Talk:Alaba Lawson

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women in Business Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles about women in business on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject Women in BusinessTemplate:WikiProject Women in BusinessWomen in Business articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Re: Alaba Lawson

@Bri: I have reverted the tag you placed on the Alaba Lawson and moved the discussion from my talk page to the article's talk page here where this belongs. You did jump to conclusion by placing such a tag on the article and that amount to a serious allegation that you should be preparing to prove now.

Undisclosed paid editing violates Wikimedia projects terms of use, and that's a criminal offence. So, your allegation is very serious and I am going to treat it as such. I'd prepare a statement shortly. Kaizenify (talk) 12:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kaizenfy you are unqualified to remove this considering you are the creator and the editor placing it is doing so in good faith. Contest it the right way. Praxidicae (talk) 12:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the removal Praxidicae. Thanks for restoring the tag. Kaizenify (talk) 12:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Bri: I created the article as part of the Wiki Loves Women project and I have no relationship with any Wiki-PR company. That being said, I can't comment on your private evidence as I cannot see the content and there is no way private evidence could be rebutted. I am not going to comment further on this until you are able to substantiate your allegation and also make your evidence public. I'd also want to see a case of an unsubstantiated allegation of UPE reviewed with the appropriate action taken. Regards. Kaizenify (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think my hands are tied by WP:OUTING because the evidence is off-wiki. It has been handled according to the instructions in WP:PAID. Note this is my alternate account. - Bri.public (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bri and Bri.public: G5 should not apply unless the undisclosed paid editor was already banned at the time they edited this article, and there have been no substantial edits by other editors. From what I can see this is not the case here and the UPE tag, not G5, is appropriate. VQuakr (talk) 00:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily the case. See the recent WP:WIKIPRO RfC close by Seraphimblade and their clarification of it. Any Wikiprofessionals work is eligible for deletion. Whether G5 is the correct mechanism is still being hashed out at WP:AN. I'm not a wikilawyer but that is my understanding of the current state of affairs. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]