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.

Sydney Sweeney

We're getting a whole lot of new accounts trying to override the RfC consensus not to discuss her voter registration. I've done a 3rd revert because WP:3RRNO generally allows that to protect a BLP page but I really don't like even the appearance of edit warring and would appreciate some other page watchers. Simonm223 (talk) 19:54, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have done two actions:

Protected "Sydney Sweeney": Extending protection do to wholesale disregard for Talk:Sydney Sweeney/Archive 1#RfC: Sydney Sweeney's political party affiliation ([Edit=Require extended confirmed access] (expires 20:31, 22 January 2026 (UTC)) [Move=Require extended confirmed access] (expires 20:31, 22 January 2026 (UTC))
Configured pending changes settings for Sydney Sweeney: Extending protection do to wholesale disregard for Talk:Sydney Sweeney/Archive 1#RfC: Sydney Sweeney's political party affiliation [Auto-accept: require "autoconfirmed" permission] (expires 20:31, 22 April 2026 (UTC))

Peaceray (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did I really spell due as do? Oh, well... Peaceray (talk) 20:35, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you sincerely. Simonm223 (talk) 20:36, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Fuentes Template Dispute

There is presnently a dispute about whether the Fascism template is appropriate for the Nick Fuentes page. This BLP is principally known for a far-right podcast that regularly engages in holocaust denial and he is regularly referred to in the press as a neo-nazi. Additional views at user talk appreciated. Simonm223 (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article doesn't mention fascism, and he's already got a pretty hefty set of templates at the bottom there. There's this source in the article calling the group he quasi-leads fascist, and he's labeled as a neo-nazi. There's already templates for the Jan 6 attacks, alt-right, white nationalism, and manosphere, all of which seem a bit more on-point. Is the fascism template adding anything in this case? I don't think the question is "are neo-nazis close enough to nazis to fall under the fascist umbrella?", but rather "does adding another template at the bottom contribute much?" I don't think there's any argument to be made that the inclusion would make him look any worse than being called a neo-nazi white nationalist. Including it wouldn't be a BLP problem. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that removing this template is a POV push. Simonm223 (talk) 22:22, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI... as an aside, an interesting argument has emerged in recent years suggesting that "fascism" might not be the correct term for this phenomenon. I agree, however, that in the case of Fuentes and many others, fascism appears to be the right term. But there is an argument (that I've been meaning to address, but got too busy to do so) that other terms might be more appropriate and informative. And I say this as someone who has used the term in many new articles. Conversely, I've only recently discovered that the term was used similarly in the 1960s and 1970s to warn about the anti-democratic impulse brought on by emphasizing the value of individualism over and above community. In this inclusive critique, it was said that both the people on the left and the right (which I was surprised to find) were in danger of promoting fascism due to the decline of group-oriented thinking and political policies. I'm still pursuing this angle in two articles right now that I'm working on at the moment. Viriditas (talk) 22:49, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

President George W Bush was called a "fascist" as a political jab, as a way to convince people not to vote for him. It was an insult, not an accurate description of his politics, and his article doesn't include "fascist" in it, even though we could source it in contemporary opinion articles. That's how long the term has been used that way. Modern news are no longer clearly opinion vs neutral reporting, so you've got a lot of opinion in regular reporting now. On Wikipedia, it really should be reserved for people who are actually fascists.

It's a "boy who called wolf" type thing - it's so over used that when someone is called that, I assume they are biased and it's not actually true, without specific evidence. So, it's better to describe the evidence then just use the label. |

There was an author who was praising another author at a convention, called him "coloured" instead of a "person of color" - because she's 75 years old and got the terms mixed up. She's been a progressive liberal her entire life, and was labeled a "racist" because of it. But when hear a 75 year old queer and indigenous rights supporter used the wrong word once... I mean it's overblown to compare her to David Duke. I know that's the accepted mindset now but it's so over the top.

All I know about Fuentes is the outrage in the news over him lately, not anything real practical, but just based on the current political environment, if you label him a "fascist" I'll assume you're just insulting him and not being factual about it. If he supports fascist government, it's better to state the facts then use a label. Denaar (talk) 13:35, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sunita Danuwar

The biography of Sunita Danuwar is wildly outdated as she died last year. as a family friend of hers, its sad to see her page still not being updated. evidence of her passing: ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2400:1a00:3b4c:ba60:9903:69ee:46a2:b992 (talk) 01:23, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing a source; I've updated the page based on that. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 01:29, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://kathmandupost.com/national/2024/12/23/social-activist-sunita-danuwar-passes-away

BLP concerns and suspected sock puppet politically biased editing

I’ve opened a Talk-page section at Talk:Ben_Judah#BLP concerns and suspected coordinated editing.

Summary: • Multiple new or single-purpose accounts are adding poorly sourced or unsourced negative content.

• Material relies on primary or self-published sources and presents an unduly politically biased hostile view.

• Attempts to restore BLP-compliant text are being rapidly reverted without discussion.

• Attempt to flood page with material that is not relevant that contravenes BLP policy.

Request: 1. Administrator or experienced editor review for WP:BLP and WP:RS compliance. 2. Consideration of temporary protection to stop disruption. 3. Guidance on possible next steps (e.g. WP:SPI).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanah5782 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like to me there is an edit war going on, with one of those editors being you, so you both need to stop that immediately, or risk getting blocked. Content disputes, which this is, are meant to be settled on the article's talk page, and the discussion was just opened. For those wondering, this is the disputed content, they have been edit warring over. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:15, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shanah5782 you didn’t sign your talk page comment. It might be helpful if you described specific things that should or shouldn’t be in the article as it’s hard to follow the issues in the edit war history. BobFromBrockley (talk) 03:42, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. You know where WP:SPI is. There's WP:RPP for page protection. There's also WP:ANI for user behavior (beware the WP:BOOMERANG). Because BLPN is not usually full of admins, another forum is probably better for your stated concerns. The only guidance is to read all the headers and instructions before posting in any of them. Meanwhile, non-admins here probably won't take much action if you can't describe discrete things that need to be changed. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 03:47, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shanah5782 is just as much of a SPA as the users he is complaining about, having almost exclusively edited the Ben Judah article over a period of several years [1]. As far as I can tell, none of the other SPAs that have edited the artice, like JinDobry10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and BlinkTwice2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have actually edited it in over a year. Other users that Shanah5782 has edit warred on the article with, like @VampaVampa:, are clearly not SPAs. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:07, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nanny 911 - Tieso Family

Subject: BLP Removal Request - Privacy Concern for Private Individual (Nanny 911 Episode) I am requesting the removal of content related to the Nanny 911 episode "Tieso Family" (Season 2, Episode 1) under Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Reasons for removal:

Private Individual: I am not a public figure. I was featured in this episode as a 7-year-old child without meaningful consent. Ongoing Harm: References to this episode continue to cause professional and personal harm 20 years later. Minor Without Consent: The content involves a minor (myself) who could not legally consent to filming or distribution. No Public Interest: There is no encyclopedic value or public interest in maintaining references to my childhood appearance on reality television. Precedent: Multiple major platforms (YouTube, Google, Amazon) have already removed this content due to child safety and privacy concerns.

I am actively working to remove all references to this episode from the internet. I respectfully request that Wikipedia remove any mentions of my name and family name in connection with this episode. Thank you for your consideration. Brandon Tieso — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.177.94.180 (talk) 13:44, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Nanny 911 only has a very brief synopsis for the episode and it doesn't have its own article, I would strongly consider whether or not having such content removed is actually counterproductive to your goals. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 16:27, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When you say without meaningful consent, do you mean that your parents provided consent for you as a minor at the time, and as an adult you dispute that consent? It's hard to imagine how this gets done without effective parental consent and applicable waivers. Your parents' past consent on your behalf was and remains in fact meaningful. JFHJr (㊟) 20:36, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're at this forum and not the talkpage, this may be a grand time to review whether we need to name any of the children at all in this article. They could be easily removed, with or without revdels. If there's a consensus to that effect. I don't see the inherent encyclopedic value of their mention; see also WP:WEIGHT. JFHJr (㊟) 20:47, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottishFinnishRadish, sorry for the random ping, but what's your opinion on naming NN children encyclopedically, assuming parents consented and waived all that TV required? I think parental consent and waivers are effective, but mentions of specific names of children is not particularly encyclopedic; we aren't a trivia source. And would they need revdel? JFHJr (㊟) 20:51, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We normally wouldn't revdel if it's sourced and there's nothing particularly contentious about it. I'm almost always pro-removng names of children. Even if their parents consented, they didn't, and if there's no overriding encyclopedic interest I come down on the side of privacy for BLPs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:59, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the idea the idea of removing the children's names from the episode list is unobjectionable and I wouldn't oppose it, but at the same time I think it's futile as the information in the episode summaries is brief and is available widely elsewhere on the internet. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:33, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So? We aren't competing with them. If it's unencyclopedic, we can let readers find out kids' names elsewhere. It's not futile because there will be no need for actual editorial suppression (revdel/oversight) per SFR above. It's not a coverup. JFHJr (㊟) 21:35, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposing removing them. Anyone is free to redact the names if they so wish, but I'm not personally going to do it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:41, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I polished this turd. It may still need more polish. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 22:47, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cornel West

The article for Cornel West has ongoing issues with sourcing, and seems like it has had them for years. Despite his prominence, the article has no protections whatsoever, and this seems to have caused significant reliability issues.

Unsourced claims, even potentially libelous ones are on the article. When they get deleted, they often come back on. For example, leading up to October 7, some edits were made tagging and removing unsourced and poorly-sourced claims. On October 7, however, a user reverted many of those good-faith edits, labeling them as vandalism. Edit warring and poorly-written and poorly-sourced content appear to be significant issues, with one editor calling a sentence that they removed the "single worst" that they have ever seen on Wikipedia.

The situation on the article seems to still be poor, despite years having passed. Discussions have been made on the talk page, seemingly to little or no avail. I'm a somewhat inexperienced editor, and I did what I could (downgrading the article's content assessment from B-class to C-class, requesting semi-protection, etc.), but I doubt I've done enough. I think that moderator intervention is sorely needed, whether it takes just minor adjustments to set things on the right track or something more extreme, like a temporary full protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PsyKat777 WasTaken (talk • contribs) 02:05, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PsyKat777 WasTaken, this isn't WP:RPP and it's not even an administrator forum. But volunteers here will be happy to watch and edit. Can you speak to specific problems (or WP:DIFFs) that have been taken to the article talkpage that never got resolution? That's that BLPN is for. JFHJr (㊟) 02:30, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for letting me know! I'll probably put some more details here in the morning. PsyKat777 WasTaken (talk) 02:55, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PsyKat777 WasTaken: You might find WP:BRD helpful. Please don't be afraid to take specific issues to the article talkpage. It's hard to do much with a general complaint. The October 7 edits looked like cleanup to me at first, mostly tag removal (it's normal to tag sections instead of every source if it looks like that), but then I saw the addition of WP:UNDUE negative material. I performed a deep revert. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 03:06, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After investigating further, I found that the article's problems all stemmed in one way or another from one rogue editor, not several editors building on top of each other over years, like I originally thought. You helped revert a lot of it, and I reverted what was left.

Thanks for the help! PsyKat777 WasTaken (talk) 12:52, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BLP issue: Removing Quackwatch sentence from William Shaw article

Hello,

I submitted a request on the Talk page of *William Shaw (laboratory owner)* to remove the sentence:

> “Great Plains Laboratory is listed as ‘performing nonstandard laboratory tests’ by Quackwatch.”

This appears to violate BLP policy because it relies solely on Quackwatch, a self-published website not accepted as a reliable source for negative claims about a living person.

Reference policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Self-published_or_questionable_sources

I have a conflict of interest regarding the subject, so I am not editing directly. Because there has been no editor response on the Talk page, I am requesting administrator review to ensure BLP compliance.

Thanks very much for your help.

— Scott Shaw 76.92.172.156 (talk) 13:17, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that not all material on Quackwatch is self-published, recognized in this 2019 discussion. However, cited refernce is by Stephen Jarret, who controls Quackwatch, this particular item is self-published. While it is not making a comment directly on a living person (the direct statement is about a lab, not an individual), it is in the context of a BLP article and thus intended to reflect on a living person. The same statement similarly referenced would be acceptable in other context, but I'll be removing it from William Shaw (laboratory owner). -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:29, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've got someone challenging the removal over at William Shaw (laboratory owner), so some other BLP-aware eyes at that article would be appreciated. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:40, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Hatton

This is an inquiry about how to list the date of death of a recently deceased person in the infobox. The person is Ricky Hatton, and is the topic of a discussion at DRN, and I think that the editors here may be able to provide guidance. Hatton was found dead on 14 September 2025, after having been last seen on 12 September 2025. There has not yet been a final report from the coroner, which might specify the time of death. One editor wants to enter "14 September 2025", and another editor wants to enter "c. 14 September 2025" or "September 2025". What is the opinion of experienced uninvolved editors here? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The information you've described appears to support "12–14 September 2025" or just "September 2025" but not a specific date since we simply don't know yet. A WP:PRIMARY coroner report would be well suited to clarify what we simply don't know yet, and better would be secondary reporting on the coroner report. I think the best answer is to give it time and patience, which is unsatisfying for a dispute in that it provides no immediate closure. But it's still the best answer. JFHJr (㊟) 21:52, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your verdict. There is much that is still unknown and the conjecture that surrounds the unknown date of death is unseemly. Why an unnecessary appeal was launched and allowed to continue is puzzling for two reasons.

1. A Death Certificate does not appear to have been issued.

2. The Coroners Court Inquest has been adjourned pending results/tests/reports into Hatton's death.

Eventually the Senior Coroner will arrive at one decision or another, that will assist editors. Trying to second guess the outcome of the Coroners view, based on hard evidence that we have no access to, is fruitless.

We need a little patience. Dotsdomain (talk) 20:44, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 September 2025, Ricky Hatton was found deceased, with the reporting from the media writing it noting this as such. It was noted Hatton had been found, and that last contact with him was on 12 September. On 26 September, the BBC reported on his funeral procession, providing in it the funeral notice from the funeral directors giving a death date of 14 September. Editors have taken issue with this, with feelings around the notice only using the date he was found and not being based on a determined DOD and feelings that funeral home notices fall under self published source territory. In the week of October 13, the Southport Coroners Court published their inquest schedule, with Hatton's occurring on the 16th. In this inquest filing, the Coroners Court cited 14 September as the DOD. However, prior to this thread being opened, the link to the coroner court filings went dead, so it is no longer usable in this discussion. That being said, I feel the funeral notice cited through the BBC article doesn't meet the issues raised against it:

"Feelings around the notice only using the date he was found and not being based on a determined DOD" stems from editors noting that it isn't uncommon for a burial certificate to not include a death date, and that it's possible this was the case here. This to me is WP:OR, there is no evidence that this is the case for Hatton.

"Feelings that funeral notices fall under self published territory" I edit at the Deaths in 2025 page regularly as well as on various bio articles of people who were listed on the article, and obituaries/funeral notices have always been considered welcome as a citation, especially to utilize when details are missing (age, date of death, place of death, etc). I have looked over WP:SPS, and I don't find funeral homes as falling under this. Even then, as we aren't directly using the funeral homes article in this, as the notice is published on BBC, I still don't find SPS applies.

An additional issue was raised about the BBC itself, an editor finding BBC has reported in bias in the past. I don't see how this is applicable. They are reporting on a funeral procession, I'm not sure what biases would or could be applied. Additionally, the BBC has been deemed at perennial sources as being generally reliable.

On these points, I feel the irritants surrounding the BBC source are counterable, and they don't render the source as being disqualifiable. I would understand better if this source was just coming out at the same time as other sources reporting on the death for the first time, but it was published a week and a half later reporting on new information and citing a funeral notice giving a specified date. I therefore don't see the DOD as being ambiguous and it's able to be included as just "14 September" without a circa. Rusted AutoParts 21:59, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copying my summary of this matter from the DR for clarity on my position here: This strikes me as primarily a WP:PSTS matter. There are two primary sources that indicate an exact date of death of 14 September, as described by Rusted Auto Parts. While I couldn't say whether Coroner's Offices ever list dates of death with "circa" or indicate uncertainty in another way, or just give the best approximation in cases such as this pending the inquest's findings, I agree that this is entering into speculative territory. However, the weight of secondary of sources remain clear that the date of death is not certain – from closer to the time ([2]), and made more clear by the timeline by the inquest at its opening in the last week ([3][4][5]), reliably confirming that he was not seen after 12 September. It seems clear to me, per PSTS, that this creates a circumstance where we should not definitively list an exact date of death, because secondary sources tell us that this is not certain.

There is one secondary source, from prior to the inquest, that mentions in passing "As of his death on Sunday 14 September". I'm going to again quote MIDI here from the talk page discussion, because I think they put this very well: What other sources do we have for the precise date? Should we cherry pick a single source that gives specific information, ignoring those that don't corroborate it? While this is no longer a breaking story, WP:RSBREAKING guidance seems pertinent – "seek multiple independent sources which independently verify". Are we able to do that with what the sources currently say? My view is this is one reliable secondary source that briefly contradicts multiple others on this matter: in this instance, not only are the other sources more numerous, they more centrally concern the timeline of Hatton's final days, and in the majority of cases come from after the inquest's opening, when more detailed information became available. Taking all this into account, I continue to believe that a "circa" caveat next to the 14 September date is most appropriate at this time, given the information we have available through reliable secondary sources. U-Mos (talk) 08:27, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of reliably sourced De Morgen article from Armondo Linus Acosta

Reliable Belgian newspaper De Morgen (Oct 2025) published an investigation into sexual and psychological misconduct allegations involving Armondo Linus Acosta and Siddha Shiva Yoga.

The section summarizing this investigation, with a proper citation, was recently removed from the English Wikipedia article on Acosta. The stated reason was that De Morgen is “tabloid,” which appears factually incorrect — it is a mainstream daily owned by DPG Media and generally accepted as a reliable source under WP:RS.

Requesting review and guidance under WP:BLP and WP:RS for the inclusion of a neutral, verifiable summary referencing this publication.

Citation:

De Morgen (23 Oct 2025). “Getuigenissen over misbruik binnen Siddha Shiva Yoga – slachtoffers breken hun stilzwijgen.” Archived at https://www.demorgen.be/nieuws/deze-relatie-zou-gezien-kunnen-worden-als-pervers-en-klassieke-pedofilie-hoe-een-goeroe-in-gent-zijn-jonge-volgers-in-de-greep-hield~b5bcb34c/

(Posted for neutrality; no conflict of interest.) Watchingovertruth (talk) 11:26, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being verifiable isn't a reason for inclusion, rather it's something that all included content must have. If this is the only source for such a strong allegation I would be hesitant to include it. Has there been any other reporting on the allegations? Waiting for further reporting isn't a bad idea when living people are involved. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:25, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So I have been looking for other sources out of curiosity and there isn't much, to be fair the whole article in general is suffering from lack of (edit: reliable) sources which isn't helping anything. The court case that is referenced is in the article that @Watchingovertruth provided is this one. There is a website that has victim stories but it doesn't seem to have any oversight. There is an article by an "expert on cults" again talking about the US cases. The De Morgen article is the only one that I have found that specifically talks about the branches that are directly related to Acosta. To be fair, I haven't spent a ton of time searching but this is what I found in a few minutes, none of which is particularly helpful. I am more or less of the opinion that it doesn't belong in this particular article unless more sources can be found that tie directly to Acosta or the branches he was involved with. Snuggle 🖤 (they/them/it) (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jabari Banks

Every single detail under Jabari's "Career" tab is incorrect and supported by zero sources online. Please delete that tab altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.168.250.58 (talk) 14:30, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You already did remove it. I've added back what was supported by the source, and retitled the section since none of it is or was about his career. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:46, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Piker and the dog collar

A RFC about the subject have been started here --Trade (talk) 16:25, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing BLP problems over the same dog-collar issue identified in the BLPN discussion above.

The article is now fully protected and heavily redacted. The talk page was protected and redacted as well, and the protection recently expired.

We now have a couple of sources for consideration that rise above general RSP or RSN consensus against use in a BLP. The RfC does not identify specific content nor references.

Other BLP disputes with the article include whether or not a chronological presentation would be appropriate, the treatment of various Twitter suspensions/bans, and what content is appropriate for the lede. --Hipal (talk) 00:27, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peggie Vs NHS Fife

IP OP boomerang blocked. Mfield (Oi!) 19:19, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Snokalok has added a completely inappropriate and unsourced far right politics box to this page. There's no sourcing for this, and no mention of far right politics in the article and when challenged in talk they just doubled down in the OR claiming it was justified by references to one of the plaintiffs, Peggie, admitting admiration for Trump and some allegations of racism. Bringing to BLP as it's clearly inappropriate to label an individual as far right like this.

Talk page here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Peggie_v_NHS_Fife&diff=prev&oldid=1319389093

Problematic OR edit here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peggie_v_NHS_Fife&diff=prev&oldid=1318497068

2.49.55.174 (talk) 18:42, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look at this IP’s contrib history has them harassing GENSEX editors, telling them to leave the site, issuing personal attacks, and admitting to sockpuppetry with multiple IPs. They’re not here in good faith. Snokalok (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OP IP blocked for disruptive editing for a month. Mfield (Oi!) 19:18, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Are statements in wikivoice accusing nn living people of crimes sourced to a quotes written by a third party acceptable?

Are statements like

[NAME] took the victim to a hotel, began video recording her, raped her, then threatened to release the video as revenge porn

and

Outside of the hotel, the victim encountered a man named [REDACTED]. [REDACTED] forced the victim to drink something intoxicating, then he raped her in the hotel

from this revision of 2025 Varanasi gang rape, sourced to [6], acceptable? Neither source presents the actions as fact, they attribute the claims (often quoting) a 3rd party not present at any of the incidents. There has been no criminal conviction in this case that I can see. The article has since been edited to remove some of the names & insert the word "allegedly" or "reportedly" into some statements, but others remain.

Previous discussion at [7], but the article author has decided that I have become emotional investment in these articles, so rather than continue, I've decided to refer this here.

I have a personal policy of not editing articles about sexual assault/rape allegations made against living people when no conviction has been secured. GreenLipstickLesbian 💌🦋 19:57, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, regarding WP:BLPCRIME, I don't know if names should be included for the accused at all. However, I defer to more experienced BLP editors. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 21:02, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the third party source is a high quality reliable source, then such claims can be included but they should still not be in wiki voice, absent a court decision of guilt. Here adding something like "The victim said..." would be sufficient to take thee out of wiki voice. Masem (t) 21:02, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The allegations can be included if they are well sourced but should be stated as allegations not fact. Masem's suggestion seems right in light of BLPCRIME. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:40, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:21st-century mass murder in Brazil

Many of these articles don't cite any convictions. The shortest example is this. @User:Coltsfan and User:Brandmeister, the most recent one is this, where there is allegation of "murder" before any legal proceedings have began. The term "murder" is speculation because the conviction could be a lesser charge like negligent homicide or involuntary manslaughter. 172.97.220.91 (talk) 20:09, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree. Per WP:CATPOV and indirectly per WP:MURDERS we should avoid such categorizations until at least court charges. I wonder if there are reliable sources on the number of deaths among innocent citizens (excluding criminals). Brandmeister ^talk 16:28, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "murder" can be the common name even if there is no conviction. This is only a problem if the perpetrator is still alive (looks to not be the case for quite a few... you can't be convicted of murder after you die), but WP:MURDERS (an essay) is secondary to common name. This category is not just for "things that resulted of someone legally being convicted of murder", or we couldn't say something like the Columbine shooting was murder because the perpetrators died prior to conviction. The category is also for the broader usage of the word, when not restricted by BLP or whathaveyou. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:37, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My specific concern is Operation Containment where we're categorizing police actions against armed criminals and drug dealers as "murder" which is dubious under WP:NPOV at the very least under. Brandmeister ^talk 20:01, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extrajudicial executions isn't a new thing in Brazil Trade (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I would concur with removal there, that doesn't seem to be called murder by RS either. I removed it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:35, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DOB without year for certain biographies

Just wanted to give a notice that there's a discussion on the DOB of certain BLPs without a year at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#DOB but without year?. Thanks, sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:11, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Brabeck-Letmathe

I work for Nestlé, the former employer of Peter Brabeck-Letmathe. The current page on him says he was born in "Nazi Austria" in the infobox and "German-occupied Austria" in the Early life section. Doing some basic math suggests this is true, as Austria was liberated from Nazi control 5 months after Peter was born.

However, it seems like an UNDUE and OR issue, as I don't see it in the citation given or in any other citation I can find. I think Wikipedia might be adding more significance to it than is warranted and doing its own analysis, as none of the citations discuss Austria being under Nazi control during his first 5 months after birth. Buckeye16505 (talk) 09:47, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the infobox to just use Austria, and slightly altered the early life section in the way it mentions Austria within Nazi Germany. Infoboxes are poor at handling anything but basic details, but mentioning the historic details seems fitting to an early life section. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:55, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Is it ok that it's still uncited? The citation given does not actually mention Nazis or Germany, unless I missed it. Buckeye16505 (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Women" instead of "female" in categories

I noticed that Wikipedia prefers to use "women" and not "female" as adjectives in categories. Does anyone know where the relevant discussions that led to this consensus are? A diehard editor (talk | edits) 13:35, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See #Are 'male' and 'female' categories BLP violations? above. 172.97.220.91 (talk) 13:44, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have; though I'm interested in older discussions. Like say, RfCs. A diehard editor (talk | edits) 16:21, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JK Rowling, Asexual People Discussion

There is a discussion on J. K. Rowling to add a section about Rowling and Asexual people. Sources are mainly fan sites, a few tweets, and one article in a newspaper discussing the controversy. Denaar (talk) 13:51, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the discussion is now at Talk:Political_views_of_J._K._Rowling#adding_section_about_Rowling_and_Asexual_people. Schazjmd (talk) 14:55, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:764 (cult)

WP:NAC: Speedy deleted. JFHJr (㊟) 22:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Considering the serious nature of the article and the fact that it makes criminal accusations against several named non-public figures without providing sources i think we should get rid of the draft--Trade (talk) 17:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are they aware that this page: [[8]] already exists for 764? Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:08, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to revert me if you dont think there is any BLP issues with the draft Trade (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no not threatening that at all--I'll look through the draft. I was more just asking if you were aware the other page existed. I am familiar with 764--and their parent organization O9A I was more curious as to what you thin k having this other page would achieve--like is it important to have this distinct from the main 764 organization article etc. Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:32, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And in addition--these areas are actually things I am interested in so if there is a valid reason to have another page I'd be happy to help with sources. Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft was created and written by DrRandallPhilip. You are better off asking him about it Trade (talk) 18:53, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the sources now--Washington Post is strong, Wired I believe is ok, not sure Business Insider can be used in this context as it's more for business stuff and looking at the RS noticeboard this is what is said about it: There is no consensus on the reliability of Insider. The site's syndicated content, which may not be clearly marked, should be evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher. See also: Insider (culture). You may be safe and good to go--but I know from experience particularly with BLP pages using sources deemed yellow or no-consensus can occasionally get you in trouble since these pages are scrutinized more carefully. Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

also contradicting myself now I guess for culture it's green? So I think you may be fine! Agnieszka653 (talk) 18:45, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait you think i created and wrote the draft? Trade (talk) 18:54, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey bros, that article was supposed to remain private, I suppose I don't understand how wiki works exactly, it was a project article from direct sources, but because they weren't covered by any sources, it was all draft, it was supposed to be awaiting sources for info but that process is actually a lot more tedious than I'd figured, how can I private this? I want it removed from the public. Contributors are welcome, but not for the public. Lemme know what's up. DrRandallPhilip (talk) 19:01, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think most drafts are public unfortunately. Honestly any drafts I make--I do them in word first. However, you can use your userspace to keep drafts out of direct public view and prevent them from appearing in search engines. To do this (according to AI mind you--never done this myself), you can create a new page within your own user namespace, such as User:YourUsername/DraftName Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesnt matter what he names it. Drafts are still subject to Wikipedia:BLP Trade (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DrRandallPhilip, while drafts are not indexed by search engines, they – like all other drafts and articles – are publicly visible to anyone who knows the page name. I suggest you copy the content of the draft into a text file on your computer, then add the {{db-userreq}} speedy deletion template to it, or ask one of us here to add it for you. That template will prompt an administrator to delete the draft. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 04:33, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry for the misunderstanding--I saw you commented above about who initially wrote the draft. Anyway personally I think if a 764 org page already exists this should be crafted to better suit that page. What public figures on this draft are you concerned about though? Many of the people mentioned in the draft have been already arrested and charged with the crimes noted in the draft? Agnieszka653 (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth

Doesnt matter if it's true or not. Drafts talking about living people need reliable sources when making these sorts of claims Trade (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DrRandallPhilip, you submitted this for review at WP:AFC (admin specs now required due to revdeld BLP vios). You submitted it for publication. Your claim this was never supposed to be public doesn't make any sense at all. You already knew where your sandbox was beforehand. Please stop editing about living persons until you have considerably more experience. JFHJr (㊟) 05:38, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:764 (cult). Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 05:00, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I hadn't checked the page history to see it wasn't eligible for U1. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 05:05, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't either, but anyone can csd on top of an xfd if that's the case. Happens all the time. Pew pew. JFHJr (㊟) 05:07, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I tried a csd attack page on top of the mfd. If challenged, the mfd should remain and resolve in seven days. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 05:48, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have speedily deleted the draft article, per BLP. Fish+Karate 08:30, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Fish and karate! JFHJr (㊟) 22:47, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Draft:UTubeTrollPolice

WP:NAC: Speedy deleted. JFHJr (㊟) 04:40, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This draft makes serious criminal accusations without providing any sources--Trade (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sry i forgot to {{BLPVR}} the draft Trade (talk) 17:55, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Eric Baker (businessman)

Hi editors, on behalf of Eric Baker via my work at Beutler Ink, I am following up on an issue I posted here a few weeks ago with a note about questionable content in the Eric Baker (businessman) article that seems to falsely accuse him of crimes. I made an edit request and editors agreed with my assessment, but the content remains in the article. I ordinarily would be fine to wait for this to progress through the edit request queue but because this is a BLP issue that has been present for more than five years I am posting here again. I have not directly made the change myself due to my COI with Baker. Happy to discuss further! Stephanie BINK (talk) 18:36, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Houston Chronicle source for Emily Neves's birth date or birth year

WP:NAC: Withdrawn. JFHJr (㊟) 22:49, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Resolved

– Personally withdrawing this thread in favor of the ongoing discussion on the relevant talk page. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:17, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Houston Chronicle has been considered a reliable source as per the 2021 discussion at WP:HOUSTONCHRONICLE. However, objections were raised about using this particular source as a WP:BLP (in this case, it's for Emily Neves's birth year) by other users earlier this month on both Talk:Emily Neves/Archive 1#Basic info: Middle name, date of birth, etc and on the most recent discussion in the Early life sub-section of the B-class and/or GA class efforts when I tried adding it in to her article a few minutes ago per the instructions at the {{bbad}}, since the newspaper's Katy/Bear Creek This Week supplement was the only source that verified her age. I've since removed it. The BLP issue has been going on for at least a few months since this August.

Since we need a consensus on this matter, should the Houston Chronicle and its supplements be considered a reliable source for this particular subject's birth date and/or birth year, or for any other BLP subject in general per WP:BLP and WP:RS? sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't even know that this is the same Emily. Neves. To the best of my knowledge, we have not attached the productions that an Emily Neves was in in Katy, Texas to any source that is clearly about the actor who is the article's subject (even if we can show that subject-Emily was in Katy, well, I went to a school where there were two "Natalie Ragomo"s.) Beyond that, there is the question of whether we should be sourcing any information related to age/birthdate of an adult human to material issued when they were a minor. The article in question appears not in the Houston Chronicle proper, but rather in an "advertising supplement" specifically aimed at the Katy & Bear Creek communities (current com bined population, leading to question whether we can call this "widely distributed" and whether it carries the same reliability as the core Chronicle. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:57, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The primary issue that was pointed out^[a] to you has nothing to do the the reliability of the Houston Chronicle. As said, WP:DOB requires the information be widely published by reliable sources (emphasis mine), the mere existence of a reliable source is not enough. I said this before verbatim in this comment, to which you replied I know, fifteen. That's also part of what I was getting at [9], indicating that you understood. Now seeing that your edit summary when re-adding the date, despite there being consensus against it, was Age has been verified [10], it is clear that either you do not, can not, or will not understand. Please stop.

Pinging @Gråbergs Gråa Sång who was also part of discussing use of the Houston Chronicle. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 00:05, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four: While I understand the WP:BLP policies, having worked on other BLPs for several years, I thought I would consider revisiting the situation and get a new consensus among other editors for adding a source for the YOB or DOB since consensus can change. However, I do apologize for any mistake(s) I have made; I did not intend to violate Wikipedia policy or protocol in doing so. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:10, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What you did was bury the discussion in the archives when the last post to it was a few days old, the a few days later ignored the concerns there and went ahead and used it anyway, and when objection was raised again on the talk page, instead f discussing it there, you brought it here. — Nat Gertler (talk) 00:27, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in this case, I apologize if I went too far in this matter. I'll probably go ahead and withdraw this BLPN discussion if there are no objections. We can always revisit the DOB/YOB situation later on in the article's talk page and get a new consensus there. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:52, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

since consensus can change – The last post in the prior discussion was only eight days ago, three of which it was in an archive. To quote WP:CCC: proposing to change a recently established consensus can be disruptive. Also as the primary objections are on WP:DOB and WP:PROPORTION grounds, not WP:RS, this isn't a proper way to challenge consensus regardless of the age of the discussion.

I thought I would consider revisiting the situation and get a new consensus among other editors – This fits the description of forum shopping, which I'm sure isn't your intention. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 01:12, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fifteen, Forum shopping was indeed unintentional on my part. We should continue discussing on the talk page to see if the WP:HOUSTONCHRONICLE advertising supplement is indeed suitable enough to be included as a source, so I'm now withdrawing this request. Once again, I apologize for any problems I may have caused. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:15, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

^ a WP:PROPORTION argument which is slightly different but in the same vein

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Draft:Slitted764 (Online terrorist extremist)

WP:NAC: Speedy deleted. JFHJr (㊟) 04:01, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Draft is accusing various Discord channels of engaging in criminal activities without any sources. Not sure if that would fall within the scope of BLP but i cant think of a better noticeboard to bring attention to the issue--Trade (talk) 21:32, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft does not give any names or other identifiable information, so isn't really BLP. Also has zero references, so is in no danger of becoming an article any time soon. I guess we could nominate it for deletion, or we could just wait a few months until it becomes eligible for WP:G13. --GRuban (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So in short we dont have to follow "presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law" as long as the subject in question is a Discord server. Is that correct? Trade (talk) 22:20, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Er, what? A Discord channel is not a person. All that said, though, feel free to nominate the draft for WP:MFD if you like, it will probably be deleted.--GRuban (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just think it's weird you act as if the doesnt violate any policy at all Trade (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the noticeboard for biographies of living people, groups aren't usually covered by BLP policy (see WP:BLPGROUP). You could just nominate it for deletion as GRuban suggested. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 23:06, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When you click on WP:BLPGROUP the section is followed by the text "Report BLP incidents at the biographies of living persons noticeboard". You can how that makes it sound as if WP:BLPGROUP issues should be reported to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard--Trade (talk) 23:29, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're misreading that. WP:BLPGROUP is a paragraph that says this policy doesn't usually apply to groups. "Report BLP incidents at the biographies of living persons noticeboard" is in a completely different section and subsection. Meanwhile, the group linked in that draft, 764 (online network), is a red link, but it looks as if the group intended to link to was 764 (organization), which is very much an article, with well sourced, and rather horrifying accusations including child pornography, extortion, and murder. It's still not right to make unsourced vague accusations, and if you want to nominate the draft for deletion go ahead, and I'll support it, mainly because it's not worth the space it takes up, but I do not think the vague unspecified criminal accusations made in that draft will be hurting that group's reputation any compared to the very specific well sourced horrifying ones in the actual article. --GRuban (talk) 02:08, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need to actually read BLPGROUP, it says BLP doesn't apply and so the next section about reporting issue to the BLP noticeboard doesn't apply either. Either way if you have an issue with the draft, you should probably nominate it for deletion. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 02:16, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So what am i supposed to do if i encounter an issue with BLPGROUP? Trade (talk) 03:12, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What WP:BLPGROUP is trying not say is that there is no BLP groups. Either the group is so large that BLP doesn't apply, or is so small that it's the same as naming individuals. Think a well known music duo, naming the band is the same as naming either of the musicians. So at that point it's about two separate living people, and not a group. If you have issue with an article about a group handle it as appropriate, WP:JUSTFIXIT. If you think it's content shouldn't exist nominate it for deletion. These boards are for advice, posting here may cause another editor to act but more likely you'll still have to do it yourself. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 11:35, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See above WP:Biographies of living persons noticeboard#Draft:764 (cult) and WP:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:764 (cult). This needs a speedy delete. Fish and karate, could you lend a hand here? JFHJr (㊟) 23:06, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jeff Katz

Text removed as a WP:BLP violation. (non-admin closure) sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:34, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hello. It was just called to my attention that text relating to a legal judgment from the below link was on my Wikipedia page:

https://variety.com/2025/film/news/shirley-maclaine-crew-unpaid-jeff-katz-1236506448/

This legal case above is regarding a DIFFERENT person named Jeff Katz. I am a completely different person who produces movies. It's a common name but this is pretty easy to confirm and I'm happy to do so if needed.

Please remove this from my page immediately as it is, at least in my case, incorrect and I do not deserve to be tarred by somebody else's bad actions because I share the same name and also make movies. I am a freelance studio producer and former studio executive and do not, nor have I ever, been involved in film finance.

Thank you for addressing this.

JK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Championsgrail (talk • contribs) 22:36, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have removed this yourself - probably a legitimate action under the circumstances, though we generally discourage article subjects from editing their own biographies. I also note that the material was copy-pasted from the source - a copyright violation, and thus further grounds to remove it.

I'll keep an eye on the article, and encourage discussion on the talk page if anyone attempts to restore this, since we clearly need to be careful regarding individuals with shared names, if that is indeed the case. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:54, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel? Feels a bit defamatory to leave in the history Trade (talk) 22:57, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably right. And checking on Variety, it seems entirely clear that they are referring to another Jeff Katz, who they describe in a connected article as "a wealthy investor from Philadelphia". [11] AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:06, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The information has been deleted from the article as a BLP violation. Thanks for letting the community know about this issue, JK Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 23:18, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Victor Vargas

Hello editors,

Before proceeding with any further edits in the Article Victor Vargas , I must notify the community of serious and critical sourcing issues that need immediate review, as they violate WP:V (Verifiability) and the strict standards of WP:BLP (Biographies of Living Persons).

I am notifying the community of critical policy violations in the "Career" and "Controversy" sections of this article. These issues require the urgent attention of an impartial editor, as they violate WP:BLP (Biographies of Living Persons) standards.

(CapitalBank): The article currently states ( insinuates) an accusation of fraud. The cited source (WSJ, Ref 1) clearly states: "'Vargas was not accused of fraud.'" Violation: Reintroducing a statement of "fraud" contradicted by its own source violates WP:V (Verifiability) and WP:BLP.
Unverified Claim (Ref 6): The article claims a statistic (e.g., "14th largest private bank as of 2015") using a source [Ref 6] that does not contain any information to support that claim.The reference ^ does not exist. This is a clear case of false or mistaken sourcing. Factual Error (Ref 7): The article lists the subject as 'Vice President' based on Source [Ref 7], when the source actually confirms he held the superior position of President of the National Bank Council. This is a significant factual error based on a misreading of the source.
Unverified Claim (Ref 16) The article list details of deals with the government .The reference does not exist. This is a clear case of false or mistaken sourcing.
(Ref 17) does not contain any information to support that claim.The reference does not exist. This is a clear case of false or mistaken sourcing.
(Ref 18) does not contain any information to support that claim.The reference does not exist. This is a clear case of false or mistaken sourcing.
(Ref 19) does not contain any information to support that claim.The reference does not exist. This is a clear case of false or mistaken sourcing.
(Ref 20) does not contain any information to support that claim.The reference does not exist. This is a clear case of false or mistaken sourcing.
(Ref 21) the article insist in name the goverment in relation with vargas and in the reference does not contain any information to support that claim.The reference does not exist. This is a clear case of false or mistaken sourcing
(WP:UNDUE): The current section gives WP:UNDUE weight to controversy and unverified claims, while important, verifiable career achievements (like his Presidency of FELABAN) are missing or minimized. The article must be balanced.

I request an impartial editor immediately correct these systematic sourcing failures to comply with basic BLP standards. Thank you. The same report was add in the talk page of the article Victor Vargas The same report I have create in the talk page in the Wikipedia Spanish Victor Vargas , its is a similar report. Mariabea2024 (talk) 03:31, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This, on the face of it, doesn't appear to be a BLP issue. Take for example (Ref 19) does not contain any information to support that claim.The reference does not exist. This is a clear case of false or mistaken sourcing. All that's needed is to add an archived link, thus not really a BLP issue. FDW777 (talk) 18:19, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is a self-published piece with no byline by a think tank with no indication of expertise an adequate source for a BLP? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:26, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked into the underlying reliability, my issue is with the repeated claim of "The reference does not exist" (used six times in the complaint) when it's highly likely archived versions exist. FDW777 (talk) 18:28, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've started excising some of the worst problems but I'm out of time for now. This article is a mess that could use more eyes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the family - there is a ok-ish reference that he was married, divorced, and has two children with the second wife, but I pulled the kids names and a genealogy site used as a reference. Don't have a lot of time to dig further this moment. Denaar (talk) 20:17, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People associated with Jeffrey Epstein has been nominated for deletion

Category:People associated with Jeffrey Epstein has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:28, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know § Bruce Lehrmann

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know § Bruce Lehrmann. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 13:45, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vipin Vijay

Dear Wikipedia Editors,

My name is Divin Haridas, I am a media professional and a citizen of India. I came across this page regarding the section titled “Sexual harassment allegations” on his Wikipedia page (Vipin Vijay), which refers to an allegation involving filmmaker Vipin Vijay. The content in question constitutes a serious violation of Indian law as well as Wikipedia’s Biographies of Living Persons (BLP) policy.

The matter cited is currently under inquiry at his workplace – the Satyajit Ray Film and Television Institute (SRFTI), Kolkata, under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India. As far as I know Mr Vipin Vijay has initiated legal proceedings against Mid-Day, the publication quoted as the source of this section, at the High Court of Calcutta, Kolkata, West Bengal, India, for publishing defamatory material, disclosing his identity, and falsifying facts pertaining to the ongoing inquiry. ‘Bengal info’ which is quoted by the Wikipedia(30) has carried news by the Times of India which themselves they removed by now after filed legal notice.

Under Sections 16 and 17 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act), India, disclosure of the names or details of either the complainant or the respondent is strictly prohibited.

Section 16 mandates absolute confidentiality, forbidding the publication, disclosure, or dissemination of any material related to a sexual harassment complaint or inquiry. It expressly prohibits revealing the identity of the complainant, respondent, witnesses, or any aspect of the proceedings to unauthorized persons or the public. Disclosure under the Right to Information Act, 2005 is also explicitly barred.

Section 17 prescribes penal consequences for any breach of confidentiality, holding all persons involved in the inquiry or its administration, including institutional authorities and media entities, statutorily liable for disciplinary or legal sanctions.

Since the matter referred to in the article is sub judice and currently under official inquiry by a disciplinary committee , the publication of his name and related details amounts to a breach of statutory confidentiality punishable under Indian law. The continued presence of this content on Wikipedia therefore directly contravenes both the POSH Act and Wikipedia’s own editorial and privacy standards.

Wikipedia’s governing policies reinforce this legal position:

• WP:BLP – Biographies of Living Persons

• WP:OUTING – Privacy and Identification

• WP:BLPCRIME – Presumption of Innocence and Naming in Alleged Crimes

These policies clearly state that serious or controversial allegations must not name living persons unless the matter has been conclusively adjudicated and widely reported in reliable sources with due sensitivity.

The cited Mid-Day article (relied upon as a source) is demonstrably unreliable and factually incorrect. It falsely claims:

• That there are “multiple sexual harassment victims,” including a student and two faculty members, which is untrue – the complainant is neither a student nor a faculty member of SRFTI.

• That he has been “sacked” or “removed” from his position as Dean, whereas he continues to serve as Dean (https://srfti.ac.in/leadership/) and remains a Group A Officer, Government of India. No removal is possible under Indian service law unless a disciplinary inquiry under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 has been concluded and its recommendations implemented. The investigation in his case is ongoing, and no report or recommendation has yet been made.

• That the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta “refused to be involved” in the matter – a falsehood, as the Court expressly directed the Institute to conclude the inquiry while restraining any coercive action against him pending submission and review of the final report.

Given the above, i respectfully requests that the section titled “Sexual harassment allegations” be immediately removed to ensure compliance with both Indian statutory confidentiality provisions and Wikipedia’s BLP, Outing, and BLPCRIME policies.

I appreciate the editors’ prompt attention to this serious violation and their cooperation in restoring legal and policy compliance to this article. Divin Haridas (talk) 14:29, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Divin Haridas: That Vijay has brought a lawsuit against Mid-Day is immaterial, as they have not retracted the story. Likewise, that Times of India retracted its story only due to unacted-upon legal threats is shameful. I will also note that threatening legal action or consequences is grounds for a block that will last until such legal action has concluded as it makes collaboration to improve the article - including discussions on whether or not the content you are complaining about should be removed - quite literally impossible. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{threads critiques} 14:52, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Divin Haridas If you are alleging a violation of the law, you should communicate with the Wikimedia Foundation's lawyers. https://wikimediafoundation.org/contact/ Do not make legal threats on Wikipedia(as said above). 331dot (talk) 16:45, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Divin Haridas It's been suggested that you are connected to Mr. Vijay, if so, that needs to be disclosed, see WP:COI and WP:PAID.

I can say it is probably simplistic to say "the court refused to be involved" as the article states, compared to what the source states. Other than that I'm not sure how BLP is being violated. I can't speak to Indian law(which again, you should communicate with the Foundation's lawyers about, not us) 331dot (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You'd perhaps get a better response if you wrote this yourself and didn't copy and paste a bunch of LLM slop. TarnishedPath^talk 02:58, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Godwin

Bill Godwin Is listed as a living person protected under this policy; I believe they have died. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeChatiliers Pupper (talk • contribs) 21:41, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done Died in 2018, no longer covered under WP:BLP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:19, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kang Zhang

I'm worried the article has issues of both WP:COI and WP:NPOV. While I don't think the article needs to be necessarily deleted, I think it needs heavy revisions and that Cryptochelys should be banned or at least barred from editing that article. I copy my comments from the article's talk page:

I'm worried about a potential WP:COI on this page, which was created by Cryptochelys. Cryptochelys created his account around 2019, around the illegal activites of Kang Zhang fist came to light. The article mentions this nowhere, and Cryptochelys has continued editing this page deleting any controversial aspect of Kang Zhang's carear. For example, see this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kang_Zhang&diff=prev&oldid=983457408

Cryptochelys claimed that the edit was "unsourced" but the claim had a citation (which Cryptochelys likewise deleted. Cryptochelys has continued to edit the page as recently as August of the year. I find it highly likely that Cryptochelys is either Zhang himself or otherwise someone highly close to Zhang who has a vested interest in biasing the article and removing any negative information about Zhang. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.8.60 (talk) 22:24, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The forum for user behavior issues is WP:ANI or perhaps WP:COIN. Please feel free to edit and discuss normally on the article talkpage. This forum is for escalation when no consensus emerges on the talkpage. You only recently posted there as well. Give it some edits and some time. Look into other forums for administrative action. We are mostly volunteers here. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 00:30, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Not sure how to sign my comment, but seems it gets autosigned. I will post on WP:ANI and WP:COIN. 65.112.8.60 (talk) 15:18, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You sign with four tildes: ~~~~. Once you preview or submit your edit, you should see your signature replaced automatically where the tildes were. JFHJr (㊟) 19:29, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks65.112.8.60 (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Esther Satterfield

WP:NAC:

Resolved

JFHJr (㊟) 19:27, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sarah is not her name.

Carla Davis, (Her daughter) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7081:1600:8c88:13e8:2ea2:b646:bf73 (talk) 05:58, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the name Sarah, unclear where it came from, as none of the sources support it. Mfield (Oi!) 06:04, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Draft:Relationship of Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein

Could someone give this draft a read to check it doesnt violate BLP?--Trade (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only source I would doubled check is World Socialist Web Site I do not think that's reliable. Otherwise source wise it looks good. Agnieszka653 (talk) 15:38, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Walsh (political commentator)

Two editors are insisting on using social media, Twitter to reference quotes from the subject. They state that this is covered by WP:ABOUTSELF. They are essentially bypassing the whole notability criteria to ensure this quote get into the article at Matt Walsh (political commentator). They are effectively trash references used to bypass WP:NPOV, WP:V. scope_creep^Talk 17:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the talk page discussion referenced, so editors here do not have to go hunting for it. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:39, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to clarify as one of the other editors in that discussion: I only supported Twitter references to establish a birthdate, not to include quotes from the subject into the article. See also this edit request. Shapeyness (talk) 10:42, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Manning

This biography contains non-relevant and overly glowing info on Danny Manning and needs to be edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.149.202 (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello IP! It appears you haven't availed yourself yet to the article talkpage. Please feel free to comment there as a forum of first instance, and escalate here if no WP:CONSENSUS emerges. In any forum, here or there, please state or list specific individual problems, as well as your proposal for any remedy. General complaints are generally unhelpful for the volunteers here. See also WP:BRD for steps to take to make the changes you seek. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 19:15, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What to do about this?

Draft:Brianna J. Rivers was rejected at AfC and then subsequently deleted by @Kusma: as WP:SD#G10; the creator @H Articles: has produced what I presume is the essentially similar Draft:The Attack on Pro-Life Activist Savannah Craven Antao and (after that was rejected at AfC) attempted to cram essentially similar content into Live Action (organization) (diff). Is the new draft also a candidate for G10? Does anything need to be rev-delled? --JBL (talk) 20:42, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that! Thank you for the revert. I misread. Facially, yes, it's eligible for an attack page WP:CSD. The current version appears to be substantially an attack article regarding the same WP:BLPCRIME. JFHJr (㊟) 21:24, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the page, and another copy under another title. While the incident may turn out to be notable, this draft and the others would need to be fundamentally rewritten to comply with Wikipedia policies, particularly WP:BLPCRIME. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:47, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both! --JBL (talk) 21:56, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a multiple namespace problem. I've bulleted 4 namespaces at the top of the post. Please add more above and re-post below if more crop up before this gets archived. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 23:29, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Pollard

This article says that jews say Amalekites must be killed, implying a threat to the Biden administration by Pollard.

The very article sourced clearly says that the mitzvah (commandment) was effectively nullified. The source clearly says that it’s symbolic and clearly concludes that the commandment is to kill the ideology which Amalek symbolizes. The comment by Pollard was obviously symbolic and criticizing the values of the administration. There is no rational interpretation suggesting that he was calling for murder.

Further, the original source in the Bible says that the memory of amalek must be erased. It does not say to kill anyone. See deuteronomy 25:17.

This is a gross misrepresentation of a nuanced topic that the source itself addresses. It misquotes the verb of the commandment and implies a murderous intent.

The disclaimer for Israel-Palestine article editing notes the contentiousness of the topic and the extra caution that must be taken. This is inflammatory and dangerous and does nothing to help the contentiousnes of the conflict.

I would say the same thing about any mention that misquotes the notion of jihad and implies murderous intents of Palestinians or Muslims. We should work to bridge our gaps, not widen them as this statement does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:2300:b06:c0c3:ed3a:e38a:e305 (talk) 23:56, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, someone should probably remove it. I can't be arsed, myself... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:47, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed it. Even if the source supports that Jewish law mandates the killing of Amalekites (which it does not) it does not connect this in any way to Pollard's remarks on the Biden administration; if this is due in the article on Pollard we should be citing a source which explicitly makes this connection rather that straying towards improper synthesis like this. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:59, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I would remove the source Agnieszka653 (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Parncutt

Someone added the following sentence to the first paragraph of Richard Parncutt: "He became known to a wider audience for a controversial text published in 2012 that called for the death penalty for the Pope and climate deniers."

BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. But this is sensationalist. It is not a neutral point of view.

First, this is not what I am known for, not even to a "wider audience". I am known for my frequently cited academic research.

Second, the text in question did not "call for" anything. I clarified at several points that I oppose the death penalty in all cases. The aim of the text was to save the lives of untold millions of future victims of global warming, as explained on the first page.

Third, other wikipedia editors have discussed this issue and come to the conclusion that a reference to this incident does not belong in the opening paragraph.

For further information see http://www.parncutt.org/dp2.html.

John Wesley Ryles

OP found a WP:RS for DOD. JFHJr (㊟) 23:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

John Wesley Ryles apparently died yesterday, but so far I have failed to find any reliable sources verifying as such -- just Facebook and a music forum or two. I would suggest that more eyes be kept on this article until his death is independently corroborated. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 14:07, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you found a reliable source. JFHJr (㊟) 23:30, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Zohran Mamdani

Alerting that there is a debate in the Zohran Mamdani talk page about whether to include in the "Political positions" section within his biography the controversy surrounding whether or not he agrees with the slogan Globalize the Intifada (which relates to the contentious topic of the Arab-Israeli conflict). Green Montanan (talk) 16:58, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Mamdani himself has not used the phrase, including it in his biography seems WP:UNDUE. There is a fairly obvious smear campaign in progress to associate him with the phrase. The argument that Green Montanan and others have advanced seems to be that that very campaign renders his association with the phrase 'controversial' and thus deserving of inclusion. Conversely, I would argue that it's irrelevant to the man himself, and that including it violates BLP by supporting the smear campaign. GenevieveDEon (talk) 17:19, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Mamdani actually addressed the phrase, even though he did not utter the words that make up the phrase, means that he is associated with the phrase. Mentioning the fact that his comments about the phrase generated controversy is not a BLP violation. Green Montanan (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not it's a smear campaign, it's clearly a significant controversy about a public figure, so we should include it. It's gotten significant coverage in national news, it's kinda nuts we don't currently mention it at all. Loki (talk) 19:29, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mamdani has uttered the phrase and he is affiliated with Nerdeen Kiswani and her organization WOL the person who created the phrase initially [[12]] [[13]]. His refusal to initially condemn the phrase was also covered by outlets like politico [[14]] Agnieszka653 (talk) 16:55, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those sources has him using the phrase. Get a grip. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rabi Lamichhane

Nominated for CSD G10 as an attack page due to the page mostly focusing on the politician's controversies. I declined G10 as the page can absolutely be salvaged through normal editing, but I would like editors more familiar with the topic to ascertain whether the content is WP:DUE. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:05, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Edwards (media personality)

At Keith Edwards (media personality), a new editor has reverted unsourced personal information back into the article three times: here with a personal attack, here, and here. The source they're claiming in edit summaries does not cover the claims in question: a specific birthdate, a specific birthplace. He's also restored a link to a FamousFix (user-generated material and/or junk content scraper). Oddly, they're well aware of WP:BLP, given that they've attempted to utilize it in past discussions, although his comments were collapsed as AI-generated. I've clearly called out my BLP concerns in my edit summaries and in an ignored conversation on the user's talk page. A second set of eyes would be apricated, since I'm apparently "an idiot". Sam Kuru (talk) 03:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Warring editor now has a 72 hour block to cool their heals, so this is handled for the moment. (Learning how to report edit warring may be useful for future situations like this.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clayton Kershaw, 3x World Series champion

The BLP article Clayton Kershaw has attracted 25+ semi-protected edit requests in the last year seeking to add that he was a "World Series champion" in 2024. With the Dodgers' win last week, new edits also seek to add that he is now a "3-time World Series champion" to the infobox, prose, etc.

Kershaw pitched for the Dodger in 2024 but was put on the injured list at the end of August and did not appear on any post-season rosters.

Despite not pitching in the 2024 post-season, reliable secondary sources are unanimously in agreement that Kershaw was a 2024 World Series champion and is now a 3-time World Series champion for 2020, 2024, and 2025:

Associated Press: "Kershaw also won World Series championships in 2020 and 2024."
CBS Sports: "And now, he finishes with back-to-back World Series championships."
ESPN: "And that's gratifying because it means Kershaw was at least a contributor to the third championship of his storied career."
New York Times: ...thrilled to call himself a three-time champion.
USA Today: And that plaque will say, "three-time World Series champion."
Yahoo! Sports: Clayton Kershaw ends his career as a 3-time champion, in tears
The Orange County Register: Dodgers send Clayton Kershaw into retirement as a 3-time World Series champion
Fox Sports: …feels grateful for winning his 3rd World Series title with the Los Angeles Dodgers. ... Kershaw spent his entire career with the Dodgers and won three World Series rings. ... Kershaw also won World Series championships in 2020 and 2024.
Los Angeles Times: He’s a two-time World Series champion. (written prior to winning his third)

These edit requests have all been rejected as, apparently, there is past consensus in the baseball Wikiproject that only two sources should be considered for this material: his profile at MLB.com (WP:PRIMARY, WP:TERTIARY, and WP:COISOURCE) and the stats website "Baseball Reference" (WP:TERTIARY and arguably WP:SELFPUBLISHED). Both of these tertiary sources say "2x World Series champion (2020, 2025)" and omit the 2024 season when he played in the regular season, and was still under contract with the team, but was not on the active post-season roster.

As a result this GA-class BLP article is currently out of line with every single reliable secondary source written about Clayton Kershaw.

PK-WIKI (talk) 06:43, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is well established that Wikiprojects can not dictate what sources can and can not be used in articles, or what content is to be included. If the talk page discussion does not, or can not, resolve this disputed content, then a RfC may be the next logical avenue. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

jeff delzer

date of birth is 3/1/1956 not 9/1/1959 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ~2025-31216-72 (talk • contribs)

Please direct your inquiry to the associated talk page, along with a source for your information. Probably Talk:Jeff Delzer. 331dot (talk) 15:42, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the date of birth, as it was unsourced. Please do not add in any other date unless you have a source that qualifies under our guidelines regarding the inclusion of dates of birth for living people. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://kathmandupost.com/national/2024/12/23/social-activist-sunita-danuwar-passes-away

[2] WP:PROPORTION argument which is slightly different but in the same vein

[1]

[a]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies Volunteer response team Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Bad image list Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Large language models (LLMs) Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Discussions Undeletion Deletion review
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards