Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input. Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem. Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Additional notes: Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases. For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead. Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

Armen Yesoyan

Armen Yesoyan (born October 29, 1980) is the Acting Director of "Environmental Project Implementation Unit" State Agency of the Ministry of Environment of the Republic of Armenia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milenakira (talk • contribs) 12:14, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Does he have an article in the Armenian Wikipedia? If not, user:Milenakira, maybe you should write one there if you think he’s notable enough. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:15, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Gabrielle Wolohojian

An IP connected to the subject has requested the removal of personal information that may be out-of-date. Other IP users keep adding the material back. In June, the IP attempted to remove the edits, but was told to take it to the talk page diff. More recently, the connected user has been posting edit requests to remove the content: diff and diff of recently added content. Similar material had been added to a related article: diff. Thanks, Stedil (talk) 04:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

So why isn't worth a mention if there are sources out there that at least say they were together in 2014? Source Snickers2686 (talk) 04:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Patrick Shyu

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Shyu Patrick Shyu

The article doxxes a YouTuber "TechLead," who is a fictional satirical YouTuber persona, not to be confused with the individual. The article is primarily a negative hit piece. The YouTuber "TechLead" is a fictional character who makes exaagerated claims based not on fact to gain attention. It is libel to take unbased claims from a fictional character and to then attribute them to a doxxed individual. Wikipedia should leave YouTuber drama to YouTube, rather than assuming everything they see on social media is real. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techleadhd (talk • contribs)

• There is no "doxxing" since reliable sources already identify this character by his real name. I see this article is now at AfD, so may be deleted. As a general observation, it's amazing how many times people complain when called out on their unpleasant behaviour, though. Black Kite (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
• Patrick Shyu identifies himself as TechLead on his personal websites offering training courses: [1] [2] [3]. Note that the bio on each page links to the YouTube channel in question without mentioning anything about satire, and the YouTube page links to Shyu's business pages without any mention of satire either. I don't think the "fictional character" explanation holds weight, personally. White 720 (talk) 19:32, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

  Clickbait videos on YouTube should not be presumed to be fact, especially when published under a pseudonym. I think Wikipedia should draw a line here, instead of publishing articles based on clickbait. "TechLead" is a fictional character who intentionally presents controversial viewpoints for attention & discussion - not to be confused with any individual person. Also, the article seems to only cherrypick negative points - I don't see the purpose of this, as it is clearly not biographical or unbiased in nature, but rather serves as a hitpiece to defame/harm a YouTuber's real name & reputation. YouTubers have a lot of haters by the nature of the industry, but Wikipedia should leave YouTuber drama to YouTube. When there are real factual news publications (such as Reuters, AP, Bloomberg, etc.,) and not gossip publications (like Business Insider) that publish fact-checked articles about a YouTuber, then a non-biased biographical entry may be merited that properly summarizes both the pros & cons of an individual. It's stunning that even though the YouTuber "TechLead" amassed popularity to over 1 million subscribers by delivering value, the Wikipedia entry is almost entirely negative remarks on a 2-3 controversial videos out of the 300+ videos he made - obviously written by haters in an attempt to cause personal harm & harassment. Techleadhd (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

  Then he should discuss that with youtube, we can't ignore the information cause he doesn't like it. Are you the individual? You were also asked at the AfD discussion if you have some relation to the subject of the article, given the similar user name.That is a conflict of interest if you are. Oaktree b (talk) 22:24, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Techleadhd stated on his user talk page that he is associated with the content creator. Exactly how wasn't divulged. But a clear COI. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:08, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

To be transparent, I am the person in question and am raising the concern that this article destroys my chances of job employment & future prospects. The YouTube channel is published under a pseudonym as a fictitious persona. This is done in order to disassociate the satire, attention-grabbing clickbait, and controversial topics that I sometimes challenge myself to approach on YouTube from my real identity. I think it would be more accurate to publish this post under the pseudonym "TechLead," rather than attributing a fictional persona with my real name. At the minimum, it should be clarified that this is just an on-stage character and his words do not necessarily reflect my own personal beliefs. I don't believe it is a conflict of interest to correct the misconception that a YouTuber character = real person. This is obvious for anyone who has ever met a YouTuber, as they're quite different people in real life and often "normal" and pretty nice people. I'm astonished to see someone who didn't get the satire (which is understandable as it can be subtle) but to then publish a Wikipedia article about that under my real name. Techleadhd (talk) 07:24, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

If this is so concerning for you, why do you make it clear that Techlead and Shyu are the same person on various webpages, e.g. here? I am thinking we are dealing with a troll here. Lard Almighty (talk) 07:48, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

The page you're referring to is a training program, where I break out of character and refer to myself by my real name. The content is also entirely different and educational, compared to the satire & clickbait on YouTube. It is like saying "Heath Ledger is 'The Joker' and in this program will teach you how to become an actor." Let me summarize my points:

• There is a difference between author and fictional character. Most YouTube videos are authored & acted by the same person due to budget constraints. I play the fictional character "TechLead," acting as a highly exaggerated version of myself, hence the pseudonym. On rare occasion, I will break out of character but it is simply inaccurate to think that these 2 are the same people, and to claim for example that "Heath Ledger said he wanted to bomb a hospital." TechLead is a show about a stereotypical arrogant "tech bro" character, where every line is scripted. It is subtle like a reality show but generally fictional in nature.
• Wikipedia should leave YouTuber drama to YouTube. The defamatory claims against 'TechLead' are often made by other clout-chasing YouTubers who will say anything to gain views. It is a world of clickbait. Under the clause of "non-notable person," the article should be removed because most YouTubers are really not notable and only relevant for their 15 minutes of fame.
• The article breaks NPOV (non-biased point of view) clause. It is obviously written by a few "haters" in negative light. This is clear because the article constantly refers to 'Patrick Shyu,' rather than 'TechLead' in an effort to defame. If the article were trying to be useful & informative, it would be titled under the more commonly recognized YouTube channel "TechLead." Further, the article is nearly purely negative yet the channel clearly has demonstrated popularity with over 1 million subscribers. It cherrypicks a few unbased allegations made by other YouTubers & gossip, but with no real factual sources. The article is clearly non-neutral and serves no other purpose than to harass & defame.

YouTubers are pretty nice & kind people in real life, not over-the-top characters as portrayed on-camera. They typically don't respond to 'hate' because haters are part of the industry. I believe a line is crossed when that hate shows up on Wikipedia and breaks the fictional character reaching into real identities, as that can cause reputational harm. Techleadhd (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, "reputational harm" does tend to occur if you post multiple misogynistic comments on Twitter for the whole world to read. Who knew? Black Kite (talk) 17:26, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

To provide context, the tweets were deleted and apologized for. The Wikipedia article never mentions this. The original intent of the tweet was that "women should not be programmers," but this was misinterpreted to think that women were the problem, rather than the programming industry being the problem. In reality, it was a "clickbaity" way to support women by drawing attention to how hostile the programming industry is towards mothers (and fathers too). A reworded tweet "the programming industry doesn't do enough for mothers" wouldn't have gained as much attention. The fictional character name is used for such controversial remarks (and oftentimes with exaagerated prose) to start a discussion, though I would never even approach such a topic under my real name. Historically, authors would often pose controversial ideas expressed through fictional characters, and through that achieve positive change in society. Therefore in reality I actually heavily support women in tech, although this viewpoint is narratively reversed in the "TechLead" character to make a point about how tech does not support mothers enough. Politics aside, I believe Wikipedia to not be the platform to memorialize clickbait. Techleadhd (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

It's clear that your tweets about women in tech were deleted, but not as clear that you apologized for them. (To the contrary, this news article says that you pushed back against your critics, telling them to "get into Google first" before calling you sexist.) Do you have a self-published or reliable third-party source that contains your apology? Also, is your Twitter account written by you, or is it by the supposed fictional character "TechLead"? White 720 (talk) 22:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

On a general level, I don't believe Wikipedia should be the platform on which to debate YouTubers on the validity of clickbait, and to demand for clickbait to be explained to them or suffer the repercussions of having it associated with their doxxed real names. Obviously, even Wikipedia editors use pseudonyms and understandably many people separate identities online. The Twitter account for TechLead is also made as such, and it should be clear that in many cases it isn't even always a single person behind an account or the script of a video. Many YouTubers use ghost-writers who help with scripts. TechLead is a fictional character operated under an LLC - an exaagerated character made to gain views. While many do not realize, YouTube is more of a business entity and not an individual.

Now regarding your question specifically, that article is from Business Insider, which is not the most reputable reporting. They are also in it for views. If you're seeking another apology, I am happy to issue an official one right here on behalf of the character "TechLead is sorry and retracts all statements." The "get into Google first" phrase was subtle satire, perhaps a poorly made joke whose tone could not be understood through text alone, but it was sarcasm. Twitter is not the most expressive platform. In either case, whether you accept the apology or not on an individual level, I believe Wikipedia should (a) not associate YouTuber characters with real identities and (b) should not be the place to debate whether clickbait is real or not, instead relying on harder facts. Techleadhd (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

"To provide context, the tweets were deleted and apologized for," you said. I asked where your apology was, and you offered a retraction without any indication about what you were sorry for, other than for "all statements". Considering that the TechLead character (which I associate with you, whether you like it or not) posted a video last month called "why Kanye West is right", which has been condemned for its antisemitic material and suggestion that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion might be real, I'm not really ready to accept a generic apology offered in a Wikipedia thread. White 720 (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the "Kanye West is right" video, it was actually an attempt to dispel anti-Semitism by exploring extremist beliefs more deeply rather than simply casting them aside. Why do they believe what they do, and how can we address those at the source? The original working title was a less juicy "Is Kanye West right?" but that wouldn't have gotten views. The video was later removed in any case. I occasionally challenge myself to tackle controversial topics - not all of them come out well but occasionally some do. The material is published under a fictional character, often in an outlandish tone of voice. While you may believe that the content is anti-Semitical (from the clickbaity title), it is actually the opposite in intent. Some of the material simply presents a counterpoint for perspective, and may not reflect my own personal beliefs. I'm not sure if it makes sense for me to sit here and explain each video and the satire underneath... happy to do so if you want though.

Your statement above seems to indicate a non-neutral point of view, as you harbor negative opinions for TechLead and are using Wikipedia as a way to punish by misattributing the fictional character's statements to a real person. Your refusal to accept an apology indicates you rather believe what you want (ie., that TechLead is a horrible person), even though he has clarified these statements. On that note, the other points in the article are mistaken too. For instance, the AlgoPro episode was amicably settled privately and much more complex (only one side was ever told). The Tren Black criticism on the online course was mostly made up, as he never even enrolled in the course. Many points in the article are simply untrue or lack full context. Most YouTubers generally don't respond to haters, who are usually chasing clout.

My suggestion would be if you have an issue with the character, to make a few videos on YouTube criticizing the character 'TechLead.' Doing this on Wikipedia and attacking the doxxed name seems an inappropriate use of the platform. Techleadhd (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Casting aspersions on an editor's behavior, such as by stating without evidence that I "harbor negative opinions for TechLead", is discouraged by Wikipedia policy. If you would like to include additional information in the article about you, and a conflict of interest would interfere with that, please suggest revisions and sources on the article's talk page. White 720 (talk) 01:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

The sourcing for those tweets isn't very strong, Business Insider isn't always a great source, and on the reliable sources noticeboard here there are some mixed views on The Quint, with some suggestion that it shouldn't be used for notability. Some of the other sources in that article also seem of questionable reliability, such as Candor and Reclaim the Net.

So I think given the contentiousness of the claims and the weak sourcing, there do seem to be grounds for removing some or all of this content from the article Tristario (talk) 00:46, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German

Several recent edits from new users are adding the name of the suspect to Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German despite consensus on the article being talkpage to apply WP:BLPCRIME and not name the suspect. The most recent addition said this is in the edit summary name has been widely released in all sources about the murders and has not been withheld by law enforcement, therefore it is not a violation of any Wikipedia policy to list his name as the suspect charged. Furthermore, the recent Stockton serial killer suspects name is on the Wiki page for those killings, so the same should apply here to keep Wikipedia consistent. Not being familiar with this case nor US media I have no idea if this a valid reason to name the accused, whose trial is due to start in March 2023, or whether the name should be omitted until after the trial, assuming there is a conviction. Nthep (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Your reversion was correct. Reinstatement would require consensus from a discussion that BLPCRIME should not apply in this situation. Not a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Mohamed Said (actor)

Mohamed Said (actor) gives exactly one reference, which does not actually state his birth date, while the article includes it from God knows where. The rest of the article also seems to be almost directly translated from the Swedish source, but that's a different issue entirely.Fermiboson (talk) 19:51, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I had a search through swedish news sources and couldn't find enough I think to justify notability, so this article should probably be deleted. I've added a notability template for now though Tristario (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Bruce W. White

Diff [4] here contains potentially private/sensitive info without source. Request redaction Fermiboson (talk) 21:25, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

You appear to be correct, so I went to WP:Oversight and requested redaction. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Ian Macpherson (comedian)

I'm Ian Macpherson. My account was hacked in June 2022 by someone with a grudge. This includes scurrilous references to Stewart Lee, my partner, and I appear to be from Yemen. Can you remove all changes in this period and revert to original text. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.201.16 (talk) 12:04, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Ian Macpherson (comedian) currently appears to be in good shape. All the vandalism took place on June 19, 2022. Although you are discouraged from making substantive additions to the article, removing obvious vandalism is perfectly fine. Cullen328 (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Lambert C Boissiere, III

You have included his father's time on the New Orleans City Council as being his service. You even note in the body of the article that it was his father who served on the council, yet it is in the summary column. Please correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.151.33.254 (talk) 19:56, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Removed. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:37, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Pavel Naumov

An editor added content claiming accusations of "sexual harassment". This is a false claim. Naumov was accused of harassment for sending work emails on weekends and having longer-than-needed research conversations with a co–author, but the word "sexual harassment" is not used by the accuser (who was the provost of the college). Yet, multiple reverts are bringing the defamatory and highly-charged words "sexual harassment" back without providing any references.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavel_Naumov — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.146.193.196 (talk) 09:37, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I removed any information that is cited solely to court documents as a pretty clear violation of WP:BLPPRIMARY. Such info needs to be found in reliable secondary-sources. Zaereth (talk) 10:16, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I didn't realise those documents are unnacceptable as refs. - Roxy the dog 10:20, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what words the accuser uses; what matters is the words WP:RS use. Court documents are indeed not RS, but this has been covered by other sources e.g. the Baltimore Sun. Lard Almighty (talk) 10:25, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

The Sun website is unavailable in my country. They should keep up, as we left the EU. - Roxy the dog 10:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Nothing to do with leaving the EU. It's GDPR which is UK law. Lard Almighty (talk) 11:10, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

The Caroll County Times sourced says that it was alleged Naumov stalked a colleague. I have added this to the article, because this seems to be adequately sourced. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:49, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Is Pavel Naumov notable? Cullen328 (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not sure. His citation record on google scholar [5] looks extremely weak to me, but obviously citation counts vary widely between different fields and I'm not sure whatever Naumov's discipline is a high or low citation field. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Computer science tends to be a low-citation discipline, but as a former associate professor, he very likely falls short of WP:NPROF. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I looked some more at the page history, and the page started out as being about him as an athlete, and then evolved over time into him being an academic. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Are the academic and the athlete even the same person? The birthdates of the two are completely different. [6]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks like someone changed the birth year, by a lot, when it started to be about the academic: [7] and [8]. The changes were made progressively by a series of IPs over a few days. Maybe AfD is in order. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I've made a post at WP:AN Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Questions_regarding_suspected_article_hijacking. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Currently, the page cites this source for his date of birth: [9]. Clearly, it fails verification. From the current version of the page, this is his web page bio: [10]. From an old version of the page, there is, instead, this: [11]. I'm not sure, but it sort of looks like two different people. I tend to think the academic fails WP:NPROF, but perhaps (I'm not sure) the athlete passes WP:NSPORT. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Given that the athlete was once the National Indoor Champion (Russia), I think that person probably passes WP:NTRACK. Perhaps the best course of action is to roll the page back to the stub it was before it was changed to the academic, and leave it at that. Certainly, that would make the BLP issues vanish instantly. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

There would still be mess to cleanup with the wikidata entry [12] and such. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, and I just looked at what the rollback would be ([13]), and it would have to be updated with his first-place finish. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

NSPORT requires subjects to meet GNG, and to always have at least one SIGCOV source cited in the article, so we shouldn't restore the page to the athlete's biography unless/until GNG is established. JoelleJay (talk) 02:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how maintaining this article hijack is tenable either. I think probably the best solution is a history split and have both articles taken to AfD. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:20, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I just did a web search about the runner. I couldn't find any SIGCOV about him, just stats, and I'm no longer entirely sure that there is any real coverage of a first-place showing. I'm no longer thinking that he passes NTRACK, and maybe that page should also go to AfD. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: Did you check the Russian coverage using his cyrillic name? Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

No. (And I'll leave that to other editors.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Here's a link to his bio at (I assume) the Russian Wikipedia: [14]. The cites there look to be stats pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Along the same lines as Cullen, Naumov falls under WP:NPF. What is even weirder is that all the allegations come from him while the school is silent. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

The school, as a former employer, probably does not comment in public about personnel matters. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Note: I have moved the underlying edit history for the athlete to Pavel Naumov (long-distance runner). Cheers! BD2412 T 03:28, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

The article about the academic is now at AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pavel Naumov (logician) the titles have been messed with again and Pavel Naumov is now the title of the athlete article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I've now nominated the athelete article for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pavel Naumov. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:38, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Sam Brinton - only arrested but that's been put in the article under the section heading "Criminal history"

Doug Weller talk 16:01, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I've changed the heading title to "legal issues", no opinion on the content. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this incident should be in the lead section but I also have no clue on the depth of coverage on this person outside this incident. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

"Deputy Assistant Secretary of Spent Fuel and Waste Disposition in the Office of Nuclear Energy" does not seem like the sort of position that normally makes a person notable, nor do criminal charges of stealing a suitcase. Cullen328 (talk) 01:50, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

The sourcing for this isn't very good, this seems to be largely covered by unreliable and right wing non-mainstream publications. I just removed some other poorly sourced content from this article, which should not have been in there Tristario (talk) 03:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I have now replaced the sources for this with more reliable sources Tristario (talk) 03:21, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

No, the position wouldn't pass WP:NPOL (and Brinton's a career civil servant rather than a political appointee, so NPOL is dubious grounds here anyway). But, the individual appears to also be a high-profile figure who's been given significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources in the context of multiple events. The article subject seems notable to me, though the article generally could be expanded if someone wants to put in the work. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Birth name sourced to single source on Gypsy Taub

Two editors (Cullen328 and Weazie) have recently argued in favor of including a birth name in the article Gypsy Taub that is only found in a single source from 2013 ("Oxana Chornenky" from SF Gate [15]). A defunct website that may have been under control of the article subject previously had a slightly differently spelled name ("Oxana Chornenkaya" [16]). The article subject appears to have been in the news a lot recently in relation to the Paul Pelosi attack, and those articles generally use the name "Oxane Taub". I cannot find any other article at all that contains either of the claimed birth names, which seems odd given the recent level of news interest in her. However, neither of the other editors appear interested in including the "Oxane Taub" name in the article, but are very insistent on including the claimed birth name from the SF Gate source in the lead (although not in the main article body). I haven't been editing much the past year, and maybe there have been shifts in the general BLP policies, so any advice or guidance would be appreciated. Thanks. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

This is incorrect. I have zero interest in keeping the "Oxane Taub" name out of the article. I want to include her birth name which was given on her own archived website (she is in prison) and also by SFGate, a reliable source, in 2013. Chornenkaya is just the feminine form of Chornenky. There is nothing at all unusual about this with Russian names. She is a bit player in the story about the attack on Paul Pelosi. The most in depth reporting about her past was written by Sam Whiting of SFGate in 2013. I see no reason to doubt his reporting. Cullen328 (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The SF Gate article looks like a very good source for this particular information. It's a well-written article and not at all like op/ed or tabloidish material. I understand your argument, Wally, about not wanting it to come from a single source, but the nature of the source, being as it comes from a direct interview with the subject, strongly suggests that giving the name is not any kind of a privacy issue for her, and I see no reason to doubt the source. As for the spelling difference, that could very well be just a difference in naming conventions, like Henry is to Henriette. Or it could be easily explainable as there is often no standard spelling when translating names that come from a language not based on the Greek alphabet, for example, Muammar Gaddafi (Gadhafi? Qaddafi? Khadafi? Qadadhafi? Who knows?) in which case it may just be prudent to list them all. Doesn't look like a BLP violation. Zaereth (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

As I said at Talk: Gypsy Taub, Nikita Khrushchev had three daughters and their surnames were Khruscheva. Yuri Andropov had two daughters and their surnames were Andropova. Boris Yeltsin had one daughter, and her maiden name was Yeltsina. There is nothing at all unusual or surprising about Russian surnames having masculine and feminine variations. It is commonplace. Cullen328 (talk) 01:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, although I don't know much about Russian names, that's fully understandable, sort of like Leif Erikson and his sister Freydis Eriksdottir. Whatever the case, it doesn't look like a BLP vio. Zaereth (talk) 01:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Zaereth, for your response. That makes sense to me. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:57, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Heidrun E. Mader

It sounds as if the person wrote the article about herself. Who else would call a received graduate scholarship "among the most prestigious" ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorResolutus (talk • contribs) 21:56, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I see no indication that this article was written by the subject. There are usually telltale signs of an autobiography; ways that people write when talking about themselves that are very difficult to hide unless you really know what to look for. The way they use prepositions and other cues for spatial orientation, for one example. None of that is present here. However, it is possible that the article was written by someone with close ties to the subject, but to know that for sure you really have to compare what we have in the article to what is found in the sources.

That said, the article needs a lot of work. There is some puffery in places, and some bad grammar/poor punctuation in many others. Lots of MOS problems. The "life" section reads like a resume, while the "work" section sounds like it's promoting her book. I notice we only have three sources. Five are all the same one (a university profile), but the other two are book reviews, so I'm not sure about notability, but those two reviews are probably enough to keep it from getting through AFD. Oddly enough, we don't give any of those reviews in the article text, which would actually be interesting for the reader, but instead they are used to promote her book. All in all, I'd say it needs a lot of TLC. Zaereth (talk) 22:42, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Jess Dixon

Jess Dixon

Provincial politician in Ontario, Canada. Would appreciate some eyes from anyone willing. I'm trying not to edit-war with someone really committed to trying to frame this politician as controversial. It's my belief that because of BLP's policies, particularly undue weight, that this section should be deleted, but maybe it could work with a re-write. There's a bit of back and forth in the talk section. Previous attempts by myself and others to address tone and accuracy have been undone by the creator of the section. Open to feedback! And I appreciate folks looking into this given that it's not the most exciting biography page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dingith (talk • contribs) 15:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Article on Randall "Tex" Cobb

Sense of humor

Randall "Tex" Cobb was known and acknowedged for a very dry self deprecating sense of humor. This rare sense of humor reflected a distinct intellect and reflected well on his intelligence and awareness of the world within which he lived earning the respect from men he had beaten and been beaten by while boxing.

Examples include the Johnny Carson show https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZ2HHcFlwAo and this one at a roast for Larry Holmes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-yiaczZWFQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.45.39.11 (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

This is not a noticeboard matter. Please go to the article's talk page and make your suggestions there. Thanks! Dumuzid (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

There needs to be a reliable source that supports this otherwise it would be original research Tristario (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Najib Razak

@Hee Leong: has been making extensive removals and overhauling content on the article for Najib Razak, without discussing it. They've also added some copyrighted content. @Hamba57: first brought this up on the talk page some time ago. This contributors major edits almost never include any edit descriptions. For instance: here and here. Some diffs were found to have included copyrighted content by @Diannaa: - see at the bottom of here. Some of the additions also violate WP:POV and WP:BLP - e.g. here. I have tried to ping the user on both the article talk page, their talk page and my own, but there has been no reciprocation to discuss this. I hope that someone else can intervene to avoid having to undo or monitor any ongoing efforts to overhaul this highly important and controversial article without any discussion. Thanks. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the one link about BLP issues are in fact BLP issues and should have been reverted. The user likes to add a lot of puffery, it seems. Negative puffery, but still just adjectives meant to puff up the article. However, that's about the only thing that relates to this noticeboard. Most of what you're describing is a "problem" or "disruptive" user, which requires admin intervention in most cases. Where you really need to take this is someplace where all the admins hang out, like WP:ANI. Zaereth (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Just a note to say I have never encountered the concept of "negative puffery," but it certainly seems a useful one. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

It's like negative energy. Most people haven't heard of it either, but it's the core principle of inflation theory, relativity, and quantum mechanics. By negative puffery, I mean things like "most controversial figure of the 21st century", "infamous for its corruption", etc. Positive or negative, it's just filler. Zaereth (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Arcahaeoindris, I notice you took my advice and brought this to ANI. The next piece of advice I'll give you is that ANI is a place for dealing with behavioral issues, so you'd do much better to be a little more specific to that point rather than simply copy/pasting this message there. ANI gets a lot of traffic, so don't expect people to just start digging. You need to show a good number of diffs that establish a pattern of disruptive behavior, and from what I've seen there are plenty to choose from. Just the WP:I didn't hear that behavior is in itself not conducive to a collaborative endeavor. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 07:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Michael Brescia and Andreas Strassmeir

The Wikipedia bios of two apparently still living persons highlight allegations of their involvement in a terrorist attack for which they have never been criminally charged. While the Aryan Republican Army does have some notoriety even apart from this, Michael Brescia and Andreas Strassmeir almost certainly would not have individual articles if not for this aspect of it. The Michael Brescia article has existed since 2006, and this seems never to have been raised. DefThree (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I thought this would get more of a response by now. I don't know whether these individuals count as public figures, but either way, they were never even charged let alone convicted in connection with the bombing. Per WP:BLPCRIME, is it really OK for Wikipedia to highlight such allegations? DefThree (talk) 18:26, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:CRIME it looks like these articles should be merged into Oklahoma City Bombing, although I notice their names aren't even mentioned on the page of the main event (which makes it seem even more questionable that they should have their own dedicated pages). I haven't looked at it much but I agree these articles seem questionable Tristario (talk) 05:59, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd actually be inclined to merge Brescia to Aryan Republican Army, where he is discussed. It's not clear whether there's anywhere to merge Strassmeier, but I've deleted the section in his article on the OKC bombing as incredibly tenuous scandalmongering Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd agree with that merging. I'm not sure what to do with Andreas Strassmeir, he does seem to have some notability, but it's almost entirely in connection with the Oklahoma City Bombing (and his connection and involvement in it seems speculative). I'd probably be inclined to support deleting it per WP:CRIME unless anyone has any other thoughts Tristario (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Juan Branco

There is a SPA which claims that what a lawyer of a person accused of rape says to his defense should not be on Wikipedia. --Delfield (talk) 18:06, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

The SPA is doing a POV pushing. Please check that page. --Delfield (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Please look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juan_Branco&diff=1125392621&oldid=1125373731 . It is not written anywhere in the sources that the woman reported "abuse", "coerce" and "threat". What is written is just false. --Delfield (talk) 08:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Rachel Joyce (writer)

Her mother is Myra Joyce and her father is David Attenborough.

Her mother is Myra Joyce and her father is David Attenborough. She is married to actor Paul Venables, and lives in Gloucestershire with her husband and four ...

Her father was Martin Joyce

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2180333/Rachel-Joyce-My-darling-stoical-Dad--real-hero-novel-win-Booker.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6081:7700:E09E:2D69:F25E:C11:DB36 (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Reverted the vandalism, which was only added on the 29th of November. Thanks for notifying, though you could have easily removed the vandalism yourself. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:27, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Kanye West

There are some active discussions on the talk page that would benefit from broader participation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:54, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Robin L. Garrell

There is currently a campus issue and an IP editor is edit warring to add it sourced only to the google doc of a circulating petition. More eyes are needed. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I blocked the IP range from the article for a week, and tried to explain the issue in a bit more detail on their talk page. I also watchlisted the page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Hunter Biden laptop controversy

The article begins with the unsourced sentence: "The Hunter Biden laptop controversy involves a laptop computer that belonged to Hunter Biden". We need a source for this claim, so our readers can check our work, but a search hasn't yet produced a good one.

We of course have lots of sources that literally use the phrase "Hunter Biden's laptop" or similar verbiage, but none that feature an unabiguous, straightforward assertion the laptop is known to belong to Biden. In contrast, we do have sources saying the laptop lacks a clear chain of custody and it remains a possibility that the laptop was a copy, not a device owned by Biden.

CBS News recently released a major story in which it characterized the device as "what's believed to be Hunter Biden's laptop". I have one source that says "almost no one disputes" authenticity, which is pretty damn close to meeting WP:V, but not close enough.

Can someone find a good source that verifies the currently-unsourced sentence? Alternatively, what would be the most appropriate way to fix the first sentence so that it's Verifiable? Feoffer (talk) 03:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The easy fix would be to say "involves a laptop computer that purportedly belonged to Hunter Biden." which clearly follows all sources. Masem (t) 04:01, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

"...purportedly..." kinda reads like "alleged", though. GoodDay (talk) 05:36, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I read through the RFC, and the whole problem is that editors appeared to be talking WP P&G as "word of God". Yes, in many situations we don't want to cast doubt on fact by our novel inclusion of "alleged", "purported" or whatever, but when the sources themselves are the ones to do that (and we should be looking at those that are more recent than around the time of the original NYPost story), we are not creating the issue. But that RFC seemed to be "won over" by the insistence that "alleged" is a Bad Word we should not be using, rather than actual consideration of the sources. Masem (t) 13:13, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

An RFC on this matter was closed in September 2022, with the decision being that the laptop was owned by H. Biden. A challenge to the decision was made at WP:AN & was turned down. Are we going to respect the RFC decision or not? GoodDay (talk) 04:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

As I pointed out, the RFC was a non-admin closure. I didn't realize because they didn't disclose with {{Non-admin closure}}. The list of "inappropriate closures" includes The outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial, which this clearly is. Just on that, yes, we need to discuss this again. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:30, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps another challenge of the RFC decision (at WP:AN), would save time. Otherwise, the dispute between editors will be non-stop. GoodDay (talk) 04:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Muboshgu The WP:NAC was noted and a much-discussed point in the subsequent request for close review at ANI. After extensive review from all sorts of admins and experienced editors, the close result of that discussion was that the close of this RFC was not bad enough to warrant overturning. Even if the RFC was not decisive, the subsequent discussions should still have weight.

If new editors bring in new opinions, or significant new sourcing shows up, I think a new RFC may be appropriate. But that doesn't really seem to be the case at current. I think the best course of action is to find some compromise phrasing that doesn't directly violate the spirit of the RFC PhotogenicScientist (talk) 20:47, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that it was brought up in the ANI. I clearly didn't read the whole thing. Nevermind that then. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

GoodDay, please, stop misrepresenting the RfC, which was singularly, explicitly, and exclusively about whether to use the word "alleged" in the first sentence of the lead. SPECIFICO talk 04:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Open up a new one, then. An RFC that will put an end to the continuing dispute over whether or not H. Biden ever owned the laptop-in-question. Then request that only an administrator can close it. PS - Year ago, I did recommend that only administrators should close RFCs. GoodDay (talk) 04:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I've opened a discussion about the lead on the talk page, with some proposals. Hopefully some previously uninvolved editors can join us there and offer input. Namely I've proposed a new first sentence that would avoid any controversy regarding the current wording. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The new lede sentence resolves all of my concerns. Great job! Feoffer (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Having lost an RfC, this is forum-shopping.

When reliable sources reported the story in the New York Post, they reported all the information as an allegation. However, as the story went forward, reliable sources began referring to the laptop as Hunter Biden's.

We had an RfC where it was agreed that we should not use the term alleged because it expressed doubt Having lost the RfC, an editor who voted in favor of "alleged" decided to use a synonym for alleged.

While the RfC was a non-administrative close, there's no policy that says an administrative close is any more authoritative. The correct approach would have been to challenge the close rather than ignore the consensus of editors.

The claim that "Hunter Biden's laptop" did not necessarily belong to him is bewildering. In the English language, adding "'s" means that something belongs to the subject. If you prefer, we could change "a laptop computer that belonged to Hunter Biden" to "Hunter Biden's laptop."

In fact there is no question the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden. The only doubt comes from Hunter Biden who said he was not sure the laptop belonged to him: there "could be a laptop out there that was stolen from" him.

Anyway, there is no BLP issue. The information is reliably sourced, not contested by the subject and is not an allegation of wrong-doing. It is not against the law in the State of Delaware to own a laptop.

TFD (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

And who might you be accusing of forum shopping? OP was not around at the time of the September discussion or RfC. SPECIFICO talk 22:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The sources presented in the RFC clearly showed the key RSes split on the ownership, though there was far less dismissal about the possibility that the laptop could be Hunter's. As there is no universal agreement among the major sources, presenting it as fact in Wikivoice is inappropriate, but the new wording still captures the fundamental point. And the entire story around that laptop is a BLP matter, in addition to an AP2 matter. Masem (t) 23:07, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Mentioning non-notable non-public lover of family nihilist?

I'm having a (short, civil, nothing daunting) discussion with @Jack Sebastian at Talk:Watts family murders#Watts' mistress' mention about including the full name of the lover. His argument is that she has been covered multiple times in RS over the years since the murders, which is true. In May People covered the release of a police interview she'd done several years ago and mentioned her name. (I'll let him comment if he thinks I've misstated his points.)

My concern is that she's not a public figure and most of the coverage (maybe all recent coverage?) has been involuntary. She's not doing interviews, she may have changed her name to avoid attention. The inclusion of her name IMO doesn't add anything for the reader, and I feel like it has the potential for doing harm to this living person. She's literally known only for a single event she wasn't actually even involved in. She was just the apparent motive, and knowing her name doesn't change that for the reader, so I don't see any benefit to including the name, vs. the huge potential for damage if we do include.

At any rate, we could use another set of eyes. Thanks! Valereee (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

If the person isn't notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article, then naming them is absolutely pointless for the average reader. A name without a face is meaningless filler. It'd be just as meaningless if we called her Jane Doe, so unless there is an aricle to go look up there is no real value in including the name. This really goes for anybody, be it friends, family members, spouses, children, parents, coworkers, etc. Nobody knows these people, and the average reader just doesn't give a rat's ass. In these cases, a generic descriptor will work just fine.

In the case where naming the person has the potential to cause harm, we should definitely not name them. There is no reason to, but a good reason not to. Those friends and family members have a right to their privacy, and there is no overriding public need to know this name, then we should not name them. This is especially true for children, who cannot even consent. We shouldn't name victims of crimes, which would just victimize them more, and by the same token we shouldn't name someone's mistress or love affair unless the name is somehow vital for the reader to understand the story, and more than 99% of the time it's not. The argument that we should simply because it's found in reliable sources doesn't hold water. Just because we can doesn't explain why we should. We don't give all info provided by any source. We summarize the sources, which means cutting out all the unnecessary filler and whittling it down to the nitty gritty, and if there is no compelling reason to name someone then we should leave it out and use generic descriptors instead. Zaereth (talk) 20:59, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia editor abuse of power and repeated vandalism

Hello, I am writing to you concerned about Wikipedia editor Wes Sideman (whom I have linked to below). He has committed multiple counts of vandalism and seems to have an obsession with this television character “Chad Johnson” from the TV show “The Bachelorette” and his Wikipedia page. He continues to change the notoriety of Chad Johnson from his TV shows, to his arrest records attempting to defame him. Those charges were dropped and as you can see in the video below, his girlfriend admits no assault happened. Apparently Wes Sideman knows more than the two people actually involved in the incident. Wes Sideman also continues to remove any remotely good press about Chad from the Wikipedia page. For some reason Wes has been monitoring and harassing this Wikipedia page for over two years now. If you have time, I would ask or suggest that you look into doing something about this Wes Sideman moderator using an abuse of power on Wikipedia. It is my request that you block Wes Sideman from the ability to continue to abuse his editorial power on this page. Please ensure that he can no longer remove positive articles, add false negative information, and generally continue his vandalism of this page. Thank you.

Examples of Wes Sideman’s edits - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1116808783 Wes Sideman’s page - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Wes_sideman&action=view Chad Johnson’s Wikipedia - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chad_Johnson_(TV_personality) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.192.116.74 (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Wes sideman Valereee (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2022 (UTC)