User talk:OrixaOKO

Special measures apply to cryptocurrency related pages

Hello, OrixaOKO. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.

Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the blockchain and cryptocurrencies. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

You are required to provide reliable sourcing to back any cryptocurrency related content you insert. Cryptocurrency enthusiast websites are not reliable sources. MER-C 14:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are now blocked and topic banned from blockchain and cryptocurrencies

To enforce community authorised sanctions, as described at WP:GS/Crypto,

you have been blocked from editing for 1 year. You are welcome to make useful contributions once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Reminder to administrators: Community sanctions are enacted by community consensus. In order to overturn this block, you must either receive the approval of the blocking administrator or consensus at a community noticeboard (you may need to copy and paste their statement to a community noticeboard).

The following sanction has been imposed on you:

indefinite topic ban from blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed

You have been sanctioned for lying about a financial conflict of interest and touting of the concerned cryptocurrency.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator as authorised by the community's decision at WP:GS/Crypto, and the procedure described by the general sanctions guidelines. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction at the administrators' noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you.

The remainder of your block, for advertising, is a normal admin action. MER-C 20:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

banned? blocked? Lying? I dont work for that company. How was my article any different than what the Dogecoin folks did? If I advertised then so did they.

You explicitly stated you had no conflict of interest. I have reasons to believe you hold a substantial amount of this cryptocurrency. MER-C 20:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

from wikipedia: "An actual COI exists when an editor has a COI with respect to a certain judgment and is in a position where the judgment must be exercised.

Example: A business owner has an actual COI if he edits articles and engages in discussions about that business. A potential COI exists when an editor has a COI with respect to a certain judgment but is not in a position where the judgment must be exercised.

Example: A business owner has a potential COI with respect to articles and discussions about that business, but she has no actual COI if she stays away from those pages. An apparent COI exists when there is reason to believe that an editor has a COI.

Example: Editors have an apparent COI if they edit an article about a business, and for some reason they appear to be the business owner, although they may actually have no such connection. Apparent COI causes bad feeling within the community and should be resolved through discussion whenever possible."

None of the above situations exist, so as I understood it I was not in violation. You were not clear in your initial correspondence.Stating that I lied based on a suspicion is LIBEL. I didnt lie, I may have misunderstood because of your cryptic responses.

If a real estate agent posted an article about home improvements, would you also say that is a conflict? If a banker wrote an article detailing negative float, would it be a conflict? A person has to have some knowledge of the subject they are writing about. All the conflict of interest information is about associations with the business, not assets. I'm a plant scientist by trade so I know how to stick to writing just the facts, I used other coins with wikipedia pages as guidelines so that I would be in conformity.

I asked about the references, you made no response. I asked how to improve it, you blocked me and banned the contribution. This is an old coin that introduced significant technology to the cryptoworld in its POS v3 contribution to blockchain technology. I was not promoting it, just trying to make sure its story was told somewhere. By your statements and actions it seems as though you are the one with bias and/or the conflict of interest because from the outset you've been switching up reasons not to publish the page instead of working with me.

Please sign and thread your posts per WP:THREAD and WP:SIGN. It is minimal etiquette here as basic as "please" and "thank you"; if you want to convince anybody that you actually care about working here, that is the minimum you should be doing.

You have not disclosed your relationship with the people who run Bean Digital Cash and the community around it. You have not disclosed if you hold Bean. Jytdog (talk) 13:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am still learning. It would be helpful if my concerns would be addressed and explained. The links are very confusing and hard to navigate. Like I clicked on the Steve Jobs COI and didnt understand what I was seeing. Concise, step by step instructions would be helpful. Disclosure, my relationship with the people who run Bean? I'm in their chatroom from time to time, sometimes they are in there. Mostly its just folks having problems that need guidance. The community around Bean? I help folks out in Telegram with wallet problems and talk about randon subjects periodically. Do I own Bean? Yes, I have held Bean for over a year. I don't see why that creates a conflict of interest based on the examples set forth by wikipedia. Was the article I wrote not objective enough? Also, there was supposed to be a bounty for this article, I started it but was busy with work and didnt finish within he deadline. Since I did the work I went ahead and submitted it to wikipedia anyway only to be treated as if I am some sort of criminal. OrixaOKO (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "criminal". But unmanaged conflict of interest harms Wikipedia. If you read the COI guideline it says that holding a cryptocurrency creates a conflict of interest (search it for the word).

Your editing about Bean was blatantly promotional. That was unmanaged conflict of interest and harmed Wikipedia. This is not even a little ambiguous.

Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion. Due to our (rather insane) open nature people do abuse it for promotion. The abuse has been ferocious around cryptocurrencies and in response, the editing community has adopted pretty much of a zero tolerance policy toward that. Jytdog (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As previously stated I used Dogecoin and a couple others as a guide. What I wrote reads very dry so I am unsure as to what exactly makes the article I wrote promotional versus Dogecoin not being promotional? Was the Beancash article even read or was it automatically assumed to be promotional and thus shunted towards deletion? It seems like Wikipedia is just working to suppress cryptocurrency information just like mainstream media. OrixaOKO (talk) 15:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please thread properly. I fixed your threading. You are making it clear in what you are saying and doing that you are not interested in learning how Wikipedia works and why it works that way. I would have been happy to help you, had you been interested. I have no more to say here. Jytdog (talk) 15:21, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you are happy to help then help. I am trying to communicate but instead of conversing you get upset over some colons? No one has explained how what I have done, cited any examples, is promotional versus Dogecoin. OrixaOKO (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you need to indent and sign properly. The reason I am giving up is not because you refuse to say the equivalent of "please" and "thank you" but rather because, instead of going "Oh I didn't mean to harm WP and I didn't understand conflict of interest issues; I would be happy to learn about how that works in WP." you are arguing. You have no interest in learning what we do here. I do not choose to use my volunteer time to argue with someone who has tried to profit off Wikipedia and has no interest in understanding why that is not OK. I will not reply further. Jytdog (talk) 16:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot the tildes. My apologies. I wasnt aware I was arguing, just seeking clarification. That I didn't understand should have been evident from the discourse because I was asking for help. OrixaOKO (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]