Talk:Andreas Antonopoulos

Notability
The previous request for deletion was tabled as many of the petitioners claimed that they had sources to provide notability, but as of yet none of those people have come forward to add those sources. If anyone would like to source this article, but if not I do believe the article should be nominated for deletion for a lack of notability again. Countered (talk) 07:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Several of the sources you deleted were perfectly fine sources. Some of them were marginal, but others were useful and valid sources. For example, what was your reasoning for removing the PandoDaily source on Andreas's meeting with the Canadian Senate from the section of the wiki noting Andreas's meeting with the canadian senate? When I get time this week or next I'll go over these changes in depth and add other sources too.Redpointist (talk) 13:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You say several sources I deleted were perfectly fine but you only mentioned one. You also re-added multiple sources which are clearly from personal blogs that discuss bitcoin. I will remove those sources, and if you feel the need to add them again, feel free to defend why you believe they are reputable sources.  Countered &#124; talk  00:05, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You also removed sources from cryptocoinsnews.com and cointelegraph.com. Both of those are news sites that have an editoral staff that issues corrections and meets the guidelines of WP:IRS. I will also be adding sources from coindesk.com. If you wish to argue that these sites are infact personal blogs and not news sites with editorial staff, please present your evidence that these sites are not a valid source of information on bitcoin related topics.98.65.197.25 (talk) 16:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Both of those sites may have editorial staffs, but they are also promotional in their nature. They promote the existence of bitcoin. You might not agree with that, but it's pretty clear to me. I'm not going to concede this point, as they also are self published. Self published information needs to come from reliable sources, and while this may or may not be reliable depending on who cares, it's still self referential and serves the purpose of self advertisement. As such it doesn't pass WP:RS. Regardless of whether the information is bad or good, wikipages on living persons need to have stringent standards for sources, so I'm going to maintain this position, unless someone else had a better argument.  Countered &#124; talk  07:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It looks like youre grasping at straws here to get these sources deleted. First you claimed that the sources were from personal blogs, and that argument being refuted, switch to the claim that they are promotional and self-published. Promotional of what? Andreas Antonopoulos, whom this discussion is about? This article isn't about bitcoin. Coindesk is no more a promotional tool of Andreas Antonopoulos than Popular Science Magazine is a promotional tool of Neil deGrasse Tyson. Furthermore, is Popular Science Magazine an invalid source on any science related topic simply because they promote science? Your argument is entirely invalid. And the fact that these are publications with editorial control means that they are inherently not self-published. Unless you can show otherwise, Andreas Antonopoulos has no control over the content of any of these publications and thus their writing about him is not "self advertisement".63.79.84.86 (talk) 15:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * , you should check the definition of Self-published. I see that your comment is solely based on "it's pretty clear to me", which, unfortunately, does not have the proper weight. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This should be self explanatory. Just because opinion pieces have and editor doesn't mean they are anything more than opinion pieces. If in fact popular science was promoting products that they directly benefit monetarily from, your ridiculous comparison would actually make some sort of sense, but as far as I know they do not. They do not write about products that they have a hand in wanting to succeed. These "source" you seem so bent on using on the other hand do benefit from coming up with "experts in bitcoin", to legitimize the very idea of cryptocurrency. They have a direct hand in trying to make bitcoin bigger than it already is, and I would say that the vast majority of the writers, if not all of them, own bitcoins themselves. We're not just talking about the self promotion of Antonopoulos here, we're talking about a self referential "bitcoin expert" site that has a stake in how bitcoin is viewed. I honestly don't think I can spell this out any better for you  Countered &#124; talk  01:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Lets put your argument in context...it is the equivalent of saying that Bloomberg Businessweek Magazine is not a valid source for a wiki on Jim Cramer because Jim Cramer promotes investing money in the stock market, and the majority of Bloomberg Businessweek writers have a financial interest in the promotion and success of stock market investing. Well guess what, Bloomberg Businessweek is a source on Jim Cramers wiki and I don't think anyone would think its invalid because of this absurd argument. Furthermore, underlying your various rationales to get these sources removed seems to be a prejudice against anyone associated with bitcoin that they're only motivation is financial gain, which is simply not true. Its like argueing the scientific journal 'Nature' is an invalid source because all their writers are just conspiring to promote the scientific method so that they can get more money for research grants.Redpointist (talk) 09:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing you're saying is making any sense. These comparisons do not fit because they are not the same thing. These sources are not reputibale like Bloomberg, and Bloomberg doesn't promote the selling and buying of stocks that would benefit them personally (as that would be highly illegal). Nature magazine does not exist to "promote science so they can get research grants" either. Your bitcoin sources however exists solely to talk about and promote bitcoin. They are blogs, and nothing more. I don't have some personal vendetta here, I just want reputable sources for this wikipedia page about a living person. I haven't deleted the information, all I want is better sourcing. If you can't do that, this page needs to be deleted.  Countered &#124; talk  13:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It makes perfect sense. You just don't like it because you don't think Bitcoin is important enough for news publications focusing on it to be valid. This isn't a articles for deletion discussion anymore. This is a discussion of your refusal to accept a topic specific publication as a source on an article related to that topic, without providing any precedent or clear breach of policy besides your feelings that anyone associated with Bitcoin is inherently untrustworthy because they're just out to make money. At this point seems you're only argument is "the sites aren't reputable because I say so", while I have shown that they meet all the guidelines in WP:IRS. Here's what the guidelines say qualifies a "questionable source"..."Reliable sources must be strong enough to support the claim. A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim, but never for an extraordinary claim. Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited." What part of this article is making extraordinary claims what would not be supported by even a "lightweight source"? Where have you gotten the idea that these sources have a "poor reputation for checking the facts" or have "no editorial oversight". Your general feelings about Bitcoins notability are not relevant right now and it seems like your removal of almost every source in the article was an effort to support your preconceived notion that the article shouldn't exist. Just because these publications are not as popular as Bloomberg, does not mean they aren't reliable. Reliability is based on such things such as editorial control and reputation for fact checking. If you wanted to argue that these topic related publications are not proof of Andreas's notability, that would be a separate discussion that would have been relevant in the AfD discusssion. Right now they're simply being used to support the content of the article. Also regarding your claim that Bloomberg doesn't promote stocks that would benefit them personally...any increase in inflows to the stock market as a whole his a high degree of correlation to an individual stock's price. They have a financial interest in the stock market as a whole and profit when people buy stocks, any stocks as most people do so through broad based mutual funds. This is not inherently wrong, infact it would be unreasonable to insist that anyone writing about someone involved in the stock market to have no interest in the success of the market...Just as it is unreasonable to invalidate a source on a topic peripheral to bitcoin because they have an interest in the success of bitcoin. Actually these sources exist to talk about and promote cryptocurrencies, of which Bitcoin is only one. Just like Sports Illustrated exists to talk about and promote sports, climbing magazine exists to talk about and promote climbing, bloomberg exists to talk about and promote wallstreet investments. And guess what, lots of people involved in those publications have some kind of financial interest in their topic growing. Now if this was an article about The Bitcoin Foundation using a source from the Bitcoin Foundations blog would not be appropriate as it would be promotional material that they controlled. Andreas Antonopoulos has no control over these sources and that fact that the source has an interest in the topic Andreas specializes in does not change the fact that they are infact independent from him and thus are not promotional. Coindesk, cointelegraph, and cryptocoinsnews are not Andreas. Andreas is a separate entity and thus their reporting on him is not promotional. The fact that they might promote bitcoin is a separate isssue and is as relevant to this article as Bloomberg promoting wallstreet investment is to their reporting on Jim Cramer. Redpointist (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "Your bitcoin sources however exists solely to talk about and promote bitcoin." - this statement surprised me. I had to check where did it come from, et voila! It turned out to be a citation from the CoinDesk lead section! When verifying it, I checked the source provided, and found out that it was just made up and contradicted the information provided by the source. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Lets break this down.. regarding bitcoin related sources such as coindesk, cryptocoinsnews, cointelegraph it has been argued that they should be removed because: All these arguments for removal have fallen flat. Lets move on. If you wish claim that any of the content of the article is controversial, please do so. If you wish to contest the notability of Andreas Antonopoulos you can nominate the article for deletion. And if it makes you feel better I've added a couple more sources that are unrelated to bitcoin. The bitcoin related ones should be fine in a supporting role.Redpointist (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * they're "clearly personal blogs" - refuted by the fact that they are news services with an editorial staff that issues corrections
 * they're "promotional in their nature" - refuted by the fact that their income derives from ad revenue targeting users seeking bitcoin related news, not from selling bitcoins
 * they're "self published" - refuted by the fact that they have editorial control and that Andreas Antonopoulos has no control about what they write of him.
 * I just don't understand why it's so important that you use these sources. Let's assume you're right and these sources are okay (you're not, and I really resent all of the nonsense you've said about me here), but let's just assume that's so. Is it not possible that there are better sources for these claims? Why is it so important that THESE sources be used?

There is one thing I hate, and I really do mean hate about the internet is arguments like this. You're SO SURE that you're right and that you've proven me wrong, you just keep arguing past me and ignoring everything I've said. None of your arguments make the remotest sense. I don't just care about bitcoin, I care about REPUTABILITY, of which needs to be PROVEN, and HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN. I cannot prove that they are NOT REPUTABLE, this is a negative claim and proving a negative is close to impossible for most things, and unless they've done something that's largely illegal or not reputable then it would be impossible to prove that any website is not reputable. You've used this as a way to argue past the policies on wikipedia, as if I can't prove they aren't reputable, they must be reputable. I mean, there are so many ways in which this argument makes me want to smash my own head open against a wall, but the level of rhetoric is probably the worst. You've made all of these false comparisons, attacked my neutrality (for who knows whatever reason) and then declared yourself the "winner". I mean, this is why no one wants to edit this fucking site, too many people invested in the subjects who just don't know how to reason properly infest every god damn page.

And this is all about SOURCES. Something so SIMPLE and so innocuous. I haven't deleted the information from the page, I haven't said the information is false, I just don't think sources that are highly involved in the subject in a way that brings into question their reputability. I mean, anyone can make a website and call it a news site, they can claim to have a board of editors, none of that actually makes them a reputable source for wikipedia.

All I want to see it better sources. I'm done with this argument and this website, this is way to frustrating.  Countered &#124; talk  22:59, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Cryptocoinsnews has a great reputation for reliability. Even their competitors have good things to say of them. http://cointelegraph.com/news/112532/cryptocoinsnews-caleb-chen-at-this-stage-in-bitcoins-development-medias-role-is-largely-education "CT: Obviously, publications such as ours have in-built biases; we wouldn’t write about cryptocurrencies if we weren’t interested in them. Where do you draw the line between advocacy and objective reporting?

CC: Readers should realize that every author has in-built biases that inevitably find their way on paper: This is true of every publication known to man.

I am a proud digital currency advocate; however, that doesn't override basic journalistic integrity. As with authors who write about foreign exchange or US fiscal policy, having involvement and monetary interest in the US dollar is not viewed as tainting objective reporting.

As a matter of fact, experience and expertise in the subject matter is often a boon for objective reporting. At CryptoCoinsNews, we require all authors to disclose potential conflicts of interest to ensure that inappropriate advocacy (e.g., for a Bitcoin service) is discarded in preference for objective work.

Cryptocurrency publications need to mind the fine line between Bitcoin advocacy and "objective reporting" on Bitcoin. Full disclosure of potential conflicts of interests is a must for all reporters, Bitcoin-related or not; furthermore, I also believe that critical reading is a must for all."Redpointist (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


 * So, I realise that this argument is already over because one of the people was first to use bold font, and that always means that the person using it is indisputably right and The Winner. But ... I think the 'article' reads like nothing more than a job application from a wannabe lobbyist. One of the references is his own damn blog (#4), one of them is apparently broken as it wont load (#6) one of them I can't comment on because it's a subscription source and I'm not going to, and one of the remaining is from 2013 while all of the rest are less than 6 months old. This is not reliable, not noteworthy, and not credible. I'm sorry I wasted my time reading it. But that's just me, and I wasn't the one to break out the bold font. Wayne 14:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * What isnt "credible" about this? I'm sorry that Antonopouslos's bitcoin advocacy rubs you the wrong way, but there are less then 10 people who are involved with Bitcoin whom have wikis, and Andreas is one of the most notable of those. Link #6 loaded just fine for me a moment ago. Also, his personal website is a perfectly valid source of information about him. If the article was primarily sourced from his site it would be a problem, but right now, it comprises only 1 out of 11 sources. Its just supplementary.Redpointist (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "So, I realise that this argument is already over because one of the people was first to use bold font, and that always means that the person using it is indisputably right and The Winner." - this is a Red herring fallacy trying to refute the arguments by pointing not at the arguments, but at the form in which they are presented. As far as I know, bold font is one of standard ways how to emphasize parts of text. Another, less standard way, is the use of ALL CAPS, which can be also observed in the discussion. However, you, use yet another way how to emphasize the text, I mean your sentence "One of the references is his own ... blog", which is known as a nonstandard way of giving emphasis to words. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Not a very effective red herring if I'm not part of the already concluded discussion to which it relates, is it? But thanks for the instruction in rhertoric. Wayne 16:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I can see that it is you who declared the discussion to be over, although I do observe that you actually do discuss here, don't you? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Seriously? You are trying to say that information that someone wrote about themselves in their own blog is a credible and reliable source for an encyclopaedia article? I am truly gobsmacked. On the other hand, Bitcoin? What did I say about Bitcoin? Precisely what did I say about Bitcoin? Wayne 07:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Per WP:SELFSOURCE, self-published sources can be used as informations about themselves. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Per WP:SELFSOURCE ..."so long as: the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;...". Here the material is being used to support the claim that the subject "has authored more than two hundred articles published in print and syndicated worldwide.", which is a pretty exceptional claim. And insofar as my comment was about the use of blogs generally, per WP:BLOGS "... For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs (as distinguished from newsblogs, above), Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources." Wayne 16:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Occupation = "Visionary".
I removed this ludicrous bit of puffery from the Occupation field. My edit was almost immediately reverted with a note: "there is a source for the claim". So what? There is no such occupation. Wayne 11:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Where do you have a source for your claim? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, nevermind, I remove the claim from the box, if you perceive it to be so controversial. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Andreas Antonopoulos Isn't Notable
Andreas Antonopoulos is a public speaker. In this article has been attributed as a security expert, genius, visionary, etc.

He merely digests information from other sources (e.g. his book which ripped off bitcoin.it) and speaks publicly about them.

You will find unreliable articles, even ones that say "no one currently understands bitcoin better than Andreas Antonopoulos" (laughable). Andreas calling himself a Bitcoin/security expert doesn't make it so.

This article should be deleted or at least corrected. You are seriously scraping the bottom of the barrel when you need to use the number of Github commits he has to show his notability.70.176.210.76 (talk) 09:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Repaired the title. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "In this article has been attributed as ... genius" - such claim is not in the article
 * "In this article has been attributed as ... visionary" - such claim is not in the article
 * Notability has been established by reliable sources. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "such claim is not in the article" That would make sense since "has been attributed" is past tense...
 * This is commentary on how notable he is, not about those specific portions of the article. I'm not completely clear on the qualifications for notability, but this article seems to have low quality sources brought on by his fanboys from this thread. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2l97xj/wikipedia_page_for_andreas_antonopoulos_nominated/ --70.176.210.76 (talk) 12:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Your opinion that "He merely digests information from other sources (e.g. his book which ripped off bitcoin.it) and speaks publicly about them." is not related to notability. For example, famous television anchors only digests information from other sources, but the famous ones are considered notable. Since the article has recently survived an AfD, do you have any new points to add? ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 14:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You are right. Him ...snipped... other sources doesn't make him not notable, but it does reflect on how much of a Bitcoin authority he is. --70.176.210.76 (talk) 23:12, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not encourage this kind of language when speaking about living persons. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Really? "Regurgitating" is inappropriate? What better word is there for repeating facts without understanding them? --70.176.210.76 (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)


 * He educates the masses by explaining Bitcoin in easy to understand presentations. This is very relevant work in my opinion. Why so sour, anyway? --Renek78 (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Criticism Section Deleted for OR
Can this really be considered OR? Andreas' Twitter is a reliable source if you are making a claim about something he said. The other source removed was a court document. I might agree that cryptocoinnews isn't a reliable source and should be removed. --73.168.27.10 (talk) 20:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Whitelisting of bitcointalk.org source
I have requested that the specific bitcointalk.org link (currently blacklisted in this article) be added to the spam whitelist. See the request details here:
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#Quote_by_Andreas_Antonopoulos_on_Bitcoin_Talk

Comments / thoughts?

— JonathanCross (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * FYI: Whitelisting was successful. – JonathanCross (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

donation event
I have added this text on the page with sources multiple times. Seems this text is controversial.


 * On the 5th and 6th of December 2017, unsolicited donations of over 100 bitcoins were sent to Antonopoulos by over a thousand followers of his work, after Roger Ver questioned his investment choices on Twitter.


 * Adam Back reportedly began the outpour of support by tweeting: “if ‘sign guy’ can get a meaningful start from tips, we should try [to] find a way for the community to fund @aantonop to a hodlers position.”

Note this text is cited and should be discussed on this talk page before deleting. Probably more sources will develop over time as this is an interesting story and likely to be covered. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

HODL definition
This article links to wiktionary but the definintion over there doesn't mean Hold On For Dear Life. It simply says it was a typo. However, this term is being intentionally used here in this case, which is a reflection of its broad use in the crypto universe. I did make an edit and started a talk page discussion at wiktionary, but it was quickly reverted. Maybe I don't know the rules for editing over at wiktionary. If others here know the rules, please evaluate that definition and assist with changing it (if crypto's def is within the scope). There are also RS to support it see and. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Andreas M. Antonopoulos 2016.png

Dispute over content
I was trying to summarize the key statements from the talks of Aantop, but user David Gerard is of the opinion, that a "reliable source", like an international newspaper, etc. as reference is needed. I personally think that the man's very own speeches are the best possible resource you can find and thus used them as a reference. There isn't that much mainstream media coverage thus far. So from this point of view the whole article had to be removed, which would be utter nonsense. What do others think? Below is the text, which got reverted. --Renek78 (talk) 20:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Key statements
Andreas Antonopoulos' presentations often contain the following key statements:

The Five Pillars of Open Blockchains
According to Antonopoulos a cryptocurrency has to have the following properties in order to serve as peer-to-peer money :
 * 1) Open - Anyone can participate independent of ethnicity, gender, personal wealth or political opinions.
 * 2) Borderless - The currency can be used no matter where you live or travel.
 * 3) Neutral - It does not matter to whom you send money. Even to people in "rogue states".
 * 4) Censorship-Resistance - Nobody can shut down or control the system.
 * 5) Public - Everybody can verify, if a transaction has happened or not.

Be your own bank
According to him it is important to teach people how to properly use peer-to-peer cryptocurrencies. One of the most important slogans in his opinion is "Not your keys? Not your coins!", which emphasises that people should have their private keys in their possession as opposed to using a custodial wallet providers.


 * We're not here to write hagiographies. If there's really zero coverage of Antonopoulos's views outside crypto sites, then it's literally not something we can note citably in Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

sourcing is strict on crypto articles. Can you see if you can find this in mainstream or in a book (note Antonopoulos' books). Thanks!

removed content
couple more sources for the bitcoin gift content fortune and qz.com. I cant open the fortune, maybe out of pageviews. Thoughts? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * There was a Fortune link higher up in the piece - I was thinking specifically of the claim that Adam Back was the prime instigator, when there was only really Back's tweet saying he backed it - David Gerard (talk) 11:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Should a competing (contrarian) author be making edits here?
Wikipedia user "David Gerard" is an author of a book that is a contrarian take on cryptocurrencies and blockchains. By definition a "competitor" of mine (Andreas M. Antonopoulos), in as much this causes a conflict of interest. Nothing against someone who holds a contrary opinion, but should that person really be editing a Biography-of-Living-Persons article, removing edits by others (see talk page). Seems fishy to me. I wouldn't edit his page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aantonop (talk • contribs) 21:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * If this is true, then I think that is in a conflict of interest and should not edit this specific article at all. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Seems both the article's subject and the concerned editors are both blockchain pundits on the opposite sides of the fence. Strictly interpreted, probably a COI. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Pretty sure it isn't a COI per WP:COI. But if you think you have a case, you know where WP:COIN is. They'll want edits as evidence, though - David Gerard (talk) 14:16, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * More specifically: this is an instance of the curious idea that people who aren't advocates of a topic shouldn't edit articles on it. This is not in fact a Wikipedia rule in any manner - David Gerard (talk) 14:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, no. Nobody prohibits you to edit article on the topic on which you wrote a book. This, however, is not an article on the topic on which you wrote a book. This is an article on an author having an opposing view than your own. That is a big difference. If you should be able to edit an article on, then it should not be a WP:COI for to edit an article on yourself either. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC)


 * You're missing showing where it would otherwise be a COI for him to do so, on a basis you haven't specified.
 * You're into arguing hypotheticals about hypotheticals now. If you have a claim to make - if this is a discussion you intend to go anywhere - then you need to actually show an actual COI, and the place to actually do that is on WP:COIN. You know this.
 * If the editor who is using the name of the subject wants to claim a particular person has a COI about editing the article about him, then WP:COIN is the place to do that. I'd suggest that "He's an author in the same area who thinks differently to me" is unlikely to convince anyone, but I certainly can't stop them or you from trying - David Gerard (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I created a discussion here Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. Thought it would be the correct venue for this. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The COI Notice above has been archived to this url. – JonathanCross (talk) 23:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)