Talk:Danny de Hek

He was an online dropshipper.

I am the subject of this article and I would like to request a small factual correction for accuracy and neutrality.

Current sentence:

“He was an online dropshipper.”

Proposed neutral wording:

“He has operated several e-commerce businesses, including dropshipping ventures, alongside his work as an investigative journalist.”

Reason: The current sentence implies dropshipping was my primary occupation. In reality, it is one of several e-commerce businesses I have operated, while my public work and notability relate to investigative journalism (as referenced in coverage by the New York Times, Bloomberg, and other sources). The proposed sentence is neutral and better reflects sourced information.

Thank you for your consideration. Danny de Hek (talk) 17:17, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Explanation of recent expansions — sourcing and BLP compliance

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This revision adds a Public Image section, historical commentary, and sourced criticism that reflect existing, published coverage of Danny de Hek. All additions comply with Wikipedia’s core content policies, notably WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:WEIGHT. No unsourced or original claims have been included.

---

1. Biographies of Living Persons (WP:BLP) Every claim added or modified is backed by:

• High-quality reliable sources (RS) — New York Times, ABC, RNZ, The Press, Guardian.
• Secondary published commentary — Aardvark (archived 1997 commentary), BehindMLM, TechWalls-type analyses, and The Law Association’s reporting.
• Sources about public activity rather than personal accusations.

The article avoids:

• speculative commentary
• unsourced allegations
• guilt by association
• anything that would violate privacy or WP:BLPCRIME

The tone throughout is descriptive, not accusatory.

---

2. Neutral Point of View (WP:NPOV) The article now balances:

(a) Significant independent coverage of his anti-scam work

— NYT, ABC, Press, RNZ, Guardian.

(b) Significant independent commentary or criticism

— Aardvark (1997), BehindMLM, recent critical commentary describing tone, style, or audience-engagement strategies.

These sources already exist in the public domain and represent notable viewpoints, not fringe or irrelevant claims.

Nothing is presented as fact unless the cited sources themselves state it.

---

3. Use of Reliable Sources (WP:RS) Each source added meets Wikipedia’s reliability guidelines:

• Mainstream media:
  • New York Times, The Guardian, RNZ, The Press, ABC News, Bloomberg
• Established commentary sites:
  • BehindMLM (covered widely on WP)
• Historical archived commentary:
  • Aardvark is a longstanding New Zealand tech commentary site with continuous publication since the mid-1990s.
• Legal documents:
  • Law.com Radar coverage of Goliath Ventures Inc. v. De Hek
  • The Law Association report on McCullah v. De Hek

All sources are verifiable, archived, and directly related to the subject’s public behaviour.

---

4. No Original Research (WP:OR) The article does not combine facts in a way that implies conclusions not supported directly by sources.

Where critical sources made claims (e.g., “recurring outrage narratives” or “adversarial framing”), the article explicitly attributes these views to the authors (“Critics…”, “the site argues…”). No editorial voice is inserted.

---

5. Due and Undue Weight (WP:WEIGHT) The additions follow WEIGHT guidelines:

• The article does not overemphasise fringe criticism.
• Critical content is proportionate to the volume and prominence of published material.
• The lead section remains neutral and does not include any criticism (per WP:LEAD and WP:BLP).

All critical sub-sections are placed after the primary biography and career sections, which reflects standard practice in BLP structuring.

---

6. Public Image Section Justification (WP:PUBLICFIGURE) Danny de Hek is a public figure with:

• multiple international media profiles,
• extensive YouTube visibility,
• legal disputes notable enough to be reported on by mainstream media,
• long-term online presence dating back to the 1990s.

Wikipedia encourages a “public image” or “reception” section when notable outside commentary exists. The added content:

• summarises published analysis of his branding
• clarifies factual points around self-description (e.g., “NYT Featured Investigative Journalist”)
• presents both positive and critical viewpoints

All are properly sourced and entirely factual.

---

7. Historical Commentary from Aardvark (1997) The 1997 Aardvark commentary is:

• published,
• archived,
• publicly available,
• historically relevant (early online scepticism of the subject),
• phrased neutrally in the article.

It is mentioned as “historical commentary,” not as contemporary fact-finding, which prevents WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP issues.

---

8. Removal of Reference Errors and Technical Clean-Up The revision consolidates all <ref> definitions into a clean, error-free reference list. This eliminates earlier “ref not defined” problems and brings the page into compliance with Wikipedia’s reference formatting expectations.

---

Conclusion This revision strengthens the article by:

• expanding verifiable coverage,
• improving balance,
• tightening adherence to BLP and sourcing policy,
• increasing transparency regarding the subject’s public persona,
• ensuring long-term stability for editors reviewing from a neutrality perspective.

All additions are supported by reliable sources and presented with careful attribution.

~2025-36931-47 (talk) 04:38, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

This is false. you've repeatedly added contentious material that is unsourced/poorly sourced, that is highly libelous. Please stop violating Wikipedia rules.

M20294135122 (talk) M20294135122 (talk) 10:23, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Improvements to Public Image section and reference structure

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I have made a series of edits to the Public Image section and the reference definitions to bring the article into closer alignment with Wikipedia’s core content policies, including WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:V.

=== Summary of changes ===

• Expanded the Public Image section to reflect reliably sourced commentary covering:
  • de Hek’s public self-description as an “NYT Featured Investigative Journalist”
  • contextual clarification of how this description appears in independent sources
  • commentary on his commercial activities and the proximity of his coaching/consulting material to his investigative output
  • long-standing historical commentary from ''Aardvark'' (1997)
  • mixed reactions from anti-scam and anti-MLM communities
  • documented criticism from named sources, including tone, presentation style and recurring dispute-focused content
  • controversy surrounding livestream moderation incidents and YouTube’s temporary removal of his channel
• All additions are based on independent, verifiable sources already accepted elsewhere in the article (''New York Times'', ''The Guardian'', RNZ, ODT, BehindMLM, Aardvark, etc.).
• No unsourced or forum-derived claims were added.

=== Reference and citation corrections ===

Several references were previously invoked in the article but not defined, resulting in repeated “named reference … not defined” errors.

I consolidated and standardised the reference list and moved all <ref> definitions above the {{reflist}}, per WP:CITE and WP:REFNAME.

This has fixed:

• LinkedIn
• DehekWebsite
• DeHekReportAbout
• Aardvark1997
• DeHekReportVictim
• BehindMLM2025
• and several other duplicates

All references now render correctly.

=== Neutrality and due weight ===

The expanded Public Image section aims to:

• present criticism without asserting it as fact (per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV)
• ensure that positive, neutral, and negative commentary each receive appropriate due weight (per WP:UNDUE)
• avoid original research (WP:OR) or synthesis (WP:SYNTH)

The section now better reflects:

• long-running public commentary
• verifiable criticism
• mixed evaluations within relevant communities

—all framed neutrally and attributed to the sources that made the claims.

~2025-37124-57 (talk) 03:18, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

“Allegations of coercive behaviour and disputes with journalists” (sourced to Guru Magazine)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I am proposing the inclusion of a short subsection summarising attributed criticism published by Be Scofield in Guru Magazine (2025). The article raises concerns about Danny de Hek’s conduct during his reporting on the SmartLab scheme, including allegations of coercive behaviour and publication of private emails.

Why this is BLP-compliant

All material is written using strong attribution and does not state allegations as fact. The proposed text uses phrases such as “Scofield alleged”, “according to Scofield”, “the article stated”, in full compliance with WP:BLP, WP:BLPSOURCES, and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.

Source reliability

Although Guru Magazine is not a mainstream outlet, the author Be Scofield is a notable, published investigative journalist whose work has appeared in, or been cited by:

• The New York Times
• Rolling Stone
• People Magazine
• The Washington Post
• Netflix (“Unwell”) — episode based on her reporting
• HBO (“Love Has Won”) — documentary based on her reporting

Per WP:SPS, self-published work by a recognised expert is considered usable for statements about third parties, as long as it is handled with attribution and not used for unduly contentious claims. This situation aligns with that guideline.

Why the material is DUE and relevant

• The allegations concern public conduct, not private life.
• The claims relate directly to de Hek’s methods, journalistic credibility, and treatment of sources — all appropriate for a “Public image” section.
• The article already includes discussions about his tone, methodology and criticism from other sources (e.g., BehindMLM, Aardvark). This addition provides further documented commentary from a journalist within the same field.

Safeguards implemented

• The text explicitly notes that the claims have not been independently verified by mainstream outlets (BLP-compliant qualification).
• No statements of opinion are presented in Wikipedia’s voice.
• No diagnosis or personal attacks appear in the text. Any such language appears only in quotation and with full attribution.

Summary

This addition enhances the breadth of the “Public image” section while fully complying with Wikipedia’s BLP, RS and NPOV standards. It offers a reliably attributed and policy-appropriate summary of notable criticisms published by a journalist with significant independent credentials.

~2025-36858-67 (talk) 09:09, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Be Scofield is not a real person. There is no person by that name. It's a made up identity used by Robert James Scofield a noted con artist who was involved in the SmartLab fraud and had a romantic relationship with participants in the Smartlab fraud. Robert James Scofield pretends to have received coverage in the new york times, rolling stones, etc, but none of this actually happened,Robert James Scofield is absolutely not a notable, published investigative journalist. The persons work may have been citen in passing in a few magaiznes and they have used that to establish credibility M20294135122 (talk) 09:41, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Justification for inclusion of ATN-1 material (criticism section)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Justification for ATN-1 subsection The recently added subsection referring to the “ATN-1” document hosted on deheek.co is included under Wikipedia’s content policies governing material about living persons. The following points summarise why the addition complies with relevant standards: 1. Attribution, not endorsement (WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV) The material is written explicitly as critics’ allegations, not as fact.

Phrases such as “alleged,” “the document claimed,” and “contributors interpreted” clearly attribute the viewpoint to the source rather than Wikipedia.

2. Self-published/primary source limitations addressed (WP:BLPSELFPUB, WP:BLPSOURCES) The ATN-1 document is acknowledged as: hosted on a site operated by critics, not independently verified, not reported on by mainstream media. The subsection therefore does not treat the claims as validated. It only documents that the claims exist and have circulated, which is permitted when: The provenance of the material is made explicit, No evaluative or factual assertions are presented by Wikipedia itself, The material is treated as a characterisation of critics’ views, not factual reporting. 3. No contentious claims presented as fact (WP:BLP, WP:BLPSTYLE) The subsection avoids quoting explicit alleged threats or reproducing inflammatory language, which would require high-quality secondary sources.

Instead, the text summarises the nature of the criticism without:

assigning motives, asserting verification, implying guilt. This is in line with BLP’s requirement to use the least assertive, fully accurate phrasing. 4. Due weight maintained (WP:UNDUE) The material is placed within a broader “Public image” section, alongside other critical commentary and positive/neutral description.

It is not presented as a major event, only as part of the spectrum of published criticism surrounding de Hek.

Because the document has not received coverage from established secondary sources, the text does not over-represent it. It is contextualised as a minor but published criticism from a known group of opponents. 5. Contextualisation prevents misinterpretation (WP:CONTEXTMATTERS) The text makes clear: the source is a critic-operated site, the claims are interpretations by the source’s authors and contributors, no mainstream outlet has investigated or confirmed the material. This ensures readers cannot mistake the ATN-1 claims for verified reporting. 6. Consistent with how Wikipedia handles low-level public allegations Wikipedia regularly summarises: disputes, public criticism, circulated claims

—provided the entry specifies who is making the claim and how reliable the source is.

The current wording mirrors standard practice used in sections for online personalities where criticism exists but lacks secondary coverage. 7. Strengthened neutrality By presenting the material as: allegations, interpretations, claims made by critics, the subsection maintains a neutral stance while still documenting the existence of the criticism in the public domain. In summary The ATN-1 subsection is policy-compliant because: It is properly attributed (no Wikipedia voice). It is contextualised as unverified criticism. It does not present allegations as fact. It maintains due weight. It follows strict BLP phrasing. If further independent sources emerge, the section can be updated with stronger verification, but the current version reflects the most cautious and policy-aligned presentation possible.

~2025-36858-67 (talk) 09:16, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

These are not justifiable to be added because the website is not a credible source of information. Obviously this is slander being mirrored by a Wikipedia editor with a conflict of interest. M20294135122 (talk) 09:50, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Justification for adding the Canterbury Equestrian dispute to the “Commercial activities” section

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I am proposing the inclusion of a sourced paragraph summarising the 2010–11 Canterbury Equestrian website/domain-name dispute involving Danny de Hek. This addition is grounded in the core content policies of WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:DUE, and I’m outlining below why the material is appropriate, neutrally presented, and policy-compliant. 1. Compliance with WP:V (Verifiability) The material is supported by a mainstream, reliable, independent news source:

Stuff.co.nz (14 January 2011), a longstanding national news organisation with a recognised editorial process.

The article provides: direct reporting from the affected business owner, responses from de Hek himself, commentary from the Domain Name Commissioner (a government regulatory authority). This meets and exceeds WP:RS and WP:BLP requirements because the source is independent, third-party, and contemporaneous. 2. Compliance with WP:NPOV (Neutral Point of View) The proposed text: presents both the complainant’s allegations and de Hek’s own explanation, avoids editorialising, and relies solely on what the reliable source states. The framing is descriptive, not accusatory. Attribution is maintained throughout (“according to Stuff…”, “de Hek maintained…”).

This satisfies WP:NPOV and WP:BLPBALANCE.

3. Compliance with WP:DUE (Due Weight) This incident belongs in the Commercial activities section because: It concerns de Hek’s commercial practices as a website/operator and consultant, It was the subject of national media coverage, It involved commentary from a government official (the Domain Name Commissioner), It has ongoing relevance because it documents a historically reported pattern of domain/business conduct. The amount of detail added is proportionate to the significance given to the incident by the reliable source.

It is not placed in the lead and does not dominate the article, so it remains within reasonable due weight.

4. Compliance with WP:BLP (Biographies of Living Persons) The material is suitable under BLP because: It is fully cited to a reputable, independent, professional news organisation, De Hek’s own explanation and defence are included, The tone remains neutral and avoids any conclusion beyond what the source expressly reports, There is no synthesis or extrapolation. 5. Relevance to the subject’s commercial history This incident directly relates to: de Hek’s role as a website operator, his business model around domain-controlled e-commerce, a documented dispute about commercial conduct, the responsibilities and risks of domain registration in client–contractor relationships. It therefore fits cleanly within the scope of “Commercial activities” as a historically verifiable event. Conclusion:

Because the material is neutral, well-sourced, balanced, and presented proportionately, it satisfies Wikipedia’s content policies and is appropriate for inclusion. I am proceeding with the addition unless there are objections grounded in WP:POLICY. 

~2025-36858-67 (talk) 09:33, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Use of infonews source

The Infonews reference is included under WP:RSSELF and WP:ABOUTSELF. The article is an autobiographical piece written by Danny de Hek about his early life and work history. Only non-contentious, descriptive biographical details were used (early jobs, apprenticeship, involvement in Christchurch internet cafés), consistent with Wikipedia policy permitting self-published sources for uncontroversial material about the subject’s own life. No evaluative, promotional, or contentious claims were included, in line with WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. ~2025-36931-47 (talk) 09:59, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Justification for inclusion of WP Engine takedown incident (June 2025)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This note explains the rationale for including the brief “Website host takedown incident” subsection sourced to BehindMLM.

1. Verifiability and sourcing (WP:V, WP:RS) BehindMLM is considered generally reliable for factual reporting on MLM/crypto-fraud matters and has been previously accepted at AfD and RSN for this narrow domain. The source in question reports: WP Engine disabled dehek.com The action followed a formal complaint WP Engine provided a written explanation to de Hek de Hek publicly disputed the action The site was later reinstated These are verifiable events, not opinions or accusations of wrongdoing.

2. Compliance with Biographies of Living Persons (WP:BLP) The added content adheres strictly to BLP requirements: It does not assert that the allegations in the complaint were true It describes only the procedural facts (takedown, notice, reinstatement) The complaint is attributed, not endorsed No language implying guilt or misconduct is used No contentious claims unsupported by secondary sources are included Where necessary, the edit explicitly states that de Hek disputed the takedown.

3. Neutrality and due weight (WP:NPOV, WP:DUE) The incident is framed neutrally and proportionately: It is brief and factual It is placed in an “incidents” subsection, preventing overweighting It is not presented as characteristic or defining It does not editorialise or interpret the event The incident appears in multiple third-party discussions of de Hek’s online presence and is therefore relevant but non-dominant.

4. Relevance to the subject (WP:RELEVANCE) This takedown incident is relevant to the article because: It concerns de Hek’s website, central to his public activity It involves a significant disruption (site removal and reinstatement) It is documented by a source normally relied upon for reporting industry conflicts It connects to de Hek’s broader public image as an anti-fraud commentator It is comparable to how other Wikipedia BLPs cover temporary suspensions, takedowns, or moderation events when reliably sourced. 5. Limitation of scope Only the portions of the BehindMLM article directly involving de Hek have been used.

Information regarding Shavez Anwar’s background, HyperFund history, and allegations against third parties are not included to avoid violating WP:BLP and WP:DUE. 

~2025-36931-47 (talk) 10:12, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Addition of Florida Court Filing (Goliath Ventures v. de Hek)

This LLM-generated text has been collapsed and should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Proposed addition:

A brief, neutrally worded sentence in the Scam investigation and online activity section noting that In 2025, De Hek became involved in litigation with Florida-based Goliath Ventures, supported by a citation to the publicly accessible civil complaint 2025-CA-009246-O filed in the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court (Orange County, Florida).

---

🔹 Why this source complies with Wikipedia policy 1. WP:V — Verifiability

The referenced document is a public court filing hosted in PDF form and is therefore a verifiable, primary public record. The information cited is limited strictly to uncontested, factual elements of the filing (date, parties, jurisdiction, existence of the litigation).

No interpretation of the legal claims is added.

2. WP:PRIMARY — Use of primary sources

Wikipedia permits the use of primary sources for straightforward, descriptive facts, such as the filing of a lawsuit, as long as they are not used for analysis or synthesis.

The addition does not summarise allegations, does not characterise the merits, and does not imply guilt or wrongdoing.

It simply acknowledges the existence of the case.

3. WP:BLP — Biographies of living persons

Because this concerns litigation involving a living person, the wording is intentionally conservative.

The edit avoids:

• repeating claims in the complaint

• speculating on outcomes

• implying impropriety

• giving undue weight (WP:DUE)

Only the uncontested procedural fact — that proceedings were initiated — is included, consistent with how Wikipedia documents litigation involving public figures.

4. WP:DUE — Due weight / significance

The litigation is already referenced by a secondary source (Law.com Radar) and is part of broader ongoing coverage of De Hek’s interactions with individuals and companies facing fraud allegations.

Adding the court filing as a supplementary citation improves completeness and confirms procedural details without expanding the narrative or giving it undue prominence.

5. WP:RS — Reliable sources

Although a court filing is a primary document, it is official, public, and appropriately cited using {{cite web}}.

The document is not used for contentious claims.

---

🔹 Summary of the intended edit

Text to be supported:

In 2025, he became involved in litigation with Florida-based company Goliath Ventures, after alleging that it operated a fraudulent investment scheme.<ref name="LawRadar2025" /> <ref name="GoliathPDF2025" />

What is not being added:

✗ No allegations in the complaint

✗ No claims of wrongdoing

✗ No legal interpretation

✗ No synthesis or extrapolation

The addition is strictly procedural.

---

🔹 Why this is appropriate and useful for readers

• De Hek’s work and public persona prominently involve public accusations of fraud against crypto-related entities.

• In this context, litigation filed in response to those allegations is relevant background.

• Inclusion aligns the article with comparable biographies where litigation tied to a public figure’s activism or reporting is documented in a neutral manner.

---

🔹 Conclusion

The proposed citation and wording meet the requirements of:

✔ WP:V (verifiable)

✔ WP:NPOV (neutral)

✔ WP:BLP (conservative, non-contentious)

✔ WP:PRIMARY (permitted descriptive use)

✔ WP:DUE (kept proportionate, not overemphasised)

~2025-36931-47 (talk) 10:33, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

•  Not done Please cite a wp:reliable source. wp:primary sources (such as a court filing) should not be used. Please don't add all that text? Thank you Adakiko (talk) 21:43, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Danny Dehek manipulating article

I have reverted to previous version of page, with previously approved content. Mr De Hek and accomplices are trying to manipulate, sensor and delete large parts of the article. ~2025-37383-17 (talk) 10:06, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

It is obvious that you are attempting to manipulate the page using multiple anonymous accounts. M20294135122 (talk) M20294135122 (talk) 21:16, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Repeated addition of unsourced contentious material by temporary account

Over a series of recent edits, the temporary account User:~2025-37383-17 (see Special:Contributions/~2025-37383-17) has repeatedly added contentious and strongly negative material to Danny de Hek that is either unsourced or supported only by poor-quality sources.

This behaviour appears to be a pattern of disruptive editing (and in some cases straightforward vandalism) targeting a biography of a living person. Per Wikipedia’s policies on biographies of living persons (WP:BLP), as well as WP:V and WP:NOR, contentious or potentially defamatory material about living people must not be included in articles unless it is backed by high-quality, reliable, independent sources. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material may be removed on sight.

I have reverted these edits, but the same or very similar material continues to be re-added by this account.

I propose that:

1. The disputed material remain out of the article unless and until reliable, independent sources are provided and discussed here.
2. Other editors watchlist the page and revert similar additions if they recur.
3. If this pattern continues, we consider requesting administrative action (e.g. page protection or a block) at the appropriate noticeboard.

M20294135122 (talk) 10:31, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Redacted sections

In the interests of fair journalism and neutrality, I propose that we restore previously posted content, at admin's discretion. This article is being unfairly manipulated, with large sections of truthful information (from high quality sources) being deleted. ~2025-36898-37 (talk) 14:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Please stop vandalizing this page using multiple anonymous accounts. Your edits are obviously biased to present the subject in a negative light. You've invented sources to websites that don't exist and you've taken sources that are not notable and puffed up their importance. M20294135122 (talk) M20294135122 (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Vandalizing ha! You are absolutely wrong, you are trying to manipulate the truth. I've elevated this on the noticeboard, we can't have selective editing. Research WP:BOOMERANG. Danny, Beth Gibbons and other accomplises must understand that the public are entitled to full coverage, regardless of whether or not it is criticism. Glass houses, stones etc. ~2025-37469-59 (talk) 08:57, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Concerns Regarding Notability, COI, Source Quality, and Harassment

I do not believe that "Danny De Hek" meets the criteria required for a standalone article. Majority of the references comes from self-published or paid sources connected directly to the subject, including platforms where the subject publishes his own journalism. This does not satisfy the standards of independent, reliable sourcing required under WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and WP:RS.

Additionally, there is a clear pattern of COI and promotional editing. Several accounts such as '''~2025-36898-37''' have repeatedly changes facts, added promotional language, and attempted to frame the subject in a more favorable light. These accounts have extremely limited edit histories, which raises concerns regarding WP:SPA and possible sockpuppetry.

There is also evidence that the article subject himself has edited the page at several times, which violates WP:COI and WP:PAID if any undisclosed compensation was involved.

Another serious issue is that the subject has publicly shared my personal Reddit username on this Talk page and has posted multiple times on his external platforms accusing me of "Trying to delete his article" and claiming I am a scammer. This behaviour constitutes harassment and goes against WP:HARASS, WP:OUTING, and general conduct policies. The posts made about me can be found on their website and social media posts.

https://x.com/dehek/status/1994013157132783768

Inside My Wikipedia Page: How It Works, Why It Matters, and the Reality of Being a Scam-Buster

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/inside-my-wikipedia-page-how-works-why-matters-reality-danny-de-hek-2znyc?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_android&utm_campaign=share_via

Given the above, I believe the article should be deleted. I have tagged the page accordingly and initiated the appropriate deletion process. Philosophysubboy (talk) 09:25, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Good work. I have also made posts on the WP NPOV noticeboard and the BLP noticeboard. The article was actually taken down by an admin, but appears to have been reposted in the last 24 hours. I'll notify the admin again. ~2025-36898-37 (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

This is a bad faith effort. M20294135122 (talk) 13:36, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Removal of "Allegations of coercive behaviour" section

I have removed the section titled "Allegations of coercive behaviour and disputes with journalists" per Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons policy (WP:BLPREMOVE).

The section relied entirely on a single source: an article from "Guru Magazine" (gurumag.com). This source fails to meet Wikipedia's reliability standards for contentious claims about a living person for the following reasons:

1. Not a reliable source: Guru Magazine is a self-published blog without demonstrated editorial oversight, fact-checking processes, or established reputation for accuracy. It does not meet the requirements outlined in WP:RS and WP:SPS.
2. Lack of notability: Neither the publication nor its author appear to have independent notability that would establish credibility for making serious allegations against a BLP subject. The author of Guru Magazine appears to engage in a pattern of reputation mining, inflating their importance by claiming associations with larger publications. Additionally, the author promotes spirituality and cult-adjacent beliefs while simultaneously claiming to expose other cults, raising questions about their credibility and objectivity.
3. Contentious material requires high-quality sources: The removed section contained serious allegations including "blackmail," "coercion," and "abusive" conduct. Per WP:EXTRAORDINARY, extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. A single blog post does not meet this threshold. Including such accusations in a Wikipedia biography based solely on an unreliable source could cause significant real-world harm to the subject's reputation and livelihood.
4. WP:GRAPEVINE: Wikipedia should not serve as a vehicle for gossip or poorly substantiated allegations about living people.

Per BLP policy, contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, not tagged or left pending discussion. If reliable, independent secondary sources covering these allegations can be provided, the material may be reconsidered. M20294135122 (talk) 12:59, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Removal of COI template

I propose removing the {{COI}} template from this article per WP:WTRMT.

The template was added without any accompanying talk page discussion explaining which editor allegedly has a conflict of interest, what evidence supports this claim, or what specific content in the article reflects this alleged conflict.

Per Wikipedia guidance on neutrality-related templates:

Neutrality-related templates such as {{COI}} (associated with the conflict of interest guideline) or {{POV}} (associated with the neutral point of view policy) strongly recommend that the tagging editor initiate a discussion (generally on the article's talk page) to support the placement of the tag. If the tagging editor failed to do so, or the discussion is dormant, and there is no other support for the template, it can be removed.

Concerns about the tagging editor

The editor who placed this template, User:Philosophysubboy, appears to have an ongoing dispute with the subject of this article and a history of disruptive behaviour on this page:

1. Previous bad-faith deletion: Philosophysubboy successfully had this article deleted under G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion) on 7 December 2025. However, User:Iiii I I I challenged this deletion, noting that the CSD template "was added by a user who has some kind of ongoing vendetta with the subject of the page" and that it was "a bad faith tagging." The article was subsequently restored by User:Deb following deletion review.
2. Paid editing concerns: The subject of this article has publicly alleged that Philosophysubboy is engaged in paid editing. A review of Philosophysubboy's contribution history and talk page reveals that multiple other editors have independently raised similar concerns about potential COI and paid editing (that he has manually gone and removed from his own page), particularly on Pakistan-related topics.
3. Possible retaliatory motive: Danny de Hek has written extensively about Pakistan-based scam operations, including organizations that fraudulently offer Wikipedia page creation services. This may explain the apparent vendetta against this article.

Given this pattern of behaviour, the COI template appears to be part of a continued campaign to discredit this article rather than a good-faith effort to address neutrality concerns. This raises serious questions about whether the tagging constitutes tag bombing and hounding by an editor with their own undisclosed conflict of interest.

If User:Philosophysubboy believes there is a genuine conflict of interest affecting the article's neutrality, I invite them to explain their specific concerns here. Otherwise, I intend to remove the template in accordance with WP:WTRMT.

M20294135122 (talk) 13:27, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

It is funny that you accuse me of having an ongoing vendetta against the subject, when the only substantive contributions on your account are focused exclusively on this article.

Second, it is unclear why you are so hellbent in the continued presence and framing of this article. You are not being paid to maintain it, are you? Nor do you deny having a close connection to the subject. Your editing pattern strongly suggests otherwise.

For the record, my contributions are not paid, nor have I ever been paid to write or edit articles. My edit history is publicly available and demonstrates this. Like many editors, I am still learning and occasionally make mistakes, which I address transparently. I regularly archive old discussions on my talk page to keep it organized, which is standard practice and fully compliant with Wikipedia guidelines.

This article appeared in my newcomers tasks for cleanup. From the outside, it showed clear signs of promotional tone and coordinated editing intended to present the subject in an overly positive light. You have done the same thing by removing certain sections which clearly talks about Danny revealing personal information of people openly and tagged it as garbage sourcing, however a clear google search deems evidence otherwise. All these issues raise legitimate WP:COI and WP:NPOV concerns. My action was limited to placing an appropriate maintenance tag to flag these issues, which is consistent with Wikipedia's editorial process.

Additionally, Danny has publicly exposed my online accounts and repeatedly accused me of being a scammer and of attempting to delete pages, which is false. These actions constitute harassment and have been raised outside of Wikipedia, further escalating the situation beyond good faith editorial disagreement.

I archived older messages on my talk page to allow space for new discussions. Once again, I ask why you are so focused on this article if you have no clear COI with the subject? Your entire contribution history suggests otherwise. This pattern reinforces concerns about undisclosed conflict of interest. Philosophysubboy(talk) 03:09, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Your response I suspect was almost entirely generated with an LLM as such as I won't spend too much of my time responding to it because you can just generate the response and paste it whereas I actually have to put thought into what I type here.

Your talk page was full of accusation by other editors of COI and paid editing concerns which you have manually gone and removed.

You did not place the COI tag yourself as you state in the reply here. You persuaded User:Deb to add it, and she did so without starting a corresponding talk page discussion as required by WP:WTRMT. The tag should be removed on this basis. You don't remember how the COI was added? I guess you didn't give ChatGPT all the context and just gave it bits and pieces and asked it to give you a response.

Your editing pattern raises concerns. Senior editors including User:Iiii I I I have flagged issues with your conduct on multiple Pakistan-related pages (see contributions). Given that the subject of this article has published exposés on Pakistan-based ghostwriting operations, you have an apparent conflict of interest and should consider recusing yourself from editing here.

Your explanation for removing prior messages from your talk page does not hold up. Those messages included multiple accusations from other editors about biased editing on Pakistan-related topics and undisclosed paid editing. Selectively deleting critical comments is not the same as routine archiving.

To recap:

In your response you say you placed the maintenance tag. You did not. You convinced another senior editor User:Deb into placing it. After you convinced the same senior editor into deleting the page. Then it was caught by another senior editor User:Iiii I I I and the delete was undone. Then User:Deb added the COI tag.

== Timeline of Events ==

1. You convinced User:Deb to delete the page, despite it having reliable sources and the page creator having no demonstrable links to the page subject
2. User:Iiii I I I alerted User:Deb that your tagging appeared to be in bad faith (his specific words were "this editor seems to have a vendetta against the page subject" or to that effect
3. User:Deb restored the article
4. User:Deb added the COI tag but did not open a talk page discussion for adding the COI

My edit history speaks for itself and nobody has accused me of paid editing. I care about scambaiting and investigative journalism related topics I noticed that this page was being overrun by vandals and bad faith editors armed with LLMs. M20294135122 (talk) 04:52, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Please add diffs as I don't remember being "persuaded" to add a tag to an article that has been openly edited by its subject. Deb (talk) 14:10, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

You don't remember adding the COI tag to the page after deleting and undeleting it? Here's the link to diff showing you adding the COI tag: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Danny_de_Hek&diff=1330171255&oldid=1326337884

You added the COI tag without opening a corresponding talk page entry to discuss the COI.

I don't want to debate the article subjects edits to the page. Their editing of the page was misguided but seems minor. M20294135122 (talk) 17:09, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I did a dive into the articles history and I don't believe the COI tag is needed. At one point de Hek did edit here, but it was minimal. For a while the article was substantially edited by temp accounts adding unflattering information. The article definitely needs work to comply with NPOV, DUE, and BLP (BLP in regards to both de Hek and the people he 'investigated') but that's pretty standard around content-creators with enthusiastic fans, not necessarily indicative of a COI.

@M20294135122 - I don't think it's fair to accuse another user of using an LLM based on one warning (from a global-banned user no less). And accusing them of a COI based solely on their home country is definitely uncalled for. PositivelyUncertain (talk) 21:08, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming the COI is not needed. I hope DebDeb will remove it soon. M20294135122 (talk) 05:23, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Update: I've removed the COI tag as it was added by mistake and consensus was reached on this through the talk page. I believe that user Philosophysubboy (talk · contribs) who convinced Deb (talk · contribs) to add the COI tag and delete this page did so in bad faith for more context read the above convo.

M20294135122 (talk) 08:02, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

You sure it isn't needed still? All of your previous edits are made only for the sole purpose of this article. You don't seem to have any other edits in your history. Surely, this isn't the only article you're working on? NO COI needed????? Philosophysubboy(talk) 08:08, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

This is becoming a matter of some concern to me. Deb (talk) 08:19, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Why did you delete the page without confirming facts?

Why did you un-delete it after you were told the tagging editor had a vendetta against the page subject?

Why did you not open a talk page entry for the COI tag?

Consensus was reached to remove the COI tag after I created the talk page entry and solicited views. I waited from 29 Dec 2025 to 24 Feb 2026 hoping you'd yourself respond and remove the COI tag because you were convinced to add it based on bad faith issues raised by User:Philosophysubboy. M20294135122 (talk) 09:13, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

This is false. You can look at my edit history and find work on many pages. Can you User:Philosophysubboy please confirm if this is a second account that you control User:Zulfiqarmanto? The edits to the french Wikipedia page https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Burhan_Mirza are particularly concerning.

Your bad faith tag bombing has been called out by multiple users. You appear to be using sock puppet network of accounts to do undisclosed paid editing on many Pakistan related topics and you appear to be using ChatGPT. M20294135122 (talk) 09:10, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

You never provided the diff I asked for; instead you added one showing that I had added the tag, which I never denied doing. That's quite disingenuous. Deb (talk) 08:22, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I reject your assertion and find it offensive! I provided a link to the diff and I gave everyone a play by play of what happened. You deleted this page and added the COI tag based on bad faith effort by another editor (User:Philosophysubboy). We're getting long in the tooth and hard for anyone else to follow but here it is explained simply:

Timeline:

1. User:Philosophysubboy convinced User:Deb to delete the page, despite it having reliable sources and the page creator having no demonstrable links to the page subject
2. User:Iiii I I I alerted User:Deb that the tagging by [User:Philosophysubboy]] appeared to be in bad faith (his specific words were "this editor seems to have a vendetta against the page subject" or to that effect
3. User:Deb restored the article
4. User:Deb added the COI tag but did not open a talk page discussion for adding the COI

You should never have added the COI tag because the subject of the article made one minor edit and did not create the page as he was accused of doing so. Furthermore you did not open a corresponding talk page entry to discuss the COI issues.

Here's a link to the diff, I don't know why you keep asking for it, you made the change after you were convinced into doing so by a bad faith editor: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Danny_de_Hek&diff=1330171255&oldid=1326337884

Furthermore links between User:Philosophysubboy and User:Zulfiqarmanto may indicate network of accounts being used to do paid editing on Wikipedia without disclosure.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sp%C3%A9cial:Contributions/Zulfiqarmanto M20294135122 (talk) 09:05, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I am not obliged to open discussions on the Talk page when it is obvious that the page has been edited by its subject; User:Philosophysubboy did not need to "convince" me of this - it's clear from the edit history. I'm just wondering why you aren't interested in making any contributions to any Wikipedia topics other than those relating to Danny de Hek, such as Goliath Ventures. Deb (talk) 09:18, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Would've been helpful for you to open a talk page entry so a discussion could be had about why you added the COI and how it could be removed. Rather than simply adding it and leaving people to wonder why it existed.

You can look through my edit history and find contributions to many pages. You trying to cast aspersions on my edit history doesn't change the fact that you were convicned into deleting this page by a bad faith editor who tag bombed this page User:Philosophysubboy. If you want to be Columbo then look at the edit history of User:Philosophysubboy and the links to User:Zulfiqarmanto.

FWIW I care about scambaiting and related topics I saw this page was being overrun by vandals and I appreciated you putting it under protection. But I am very disheartened that you can't see the obvious bad faith efforts of User:Philosophysubboy which you aided by deleting this page, undeleting it (when it was pointed out to you), then adding a COI tag without a corresponding talk page entry.

M20294135122 (talk) M20294135122 (talk) 09:28, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

@M20294135122 please stop tagging me. i don't care about this article nor about your COI concerns. Philosophysubboy(talk) 09:31, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Photo to be added

Could an editor who is allowed to edit this page please add the photo from this link:

https://www.maiawards.org/insights/maia-change-makers-2025/ ~2026-64031 (talk) 02:13, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

grammatical

Minor grammatical error: In English usage, name particles like “de” are lowercase when used with a given name (e.g., Jan de Hek), but are capitalized when the surname is used alone (e.g., De Hek). Ddeppner (talk) 14:39, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Correction: Goliath Ventures is not operating a Ponzi scheme. These are biased opinions made from incomplete information.

Goliath Ventures is not a Ponzi scheme. This is his personal opinion. They are an operating company, no charges have been laid. He is attempting to bring them down since he’s identified several weaknesses in their business structure. He is creating several barriers for them to operate and slandering the Goliath company name. There is a defamation suit against him that was filed in September 2025 Gerrardoisthebest (talk) 08:27, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Looks like it is very much a ponzi scheme and the US DOJ has arrested the CEO

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/2026/02/24/doj-orlando-crypto-firm-ceo-arrested-for-328-million-ponzi-scheme/

https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdfl/pr/goliath-ventures-ceo-arrested-wire-fraud-and-money-laundering

https://www.justice.gov/usao-mdfl/goliath_ventures M20294135122 (talk) 07:55, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Reversions

@BubbaJoe123456 Please explain your edit summary "Source does not mention de hak". Of the two sources you removed the news article contains his name five times, while the court record referenced is literally a lawsuit against him. I think that qualifies as a mention. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 01:38, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

My mistake, I don't know how I missed the reference in the source. I've reverted myself, thanks for catching. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 02:20, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. If you don't mind please take a look at this related page User:ChompyTheGogoat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goliath_Ventures

Anonymous accounts are being used to engage in disruptive editing. And they are contacting senior editors and engaging in brigading to censor the content of these 2 pages.

This is one of the 10 biggest ponzi schemes in America. Lot of people want to censor information. M20294135122 (talk) 11:34, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw. I requested extended confirmed protection since semi protection isn't cutting it, but was denied. I'm not sure what else to do. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 20:49, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your vigilance. M20294135122 (talk) 12:35, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

The explorative iterative vandalism attempts using temp accounts is continuing on the Goliath Ventures page. M20294135122 (talk) 08:52, 13 March 2026 (UTC)