Talk:F1NN5TER

Names in the lead

@Tamzin Elaborating on my position from edit summaries:

I don't think that MOS:FULLNAME means what you say it means? It only says we need to include the full name if the full name is known. It's not, and I think the encyclopedic value of including just the first name, especially when it's already in the infobox, is pretty low. Loki (talk) 16:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

FULLNAME is about a name that's full to the extent knowable from public sources. That's evident from the text of the guideline, which acknowledges that sometimes we might not know someone's middle name/initials. A forename-only "full name" was the approach taken at Technoblade, which is a GA, and I see no reason to depart from that here. It's not like this is private information, nor like it's never been reported in RS: Finn has voluntarily posted a redacted birth certificate that shows this name, and the name is used by TheGamer. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 16:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Annoyingly, you're right: every article I could find about someone whose current first name is known mentions it first before their more commonly known nickname.

I think this is a bad convention and would support changing it but I'm not gonna make a fuss about it on this page. Loki (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

We do now have a primary source for F1NN5TER's full name: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5N8gN1LDqE.

TypistMonkey (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

#Name LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 23:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Capitalization

Should the title be lowercase (i.e. F1nn5ter)? Looking at JPEGMafia and MF Doom and many other pages where the artist/creator name is intended to be stylized in all caps are lowercase for the letters that otherwise shouldn't be lowercased. Other notable examples with numbers as letters include Crim3s, Hori7on and 4Eve. Artworks instead of artists include Aggro_Dr1ft, Asin9ne, H00dByAir, EvilJ0rdan, and others. Phillycj 03:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

@Phillycj: Some of those things have official spellings, in which case, yes, it's fair to distinguish based on stylizations. In this case, "F1NN5TER" is just a screen name, so the only things for us to go off of are how he spells it (usually in all-caps) and how reliable sources spell it (usually in all caps); there's no official right answer. As such, calling "F1NN5TER" a stylization of "F1nn5ter", rather than the other way around, or both capitalizations being equally correct, would be original research. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 01:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

My point with sources like MF DOOM who explicitly calls for using all caps when his name is spelt, and Wikipedia chose to ignore that request and go with the consistent convention of turning all caps into lowercase. Whether or not F1nn5ter or F1NN5TER is more "correct" shouldn't matter, as can be seen with a search of the articles with the phrase "stylized in all caps" on all mainspace pages. WP:ALLCAPS Phillycj 00:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

"Stylized in all caps" is for when there is an officially lowercase name that is sometimes put in all-caps for, well, stylistic reasons. If there's an impression that we must put an uppercase name in lowercase even when the canonical spelling is lowercase, I think that's a misapplication of policy born of people misunderstanding what a stylization is. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 01:50, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with the assessment that "stylized in all caps" is only used when there is an officially lowercase name. Spelling in all caps is a stylistic funxction unless it is for something like an acronym or an initialism. The other notable example is JPEGMafia, who is never referred to with that capitalization outside of Wikipedia due to WP:ALLCAPS. Despite streaming services, music storefronts and other sources using all caps, and criticsim of the Wikipedia title from the artist directly and the occasional use of "Jpegmafia" in some places informally, Wikipedia still goes with the unique capitalization to fit WP:ALLCAPS first.

Pinging WT:MOSCAPS as there is either very little or no presedent for keeping all-caps usernames. Phillycj 22:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

One channel uses all caps and one doesn't. So F1NN5TER and F1nn5ter are eqivalent and the all caps version is the stylized one by the usual standards of English.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Twitch channel names are case-insensitive (/f1nn5ter and /F1NN5TER display the same page, handled dynamically at a server level), but the displayed name is "F1NN5TER". Similar situation with Twitter, Instagram, Threads, OnlyFans, and Discord. YouTube, yes, is /F1nn5terLIVE, but then with description "The official F1NN5TER stream highlights channel". I don't see how you can get from this that "F1NN5TER" is the stylization of "F1nn5ter" rather than the other way around. "usual standards of English" doesn't apply; 13375p34k screen names aren't written according to the usual standards of English. Usernames in general aren't. If Phillycj were mentioned by username in an article, we wouldn't call him "Philly C. J.". -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 18:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I think you're not understanding the meaning of "stylizing" in this context. Where any all-caps name, regardless of how "official" the source capitalization is, the capitalization serves only a stylistic purpose, rather than any grammatical purpose. The name for F1nn does not derive from anything like an acronym, so therefore should be changed to lowercase. As for the hypothetical of changing my name if i was notable enough, that would not be applicable because the scenario of changing capitalization is only done for things that are in all-caps. Phillycj 19:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

You're begging the question. Who says it serves only a stylistic purpose? If someone prefers to spell their screen name a certain way, that is the correct spelling. Again, much like "Phillycj" is the correct spelling of your screen name, and not "PHILLYCJ", "PhIlLy Cj", "Philadelphia, Chief Justice", etc. (This might not hold true if independent reliable sources generally prefer a different spelling from what the subject prefers, but that's not the case here.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 19:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay, you keep going back on yourself, and you keep trying to go back to an example of a username that is not all-caps, but the precedence is clear: when a name/trademark is in all-caps, it should be turned to lowercase whenever applicable, regardless of how the official source spells it. Rather than trying to prove F1NN5TER *doesn't* stand for something to warrant an all-caps acronym explaination, the onus is on proving that the name *is* an acronym or warrants all-caps. Especially with cases such as JPEGMafia, where not a single source has ever used that capitalization, Wikipedia used WP:ALLCAPS to justify going against all sources and fron the artist themselves and go with a title that matches WP:ALLCAPS. The most applicable sentence in the MOS relating to cases is this: Avoid writing with all caps (all capital letters), including small caps (all caps at a reduced size), when they have only a stylistic function. Reduce them to title case, sentence case, or normal case, as appropriate. As F1NN5TER's all-caps has not been proven to be anything other than stylistic function, it should be changed to lower case. Phillycj 19:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I've not been addressing your other examples because 1) this is a very fact-dependent question, especially regarding the particular nature of screen names as opposed to stage names, and 2) other stuff exists and I'm not at all convinced that MOS:ALLCAPS is applied correctly 100% of the time. My interest here is singular: I think this article should use the name that the person actually uses for himself, and that sources use for him. You're welcome to think that the caps are purely stylistic. I think you're wrong. I think caps are inherently substantive in the context of a screen name, because that's how screen names work. So that's a reasonable difference of opinion between two reasonable people. If you'd like to open an RM, you of course can. All I really care is that, if it is moved, we respect WP:NOR and write "usually written in all caps" rather than the original-research "stylized in all caps". -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 19:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The subject himself uses both forms (see here, for example), and both forms appear in cited sources. I suggest that in such situations, Wikipedia prefers lowercase. Per the first sentence of MOS:CAPS, "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization." —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 03:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Instagram doesn't allow capital letters in usernames. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 03:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Is that true for TikTok too? (see here). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 15:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I believe it is, for the @such-and-such name. (Note the all-caps display name.) The one odd man out here, as I've acknowledged, is his YouTube channel, F1nn5terLIVE. Maybe that was for consistency with other social media where lowercase is required. Maybe he just felt like it. I don't know. I'm not swayed much by it because a) it is, as far as I can see, a singular exception to a pattern of always using all-caps where permitted and b) it is a channel name that references him, but not the actual name he uses for his online persona, which is still "F1NN5TER" per the channel bio. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 16:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

As a third alternative, four sources cited in the article include "Finnster". The Wikipedia article says this is a misspelling, but I cannot find any cited sources that say it is a misspelling (none at all, and especially no independent sources). MOS:TM would suggest that as the form most resembling ordinary English. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Ferguson says "Finnster" in prose but "F1NN5TER" when citing him. GameRevolution says "F1nn5ter", and gives "Finnster" as a pronunciation, but not an alias. GameRant (as noted, a marginally reliable source) says "F1NN5TER" on first reference and "Finnster" subsequently. Dot Esports (a passing mention) says "F1nn5ter". The five other sources all say "F1NN5TER". As to "misspelled", I'm happy to drop that (it's somewhat subjective and really beside the point), but either way, "Finnster" is a decidedly variant spelling, not used (and implicitly disfavored) by the subject and only used as the primary spelling in one source. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 16:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Name became public knowledge

Unfortunately, the Times just cut the whole "include name or not" discussion short by just publishing his name in an article. As such, I have included it here, with the edit being reverted by user @Sideswipe9th with reference to WP:BLPNAME, so I am seeking consensus here on whether it should be included or not, as the application of BLPNAME is iffy at best.

Out of respect, I am not including link to the article here; it can easily be found with search engine of your choice, as well as the article's subject himself tweeted a link to the article today. 2003:FA:C712:F100:462:B232:F749:FBF6 (talk) 17:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

In my mind WP:BLPNAME pretty clearly applies. The full name has not been widely disseminated, and was intentionally concealed when F1nn posted the photo of his birth certificate. F1nn also considers The Times to have doxxed him. Just because The Times have chosen to egregiously invade his privacy does not mean we have to do the same, as even outside of the BLPNAME concern verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

There's a longstanding convention that if a living person tries to keep their full name private, and it shows up in one or two places, especially in biased (even if otherwise reliable) sources, we still usually err on the side of omission. See, for instance, this RfC I closed about Chloe Cole's legal name. (And we definitely wouldn't want to give the appearance of favoritism of one side of the gender culture wars over the other, on something like this.) One important consideration here is that the Times piece is more of a primary source than a secondary one: They're breaking new "news", in line with their past primary coverage of GenderGP. That doesn't establish a lot of weight in favor of inclusion, especially in contrast with previous reliable sources' omission of the surname. The measure of whether we include the name should be to what extent reliable secondary sources follow The Times's inclusion of the surname. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 18:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh and pedantically, BLPNAME may or may not apply, but WP:BLPPRIVACY clearly does: Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources. This has not been widely published. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 18:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

"There's a longstanding convention that if a living person tries to keep their full name private" - I'll have to concede this for now, even though I *want* to argue that him tweeting about it makes no sense in this context; it's more like he's reversed his stance. "Hey, I want none of you degenerates to know my real name, but here's an article that prints it"? That's a rather unlikely position, but I shall leave it be. 2003:FA:C712:F100:462:B232:F749:FBF6 (talk) 18:20, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Equally, his tweet calls it doxxing. It's clear he's not happy about them posting it in the article, nor does he seem to like their giving him three hours to comment... I'd urge all to err on the side of omission unless a consensus to the contrary is reached, rather than what looks to be the start of some edit reverting.  viljo  ^talk 22:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

"Edit reverting" is what happens when people get doxxed, plain and simple. I'm surprised it hasn't been oversought yet. And BLPPRIVACY is part of a policy, no ifs or buts here. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:18, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh to be clear, I'm not blaming your intervention, rather replacing the edit when you had (imo correctly) removed it. I'm just tired and a bit rusty.  viljo  ^talk 22:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:OSPOL#1 only covers non-public information, and while you could maybe make an argument under Identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public because F1nn didn't consent to his name being published and considers it doxxing by The Times, that it has now been published by a newspaper also arguably makes this now public information. Even RD2 would be hard to hard to justify, unless maybe The Times make a retraction. That has happened in the recent past, where The Times added Brianna Ghey's former name to their early coverage of her murder and then later removed it again after intense backlash.

For now though, reversion under WP:BLPNAME, WP:BLPPRIVACY, and WP:BLPRESTORE is warranted unless and until there's a consensus here for inclusion of his full name. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:29, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

See why I often start discussions on RSN about deprecating The Times? They do that shit so often, it's insane that they're still a RS for LGBT topics. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 22:35, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, I don't think publishing someone's name makes them unreliable. No less than the New York Times is also unreliable for publishing Slate Star Codex's last name too. Newspapers often have a policy of using people's real names when reporting on newsworthy figures. I suspect if a journalist at the NYT wanted to run a feature on F1NN5TER they would also be required to doxx him as well (like they were with SSC). I don't think this an issue which is specific to LGBT topics.

Obviously that doesn't mean we should include F1NN5TER's last name on Wikipedia (we shouldn't), but it doesn't mean we can't rely on The Times to publish factual information. Endwise (talk) 06:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Honestly? at the risk of verging into a wrong-venue situation, quality-wise, I would expect this kind of article from the daily mail. "charity accepts massive donation from Wierd Person", wow, what a shocker. Note especially the lack of any reference to published medical literature and the context-free cass report quote. Giving a person you're writing about three hours to respond for an article about an "incidident" that occurred back in in november 2023 at the latest also seems like bad form to me. (I had to look up when this happened by myself by the way, because the Times doesn't say.) --Licks-rocks (talk) 16:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I mean personally I think that at this point the NYT should be moved to RSP yellow on political topics, definitely LGBT ones Snokalok (talk) 22:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I think there's utility in a discussion for dropping most otherwise-reliable British newspapers to WP:MREL for LGBT issues; we can't be blind to the fact that reliable sources outside the UK are picking up on the British establishment's transphobia problem. Sceptre (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I am/was inclined to agree (see my deleted comments), but there are somewhat recent discussions that were pretty clear (linked on the perennial list, I think). Do you think those are worth revisiting? FortunateSons (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I would say so, but if there's anything I learned about RSN, it's that the status quo is very important. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I’m inclined to agree with that assessment, but would nevertheless be inclined to consider re-litigating said discussion to be a worthy endeavour even if it’s likely that it will go nowhere. FortunateSons (talk) 01:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

If you want to, then whatever. I'm holding myself from doing anything because I know it's gonna go nowhere. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 01:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I think these discussions Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 392#RfC: The Times of London mean it’s probably both to recent and unlikely to succeed, what do you think? FortunateSons (talk) 09:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

That trio of RfCs was a mess, as can be seen in the closing statements. A discussion that actually makes an evidence-based case for something narrow like "The Times is a biased or opinionated source on transgender topics. Its coverage of these topics should generally not be used for contentious claims, especially ones about living persons", might have some chance of succeed. Or it might not. I don't think anyone can say for sure. Just, if you do it, make sure to make a clear argument, not "I don't like it". And remember that the key question isn't whether it's biased, but whether its bias affects reliability. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 15:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

If you think that it isn’t futile, I’m happy to open an RfC? FortunateSons (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't participate in noticeboards anymore except for when it is directly related to improving content I've worked on—not the case here, since we have a local consensus to exclude, and a global "generally reliable" at RSN can't override that. All I can say is the general advice I've given, that a well-argued, evidence-based, narrowly-worded proposal might prevail. @Sideswipe9th might have thoughts as well -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 17:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you FortunateSons (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

My thoughts largely align with Tamzin's here. Just because a source is generally reliable does not prevent a consensus forming on an article's talk page to exclude it. If an RSN discussion on The Times is to have any chance of success, it needs to be narrowly-worded, with good argumentation based on high quality reliable sources.

The main barrier to overcome is that many hold The Times to be a newspaper of record, and while that might still be true in some contexts (their editorial quality has dropped overall in the last ten/twenty years) a discussion at RSN needs to prove that it's not true in the context of LGBT reporting. To do that, you'll need strong evidence that their factual reporting is heavily biased and that the bias affects their reliability. You also need to be absolutely sure that the evidence being presented is discussing their factual reporting and not any of the LGBT hostile op-eds they also frequently publish.

I don't think that sourcing is there yet for a case against The Times. It's maybe there for a case against The Telegraph, who are quite a bit worse in their coverage, but even then it'd still be a difficult one to bring. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time, I think I agree with both your assessment and the recommendation to wait for more evidence. FortunateSons (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Those three RFCs were all started by a user who was specifically arguing that those sources were reliable. That is why there is no WP:RFCBEFORE and no argument that they're not reliable presented until several people have already voted on each of them. Loki (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

It should not be included. Based on the fact that the subject referred to it as doxing, their wish should be respected per the policies cited above.

Additionally, even if it weren’t, a person doxxed in a way that can be reasonably perceived as retaliation for political activism in favor of trans people would probably put us in IAR territory, even if we were to ignore the way this article attempts to make its point. FortunateSons (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Name

On stream, 25 March (https://www.twitch.tv/videos/2101385073?t=00h06m55s):

"Let's get this out of the way first. My full name is [name]. How do I know that? Well, luckily The Times informed me." ... "I feel like I may as well say it now. The people that actually want to cause me harm, you know, can find it, so I feel like saying it to you guys, you know, you guys are nice."

The text "has not disclosed his surname" isn't correct now, regardless of the article in that newspaper.

He has also registered companies in his own name, do those UK government pages count as sources? Kvgrk0kgv (talk) 08:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Primary source business records shouldn't affect whether we provide his surname. The issue isn't about whether we know the surname is accurate it's that we have respect for his privacy. However I think you have a point regarding the "has not disclosed his surname" footnote now being incorrect, so we should probably remove it. Endwise (talk) 08:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I've removed the footnote. If he's at this point owning the full name, I'm now on board with including the surname, sourced to that video per WP:BLPSPS / WP:ABOUTSELF, similar to the situation with Slate Star Codex. But I'll hold off for a bit in case anyone objects. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 15:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@Endwise @Sideswipe9th @FortunateSons @Viljo: Pinging to see if anyone has objections. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 01:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I got objections. He was basically forced to confirm it was his name. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 18:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, it’s unfortunate that it comes to this due to doxxing, but I agree that the correct application of policy now permits inclusion per BLPSPS, so no objections from my end (except and unless there is a request for removal made, which I believe should be honoured). FortunateSons (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to think. He is owning the full name but only because he feels he has no choice under the circumstances. He would not be doing so if it was not for the actions of The Times which has clearly acted entirely maliciously in this matter. I don't feel right about us including the full name but I accept that that's not a policy based reason to exclude it. If we are to include the full name then I don't think we should source it to The Times as that "article" is essentially just a borderline libellous conspiracy theory trying to insinuate wrongdoing based on nothing. (The narrative they spin basically boils down to "Person receives windfall. Person donates windfall to charity. What a bastard!". It's truly pathetic.) Are there any other valid sources? As noted above, Companies House is not valid. Maybe the Twitch clip itself? DanielRigal (talk) 01:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking we'd use the Twitch clip. It's a perfectly valid source under BLPSPS/ABOUTSELF. Sometimes with ABOUTSELF statements there's the added question of due weight, but a surname is the sort of core biographical information that any article is expected to include if it's well-sourced and does not violate the person's privacy. For what it's worth, a few days before the Times article I reached out to F1NN5TER, because when I write a BLP I want the subject to know who to talk to if they have concerns. As it happens, the same day the Times article came out we wound up talking to sort out image licensing. I didn't ask about his preference on including his surname, and he didn't bring the matter up himself, and so I won't read into that either way, but I'm just mentioning to stress that, if he does object to inclusion, he knows he has rights as a BLP subject and knows how to reach out. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 01:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Tamzin, would you consider reaching out to F1nn and asking if there is a preference from him? I think that would be a good compromise with the understandable objection from @LilianaUwU? FortunateSons (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd second this request. This is kinda an unusual case when it comes to a BLP subject's name, and I think asking them how they want to proceed might be warranted in the circumstances. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I have the same unease over this as DanielRigal. Effectively he's been partially doxxed by a major UK newspaper, two weeks after he came out as genderfluid, for the sole purpose of writing a hit piece against against GenderGP. I feel kinda like he's been backed into a corner where he now has to acknowledge it in some way, hence the recent video which I've yet to watch. If we are to include it I'd cite it to the Twitch/YouTube clip per WP:ABOUTSELF, but I also think WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLPNAME might still apply here if we were not to include it, even with the recent video in mind. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Re this and LilianaUwU's comment above, I somewhat disagree with characterizing this as forced. He made the adult decision to own the doxxing in a very visible way rather than avoid the topic, which would have been an equally viable decision and is the one a lot of people in that situation take. It's not a fair situation that he was put in, but from our perspective the question is if he's voluntarily released his full name, and I think the answer to that is yes. Re FortunateSons, I can reach out to him, sure, although I can't guarantee he'll reply (even assuming he cares to answer, my understanding is it's very easy to lose DMs when you're that online-famous), and of course you'd have to take my word for it as to the contents of any reply. (The reply would of course not be citable in the article, but we're not bound by RS in terms of how we exercise our editorial discretion.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 18:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for agreeing to reach out. We would have to trust you, but as you are an experienced editor in good standing, I think we can extend you the necessary trust that you would not lie.

Nevertheless, as stated above, I agree with your position, but an abundance of caution won’t hurt. FortunateSons (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Quoting with F1NN5TER's permission:

Tamzin: Hello! A question has been raised as to whether you object to your surname being included in your Wikipedia article. As before, I can't promise any particular outcome, but your preference, if you choose to share it, will be taken into account. :) I can also refer you to the formal resources for exercising your rights as an article subject, rather than DMing with one individual editor, if you'd prefer.
F1NN: Ah I think for now I don’t love the idea but honestly I don’t mind too much

Given the limited encyclopedic value of the surname, I'm fine with exercising some editorial discretion here and keeping the surname out for now, until/unless other sources start using it. If that transpires, it's good to know that we wouldn't be doing anything hugely upsetting by including at that point. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 20:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I greatly appreciate you taking the time, and am glad we got a response from him. Therefore, I agree with your assessment and would support not including the last name for now. FortunateSons (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Chiming in a little late but I agree with your judgement here @Tamzin!  viljo  ^talk 12:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Should there be a redirect with his name? SWinxy (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I had made one, but had it deleted once we reached consensus to omit. Generally you shouldn't have a redirect that isn't mentioned at the target page. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 18:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, the phrasing of the opening sentence as "Jude (born 21 April 2000), known professionally as ..." gives the false impression that he is mononymous, like Plato, Epictetus, Hannibal, Pocahontas, Sukarno, Suharto, Wiranto, Hariono, etc. As far as I know, he does not consider "Jude" his full name. It is simply his first name, not his complete name. I have the same complaint about the personal name shown in the infobox, which again is just "Jude". I am not advocating that his surname should be provided – only that the article clearly indicate that it has been omitted. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Maybe something similar to mxmtoon can work? Spinixster (trout me!) 04:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the original version that found consensus in the last discussion is optimal.

That being said, I think valid arguments can be made for alternative versions which do not include his last name. FortunateSons (talk) 21:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Why are we censoring out F1nn5ters name?

Jude himself has made a video where he tells everyone his name himself. I am pretty inexperienced here, so there might be some rule that I am unaware of, but I think we should at least remove the note that says "F1NN5TER does not disclose his full name for privacy reasons." since it is no longer true. MakerJulian (talk) 21:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

If you read the thread directly above this one you will see the discussion we had about this a few months ago. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't we at least change the note at the bottom to say that he has revealed his name before? MakerJulian (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, he only did so after he got doxxed. 172.59.128.60 (talk) 05:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)