| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Alison Creagh
Alison Creagh
- ... that Alison Creagh (pictured) became a Member of the Order of Australia "for significant service to veterans and their families, and to rowing"? Source: https://www.gg.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-07/QB20%20Gazette%20-%20O%20of%20A%20V6.pdf
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC).
- Comment (not a review). The COI banner on the article (with circumstances detailed on the article talk page) needs to be resolved before this can feature in DYK. Cleanup banners are not intended as a permanent mark of shame for articles, but rather to indicate that something can and should be cleaned up. The question then becomes: do the circumstances described on the talk page mean that there is a COI that should be cleaned up? What must be done to the article to clean it up so this banner can be removed? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
- WP:WTRMT:
neutrality-related templates such as {{COI}} (associated with the conflict of interest guideline) or {{POV}} (associated with the neutral point of view policy) strongly recommend that the tagging editor initiate a discussion (generally on the article's talk page) to support the placement of the tag. If the tagging editor failed to do so, or the discussion is dormant, and there is no other support for the template, it can be removed.
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)- Do you dispute the COI? Or should I have placed a "paid editor" tag instead? This DYK should siomply be closed, as we shouldn't have such "scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" promotion. To quote from a question (not from me) from your 2019 RfA: "In one of the arbitration cases which resulted in a finding against you, there was a finding involving an undisclosed conflict-of-interest that resulted in serious subversion of the FA process. " We here have the same editor with an undisclosed COI at DYK. Here you start wikiwlawyering about the tag (even though I started a discussion about it on the talk page right away, where you haven't responded). Fram (talk) 07:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- There was no such finding, and there was no undisclosed COI. What there is is an editor pursuing a pattern of harassment that got them blocked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Are you really claiming that you have no COI wrt this article now? Or that the finding (passed 10 to 0) that " Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) has a previously undisclosed conflict of interest [...]" didn't exist? Or both? Fram (talk) 10:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- There was no undisclosed conflict of interest. I have never edited for pay. I was an unpaid Wikipedian in Residence with Paralympics Australia. I have only met the brigadier twice: at the Boccia, where the Chef de Mission introduced us and we talked about our work at Paris 2024, and at the Rowing three days later, when I asked for a photograph, which I took and is used in the article. Please cease the personal attacks on myself and David Eppstein, who was only posting a comment. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- An organisation offers you all kind of help so you can write better or more articles about an event they are heavily involved in, and you then write an article about the CEO of that organisation. How is that not a blatant COI? And I have not made any personal attacks about you, and I haven't made any comment whatsoever about David Eppstein, so I have no idea where you see any personal attacks on them. Anyway, I'll raise this at the COIN board. Fram (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- There was no undisclosed conflict of interest. I have never edited for pay. I was an unpaid Wikipedian in Residence with Paralympics Australia. I have only met the brigadier twice: at the Boccia, where the Chef de Mission introduced us and we talked about our work at Paris 2024, and at the Rowing three days later, when I asked for a photograph, which I took and is used in the article. Please cease the personal attacks on myself and David Eppstein, who was only posting a comment. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Are you really claiming that you have no COI wrt this article now? Or that the finding (passed 10 to 0) that " Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) has a previously undisclosed conflict of interest [...]" didn't exist? Or both? Fram (talk) 10:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- There was no such finding, and there was no undisclosed COI. What there is is an editor pursuing a pattern of harassment that got them blocked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- Do you dispute the COI? Or should I have placed a "paid editor" tag instead? This DYK should siomply be closed, as we shouldn't have such "scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" promotion. To quote from a question (not from me) from your 2019 RfA: "In one of the arbitration cases which resulted in a finding against you, there was a finding involving an undisclosed conflict-of-interest that resulted in serious subversion of the FA process. " We here have the same editor with an undisclosed COI at DYK. Here you start wikiwlawyering about the tag (even though I started a discussion about it on the talk page right away, where you haven't responded). Fram (talk) 07:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
- WP:WTRMT:
Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
- For context, reviewers should be aware of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Alison Creagh.--Launchballer 04:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
