Jump to content

Talk:Peter Todd (programmer)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gotitbro (talk | contribs) at 22:10, 23 February 2025 (Sexual misconduct: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

October 16, 2024: Age and Birthdate (header)

No notable source found - feel free to add. Light Jagami (talk) 05:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this user was blocked as a sock puppet per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lustigermutiger21. Grayfell (talk) 21:45, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Right now, all of the sources for this article are about the 2024 doc Money Electric: The Bitcoin Mystery by Cullen Hoback. Todd is arguably a WP:BLP1E.

There is also this Verge article from 2019 about accusations of sexual assault. This is the only reliable source for this I have seen. Per a bunch of unreliable crypto sources, the accompanying defamation and SLAPP lawsuits were settled.

If this can be included in a way which satisfies WP:BLP and WP:NOTGOSSIP, it would go towards meeting notability guidelines. Is there any other reason he's notable? Otherwise, this could be more easily summarized at the Money Electric: The Bitcoin Mystery article. Grayfell (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual misconduct

@Grayfell: The allegations are a matter of public record as seen in the report by The Verge (who covered it as part of the more high profile Jacob Applebaum case).The content that was added by me can be condensed but the case has indeed received much media coverage including after the Bitcoin documentary (e.g. [1], [2]) which should address any BLP issues. No mention of this would appear to an obvious ommission. Gotitbro (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neither WP:FORBESCON nor WP:DAILYMAIL are reliable at all, and especially not for for BLP issues like this. I agree that it should be mentioned if it can be, but it needs to be handled much more carefully. I had previously tried to summarize it, and that was previously removed by another editor, so this should be discussed before being restored. Grayfell (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Grayfell: I know about Dailymail and Forbes/blogs being non-RS, that was only demonstrative of public interest in this aspect of the bio. I was skeptical of Cointelegraph but added it to provide a closure for the case (though primary scources are also available). The invovlement of Applebaum for the plaintiff here is also what raises the cases notability. A single para mention of the accusation, suit, Applebaum and settlement is perhaps how we should proceed. @Notwally: inviting for comments. Gotitbro (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]