Talk:Florian Hill

WP:COI or WP:PAID

Large parts of the article were written by Jaimes and Walles39. All edits of these two accounts were on this article or otherwise related to Hill. It looks like this may be a case of WP:COI or WP:PAID. — Chrisahn (talk) 08:57, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Revert: unsubstantiated claim. Jaimes (talk) 07:45, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

All of my changes were explained in an edit summary. None of your changes adhere to WP:V and other fundamental rules of Wikipedia. You obviously don't know (or don't care) how Wikipedia works. — Chrisahn (talk) 09:55, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Reverted to the previous stable version. If additional sources are needed, I am happy to provide them within the next 24 hours. Any modifications or deletions of the current article based on unfounded claims or assumptions should be regarded as vandalism. Jaimes (talk) 10:41, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

"next 24 hours" – doesn't matter. You obviously don't understand the fundamental rules of Wikipedia. See WP:BURDEN. — Chrisahn (talk) 11:30, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Your behavior makes it quite obvious that you have a conflict of interest. Further, you said yourself that you are close to Hill and collaborated with him on an expedition (and were maybe paid by him, your statement was not quite clear). It is a fact that you have a conflict of interest according to the definition of WP:COI. — Chrisahn (talk) 11:31, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

As I have mentioned several times before, I have not collaborated with the subject of the article. All information I added comes from media coverage, online sources, or published interviews. Some photos were requested from the office and released with permission for use on Commons, which is standard practice.

Your repeated claims of a personal connection or conflict of interest are unfounded. The aggressive nature of your accusations suggests more of a personal issue on your side than on mine. I am a professional journalist contributing across several platforms, and my edits are based on verifiable sources. Please stop making unfounded accusations and reverting sourced content.-- Jaimes (talk) 13:46, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

"I have not collaborated with the subject of the article" – See de:Special:Diff/78269391: "stehe aber mit [Florian Hill] in engen Kontakt. Die Expedition habe ich beruflich begleitet." Translation: "I am in close contact with [Florian Hill]. I accompanied the expedition in a professional capacity." ("accompanied" is the direct translation of "begleitet", but it's possible that "observed" or some other word would be a better description of what Jaimes claims to have done, the original German wording is somewhat vague and ambiguous.) — Chrisahn (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

In the German Wikipedia, de:User:Jaimes has been blocked indefinitely from editing de:Florian Hill because of de:WP:COI. We should handle it the same way here. — Chrisahn (talk) 12:10, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

The block was initiated by user @Chrisahn, but it is not based on facts and will be reconsidered. The initial justification was “edit warring,” which does not reflect my actions. I made a single revert to the previous stable version of the article in order to restore its structure and then began adding sources step by step. These sources are widely available and published across the internet, and I have already integrated them into the new section.

My edits were not intended as disruptive but as an effort to improve the article with verifiable information. Labeling this as edit warring or a conflict of interest is not accurate. The appropriate course of action would be to review the added sources and engage in content discussion, rather than blocking. -- Jaimes (talk) 13:42, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

The block was not initiated by me. Most of the rest of the comment is incorrect as well. This user apparently has close to zero understanding of how Wikipedia works. — Chrisahn (talk) 13:45, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

@Chrisahn initiated and motivated the block by repeatedly claiming that I was “vandalizing” and engaged in an “edit war.” The blocking admin cited edit warring first as the reason, but when I explained that I had not engaged in edit warring, the block was suddenly redefined as a conflict of interest. This inconsistency shows the block was not based on facts.

Your repeated and aggressive actions on my profile create disruption rather than collaboration, and they prevent the development of a well-sourced article. The focus should be on improving content with reliable sources, not on making shifting accusations. Jaimes (talk) 13:49, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

More incorrect claims. — Chrisahn (talk) 13:52, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Jaimes' claims here are only loosely related to reality. In case anyone wants to have a look at what actually happened, see de:Wikipedia:Vandalismusmeldung/Archiv/2025/09/03#Benutzer:Jaimes (erl.). — Chrisahn (talk) 14:34, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Your repeated accusations are baseless and verge on defamation. My only action was to revert to the stable version in order to add reliable, widely available sources step by step. Personal attacks do not replace a factual discussion about content and sources. — Jaimes (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2025 (UTC)