Talk:Brock Pierce

Claims of felonious conduct

Require more than "guilt by association" claims and references to civil lawsuits against others. He may be Satan Incarnate, but Wikipedia has strong protection for living persons, and we ought not ignore the policy. Collect (talk) 14:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@Collect: Indeed. There seems to be some edit-warring going on over this, including enthusiastic attempts to censor the account of the article subject himself. MPS1992 (talk) 00:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Noted invitation to join a discussion but there is no discussion related to the reverted edit. The self-serving statement has no impact one way or another on the question of guilt by association. Assuming you think this particular discussion piece is relevant, explain how the deleted material assists in reducing a (perceived by Collect) guilt by association message in the article. I remind editors that their reversion of other editors' work must provide strong reasons. It is a discourtesy to make such reversions without reasons and, of course, gives rise to a technical edit-war condition much earlier than it otherwise may. So bear this in mind for your future editing. sirlanz 01:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Bear in mind that multiple editors have now taken issue with your additions. We do not include information on or even implication of serious crimes such as the exploitation of children based on the fact that someone he was associated with was convicted. If some other individual was convicted, and they have a main article, the information should be added there. GMG^talk 14:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

It's understandable that GreenMeansGo might have got the wrong end of the stick here. The material the subject of differing views is not my addition. I took the first step which was to delete the material. One other editor thinks the material should stay; another thinks it should stay but subject to some changes for neutrality. sirlanz 01:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

From taking a look at the sources (and others) its clear its only by association - personally I find the claims he was unaware of being wanted dubious given the circumstances and timing but its also very clear that a)there is no criminal charges related to him that were ongoing, b)the articles when talking about the criminal charges are almost entirely about his associate, with Pierce only mentioned in passing as his co-founder/employee etc. So I would not include any of the material per BLP. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

The event was well covered in the media and has ongoing coverage with the subsequent documentary. Inclusion is WP:DUE and we will not censor it out of the article just because some WP:SPA accounts are here to challenge it. There is plenty of coverage (entire articles) relating to Michael Jackson's sexual abuse allegations (many of which were dropped or settled out of court). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Michael Jackson settled lawsuits out of court for cash settlements and has living people who still accuse of him sexual abuse. Brock did not settle with any of the plaintiffs and they ALL voluntarily retracted their civil suit against him, after which they apologized to him. The chief plaintiff, Michael Egan, who initially asked Pierce to join the lawsuit as another Plaintiff (since Pierce himself was a minor at the time of the alleged abuse), has been convicted in federal court for fraud (see here: https://variety.com/2015/biz/news/bryan-singer-michael-egan-sex-abuse-1201656874/ ) and has openly admitted to making up false claims of sexual abuse to extort wealthy individuals and enrich himself. Jackson is also dead, and Pierce is alive, which means the bar for writing libelous material about Pierce on wikipedia page is much higher. SMendel (talk) 21:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Removal of "Child sexual abuse allegations" as a sub heading

@Ghettoblaster

Removing this as a sub under Digital Entertainment Network is justified. The article clearly states he was a minor at the time and all charges against him were dropped. The predator was Marc Collins-Rector. As a seperate heading, it is potentially libelous. I didn't remove the content although that could be up for debate because this was another "guilt by association" claim. Oscarmckinney (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

It appears you are an WP:SPA. Do you have a WP:COI relating to this article? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

I am not an WP:SPA and I do not have a WP:COI relating to this article. I'm surprised this edit has sparked such a backlash as I did not remove any of the factual content.Oscarmckinney (talk) 18:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I will just add this, from the wikipedia guidelines on articles written about living people: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libelous." The lawsuit in question was retracted by the plaintiff and the plaintiff later admitted to fabricating multiple stories in an effort to receive cash settlements. Given this context, it IS libelous to present a retracted case by an admitted fraud not by its actual legal title but with the libelous term, "Sexual abuse allegations." — Preceding unsigned comment added by SMendel (talk • contribs) 04:46, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Bitcoin foundation

It says on this article that the subject is the chairman of the bitcoin foundation. But there do not seem to be any WP:RS to support this. Is this true? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:19, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Interestingly, the text of this article states that "[t]he organization announced its insolvency in July 2015." In addition, the Bitcoin Foundation article describes the entity using the past tense, so it's not clear to me whether this foundation even currently legally exists. In a web search, there are passing mentions of Pierce as being the chairman of a Bitcoin Foundation, but nothing substantial, and it's unclear to me whether this is the same Bitcoin Foundation that's wikilinked in the infobox (it's possible for two nonprofits to have the same name). Aoi (青い) (talk) 08:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I have read the same thing. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:12, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

RFC heading

Subject

Hi, shall we call this sub-heading

• A. Burton v. Collins-Rector et al lawsuit

-or-

• B. Sexual abuse allegations

Discussed above on this talk page and also highlighted in this diff Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

• I favor "sexual abuse allegations" as it summarizes the section, that include both a lawsuit and an arrest. It is not limited to a lawsuit. Note this article is often subject of promotional edits, see notes above on this talk page. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

  It is very clear that Jtbobwaysf is intent on making libelous edits that spin voluntarily retracted allegations as current. this is a violation of Wikipedia's guidelines on pages about living people. Moreover, this user has removed edits I and other editors I made under the false pretense that I have a conflict of interest and made promotional edits. Just because you do not agree with someone's edits, does not make them wrong or promotional. Every edit i made was sourced in recent news articles and was written in an objective, unbiased voice. By contrast, the edits [User:Jtbobwaysf|Jtbobwaysf]] has made constitute vandalism of this page insofar as he removed parts of Pierce's life and career that have been established in the media and were added to the page by volunteer editors such as myself. I hate to see a living or even dead person's name tainted by false accusations and slander. SMendel (talk) 20:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

  Stop talking about them, stop responding to them. It's not constructive, and it only makes it more difficult to get any sort of consensus. We get it, you two disagree. That's why there are other editors here responding to the RFC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

  agreed. SMendel (talk) 22:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

• Concur with Jtbobwaysf.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:29, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
• Remove from career, put in personal life without it's own heading. Sexual abuse allegations is a loaded heading for allegations that were dropped without settlement. There's also a victimization angle to look at, as the subject was also a minor at the time. Also, it wasn't part of his career, so why keep it there. It can be moved to personal life, without a heading, and provide all the necessary context. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2022 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)

I support this move to put in personal life. There has been an effort to water down the allegations aka down-weight (or remove entirely at times). The allegations are the subject of a whole section of a movie, pretty in-depth coverage and the attempt to down-weight or remove is ongoing on this article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I also support moving this section to personal life without its own heading. I agree with ScottishFinnishRadish that "Sexual abuse allegations is a loaded heading for allegations that were dropped without settlement." Jtbobwaysf is incorrect and perhaps slanderous to compare the allegations against Pierce to those levelled at Michael Jackson for three important reasons: 1) Michael Jackson has numerous living accusers and was openly courting little children to sleep at his house, making the allegation of sexual abuse very believable. Many of Jackson's accusers hold fast to their accusations of abuse. He also paid settlements to some of them, further adding weight to the narrative of his accusers. In contrast, there is not a single living person who is currently accusing Brock Pierce of sexual assault. Every single person in the lawsuit who accused Pierce has apologized and voluntarily retracted their suit against him without any settlement. The only money paid was a little over $20k that Pierce paid to the lawyer of the plaintiff for his legal fees (as the lawyer did not want to drop the case without being paid). 2) the main accuser/plaintiff in the civil suit (I repeat this was a civil and not a criminal case), Michael Egan, has admitted to falsely fabricating stories of sexual abuse in order to receive cash settlements in addition to being literally convicted by the Federal government for fraud. This completely discredits the allegations against Pierce. 3) Brock Peirce is a living person. Michael Jackson is dead. This is a major distinction for wikipedia as wikipedia establishes explicit protections to prevent libelous and slanderous information from being spread on pages about living people.

SMendel (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

No opinion on the merits of this, but we can't possibly use an argument from the subject's own personal website as a reliable source for any of this. In fact, including these arguments on this talk page may well be a BLP violation against Egan since they're not being reported by a reliable source. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Before you responded I was going to collapse or refact a fair amount of that. Along with the possible BLP problems, it's just way off topic for this RFC. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

see source here: https://variety.com/2015/biz/news/bryan-singer-michael-egan-sex-abuse-1201656874/ SMendel (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

and see source here: https://www.thewrap.com/bryan-singer-accuser-michael-egan-sentenced-to-2-years-in-prison-over-fraud-case/ he was not just convicted. he served time in federal prison for fraud. Federal prosecutors called him a fraud and a "schemer." SMendel (talk) 21:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Marine toys for tots

@96.86.0.73:, we got an edit from someone claiming to be with Marine Toys for Tots and stated they had no affiliation. I will WP:AGF here and assume this is correct. If you would like to disclaim the affiliation, please issue an announcement on your official social media channel (eg twitter/fb), in the press, or on your website and we will add that you have disclaimed this affiliation. An editor rightly re-added the content, as absent some other content, we have to follow what the sources say. Thank you! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Unregistered editors do not receive ping notifications. You may want to leave a message on the IP's user talk page. Aoi (青い) (talk) 10:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! I have made that edit and created the talk page for the IP editor. I suspect unlikely they see it, but can try... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Ongoing Edits Review: Brock Pierce Article

Introduction: I am initiating a thorough review and revision of the Brock Pierce Wikipedia article. Based on recent observations and feedback from the talk page, it appears there has been an effort to present a biased view of Pierce's life and career, potentially overlooking negative aspects and critical viewpoints. This review aims to ensure that the article adheres to Wikipedia's guidelines for neutrality, verifiability, and reliable sourcing.

Scope of Review:

Neutrality: Evaluating the article for any biased language or undue emphasis on positive or negative aspects of Pierce's life. Ensuring that the article presents a balanced view.

Citation Check: Double-checking all citations to ensure they are from reliable sources. Verifying that information is accurately represented and that citations support the claims made in the article.

Addition of Missing Information: Incorporating well-documented facts and events that may have been omitted. This includes both positive and negative aspects of Pierce's career and personal life.

Removal of Unsourced Material: Identifying and removing any unsourced or poorly sourced material, in line with Wikipedia's verifiability policy.

Talk Page Discussion: Engaging with other editors on the talk page to discuss changes and ensure consensus on controversial edits.

Initial Findings:

Bias and Whitewashing: There are sections that seem overly favorable towards Pierce, potentially downplaying controversies or negative aspects.

Source Reliability: Some sources currently cited may not meet Wikipedia's reliability standards. A review will help in identifying and replacing these with more credible references. Missing Controversies: Notable controversies and criticisms related to Pierce are underrepresented. These need to be included to provide a comprehensive view of his public life.

Action Plan:

Neutral Language Adjustment: Rewriting sections to remove any promotional tone and ensure neutrality.

Citation Audit: Systematically verifying each citation for reliability and relevance. Replacing weak sources with stronger, more reputable ones where necessary.

Balanced Content Addition: Adding well-sourced information on controversies, legal issues, and criticisms to balance the article's content.

Collaboration and Consensus: Actively participating in talk page discussions to seek input and reach consensus on significant edits.

Conclusion: This review is undertaken with the goal of improving the article's accuracy, neutrality, and compliance with Wikipedia's content policies. I encourage other editors to contribute constructively to this effort and engage in discussions on the talk page to ensure a collaborative editing process. Lustigermutiger21 (talk) 07:42, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I have revised the header to provide a more balanced overview, including a mention of high-profile controversies along with Pierce's achievements in the cryptocurrency industry and his acting career. The 'Personal life' section has been updated to detail career controversies, legal issues, and notable connections, while maintaining a neutral tone and adhering to Wikipedia guidelines. Additional information on his relocation to Puerto Rico, his involvement in cryptocurrency, and his 2020 presidential candidacy has been included. These changes aim to present a comprehensive and accurate portrayal of Pierce. Lustigermutiger21 (talk) 10:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

This article has been subject of multiple apparently PR driven edits over the past couple of years, especially when the subject was running for political office. We saw a large effort to whitewash out the sexual abuse allegations. Feel free to edit the article and propose changes. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:42, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I do agree that the article has multiple issues.

Please have a eye on my edits and lets consider a indefinite ECP under WP:GS/Crypto if the whitewash continues. Lustigermutiger21 (talk) 11:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Rearranged sections: Moved the 'Early Life' section up directly under the header for better flow. Lustigermutiger21 (talk) 10:32, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

• Normally we would not put controversies in the lead, it is very high weight. But I think the subject is probably most known for them. Please discuss more here. See WP:NOCRIT. Certainly the general wikilink is not needed. Please discuss the balance here, or might want to remove it or find another way to word it (I dont have an idea right now). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The OP's account has been globally locked as an LTA sockpuppet. It may be worth scrutinizing this editor's edits to this article to determine whether they are appropriate. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)