Hello: I am a Wiki Editor since 2013. You can leave me messages here Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Khloé Kardashian, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Azerbaijani.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 2020 Ganja ballistic missile attacks. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 22:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Says the person that created a one-sided biased page that shows only the Azeri point of view. I have not made any edits to it, let alone disruptive. I have simply added a POV tag to it that shows it is biased and I have raised the issue on its talked page. Expertwikiguy (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've stated it on the talk page. You've engaged in disruptive editing, altering the coordinates without sources or base. For your statement, it fails WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH and WP:CIVIL. I might be creator of the page, but the article was heavily revised by non-Azerbaijani editors after me. So, you either stop publishing disruptive edits and watch your tone, or I'd have to report your for your irritating and disruptive behavior. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 23:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly you should stop making disruptive edits to controversial subject without discussing it on the talk page first. You should not be making a reversal of POV on a page that you created. That is a COI. I will be looking into Wiki policies and if I found that this is against their terms, I will be reporting you. In addition, why did you add POV to 2020_bombardment_of_Stepanakert and in what way your POV is OK, but mine is not? What double standards! Expertwikiguy (talk) 23:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

in what way your POV is OK, but mine is not?, thank you for pointing out that you've been POV-pushing and that the article on the bombardment of Stepanakert (I'd call it article B) is "an eye for an eye". Firstly, the article B stated that the Azerbaijani forces were launching ballistic missiles and cluster bombs on Stepanakert/Khankendi, capital of Artsakh. From the first point we can see that the article takes on the Artsakh/Armenian point of view. Azerbaijan denied targeting civilians, using missiles or cluster bombs, but the article is shoving it out face that apparently Azerbaijan did it, without any third-party confirmation. Wikipedia is not a place to write your opinion at and is not a blog. On the other hand, the article A states that the city was bombed, but not blames Armenia for it. The article A states that Azerbaijan accused Armenia of doing it, not Wikipedia. Also, the article A has non-Azerbaijani editors working on it, and me being the creator doesn't mean that it will go unseen. Now, don't make a toy out of human tragedies, these are sensitive issues. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 00:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First of all this article was not created by me, so do not accuse me for creating in retaliation. Second I have merely added small edits and more sources. Everything in this article is properly sourced. If there is an issue, please disclose it. Feel free to insert any source that states Azerbaijan has denied the bombings, so then we can have a fair article and remove the POV. You can see that some of the writers have visited the sites and have confirmed the bombings. There are even more sources out there that have not been used that support there has been bombings. Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Solavirum, Amnesty has identified Israeli-made M095 DPICM cluster bombs being used in the bombing of the city. Armenia has no Israeli-made M095 DPICM, only Azerbaijan has. Hemşinli çocuk 02:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree with you. I am not sure what is your point. Azerbaijan has used such weapons against Artsakh. Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

İ was answering to his comment that ...cluster bombs, but the article is shoving it out face that apparently Azerbaijan did it, without any third-party confirmation. He wanted a third party source, İ gave him one. Hemşinli çocuk 02:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mel Gibson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Armenian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alessandro Melis, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Missvain (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's chat if need be about our difference of opinion. Thank you!

Beccaynr (talk) 05:36, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But what are you referring to??? Expertwikiguy (talk) 09:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to make a pun on 'cat' and I was hoping that you would see this before continuing to make the same edit on the page we have both been working on. It wasn't clear to me if we had anything to talk about after I pointed to the policy again and added more support in my comment after my edit, but I was trying to reach out before further editing happened, so we could talk about it if necessary. Beccaynr (talk) 16:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I realized after I posted the message what it was. As you can see there is already discussion on the person's talk page. Expertwikiguy (talk) 19:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don't use these on Wikipedia because they don't represent the full week. It's the first few days of streaming and download data. Shane Codd's "Get Out My Head" is still not officially number 4 at this point, because the full charting week's data has not been reported just yet. It will be later. Please avoid adding anything published by the Official Charts Company that says "first look" or "update" in future. Thank you. Ss112 15:36, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks for the info. I was not aware it was a midweek chart and that it was not allowed. Thank you for informing me. I will keep in mind for future edits. Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Leith, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Theroadislong (talk) 12:32, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that this AfD you closed as "keep" is really bad close. There are two delete arguments, one redirect, and two keeps, one keep falsely says it meets GNG, when it does not. The other keep is nothing but WP:JNN case. Please re-consider your closure. "No consensus" would be the better option here. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 10:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I meant. The guidelines say that after 3 weeks if there is no consensus, then it should be kept. Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I clicked the wrong button, "no consensus" is what I meant to do. But at the end it doesn't matter as the page is kept either way.Expertwikiguy (talk) 10:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello please kindly refrain from delving into admin related areas you aren’t competent enough to handle such as Re-lists and closing AFD's as you are becoming quite disruptive. Celestina007 (talk) 13:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I welcome your input and pointing out any mistakes that I may have made. I am not writing this to defend what I did. I may have made some mistakes in the process as this is the first time I was doing it and I am learning.

Are you aware that there is currently a huge backlog of AFD's that have passed closing time and have not been either closed or relisted? I was trying to help out and per Wiki policy experienced non-admins are allowed to do closures.

I am sorry if I made any errors. I had followed correct closure procedures, except I did make 1 or 2 errors, instead of choosing "No Consensus," I choose "KEEP," but as another editor says the outcome is the same. I was not aware that the military AFD's are a sensitive issue, so I will refrain from future closures. In addition, I have not participated in any closures with outcome of Delete or Merge or Redirect as the policies state non-admins should stay away from Deletes or more complex closures. I have relisted what was clearly passed the deadline period and I have closed KEEPS that were clearly had either more votes or 3 weeks had passed without consensus.

I have been doing edits for 7 years and more heavily in past 2-years, so I consider myself experienced enough. There is obviously a learning process for everything and errors can be made occasionally even by most experienced editors or admins. Finally, I feel most the issues in AFDs are subjective and can be interpreted in different ways by different editors/admins. i.e. "Was the closure done right or not" may be a question of how you felt about the subject deserving a keep or delete, so some may feel it was right and some may feel it was not. I have seen Admins relist, when there was clear KEEP, because they personally feel it should be deleted, but is anyone reporting them for this mis-abuse?? (Personally I am afraid to go up against disagreeing with admins)

Finally, if you can point out which exact AFD's were closed inappropriately or relisted inappropriately (except the 2 that should have been NO CONSENSUS, instead of KEEP, and except the Military one posted below) and why this will help me learn and understand what I did wrong for the future. Expertwikiguy (talk) 21:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not a vote. Your closure here was incorrect and was reverted by another User. If you aren't familiar with WP:CLOSEAFD, don't close them, leave it to someone else to do so. Mztourist (talk) 14:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the policies and have followed them. They state:

• DID THIS: Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments.
• DID THIS: An editor in good standing who is not an administrator, and is also uninvolved, may close AfDs in certain circumstances;
• DID THIS: If consensus seems unclear the outcome can be listed as No consensus (with no effect on the article's status) or the discussion may be relisted for further discussion.

Could you explain to in what way the policies were not followed?? This AFD had 9 keep Votes, 6 redirect and, 3 deletes if you count nominator. There is clear Consensus here for KEEP, with majority of KEEP votes. I also reviewed arguments of Keep and agreed with them "reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments". In addition AFD has been open for 19 days. Expertwikiguy (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you can't even see that there was not a Keep consensus says it all. You said: "The result was keep. 9 Keep, 6 Redirect, 3 Deletes, Winner is KEEP." that is not assessing the policy-based arguments that's just counting votes and still coming to the wrong conclusion. That is just one example among many that you have been called out for recently. Stop trying to argue with everyone on these, you aren't competent to close or relist deletion discussions.Mztourist (talk) 07:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per this discussion, you are now subject to an indefinite topic ban against closing or relisting deletion discussions. You may still vote. If you would like to appeal this topic ban, you may do so at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. The usual advice is to wait at least six months before appealing a topic ban. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to recreate it, but it needed deleting as it was created by a sockpuppet of a blocked user. Fences&Windows 20:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hrach Muradyan, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 ~~~~}}.  MER-C 19:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Hello mr MER-C or any admins, please explain to me what I did wrong, so I can provide you a proper answer. I have been editor of almost 8 years. The last edit I have done was vote for AFD of Pantera Capital which I guarantee you that I have no associations with. Your ban reason also states self promoting or advertising, which would seem that I am promoting my own self or company. I request a more detailed reason for my ban, so I can respond. Please unban me. Expertwikiguy (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm in agreement with Blablubbs and Celestine007 below- but even setting that aside, the COI issues are enough to keep this block, and as such I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 15:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

Please explain why you were interested in this person. This isn't the only reason why I think you are involved with UPE but it's the most blatant. MER-C 19:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A friend of mine is a a friend of Kobi Arad. My friend reached out to me and asked me if I could try to post that page. I told him I could not do it and I do not want to get my account jeopardized by posting anything commercial, but that he can do it himself and I would provide him instructions. The reason you see the Sandbox in my account is because I helped him with the coding. I didn't do any of the writing and I didn't post it. All I did is do some coding and gave him the code to post. He used AFC and disclosed his COI. The page got declined so there was never a need for me to disclose any COI. My plan was that if the page went live, I would disclose in my userpage about this, to be safe, specially since it was already posted in my Sandbox and someone like you might question!

I know this looks bad and I regret ever helping him, but I myself am not an expert like you are to know every rule. Even tough I have an almost 8 year old account, I have only been very active for about a year and have about 1500+ edits, which is probably the number of edits you do in a few days. I have also seen your activity often on many AFD discussions and sometimes I do not agree with your decisions as you have some very tough standards. At least once or twice I recall that I voted KEEP on a page which you voted DELETE. I hope that you are not upset with me for going against you and so I hope this is not one of the reasons you decided to ban me. Expertwikiguy (talk) 09:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand what you are trying to say, but you are responsible for any edits from your account, whether they were made by your friend or yourself. If you are letting your friend make edits from your account, that is a major problem even without any COI concerns. If you made COI edits, whether to main space or elsewhere without disclosing your COI, that is a major problem. Nil Einne (talk) 06:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nil Einne yes you are not understanding what I am saying. I never let my friend use my account. I simply coded a bio from a draft he gave me and gave it back to him. I do not think that this counts as a COI or violates any Wiki rules. I did not create the page. I did not contribute to the bio. All I did is do some coding of Wiki Markup Language and passed the code to my friend and he posted it from his own account. He was a new editor and needed help. In any case, the page was declined in AFC within 2-3 days of submission and was never live. My plan was to post a COI notice if it ever went live, but it was never live and it was in Sandbox for a very short period. There is also not any Wikipedia guideline that states a COI should be posted for a page still in Sandbox. The guy that posted the page also posted a COI. Please check more details here. This seems like a stupid reason to say that I have any COI, when I didn't make or submit the page myself. MER-C you said there are other reasons. Could you please let me know what other reasons? I have been editor for 8 years with thousands of edits, if I was a UPE or had COI, don't you think that it would have been apparent a lot sooner? I may till not be familiar with all polices and still learning. There are so many policies about different things. You can see that I even messed up on doing some AFD closures in the recent past (check my talk page above) and currently been blocked from doing AFD closures (which I dont care about, so its fine), but if I did anything else incorrectly, you can let me know so I won't repeat again. Expertwikiguy (talk) 08:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The diff above ("this person") was made by your account. If you made that edit, then you failed to disclose an obvious COI since you were editing something related to a friend. It doesn't matter if it's in main space or not or if you only made technical contributions or anything else. You need to disclose your COI. Indeed someone helping produce draft but failing to disclose they have a COI is a major violation since anyone evaluating needs to be aware of this COI so they take extra care since they cannot trust that editor to be an unbiased evaluator which they may WP:AGF otheriwse. If you didn't make the edit but your friend did, then you're letting someone use your account. It's as simple as that and all your blather doesn't help if you're unwilling to be honest about what you did. Whatever else you may have done in the background, why aren't you at least being upfront about the stuff that happened on Wikipedia with your own account? Nil Einne (talk) 11:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, as a general rule of thumb if you need to say that much to prove your innocence, then you probably aren’t. I trust both MER-C's and Nil Einne's judgement and if both say you are guilty of something then you most definitely are.Celestina007 (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nil Einne "If you didn't make the edit but your friend did, then you're letting someone use your account." --> This is not the case. No one used my account. You are not reading or understanding what I wrote. Please read again.

Celestina007 "as a general rule of thumb if you need to say that much to prove your innocence," that is the worst reason to ban someone...my account is on the line and I need to post as much details as possible to save it. So you are saying just because I explained too much then I am guilty?? and I should be banned??? Please state what policy I have broken. I have never posted a COI from my account. It was in my Sandbox. I have never even written bio. All I did was do the coding and gave the code to a friend. Please refer to specific Guidelines in Wikipedia where it says that practicing coding in my sandbox and not disclosing is COI or against policy. Plus I do not even know the subject in question and did not edit the bio or content of it, so there was never a COI and page never got approved either. If it was not written by me or neither did I make any edits to it, how is that a COI? Expertwikiguy (talk) 17:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also just checked the guidelines of WP:COI. It states "Editors with a COI are sometimes unaware of whether or how much it has influenced their editing. If COI editing causes disruption, an administrator may opt to place blocks on the involved accounts."

Please explain in what way was my edits "disruptive." My understanding of the guideline is that the COI would have had to be "disruptive" to ban someone. In my case, it was text posted in my Sandbox and the page never even went live. I was also definitely "unaware of whether or how much it has influenced" my editing. Expertwikiguy (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have not heard back from anyone since I posted on 4/15. Should I take it that silence means you don't have a response and that I am right? Dear Celestina007: Please could you review my account and rather than voting in favor of banning me just because you trust MER-C, please review and tell me how you feel and what exact policies I have broken. Don't you think that banning me for a non-disruptive COI is too much?? The rules state that a ban may happen if the COI is disruptive. Is there anyway this can be a warning or give me a limited ban? I have made many good contribution over the years. That has to count for something, so one minor mistake should not get my account banned. Expertwikiguy (talk) 23:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear MER-C and Nil Einne: Have you had a chance to review what I said? Do you still think, what I did was against policy and do you think that this type COI (posting something in Sandbox and deleting) counts as disruptive enough to ban someone???Expertwikiguy (talk) 23:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could any other admins or editors please chime in? MER-C said there were some other reasons, please provide detailed reason or investigation results. So far the reason for the slight COI issue seems very excessive as it was not live or in anyway "disruptive." Whatever else edits that look suspicious to you, please list here, so I have a chance to explain. I am certainly not the first innocent person to be banned by mistake or excessive toughness of MER-C. Check this article and this article. IMO, and what I have seen from MER-C, he is just super tough on everything and assumes everybody who posts or votes against his own opinion might be a paid editor or COI. MER-C also posted the reason in the ban summary: "similar to "Sockpuppet investigations/SpareSeiko)", but that has nothing to do with me??? I have no common edits with that user so an explanation is needed. Check here. Expertwikiguy (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since you asked for others to chime in: I fully support this block; it seems rather clear that this account has been used for COI/UPE activity. Linking to blogposts by people who are salty that they got blocked for promoting their favourite cryptocurrency won't help you get unblocked. Blablubbs|talk 19:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blablubbs Could you please provide specific instances of issues, rather than saying "it seems pretty clear"??... no it doesn't seem pretty clear. You need to produce evidence. Wikipedia policy states that always assume good faith, unless you have evidence. Expertwikiguy (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear 331dot, I would like to request that you reconsider your decision. So far none of these editors/admins above have provided any detailed reasons of any UPE issues. All I was provided was an issue with COI and that I didn't disclose a COI. But in realty, there was no need for me to disclose any COI because an edit was done in my user space that never went live. Also the person (my friend) that ultimately submitted the page for AFC, disclosed his COI. The second paragraph of WP:COI states "If COI editing causes disruption, an administrator may opt to place blocks on the involved accounts." You need to explain in what way my edits have caused "disruption?" It was a temporary post in my user space that didn't stay there for more than a few minutes. In addition, I would like to know for what other reasons besides this I am blocked for. I have not been provided any evidence for UPE, other than a suspicion and the Wikipedia rules say that you need to consider Good Faith always. One editor even said if MER-C says I did something wrong then believes him and agrees to block me. He has not done any of his own investigation so his vote should be crossed out. This is what he said: "I trust both MER-C's and Nil Einne's judgement and if both say you are guilty of something then you most definitely are.Celestina007 " and then you say that you agree with Celestina007. You see? none of you have provided a reason and are saying because someone else said I am guilty, then I am guilty. Did you even see that user:Nil Einne is misunderstanding the whole thing and thinks that I let my friend to use my account? This never happened. Please I ask you to review the details again. my COI was in no way disruptive to justify a block. Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by what I said, but I am not the last word. You may make another unblock request for someone else to review. 331dot (talk) 08:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I would like to again ask for reinstatement of my account for the following reasons: * 1- I have not been provided a clear explanation of what I did wrong to justify a block, other than that I did COI edits. My COI edit cannot be considered COI because it was never live and it was in the USER page, so for that reason it cannot be considered a "Disruptive" COI edit. The rules and guidelines in the WP:COI state: "If COI editing causes disruption, an administrator may opt to place blocks on the involved accounts." * 2- To recap, I posted a page in my user space so I could provide coding to a friend, who was in turn submitting a page for his friend, who I have no association with. He then took the code and submitted an AFC from his own page and also disclosed his COI. AFC was declined and the page never went live. So as you can see there was not ever even a need to post a COI on my end because (1) I didn't post the page myself , (2) I didn't write any part of the content myself, i just did the coding (3) The page never went live. Had it gone live, it was actually my intention to post a COI message on my page, but I didn't see the need to. * 3- On the previous request for my unblock, none of the reviewing admins cared to provide any other details other than saying they agree with MER-C or other admisn. Let me recap what everyone said and why their vote was not done properly:  : - MER-C: He is the one that blocked me. Everyone knows he is one of the toughest Admins on wiki. He often blocks many people for suspicions of COI, but many times not having any proof, just suspicions. I am not the first person to have been falsely banned. He has not provided any detailed reasons, other than mentioning the specific COI, which is not in anyway distruptive.  : - Nil Einne : He didn't understand how the COI happened. He thought that I gave access to someone else to use my account. This was not the case.  : - Celestina007 said: "I trust both MER-C'sand Nil Einne's judgment and if both say you are guilty of something then you most definitely are." He didn't provide his own reasons or investigation and is also relying on the false assumption of Nil Einne.  : - Blablubbs Said "it seems rather clear that this account hasbeen used for COI/UPE activity" however, he didn't provide any specific reasons or his own investigation. So he seems to just agree with what others are saying without explanations and reasons.  : - 331dot closed the reconsideration request saying "I'm in agreement with Blablubbs and Celestine007 below- but even setting thataside, the COI issues are enough to keep this block," so he is again relying on other people's assessment which are based on other people's wrong assessments. Basically, one editor says he trusts another and another says he trusts another, and none have their own opinions or reasons or provide any detailed reason on how my COI was disruptive!  : So please this time around, if anyone is going to provide a vote or opinion, check my account in more detail and provide specific reasons of how my COI was disruptive. I have never done any COI edits from my account, other than the minor one which is no way distruptivr to justify a ban. If there are any evidence please provide. Expertwikiguy (talk) 20:26, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

An undisclosed COI is by definition disruptive, since a COI easily leads to non-neutral editing. You didn't disclose, and so your edits were presented as neutral good-faith edits, when they were not. It's as simple as that--and so a genuine unblock request needn't be this long and tedious. Drmies (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

• I am unwilling to provide people with step-by-step guides to evading detection. I am happy to provide details to the reviewing administrator via email, IRC or Discord if the signs aren't self-evident. --Blablubbs|talk 22:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So what exactly are you saying? In what way was the COI Disruptive? The guidelines at WP:COI state that the COI would have to be disruptive to get blocked. Expertwikiguy (talk) 08:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• You're mistaken. I do not believe you gave anyone access to your account. Rather, what I said is you were denying you made any undisclosed COI edits, when you clearly had. You claimed you only offered advice yet a check of your contribution history shows you made edits relating to this friend of a friend by your own account. Either this meant even after caught you were still trying to mislead us since you were claiming you only offered advice when you did make edits from this account relating to the friend. Or you didn't make those edits which meant you gave someone else access to your account. Since we all agree the latter didn't happen, you tried to mislead us after being caught, by your own admission. You therefore need to own up to this along with your undisclosed COI edits. You cannot use your alleged willingness to disclose your COI if the material ever made it to the encyclopaedia proper as justification either. The time to disclose your COI is before you made the edits, or failing that shortly after. It does not matter where on Wikipedia these edits were made. Any conflict of interest should be disclosed at the time, not only if the material is added to article space. If you are unwilling to disclose a COI, then the best solution is simply refrain from editing in those areas point blank anywhere on Wikipedia. (Again you implied you did this, but in reality you didn't. You did edit in relation to this friend of a friend from this account.) The solution is definitely not to edit without disclosing and plan to disclose if the content ever makes it to main space. Frankly I do not believe your friend story, your editing patterns suggest to me this is paid editing which makes your lack of disclosure even worse since it's a ToU violation. Regardless, by your own admission you had a CoI which you didn't disclose and then tried to mislead us about. Nil Einne (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Should say for the benefit of other talk page watchers I'm aware there's another possibility rather ExpertWikiGuy trying to mislead us or you giving someone else access to your account which I won't mention for WP:beans reasons which is probably the real reason. Nil Einne (talk) 22:46, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again you are twisting everything here and do not understand what exactly happened. Let me recap again, the only thing I did was post a code in my USER space, so I could then give the code back to my friend for posting from his own account. I didn't write the bio for it to be considered COI.

If this is considered COI, then I won't deny. But to me this was nowhere close to any COI. In addition, I am going to repeat again, the guidelines of WP:COI state that if the COI edits are disruptive it may result in block of a page. What I do not understand is why is everyone being so tough on me? Where is the good faith? I have 7 year old account with 1500+ edits with lot's of positive contributions. OK I admit I made a mistake by not thinking that what I was doing could be considered COI, but is this grounds for banning me? In what way was it disruptive? No one has yet explained why this was disruptive, specially that I was not the one submitting the page to AFC and the person (my friend) that did submission from his own account (which you can also check the IP and you will see that its different), and he actually disclosed his COI.

You also said that my edit history shows that I had made edits to that page. This is not true!!!! How on earth did you came up to this conclusion>??? Please produce evidence!!!! I never made any COI edits to the page in question of a friend of a friend. It was an AFC created by a friend and it was declined. It was not even live to make edits to. If you are claiming I made edits to it, please send the link and evidence!!! I don't know if you are making this up or how you came up to this conclusion.

Why am I not being given a warning instead? Why didn't someone just tell me "don't do this again??" For someone to be banned you need to show more than just a minor non-disruptive COI edit. Expertwikiguy (talk) 01:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To make it easier for new Admins looking at this, what we are talking about, here is a link to the SANDBOX copy and here is a link 5 hours later when I was done with coding. You will see most of what I have done is clean up citation coding, Bullet point coding, formatting, etc. This was done for a friend because he didn't know how to code. This code was in my Sandbox for 5 hours and never ever live. I didn't write any of this bio for it to be considered COI. I didn't post it live for it to be considered COI. However, if I am mistaken, then all of this is still not a disruptive COI in any way to justify my ban. Check guidelines at WP:COI. Expertwikiguy (talk) 01:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you continue to claim content has to be "live", by which you clearly mean on main space since the content was clearly live on Wikipedia or we wouldn't be talking about it, for their to be a COI, I don't see any chance of you making a successful return to editing. As long as you continue to claim only making technical changes means there is no COI, I likewise don't see any chance of you making a successful return to editing. Also regardless of whether anyone should have given you a warning, you've amply demonstrated there was no purpose. You continue to ignore any and all advice you've been given and instead claim pointless silly stuff like claiming you didn't carry out COI editing when you clearly even after you've been blocked and you've been told by different editors you do have a COI in relation to any edits you make for your or in relation to your friends or "friends of friends" or family or whatever anywhere on the English Wikipedia. Clearly just talking to you would have served no purpose. Nil Einne (talk) 23:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nil Einne: If you consider what I have done is COI, then I accept it. I have already said this. WP:COI states that you could get banned if you do Diruptive COI. Nobody has yet shown or explained in what way my edits was disruptive. Could you please explain, why such a minor edit, which was done by mistake of not disclosing COI, cannot be forgiven? Expertwikiguy (talk) 02:01, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Expertwikiguy. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:BizOps 2, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 13:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]