Talk:Mxmtoon - Knowledge (XXG)

3241:

from the initials of their real name if they wish their real name to remain private, but it's irrelevant to us as editors as long as there's no secondary source connection. The subject seems to be known/notable for their performances of songs, not for any sheet music they may sell of those songs. It's perfectly possible as the subject gets more and more well known, several secondary sources will emerge which don't respect the wishes of the subject. If that happens, then sure we will eventually include the name regardless of the wishes of subject. That doesn't seem to have happened yet, since editors are dredging up ASCAP records and sheet music, rather than showing us these secondary sources. (And the one secondary sources that may have existed, audiotree, AFAICT seems to have changed which I assume is why no one is using it any more.) To be clear, the fact the subject apparently does not wish their real name to be so publicly linked to their pseudonym is reason to care more about making sure we exclude it. However it's mostly irrelevant to the actual exclusion since the sources presented thus far do not justify inclusion even if we had no idea how the subject personally felt.

2755:, I believe the correct course of action is to omit mxmtoon's name, as they have shown and continue to provide evidence of concealing their legal name. In this section, it says "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. " If the name has been intentionally concealed.... it is often preferred to omit it, especially if no context is lost. As mxmtoon has tried to solely use 'mxmtoon' and 'maia' as identifiers, it is irrelevant to include her name. One of the sources used in support of providing her name is the ACE repertory, which one's legal name is required to be used in regard to song and artist information. 3430:

deletions. I was tempted to ask for you to be blocked when I saw you post it in the edit summary, but I won't do so unless you try that shit again. Since you've already agreed the real name is terrible poorly publicised, I'm not sure why you bothered to post. I would have thought once you started to write your message you would have realised you've defeated your own argument. This is not some minor details which we can include if we find some sources. This is a private detail BLP specifically says we should not include if it's not very well sourced so as I said, the argument it needs to be on the talk page to help people find sources is self-defeating.

3537:, and so until and unless you are able to find acceptable sources there is indeed nothing to discuss. If an editor is able to explain how the use of primary sources like ASCAP records does not clearly violate BLP, then sure I will respond. But so far, no one has managed to. I find it incredibly unlikely since this sort of crap is the stuff we have to deal with all the time, where people think their shitty primary sources are enough when BLP policy clearly says they are not. Most commonly this arises with adult film actors, but whatever the subject matter, the same principle applies. 1253: 1235: 3003:

referred to as "Maia." My last name's presence in various places across the internet have been used without my consent to do so. While I'm aware that information is online, it makes me deeply uncomfortable that it has been used in the first place. I ask that the Knowledge (XXG) article for mxmtoon stay with the consensus that was reached previously that "Maia" be the only information accessible for the reason that my own life and career have continuously stressed the importance of keeping a level of privacy in regards to my name.

1782: 1764: 828: 725: 3093:

of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. " If the name has been intentionally concealed... it is preferable to leave it out entirely, especially if the context is not needed. As I (mxmtoon) have tried to solely used 'Maia' and "mxmtoon" as identifiers, it is irrelevant to include my name.

698: 3219:

by their pseudonym, and someone had once written books on a school for wizards and witches under the name J K Rowling and we have no article on them as no one had ever heard of them or their books, it would be inappropriate to link these two without a secondary source having established the connection. Feel free to replace Robert Galbraith with JKR or SbI and J K Rowling with Joanne Rowling or Siti binti Ismail if aspects of this comparison confuse you. P.S. Take a read of

2398:

multitude of press articles stating such. I'm aware my name will be available online, but having it on a wikipedia page goes directly against my wishes as an artist as well as my entire team that I work with. I'm more than happy to involve my management or legal team to get this figured out, but I request that my last name not be on the wikipedia page for my artist project. The common named I would like to be referred to as is "Maia" and nothing beyond that.

735: 1130: 981: 887: 1161: 860: 1391: 1440: 1875: 1560: 1419: 1714: 1997: 897: 1696: 213: 630: 551: 609: 1327: 1303: 427: 190: 489: 458: 1337: 2095: 2203:. I'm not involved in any edit war. I just restored some content to a previous stable version before there had been major disruption to references meaning the whole article was covered in cite errors. Prior to my edit, the references were in a complete mess due to content removal by IP editor(s). I don't have strong views either way whether her real name should be included or not. Regards, 318: 969: 575: 1038: 1017: 475: 2737:

not knowing if it is just a case Maia's personal privacy preference or if there are other, perhaps more serious reasons, why she doesn't want this information disclosed. On the other hand there could be a COI in that the only reason she doesn't want her real name on the article is because she wants to avoid being associated with other family members.

1534: 2046: 1048: 499: 2909:, implying there was no consensus at that time. One other person responded, and then the conversation went radio silent. So I don’t see what consensus you’re referring to. As well, Maia has demonstrated ownership of the article multiple times now (someone allegedly sent her a screenshot of an edit surrounding the 3085:

the exclusion of my last name and consistent desire to be referred to only by first name) be prioritized for the sake of accuracy. When it comes to your need to verify my identity, I do not feel it's necessary to post on social media, if you have concerns with the validity of who I am you can email my management

3177:

especially as it's clear from secondary sources that the subject prefers the full name is not widely published. So far, all I've seen in terms of secondary sources audiotree, which doesn't seem to even have the name anymore that I can see and even if they do, is hardly the quality secondary source we

3088:

where my managers can give you reassurance that it's actually me. I've already reached out to each of these sources, asking repeatedly for my name to be taken down already and have been dealing with this issue across many places repeatedly since 2017 when I was a minor and my full name was still used

2494:

Here's an excerpt from an interview I did with NPR, "mxmtoon — who otherwise prefers to go by her first name, Maia — " and the SF Chronicle, "19-year-old internet phenom from Oakland, whose first name is Maia (and whose last name she prefers not to share)" *I have since stricken a tweet from this as

2244:

I'm undecided on whether the artist's full name should be included. I don't know if there is a consensus on this issue? At any rate a consensus should be sort on this talk page. Page protection may be needed. Maybe protect against unregistered editors, as the reverts seem to come from them - and they

3294:

Note that also dealt with how to handle a citation to a work of theirs which was published under their full name which isn't something we have to deal with here, since as I said, no one has demonstrated any relevant connection between the sheet music and this article. That the decision seems to have

3218:

Someone is selling sheet music. Who this is, I have no idea since AFAICT no one has provided secondary sources showing any connection to the subject of this article. It would indeed be no different for books. If there was this famous author we have an article on called Robert Galbraith who goes only

3092:

As previously stated as well in an earlier discussion, in accordance to WP:BLPNAME, omitting my full name on the mxmtoon Wiki seems to be the best course of action. As I've have shown, and can continue to provide evidence of, I prefer to conceal my legal name. In this section, it says "When the name

3084:

I understand my place when it comes to this Knowledge (XXG) article. It is not a page I own or edit, but as the person the article is about and with Knowledge (XXG) trying to be a place with reputable information given to its users, I see it important that relevant information regarding my name (ie.

2460:

No really. There is no right for the subject of an article to be able to censor material from Knowledge (XXG) on the basis that they don't want people to know it. The information is accurate and is sourced. It is basic biographical information and would be expected to be in any encyclopaedic article

2226:

Yes, Audiotree may have flouted her wishes, as the artist tries to keep her full name private. However, the information is now out and accessible so there should be no reason why it shouldn't be used. A star (especially at her current stage of fame) can't go a whole career without people finding out

3429:

BTW, I could have asked for revision deletions. I did not do so, since I do not feel it is necessary under BLP. If I was admin, I would have done the same, since my opinion would likely have remained the same. It's perfectly normal to redact stuff from the live page without bothering with revisions

3323:

is an article on the blog rather than the author of the blog. However, the above discussion is still a very useful reference for this case IMO. It illustrates we do not include a full name when it is not covered in reliable secondary sources and the subject themselves does not use it in most or all

3196:

Ok, fine, we can exclude the ASCAP website even though it is a searchable database available to the public. But sheet music for a musician - if this was a book by an author, how would it be different? She is clearly putting up her name in print for profit in bulk to the general public. Not just one

2736:

is more relevant and relates to "... being promotional and omitting negative information." not issues of privacy. The question whether a persons name can be consider private or confidential information under certain circumstances, and if so what circumstances. In this case is further complicated by

3240:

but it's clearly not in reference to the subject selling sheet music. Even their official website doesn't seem to mention any sheet musics. Editors are free to personally question the wisdom of including their real name in sheet music which is linked to them or even of choosing a pseudonym derived

2940:

out there. She has put it all out there, otherwise she wouldn't even have an article. She doesn't get to pick and choose what data goes public anywhere other than her own twitter feed. Knowledge (XXG) is not part of the Hollywood Media Complex. We don't only include things that are approved by the

3107:

How can you say it is irrelevant to include your name when your moniker MXMToon is based on your initials. It only makes sense that we want to know what MXMT stands for. Besides, no one cares about your privacy. If I go to your Twitter and see what you had for dinner tonight, you are oversharing.

3035:

Now, I understand that you want your privacy to be protected. But, you are over the age of 18, and therefore, consent isn’t a factor. As well, we have provided sources above that state your real name, such as the ASCAP database and Audiotree, which are publicly available. If you want your name to

3402:

Here is the problem with this. The information in question was found using illegitimate sources, therefore, they cannot be published here. It does not matter if the info is true or not, it has to be properly sourced. As for the COI, I feel that is nullified as this is an issue of WP:BLPNAME. The

3517:

I understand that, but to build consensus, I don’t think you bowing out is a good idea. If we’re trying to work together, I see no reason why you can’t just participate for the sake of consensus. There’s a pretty damn good reason to discuss the inclusion of the name, as the page just got fully

3002:

Hi there, this is Maia. While I understand your reasoning behind including my full name, I ask that you also try to understand that I keep my last name off of the internet for a reason and have multiple sources/interviews that explain that exact reasoning or keep to the sentiment of only being

2531:

What is the Knowledge (XXG) policy to back up this statement "There is no right for the subject of an article to be able to censor material from Knowledge (XXG) on the basis that they don't want people to know it." I don't think this is 100% correct, as Knowledge (XXG) wouldn't what to publish

2397:

Hi there, this is Maia (mxmtoon's wiki account) stepping in. Audiotree as well as other sources did not pay mind to my PR firm's instruction as to not include my full legal name. It's been a repeated choice to not have my name available for public knowledge when possible, and is seen through a

1151: 2769:

As mentioned earlier, I don't have strong views about whether her full name should be used or not. But if a consensus emerges that it shouldn't be disclosed in this article, then I think a brief mention of her desire for privacy should be given in the lead, with a form of words such

3671:

So, then, why can't ASCAP (primary) be used to validate MusicNotes (secondary) where she is selling copies of her works. Why can't the trademark office (primary) be used to validate her own youtube videos (secondary) where she credited herself as video producer and/or songwriter.

3271:, which concerned a largely off-Knowledge (XXG) controversy which also made it here relating to a subject's full name (or at least their family name, I'm not certain if it's their full name). Note there are several linked previous discussions but frankly the talk page 3414:

Thanks for confirming we should not be including the real name in the article. If people need to know the name to actually find sources that use it, then clearly it's terrible poorly published and does not belong in the article. I'm glad we have come to an agreement.

3295:

been to only include the initial for their family name for the citation. As I understand it, there were other works published under full name, but they weren't used as citations so were largely irrelevant to the article. So yeah, that's how we dealt with an author.

3197:'book' (I only posted one), but her entire catalog of 'books'. Each song (a 3-8 page short story) in her catalog has her full name printed on it, and she agreed to this when she signed up to have her music printed, reproduced, and sold to the general public in bulk. 2415:

to resolve this problem. If upheld the past versions of the page with the full name will likely be removed too. I couldn't find any source to back up the statement "I would like to be referred to as is "Maia" and nothing beyond that", could you provide a link?

2312:

To move forward we need to state the arguments for and against including real name Mxmtoon's, and how those arguments are backing by Knowledge (XXG)'s policies. Also, are there any sources for the claim Mxmtoon doesn't want her real name in the public sphere?

3157:

that this is indeed the article subject, and we have an obligation to prevent people being impersonated here. There is an entirely off-wiki process for confirming such things and they have been advised to use that. Please be patient, this can take some time.

3471:

to have the page fully protected, and it has been until February 9. In the 11 days until the page is automatically unprotected, I’d like us to come to a consensus. If the edit warring continues past Feb 9, I will be resorting to RFPP again, and possibly

2351:

As there does not appear to be any evidence that she does want her name kept secret, and the sources are available it should remain - Anonymous people claimming she does not want it is not a reason to remove the information. Either way, per

1893: 3275:

is still full of them. It's very messy, but AFAICT, the outcome of all that discussion was the exclusion of the name enforced by edit filters until very recently when the subject started a new blog explicitly listing their full name. See

3302:. (There was other stuff, mostly relating to adult film actors which as I mentioned below, are where these issues came up most recently. In one case a transgender subject, where there are additional considerations so I won't link to it.) 2012: 2107: 2142:

There seems to be an edit war on whether or to include the artist's real name or not. Her name is listed on the Audiotree reference, so either she doesn't mind, or Audiotree have knowingly (or unknowingly) flouted her wishes.

2597:

Hi, if you would look at the only note about mxmtoon on the page, I am going to quote " She uses the pseudonym Maia and has never personally disclosed her full name for privacy reasons." is it an issue to respect that?

2227:

their full name anyway. There will probably be many people (fans and even the artist's personnel) who will try and revert the full name edit... Do you think it would be necessary to put any type of page-protection on?

3261: 994: 870: 3656:

explicitly bans. Generally, Knowledge (XXG) follows reliable secondary sources in how it covers subjects; if the reliable secondary sources don't see it fit to use the subject's full name, then neither should we.

203: 3616:

There's no edit war. Someone added the data, someone said 'check the talk page'. Someone added the data, someone said 'add a source'. Someone added the data with a source, someone said 'different/more sources

153: 3299: 3268: 3368:

from the talk page, you are essentially blocking future editors from being able see the data in question which denies them the chance to find "legitimate" resources that can be used for the article.

1579: 3970: 3673: 3623: 3387: 3205: 2334: 3865: 3043:

team. If you provide proof that it’s really you, they can hide all the revisions that include your real name, so that they can’t be viewed publicly, which they currently can (case in point:

3756:

The link that is supposed to take the reader to the patch notes page that says that "prom dress" was added to the sims 4 doesn't work, but there is an internet archive version of it here:

2784:

Maia (born July 9, 2000) known professionally as mxmtoon (she chooses not to disclose her full name) is an American singer-songwriter and social media personality from Oakland, California.

765: 282: 3825: 1400: 1313: 3905: 999: 3815: 3690:. A secondary source has "an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis"; just copying information from one database into another database isn't doing any of that. 3496:

I don't see any need to share my thoughts here. I've already said all that needs to be said above. Find secondary sources, or there's no point discussing the inclusion of the name.

3178:

expect when there is this sort of dispute. Primary sources like ASCAP records, let alone sheet music are out for sourcing something like a birth name, just like they always are per

565: 406: 4005: 1822: 3830: 3257: 782: 1962: 1828: 3975: 3910: 3708:, something that is forbidden in all articles on the English Knowledge (XXG), regardless of whether living people are involved. (As I indicated in one of my earlier replies) 3109: 2948: 2917:

situation) and she responded saying "keep it in"), and that bit is no longer there as it was not notable enough. What I’m trying to say is that she can’t keep demonstrating

3030:

that states that if you have a conflict of interest (COI) with an article subject (you know/are/work with/associate with the subject), that you shouldn’t edit the article

680: 3900: 1924: 2628:

argument. We have a source, it appears accurate. It is easily googleable so concerns about outing someone do not apply. That they don't want it known is not material.

818: 3875: 3810: 3677: 3627: 3391: 842: 3845: 670: 3237:

BTW, to make sure I'm not missing something, I had a quick look. The only thing close to a reliable source I could find mentioning mxmtoon and sheet music is this

2569: 1112: 411: 4010: 3860: 1911: 808: 147: 1798: 959: 772: 3880: 1938: 1907: 1217: 79: 3955: 3950: 3925: 3850: 3800: 1598: 1102: 3476:

if necessary. I expect all of you to not edit war, even when the page is unprotected. Even if we have not come to a consensus, it’s important that we don’t

646: 343: 4000: 3895: 3885: 3285: 1949: 1656: 949: 394:) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or 3795: 3039:

As a first step, you need to prove that it’s really you. I suggest posting on social media and then including a link here. Then, I suggest contacting the

1594: 1490: 777: 3980: 3940: 3870: 3652:

I think policy supports continuing to exclude the name. The ASCAP link falls under the category of "public records that include personal details", which

1207: 2008: 1365: 517: 386: 3571:

As of now, I agree with Nil Einne's points. I feel that their points about the sources being in violation of BLP (correct me if I misunderstood that).

3024:

Hey. I’m sure seeing an article about yourself may be daunting, and I know you want to make it as perfect as possible. Unfortunately, we have a policy

3930: 3840: 2119: 326: 2532:

someone's address, or reveal the name of a police protected witness. We do not know the reason for the desire for the real name not to be disclosed.

1789: 1769: 1078: 3990: 3915: 3855: 1480: 3153:

Sorry everyone, but I'm afraid I've felt it necessary to block the above account. While I don't personally doubt their identity, we don't actually

2314: 925: 837: 708: 199: 85: 3835: 3113: 2952: 1183: 637: 614: 521: 3920: 3820: 748: 703: 242: 3995: 3890: 3757: 3131: 2854: 2711: 2577: 2559: 1456: 1361: 1351: 1308: 362:

songs in her parents' guest bedroom, reached 100 million streams and nearly sold out an international tour before releasing her first album?

3935: 3805: 2622:

person or an organization that is the subject of an article does not own the article, and has no right to dictate what the article may say.

1639: 1602: 30: 1900: 1730: 1061: 1022: 3762:

I'm very new to Knowledge (XXG) so I just wanted to put this here so people could get this right and update it without me messing it up.

516:, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Knowledge (XXG)'s articles about people. All interested editors are invited to 3960: 2672: 3785: 3529:

Please read what I said again. I never said anything about bowing out. I said there is nothing further to discuss. You cannot override

1269: 910: 865: 3985: 3209: 760: 525: 202:. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the 3467:

It’s clear that we are in a bit of an edit war/content dispute about whether to include Maia's real name or not. I made a request at

2798:

This would then explain to readers of the article that it's her desire that she only wants to be known as Maia and mxmtoon. Regards,

2624:" There does not appear to be a dispute about the facts. As to concern about naming her if shw was in witness protection, that is a 1174: 1135: 560: 512: 468: 463: 230: 99: 2335:

Knowledge (XXG):Teahouse#Including_an_artist's_real_name_in_an_article_(when_it's_claimed_they_do_not_the_name_in_the_public_sphere)

104: 20: 2175: 2171: 2163: 756:

on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.

3127: 2850: 2707: 2573: 2555: 1626: 1447: 1424: 224: 74: 3965: 3386:, the edit history would be blocked as well. At this point, anyone can come along and review old edits to see the information. 44: 3557:

so I make no guarantees I will not fight hard to keep the name out as long as people continue to rely on such shitty sources.

2554:. Basically, if the sources are BLP-good (no primary sources, for example), include it. If not, "err on the side of caution". 2031: 2004: 1918: 1887: 1721: 1701: 1587: 1572: 438: 3403:

personal issue you have with the edit history can be fixed through proper channels, as someone said on this talk page prior.

3636:

No, this was an edit war. I had a part in it, as I removed the name several times. After I removed it, someone re added it.

1260: 1240: 65: 1455:

and related topics on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

986: 3704:

In addition, I'd note that combining two sources to reach a conclusion that isn't in either source is a clear example of

2027: 591: 3790: 3462: 3534: 2661: 3945: 168: 3050:). They can also remove the content from the current version of the article. I hope you consider doing this. Thanks! 135: 3480:. Anyways, I’d like everyone to share their thoughts below, and we can discuss this over the next week and a half. 395: 189: 109: 2803: 2208: 2019: 2011:, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been 2914: 2317:

only states common usage name should be the article's name, not whether or not a real name should be included.

3359:

from the talk page, you are confirming it to be correct. Otherwise, privacy of the name wouldn't be the issue.

1620: 444: 2071: 1544: 3653: 3179: 3174: 3173:

Regardless of the identity of MaiaXMT, we need decent secondary sources if we want to include the name per

2692: 2551: 1665: 1252: 1234: 1074: 3758:

https://web.archive.org/web/20191213005248/https://www.ea.com/games/the-sims/the-sims-4/news/patch-121219

3687: 3223:

before you try to link the sheet music to the subject of this article by the content of the sheet music.

3040: 2838: 2703: 2030:

may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the

2023: 129: 55: 3767: 3272: 2842: 2742: 2537: 2421: 2342: 2322: 2250: 2189: 2148: 1797: