User talk:Vlodiker Chimok

June 2023

Hello, I'm Slgrandson. An edit that you recently made to Draft:Alain Bidard seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 02:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello Slgrandson,

I apologize for any inconvenience caused by my recent edit to Draft:Alain Bidard. It was not intended as a test and I understand that it has been reverted. I appreciate your reminder to use my sandbox for any practice editing in the future. If I have any questions or concerns, I will not hesitate to reach out to you on your talk page. Thank you for your diligence in maintaining the quality of Wikipedia's content.

Best regards,  Vlodiker Chimok (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:MOVETODRAFT userscript

Hello, I have tagged a redirect for CSD R2 that was left behind when you draftified Baires Raffaelli. You might find the MOVETODRAFT user script useful for draftification—it helps inform creators about draftification and tags the redirect for CSD R2 that was left behind after the move. – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:43, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Baires Raffaelli

Hi, can you please explain what your connection is to the Baires Raffaelli draft? You have, in your entire edit history, only a single mainspace edit - the edit to draftify this article, which had been approved by an AfC reviewer. What's going on here? -- asilvering (talk) 18:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Assistance with the Publication Status of the Amjad Shawa Article

Please assist with the status of the article Amjad Shawa and its publication process.

I have added Arabic-language references to the article Amjad Shawa to ensure comprehensive sourcing, as some English-language sources are not widely available. Despite this, the article has not yet been published online. Could you please advise on any specific issues preventing its acceptance or what additional steps might be required for the article to be approved? Vlodiker Chimok (talk) 09:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

It will take few months for New Page Patrollers to review the article and make it available in search engines. Please be patient. Ca ^{talk to me!} 10:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Request for Assistance on Article Amjad Shawa

Hello Admins, I’m seeking help with the Amjad Shawa article. I’ve added Arabic-language references to improve sourcing, but the article has not yet been published. I understand the article must follow the biographies of living persons policy, and I’d appreciate guidance on the quality of the sources, whether any self-published sources are included, and if any content needs to be addressed or removed. What additional steps are needed for approval? Thank you for your time and assistance. Best regards, Vlodiker Chimok (talk) 10:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

This question does not require the use of the admin toolset; any editor may help you with this. I'm also not sure what you mean, Amjad Shawa is indeed "published" and live, you moved it into the encyclopedia yourself. 331dot (talk) 10:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

What is your connection to this individual? (You took a picture of them) 331dot (talk) 10:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

December 2024

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you translated text from ar:أمجد الشوا to Amjad Shawa. While you are welcome to translate Wikipedia content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the contributor(s) of the original article. When translating from a foreign-language Wikipedia article, this is supplied at a minimum in an edit summary on the page where you add translated content, identifying it as a translation and linking it to the source page. Sample wording for this is given here. If you forgot, or were not aware of this requirement, attribution must be given retroactively, for example:

NOTE: Content in the edit of 01:25, January 25, 2023 was translated from the existing French Wikipedia article at [[:fr:Exact name of French article]]; see its history for attribution.

Retroactive attribution may be added using a dummy edit; see Repairing insufficient attribution. It is good practice, especially if translation is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{translated page}} template on the talk page of the destination article. If you have added translated content previously which was not attributed at the time it was added, you must add attribution retrospectively, even if it was a long time ago. You can read more about author attribution and the reasons for it at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Vlodiker Chimok. Thank you for your work on Amjad Shawa. Another editor, North8000, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

wp:notability requires in depth coverage be sources of the topic of the article This does not appear to have any of those, even by a lenient interpretation. Suggest adding those if they exist. Happy editing!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Vlodiker Chimok/sandbox

Hello, Vlodiker Chimok. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Vlodiker Chimok/sandbox, 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) 05:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Advice regarding the article SEP (Social Enterprise Project)

Greetings. I see you created and built the SEP (Social Enterprise Project). Thank you for your contributions! However, there's some things you must have in mind.

Subjects must be notable to be included in Wikipedia. What this basically means is that articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Passing mentions of a subject in a source are barely acceptable for notability or substantiating claims; this is more or less the case for ~4 of the sources I checked on the article (eg the UN one, which barely mentions SEP once). I decided to leave most of the sources in the article for now. The article's greatest need is to add reliable sources. If found to be nonexistent, the subject will be found non-notable (and thus deleted). This may be dispiriting, but if it does you can have the solace that maybe in a few years the organization will get enough coverage for a Wikipedia article.

In the same vein of notability, information not covered by reliable sources is generally not included in articles. This includes claims by the company's founder on interviews. Such claims may be used to cite non-controversial self-descriptions, but that's about it. We must also avoid including excessive self-description, such as listings of products or brand ambassadors. I removed all non-notable paragraphs from the article. An example of improper self-descriptions to include would be "combining cultural significance with social impact through ethically crafted fashion". This is a non-trivial claim that isn't substantiated by reliable sources. It also is deficient in tone, which leads me to my next point:

Articles must be neutral in content and tone. I rewrote most of the remaining text to be non-promotional in tone. If you have a connection to the article subject (eg you work there) then you must declare your conflict of interest. If that's the case please follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

In summary, we must find reliable sources, avoid including non-notable information, and write neutrally. If the subject is non-notable, the article will end up deleted and this outcome must be accepted (if that occurs you may copy the article to your userspace and wait some years to see if the subject is covered enough). If it is notable, then we must improve it.

Trust me, it's much better to have a relatively-small well-written and well-sourced article than an article inflated with promotional text. Editors will take much more kindly to the former. Regards, The Sophocrat (talk) 07:36, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi Sophocrat, Appreciate your detailed feedback and the work you put into improving the SEP (Social Enterprise Project) article. Your points about notability, reliable sourcing, and neutral tone are well taken.

I’ll look into whether more in-depth, independent coverage is available to support the article’s inclusion. If it turns out that notability can’t be established at this point, I understand the implications.

Your edits have helped bring the article closer to Wikipedia’s standards, and I’ll keep your notes in mind moving forward. Vlodiker Chimok (talk) 11:06, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about SEP (Social Enterprise Project)

Hello Vlodiker Chimok, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, SEP (Social Enterprise Project), should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SEP (Social Enterprise Project).

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Fancy Refrigerator}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 09:51, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello Sophocrat,

Thank you for your detailed review and edits. However, I must respectfully disagree with the suggestion to delete the SEP (Social Enterprise Project) article at this stage.

SEP is a notable social enterprise making meaningful contributions in ethical fashion and sustainable development, and it has received coverage from independent, reliable sources beyond passing mentions—some of which have unfortunately not yet been fully incorporated into the article. The current deletion discussion seems premature given the ongoing efforts to identify and add these sources.

I am actively working to improve the article’s sourcing and tone to fully comply with Wikipedia’s standards. Removing the article now would erase valuable content and hinder the documentation of an important emerging organization. Wikipedia’s mission includes chronicling notable developments as they happen, not only after widespread recognition.

I urge you and other editors to allow the article to remain while improvements continue. Constructive collaboration and patience will yield a well-sourced, neutral, and informative article that benefits readers and reflects SEP’s growing impact.

Thank you for your understanding. Vlodiker Chimok (talk) 11:59, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I encourage you to voice your concerns at the AfD discussion page. Thank you. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 12:04, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Vlodiker Chimok/sandbox

Hello, Vlodiker Chimok. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "sandbox".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:01, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

August 2025

You have used sources that are either clearly noted as paid placement, unmarked press releases or marketing content, or blatant fake content farms which house unmarked SEO placement. One of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. These sources step far beyond those policies. Please carefully evaluate your references in the future, and ensure that you are in compliance with our mandatory paid editing disclosures. Sam Kuru (talk) 15:31, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: John Duffy (economist) (October 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CNMall41 was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at John Duffy (economist) instead.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:John Duffy (economist) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CNMall41 (talk) 22:58, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Vlodiker Chimok! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! CNMall41 (talk) 22:58, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ibrahim Nawaf Joharji (October 25)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Pythoncoder was:

Your draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT. Their outputs usually have multiple issues that prevent them from meeting our guidelines on writing articles. These include:

• Promotional tone, editorializing and other words to watch
• Vague, generic, and speculative statements extrapolated from similar subjects
• Essay-like writing
• Hallucinations (plausible-sounding, but false information) and non-existent references
• Close paraphrasing
  

Please address these issues. The best way is usually to read reliable sources and summarize them, instead of using a large language model. See our help page on large language models.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ibrahim Nawaf Joharji and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

—pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 20:27, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Amjad Shawa

The article Amjad Shawa has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

LLM-generated article on subject of dubious notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 20:54, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Vlodiker Chimok / AI. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:22, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Hi @Vlodiker Chimok, I saw your post on ANI and wanted to ask you to please read this page, which will explain why using AI causes so many problems here Wikipedia:Large language models.

This will hopefully help you understand why it's usually a bad idea and how to create better articles in future. Blue Sonnet (talk) 02:30, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of Josh Soley for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Josh Soley is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josh Soley until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

User:Namiba 20:23, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

November 2025

Hello Vlodiker Chimok. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Vlodiker Chimok. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Vlodiker Chimok|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Sam Kuru (talk) 13:11, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello @Kuru:,

I appreciate your thorough explanation of WP:PROMO, COI, and paid contributions. I now completely understand why my edits might seem promotional or connected to a financial interest, and I am aware that undisclosed paid advocacy is forbidden.

For the avoidance of doubt, I am "not being paid" for these edits. I completely respect Wikipedia's decision to remove the pages, and I also understand why.

I should note that because of ADHD, I often make "larger, consolidated edits" instead of several small, incremental changes, which may be different from typical editing workflows. In the future, I will avoid editing topics that might present a conflict of interest (COI) and submit suggestions through the talk pages or the Articles for Creation process when appropriate.

Thank you again for your guidance. I will carefully follow Wikipedia’s policies moving forward.

--Vlodiker Chimok (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

WP:PAID editing requires conflict-of-interest declarations

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

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the Edit Request Wizard), including links or details of reliable sources that support your suggestions;
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:30, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think you were being truthful in your response to Kuru above; you are blocked from mainspace edits for 6 months and from moving articles from drafts to mainspace. During that time, you may use the WP:AFC process for articles in draftspace. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:38, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

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

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

---

Request reason:

Hey Ohnoitsjamie, ::I'm responding to your message about the block. I want to explain what was going on with my edits so you understand where I was coming from. ::After thinking about it more, I can actually see why everything looked so sketchy. I was using AI to write the articles, which gave them this promotional tone that doesn't belong on Wikipedia. And then I was uploading photos of the people I was writing about. Yeah, that's... that's not a good look. I get why you'd think something was off. ::I wasn't trying to trick anyone or anything. I genuinely just didn't understand NPOV or WP:COI. I thought as long as I wrote decent content with sources, it would be okay. But I was totally wrong about that. Wikipedia isn't a place to promote people, and my writing definitely broke those rules. ::I completely get your skepticism. Honestly, I'd feel the same way too. ::So here's what I'm committing to going forward: ::1. I'm using WP:AFC from now on. No more mainspace edits until the block expires. Everything goes to draft first. ::2. If I mess up again if any edit looks promotional or breaks WP:COI rules—you have my word that I accept a permanent ban for it. I won't fight it. ::I actually want to contribute properly to Wikipedia, and I'm ready to prove that through drafts. Thanks for giving me the chance to do this the right way. ::Vlodiker Chimok (talk) ::

Decline reason:

None of this addresses the obvious paid editing and collaboration with other paid editors - we're way past that. "Golly, it does look promotional" is not helpful at this point. You can continue to develop articles in draft while this block is in place. If you abuse this by continuing to create paid placement, this account will indeed be fully blocked. Sam Kuru (talk) 13:40, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

---

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

Your submission at Articles for creation: Royal York Property Management (December 5)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by ClaudineChionh were:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
• reliable
• secondary
• strictly independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission appears to be a news report of a single event and may not be notable enough for an article in Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#NEWS and Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event for more information.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

I wouldn't want to live in one of their properties, but unfortunately these incidents don't look especially notable, just your average shady landlord behaviour.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Royal York Property Management and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 03:18, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

January 2026

Your account has been blocked indefinitely for advertising or promotion and violating the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use. This is because you have been making promotional edits to topics in which you have a financial stake, yet you have failed to adhere to the mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a form of conflict of interest (COI) editing which involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is strictly prohibited. Using this site for advertising or promotion is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, please read our guide to appealing blocks to understand more about unblock requests, and then add the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the end of your user talk page. For an unblock to be considered, you must:

• Confirm that you have read and understand the Terms of Use and paid editing disclosure requirements.
• State clearly how you are being compensated for your edits, and describe any affiliation or conflict of interest you might have with the subjects you have written about.
• Describe how you intend to edit such topics in the future.

331dot (talk) 21:05, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

---

Administrators: if this block includes a Volunteer Response Team ticket number, this block was placed as part of the conflict of interest VRT queue and the user must not be unblocked without the express consent of a user with access to the queue. ticket:2025123010001042

Concern regarding Draft:John Duffy (economist)

Hello, Vlodiker Chimok. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:John Duffy (economist), a page you created, has not been edited in at least five 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) 23:08, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:John Duffy (economist)

Hello, Vlodiker Chimok. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "John Duffy".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Vlodiker Chimok/sandbox

Hello, Vlodiker Chimok. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "sandbox".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:55, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Tea Chest Hawaii

Hello, Vlodiker Chimok. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Tea Chest Hawaii, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five 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) 10:07, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Ibrahim Nawaf Joharji

Hello, Vlodiker Chimok. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ibrahim Nawaf Joharji, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five 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) 14:07, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Unblock request – Vlodiker Chimok

153/800 Words

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Hello. I'm writing to humbly request that this indefinite block be lifted. I edited Wikipedia for compensation and did not disclose this relationship, in violation of both the WMF Terms of Use and Wikipedia:PAID. I understand now why this is absolutely forbidden -- edits made for money without disclosure undermine the integrity of Wikipedia. I take responsibility for my actions. I don't think the block should be permanent. I just want to ask for another opportunity to make constructive contributions. I promise to: *Disclose (on both my user page and the talk pages for articles edited) any relationships with paying parties in the future. *Edit in good faith and in accordance with Wikipedia's policies on neutrality, verifiability, and conflicts of interest. *Avoid editing articles on subjects in which I have a financial interest unless I fully disclose my relationship with the subject. Please place any conditions on me that you feel are appropriate for lifting this block. Thank you for your consideration. Vlodiker Chimok (talk) 10:43, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Now is the time to disclose your conflicts of interest. Additionally, you'll almost certainly need to agree to a WP:TOPICBAN on any subjects for which you have a conflict of interest, given your illicit contributions so far. Yamla (talk) 11:23, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

---

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

Unblock request – Vlodiker Chimok (2)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

Having gone down by Yamla, I am hereby submitting with all the information as required.

Disclosure of conflicts of interest:

I was employed by an individual client on the following draft articles:

• Draft:Royal York Property Management (created for pay, 2025-12-05)
• Draft:Kate Lord Brown (created for pay, 2025-11-07)
• Draft:Ibrahim Nawaf Joharji (created for pay, 2025-10-25)
• Draft:Tea Chest Hawaii (created for pay, 2025-10-24)
• Draft:John Duffy (economist) (created for pay, 2025-10-16, but subsequently deleted)
• Amjad Shawa (edited for pay)
• SEP (Social Enterprise Project) (created for pay, but subsequently deleted)

In each instance, I was paid by the individuals or the organization mentioned in the article, or someone representing them. I did not disclose my interests when doing the above tasks. This was a very serious violation of the WMF Terms of Use and Wikipedia PAID guidelines.

Agreement to topic ban:

I freely and unconditionally agree to a perpetual topic ban from editing any Wikipedia article, draft or talk page concerning any of the above subjects as well as from any further paid editing without full prior disclosure.

My commitment moving forward:

If unblocked, I will immediately post the notice of paid contribution on my user page. I will put a notice on my user page, as well as on the relevant article talk page in advance of any edits made in any paid project. I will not edit any Wikipedia page where there is a potential conflict of interest without disclosing my interests first.

I recognize the harm caused by undisclosed paid editing on Wikipedia. I will respect any additional condition imposed by the reviewing administrator. Vlodiker Chimok (talk) 05:25, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Accept reason:

You are unblocked subject to an indefinite topic ban from making any edits related to any topics with which you have a conflict of interest, including paid editing. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:03, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Vlodiker Chimok (talk) 05:25, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

So, just to be clear, you are rejecting the path I said was probably your only path to being unblocked, correct? You are not willing to refrain from further paid editing? --Yamla (talk) 09:52, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Maybe there is a misinterpretation somewhere, but I did agree not to engage in paid editing. I can give up on paid editing completely, not only disclose it. It would have been more clear if I had expressed myself differently before. Vlodiker Chimok (talk) 13:51, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

You said, "I will not edit any Wikipedia page where there is a potential conflict of interest without disclosing my interests first." That's very, very different from "I will not edit any Wikipedia page where there is a potential conflict of interest." --Yamla (talk) 13:55, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

You are quite right about that. Let me make myself crystal clear on the matter, I will not amend a single Wikipedia article wherein there is a conflict of interest, period. I am abandoning paid editing altogether. Vlodiker Chimok (talk) 14:01, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

What would you edit about if you are unblocked? voorts (talk/contributions) 01:20, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I will deal with writing that is related to software and programming, including the history of computing, which are the subjects I really like. Also, I do editing of formatting and citations, fixing any possible errors. There are no potential conflicts of interests or paid tasks at all.Vlodiker Chimok (talk) 11:16, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@331dot: any objections to unblocking? voorts (talk/contributions) 20:46, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

No; the COIVRT aspect may be considered cleared. 331dot (talk) 20:59, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you both Voorts and 331dot for giving me another chance. I fully understand the conditions and will respect them. Vlodiker Chimok (talk) 01:19, 9 June 2026 (UTC) Vlodiker Chimok (talk) 01:19, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

please also see WP:NOLLM Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 19:50, 14 July 2026 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Kate Lord Brown

Hello, Vlodiker Chimok. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Kate Lord Brown, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five 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) 02:09, 3 August 2026 (UTC)