• Laurence Westgaph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• QAEditor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This new editor appeared yesterday, adding aggrandising stuff to this BLP article [1] but also taking the opportunity to remove the subject's well-sourced sex offence and violence convictions [2] [3], once with a false edit summary. Each time they have been reverted by me, and by another new editor (which is odd in and of itself).

They returned today [4] to soften the language and to add a quasi-legal threat (below the bar for WP:NLT, in my opinion): Under the Article 17 of GDPR, Westgaph has the legal right to have his personal information about spent convictions removed from online search results and directories as they are spent and over 16 and 25 year old. I have left their softened language in place, but have removed the quoted disclaimer.

A gut feeling – nothing more – is that this editor may be the subject himself, so I have left them a note about our rules on COI editing.

A few more eyes on this article would be useful, please. Thanks. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A note that this editor has returned to keep adding aggrandising information – including a list of every lecture the subject has ever given. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My revert of the re-addition of the puff pieces was blindly reverted by QwertyZ34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) without comment. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above editor is now edit warring over re-adding this information, saying Please just summarize the paragraphs you are removing; more an article have content, better it is which is just so very wrong that I'm tagging out now. 81.2.123.64 (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I have nominated this article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laurence Westgaph. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:56, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editing assistance requested.

Hello, this is Paul Bechly, a living person. While I have had no objection to Wikipedia having an article for me, I did recently notice a flag at the top of the article. First, this is not an autobiography. If it was it would look completely different. And as a biography, it is not a very good one. As to whether individuals or other entities that know of me contributed to this article, I suspect that this may be, but I have no information as to their identity. I expect that this is a common situation for living individuals.

So here is my request. Can Wikipedia make a determination as to whether this article is important enough to keep? If so, can a Wikipedia editor make any changes necessary to maintain a neutral point of view? Responsible editing is important, and this article is in need of proper updating. And as a last resort, am I allowed to request deletion of this article if need be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PLBechly (talk • contribs) 12:51, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings and thank you for posting here. I hear and understand your concerns. Our content inclusion (exclusion) guidelines usually reduce biographies only to what can be nailed down, and only from reliable sources. The result is never a full picture, and living subjects are often justifiably unhappy. Here are your options: 1) review WP:COI and go to the talk page with your requests, recommendations, and gripes ALWAYS using a COI header template or language to its effect; 2a) walk your biography through the steps at WP:BEFORE and nominate it for deletion if you want; 2b) ask someone nicely to do the nomination for you, after reading BEFORE but still unsure how to do, and be prepared to participate in the resulting deletion discussion; or 3) choose not to care and don't do anything. To me, your biography lacks the hallmarks of WP:GNG due to excessive primary/non-independent publications reffed. Yours is a valid idea, but BLPN isn't the forum for it. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 03:18, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am also unconvinced that Bechly is notable and have nominated it for deletion here Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain if there is a quick way to solve this problem. But every time US cabinet & other gov't official nominees get confirmed by the US Senate? Some editors quickly update bios & related articles, as if the individuals have taken office, upon confirmation. That's not how it works. The individuals have to be sworn in, to their new positions. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other than WP:RPP, there's probably no way to preempt this. The same goes for elections, which in the US often occur in one year while seats are taken in the following year. This happens in articles about figures both national and local. It's part of the normal editing process to watch trending (confirmed, elected) subjects and request RPP as the situation requires. Sorry. JFHJr (㊟) 23:10, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not really analogous to the "elected in November, sworn in the next January" situation. These Senate confirmed officials are usually being sworn in within hours. Cullen328 (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This[5] edit contains information that fails to meet verifiability standards. It contains the claim that Faiq Zaidan is the brother-in-law of Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis and that the latter “recommended” the appointment of the former to his senior post. Both claims rely on the same source, which is an opinion piece. It was repeatedly removed or edited to include ‘citations needed’ or ‘failed verification’ for violating WP:BLP but reverted by the same editor who introduced it [6][7][8][9][10] the same editor then changed its wording[11] after a source was included where Zaidan himself refuted the claim of him being the “brother-in-law”, by adding “despite Zaidan’s denial it was later confirmed ” and producing no reliable source to back this claim. He also included the claim that he was “recommended” to his position, again using the same source as proof. [12] Montblamc1 (talk) 10:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that no one involved in this edit war was even using their edit summaries to explain their disagreements, much less Talk:Faiq Zaidan. I have removed the material about the brother-in-law for now -- the claim that it was based on an opinion piece appeared to be verified through Google translation of the source (which included a "should" statement in the first sentence.) I have also raised the issue on the talk page. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:45, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An IP user (contribs) has been repeatedly inserting a defamatory controversy section into this filmmaker's article about one of their recent works, stemming from poorly sourced and arguably biased tabloid sources, and has already returned to doing so after a 72 hour block. Seems to be an WP:SPA. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:11, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the IP has been blocked, but I would advise keeping an eye on the article in case they return. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the IP is currently evading their block by creating an account at User:Kevindough to continue engaging in disruptive discussion at Talk:Christopher Nolan. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

this is false accusation I challenge this, this user is making repetitive false accusation, he is biased media reporter, he has (Redacted) Trailblazer101 | Substack, I dought he might have conflict of interest Kevindough (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

if this accusation is proven wikipedia can block me but if it is false, there should be action against Trailblazer101 Kevindough (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong in me having an inactive blog account. I already requested an admin to investigate my presumptions at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kevindough, which is allowed, mind you. If it is proven you are in fact evading a block, they would find it there. Trailblazer101 (talk) 21:11, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted), he is lying, this can be proven by wikipedia investigations. Kevindough (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've redacted what seems to be WP:OUTING violations. If you have evidence of inappropriate WP:COI editing that relies on off wiki evidence please follow the instructions and email it to paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org. Note that simply having a life outside Wikipedia and expressing opinions is not a COI. If you make further outing violations on Wikipedia, expect to be blocked whatever the rights and wrongs of your accusations. To be clear, this means even if you are perfectly right about their being a major undisclosed COI you will still be blocked if you link to offwiki content about the editor that they have not voluntarily disclosed on wiki. Nil Einne (talk) 11:19, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Without taking any position on any of the matters in dispute, it's worth pointing out that the third sentence on user Trailblazer101's user page directs people to an extensive list of the user's off-wiki presence. I think it's a stretch to suggest that constitutes doxxing or outing. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:02, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From looking at that and Trailblazer101's userpage more carefully I've partly reverted my redaction and apologise for the confusion. However I'm leaving the rest intact. Note that it important outing is removed quickly since otherwise if it needs to be revdeleted it means a lot more revisions are lost. I don't see where what Kevindough is claiming comes from what Trailblazer101 has linked to. If Kevindough wants to keep this stuff, it's their responsibility to demonstrate that it's something Trailblazer101 has voluntarily disclosed/connected on wiki. Note that it doesn't matter how much stuff Trailblazer101 has linked to, they still need to have linked to what Kevindough wants to associate them with, if not directly at least indirectly. So e.g. if they linked to a Twitter account and the Twitter account says here's the website for my Nolan (completely made up example), then it would probably be fine to link to the the tweet and discuss content on the website for the cat Nolan. However if they linked to a Twitter account Trailblazer101 but did not linked to a Twitch account Trailblazer101 nor was this linked from their Twitter, (this is a completely made up example), then it would not be okay to link to the Twitch account no matter how obvious it may seem. Likewise if there's a website for the cat Nolan (again made up example) which says my Twitter is Trailblazer101 and I edit wikipedia as Trailblazer101, but the Wikipedia account has linked to Trailblazer101 on Twitter but neither the Twitter nor Wikipedia account has linked to the cat website, the cat website also cannot be discussed on wiki. Instead all this sort of stuff should be handled via the appropriate private channels. Nil Einne (talk) 13:40, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also note that COI claims aside, plenty of other editors have reverted the IP who Kevindough probably is and is at least supporting. Nil Einne (talk) 13:44, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kevindough's claims are just baseless. Yes, I have many social media accounts, many of which I rarely use. I did discuss my opinions of Nolan's work and his upcoming project in my Substack blog, but I have no affiliations with the director. If I did, I would have disclosed such a conflict of interest personally. Kevindough still has yet to provide adequate evidence to support his claims, and resorted to making allegations rather than compromising civily with other editors they are in contention with. Regardless, Kevindough and all his sock accounts have been blocked, so I do not see this going any further. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWN IS NOT A PICTURE OF B LEGIT THANK YOU — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:59C0:3046:3F10:B5B9:E7C1:2F58:910F (talk) 04:56, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be correct; the source says that it comes from this video, but in that video the pictured individual is clearly talking about B-Legit as a third person. I have removed the photo from the article and moved for its deletion from Wikimedia Commons. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 06:55, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lyndon Dykes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Anon editor 91.234.214.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) added personal/family information citing a 5-line snippet from a tabloid magazine Closer (magazine) and a posting on a football forum (diff), which was removed by User:ScottishFootballObseasive. Anon editor restored the content, which I removed as inappropriately sourced for a BLP and issued a level-2 BLP-sources warning. Anon again restored the content, and began a discussion on sourcing policy at my talk page User talk:Struway2#Reliable sources, I replied at theirs User talk:91.234.214.10#February 2025, and they replied at mine.

Discussion doesn't seem to be getting anywhere, so here we are. I've notified both editors mentioned. Thanks, Struway2 (talk) 13:42, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If editors are dissatisfied with the sourcing, I can always provide additional sources, which I have done. 91.234.214.10 (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the object of the exercise isn't to supply additional sources, it's to supply reliable sources that verify the content without the need for unreliable ones. The BBC source that you added with your last edit to Lyndon Dykes is certainly reliable, but it doesn't mention him or his relationships at all. With this edit, you added personal content to the page Jim Thomson (footballer, born 1971), attached to that same source, which verifies almost none of the added content. Struway2 (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Exmanminor (talk · contribs)
• Ángel Cabrera (academic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) examples: Special:Diff/1094452530 Special:Diff/1139834520
• G. P. "Bud" Peterson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) example: Special:Diff/1057046439
• Lee Bollinger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) example: Special:Diff/1123596941
• John Stein (academic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) example all in one: Special:Diff/845889483/1180982440

We seem to have a problem of factoids about institutions being coatracked into the biographies of people at those institutions, with blatantly no involvement in some of the factoids, and questionable involvement in others. At the same time, positive or neutral content is being blanked. Uncle G (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Ken_Ofori-Atta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are those defacing his wikipedia page, he has been declared wanted, a wanted man is still innocent until proven guilty in ghana. but he was called a criminal in the page, and a wanted poster where is pfp should be https://www.myjoyonline.com/osp-declares-ofori-atta-wanted-on-social-media-platforms-despite-backlash/

could this page please be locked so only seasoned editors can make changes as he is polarised — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.155.67.122 (talk) 23:04, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Lenny Kravitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There has been a long-running [13][14][15][16] dispute over Lenny Kravitz' paternal ancestry which has been discussed in the talk page from time-to-time without any meaningful conclusion.

The debate hinges on whether his paternal grandfather was Ukrainian or Russian. In the past, Mr Kravitz has talked about his grandfather being Russian, though has more recently stated he was Ukrainian.

I believe the confusion came from Ukraine being a part of the Russian Empire at the time.

I think that this could strongly benefit from some extra eyes on this as I haven't really been able to get any debate going on the content of the article on the talk page. 13enedict (talk) 10:43, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Peach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The possible death of Mary Peach is being sourced solely to guide.doctorwhonews.net The attribution for the page is IMDb and Wikipedia. I've removed the material from the article as well as Deaths in 2025, with talk page notes on both the article and the Deaths in 2025 list citing WP:BLPSOURCES concerns. Two editors have been reverting to restore the disputed poorly sourced content, Spectritus and Jkaharper, both noting that the source has been used in the past. I don't see how that's relevant; if a crappy source pulling from IMDb and Wikipedia has been used in the past, it's cerainly no reason to ignore BLP and use it repeatedly. This is especially true when we're dealing with sensitive content such as the death of an individual. Again per WP:BLPSOURCES, the policy is to wait until more reliable sources have published the disputed material before we add it to articles. Or have I lost the plot altogether here?-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sacha Lord

Repeated insertion of contentious material into introduction. Already cited in main body. Opinion. Potentially libellous

1. REDIRECT [[17]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithmongoose477 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, My name is Eddy Newman and I am writing about the 'stub' entry on me. I have two specific suggested amendments. The article says ' Newman worked for the Post Office and then in light engineering' In fact it was the other way round. It should read 'Newman worked in light engineering and then for the Post Office, including five years as a lay full time representative in the Union of Postal Workers'. The article also says that I was a member of the left wing Campaign Group. This is correct but, as this implies that this was throughout my time as a MEP, it would be helpful to add that I resigned from the Campaign Group in 1995. Please make these changes. You could also add more factual details about the offices I held as an MEP and City Councillor if you would like the entry to be expanded. These include my being President of the European Parliament's Committee on Petitions from 1994 to 1997; my being Manchester City Council's Executive Member for Housing from 2004 to 2008; and my being Chair of Manchester City Council's Health and Social Care Scrutiny Committee from 2011 to 2015. I could also provide details of the European Parliamentary Reports and publications I was involved in, if that would be helpful.

Thank you.

The sources are Manchester Labour Party, The European Parliament, and Manchester City Council. https://www.mcrlabour.org.uk/2019/02/01/eddy-newman/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:DC0F:AD01:F481:DF9F:2501:E5FE (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy links: Eddy Newman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Isaidnoway (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A user has persistently changed a section of Marc Andreessen's Wikipedia entry to make the claims made by Andreesen on the Joe Rogan Podcast to be true while being false. a change was made that stated Marc Andreesen's claims were misinformation. The User then reverted the changes and changed it to "shared his experience " which is more removed from the fact because Marc Andreesen's claims were of some vague third party getting debunked. After reverted again, they claimed vandalism and the article is now locked for editing.

The crux of this argument goes if it's neutral to state Marc Andreesen's claims were misinformation and that there are several reputable sources that draw that conclusion? including

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/debanking-what-is-meaning-crypto-musk-rogan-andreessen-rcna182597

Which states that Andreesen claims "he knows 30 tech company founders who had been “debanked in the past four years” —"

an Allegation which was rebutted with

It’s an allegation that various federal regulatory agencies reject as untrue. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which charters and supervises all national banks, said that it expects banks to assess their customers' risks on a case-by-case basis.

“The OCC does not direct banks to open, close, or maintain individual accounts. Nor does the OCC recommend or encourage banks to engage in the wholesale termination of categories of customer accounts,” the office said in a statement.

in the podcast itself https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ye8MOfxD5nU&ab_channel=PowerfulJRE he states verbatim "This thing called the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (CFPB), which is Elizabeth Warren’s personal agency that she gets to control. And it’s an “independent” agency that just gets to run and do whatever it wants … it terrorizes financial institutions, prevents new competition, new startups that want to compete with the big banks … by terrorizing anybody who tries to do anything new in financial services.

This is where a lot of the debanking comes from … under current banking regulations, after all the reforms of the last 20 years, there’s now a category called a “politically exposed person” (PEP). And if you are a PEP, you are required by financial regulators to kick them off, out of your ban"

yet there is no evidence to support his claims. There is no basis in reality that the CFPB was led by an independent chair Rohit Chopra at the time. Elizabeth Warren does not have control over the agency and the agency has nothing to do with debunking.his claim amounts to Senator Warren having supreme power to debank people she didn't like. This is just false and misinformation.

here is an opinion piece with citations that provides more context to this https://fintechtakes.com/articles/2024-12-02/the-debanking-debate/

in conclusion, I believe that the sentence should be reverted to include how it was misinformation rather than standing in its "neutral" position. it's Neutral to call something he made up for whatever reasons to be misinformation. it is not neutral to present that without. if presented without misinformation his claims seem open to being true which they are just not. Jkm11 (talk) 14:18, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to the Jessica Paré page need to be subject to review indefinitely. A person continually makes new accounts and vandalizes the article to live out some parasocial fantasy where he's dating this woman. When the article protection is removed, they just come back and edit it again. Thutmose00 (talk) 09:41, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Since it has been going on for so long and from multiple accounts, I have used Pending changes to prevent the BLP violations. --Slp1 (talk) 16:28, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been an increase in this sort of thing on Wikipedia recently? I mean the general idea outside Wikipedia has a long history, but this is the third case I can recall in under a year. Nil Einne (talk) 17:05, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]