User talk:DaxMoon

DaxMoon, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi DaxMoon! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like I JethroBT (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

COI

You have an obvious conflict of interest and you must declare it. If you work directly or indirectly for an organisation, or otherwise are acting on its behalf, you are very strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. If you are paid directly or indirectly by the organisation you are writing about, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:DaxMoon. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=DaxMoon|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If you are being compensated, please provide the required disclosure. Note that editing with a COI is discouraged, but permitted as long as it is declared. Concealing a COI can lead to a block. Please do not edit further until you respond to this message. Also read the following regarding writing an article

• you must provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the organisation, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the organisation claims or interviewing its management. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls

A list of websites at the end does not constitute in-line references since we have no idea what fact each is supporting, and

• The notability guidelines for organisations and companies have been updated. The primary criteria has five components that must be evaluated separately and independently to determine if it is met:

1. significant coverage in
2. independent,
3. multiple,
4. reliable,
5. secondary sources.

Note that an individual source must meet all four criteria to be counted towards notability.

• you must write in a non-promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic, with verifiable facts, not opinions or reviews. The tone is pure company-generated spam, with missin statements, quotes from "Will and Amir" and stuff like

as they started to build out their vision... their own unique implementation... The team strongly believes... team’s belief that passion, persistence, and a strong sense of ethics allow them to best serve their community... They are actively seeking additional talented and passionate individuals to join their team.

• there shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections.
• you must not copy text from elsewhere. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. We require that text posted here can be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial; text is considered to be copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.

Following an AN discussion, all pages with content related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed, are now under indefinite general sanctions.

Before attempting to write an article again, please make sure that the topic meets the notability criteria linked above, and check that you can find independent third party sources. Also read Your first article. You must also reply to the COI request above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I don’t work for the organization in any way nor am I acting on their behalf. I simply believe they are notable and want to improve Wikipedia. I think their particular take on decentralized finance and the tech to process trades they’re working on is fascinating. You’re treating a sandbox page with the scrutiny intended for submitted articles. We have pages for titcoin and auroracoin but a major crypto like 0x gets banished from existence with nary a thought. I completely agree some of it sounds far too promotional. This is because most of the available informational on the 0xproject is promotional. I was going to edit it so it was encyclopedic. Do you really think someone purely trying to promote a crypto would add a somewhat damning criticism section with an in depth critique from professors at Cornell and written about in Forbes? A critique that could potentially tank the entire company? As I already stated, I was simply dumping info in the sandbox so I’d have a variety of info I’d be working with in one place. The level of scrutiny with which you are lording over a sandbox... it’s as if I already submitted it as an article. And you deleted it without even discussing it with me first... And when it was kindly pointed out you became all the more intractable. Assuming bad faith on my part every step of the way. Biting the head off a newcomer. I find this sort of behavior to be extremely detrimental to the idea of an encyclopedia anyone can edit and I hope you will reflect upon how you addressed this matter. I will start an ANI or whatever the next proper step is when I have time.DaxMoon (talk) 14:25, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

On the issue of not responding to a COI request because you don't have one, although I can see the logic of that, it's higher risk than you think. I, and other admins, routinely block editors who don't respond to a COI request and then continue to edit the contentious article, particularly since that's often the only subject they have written about, which wasn't the case here.

I'll restore the sandbox for you you to clean up, but a couple of comments first. The bit you had actually started formatting used external links instead of in-line references, see the guidance in my posting above. Your quote must have an in-line reference for attribution. I'm dubious anyway about quoting what the company says, since it's obviously not an independent third-party source, so it looks promotional.

I appreciate that you might not use them, but some of the sources listed are not appropriate, they include PR sites, Techcrunch and Medium. Sources like Forbes and Bloomberg should also be used with caution, since often they are just repeating what the company says. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Viewmont Viking, just to keep you in the loop on this Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you Jimfbleak. I appreciate the guidance. I may shoot you a message when I’ve cleaned it up a bit if that’s ok. DaxMoon (talk) 17:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Informational notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in blockchain and cryptocurrencies. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Grayfell (talk) 08:19, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Erroneous edit at Tether (cryptocurrency)

Regarding this edit, the cited source includes this exact quote:

This information is intended solely to assist the management of Tether Limited (“management”), and solely for management’s use, and is not intended to be, and should not be, used or relied upon by any other party.

This is in the first page of the PDF. Do not remove citations from direct quotes, as this introduces WP:COPYVIO and WP:V issues. Further, your edit broke the quotation template.

As the article is under community sanctions, you should revert this edit yourself. Grayfell (talk) 08:36, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

My bad User:Grayfell. I removed the wrong source. That wasn't the one I intended to remove. Never even looked at that one. I'll revert. Thanks for the heads up. DaxMoon (talk) 10:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Your edit summary: Thanks for the heads up on the 1 revert rule. I'm going to use mine here. I brought up the precise policies that clearly require those edits and by reverting you restored content that is clearly violative of wiki policy. One shouldn't have to bring up every edit on the talk page when a major wikipedia policy unambiguously requires extensive editing for clear POV violations This edit summary Shows a couple of serious misunderstanding of Wikipedia and how edit warring is defined.

First, the talk page is the place to discuss what are and are not "clear POV violations". It is not "clear" just because you say it is "clear". You are not more qualified to decide this than the multiple experienced editors who have discussed this over the past few years.

Second, repeatedly restoring your preferred changes to the article is also edit warring. The use of the "revert" button is irrelevant. WP:1RR is a bright line rule, but that is not the only way to edit war. Wikipedia is based on WP:CONSENSUS. This means that yes, you do have to bring up edits which are contested. These edits have obviously been contested, so as I have repeatedly explained, the burden is on you to gain consensus for these changes. Grayfell (talk) 19:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Childish personal insults are the wrong way to approach this. As I've tried to explain to you multiple times, the burden is on you to gain consensus for your preferred version, per WP:BRD etc. If you think you can start a neutrally worded RFC, and you think that would improve the article, go for it. Grayfell (talk) 18:18, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Grayfell you're right of course. I apologize. However, I believe consensus weighs in favor of making those edits.DaxMoon (talk) 05:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Apology accepted. The article's talk page would be a much better place to make your case about changes to the article. I do not see any clear consensus in favor of changing the article yet. Grayfell (talk) 06:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

/sandbox

Kin (Cryptocurrency)

October 2021

Your edit to Rudyard Kipling has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa. I could see how the the language I used in one of my edits was too similar to language from one of the referenced materials. I disagree that every edit needed to be x'd and eradicated. Would you please review my edits and provide an explanation? Thank you. DaxMoon (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks like you did just that. For my own pedagogical purposes could you explain why you believe the content I added from https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/archive/punjab/rudyard-kipling-gave-10-for-dyer-fund-756595 violated copyright laws? I would've thought the content was satisfactorily altered. Thanks you. DaxMoon (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Source says:

Kim Wagner, senior lecturer in British Imperial History at Queen Mary University of London, now says that Dyer was eulogised as the ‘Saviour of Punjab’ in the Anglo-Indian press in India in early 1920, but that had nothing to do with Kipling, and when the ‘Morning Post’ fund was launched, it was under the heading ‘The Man Who Saved India’. However, he says Kipling had nothing to do with organising this fund. He did contribute to the fund on July 17, 1920.

Your edit:

However, Kim Wagner, senior lecturer in British Imperial History at Queen Mary University of London, says Dyer was eulogised as the ‘Saviour of Punjab’ in the Anglo-Indian press in India in early 1920, but that had nothing to do with Kipling, and when The Morning Post fund was launched, it was under the heading ‘The Man Who Saved India’. Wagner says Kipling had nothing to do with organising this fund and while he did contribute to the fund on July 17, 1920

Overlapping content is marked in Bold. It's almost identical. The source page is marked as "Copyright © The Tribune Trust, 2021"— Diannaa (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Well I'll be. Thanks Diannaa! DaxMoon (talk) 23:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

question

You reverted my edit here saying removal of valid content. I hadn't removed anything in that edit; instead I was reverting the removal myself. Was this an accident? --Ferien (talk) 17:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Ferien. Indeed it was an accident! My apologies. I'm a newbie to recent changes. I'll revert my revert unless you already have. DaxMoon (talk) 17:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for your contributions and best of luck recent change patrolling :) --Ferien (talk) 17:51, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Duplicate edit request and split discussion

Hi, I closed your recent edit request at Talk:List of cryptocurrencies because it was a duplicate of the one above and it looked like you hadn't responded to the objection on that one, then I spotted your response on Radish's talk page. I have moved the discussion back to the article talk page so that anyone interested can read it. If no-one else responds in a day or so please reopen the first edit request (change answered=yes to answered=no) and leave a comment under it summarizing what has happened, so that whoever next goes through the requested edits queue can see that there is no further dispute. Hope that doesn't seem too hopelessly bureaucratic! User:GKFX^talk 18:57, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi User:GKFX. I think I follow. Thanks for the explanation! DaxMoon (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

0x (decentralized exchange infrastructure) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, 0x (decentralized exchange infrastructure), has been moved to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) because as an obvious WP:COI contribution, it needs to come through WP:AFC per WP:COIEDIT. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:23, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello Usedtobecool. When I first started a sandbox for the 0x article, before I had a chance to say anything, an admin deleted the page based on an unequivocal WP:COI accusation, without any detail or explanation. Fortunately, Jimfbleak restored the page after I had a chance to address the COI accusation. Once again, the page has been deleted based on an unequivocal COI accusation, without any detail or explanation, before I have chance to respond. Please provide the basis for your accusation that this article is "an obvious WP:COI contribution". DaxMoon (talk) 03:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I was not aware of the history, DaxMoon, but articles don't get deleted because of COI. It was deleted as spam. COI was suspected because it was spam. Whether you have a COI or not, you have produced an article that looks a lot like a COI contribution. I did not delete it. I moved it to Draft:0x (decentralized exchange infrastructure) per WP:DRAFTIFY. You can work on it there and bring it up to standards.

I am not convinced you don't have a COI. With David Gerard, that makes three of us who have come to think there's some sort of COI at play here. And there's ColonelCrypto who's even more single-mindedly focused on this article. Even if you don't, they surely have a COI.

Full disclosure: draftification is not binding. In the absence of a COI (and even without but only technically), you are free to move it back to mainspace. But you will have to do so at your own risk; if an admin finds your denial unconvincing, they could sanction you. There is no set threshold of evidence that is required.

The article is generally poor. It is promotional, and references don't verify the content. So, I would suggest, regardless of the COI issue, that you could benefit from using the WP:AFC process. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I was dumping a lot of material, including articles critical of 0x, in the sandbox to have it handy for when I edited later thinking it would be ok seeing as it's a sandbox. Spam/COI technicalities aside, who is the third alleging a COI? Does Wikipedia not have a Confrontation Clause? Notable no-coiner David Gerard (kidding), also alleged a COI without any detail or explanation. And without having a chance to confront the accusations, these conspiratorial allegations are enlarged to engulf ColonelCrypto. The colonel included a new section under the criticism section shortly before we took it to the mainspace. Look at the next article we did for our crypto article creation project Kin. I struggle to see how either the 0x page or the Kin page violate WP:NPOV. But if you think they do, rather than casting vague degradations that the articles are poor and promotional why don't you provide specifics so we may better the page? Why does it matter how many people join in on vague accusations without any detail or explanation? Especially when, over and over, I've requested detail and explanation so I can respond. Please provide an explanation of your COI accusations and I'll be happy to address them. DaxMoon (talk) 00:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

The number matters because Wikipedia works on WP:CONSENSUS. It does not matter whether you are told why anyone thinks you have a COI (WP:OPAQUE). Even if you are never told a single detail, if the few people who ever look at the issue generally agree that you have one, you'll be required to proceed as if you do. Obviously, I am not going to spend my time compiling a list of all the issues the article has when you have rejected the opportunity to work in precisely that framework (WP:AFC). Usedtobecool ☎️ 04:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi DaxMoon! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Related project to Wikipedia:WikiProject NPOV, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. Click this link to read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

November 2021

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Kin (cryptocurrency). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. David Gerard (talk) 11:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi David Gerard. Sorry about that. I was kidding. I saw some article where you were derided the title "no-coiner" and was amused. No-coiner is a terrible taunt. I'll be civiler and less cavalier moving forward. DaxMoon (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. CoinDesk is specifically listed at WP:RSP as generally unreliable. It should not be used in Wikipedia articles as a source. You were warned of this previously and have persisted in edit-warring it in. David Gerard (talk) 10:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Please note that the crypto general sanctions allow an admin to topic-ban you from the area. Your editing in crypto articles has been severely questioned by multiple editors already. Please improve it - David Gerard (talk) 10:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

November 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or self-promoting in violation of the conflict of interest and notability guidelines.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  David Gerard (talk) 11:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

DaxMoon (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

David and I were in the midst of a discussion/disagreement when he blocked me. Per WP:UNINVOLVED, I don't think this was appropriate. Regarding the advertising/self-promoting allegation. I addressed this issue a while ago with User:Jimfbleak. No one has ever provided any specifics or an explanation for the allegations even though I have continually asked. I am happy to address any questions or concerns relating to these issues. It seems once you have been accused of having a conflict of interest, anyone who disagrees with you in the future will accuse you as well without any concern for evidence thereof. Also, I don't see how the edits I've made could be construed as advertising or self-promotional. They are factual and referenced. Further, I have added content and references criticizing the subjects I am alleged to be promoting. If I've made edits that sound promotional or self-promoting I'd appreciate it if someone would show me the specific edits. I enjoy editing Wikipedia and I'm happy to learn. I will raise the issue David and I were discussing on the reliable sources talk page. It would be best if there were a definitive policy on this issue anyways. Thank you. DaxMoon (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

"David and I were in the midst of a discussion/disagreement when he blocked me" I have myself been in discussions with him, and based on that experience I think I can safely say that you are alone in your assessment of those exchanges as "discussions". "Disagreements" may be a little closer, but I'd say it's the better part of a day's drive between them. He warns you, either with a template or not, and you respond with a comment. He does not respond. And then you edit war ... you don't violate 3RR, but you edit war.

For those reasons I do not need to reach the issue of whether your edits were promotional or not. — Daniel Case (talk) 03:56, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Since I've been pinged here, just to say that I accepted the denial of a COI in the interests of AGF, but with misgivings. I have no problem at all with the unblock decline, and IMHO any future unblock should be contingent on this editor agreeing not to return to this topic Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

DaxMoon (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

If I understand correctly my appeal was denied for a reason not stated in the original block. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that reason appears to be that I was not civil in my interactions with David. I made what was intended as a joke about David being labeled a "no-coiner" in one of our initial interactions. David did not take it as such. I apologized and stated "Sorry about that. I was kidding. I saw some article where you were derided the title "no-coiner" and was amused. No-coiner is a terrible taunt. I'll be civiler and less cavalier moving forward." In the article I'm referring to David himself derided the term "no-coiner" as well. I later began (what I referred to as) a discourse on David's page about using CoinDesk as a source for articles. I tried to be as civil as possible in this discourse. There is a legitimate dispute as to whether CoinDesk should, sometimes, be used as a source. David has previously stated that CoinDesk could [be used] for factual verification but with great caution. He also stated he thought CoinDesk was mostly ok for factual claims. This is how the CoinDesk source was used in the article I was editing. Further, this issue has been brought up specifically in the context of David removing CoinDesk references as a source. This RFC resulted in no consensus. As there is no consensus on the issue, and since I never made more than one revert in a 24 hour period, I didn't think I was edit warring. However, as stated in my initial appeal, "I will raise the issue David and I were discussing on the reliable sources talk page. It would be best if there were a definitive policy on this issue anyways." Regarding whether my edits have been promotional - I've always found Wikipedia fascinating. I made an account and was prompted to try to improve upon the Taqali article so I gave it a try and enjoyed it. There are some cryptocurrencies I find interesting that I felt deserve their own page so, after editing for awhile, I thought I'd give it a try and began a Cryptocurrency article creation project. I would refer to my statement above as to further reasons why my edits have not been promotional. I enjoy editing here. Just as I apologized to David and went about things in a more civil fashion, and just as I now plan on raising the CoinDesk issue on the reliable sources talk page, I'm happy to learn and go about things differently. Thank you. DaxMoon (talk) 19:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 11:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

DaxMoon, you have previously denied COI with 0x (decentralized exchange infrastructure). But you do have COI with something crypto, don't you? Would you please disclose what exactly you would have a conflict with? It would also help if you could clarify your relationship, if any, with user ColonelCrypto. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 17:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Usedtobecool:. As I stated here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1066#Sandbox_deletion, "I am an editor for a rather well known crypto news org. So was the person helping me edit the sandbox page (I believe it was ColonelCrypto). To avoid a conflict of interest, neither of us has any crypto investments nor are we affiliated with any crypto company (at least in a COI sense)." The requirements of my job mandate that I don't have a COI. Thank you.DaxMoon (talk) 22:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Are you involved with CoinDesk, yes or no? It's really a simple question. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: No. DaxMoon (talk) 13:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@Usedtobecool: @Drmies: My last three edits to 0x (decentralized exchange infrastructure) added content to the criticism section. In particular, I included a quote from a company forking 0x's blockchain because they believed DEXs like 0x were "plagued by rudimentary problems such as order collision, front-running, and poor liquidity." I was adding content about a company trying to take over 0x’s market share (and put 0x out of business) and giving voice to their specific criticisms. I am not promoting or advertising for 0x. Please unblock me. Thank you. DaxMoon (talk) 14:07, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Usedtobecool Drmies Hello. Do you know how long this process might take? It is getting increasingly irksome every time I see an article I could better when the reason I am prevented from doing so is so obviously in error. Thank you. DaxMoon (talk) 11:36, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello again DaxMoon! You would have been unblocked already if that was going to happen. It's in limbo because admins appear unwilling to flat out decline it either. Eventually someone will decline it as unsuccessful by virtue of not having been successful through a long wait.

If I had to guess, everyone is having the same problem I had. You are adamant you don't have a COI but your editing looks a lot like COI editing. If it were up to me, I would unblock you if you agreed to (i) bring your crypto articles through WP:AFC and (ii) a WP:1RR restriction on existing crypto articles, both appealable in six months by which time, if you truly don't have a COI, you will have had enough experience with Wikipedia and hopefully a broader involvement in encyclopedia-building, that it would be apparent to everyone that restrictions are no longer necessary. But it's not up to me. If something like that would be acceptable to you, you can ping the blocking admin asking if that would be acceptable to them. I know it'll hurt especially if you truly don't have any COI but I don't see how else you can address the concerns. An admin above suggests a complete topic ban from crypto as your unblock condition; my suggestion is less restrictive. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

What Usedtobecool describes is pretty accurate, and what they propose is pretty reasonable. Here's the thing: when I read your words I'm like, yeah, maybe, but when I look at your edits, which use all these generic links to supposedly link to articles, the conclusion that you're spamming for CoinDesk is just hard to escape. So to Usedtobecool's conditions I'd just add a general "you may not use CoinDesk as a reference". Because if your facts are good and relevant, other publications will have verified them too. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Got here from the backlog at requests for unblock. DaxMoon, I'd be willing to discuss unblock with the restrictions Drmies is suggesting:

1. All crypto articles are submitted through AfC
2. 1RR restriction on crypto topics
3. No direct additions of CoinDesk as a reference. (You can make edit requests that involve CoinDesk.)

Does that work for you? —valereee (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Usedtobecool, Drmies and valereee Just like Jimfbleak restoring the sandbox of the 0x page, I appreciate you taking the time and trying to work things out. I'm sure you all come across a whole lot of riffraff and there are certain heuristics you abide by out of necessity. I've struggled with this decision. Every time I see an edit I could make I want to just agree to these terms but the whole thing is so unjust I can't bring myself to do it. What I believe happened - The first thing written on my talk page is a COI allegation in which a sandbox was deleted I had been working on. I discussed that allegation with the responsible admin, Jimfbleak, and the sandbox was restored. Ever since that time, people who have disagreed with me have accused me of having a COI as a cudgel. One accusation after another and it looks like there must be something. I have asked for, but have yet to see, a single example of an edit I made that sounded promotional or otherwise indicated I have a COI. To the reviewing admin, I believe you will be surprised at the evidence below and the paucity of any indication that I have a COI.

If I understand correctly there are two allegations of COI. One being that I have a COI with 0x (decentralized exchange infrastructure) and the other being that I have a COI with Coindesk.

Regarding 0x - My last three edits to 0x (decentralized exchange infrastructure) added content to the criticism section. In particular, I included a quote from a company forking 0x's blockchain because they believed DEXs like 0x were "plagued by rudimentary problems such as order collision, front-running, and poor liquidity". I was adding content about a company trying to take over 0x’s market share (and put 0x out of business) and giving voice to their specific criticisms. Also, from my very first edits in the sandbox I included criticism alleging 0x had "fundamental flaws in its design". Furthermore, I am, in large part, the person who created and wrote 0x's page. This was what 0x's page looked like as of my last edit as of my last edit. For comparison, here is Cardano's. My edits have been based in fact and I have used neutral language throughout. I fail to see how any edits I've made to 0x's page could be seen as promotional. Also, when I added 0x to the cryptocurrency template at the bottom of crypto pages I added 0x with a O rather than a 0. I don't think someone with a COI would forget it's an 0 not an O.

Regarding Coindesk - I find this COI allegation bizarre and when I saw it I was bewildered. I don't see how adding factual statements from a source to an unrelated article entails a COI. This COI allegation appears to be due three back and forth reversions I had with David Gerard on Kin's crypto page. I tried to discuss this issue with David on his talk page but apparently David did not want to engage. At least in any meaningful sense. After trying to engage with David on his talk page I found his reasoning absurd so I reverted his reverts. I maintain my interpretation of consensus was correct. Per, [[1]], which, and please correct me if I'm wrong, I interpret as the current consensus on the matter, when using Coindesk as a source, one should "check CoinDesk articles for conflict of interest disclosures, and verify whether their parent company (Digital Currency Group) has an ownership stake in a company covered by CoinDesk." Not only did I check these references for any potential COI but the information I was attempting add was of a humdrum variety - nothing promotional whatsoever. Furthermore, the use of Coindesk as a source is a matter of ongoing debate. David has previously stated that CoinDesk could [be used] for factual verification but with great caution. He also stated he thought CoinDesk was mostly ok for factual claims. This is how the CoinDesk source was used in the article I was editing. Furthermore, this issue has been brought up specifically regarding David removing CoinDesk references as a source. This RFC resulted in no consensus. A search of David's talk page reveals users continue to dispute David's interpretation of this policy as well. Furthermore, I've made more edits to the 0x article than any other. I'd imagine there are plenty of Coindesk articles about 0x I could have used. However, I never used Coindesk as a reference for the 0x article.

I have been critical of Coindesk and I've made clear the limited scope of what I believe Coindesk references would be useful for. In attempting to discuss this issue on David's talk page I stated "I agree wholeheartedly that some CoinDesk material doesn't belong anywhere near anything that portends to convey objective information. However, it seems to me CoinDesk also provides a lot of mundane, routine, humdrum, but notable material that is highly unlikely to be disputed (and when it is disputed those disputes can be addressed)." The reason I made an issue of this to begin with is because Coindesk publishes a lot of everyday humdrum sort of crypto happenings and I believe the issue of whether Coindesk can be used as a source for these issues should have a definitive and clear consensus. In looking at the amount of debate on this issue I believe a definitive answer would save a lot of unnecessary Wikistrife. Seeing as, at minimum, my edits were a reasonable interpretation of policy if not correct and taken in the context of how long I've been editing without anything Coindesk related I don't see how it could be imputed that I have a COI with Coindesk. Finally, how many users have engaged in reversions over sources? Is a COI to be imputed to all of them? DaxMoon (talk) 12:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I would only be inclined to reverse my block myself if it came with a topic ban on cryptocurrencies and blockchains, broadly construed, as per WP:GS/Crypto. I see nothing in the above to make me think this editor can be trusted at present to edit on these topics without continuing to behave indistinguishably from a spammer. Other admins are, of course, free to disagree with me on this - David Gerard (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I am blown away that David Gerard's conduct towards me passes as acceptable behavior from an administrator on Wikipedia. DaxMoon (talk) 05:56, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

David was the one who reverted my last edits to 0x (decentralized exchange infrastructure) in which I added criticism alleging 0x was "plagued by rudimentary problems" among other things. It would be ridiculous for him to allege my block was for a COI I had with 0x. It would also be ridiculous for him to allege the block was for a COI with Coindesk. In attempting to discuss this issue on David's talk page I was critical of Coindesk and made clear the limited scope of what I believed Coindesk references would be useful for. As I stated on David's talk page "I agree wholeheartedly that some CoinDesk material doesn't belong anywhere near anything that portends to convey objective information. However, it seems to me CoinDesk also provides a lot of mundane, routine, humdrum, but notable material that is highly unlikely to be disputed (and when it is disputed those disputes can be addressed)." David's deletion of Coindesk has been repeatedly questioned by other editors. There was an RfC specifically regarding David removing CoinDesk references as a source that resulted in no consensus. He knew I had a valid argument. It's just that he disagrees and he believes his opinion trumps consensus. David didn't like I that I was questioning his authority so he decided to win by banning me with his superpowers for the first excuse he saw. What else could he possibly be alleging I have a COI for? His allegation that I "behave indistinguishably from a spammer" is completely unfounded. Look at my edit history. When was I spamming? Not only did he know all this when he blocked me but in blocking me he violated WP:UNINVOLVED. It's as though David gets to apply the rules in whatever way he wants but the rules don't apply to him. This is why I feel this is so unjust. DaxMoon (talk) 12:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Not only did David violate policy every step of the way but his violations were in bad faith. Surely he’s been on Wikipedia long enough to know the rules. He removed the Coindesk references when Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources allows for Coindesk references in circumstances such as these, an RfC was held specifically on the issue of David removing Coindesk references that resulted in no consensus, and the material added was factual and not likely to be disputed anyways. He disregarded my effort to engage him on his talk page and proceeded to take action as though only his opinion matters. He fabricated, and continues to fabricate reasons to block me. He didn’t explain who he believed I had a conflict of interest with nor did he explain why he believed I had a conflict of interest. No one knows what his allegation is to this day. Even though allegations that I have a COI have been raised a few times without any action taken against me, he blocked me without a chance to respond. He was the only other editor involved yet he was the one who blocked me. There couldn’t be a more obvious violation of WP:UNINVOLVED.

It’s hard to imagine a more flagrant abuse of an administrator’s powers. DaxMoon (talk) 12:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

To repeat myself, even if you don't have a COI—this phrasing is intended to convey that the problem is not in itself the COI that you may or may not have but elements of your editing and approach to editing that make almost every editor that comes across your work suspect that you have one—you have been disruptive in a topic area that has been put under general sanctions precisely because it is an area prone to disruption. Your editing either needed to be problem-free or you needed to be open to being guided. Moot now as the condition is now a complete topic ban from crypto, and you appear to have little or no interest outside of that area as far as Wikipedia is concerned.

I guess (emphasis on "guess") you could appeal to WP:AN but even if it finds DG could have handled it better (I haven't checked; I was only interested about 0x, and afterwards I only provided a procedural answer because I was asked), you will not be unblocked solely for that reason. The two issues are independent and WP:NOTBURO is a thing. As far as your unblock is concerned, my best advice is that you should accept the topic ban and edit in other areas for as long as it takes the community to trust you back into this area. This is the only way you will ever be able to contribute to the crypto area again. Optimistically, that's six months of editing in other areas, if you are fairly active and cause no more concerns. You can pursue further dispute resolution avenues regarding DG and whether he was INVOLVED after you are unblocked. But, from a purely procedural standpoint, I guess you could appeal to AN arguing any position you want to argue. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Usedtobecool. Thanks for following up. It appears we're at an impasse but here's my problem. I've provided all that evidence I don't have a COI with 0x or Coindesk yet I haven't been shown a single edit I've made that's indicative of a COI. I don't think anyone's really taken a good look at the elements of my editing or my approach to editing. I think the suspicion is based on the initial accusation being at the top of my talk page. Further, I don't see how my editing of crypto articles has been disruptive and I'm open to being guided. No one has tried to guide me. I understand the issue with DG is separate from my block. I absolutely want to appeal this to WP:AN. I want someone who hasn't been involved to review this matter. However, I am blocked from editing the administrator's noticeboard. Is there a way around this? Thank you. I appreciate your continuing help and guidance. -DaxMoon (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, there's this moving target as to the reasons for my block. First it's for 0x but now that allegation looks absurd. Then it's for Coindesk but now that looks ridiculous. The Coindesk allegation is so entirely bizarre to begin with. Now it's for the exceedingly vague reason of being disruptive. I've provided all that proof and I've yet to see one example proving any of these allegations. I think anyone looking at this situation with fresh eyes would come to the conclusion the entire thing is baseless. This is crazytown. -DaxMoon (talk) 00:50, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The blocking admin does not decline unblock requests and admins don't decline more than one request per block, so that the issue gets looked at "with fresh eyes" every time. So, your block/unblock has been looked at by uninvolved fresh admins Daniel Case, Drmies and Valereee so far, and those are just the ones who've decided to do something after looking. This is one of the reasons I am a bit unenthusiastic about taking this to AN; you have already been getting uninvolved input, and will continue to get it as you can summon a new admin every time by making a new unblock request. That said, I will post to AN for you if you post here the appeal text you would like posted. I have not done this before and I can't find a straightforward guide to appealing to AN, so I don't know how it will be taken but policy seems to be that your block will be turned into a community ban if AN decides to keep you blocked. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Usedtobecool. I'll be following up. The whole ordeal has gotten a bit exhausting but I feel it's important for me to see this through. I appreciate you giving me the opportunity. Even though you believe I have a COI you've gone out of your way to help me understand policy and make sure I knew what options I could avail myself of. Even after you took down the 0x page believing I had a COI you told me I could simply move it back to the mainspace. You prioritized helping me with your Wiki wisdom and administrative abilities. You prioritize fairness. Thank you. I really appreciate all of your help. -DaxMoon (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Eek's page break

My analysis of the situation is that you probably don't have a COI. But you are highly interested in crypto, yes? We have unfortunately experienced a flood of folks who are...overly enthusiastic about crypto, to the point of evangelism. For better or worse, you have come off as a "crypto bro", which we have had overwhelmingly negative experiences with. So you have two options: 1) accept a topic ban around crypto, and I'll unblock you now. Or, 2) argue for a lesser restriction or no restriction, and support that you know how to edit such controversial topics productively. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi CaptainEek. Thanks for writing. I was blocked for a set of back and forth edits with David Gerard. I tried to discuss this topic on his talk page but he didn't want to engage in any meaningful sense. His reasoning on the topic seemed absurd and I believe consensus was on my side so I reverted his edits. I'm open to being guided and I'm happy to take any advice. If I'm unblocked what should I do differently in the future? Thank you. DaxMoon (talk) 03:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)