Talk:Alexander Bertrand

Edit warring and vandalism

IN SHORT: This article is currently a mess. Myself and a number of other helpful users have made several attempts to clean it up, but it keeps getting reverted.

IN FURTHER DETAIL: There are currently two new profiles (who appeared to be the same person), persistently engaging in reverting vastly improved content back to a poorly written version. This includes reverting to badly constructed sentences and poor grammar, reverting properly formatted citations to bare URLs, reinstating dead links and unreliable sources, and removing informative / properly sourced content.

When I confronted the individual about the vandalism and edit warring, they in turn accused me of trying to 'promote' the institution that the subject of the article studied at - all because I have previously edited the profile of the actor who owns said institution. Strange logic indeed!

My general improvements to the overall article (which several other experienced editors have also tried to reinstate) has been met with accusations of trying to sabotage and in their words 'harass' the subject of the article. Strange logic again. The editor has also tried to use the one-off change I've previously made to my user name as leverage in their threat to have me banned. Even MORE strange logic!

Additionally, the editor has admitted they represent the artist - this in itself is a conflict of interest (as per Wikipedia guidelines), and is in fact a much stronger basis for a case of biased editing. It is doubtful however, that the individual actually represents the artist, because a genuine representative would surely not want such a poorly formatted article on record.

Please see the edit history and the offending editors' talk pages for further context. Lattesandtimtams (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2026 (UTC)

Urgent BLP concern

Lattesandtimtams (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Repeated factual vandalism of living person biography with

Adding false and unverified information

Removing correct information

In response to the above, clear evidence on Lattesandtimtams talk and edit history pages demonstrates that the user is engaging in 1) sock puppetry (writing under various names such as "missclaireallen" 2) vandalism [non neutral point of view, disruptive, bad faith efforts to diminish the subject's professional achievements] 3. Has been disabled and critiqued for their editing habits and conversations with users in the past and 4. is now attempting to "protect" this page in order to protect their own vandalism and harassment after 5. Marking the page as NA / Low Importance in order to circumnavigate admin and human user attention in order to protect said changes from being noticed by the community the user claims to be defending but is actively deceiving.

There are no issues here regarding grammar or citation formatting standard to Wikipedia which this profile is respectful of and appreciates. However, Lattesandtimtams is utilizing this as a claim to confuse the core issue here, so as to hide behind it and obfuscate in bad faith to utilize Wikipedia's community terms to protect their own behavior and conceal their motives and identity which clearly illustrates they are biased and non subjective due to:

1. their identity which deems them an unreliable source and COI in terms of behavior (WP:V)

2. editing history which has a clearly defined paper trail of motives and confirming their COI

3. information disclosed to other users that confirms points 1 and 2.

4. IP addresses linked to the account and investigation into their edits that cumulatively are designed to harass specific individuals in the public eye and to advance their own pages (WP:V) regardless of lack of reliability and published sources. COI again.

Lattesandtimtams has been requested to cease their behavior due to overwhelming publicly available evidence that demonstrates their amends and edit warring on this page is not in good faith, and is in fact designed with ulterior motives as outlined above due to their COI. (Including speculative information that is unpublished [WP:NOR] or without references but purely designed to embellish their own work).

Had their contributions to the page been purely in pursuit of correcting grammar and citations those would be the only changes in their own history yet amended statements of fact about a living person have been made, at least half a dozen times in the past 48 hours pertaining to 3 particular details 1) Screenwise education inserted multiple and repeated times throughout such that it is excessive and biased for promotion 2)a short film produced under the Screenwise banner was repeatedly inserted to the filmography and in some cases even deleted the filmography with that being the sole credit 3)biographical details about the subject changed 4)a role as an extra has been repeatedly added with no source, proof or explanation. In logging this complaint the user clearly believes that their amendment history would not show what they are concealing - the fact of their amendments being far more than grammar and in direct contravention of all the Wikipedia guidance available and given to them in the past (of which they have repeatedly rudely argued with other users on).

Fundamentally this is the biography of a living person which is a core policy the user is breaking here (WP:BLP) in incessantly stalking and vandalizing the page with defamatory and unsourced material despite their claims to be helping, again because of their own COI. With search engine AIs utilizing and summarizing Wikipedia pages, deliberate and false amendments can be deemed to be deliberate attempts to sabotage an individual's career.

With that in mind, the user is attempting to penalize accounts here for COI despite it being disclosed to them to correct errors in order to conclude the dispute and prevent them from adding contentious incorrect information stated as fact.

Despite this disclosure, the user is claiming this is not true - without evidence, in order to protect their changes that lack reputable independent sources and contain contentious changes aimed at self promotion of the user. They are wishing to conceal and protect their own COI. No issues have been experienced with any other users on this platform, page or other editors as evidenced by talk or edit history.

Whilst efforts have been made to resolve this with the user they are continuing their behavior. Had they wanted to and only executed grammatical and citational corrections that related solely to formatting that would be perfectly acceptable and appreciated.

Adding information that is unpublished and unverified with no evidence in their defense or explanation of how they sourced the "information" clearly indicates their objectives on this matter and we look forward to the admins of this platform investigating this matter and this user in detail in order to resolve and terminate the actions of this individual.

We would ask that this page is protected moving forwards, with Lattesandtimtams investigated (and blocked) per the above with a neutral, experienced admin and moderator handling any factual additions moving forward in the immediate term given the severe breaches of policy over a short period of time. Agentcourse4239 (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

{{adminhelp}} ~2026-20264-54 (talk) 19:29, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

All of the allegations that user Agentcourse329 has levelled against me are fundamentally untrue, predicated on gross assumptions and attempt to sabotage because they are not operating as a team player. My good intentions and thorough history of improving articles for the better can be evidenced by a thorough comb-through the log of my extensive editing history since 14 January 2022. No other Wikipedia users have made any of these allegations about myself over this 4 year period. I have never been accused of vandalism or COI other than by user Agentcourse329 and their sock puppet accounts.

User Agentcourse329 is an unregistered account which has only made edits to the Alexander Bertrand article and no other articles across greater Wikipedia. Their sock puppet account (~2026-19759-67) and since this dispute began, yet ANOTHER socket puppet account (~2026-20101-25) are both less than a week old – with Alexander Bertrand being the only article they have edited as well. Agentcourse329 is either entirely new to Wikipedia and therefore inexperienced, or has likely had previous accounts that have been banned and has therefore created (several) new ones in the process. Having three accounts for the same person active at the same time is perhaps an attempt to appear that the parent account has extra editors ‘on side’. However. this does not hold up, when the accounts are new, unregistered and all have history with only one article.

My account, on the contrary, is consistent and long-lasting, with over 37,000 edits to date. I have made ONE and only one user name change to my account (14 March 2026), purely because I was advised to for privacy reasons, because it spelled out my name in full. I am completely transparent about this – there is no nefarious reasoning. The irony of an ambiguous account with two other sock puppets accounts however, using my sole user name change as leverage in this dispute, simply does not hold up.

Additionally, stalking my entire history of edits and talk page discussions to stage a character assassination is reaching. My edit history shows concise, helpful and informative editing. The only exception to this, was a discussion not long after I first created my Wiki account 4 year ago, when I was new to the platform and not particularly familiar with the process – and had an unfortunate exchange. Otherwise, my history has been positive, and my talk page demonstrates a cohesive and harmonious experience with other users and a willingness to take constructive criticism on board – something that Agentcourse329 (who is not a team player) is not remotely seeking to improve on their part. Agentcourse329 (and their sock puppet accounts), has demonstrated no efforts to learn how to correctly format for Wikipedia and has reverted at least five other users’ attempts (other than myself) to amend vandalism and poor formatting on the Alexander Bertrand article.

Examples of vandalism and poor Wikipedia work by user Agentcourse329 (aka (~2026-20101-25, aka ~2026-19759-67) include:

• Using bare URLs and persistently reverting several users’ attempts to fill bare URLs with properly-formatted citations.
• Persistently re-adding IMDb as a source, and ignoring explanations from myself and other more experienced users that IMDb is considered an unreliable source, as per Wikipedia guidelines.
• Persistently re-adding a dead link and trying to pass it off as a viable citation – if they had actually clicked on the dead link, they’d realise it no longer exists, but they have not shown due diligence in checking this, as they are merely copy/pasting a script into the article, rather than seeking to manually improve it or ensure it meets Wikpedia’s standards.
• Most of their content (while poorly written), is plagiarised, and their talk page history demonstrates instances of other users also taking issue with their editing of the same article.
• Their content demonstrates instances of poor grammar and poor sentence structure. There are also floating full stops and commas with strange spacing around them. There are DAB links, links that have been unlinked, incorrect use of bold and italics, use of hyphens instead of n-dashes.
• Removing the artist's filmography in its entirety – although they later relented to retaining this.
• Reverting Australian date formatting to American date formatting – this is incorrect for an Australian article. The dates have since been removed entirely by an administrator while in protection mode, as these dates were in fact unsourced.
• Copy/posting a duplicate of the bare citations to the reflist (this is not how the reflist works). I managed to at least remove this prior to the protection being put in place.
• If the user was interested purely in only removing the content I’ve added that they object to (the education institution), then they would not also be removing improved-upon grammar, and replacing proper citations with bare URLs by reverting to a poorly written version. This is sloppy editing and demonstrates evidence of a pure copy/paste job rather than an attempt to improve an article in full. They are doing the subject of the article a great disservice in having an amateurly-written article front and centre on a public platform.
• The user never rarely notes a reason for their alterations in the edit section (as per the requirement of Wikipedia for any other than a minor change).
• While engaging with me on their talk page, the user has admitted that they represent the artist. This is either untrue and was being used as an intimidation tactic, or if true, they are guilty of biased editing and COI, and therefore in contravention of Wikipedia’s guidelines. Evidence to this, as stated before, was in a glowing (subjective) quote used in the body of the article, which the administrator (who took control of the article) has since removed, as it clearly demonstrated bias. In the ‘Early life’ section, there still remains a subjective statement, which demonstrates bias: “…he has carved a place and name for himself among the best Australian actors working in the world today.”

Moreover, user Agentcourse329 (aka (~2026-20101-25, aka ~2026-19759-67) has accused me of being affiliated with Screenwise, the education institution that I added (along with graduation date) to the article. The basis for their accusation – they noted that I have also edited an article for Denise Roberts, who is said owner of the school. Upon checking, I did indeed edit the Roberts’ article, but this is purely coincidental. I have edited hundreds of Australian actor articles, noting suitably-cited acting schools they all attended (eg. NIDA, VCA, and WAAPA, just to name a few) but also high schools and non-acting institutions. This in itself demonstrates I am not affiliated with Screenwise – I merely add as much reliably-sourced information about the subject of any article I am able to find, so it gives a well-founded history. My extensive editing history demonstrates this in spades. Also, if listing the subject’s institution of study is indeed ‘promotion’ –wouldn’t listing other schools, films, directors, producers (etc) also therefore be seen as ‘promotion’? It’s such a weak example of trying to demonstrate COI and bias.

If Agentcourse329 was editing in the interest of creating useful Wikipedia content they would be invested in more than just the subject of one article. Screenwise acting school does not register any higher on my agenda than any other article or detail I have edited. Whereas Alexander Bertrand is the sole article on Agentcourse329’s agenda. Unlike myself, they are not invested in bettering Wikipedia as a whole.

Additionally, user Agentcourse329 has accused me of ‘stalking’ and ‘harrassing’ the subject of the article, and adding ‘defamatory’ information – with the sole reason of my citing their institution of study being the basis for this. If Agentcourse329 can adequately demonstrate how listing a subject’s institution of sabotages the article or constitutes ‘harrassment’ of the subject of the article, I’m intrigued to hear how so.

On another note, Agentcourse329 has accused me of:

• “removing correct information” – I have removed nothing – merely ADDED information and amended poorly-written content. The edit section has a clear history evidencing this.
• “Used non-neutral point of view” – pure fabrication, with no demonstrated evidence. On the contrary, the subjective quote by David Wenham that Agentcourse329 included (and which the administrator has since rightfully removed) demonstrated a non-neutral POV on the part of Agentcourse329). As does the subjective sentence stating the subject of the article is “one of the best Australian actors on the world”. Agentcourse329’s desperate objection to the inclusion of the Screenwise, the acting school the subject attended, also shows a bias against said school – why so firm on omitting this useful information unless one has a non-favourable stance towards the school?
• “Bad faith efforts” – pure fabrication. For the most part, comments in my talk section where other editors have mentioned altering my edits, have referred to my edits as “good faith edits”, and I’ve received their constructive criticism well and agreed when they gave their reasoning as to why things should be changed.
• “Marking the page as NA / Low Importance” – this is a pure fabrication and there is no demonstrated evidence of this in the edit section.
• “Editing history which has a clearly defined paper trail of motives and confirming their COI” – pure fabrication, with no demonstrated evidence.

Agentcourse329 has also accused me of not adhering to the artist’s filmography as recorded on IMDb. While IMDb is not a reliable source, I did copy the filmography directly from there, but used reliable off-site sources to back this up. Ironically, the short film Agentcourse329 objected to me adding was in fact on the artist’s IMDb profile – the very source Agentcourse329 regards as being most accurate, so why would they not want this included? I only learned(upon closer inspection) when Agentcourse329 had pointed it out, that this was a student film made via Screenwise – the acting school they seek to be at odds with. Given I didn’t note where the film was made anywhere in the article, it’s interesting that Agentcourse329 objected to its inclusion, which can only be considered a negative bias towards the school on their part, and ‘cherry picking’ the artist’s work history. I am completely fine with this film being omitted from the filmography in the interests of adhering to a lack of source outside iMDb. If I locate a source however, it would be perfectly reasonable to re-add this down the line.

Agentcourse329 says there are no issues on their part “regarding citation formatting standard to Wikipedia which this profile is respectful of and appreciates” – Agentcourse329’s constant reverting citations to bare URLs actively refutes this. There is a clear paper trail of Agentcourse329 demonstrating no efforts to improve their knowledge on how to adequately format, and showing blatant disregard towards NUMEROUS more experienced editors who have been constantly amending their errors. Additionally, the administrator who has taken control of the page has since removed Agentcourse329’s unreliable sources – as per request from other Wikipedia editors.

When time permits, I will be requesting individual changes with the article, which have no reason not to be honoured. Meanwhile any changes Agentcourse329 is likely to request (such as changing proper citations to bare URLs, dead links, unreliable sources, American date formatting and poor sentence structure) are unlikely to be honoured.

Agentcourse329’s complaint against me – likely using AI – is a deceptive attempt to appear professional and well-written. If they genuinely wrote in this style, they would also recognise how amateurly the style of the article for Alexander Bertrand was written and formatted.

I have adequately rebutted all of Agentcourse329’s accusations, as I am completely transparent about all my Wikipedia activity. On the contrary, Agentcourse329 largely refuses to address/acknowledge any of my rational explanations, and continues to avoid explaining why they keep reverting citations to bare URLs, and adding unreliable sources. The administrator currently overseeing the page has since reverted some of Agentcourse329’s poor formatting to its correct state, by request of other editors. It remains to be seen whether Agentcourse329 will also seek to revert the administrator’s changes after the page protection has been lifted, which if so, would demonstrate their disdain for ANYONE who disagrees with their editing style, and proving they are indeed a disruptive editor and vandal.

Agentcourse329 has noted: “we would ask that this page is protected moving forwards, with Lattesandtimtams investigated (and blocked) per the above with a neutral, experienced admin and moderator handling any factual additions moving forward in the immediate term given the severe breaches of policy over a short period of time.” I am very transparent about my actions and have provided adequate explanation for my edits, while Agentcourse329 has not. I am entirely confident that any administrator investigating me would deduce that there is no grounds to block me. The article’s edit history adequately demonstrates that there have been no severe ‘breaches’ to the article on my part, whereas Agentcourse329 and their sock puppet accounts keep reverting properly sourced information and well written content to a version that does not comply with Wikipedia’s standards. The administrator who is currently overseeing the page has already reverted some of Agentcourse329’s edits to be more closely inline with the changes I had previously made (which as demonstrated in the comments will be a gradual process).

On a final note, I was not the individual who put a ‘protect’ on the page. The incredibly experienced and helpful editor who did so, agreed with me and saw a need to prevent further disruptive and amateur editing by Agentcourse329 and their associated sock puppet accounts.

I would be amenable to talking off-site with Agentcourse329, to explain anything further, if desired or agreed to, as I only seek resolution and just want to return to the enjoyable experience of making Wikipedia a more resourceful platform as a whole. Lattesandtimtams (talk) 01:41, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

As I stated in the subsection below, behavioral concerns should be taken to WP:AN/I, they should not be aired here.

Agentcourse329 is free to propose edits as you have already done below. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 02:58, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Full protection

The article is now full protected for 1 month due to a content dispute. Protection can be lifted earlier if all parties agree to it.

You do not understand what an administrator does here. An administrator's job is to preserve stability, not to get involved in content disputes to decide who is right and who is wrong. Article protection preserves stability, so that is what was done. The article content is not an administrator's concern unless the content clearly violates a policy like WP:BLP, but no specific BLP issue has been identified. There is some poor sourcing that shouldn't be there, however, such as citations to IMDB.

I will entertain edit requests for non-controversial changes. Use WP:Edit Request Wizard to guide you through the process. Otherwise, work out your disagreement here on the talk page.

Behavioral issues should be taken up at WP:AN/I, not here. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 20:59, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Edit request 1

• What I think should be changed:

  −

  (born 21 February 1990)

  +

  (Remove DOB, 1st sentence and also in the infobox)
• Why it should be changed: Not cited, per WP:DOB
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): –

Laterthanyouthink (talk) 22:36, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done, birthdate removed from infobox. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:40, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. Would you please remove it from the first sentence too? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:43, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done for sure this time. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:06, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Edit request 2

• What I think should be changed:

  −

  [[Richard Green]]

  +

  [[Richard Green (Australian actor)|Richard Green]]

• Why it should be changed: DAB link
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): –

Laterthanyouthink (talk) 22:36, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:43, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Edit request 3

• What I think should be changed:

  −

  With David Wenham stating "I thought, well, this is going to obviously succeed or fail on the strength of who they cast in the lead role, because the whole show is on this guy's shoulders, and off the top of my head I couldn't think of anybody who would be the perfect casting choice for it. But when I met Alex for the first time in the production office, I was bowled over. Here is Les in flesh and blood. He looks like Chesty Bond. In the very first read-through, I thought: 'Yep, he's got it - he's got the laconic, wry, slightly innocent delivery that Les should have. Yep, the perfect choice, and he's been a joy to work with. He's taken the opportunity with both hands and just run with it as only Les Norton would've.

  +

• Why it should be changed: Unnecessary quoting, per WP:QUOTE, puffery, etc.
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): –

References

It also has many bare urls which need cleanup, many formatting errors, and style issues. Needs an experienced editor to fix.

Laterthanyouthink (talk) 22:36, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Partly done. Outright removal wouldn't be an uncontroversial change. In the meantime, I have shortened the quotation and removed one source that didn't support it, and formatted the remaining source.

As for formatting the other references in the article, some are sources that Wikipedia should never cite, such as IMDB and betootaadvocate.com, both cited in the "early life" section. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:53, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Okay, thank you, fair enough. It definitely needs a good cleanup, but it won't be by me, as I'll be mostly off-wiki for a spell, by the time it loses its protection. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 04:44, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

I have removed the IMDB citations. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:14, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance. This definitely a good start. Lattesandtimtams (talk) 01:40, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 12 April 2026

There is an access date (for the movie dATE) for the non-existent date 32 March 2026; judging from other edits, it should say 31 March 2026. Ira Leviton (talk) 20:48, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

 Done in a revision from 30th March the ref was present with that date as the access date. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:49, 13 April 2026 (UTC)