Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input. Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem. Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Additional notes: Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases. For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead. Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

Richard_Scott_Smith

Resolved

 – Concerns removed CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

IMO violation of WP:BLPCRIME, recently PRODed by me, shortly before end of time redirected to an article of a "True Crime" Documentary [3] Love Fraud which seem to cover this man. In the documentary various women make serious accusations against the man for alleged fraud. I did not find any conviction(s), "only" a warrant for Ident Theft (w/o conviction so far). CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

CommanderWaterford, I found the following:

"In 2018, Smith was arrested in Knoxville, TN, thanks to efforts depicted in Love Fraud. Smith was sentenced to prison, and was released in April, per the documentary." [4]

"In a Des Moines police report, the woman said Smith threw her to the ground, kicked her, and struck her in the head with an electronic device. Smith was arrested and put on probation, according to court records in Polk County, Iowa."[5]

Also see this article from 2017: https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/crime/article136374288.html Fences&Windows 13:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Fences and windows, very interesting, thanks, don't tell me you just googled it ;-), I researched in newspapers. com etc. pp. ... The article from 2017 is "only" an accusation of a woman... and the first one tells that he was arrested but not whether he was convicted. And the police report... well... is a report of an interrogation, also no conviction at all. I surely agree that he is highly suspected (of course) but I do not see any conviction...what do you think? CommanderWaterford (talk) 13:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

He has been convicted: "Dunlap went to the police, and Smith was charged with identity theft and forgery in Johnson County in February 2017. The forgery charge was dropped, but Smith pleaded guilty to identity theft and was sentenced to 10 months in jail. Court records show that in April 2019 he violated his probation — failure to report and failure to pay are cited — so the probation was extended 18 months, until Oct. 29."[6] Fences&Windows 14:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Fences and windows, good research, indeed - a conviction of identity theft but the forgery was dropped... and.. I am not able to access the case on the archived jococourts.org website ... did you? so formally we have a conviction of Ident Theft and nothing else. CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Fences and windows, fyi: @Rosguill: reverted the Redirect here [7], restoring the original version. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:33, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

CommanderWaterford, Rosguill, I think the best approach is to redirect and write about him in a neutral tone at Love Fraud. He is only notable in that context (otherwise only covered by Kansas local press) and his name and details of his conviction are relevant to the documentary and don't breach policy afaics. Fences&Windows 17:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Fences and windows, I have no objection as long as a duly sourced mention can indeed be added at that target. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, done. Fences&Windows 21:18, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

p.s. An editor by the same name who uploaded pictures of bridges in Wales had his userpage edited in 2015 to make accusations against this other Smith, which I've belatedly revdelled. Fences&Windows 14:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

List of gender reveal party accidents

I saw that List of gender reveal party accidents was recently created via AfC. I'm somewhat concerned that this may run afoul of BLP1E, as most of the accidents tend to gain a short, intense flurry of coverage but without any long term coverage or other coverage that would establish notability. To an extent this can also be the case for the main gender reveal party, in the incidents and injuries section.

I'm just worried about this being similar to the Gorilla Glue incident, where the woman received a lot of coverage but there's not enough to justify covering it on Wikipedia. At present this article doesn't list every case that has received coverage, but I can see this going that way. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I think you make some very good points. On the bigger issue, I think, like the section below, this is another glaring instance of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. What's next, List of people who injured themselves while camping by trying to cook canned foods over a fire without opening them first? Why don't we just start cataloging youtube videos by type?

In my view, we're an encyclopedia, so any article, even a list article, should still be about a subject. This type of list, in my view, is completely opposite of encyclopedic writing. Here, we're not defining any thing. It's just a list of incidents and a title that in some arbitrary way ties them all together (ie: it could just as easily be a list of people killed by cannons during a party, or whatever). In my opinion, a good list article is about a subject that simply consists of multiple components. The subject is defined like any other article, and the list gives a good but quick summary of all the components, usually with "main article" link to their subordinate articles. A good example is Basic fighter maneuvers, or List of fallacies is not bad either.

I generally like to call these "parent articles". For example, Energy would be parent to kinetic energy and potential energy. Potential energy to all its different sub-articles. Luminescence to fluorescence and phosphorescence, etc... That seems like a more encyclopedic way to make a list. This just seems like a directory, not too different from a catalog, and for all the reasons you describe and a few more, a very bad directory that will become a magnet for BLP issues. Zaereth (talk) 03:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The list has been nominated for deletion. Fences&Windows 20:56, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

• BLP1E only applies to articles about specific individuals (its scope is "presuming this event is notable, should we have an article about this person involved in it, or just mention them in the context of an article about the event?") Unlike most other parts of BLP, it doesn't apply anywhere else. The question of whether we should include someone's name and other information in a list like this falls under WP:BLPNAME or WP:NPF instead, which have very different standards. The question of "is this broad event noteworthy?" is not directly a BLP issue at all (after all, if it is notable but BLPNAME / NPF is not satisfied, everything on that list could be covered without naming any individuals.) --Aquillion (talk) 10:31, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Christian Porter, member of Australian Cabinet

• Christian Porter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Attorney-General of Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mr Porter's page is being frequently edited as a result of an accusation of a crime involving an unnamed person, who is a member of the current Australian federal Cabinet, in 1988. The crime took place in Sydney in 1988 before he became a politician, but as he was not a Sydney resident at the time, the question whether or not he travelled to Sydney during 1988 for a particular event has attracted a lot of interest. I believe the page may need protection at some level.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christian_Porter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Porter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ambrosechapel (talk • contribs) 07:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, so there’s a story in the Australian media about an unnamed current Cabinet Minister and an allegation of rape in Sydney in 1988, and people are trying to show that Porter was in Sydney for a debating competition in 1988. It’s terribly poorly sourced - one source (Four Corners) says nothing about Porter being in Sydney in 1988 and the other (Hale School Magazine) is dated 1987 so is useless for that purpose. A few eyes on this would not go amiss. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• An email has been sent to Oversight. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

• Also getting BLP violations at Attorney-General of Australia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Malcolmxl5: I've removed a long section at his talkpage (some of it only a problem in context, but enough of the section needs to go) and a minor bit at the AG page. Could you please revdel these too. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:34, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, the original issue is now a dead one as Christian Porter held a press conference confirming he was the unnamed person who had been accused. This does mean there are new issues surrounding what we should mention and maybe also where, but possibly it doesn't need BLPN attention any more. Nil Einne (talk) 12:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Ahmed Johnson

Ahmed Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Slam say "Johnson went to college at the University of Tennesee, which led to two seasons -- 1990, 1991 -- kicking around the Dallas Cowboys squad as a middle linebacker." This is confirmed by page 230 of John Grasso's Historical Dictionary of Wrestling. Rowman and Littlefield (ISBN 0810879255), which says he was released by the Cowboys without playing a regular season game. Despite this the article contains blatant original research added here saying "Tennessee has no record of anybody named Norris ever having played football at the university, and the NFL has no record of Norris ever playing for any team", sourced only by searches of this database and this database. 92.40.188.82 (talk) 08:51, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

It may all be kayfabe. No idea how much fact checking these wrestling sites actually do. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Bringing Up Bates

I thought 19 Kids and Counting and Counting On were bad enough, but here's the next one. Another article full of BLP violations, the most overt of which I'm about to remove: the grandchildren, who never asked to be in anything, and the freaking pink and blue colors, which violate the MOS and everything we've learned about gender in the last decades are so. I'd appreciate y'all helping me to keep an eye on this kind of editing in these reality-TV show articles. Drmies (talk) 23:23, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Drmies, if not already noticed you might want to have a look at the latest diffs tonight from the editor. CommanderWaterford (talk) 08:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks CommanderWaterford. These kinds of articles are gifts that keep on giving. Drmies (talk) 14:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Why do we have birthdates for minors in these articles? Or birthdates for anyone, really? Woodroar (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

People like birthdates, for some reason. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång like those colors, and like the model numbers of guns and shit in all those other articles, it's a fetish. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Drmies, time for Pedagogical measures ... reverted once again. CommanderWaterford (talk) 00:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I deleted the whole table of kids. No reason I can see to include (poorly-sourced) bios of each. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

User:BubbaJoe123456, User:CommanderWaterford, User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång, User:Woodroar, I really appreciate y'all's help. I've often felt like I was the only one with these concerns, rolling a rock uphill. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Looks like you are right Drmies, here we go again, reminds me of Groundhog Day... new User:Gigismommy added the names again, KeithD made some additions afterwards without removing the previous one ... CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I've fully protected the article. I considered ECP, but it looks like several of the more ardent edit warriors here would be able to bypass that. I've left a note in the protection log requesting that discussion happen on the talk page before further additions are made. If I can help any other way, please let me know. --Jayron32 18:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Donald DeGrood

On Donald DeGrood's page, it displays his Coat of Arms with the motto "DEUS CARITAS EST". His motto has never been rendered this way, and is not rendered this was in the source given for the Coat of Arms. "DEUS CARITAS EST" should be changed to "GOD IS LOVE" to properly reflect the original source.

Source given for the image for the Coat of Arms: http://www.sfcatholic.org/bishop-degrood/bishop-degrood-coat-of-arms/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.151.166.26 (talk) 16:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC) I researched this and changed the coat of arms displayed on the page to the one representing DeGrood. The previous coat of arms was representative of a different bishop. Go4thProsper (talk) 11:31, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Tariq Nasheed

We have heavy BLP issues at Tariq Nasheed [8] and its talk page[9][10]. The subject is controversial but the content and comments are beyond the pail. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Horse Eye's Back, indeed the comments of the Editor User:Stonksboi are beyond any good - somebody should evaluate a WP:REVDEL on the last diffs at Talk:Tariq Nasheed and this one [11] - thank you. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

(A tad dramatic to refer to my comment as "beyond the pale", and I don't think anyone here was accusing Nasheed of a crime! - I also feel coming to this board right away was unnecessary, but as I am also here now...) I would like to draw attention to the section "Use of term "bed wench" on the article in question, and how there is now criticism directed at Nasheed's use of the term "bed wench". The two sources presented in the rebuttal are Ebony & RollingOut, which come off as mass media/opinion pieces. The criticism is sincere and I appreciate the effort of whomever added it, but the wording as it currently stands doesn't seem to be of an acceptable standard/format. Many regards, --Trans-Neptunian object (talk) 00:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Fiona Graham

• Fiona Graham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The editors on the page are basically preserving an unflatteringly biased article using an Extended Users block, reverting any additions to the Japanese version as well. They are not helping construct a good article, focusing on two controversial issues (explained further below) and not adding any new relavent information about her life, especially positive information.

• Problems
  • The prominence of the Wanaka Gym case, which should be a sentence or paragraph in a history/biography/other activities section, not an entire section itself.
  • The inability to add further information to the article. The editors on that page who I constantly argue against have added very little information about her more recent life, and most of the information on that page concerns two controversial issues (Her departure from the Asakusa Geisha community and the Wanaka Gym case).
  • Several editors on that page, including Ravensfire, Ineffablebookkeeper and several IP addresses (note all of them are English speaking accounts based in the West) keep reverting/vanadalising the Japanese wikipedia and English wikipedia pages on Fiona Graham, adding unflattering information and removing more flattering information.

• Solutions
  • I wrote a section in the Fukagawa Geisha article under "Geisha Mother" because I was not able to edit the Fiona Graham article myself. I think that section is a bit more thorough and detailed about her history and life. There needs to be far more information added to the Fiona Graham article, even if it is just copied from the Fukagawa Geisha page.
  • The Wanaka Gym section should be replaced with an Other Activities section, and the information about the Wanaka Gym should be moved to a History, Biography or Other Activities section.
  • The page needs to be unblocked because the block is mostly acting to preserve unflattering information about Fiona Graham, acting as a gatehouse to the vanadals. A lot of the various users causing problems on the English and Japanese pages needs to be told to stay away, make constructive edits, or simply be blocked.

Geicraftor (talk) 07:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Previous discussions at this noticeboard: [12]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• ... that make the same requests and are all basically from the same person - Graham (or at her request). Ravensfire (talk) 14:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Geicraftor - I'd appreciate if you'd ping me when mentioning both myself and Ravensfire, though I don't think it's a requirement for this Noticeboard, as far as I know. Please use this template: {{u|username}} when mentioning users, as otherwise, I'm not going to be notified that I'm part of a discussion on any Wikipedia noticeboard.

Also - please use proper subheadings, such as ===Problems===, instead of bolding the text as a false heading; for users who use screenreaders, bold text commonly doesn't encode as emphasis, whereas a subheading will.

As for the accusations - I've been over the same thing many different times before, and later on, rather than repeat myself, I'll add a comment linking previous sockpuppet investigations and comments I've made, in regards to the constant, blatant COI editing conducted on Graham's article. It's pretty obvious, based on language - that the content is "unflattering", as previous sockpuppets led with language in exactly this vein - that this is more of the same.

I'm honestly disappointed, as I thought that with the last instance of COI editing to Graham's BLP, we'd hopefully moved past this. Details on how COI editors can edit Graham's article - and have those edits stay there, as you can edit a BLP if you're connected to the subject themselves, so long as you follow the correct steps - have been laid out on the Talk page previously, step-by-step, and I'd hoped that they would have been heeded, maybe changed some behaviour, even. It doesn't seem like it has, and here we are again.

I genuinely don't know what higher steps can be taken at this point; I think everyone involved is sick of playing whack-a-mole on this article, every four months for the past 11 years. If anyone can rub two braincells together and come up with an idea, I'd be grateful. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I should also add - this is English Wikipedia; we have no jurisdiction or control over its Japanese language sister project. If you have a problem with the Japanese article's editors, take it up with them, as no-one here can do anything. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 17:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly the problem is, because the OPs post is rather vague on exactly what they find as a problem and what they are trying to accomplish. If the linked article, Fukagawa Geisha, is any indication, well, that article reads like an advertisement, and needs some serious trimming and work to make it encyclopedic. Some of their solutions are contrary, such as "unblock the article and block everyone from editing it". Huh!?! Getting to the bottom of this looks like it's going to take some serious digging through article history and the long list of discussions linked by Grabergs Graa Sang. I don't have time for that at the moment, but if anyone does, this looks like something we should take a deeper look into, albeit that likely won't turn out in the way the OP had hoped. Zaereth (talk) 02:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Zaereth - no need to dig; there are discussions linking to the previous times this has happened in the Talk page's archive that detail diffs anyway, as well as the previous two sockpuppet investigations, the lattermost of which I spent way too much time digging out diffs for.

As is evident, the responses follow the same lines - this is defamation, it's unflattering, people have it out for Graham, "An investigation whether or not the editor in question is related to the subject...a direct competitor in the same field as graham, and whether or not said editor stands to gain materially from graham's disadvantage", yada yada yada.

If it helps, the only thing I stand to gain from this being resolved is the ability to go back to editing the other articles on my watchlist. Hope this saves you some time. --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 11:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Anatoliy Shariy - Article being constantly bloated with heavy POV

A Ukrainian Wikipedian by the name of EricLewan who apparently doesn't like Anatoliy Shariy's political participation is constantly trying to label him as a "pro-Russian propagandist" without providing concrete evidence besides various biased oligarch- or state controlled media. EricLewan https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1009015451&oldid=1009013114&title=Anatoly_Shariy

The mentioned user also constantly removes any other part of the text where Anatoliy Shariy is not labeled a pro-russian propagandist like the part where he rejects allegations and calls them politically motivated (source provided).

If you take a look at his contributions you will see that he also vandalised the Borscht article, changing the soup's place of origin to Ukraine instead of Russia, further evidencing POV pushing behaviour of this user. ValterUdarnik (talk) 20:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• Anatoly Shariy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) --Hipal (talk) 23:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I've already reverted the article to its state as of February 20, but maybe there's more to revert. --Moscow Connection (talk) 23:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

POV pushing and diffamation is again perpetrated by several Ukrainian Wikipedians. This time by the users AndriiDr and 62.216.38.50. I suggest introducing pending protection since there seem to be coordinated manipulation efforts. ValterUdarnik (talk) 16:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@ValterUdarnik: Respectfully, please narrow down what specifically you consider vandalism. POV pushing is definitely present, but I'd just cautiously point out that saying Shariy has pro-Russian views is not that, especially when a quick Google search will reveal dozens of diverse sources that back that claim up. Cran32 (talk | contributions) 18:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@Cran32: Excuse me, but what constitutes his "pro-Russianism"? The fact that he advocates a neutral Ukraine which will cooperate both with Russia and the EU? Is Merkel "pro-Russian" because Germany cooperates on North-Stream 2? I doubt. "Pro-Russianism" nowadays was turned into a battle term to denounce and attack people who don't seek conflict with Russia, labeling them as some kind of traitors. ValterUdarnik (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

. Best, Cran32 (talk | contributions) 19:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

That's a nice collection of Ukrainian propaganda websites. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Can anything be done, please? I haven't done anything for some time, cause I'm afraid to forget when I reverted the last time and go over 3 reverts in 24 hours. There's also a user who changed "Kiev" to "Kyiv" everywhere, even in URLs. (Some URLs are broken now.)
It looks like an attack from Ukrainian accounts and IPs. That's just crazy. I haven't followed Shariy for a long time now, but he basically just laughs at the Ukrainian authorities, trolls them a little bit. And he's very polite. What's going on? Who would care about his English Wikipedia article that much? --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The newest addition is "Covers events in Ukraine from the standpoint of Russian interests. He is one of the closest associates of Viktor Medvedchuk, whom Ukraine's special services suspect of financing terrorism." :-) "Terrorism" is probably a reference to the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics. --Moscow Connection (talk) 00:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Could some please look after this article as well →→→ "Party of Shariy"? A user named Cran32 made an attack page out of it. His version read:

The Party of Shariy (Ukrainian: Партiя Шарiя, Russian: Партия Шария) is a pro-Russian political party in Ukraine founded by political blogger Anatoly Shariy, who fled Ukraine in 2012 after shooting a patron in a Kyiv McDonald's and attempting to fake an assassination attempt. Most recently known to be residing in Spain, he gained fame via his YouTube channel, on which he discusses Ukrainian politics and expresses pro-Russian, Ukrainophobic sentiment. The party's official goals claim to be the protection of democracy, the creation of a middle class, and preservation of freedom of expression; in practice, however, it mainly acts as a proponent of pro-Russian positions and ideas, often directly mimicking Kremlin propaganda.

--Moscow Connection (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, this is rather fascinating. Where I live, we have a lot of Russian immigrants, and I have and have had a lot of Russian friends. Google translate must be getting better, because it did a pretty good job of translating these sources. (I mean, it's always been good for French, but if you can read English then you can read French.) This was good enough that I could even hear the Russian accent in the idioms, word choice, and sentence structure.

It looks like this person is notable, and I did find what look like some very good news articles; not all of them flattering yet not all bad. A good mix. Whether this is all state-run propaganda or not, I don't know. I'm judging solely by the quality of journalism that I have read in these articles.

Mostly, however, what I see are unacceptable sources. Blogs, for example, are not good sources for a BLP. Neither are opinion/editorial (op/ed) columns, and this article uses lot of those. This includes the writings of the subject, which, from what I've read, is the type of articles this guy writes. Of course, I haven't read all hundred and some odd sources. Even the one that exposed the orphanage (and I'm a staunch advocate of protecting children), even that is an op/ed column in the form of a documentary rather than a piece of true journalism. So I think this article is highly bloated and highly puffed up (for both good and bad), and it reads like this weird combination of promotion and a hit-piece. I think it needs a huge trimming and maybe toned down toward the middle quite a bit, and maybe cut down a little on that Russian accent. But it really needs to be done by someone who can read Russian fluently. Zaereth (talk) 05:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Gregory Montanaro

Resolved

 – Page had been drafted CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

A puff piece/resume. I've started cleanup, but this is so deeply steeped in public relations patois, I don't know how to proceed without cutting it to a stub. More eyes appreciated. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Oy vey it's bad. It looks like someone's already marked it for deletion and that seems like the right idea... —Wingedserif (talk) 04:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes. I might have proposed it for speedy deletion as spam, but odds are good the sheer volume of sources would have been misinterpreted. Maybe still....2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

fyi: Page has been moved into Draft. CommanderWaterford (talk) 09:45, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Bill Ward (musician)

The one in the second photo (1973) should be the bassist, Geezer Butler, and not Bill Ward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zois Gasp (talk • contribs) 04:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

No, that's Bill Ward with a mustache. While he was usually clean shaven, and Butler often wore a mustache, but as you can see from the full picture here, for a time in 1973, both Butler and Ward wore mustaches. From left to right, that is Osborne, Butler, Iommi, and Ward. I could see, however, that one could confuse Ward and Butler given that with similar hair styles and facial hair, they do resemble each other, at least until you see them in the same photo. --Jayron32 18:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Billy Morrison

I again am acting on behalf of Billy Morrison himself, whose year of birth has been repeatedly edited, to show him older than he is, which has shown up in Google searches and ultimately on TV news -- this is very upsetting to Billy, and recently repeatedly the work of one editor: 2601:19d:303:7a20:f177:2066:3a1d:9128

Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Billy_Morrison&action=history

I made my initial correction, at Billy's request, on 01:31, 6 November 2020‎ -- adding his birth year, of 1969

That edit was reverted, removing the year and leaving the birth day, on 10:01, 6 November 2020‎ -- the editor said a reliable source was needed.

Before that came to Billy's attention, or mine, the editor 2601:19d:303:7a20:f177:2066:3a1d:9128 made the addition of an incorrect birth year: 18:16, 9 February 2021‎ -- note his sarcastic comment: "Billy Morrison is 65 1955 not 51 lol"

That edit was undone by another editor, who inserted a more nearly correct but still incorrect birth year (1967): 21:21, 21 February 2021‎

All that later came to Billy's attention and he re-contacted me, so I corrected the birth year and, as previously told to do, added a source (Billy's official Facebook account, https://www.facebook.com/BillyMorrison/about_contact_and_basic_info, where he added his birth year, to substantiate this correction in Wikipedia, which I made): 14:46, 22 February 2021

Days later, 2601:19d:303:7a20:f177:2066:3a1d:9128 undid my edit and put back the erroneous birth year of 1955: 18:24, 26 February 2021‎

Later that very day, another editor, UW Dawgs, undid 2601's erroneous edit and restored the correct birth year: 18:31, 26 February 2021‎ -- I believe his note there cited 2601's edit as vandalization: "rvt vandal, tag re non-WP:RS"

Shortly thereafter that day, another editor, AnomieBOT, added a "dating maintenance" tag (Dating maintenance tags: ) but did not edit the then-correct birth year: 18:56, 26 February 2021‎

But then again, that same day, 2601 came back and again changed the correct birth year (1969), previously verified by the official Facebook account, to the incorrect birth year (1955): 19:31, 26 February 2021‎

And someone -- I believe 2601 -- added an insulting comment, all in CAPS, to my Talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dougdrenkow -- "GIVE IT A REST AND STOP PUTTING FALSE INFO ABPUT HIS AGE JESUS ARE YOU DELUSIONAL"

Billy and I are very upset that his birth date is continually being changed, even though we have supplied evidence from his official Facebook Account of his correct age. And we are especially upset that recently Editor 2601:19d:303:7a20:f177:2066:3a1d:9128 has repeatedly undone corrections, and apparently left insulting comments.

Like millions of others, we respect Wikipedia as perhaps the most authoritative source of information on the Internet -- that is why Google and that TV News story cited Wikipedia to report Billy's age, incorrectly.

In order to prevent this from continually happening, there are two things that should be done:

His birth date should be made non-editable. Obviously, it will never change. We don't know how you can do that, and we've been told that Wikipedia's policies do not allow items to be made uneditable unless there is evidence of repeated vandalism -- as you can see in the History I cited above, there is in this case.

And Editor 2601:19d:303:7a20:f177:2066:3a1d:9128 in particular needs to be prevented from making any more erroneous edits -- obviously intentionally -- or making any insulting comments.

Wikipedia is much better than all that.

Thank you for any and all help. We are very sorry to have to bother you with all this, but we need to set the record straight -- for Billy's good reputation and Wikipedia's.

Doug - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougdrenkow (talk • contribs)

I'll protect the page with the 1969 date based on the Facebook page, but I would suggest that you follow the advice at Wikipedia:Contact us/Article subjects and send an email via your official representation of Morrison to info-en-q@wikimedia.org explaining who you are, your relation to Morrison, and that you are confirming this information on his biography page here. That will create a confidential Open Ticket Request (seen only by a selected, vetted subset of volunteers) that will verify your information and that then can be used as affirming that you are who are say you are and thus this is the correct date. (I have found a LA Weekly article that has Morrison saying he was "three years old" in the 70s, so that's going to help a lot to affirm). --Masem (t) 17:53, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Roger Bonair-Agard and Kevin Coval

BLP / crime issues at Roger Bonair-Agard (starting at this edit, see e.g. the edit summary and the section header), and at Kevin Coval (starting here), where it causes an edit war (added 5 times, removed 4 times). Fram (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

@Ohnoitsjamie:dealt with the Kevin Coval article (thanks!), perhaps a similar intervention for the Bonair-Agard one may be warranted? Fram (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Done; also revdel'd some material at Malcolm London, though at that article, earlier material seemed to have sufficient sources, so I've left that for now. I've given the user who added most of the poorly-sourced material a final warning. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Fram (talk) 17:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

DrWitnesser

DrWitnesser is a born-again evangelist eSports streamer, who recently got banned from Twitch after an altercation with a Muslim child. Conservative Designer, a single-purpose account who seems to have been created solely for the purpose of editing the DrWitnesser page, has made a number of edits to the page. Some of these were constructive, but mostly seemed to be about promoting a POV in favour of DrWitnesser.

While I'm aware that a lot of the sources used in the article are biased and sensationalist, I think they are adequate to note the basic facts of the situation. Even so, I think this article could do with a once-over to make sure that either overly-promotional or possible defamatory information is removed from the article.

Thank you --Bangalamania (talk) 17:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Given the situation, and the sourcing, this seems like a WP:BLP1E situation and that the article should be deleted. The only sign of notability for this person is the altercation and subsequent results, there's no sign they were notable before this event. --Masem (t) 17:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

As the creator, if editors wish to list the article for deletion I will not oppose. --Bangalamania (talk) 17:53, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Paul Zimmer (Internet personality)

Troy Becker (formerly known as Paul Zimmer), has been seemingly trying to re-write/re-create his own articles to claim that he is younger than he is, and has claimed the current article is libellous. It's really the latter point that I want people to address here, but I thought I'd give an exposition of events:

• 3 January: IP editor 2603:8001:7501:1e6b:a48c:50fe:ad41:29fe, claiming to be subject of the article, made a number of edits to his own Wikipedia page. These included changing his date of birth from 1995 (which is supported by the sources used in the article) to 2000, claiming himself to be a "fictional character" (to make the distinction between his online persona and himself), and other promotional content. These edits were quickly reverted ([13], [14], [15]), and a warning against article hijacking was placed on their userpage by Rdp060707 (who possibly thought that the user was talking about a different individual) and advises them to use the Article Wizard to create another article (talk page).
• 20 January: Draft:Troy Becker, a short promotional article, is submitted to AfC, created by Thetroybecker. This also includes a false date of birth. It was declined on 26 February by KylieTastic for improper sourcing. I don't believe the user should be reprimanded for this, as they were encouraged to use the Article Wizard to create a new article.

However, this draft also includes an image, File:Facetune 23-02-2021-23-47-32.jpg. Given the image name, it seems likely that this was edited by Facetune software – possibly to give Becker a younger look (although this is speculation on my part). Either way, I'm not sure what the copyright situation is with Facetuned images. If this is deemed appropriate, it should be included in the main article; if not, then it should be deleted from Wikipedia.

• 3 March: Thetroybecker puts a delete notice on the original article and issues legal threats against Wikipedia, saying: My lawyer states that, this is against the law to pass on false information about me. I want this page deleted now or I will be facing legal action. and I would like this Wikipedia page deleted immediately, I am Troy Becker/Paul Zimmer. This is inaccurate information on me, and my lawyer says this is grounds for decimation against me. I would like this page deleted now or I will be facing legal action.

I highly doubt this threat is genuine. However, on the off-chance that there is defamatory content within the article, I would appreciate if editors could give the article a one-over check. (I am also aware that some Wikipedians take a dim view of Insider sources being used in BLPs. However I think the general consensus is that they are reliable for content such as dates of birth, especially when these are supported by other sources such as the New Statesman).

In short: If editors could give the article a once-over check to see that it is BLP-worthy and that there is no defamatory content in the article, I would very much appreciate it. --Bangalamania (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• As I was pinged... I would say per Wikipedia:No legal threats just report to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I would also say there is nothing to say it's the same person, and if it is they are doing just more of the same and should be ignored or blocked. The fact that they first tried to edit Troy Becker then submit Draft:Troy Becker before deciding Paul Zimmer (Internet personality) was the issue and start the threats shows the real motivation here. As for Paul Zimmer (Internet personality) it appears to be a another wanabe who is only notable for doing something stupid, I'd be happy to see it and the redirect(s) to it deleted as it appears to be more tabloid news than encyclopedic content. KylieTastic (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Nothing wrong with the article as regards sourcing, only the issue of whether he's notable - however, knowing the usual arguments at AfD, I suspect the sources such as the New Statesman and the sttempt to resurface as someone else (which may well take it out of WP:BLP1E territory) might mean it is kept. Anyway, you're right about the legal threats, so blocked and article semi-protected (since they tried previously to delete content as an IP). Black Kite (talk) 19:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• KylieTastic, I honestly think that the article in its current should be deleted - there are several accusations listed which are only sourced by two magazines and one of them cites the other. Beside these accusations I barely can see any notability of this subject. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah - there are plenty of sources, i.e. The Independent although they all, apart from one, quote the New Statesman. This isn't unusual with this type of pop culture story, to be honest; often a mainstream source doesn't pick it up, but this time one did, and it spread from there. I can find odd bits about him from when his story surfaced the first time, but not a lot, and most of it's unsurprisingly on YouTube. Black Kite (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• I've also deleted the draft as a hoax. I can't find reliable sourcing for the earlier Musical.ly debacle, so though adequately sourced this is really a BLP1E about the renaming. Fences&Windows 17:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

French speaking editor needed to look at possible BLP issues

• Sciences Po#Duhamel scandal
• Olivier Duhamel#Accusation of incest

To me, something seems off -- possibly tabloidish -- about the tenacious efforts to get this into Wikipedia, Alas, I cannot tell if WP:BLPPUBLIC is being followed because I am unable to read most of the sources (despite my name, my family is from England.) --Guy Macon (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

It was discussed in many major english and french newspapers, and Olivier Duhamel is a well known public figure in France, so I would say that BLPPUBLIC is satisfied. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Then it definitely should be covered on the Olivier Duhamel page. Should it take up such a large part of the Sciences Po page?

Consider Elon Musk#Tham Luang cave rescue and defamation case. It isn't mentioned at all at SpaceX or Tesla, Inc.

Or Bill Cosby#Sexual assault cases and conviction. Not mentioned at Temple University.

We don't, as a rule, create huge sections about accusations on pages of organizations associated with the accused.

It just seems tabloidish to devote such a huge section of Sciences Po to something that belongs in the Olivier Duhamel page. Alas, I can't address this problem because so many of the sources are in French. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:49, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree, its probably not due as massive section on the Sciences Po article. Google translate or DeepL work well to translate french language source texts. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

bert campaneris

Bert Campaneris has a daughter, Polita Campaneris and a granddaughter, Gabriela Kreszchuk and a grandson, JunoGiovanni Zivenallen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcampaneris (talk • contribs) 20:20, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Steven Kunes

• Steven Kunes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am the subject of this Wikipedia article and have not logged in to check it for over a year. I would like an uninvolved senior editor to take a look at this article about me and then try to think whether or not you've ever seen an article (BLP) like this one. I doubt that Robert Downey and Martha Stewart are listed for their criminal offenses at the top of their articles. While it's true that I've gotten myself into trouble over the years, one need only to read the editors' comments to conclude that they ganged up on me and shut down the voices of dissenting editors. I am not an American conman and former screenwriter. I currently have a comedy series on Amazon Prime called "Over My Dead Body" that I created, write and produce. I've published 6 books in the last four years, including one last month. I can provide links all day long that demonstrate that I'm very much an active writer and producer. For the last two years, I've been on the episodic comedy panel of judges for the WGA Awards. I've been a member of the Writers Guild of America, the Authors Guild and the Dramatists Guild since 1982 and remain current and in good standing. I'm also a member of PEN (upon their invitation two years ago.) I am very embarrassed over my past actions but they certainly don't warrant top-billing on Wikipedia. I am kindly requesting that a senior Wikipedia editor review the BLP about me and format the article like every other BLP, no better, no worse. Thank you very much for your help. -- Steven Kunes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.35.86 (talk) 15:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

"I can provide links all day long that demonstrate that I'm very much an active writer and producer." I would suggest you provide those links on the article Talk page, making sure that the links are to Reliable Sources.BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

John Mark Ramseyer

• John Mark Ramseyer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This BLP on a relatively obscure Harvard legal scholar, John Mark Ramseyer — who has written a few dozen journal articles — sat as an almost untouched stub until a month and a half ago when he published a journal article that has attracted quite a bit of scrutiny. Since then, it's tripled in size, 60% of the body prose is now occupied by a new "Controversy" section that's been slapped up, and half the lead is now dedicated to said journal article. I'm afraid I don't have time at the moment to look into it but, at first glance, this seems to have a variety of issues related to WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:UNDUE, and WP:MOSLEAD going on. But maybe it doesn't; like I said, I haven't looked at it closely. Just an FYI if anyone has the time or inclination to glance at it. Chetsford (talk) 07:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Ross Nicholson

This article is currently mostly a hoax being circulated fairly widely on social media. It has been used to get a friends name added to the betting odds for the next Aberdeen FC manager. --ℕ ℱ 12:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)