Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/C-SPAN/archive2

COI editing
Personally, I think it's fine for the nominator to edit the article during the course of this nomination, so long as the only edits he/she makes are in line with the requests of uninvolved reviewers. It seems pointless (to me) to make someone else make the changes, when a reviewer has already requested the change. Does anyone disagree with this? – Quadell (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting question, particularly given the citation formatting issues User:Imzadi1979 has raised. I'd like to address any serious concerns about the formatting, although this would be difficult without direct edits. Not impossible: I could edit another draft in userspace, which I've done before. However, this introduces issues if others edit the live article in the meantime. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 00:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Quadell on this. Nominators can't expect reviewers to do the editing for them. I understand the COI issue, but if not editing the article is such an issue, then WWB Too probably shouldn't be nominating the article at FAC, or he/she should have a co-nominator in place to help deal with the changes. Making the edits in response to a discussion at the FAC forum should be acceptable.  Imzadi 1979  →   00:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * If it helps at all, I would be willing to make changes to the article for WWB Too, once they are approved. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 03:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Awardgive, thanks for the offer. As I replied to Imzadi on the main discussion, I'd like to prepare all of these citation updates at once in userspace and then have someone else (perhaps you) implement. That would be less risky for me than going to Jimbo and asking for an exception to his "bright line". And I doubt he's in a mood to allow one anyway. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 04:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I don't think that is a great idea. These are minor and uncontroversial changes related to references*, so really I think you should just make them yourself.
 * IFF you two go through with this, just draft up the references, not the whole article. Then someone can copy and paste the revised footnotes as appropriate. (there are a few scripts to segregate references for editing purposes.) Otherwise you run the risk of overwriting other potential changes to the article, and you can't "freeze" an article in place to do such an edit.  Imzadi 1979  →   19:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * * And I mean just changes to formatting, not even really the content of them, let alone prose content of the article.  Imzadi 1979  →   19:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * My desire to avoid mainspace in all instances is based on Jimbo's advisory—"do not edit Wikipedia articles directly if you are a paid advocate. Instead, contribute proposed edits to the talk page"—and I have followed it carefully since he first said so. I've suggested to Awardgive that we coordinate schedules ahead of time to reduce the likelihood that someone will edit the page in between. It's weird, I know. If you'd rather bring it up with Jimbo, I wouldn't stop you, but I don't think it would get far. WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 00:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Jimbo is just another editor. Yes, he's the (co-)founder of the project, but he's just another editor. The Community has WP:COI, a behavioral guideline that says: "Editors who may have a general conflict of interest are allowed to make certain kinds of non-controversial edits (but note WP:NOPAY above). They may: 5. make edits where there is clear consensus on the talk page (though it is better to let someone else do it), and 6. add reliable sources, especially when another editor has requested them (but note the advice above about the importance of using independent sources)." That says you can at least make non-controversial edits (like reformatting references for consistency reasons) or specifically supply citations in the first instance.
 * If following Jimbo's essay is so important, you should not be taking on roles like FAC nominations that require editing the article. Reviewers should never be made to feel like they have to make the edits to an article being nominated. The FAC instructions state: "Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly." If you can't or won't edit the article, and you don't have a co-nominator in place to do the editing, I'm sorry, but I feel that you're in breech of the instructions and shouldn't be here.  Imzadi 1979  →   00:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've replied in more detail on the nomination itself, but in short: I got this article passed at GA using this same approach, and I'm willing to work around these issues. It certainly worked then, so I hope you'll reconsider. Meantime, I still plan to pursue the citation fixes you have prescribed. Best, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 16:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)