Talk:Klete Keller

Conflicting sources for birth place

Sports-Reference.com lists Keller's birth place as Phoenix, Arizona; his U.S. Olympic committee profile says Las Vegas, Nevada. Can anyone reconcile this? Another source? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Klete Keller/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Rating: 2 This is very primitive: it could be expanded with much more information. It does not even have specific medals from Sydney in the article. It also could use a biographical background. The picture is a nice touch. Dr. Payne 18:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 18:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 21:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Picture

Can someone PLEASE find some photo under Fair Use that we can put on this page? It looks like his photo is printed on a sheet of sandpaper. Negrong502 (talk) 02:03, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Negrong502: As he is not deceased, fair use images are not able to be used in this manner per WP:NFCI. SecretName101 (talk) 03:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@SecretName101: Crap. Okay. Negrong502 (talk) 14:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC) @SecretName101:@Negrong502: I feel like no picture at all would be better than the one that's currently there. Thoughts? Wes sideman (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

THE PICTURE THAT IS UP IS NOT KLETE KELLER. This is a picture of Mark Gangloff, a different member of the 2004/2008 Olympic teams! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunter.hoj (talk • contribs) 17:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Check Swimswam.com to see if they have any free photos that can be used, but this photo should come down.Hunter.hoj (talk) 17:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger: - you were the user that extracted the photo of Keller. How did you identify Keller in the larger photo? Is it possible a mistake was made? ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 17:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Homeless category

The category says "People known to be homeless all or much of the time, or otherwise famously associated with past or present periods of homelessness". Keller was not famous for being homeless. There wasn't even any coverage of his homelessness at the time. He's famous for being a swimmer, and now, slightly famous for his role in the Capitol attack. His homeless period is a mere blip. That should be the end of it. Wes sideman (talk) 19:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

you state right here that he's famous for being a Swimmer and "slightly" famous for his role at the capitol. Sounds hypocritical to me. the only reason he is even "slightly" famous for the capitol is BECAUSE he's an Olympic champion, otherwise there wouldn't even be a wiki bio on him in the first place! Defeedme (talk) 02:18, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Recent changes to the lead

Another editor, Defeedme, has made some significant POV changes to the lead recently, and, so far, ignored my request to discuss here rather than their edit summaries. I did just look at their edit history, and they have not edited any articles since May 10, and previously appealed a block they were under by threatening to edit as a sockpuppet, as noted by Daniel Case. I really don't want to get into an online argument over this so I'm starting a discussion here myself in hopes of avoiding a report on edit warring. Wes sideman (talk) 14:14, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Long Standing? Have you ever been a competitive swimmer? his swimming career is a far more important fact in his life and the only reason he is in the news (which may or may not be reliable), Jan 6 does not define who he is as a person and his Olympic accomplishments. The correct term is competitive swimmer, not competition. See other swimmers wiki page like Michael Phelps and Mark Spitz, they use competitive swimmer. Additionally he has not been sentenced yet for over 1 year. Not sure what you have against this person. Defeedme (talk) 02:09, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Whether or not an editor has been a competitive swimmer has no bearing on the content of this article, unless the editor actually knows Klete Keller personally; in that case, WP:COI would come into play. As for level of importance - his swimming career was no doubt impressive in the world of swimming, as there are only 173 medals available to win at each Olympics in swimming and he did win 5 of those over 3 different Olympics, but in the big picture of notability, his medals were a mere blip in the news of the world. There has been far, far more coverage of his actions on Jan 6 and the subsequent legal proceedings - in fact, it's impossible to find an article about him since 2020 that DOESN'T mention Jan 6. Wes sideman (talk) 12:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't know him personally and I disagree with you 100%. His Olympic champion level of notability is what really counts. The Olympics is a major International WORLD event, and he medalled in 3 of them! That is NOT a "blip". Jan 6 is a small local disruption in comparison. In the big picture, his Swimming career and Olympic medals including 2 gold far outweigh Jan 6. The fact you are arguing over a minor edit of putting "felon" after his Olympic Gold Medal accomplishments is curious. Especially since he has not even been sentenced yet (or is that not important to you). It's not like I'm trying to remove anything, it just comes second in the sentence. Defeedme (talk) 02:48, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

If you're the only one with this opinion, the current version will stand. Wes sideman (talk) 12:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I am absolutely not the only one with this "opinion" which to most people is a fact. Defeedme (talk) 04:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

that's funny you are bringing up my past appeal when you have quite a few warnings about edit warring yourself. It appears you have something against this person when you have no idea what sacrifice someone must go through in life to be an Olympic champion, let alone in one of the hardest sports. His Olympic career is way more important in his life and you trying to put felon before his Olympic accomplishments is just plain wrong any way you look at it. Defeedme (talk) 02:13, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

as noted by —QuietMedian Defeedme (talk) 02:24, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I see you're referring to this account, which popped into existence solely to revert edits of mine on Zeta Psi, was already well-versed in Wikipedia policies, and disappeared shortly thereafter. In other words, a sockpuppet or meatpuppet account. What a coincidence that you would bring that one up! Wes sideman (talk) 13:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

there must of been a reason he was reverting your edits... Defeedme (talk) 02:51, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

POV you mean point of view? It's not a point of view, it's facts. Defeedme (talk) 02:25, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

You'll have to be more specific. Wes sideman (talk) 13:35, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @Kuru:, @Ohnoitsjamie:, @Daniel Case:, @DanielRigal:, @CreecregofLife: as they have some experience dealing with this user. I just read this taunt and I believe this user is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, so I'm done with them. Wes sideman (talk) 14:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

@Wes sideman: You need to stop now. When you point a finger at another, you point four at yourself. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

thank you, at least someone else has acknowledged how picayune this is. This is a MINOR edit - I based the corrected lead on Both Mark Spitz and Michael Phelps wiki pages which shows the correct usage of "competitive swimmer" (not competition) and five-time Olympic medalist, which is a common format used in the lead for Olympic champions on a regular basis. I am requesting my new corrected lead to be used. Defeedme (talk) 04:21, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Were Mark Spitz and Michael Phelps participating in the Jan 6 Capitol attack? Are Keller's achievements in the world of swimming anywhere near those of Spitz and Phelps? Wes sideman (talk) 15:58, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

@Deepfriedokra: I don't know what that's supposed to mean in this context. Objectively, do you really think I was in the wrong here? I was reverting a problematic editor's changes to a version that I didn't even come up with myself. I disengaged and asked for help. I didn't even participate in the brouhaha that followed. What more did you think I should have done? Wes sideman (talk) 14:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

This page wasn't on my watchlist, and I am not familiar with the subject, but seeing as I have been summoned I've had a quick look. First up, are we really edit warring over this? I was expecting it to be something much more contentious. The real question here is what is the subject primarily known for? I was hoping that a quick Google search would answer that definitively, and hence let us know which item to mention first in the lead section, but it doesn't really. I don't have any strong opinion except to say that it is not worth edit warring and personal attacks. Maybe have an RfC instead? Even better, maybe try to find a better wording for the lead that addresses everybody's objections, if it is even clear what those actually are? The main problem with the article that I can see is actually nothing to do with the lead. It is that it doesn't say anything about what happened after the plea bargain. Was he sentenced? If so, what did he get? If not, when is that scheduled to happen? DanielRigal (talk) 19:04, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

He is still waiting to be sentenced! Over 1 year now. Next scheduled date is in January and they seem to keep pushing it and pushing it... Defeedme (talk) 02:48, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

thank you for acknowledging how picayune this is. This is a MINOR edit - I based the corrected lead on Both Mark Spitz and Michael Phelps wiki pages which shows the correct usage of "competitive swimmer" (not competition) and five-time Olympic medalist, which is a common format used in the lead for Olympic champions on a regular basis. The Olympics is a Major World event, and he medalled in 3 (three) of them! Jan 6 is a one time local disruption. Additionally He has not been sentenced yet, it has been pushed multiple times now over a year because he is a cooperating witness. His next court date is January. I am requesting my new corrected lead to be used. Thanks. Defeedme (talk) 04:28, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

From my point of view, there is truth in what you are both saying. If he weren't an Olympian, he'd be just another member of the mob on J6. But the fact that he is "the Olympian that participated in J6" is, and likely will forever be, be the best-known thing about him. Not anything else. Not what event he won his medal for, or what his best-times were. I'd liken it to John du Pont. His primary notability is derived from the prominence/wealth he was born into as a member of the du Pont family, and his involvement in USA Wrestling. If he had murdered two random, people with using same means under most other circumstances, it might be another 9:00 news story without extrodinary noteworthiness. But he forever will be best known as "that du Pont family wrestling sponsor that murdered those wrestlers"

This being said, as far as the lead sentence, it seems pretty clear to me that it should mention that he is a swimmer first, then that he committed a crime. SecretName101 (talk) 07:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I stepped back from this because, as I said before, I've been attacked by sockpuppets before; I wanted no part of it after a certain point. I really felt it was better if others stepped in, which is why I pinged the users previously involved with Defeedme. All that aside, I want to make it clear that I was reverting back to the status quo that was in place before Defeedme arrived - it was not "my" wording, although I happen to agree with it. I did take a quick look at their editing history before I reverted to the version before they made a change - perhaps it's wrong to take into account an editor's past history when looking at a POV edit, but I don't feel that it was. Correct me if I'm wrong about that. I respect SecretName101's take on the lead sentence because they did a lot of work on the article. I disagree with that take, but no need to rehash that here. I think the situation with Defeedme has been resolved and I look at that as a positive. Wes sideman (talk) 17:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm now looking at John du Pont and noticing, that articles does mention his being a murderer before it mentions his other aspects of note though. I don't feel comfortable changing that, but somehow I still feel this was the right call for Keller. However, it feels hard to square the two. SecretName101 (talk) 04:49, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

It's a toss-up. I look at it this way - before his Jan 6th participation, coverage of Keller in reliable sources was sparse. If it wasn't for the Olympic medals automatically qualifying him for an article, I seriously doubt he would've passed WP:GNG. The first half of the body of the article (recently vastly improved by you) is about 90% dependent on one source: his Team USA bio, which is kind of a primary source. Conversely, the coverage of him after Jan. 6 is massive. A lot of it, which you've included in your improvements, even has info about his life pre-Jan. 6th and is very useful. But, there's no doubt those articles covering his pre-Jan 6th life would NOT have been written if he hadn't been arrested for his role in the insurrection. For that reason, my opinion differs from yours on the order of the phrasing of the first sentence. Most of his notability - now - derives from his Jan 6th participation, arrest, plea, and eventual sentencing. Wes sideman (talk) 14:22, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'm going to work on re-wording the lead to reflect this. Wes sideman (talk) 14:12, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

yes there is an objection - you need to wait for a response from @SecretName101secretname101 first since she put so much work into this page. Disrespectful to just change. 207.254.54.36 (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I'm fairly sure that an objection from a blocked user (blocked for disruptive editing) that is now using multiple IP addresses to evade their block is not going to carry any weight in this discussion. Wes sideman (talk) 13:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

you can't "square" the two because Klete Keller is not a convicted MURDERER. He is a hard working American Olympic Champion, not a spoiled rich kid who inherited all his wealth! also Klete has not even been sentenced yet! 148.77.21.154 (talk) 21:58, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Please let me know when he's sentenced, and I'll add that info to the article along with a reliable source. Thank you. Wes sideman (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Klete.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:06, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Hidden comment in the lead

I added a hidden comment in the lead: "Before making any changes to the lead, check the talk page. This version is the result of a long discussion there". This was added not only because of the discussion, but also because one now-blocked editor continues to pop up from different IP addresses to try to force their preferred version onto the article. I expect they will reappear after page protection expires. The history of their block-evading IP edits can be found here. Thank you. Wes sideman (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

not true, you failed to gain consensus and reverted the lead put in place by secretname101. "Convicted felon" is a vague term and should not be used as per Constant314 @Constant314: 73.49.185.191 (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Note that this is another sock of the perma-blocked Defeedme, already reported. Wes sideman (talk) 11:50, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Recent change to first sentence

Firstly, there is a hidden comment right above the first sentence: "Before making any changes to the lead, check the talk page. This version is the result of a long discussion there." That was ignored. Next, part of the rationale offered for this was "R Kelly, another felon" - but his lead is fine. It mentions what he is most notable for (musician) and next, "convicted felon". Klete Keller is most notable for his January 6th conviction. Nearly 100% of the reliable secondary sources that discuss Keller are about Jan 6th. His Olympic bio page is virtually the only place that doesn't mention it; that's a primary source and hardly neutral, besides. A better comparable article would be Betty Loren-Maltese - barely notable as the mayor of Cicero, the 11th-largest town in Illinois, but certainly notable for her conviction on racketeering and fraud charges. The current version does not violate anything in WP:BLPLEAD. The first sentence establishes why Keller is notable, in a neutral manner. Wes sideman (talk) 14:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLPLEAD clearly states that The lead sentence should describe the person as he or she is commonly described in reliable sources. According to the sources provided in the article none of the sources call him the prefered version of yours hence your version is WP:OR and voilating WP:BLPLEAD and WP:BLP. I've already gone through the edit history and the discussion on the talk page and I didn't find a consensus on how should be the lead of this article besides that you have been already told by Deepfriedokra to stop doing what you doing here in a polite way. TheWikiholic (talk) 05:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, he is described as a convicted felon in nearly every reliable source about him. They all say he "pleaded guilty to a felony" and that's exactly the same thing as describing him as a "convicted felon". It's just playing with semantics to claim otherwise. Next, stop edit warring. The version describing him as a convicted felon has been stable for a while, if you don't count the nearly non-stop sockpuppet reversions by blocked user Defeedme, and discussing here and obtaining consensus should be happening before you make any changes. As I said before, many other wikipedia articles describe the subjects as convicted felons, if that's what they're most notable for. THis article is no different, and the subject deserves no special treatment just because he was a barely-notable swimmer before he generated hundreds of news articles about himself by pleading guilty to a felony. Wes sideman (talk) 12:26, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I had done WP:BEFORE making my first edit in this page and I couldn't find any sources describing the subject as the convicted felon and former competitive swimmer. Even the title of the source that you added clearly mentions him as the Former Olympic gold medalist Klete Keller pleads guilty to felony charge related to Capitol riot. As long as we doesn't have multiple independent reliable sources call the subject convicted felon and former competitive swimmer we cannot use that term here, because that's violate WP:BLP and WP:BLPLEAD. I would also highly recommend that you read the policies and guidelines, none of this is "my belief". For one, WP:ONUS which very clearly states that "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." TheWikiholic (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Since this person has had an article since 2007 they were clearly notable for their athletic endevors. Clearly the Jan 6 plea should be in the lead but not the opening sentence. Springee (talk) 12:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

This seems like a rather silly argument, and both of you should probably step away and let others decide on the wording. Personally I think either version is fine but if you held a gun to my head, I'd choose "convicted felon" solely on the basis of brevity. I do not see any BLP issues with that version, and I somewhat agree with Wes' opinion that it is what Keller, for better or worse, is most notable for. I'm a fan of Olympic athletes and I confess I never heard of Keller until his insurrection involvement. In any case it should be reverted to the version that was up before all the edit warring, until more editors weigh in. Have either of you considered an RfC? Argles Barkley (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not work on your personal feelings. I have explained above how the lead violates WP:BLP, and WP:LEAD. WP:ONUS clearly states that The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. So either one of you should start the RFC if you wanted to include the wording. If either one of you restores the wording based on your WP:ILIKEIT argument I would have to take both of you to the Administrators' noticeboard TheWikiholic (talk) 04:58, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

That's not how this works. You're the only editor that has a problem with the words "convicted felon". There's no WP:ONUS or WP:BLP applicable just because you say so - that line is factual and your argument comes down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. In fact, now, consensus in this discussion is against you. If you continue to impose your favorite version of the first sentence onto the article, then you're the person violating policy here. Wes sideman (talk) 11:09, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Here from WP:BLPN. TheWikiholic's reasoning seems sound and based in policy. Why should we be introducing people as "convicted felons" as if that's their occupation or identity? It sounds odd, and it carries different connotations to describing the exact conviction with descriptive words, as TheWikiholic proposes. There's two issues here - if reliable sources aren't commonly labelling the subject as a "convicted felon" we shouldn't either, and we are also writing an encyclopedia, and need to write it in a encyclopedic fashion where we avoid using unnecessary contentious and imprecise labels (see general advice in MOS:WTW) Tristario (talk) 00:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources do describe him as a convicted felon. It is not an imprecise label. It is factual and it is well-sourced. From MOS:FIRST: "For topics notable for only one reason, this reason should usually be given in the first sentence." Keller, while barely notable for his swimming career before Jan. 6th (check the size and sources of the article in 2020), has achieved far more notability for his actions and conviction after Jan 6th. You cannot find a reliable secondary source published in the last two years that doesn't focus, in full or in part, on his crimes that day. While you can argue that he's notable for two things, the thing he is most notable for is the crime, arrest, and conviction. The first sentence mentions both things (convicted felon and former swimmer), in the proper order. See R. Kelly and a host of other articles that describe their subject as a convicted felon in the first sentence. Why would we ever consider giving special treatment to Klete Keller? Is he exempt from the MOS:BLPLEAD rule that states "When writing about controversies in the lead section of a biography, relevant material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm"? Why would he be exempt if R. Kelly isn't? Wes sideman (talk) 11:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

It's less precise than just describing exactly what his conviction is, it sounds odd, and I see little reason why we need to specifically introduce him as a "convicted felon". What's done in the R. Kelly article or other articles has very little bearing on this. Typically what we do in wikipedia is take what reliable sources say, and then write it in a more encyclopedic fashion. What you're arguing for is the opposite - sources aren't labelling him and introducing him as a "convicted felon" (yes, they discuss the conviction, they do not introduce and label him as a "convicted felon" as if it's his occuption), you're suggesting taking what reliable sources say, and then adjusting it so it's even less encyclopedic. I don't find that convincing. Obviously we can still describe the conviction in the first sentence, and that would still follow MOS:FIRST. Tristario (talk) 12:17, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

You appear to be suggesting that the lead sentence should describe his occupation, which is not the case. Even it is was, his occupation is not "swimmer" and it hasn't been for a long time. The lead sentence should describe what he is notable for, and it does - he's notable for being a convicted felon and former competitive swimmer. Wes sideman (talk) 12:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Describing him as a "convicted felon" isn't even describing what's he's notable for. That gives the reader very little information, and may even mislead the reader to think he's some kind of professional criminal. Whereas the version proposed by TheWikiholic achieves the same thing in a more encyclopedic, precise, and informative manner. Tristario (talk) 12:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

MOS:LABEL is our guide here since it's a contentious label. It's not really about how sources cover his most recent activities; it's about the overall weight of all sources that describe the subject. Do the majority of them introduce the subject as a convicted felon? If not, it doesn't belong in the lead sentence. I agree the coverage in relation to J6 and his conviction belongs in the lead, but his felony status does not, at least not in the first sentence. It appears to be WP:UNDUE and keeping it there while there are good-faith objections could be a contradiction to the policies set forth in WP:ONUS and WP:BLPRESTORE. I recommend self-reverting for the time being. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

"Convicted felon" is not a "contentious label". The majority of sources describe him as someone who "pleaded guilty to a felony", which is the same thing as "convicted felon"; the latter just uses less words. There are many bio articles which describe the person as a convicted felon, if that's what they're most notable for (which he is). This bio happens to attract attention from time to time because Keller is a fan of Donald Trump and we've got editors on Wikipedia that would like to whitewash the bios of Trump fans on Wikipedia. It's really that simple. Wes sideman (talk) 13:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The version proposed by TheWikiholic ignores what he's most notable for and straight-up whitewashes Keller's lead. Wes sideman (talk) 12:50, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

How exactly is it whitewashing if TheWikiholic's version describes exactly what Keller has been convicted of? That is not what whitewashing is Tristario (talk) 12:58, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

It frames Keller's swimming career as the main focus of his notability, which is demonstrably not the case. It minimizes the actual reason for his notability, and that is whitewashing. Again, I point to R. Kelly's opening sentence and notice that no one here seems to have a problem with that (myself included). Wes sideman (talk) 13:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

TheWikiholic's version could be adjusted so the main focus of his notability is clearer. That could be done in a few ways Tristario (talk) 13:11, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it could. One of the ways is the version that's currently up. There's nothing wrong with it, unless you're a big fan of minimizing Jan. 6th participants' criminal records. I'm not saying you are, but I've seen a couple of editors whose motivations were clear from their edit histories. Wes sideman (talk) 13:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

• I believe The Wikiholic's proposed wording is better, as it is more compliant with WP:RECENTISM. Articles like [1] and [2] show his criminal conviction is not the main reason he is notable. Hatman31 (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

You have cherry-picked 2 articles out of the hundreds about Klete Keller. Conveniently, they were both published before 2021. Enough said. Wes sideman (talk) 16:56, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't see consensus to keep the version of the lead that starts by saying the person is a convicted felon. That is generally poor writing style. The article should be reverted to either the 30 Jan lead (last stable version) or something along the lines of TheWikiholic suggests. Very few people are known as "a convicted felon". They may be known for a crime they committed and that crime may be a felony but rarely would we say they are know for being a felon. Consider the case of a bank robber (Mr Jones). The intro might say Jones was a bank robber who was known for the 1st Union bank heist. That someone is a felon is an outcome of the notable crime they committed. Thus we would emphasize the crime. In this case, if consensus is the crime is notable enough to be in the first sentence, Keller is a Olympic medalist in swimming and was convicted for his participation in the Jan 6th riots. And yes, since this is a BLP the Jan 31 lead change should be reverted as it clearly doesn't have consensus. Springee (talk) 11:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Your claim that the Jan 30th version was the "last stable version" is outright incorrect. That's this edit, which was made by a sockpuppet of a blocked user. The actual stable version was before the sockpuppets were active, which stated "convicted felon" in the lead. Wes sideman (talk) 12:20, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Interesting. It appears the first time it was in the lead was thanks to an IP editor [3]. Another IP editor objected [4]. You were quick to restore it (next edit). It appears this has been challenged off and on since it was added and you seem to be the champion of retaining the IP editor's change. However, looking at the various discussions I don't see any consensus for this version and it's clear even if we consider his Jan 6th actions the most significant thing about him, it is poor form to say being "a felon" is the significant thing about him. The alternative opening sentence that says he was notable for his swim career and his felony plea deal is just far more encyclopedic than what you are trying to defend. Springee (talk) 13:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for discovering this @Springee. It's pretty clear what's happened here. I support a reversion to the non-IP edited state that has implied consensus until we can sort out consensus of what this lead should be updated to say, per WP:ONUS and WP:BLPRESTORE. Kcmastrpc (talk) 13:11, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Looking at this talk page and the discussion at WP:BLPN it seems like there's a clear consensus against the current wording. Tristario (talk) 23:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

"Quick to restore it" ??? The edit you point to was June 2022. The edit where I restored the wording was 30 September 2022, almost 24 hours after an IP removed it. I don't even remember what drew my attention to it, other than Keller probably being in the news at the time, but I likely put it on my watchlist at that point. Other than the blocked user Defeedme, no one had any problem with that wording for months. Now, suddenly, two guys are here that both constantly edit right-wing figures' articles to remove negatively-tinged info. You've also both edited Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and perhaps unsurprisingly, you're in favor of adding negative info to that article while removing positive information from it. Are we supposed to pretend that you both don't have a very clear POV that you're bringing to this discussion? I'm all ears if you have an explanation. Wes sideman (talk) 13:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, pointing to myself as "the champion of retaining" the current wording is misleading as well. Let's remind everyone that there are many biographical articles that use this wording, and I've added that wording to none of them. "american%2Bconvicted"&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 Wes sideman (talk) 14:00, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

First, please FOC per ScottishFinnishRadish's recent comments at BLPN. Second, you appear to be conflating editors by suggesting we are both in favor of one edit but opposed to another. If you look at the article talk you will see I opposed the first edit [5]. As for the second being something "positive" about AOC, I suspect most wouldn't agree. You appear to be claiming that a sarcastic claim of "employee of the month", similar to the claims that Obama was the best gun salesman, is positive. More to the point you appear to claim it was DUE. If you believe that then go ahead and make a case for it on the AOC talk page. Springee (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Recent block of TheWikiholic

Given that TheWikiholic was the primary driver of this recent change to a long-standing version of the lead, and that they were recently blocked for meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry/UPE issues, it seems appropriate to revert to the version of the article before their interference began. I don't see consensus, when TheWikiholic's influence is disregarded, for the changes made. In fact, I see at least one editor (Argles Barkley) who agreed that "convicted felon" was the better descriptor. Wes sideman (talk) 13:44, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Ridiculous suggestion. Many other editors who disagreed with that wording commented as well, including some who posted on WP:BLPN but not this page. Hatman31 (talk) 20:18, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

No, the reasons for objecting were sound and a number of other editors agreed. Also, while sock editing is a reason to block an account, it doesn't mean the arguments of the master account were illegitimate. Springee (talk) 23:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

There was quite a solid consensus against that version of lead at the post at BLPN. Tristario (talk) 02:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how one could come to the conclusion that the meatpuppet in question was being influenced here, and even if he was, there are several editors who were against the original prose. I oppose restoring 'convicted felon' in the lead, per other editors arguments above. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

FYI: Argles_Barkley is a sock of Googleguy007 108.58.9.194 (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

There were also several editors who were fine with the original prose. If you disregard the blocked editors, the IP addresses weighing in, and the canvassed editors, it's practically only editors that were for the original prose that are left. Wes sideman (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

In keeping with what WP policy states: WP:BLPLEAD The lead sentence should describe the person as he or she is commonly described in reliable sources. This is quite clear not only in policy and guideline but even regarding this BLP. In all online engine searches rendered by name alone: Klete Keller, the BLP is referred to as such: "Olympic swimmer Klete Keller's journey to Capitol riot...", "Klete Keller, a 3-Time Olympian, Pleads Guilty in Capitol ...", "Olympic swimming champion Klete Keller pleads guilty to ...", "Olympic Champion Klete Keller's Sentencing Date for ...", "Olympic swimmer Klete Keller's journey to Capitol riot", "Sentencing date set for Olympic gold medallist involved in ...", "Olympic gold swimmer Klete Keller - who took part in the ..." This is why WP has adopted this policy. What the BLP was first notable for and then associated with thereafter. I always use the tried-and-true standards: Bill Cosby, Roman Polanski, et al. They will forever be notable for their known achievements and secondary for their "crimes"; no matter how recent, media covered or sensationalized. I'm sorry, but I do not agree with the wording in the lede at present. It should read: Olympic competitive swimmer first (with accolades), then convicted participant second (preferably in a sentence all its own). Maineartists (talk) 14:47, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Before I get into the content of this particular article, it's impossible to not provide some context. I want to make something clear: I am not accusing any editors taking part in this discussion of doing anything wrong. However, I don't know how to have a discussion about the order of the terms in the first sentence without addressing the elephant in the room. A long-blocked editor, obsessed with me and my edits, has used dozens of IP addresses, and hundreds of edits, to harass me and and revert my edits on various articles. For this issue in particular, they used an IP to WP:CANVAS no less than 7 editors that they felt would be on their "side", and they were correct in their guess in at least 3 of those cases (the other 4 have, so far, not weighed in either way). I don't think it's possible to have a truly neutral discussion with input from an unbiased community until that's addressed. Again, no one else besides this obsessed editor has done anything wrong, but I am also sure that most, if not all of you, are unaware of the lengths of this user's campaign. It's entirely possible that they went so far as to hire an undisclosed paid editor who has since been blocked themselves for sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry (and possible UPE), all in the name of a vendetta against me. Wes sideman (talk) 16:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The answer you're looking for to this conundrum is an RFC advertised neutrally at WP:BLPN, that way there is a large enough reach to get a true view of community consensus without worrying about a block evader canvassing. Right now you have no excuse for edit warring against multiple other editors in good standing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this and have restored previous version. Ambrosiawater (talk) 07:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Please assume WP:GOODFAITH. I've been watching this page since it landed on BLPN and regardless of who shows up on my Talk page they have absolutely zero influence on my position regarding your edits. I'd recommend discussing your proposed changes on the talk page to see if there is consensus before engaging further as any additional action could be considered actively edit warring. WP:BOLD only goes so far.

Also, as a note to the sock/meat IP editor -- please stop leaving messages on my talk page. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

agree with user:Maineartists. consensus has already been proven lead sentence order must be what the BLP was FIRST notable for, and then the associated crime thereafter. RFC has already been brought to WP:BLPN with a clear consensus. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive349#Klete_Keller 108.58.9.194 (talk) 21:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Even more WP:CANVAS

Combined with the block of TheWikiholic, we have this series of edits from the blocked Defeedme IP-hopper. By any definition, this is WP:CANVAS - and by a blocked user. The entire discussion process has been completely poisoned by a blocked editor, campaigning from numerous IP addresses, to re-instate their non-NPOV version of the article's lead. I am re-instating the version of the article that was in place before all the disruption from the blocked editor Defeedme. If any of the editors that were canvassed by Defeedme want to revert that, before discussing the whole situation here, I will take it to ANI. I can't believe that such blatant violations of WP:CANVAS would be allowed to stand. Wes sideman (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

What should the short description for this article read?

• Comment if you were WP:CANVAS'd to come here and comment by a block-evading longtime disruptive IP editor, please disclose that fact. Wes sideman (talk) 14:53, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

"American swimmer and convicted felon" - the short description should be short. It should describe what the subject is notable for. 95% of the coverage of the subject of this article in reliable sources relates his felony conviction on charges stemming from his January 6 United States Capitol attack. Wes sideman (talk) 14:55, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. "American swimmer and convicted felon" is decidedly non-neutral and leaves out a great deal of important context. Including said context would make the short description much longer than it should be, so "American swimmer" is really the only choice here. — SamX [talk · contribs] 16:14, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

SamX was canvassed here by the same block-evading IP long-term abuser. Wes sideman (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

They did leave me a message on my talk page, but I've had this page watchlisted for months and I saw it before they notified me. — SamX [talk · contribs] 19:01, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with SamX. We should not include the suggested prose for the same reason we don’t included convicted felon in the opening lead sentence. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Why does R. Kelly's short intro read "American R&B singer and sex offender"? Wes sideman (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

No idea; may I suggest discussing that issue on the Talk:R. Kelly page? ~ Kcmastrpc (talk) 20:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I've been watching this a while - I think "American swimmer" is fine. As for the R. Kelly analogy, I'm not sure I agree with what they have as a short intro, but it's apples and oranges to me. The R. Kelly criminal saga is a large part of how he is known; I would argue that Keller's crime is far less a part of the American zeitgeist. The storming of the Capitol, sure, Keller's role in it, not so much. Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The short description should not include "convicted felon" for the exact same reasons that were previously discussed. "Convicted felon" is non-specific etc. The swimmer part is fine. Furthermore, edit warring to get the change made is a editor issue and goes against CONSENSUS. Springee (talk) 03:56, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Sentence

Could someone add his sentence? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67597397 92.30.149.54 (talk) 21:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Please add "On December 4, 2023 Keller received a sentence of six months home detention and three years probation." to the very end of the section about the riots. 92.30.149.54 (talk) 10:56, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Done Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

what sentence? really a nothingburger of a "sentence" with NO jail time. Not sure why he even got a felony since he wasn't violent in any way and was only there for 1 hour! 96.80.102.133 (talk) 07:25, 7 December 2023 (UTC)