs, perhaps circumventing it on demand may not be best practice? The source is a credible one. The Otago Daily Times is the major regional news outlet and very accustomed to reporting on political campaigns and candidates. The difference between a full-time and part-time position is significant enough for inclusion for article accuracy. The reporter of the original source obviously thought so. The information that it was part-time was given in a sentence that referred to Wensleys entire time, there was no reference to a smaller range of dates. Had the reporter only meant to refer to a smaller range eg during the election campaign, then that's what they would have said. "Had been working part time since the campaign started" or similar. Or they would have at least used 2 sentences and split the "part-time" away from the full duration. The information was not given in passing in a source article about some other subject, but was given as direct information in an article specifically about Wensleys role with the organisation. To ignore all this, in response to a demand by the article subject, is why we have a COI:RFE process, isn't it? Point well made about the previous wording perhaps implying a qualifier to the job title. Have edited following our standard practice of treating the source as the authority, using the exact words of the source at least until a possible COI:RFE can be processed. (See current.) Should this prove incorrect and the source mistaken or poorly written, then I'm sure Wensleys COI:RFE will clear that up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.75.11.19 (talk) 02:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Do what you think is right! If the article subject makes a suggestion to me, I will take a look at the sources and determine what I think.  Thus far, I have made two quite minor edits which I think clearly accorded with the sources.  If you think I am somehow out of bounds, then by all means, take whatever escalatory process you think necessary.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Not at all! No suggestion that you're out of bounds. But this page seems contentious, a bio of a political figure, and the history shows it to have been edited back and forth by a parade of anonymous authors, some who seem clearly 'connected with' the subject and some not, and more than a few editors who have tried to suggest ways to deal with the contention such as using the talk.  Talking here seems the way to go and my previous was intended as talk not as escalation. Beyond that, requested edit by subject on a contentious page seems exactly the situation that our more careful processes were created to deal with. 103.75.11.19 (talk) 02:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)