User talk:Spinfisher

Welcome!
Hello, Spinfisher, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for University of Portland. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Aboutmovies (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC) Sfan00 IMG that picture belongs to my family. Don't take it down again.
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Conflict of interest
Since you don't seem to understand that it is inappropriate for you to remove the COI notice from Edward J. Walsh, I have raised this matter at the Conflict of interest noticeboard. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 02:28, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for referring this, finally, to the Conflict of interest noticeboard since you have been particularly difficult to work with and not a help at all for a new editor. I have found, already, the interaction from the Conflict of interest noticeboard to be noticeably more reasonable than any of your inappropriate interventions thus far.  . -- Spin fisher  Spinfisher (talk) 20:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I have gone to great lengths to explain to you that, as the child of the subject, you have a conflict of interest in editing the article, as explained below. All you have done is refused to accept that and persistently removed the COI tag. Restoring an inappropriately removed template is not bullying. It is part of maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia. I explained from very early days that it was inappropriate for you to remove the tag and that somebody else needed to review the article, which you have ignored. Strictly speaking, your edits could have resulted in you being blocked, but I have given you the benefit of the doubt and tolerated your disruption. Your infrequent visits to Wikipedia and argumentative tone make it very hard to carry on a discussion. You made only 4 posts in more than 2 months, another post 3 months later and then you disappeared from the conversation for 9 months. When you were around you told the article creator to stop editing the article - telling any editor not to edit an article is inappropriate - and when you visited my talk page, your abusive tone was very little encouragement to give any help so, I'm sorry, but this is all your fault. You can't blame others. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 00:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * AussieLegend you did OK. It is really, really hard to work out COI issues one-on-one when you are working out content stuff at the same time, and you did great to catch this and to bring it to the community. Spin gets it now. (he will probably never love you nor you him)  and you were correct, all along.  you were.   can you let this go?   Jytdog (talk) 01:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I was fine to let this go a long time ago. If Spinfisher truly has gotten it, I'll be happy. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 03:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

COI
Hi Spinfisher, I work on conflict of interest issues in Wikipedia and came here due to the posting at COIN mentioned above. it is pretty clear from your edits, especially this and this, that you are related to the subject of the Edward J. Walsh article. I am providing you with our conflict of interest notice. Please note that the COI guideline says: "You should not create or edit articles about yourself, your family, or friends." Below the notice, I will have comments and questions for you.

Hello, Spinfisher. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.

Question
Wikipedia is a scholarly project, and like all scholarly endeavors, disclosure of conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. (the same is true in the ethics of journalism, by the way, which Edward Walsh surely valued and lived by per a quote in his obituary: Barbash recalled him as a man of stubborn convictions — and good instincts. “If he didn’t think something was the right thing to do, he let it be known." )  COI issues get a bit ... interesting in Wikipedia, since we allow editors to be anonymous here.  Please do read WP:COI, especially the section on Writing about yourself and your work.  As in academia and journalism, conflict of interest in Wikipedia is managed first by disclosure, then by a kind of peer review.  First things first.

While I am not asking you to disclose your identity (anonymity is strictly protecting by out WP:OUTING policy) would you please disclose if you have some relationship with Edward Walsh? You can answer how ever you wish, but if there is a COI with regard to him, please disclose it. After you respond (and you can just reply below), perhaps we can talk a bit about editing Wikipedia, to give you some more orientation to how this place works. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 15:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Response
Hi Jytdog, thank you for all of this good information. First, I am Michael Walsh, son of Edward Walsh, the subject of the article I have periodically edited. My father died on February 14th, 2014. Shortly thereafter family members noticed that someone (not me) had created a Wikipedia page about him. We all thought that was wonderful. When I went to the page, I noticed a couple of errors, some grammatical issues, and I had hoped to add a picture. I was (and still am) a very new editor and so I tried to make the edits but made some mistakes. At some point, probably with the picture (which I still have not figured out) this AussieLegend person added the COI tag. I did some looking into it and believed that AussieLegend had not demonstrated any actual issues of concern that may have arisen from a COI. AussieLegend simply stated that there was a relationship, that he was my Dad. My understanding, therefore, was that AussieLegend knew of my relationship. As you will see I asked many times for direction and also gave my perspective that AussieLegend was keeping the COI tag there inappropriately. I still believe that to be true. As you have noticed, any edits I have made have adhered to the basic guidelines about COI:

AussieLegend was not helpful. Instead, he acted like a bully; I believe he should be investigated for inappropriate administrative actions. He never once simply told me to write on the talk page about my relationship to the subject. How easy that would have been! Good grief. And so this entire time I assumed it was clear what my relationship was. Also, I knew factually that I had not actually violated any of the issues of COI, especial NPOV, despite the relationship. And so therefore I also knew AussieLegend's continuing interventions to be inappropriate. Honestly it just felt like I had annoyed him and so he had made it his mission to harass me. I asked for help and to remove the COI in language much like this: "There is no basis for the COI tag you have placed anymore. There are no edits since the COI tag was first attached showing any actual evidence of conflict of interest issues in the editing.  Therefore this reflects a frivolous and bullying motivation for the tag. As you know, there has to be more than 'concern' due to a person's relation. There has to be actual evidence that bias exists."

It would have been helpful for AussieLegend to tell me to disclose on the talk page. I would have then been clued into this need; also my assumption (that the relationship was clear) would have been corrected. I would happily have disclosed and I think that any outside reviewer would then see that 1) I did not create this page, 2) my edits were minor, correcting some grammar and dates and trying to add a resource, and 3) that I was a new editor who may have made some mistakes.

As you can see, I do not object to the issue having been raised. I do object to the COI tag remaining in place since it is clear that though I have a conflict of interest, none of my edits have been done because of the COI nor does the COI have any affect on the page. I also object to AussieLegend's administrative behavior which I found inappropriate, bullying, and mostly, in total contravention of the values of Wikipedia. Maybe he is an administrative BigWig, but I still think he has acted in a reproachful manner.

I will add to the Edward Walsh talk page a note about my relationship. I will also not edit the page in the future. If I notice an error or something wrong, I will ask another editor with no COI to do the editing. I will be happy to speak further, but that is where I stand on the matter thus far. Spinfisher (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am sorry for the recent loss of your dad. That is a hard thing.
 * it is difficult to make appropriate pauses when one is just writing... so this will have to do.
 * It is hard when COI issues arise in the course of regular editing, as discussions about content get mixed up with the meta-issues, and it is especially hard with a new editor (like you) who is a) passionate about the article's subject and b) unsure how things actually work here. So I  understand your bruised feelings and how things got tangled up.  I really do. I've reviewed the back and forth and in my view, AussieLegend was doing his or her best to look out for Wikipedia.  I totally grant to you - totally - that it would have been better had AussieLegend been nicer and more talkative, especially since it is clear that you dad just recently died.  But he/she didn't do anything actually wrong (not being as helpful as one could be, is not an offense here).   And to be frank, instead of asking "what should i do since i have a COI?" you were pretty argumentative.....  I hope you can see that you played a role in the difficulty. (sorry)
 * anyway the article is calm and untagged now, and you have made your disclosure, so hopefully we can move forward in peace.
 * so, moving forward.... i mentioned above, that managing COI in Wikipedia has two parts. The first is disclosure, which is now done.  The second is the "peer review" i mentioned.  It is pretty simple.  Instead of directly editing the article, you should suggest changes on the Talk page for others to review.  If they are OK with the proposed changes, they might say "go ahead and make them" or they might make the change themselves.   I and others are watching the page, so if you just simply write your proposal on the talk page, the proposal will be seen.  To get more attention to your suggestions, you can make an "edit request" that also creates a flag at the COI notice board. I added a section to the bottom of the beige box at the top of the Talk page - if you click where it says "click here", the Wikipedia software formats an edit request for you -- all you have to do, is type in what you want, click save, and presto, all formatted.
 * again i am sorry for the rough start. I am glad we have an article on your dad, who seemed to be a real prince; a mensch as we say in NYC. I am watching your page, if you want to keep talking. if not, good luck to you!! Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

→→Thank you for your gracious and kind reply. That means a great deal. I do, indeed, see the role I played. I was short tempered at a bad time and should have taken a breath and just asked for help. I understand the peer review process that you have described now and will use it should there seem to be a need to add to or edit the page. Again, thank you for your kind understanding and assistance. Spinfisher (talk) 15:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)