Talk:NZ Wrestling Federation

Conflict of Interest
The user Socks01 appears to have a conflict on interest re this article. In the edit summary here. This is certainly original research if not a conflict of interest (COI) and his editing of this article should be subject to WP rules.2001:8003:5022:5E01:9DC9:4B49:C160:4804 (talk) 03:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I wanted to add factual information to the article that Martin Stirling has retired, and I couldn't find a source and that annoyed me. So I made that this claim up. I have apologized for this and I am not going to add anything which is unsourced. This user continues to look for problems with all my edits, and continues to revert my edits with multiple IP address accounts. The user needs to assume good faith. My edits are 100% in good faith. There is obviously not enough proof for a COI. The page move was to reflect the common name. I am just trying to improve the article as I have done for many years. I created and maintain this article and have a passion for maintaining wrestling articles. That is my reason for the false claim. Please let me continue editing the NZWPW page. Socks01Logo2.png 07:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The COI guideline does not absolutely prohibit people with a connection to a subject from editing articles on that subject. My edits are uncontroversial and are sourced. COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content'. I feel this user is doing this as they keep disputed with me about many different article contents.Socks01Logo2.png 07:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Until such time as someone else makes a ruling on this - the tag stays. 2001:8003:5022:5E01:B928:4F34:CE4A:D218 (talk) 09:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And until such time as someone else makes a ruling on this, I can continue to edit the page if it is constructive. Socks01Logo2.png You should be reported for using multiple accounts your hide your identity and avoid consequences such as the WP:3RR10:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * No you can't. You need clearance until the ruling is made and that changes. 2001:8003:5022:5E01:B928:4F34:CE4A:D218 (talk) 10:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I am making a ruling. 2001, you have assumed bad faith on the excuse you have used for the COI. Evidence is extremely presumptive and I reject it. You should not have removed the COI tag as you have also assumed. When there is a suspicion of a COI, the tag must stay. You also assumed bad faith, and both of you in the end were as bad as each other. As a third party I do not believe the case for COI to be proven and now the tag should remain off. Addicted4517 (talk) 12:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)