Wikiafripedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

From Wikiafripedia, the free encyclopedia that you can monetize your contributions or browse at zero-rating.
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to the biographies of living persons noticeboard

This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Generally this means cases where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period.

  • This page is not for simple vandalism or material which can easily be removed without argument. If you can, simply remove the offending material.
  • Familiarize yourself with the biographies of living persons policy before reporting issues here.
  • You can request a revision deletion on IRC using #wikipedia-en-revdel connect, where only administrators will be able to see your concerns.
  • Important: Do not copy and paste any defamatory or libelous information to this noticeboard. Link to a diff showing the dispute, but do not paste the information here.

Sections older than 7 days archived by ClueBot III.

Search this noticeboard & archives

Additional notes:

To start a new request, enter the name of the relevant article below:

Ongoing issues in Billy Mitchell biography (3)[edit source | edit]

Billy Mitchell has a publicly witnessed and verified Donkey Kong score of 1.050 million from November 24, 2018. Wikiafripedia's Billy Mitchell biography claims that Mitchell has only "a single publicly witnessed Donkey Kong high score of 933,900 from 2004". When Wikiafripedia's cited source was published on February 3, 2018, it was reporting the non-neutral, disputed position of the Donkey Kong Forum rankings. Even if it had been reporting a neutral fact, that outdated source obviously wouldn't support Wikiafripedia's claim today. (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

We really are not in the least bit interested, Mr. Mitchell. Please go away. Guy (help!) 22:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Regardless of the IP, there's a valid point that the wording is not quite what the source says. But the IP is very close to crossing the WAP:TE line here, having not taken the advice given in the past. --Masem (t) 00:33, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Well this is something I can work with. The source, which is used three times in the article, seems to be well interpreted in the article. For example, the line in question actually says, "In 2004, Mitchell had achieved a Donkey Kong high score of 933,900 in front of multiple witnesses at the Midwest Gaming Classic.[6]" Is there anything incorrect about that statement? We never use the word "only" or "single". The other two times this source is used it simply talks about the investigation done by Young and Copeland, which also happened, did it not? The source looks reliable to me, and I see no evidence of misinterpretation.
If there was a subsequent, publically-witnessed game in which he scored over a million, it simply has not been added to the article yet. As far as I can tell, Twich is something like Youtube, in which case it's not usable as a reliable source. I don't know about the other source because my internet filters are blocking it as a "high risk site". If we have a reliable secondary-source verifying another, publically-witnessed high score, then we can most definitely add that to the article as well, but lacking such a source we can't. If anyone's feeling brave enough to lower their firewall and look at the site, perhaps we can verify the info and end this once and for all. Zaereth (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
I just edited the article. Originally it said what IP said which was "a single publicly witnessed Donkey Kong high score of 933,900 from 2004", which is not necessarily true in relationship to the "single publicly witnesses" part- the Ars Tech article didn't support it, and this discounts any other prior attempts that may have been witnessed. It was necessary to establish the 2004 score as what the newcomer Weibe was challenging (as documented in King of Kongs) so what I rewrote placed the score in that context, and does not say if it was Mitchell's only witnessed score. --Masem (t) 01:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot to check the history as I guess I'm is a hurry to put this to bed. True, the source did not support "single", so thanks for fixing that. I'm still not sure about the purported new score, or whether that site is reliable or not, but if it causes this much sensation I would expect it to be reported somewhere. Zaereth (talk) 01:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I have not researched much beyond what was already in the WAP article and the EGM source. There may be more coverage, I just haven't spent any time. I will say , as I said in the past related to this article, Mitchell is a controversial figure and we do have to be careful how to present him - we're not going to act like the stripping of his records were wrong and present that side in favor of Mitchell. But there's several other allegations that fall into BLP problems that I am purposely leaving out as they're not necessary and mostly conjecture of what is going on. --Masem (t) 02:09, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, this was what I came up with from EGMNow [1]. I didn't make the change myself or even make a proposal because 1) I wasn't sure if EGM Now was a RS, while I'm not challenging it, I also wasn't willing to endorse it by adding it. 2) I didn't take that much care to avoid close paraphrasing. 3) Frankly this seems to be a minor thing, while it can probably be mentioned, there didn't seem a great deal of urgency. (Likewise the 'single' part when I only thought it was a dispute over whether to count EGM Now.) 4) I was really hoping to convince the OP to do something more useful than open more BLP threads. Still anyone is welcome to work with it if they want.

For my mind, the key issue with the live streams is they don't really seem to add much to the dispute. The fact he can achieve these now doesn't provide much evidence that the previous disputed scores are fine. More to the point, I don't think concentrating on the live streams is really the right angle. The fact that (per EGM Now), his live streamed scores seem to be accepted even by those who disputed his earlier scores is the more important point. But I didn't deal with that because the OP/IP didn't seem to care about this.

As I understand it, the disputed claim is that modified hardware, maybe even MAME, was used for the earlier records. Live streaming from a public venue in itself doesn't easily disprove this. You first need to establish it was a genuine live stream, did he interact with his chat for example? More importantly, the hardware in this 'public venue' could easily have been modified when no one was around, or heck even when people were around if none of them knew what was going on. 300 people watching a live stream doesn't say much about whether the hardware was modified. Even if the game's code was substantially modified in such a way that was obvious to anyone sufficient familiar with the game, these 300 random people might not have noticed. But the other problem is that if you are modifying the game code you can likely give yourself a reasonable advantage that even experts have trouble spotting with detailed statistical analysis and very careful viewing of the footage.

That's why IMO the more important point is that experts don't seem to dispute his latest scores, rather than it being live streamed (apparently to 300 viewers) from a public venue. But there may also be little interest in challenging these scores anyway. It sounds like they aren't going to be recognised in any significant records, at least not unless Mitchell successfully challenges the earlier removals since he's no longer trusted by the parties involved. So to some extent even the lack of challenge of his latest scores may not mean that the parties are particularly certain his scores are "above board", but instead that they don't have obvious evidence they're not and they don't care enough to look.

But they also didn't tell EGM Now this when it seems to me they could have without risking defamation or whatever. Instead whatever they said lead EGM Now to say "(No one I spoke to, not even Jeremy Young, said they had reason to doubt these new games were above board)" so it's probably fine to mention that they don't question these latest scores or something similar, although the only person we know for sure this applies to is Jeremy Young. (I don't think we can safely conclude the statement means anyone quoted in the story was asked about the live streamed scores.) Hence why I'm not opposed to adding something about the live stream. But there doesn't seem to be any great importance from a BLP standpoint. So someone who actually cares like the IP, is going to have to deal with it.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with this. This seems to demonstrate the problem with the OP's approach. If they had just made a simple edit request asking for removal of the word "only" since the source never claimed it was the only publicly witnessed high score, it's likely this would have been actioned without needing these 4 different threads at BLPN. If they had really felt the need to bring it to BLPN, concentrating on the fact the source never actually claimed it was the only publicly witnessed high score would likely also have worked. Heck even without an edit request, a simple comment on the talk page concentrating on the key issue rather than rambling on about how removing something sourced to Twitch was wrong because there was another unused source which also mentioned the same thing. Instead we had all these threads about how evil other editors were and even now the editor is still apparently unwilling or unable to make a simple edit request and even their comment here sort of misses the point, attacking the use of Ars Technica rather than clearly pointing out all it actually said was it the highest confirmed score on the site and it never claimed it was the person's only publicly witness high score. Nil Einne (talk) 02:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
I know, it was like pulling teeth. I'm guessing part of the problem is that independent record-holders such as Twin Galaxies and Guinness have apparently removed him from their sites and refuse to accept any new submissions, so even if he did have a subsequent record they still may not be "official" in some circles. So even if we do find independent records, we may have to make clear that they may not Guinness records or what not. Zaereth (talk) 02:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Think about it a bit more, it was actually a bit obvious that the claim was problematic. Billy Mitchell isn't a recluse so it's a bit weird that there is no other publicly witnessed score especially since there were talks of him visiting various stuff as an invited guest. (Although I don't know what he played.) Without needing to check the source, I probably would have realised if I'd thought about it more that it's unlikely the sourced said it was his only (or single) publicly witness high score. I probably would have figured what the source was most likely claiming is it was his highest witnessed scored, not his only witnessed score. Or maybe his only witnessed score above a certain amount. If this had occurred to me, I expect I would have checked it out myself to fix the article, and then found out what the source actually says is it's his highest recognised score on some official record. Nil Einne (talk) 02:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Hindsight being 20/20, sure. But that single word that might have serious connotations to one person may go completely unnoticed by another. I just wasn't seeing it in that context until pointed out. All of this could have been so much simpler if that's all this is about. Zaereth (talk) 03:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
A similar situation arose in September. The IP went on for days about the awful BLP and NEUTRAL violations that needed to be undone without discussion. I told him he needed to make a specific request or provide a WAP:DIF of what change was problematic, as many edits had been made. He refused, and just went on with generic complaining. So nothing happened until the protection expired and he did it himself. Come to find out, all he wanted was the word “former” removed from one of his professions. And I believe his change is still present in the article. That could have been done weeks earlier had he just articulated it. It’s pretty amazing he hasn’t learned that he just needs to make more specific requests yet... Sergecross73 msg me 13:23, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Double standards[edit source | edit]

Reliably sourced information that presents Mitchell in a positive light seems to be removed and excluded from his Wikiafripedia biography at a much higher rate than information that presents him in a negative light, even when the stated reason for removing it is merely an unsupported claim that it isn't relevant. Multiple commenters make false accusations against me in this section, but I've decided not to specifically address them, at least for now. (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Rather than vague complaining, please submit constructive and specific requests for change on the talk page through the WAP:EDITREQUEST system, or here, if it’s a BLP related issue. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 22:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Questions for administrator[edit source | edit]

@Masem: Rather than correcting Mitchell's highest undisputed Donkey Kong score of 1.050 million from 2018, you appear to have completely removed any mention of his personal high score from the article. Would you disagree with this assessment of your revisions? (Per Electronic Gaming Monthly, "Mitchell had proven he could earn those scores now. But he hadn’t outlined a clear defense to prove he’d achieved them at the time of the original submissions.") (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

You did check the next immediate edit I did, where I moved it to a relevant section AND improved the wording to imply it wasn't the only publicly witnessed high score, just the one best documented? I will admit that I was skimming the back end of that EGM article - most which is where there's a lot of speculation and potential BLP landmines that are best avoided, and missed the very last conclusion section about contiuing to show he can do high scores, and will add that. --Masem (t) 22:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I'd checked your next edit and thought it was a net improvement, but 933,900 is no longer Mitchell's highest undisputed Donkey Kong score. Per Electronic Gaming Monthly, Mitchell has proven he can earn these scores. You appear to have completely removed any mention of his personal high score from the article. Would you disagree? (talk) 22:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
I already told you, that was moved to a different part of the article in its chronological timing (just before the filming for King of Kongs), and added mention of high scoring results in 2018. You are clearly not reviewing the edits made and assuming bad faith on editors, which is not acceptable behavior. --Masem (t) 22:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
@Masem: Your accusation that I'm assuming bad faith and not reviewing the edits is untrue. You moved Mitchell's 2004 score of 933,900 to a different part of the article in the "next edit" you'd cited above, and as I'd noted in my reply, I thought it was a net improvement. You didn't move Mitchell's personal high score in that edit because, as I'd also noted in my reply, 933,900 is no longer Mitchell's highest undisputed Donkey Kong score. The "two specific things" in the diff you point out below are Mitchell's 20th-anniversary perfect Pac-Man score and his first-place finish at this year's Australian Donkey Kong championships in Brisbane. What "mention of high scoring results in 2018" are you claiming to have added? (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
I will point out this diff that adds the two specific things EGM notes in its final section. It doesn't point to any Twitch streams, so it would be inappropriate to use those as primary sources. (And I did look to see if anyone covered them otherwise but didn't see them). We are hitting on the points you want in a broader sense, we just cannot put exactly what you want in there. --Masem (t) 22:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
IMO we could mention that he made live broadcasts from public records where he achieved the scores now in dispute as I suggested before. We could even mention Twitch. But especially with your additions it doesn't really seem to add anything though. As I said before the key point about these live broadcasts seems to be lost in what the OP is proposing anyway. We can't use Twitch directly and I'm not sure if we should even link to the videos considering no specific video was mentioned in the source. Nil Einne (talk) 06:12, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
From Electronic Gaming Monthly: "On April 12th, 2018, Twin Galaxies ruled that the first two of Mitchell’s disputed scores, the 1.047 million King of Kong score and 1.050 million Mortgage Brokers score, as depicted on the tapes, were not played on genuine arcade hardware. It declined to make a determination on the 1.062 million score from Boomers, citing a lack of direct evidence... In the year that followed ... [Billy Jr] began streaming on Twitch with the help of his son [Billy III], eventually obtaining scores equal to those that had been disputed, broadcast live from public venues..." EGM is obviously referring to these scores, and suggestions to the contrary strain credulity. (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
We can mention from EGM he continues to showcase high scores over Twitch, but as we can't source Twitch directly, and his scores remain unrecognized by TG, that's all we can say. We have to clearly watch for unduly self--serving claims here. --Masem (t) 03:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
@Masem: According to Electronic Gaming Monthly, after obtaining scores of "1.047 million" and "1.050 million" while "streaming on Twitch" in 2018, "Mitchell had proven he could earn those scores". Are you arguing that these livestreamed scores of 1.047 million and 1.050 million aren't the scores EGM verifies? (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes actually. From EGM, when they talk of the 1.047 and 1.050 m scores, these are specially the ones removed from TG's high score list. "On April 12th, 2018, Twin Galaxies ruled that the first two of Mitchell’s disputed scores, the 1.047 million King of Kong score and 1.050 million Mortgage Brokers score, as depicted on the tapes, were not played on genuine arcade hardware." (King of Kongs was done around 2005, Mortgage Brokers around 2007). Now by happenstance, the two Twitch streams, which were generated in 2018, hit those same scores (+/- 1000 pts), but they are not the same score attempts specifically at odds as discussed in EGM. I can see how it is very easy to confuse these, but they are 100% different. EGM makes no specific mention of any DK high score from ca. 2018 or later for Mitchell, just that he is showing he can do it. --Masem (t) 02:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
@Masem: "... Twin Galaxies ruled that ... the 1.047 million King of Kong score and 1.050 million Mortgage Brokers score ... were not played on genuine arcade hardware... [Billy Jr] began streaming on Twitch ... eventually obtaining scores equal to those that had been disputed ..." Are you arguing that scores "equal to" 1.047 million and 1.050 million aren't scores of 1.047 million and 1.050 million? (By the way, your claim that Mitchell hit those same scores by "happenstance", rather than intentionally, is ridiculous.) (talk) 23:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
First, I don't know if they are exactly the same score, because we're missing 3 (well 2) significant digits. They are equivalent scores +/- 1000 pts. (in fact: [2] is a 1,050,100 pt score, but his previous at Mortgage Brokers was 1,050,200 whole [3] is 1,047,500 while his King of Kongs was 1,047,200 - so yes, clearly not the exact same score. Second, the EGM statement, the way I read it, means scores "in the same 1+ ballpark" as his former scores. While they may be referring to the two specific Twitch streams mentioned, its not clear if they mean these or earlier ones. The current statement in the article Mitchell has also gone on to demonstrate his ability to get these records at witnessed events is a completely accurate and fair statement based on the lack of explicitness of EGM or any other RS to say that Mitchell has gotten into the 1m+ scoring range rivaling his past scores, without explicitly acknowledging but left implicit that at the current time TG will not be accepting any of his scores in the immediate future. It's a neutral statement. --Masem (t) 00:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Of course, even if editors felt these were the videos referred to, we couldn't add them for WAP:OR reasons. This is clearly not a WAP:CALC case, deciding precisely which videos EGM is referring to clearly requires significant analysis. And I still have no idea why the IP is so desperate to include links to specific videos anyway, instead of accurately conveying the information from EGM about them. Nil Einne (talk) 13:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: On August 16, 2018, Mitchell obtained a Donkey Kong score of 1.047 million while streaming on Twitch. On November 24, 2018, Mitchell obtained a Donkey Kong score of 1.050 million while streaming on Twitch. On September 30, 2019, Electronic Gaming Monthly verified that, after obtaining Donkey Kong scores of 1.047 million and 1.050 million while streaming on Twitch in 2018, Mitchell had proven he could earn those scores. Determining which livestreams EGM has verified doesn't require a violation of WAP:OR. It barely requires literacy. Your accusation that I'm "desperate" to include the links to Mitchell's livestreams is untrue, but I definitely believe including them would improve Wikiafripedia and benefit its readers. (talk) 23:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

The critical line from the EGM article is this During this time, he began streaming on Twitch with the help of his son, Billy Jr., eventually obtaining scores equal to those that had been disputed, broadcast live from public venues. As I have shown above, the new Twitch scores are not exactly equal to his former King of Kings and Mortgage Brokers scores. Thus, EGM's statement here should use the interpretation of "equal" being "within the same 1M+ point ballpack that says he can get close to or greater than his earlier scores. But because of this vagueness, we do not known which of the numerous Twitch videos of Mitchell playing DK they mean, so no we cannot include those scores without a different third-party source. --Masem (t) 23:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
I would note that we can't even be sure the videos EGM refers to are still there. Nowadays, Twitch normally doesn't allow VODs of livestreams to be kept more than 60 days. I guess Billy Mitchell managed to convince them to treat his channel differently (live streams of e-sports events are the same), or maybe these are just reuploads I don't know and don't really care. (The story was date September 30th, but it's quite likely that it was being worked on for at least a few weeks if not longer, and we have no idea when whoever wrote the story checked out the channel. So we really have no idea what was on the channel whenever it was checked out.) But even if Twitch didn't automatically delete the videos after 60 days, we have no way of knowing what the channel owner chose to keep and what they chose to delete. I do find it funny that the OP insists they aren't desperate to include these videos, when they prove the opposite in their very comment such as by making dumb claims about what is and isn't OR. But whatever, I think I'm really done with this discussion now especially since with OP's continued misleading claims such as the one about "not being desperate", I'm having strong doubts that their statement that they do not have a COI is true. While you're not required to declare if you have a COI, people are often reluctant to work with people who have undisclosed COI, and especially reluctant when the person claims they don't but this doesn't seem to be true. Being upfront about such things tends to make people far more willing to help you than when you're evasive or outright misleading. We are required to AGF, but ultimately AGF can only go so far when a person's own comments show the opposite. Nil Einne (talk) 13:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
@Nil Einne: Twitch apparently dates videos based on UTC, so it can't be used to determine the exact day in Florida, but if you follow this link, scroll down through the listed videos, and hover the cursor over the words "last year" on Mitchell's 1.050-million and 1.047-million Donkey Kong livestreams, you should see a pop-up that verifies their respective upload dates of November 2018 and August 2018. Twitch obviously didn't delete those livestreams after 60 days, and Mitchell obviously hasn't deleted them, and they were obviously on the channel when the EGM story was being written. Your ongoing insinuations that I have a conflict of interest and that I'm desperate to include the links to Mitchell's livestreams are untrue. (talk) 23:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Considering that you linked to the WAP:OR policy in the comment right before you do a bunch of unverifiable speculation based on your own original research makes you seem sort of desperate. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
@Wallyfromdilbert: You seem to be suggesting it violates WAP:OR to find a source and read it. (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Summary[edit source | edit]

Wikiafripedia's Billy Mitchell biography creates false impressions about Mitchell's personal and professional life because unaccountable administrators like Masem and Sergecross73 concoct ridiculous lies to exclude reliably sourced information that presents Mitchell in a positive light. This discussion has been less productive than I'd hoped it would be. Thanks to anyone who's taken the time to follow along. (talk) 23:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you use the words "ridiculous" and "lies" as links to your own posts. I get the impression there's an unconscious message in that. In addition, those posts are just a bunch of rambling collages of bits and pieces taken out of context, and if that's the way you read information then it's no wonder we have such a communication barrier here. From what I've seen, everyone here, including administrators like Masem and Sergecross have gone out of their way to try and help you out, and given you much more time and leniency than I would have, and I applaude them for their patience. You said once that you didn't come here to make enemies, but you're combative behavior says just the opposite and is not going to win you any friends, that's for sure. Actions speak a million times louder than words, and if you continue assuming bad faith and making unfounded accusations you're likely to end up being blocked.
Wikiafripedia is not a hall of records. We're not concerned with monitoring the highest scores or keeping up with relationship statuses or stuff like that. We summarize what we find in reliable sources, and if the sources aren't reliable enough or they don't say exactly what you think they say, then we simply don't add it. EZPZ. Zaereth (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, everyone is out to get you, and Masem spent several hours improving the article and trying to fix content you were complaining about because they are part of the grand conspiracy of Wikiafripedia. The other alternative is that you have just been wrong and largely wasting everyone's time, but of course that would be ridiculous! – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
We have been discussing this since last July. At multiple venues. And not a single other participant has called me a “liar”. I’m pretty sure that’s a telltale sign of what’s really going on here. Please stop wasting the community’s time on all this. Sergecross73 msg me 00:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
I'd take a lesson from the Red Baron, whom, according to his own account, in reality scored 82 victories. But his first two occurred over enemy lines and could not be officially verified, thus he was happy to settle for 80. As far as I'm concerned, if Guinness doesn't recognize it, it doesn't count. All we need are good RSs, though, to add the numbers. We need some standards lest we open the door to every Youtube hacky-sack savant and bowling-ball stacker that comes along to set the new record. Zaereth (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
@Zaereth: In August 2018, Mitchell obtained a Donkey Kong score of 1.047 million while streaming on Twitch. In November 2018, Mitchell obtained a Donkey Kong score of 1.050 million while streaming on Twitch. In September 2019, Electronic Gaming Monthly verified that, after obtaining Donkey Kong scores of 1.047 million and 1.050 million while streaming on Twitch in 2018, Mitchell had proven he could earn those scores. Your suggestion that we don't have good reliable sources is obviously untrue. (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: You've repeatedly abused semi-protection to impose a de facto block and ensure that Wallyfromdilbert never has to clarify the reasons for his anti-Mitchell revisions and apparent WAP:NEUTRAL violations, and you've cited a false pretext for doing so each time. If anyone here has wasted other people's time, you have. (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
That doesn’t make any sense. My page protection wasn’t an abuse, no one besides you has accused me of such, and no one has spent any time arguing about my page protection. My page protection hasn’t wasted anyone’s time. Are you really going so low as to “No you are” type childish comebacks? Someone please archive this nonsense again. Sergecross73 msg me 23:46, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Madhu Purnima Kishwar[edit source | edit]

One user is repeatedly adding defamatory content about Madhu Purnima Kishwar. It is already in politics and fake news section and still being added. I am not editing it again and again but I request to block the user. See, and am working for their website so I am not editing but one person told to complain here.

Frank Wuco[edit source | edit]

I don't have time to go through it at the moment, but a recent major expansion at Frank Wuco looks to have made the article into an WAP:ATTACK page of sorts. It looks like there are some good sources and many of the edits have merit, but it also looks like it needs to be checked in more detail to ensure compliance with WAP:BLP. Thanks to anyone who can take a look. Marquardtika (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Whoa. Yes, that is a lot to chew on. I am not convinced User:ExCITEable really knows what they're doing. Drmies (talk) 05:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I started cutting. A lot of material was referenced with primary sources, and that's already unacceptable. Drmies (talk) 06:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks, @Drmies! It's looking a lot better. But still has the appropriate amount of "wait, wuttt?" Marquardtika (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Yeah I know. It's certainly not done. I picked some of the low-hanging fruit: the hard work is reading the references and judging what's appropriate and how it should be presented. There's also duplicate information in different section, some of which unverified, some of which verified. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
      • User:Marquardtika, I created the redirect Faud Wasul in your honor, haha. This is the BLP noticeboard, so I have to be careful, but that's some crazy shit. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't going for WAP:ATTACK - cited sources. I'm not sure I know what I'm doing either, but I am learning as I go and stay neutral. If someone who is a prominent government official and they previously dressed up as a terrorist and hosted an "Ask the Jihadist" radio show it is not an attack. It is indeed crazy shit but the sources are good. In the wake of Mina Chang, I have an interest in the qualifications and histories of political appointees. Also, I can't edit without using the visual editor - sorry if this isn't formatted correctlyExCITEable (talk) 02:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Religion of climate scientist Cliff Mass[edit source | edit]

I don't want to get into a dispute on whether the religion of Cliff Mass belongs in the article; instead, raising the question at the noticeboard. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Give that Mass has clearly stated that his Judaism informs his work, then it is reasonable to integrate it into the article (just as we would cover the religious some noted person who was against addressing the climate because it would interfere with the plans of the Almighty Wildebeest of Atmosphere.) Since our reason for inclusion has to do with his work, it should not be in the "Personal life" section, as it was apparently previously displayed. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support the inclusion. Self stated Judaism informs his work. Govindaharihari (talk) 22:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
If there's a decent secondary source for it, sure. Create a "Personal life" section and stick a sentence there (well, depending on coverage). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
The article linked above by Nat Gertler from Jewish in Seattle [4] superficially looks OK? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Seems good enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Aziz Mohammad Bhai[edit source | edit]

Highly problematic article. Claims of criminal activity are countered by editorializing--it is possible much of the material needs to go. Maybe the whole article needs to go. Drmies (talk) 05:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Just a WAP:BLP1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC).
Well, more than one. Drmies (talk) 06:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Dear Administrators I need your help because people keep posting false information from tabloids and unreliable sources like state run media regarding my father. They also keep removing any information I post elaborating on the situation. I also mentioned several of his accomplishments which were sadly deleted. Please help me on this endeavour it is intensely impacting my family and our lively hood. for over 3 decades my father has been harassed and i have joined him over the last two. Please help us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

To understand the context from the WAP-perspective, take the time to read WAP:Biographies of living persons and WAP:Conflict of interest carefully. Then try to use the talkpage Talk:Aziz Mohammad Bhai for discussion. Successfully editing an article where you have a Conflict of interest is very difficult on WAP, but it is not impossible that you can have some influence if your suggestions are inline with WAP:s (many) policies and guidelines. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Chaim Shacham[edit source | edit]

Perhaps one of you is interested in digging around a bit to see if this is a case of WAP:BLP1E. I can't easily judge whether the guy has inherent notability because of his former position: the only source for that position is primary. Drmies (talk) 16:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok, where to start. First, the allegation should definitely go. From reading the source, all we have is an indictment from three years ago and some vague details they admittedly gleaned from a blog. No official statements nor anything substantial except they confirmed he did lose his job for reason not commented on. There is no conviction and he certainly doesn't pass WELLKNOWN, so I say per BLPCRIME the allegation should be removed.
Beyond that, I find his name mentioned in several newspaper articles, but most are just in passing, like "he attended this event" or "that rally". I'm not seeing anything that really demonstrates that he passes GNG, and I don't think being a diplomat in and of itself is enough, so this may be a good candidate for AFD.
If we do keep, we should at least get rid of all the "former"s. This actually puts it into a present perspective rather than a perfect (timeless) one. We don't say Caesar is the former emperor of Rome, but simply he was the Emperor between such-and-such a date. Zaereth (talk) 03:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Noah Feldman[edit source | edit]

Noah Feldman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It appears that someone edited the article about legal scholar Noah Feldman to say that he is a never trumper and a Bernie Sanders campaign volunteer. I can find no other source for either, outside of the fact that he is testifying about impeachment today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

  • The article had been vandalised a lot recently but has been cleaned up by various editors. It's now been semi-protected (and various vandals blocked) by an administrator, which ought to help. I've removed the reference in the infobox to his political affiliation being to the Democratic party, as it's unreferenced. I've also Watchlisted the article and will revert any further vandalism I see. Neiltonks (talk) 10:43, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Jeff Eastin[edit source | edit]

Jeff Eastin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

He did NOT work for Roger Corman. It is a lie that Jeff Eastin has perpetuated for more than twenty years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Please take care with accusations against living people as BLP applies everyone on wikipedia. As for the specific claim, I have removed it especially since I can't find evidence the 2 movies cited exist. Where the claim originated from, I have no idea. Nil Einne (talk) 14:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Danielle Cohn[edit source | edit]

Danielle Cohn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Came across this article while doing new page review, nothing critically wrong, I'd just appreciate some additional eyes on this article (in particular: whether the subject is notable and if any content is too detailed) since I don't have experience dealing with BLPs of minors. Most of the sources are primary, and those that aren't are about a controversy. Please ping me in replies, I don't watch this noticeboard. creffett (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

  • @Creffett: Pretty much all the sourcing on the article is primary - her various social media channels, an interview with her father etc. which is pretty poor for a WAP:BLP. Searching finds little that's more useful, other than a BBC report about kids being exploited on social media but even that is driven by her father's interview. Personally, I question whether she's notable, but I'm no expert on the notability of teenage social media 'personalities', so I'll defer to the judgement of others on that point. Neiltonks (talk) 09:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • @Creffett: Really big Neiltonks says, its basically all primary sourcing, even down to each social media account being sourced for the followers count, and the music video itself referenced for the music video mention. Of the other two, theres the Buzzfeed news one. The NZ herald seems to be based on scavenging a facebook post the father made, (complete with sexualised pic of underaged girl) so not even an actual interview with real reporting. Later picked up by the Daily Mail, so yeah, tabloid stuff. Curdle (talk) 14:47, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
    Curdle, Neiltonks, thanks for the inputs, that's exactly what I was looking for. Would AfD be appropriate here? creffett (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Normally I'd say do a quick google search to see if any good sources can be found before sending it to AFD. But since the article is just a few weeks old, I think AFD is likely the best choice. At this point, the sourcing is atrocious and the writing is bad enough that I think it's best to just scrap it and start over from scratch. I see that the photo is also being discussed and will likely be deleted for invalid licensing, and I think the article should probably follow suit. Zaereth (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks y'all. My judgement is that the notability is a case of WAP:BLP1E, and because of the low quality sources and controversy of that event when we're dealing with a minor, it's best to delete. Sent to AfD, thanks again to all of you for your help. creffett (talk) 14:03, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Aziz Mohammad Bhai[edit source | edit]

Aziz Mohammad Bhai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Dear Sir/Madam,

I have requested that this page is taken down because the info is one sided and the deletion was rejected.

I then attempted to edit the page, adding the results of the legal proceedings being featured therein, that the cases were thrown out for lack of evidence, for example and charges never brought forward, this is clear even from the references used in the article. However, the page keeps getting reverted to leave the article incomplete which is damaging to this living person. He himself wants the page removed. Why do the editors in question refuse to remove the page or, even feature context to allow a more complete and therefore balanced view of the legal trouble this man has faced?

Thank you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Give sorucers that state what you are saying. Thats what i asked you to do many times. also, what is your connection to the subject of the page? LakesideMinersCome Talk To Me! 14:22, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
@LakesideMiners if you check the post above, I suspect its the same ip that was saying she is the daughter of Aziz Mohammad Bhai. I would seem they may have a point; the sources currently being used in the article do state that none of charges have been brought forward (as of 2015). Curdle (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
If no one can find follow-up sources, the murder allegations should be removed as the three sources I looked at were Q&D primary reports with no hint of evidence linking the BLP subject with the murder (beyond a recanted confession by someone not connected with the subject). Strong evidence, or at least secondary sources would be needed to make half a BLP article focus on murder allegations. Johnuniq (talk) 06:43, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Dirk Verbeuren[edit source | edit]

Someone keeps adding false and poorly sourced info to this page. Someone named Bralalalala keeps vandalising this page with poorly sourced quotes. They are also trying to speak about themselves on this article and that's a huge no-no. Just a heads up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axelle1111 (talkcontribs) 02:18, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Looks like a persistent vandal. This is not really the best noticeboard, so I would suggest reporting this at either WAP:ANI or WAP:RFPP, where an admin can take the appropriate action. While he seems to b notable, the sourcing in that article is lousy, and I would get rid of the list of endorsements because that just looks way too promotional. I would say it needs a lot of work to bring it up to standards. Zaereth (talk) 02:37, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
@Axelle1111: I semi-protected the article so that new users or users who are not logged in (IP addresses) will not be able to edit Dirk Verbeuren for two weeks. Johnuniq (talk) 06:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Tania Aidrus[edit source | edit]

[copyright violation removed] [1] TOPGUN (talk) 02:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


  1. Ali, Mohammad. "Here's how an ex-Google executive Tania Aidrus plans to lead Pakistan into the digital age". The News Pakistan. Retrieved 12/07/2019. Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); External link in |website= (help)CS1 maint: discouraged parameter (link)
Cool, what's the question? Elizium23 (talk) 03:01, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I cant see any data about profile generated ? Did I do something wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sohail2506 (talkcontribs) C.Fred (talk) 03:21, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

@Sohail2506: I had to remove the text you added here because it violated copyright. I don't see where you've tried to create an article or draft about Aidrus anywhere—but if you do, use the information from the sources like that news article but not the text of it. —C.Fred (talk) 03:22, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Juice Wrld[edit source | edit]

It has been reported that Juice Wrld has died, but all reporting so far appears to be based on the questionably-reliable-at-best source of TMZ (specifically this article). I was hesitant to add his death to his article without better sources to confirm it but now someone else has added it, sourced only to TMZ. I would like some feedback on whether this is an acceptable use of TMZ on a BLP (or at least an article that still falls under that scope, even if he is dead); note that on WAP:Perennial sources it says that there is no consensus for the use of TMZ. IntoThinAir (talk) 15:11, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, as much as I don’t like relying on TMZ, every time I hit refresh I see another website picking up the story. Billboard just did, and they’re one of the highest level sources in the music world... Sergecross73 msg me 15:32, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
And I just added his death as an ITN/C RD based on Variety's coverage. --Masem (t) 16:44, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
And now confirmed up to the NYTimes. [5]. One thing TMZ is very careful of is false death reports. They may jump the gun on other celeb, but as TMZ has been burned in the past for jumping too fast on death rumors, if TMZ is reporting a famous person has died, it is worth starting the process to update articles while looking for additional sources. --Masem (t) 17:49, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
So to be clear, Masem, you are saying that TMZ inaccurately reported some celebrity deaths in the past, but because of the backlash to these reports, they have improved their standards and are now a reliable source for reporting that someone has died? If so, a note reflecting this should be added to TMZ's entry in WAP:Perennial sources. IntoThinAir (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
...I think it was just a passing anecdote/background info, that’s all. I doubt we need to add guidance as specific as like “Be cautious about their rumors and gossip but they do take death seriously.” Regardless, it was good to be cautious here, but this does seem to be resolved. Every source out there is reporting it now. Sergecross73 msg me 21:20, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Something like that. TMZ is working to fix its reputation as a gossip-y work. It's not the highly quality sourcing (I would avoid TMZ for very contentious claims), but if TMZ is first to report the death, give it 30 minutes and you'll likely have confirmation from more major RS. --Masem (t) 22:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Vivek Agnihotri weasel words[edit source | edit]

The below lines have been marked as WAP:WEASEL. But a particular user is engaging in abusive behavior and reverting these edits. See the message here. It is clear that this user is editing wikipedia to promote an agenda.

  • "His films have been mostly subject to poor reviews from critics "
  • "Critics argue that the term is a vague "
  • "Vivek has been criticised for "

Rabbabodrool (talk) 04:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Marc Dutroux‎[edit source | edit]

I am concerned about changes made in November and December 2019 to the article on Marc Dutroux in which various fringe theories about Marc Dutroux are reported as true or potentially true. The main author of these changes has also made a related article called Regina Louf.

I believe the changes to be a breach of:

  • WAP:EXTRAORDINARY In that any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources, which is not the case.
  • WAP:UNDUE Great weight is given to minority viewpoints. That these are minority viewpoints is either ignored or downplayed.
  • WAP:COATRACK It mentions other bad things that happened in Belgium such as the assassination of a politician and a helicopter-bribery scandal. This implies that they were linked - guilt by association.

Another editor has raised objections to the changes at Talk:Marc Dutroux#Wikiafripedia at its worst Toddy1 (talk) 07:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Bruce Pascoe[edit source | edit]

It's probably difficult for someone who hasn't lived in Australia to get their heads around all of the issues here, but there has been argument raging for nearly 2 weeks on the talk page of Bruce Pascoe. One of many issues is that the main antagonist, by their own admission, has never edited Wikiafripedia, so is unfamiliar with the rules, and has been using multiple IP addresses to WAP:BLUDGEON. I'm not sure if this is an ANI issue, whether this debate should carry on now that someone has introduced a new source (although there are some justifiable objections to this source), or whether I, as the one who raised the RfC, should close IT at this point, at least for now. Any ideas? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:31, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Doug Collins (politician)[edit source | edit]

The phrase "is a Russia-backed American obstructionist" isn't substantiated and may be libelous.

However, in December 2019 House Judiciary Committee impeachment hearings, Collins publicly argued support for corruption in government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Just some vandalism. I blocked the IP and revdeleted the edit. Also, semiprotected the page. Thanks for the notice. El_C 14:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
P.S. Wow, five IPs — five revdeletions. El_C 15:02, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Louise Mensch[edit source | edit]

I'm concerned about our apparent statement of fact at the end of the lead, that Mensch ... "has published multiple unverified claims, and promoted hoaxes and conspiracy theories about the Trump administration and its ties to the Russian Federation,[9][10] leading her to be labelled a conspiracy theorist.[11][12]". I have no knowledge on these matters whatsoever, but I'd guess there's an opposing view and my concerns were actually first raised by the weird manner in which footnote 9 is formatted. I'd be grateful for a view. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

I made some changes to the former ref 9, see the talk page for details. Nil Einne (talk) 15:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
You've definitely improved things, thanks. Can we categorically state that she "has published multiple unverified claims, and promoted hoaxes and conspiracy theories"? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 18:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
That is the assessment in mainstream sources. See for example "The bizarre rise and dramatic fall of Louise Mensch and her ‘Blue Detectives’" at the establishment Democratic website ThinkProgress. Even they call her a conspiracy theorist and the Alex Jones of the Left, although she had some support in mainstream pro-Democratic Party sources before her claims became outlandish. TFD (talk) 15:40, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Tony Hancock (footballer)[edit source | edit]

This article states that the subject played for Hyde United F.C. during his career, and cites an interview in the Manchester Evening News. I know this to be untrue, and the club's historical database confirms this. How do I correct this? I realise that, in the great scheme of things, this is minor, but surely we should attempt to be as accurate as possible, even if there is an inaccurate citation from a printed source.

Tulsi Gabbard[edit source | edit]

After I deleted it, an editor restored that Tulsi Gabbard "advocated quarantining travelers to Hawaii who had symptoms of SARS." ("Toronto SARS travel alert lifted", Honolulu Advertiser, April 29, 2003.) [6] SARS is a highly contagious disease that affected at least 8,000 people worldwide in 2002-2003. One of the areas most affected was Toronto, which reported 30 times more cases than the entire United States. The source does not even mention Gabbard or Hawaii.

At the time, the World Health Organization (WHO)[7] and the Centers for Disease Control[8] advocated the isolation of persons with SARS symptoms. The Hawaii government in facted isolated them.[9] (Note: the technical term for quarantining persons with symptoms is isolation.)

In my opinion, Gabbard's support of an uncontroversial policy that had no opposition has no significance for inclusion. Worse, the edit implies that Gabbard is xenophobic, without providing any source that says that.

TFD (talk) 13:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC)