Talk:Jack Hidary

Recent reverts of WP:RS information

@Enigma orange has now repeatedly reverted reliably sourced information about Jack Hidary and SandboxAQ (diff 1315876360; diff 1315879945), writing in the second case:

Roddan has made some claims about the company in multiple articles but he is the only one to suggest anything to the effect. There is no one to support or back up his claims, nor is there tangible concrete info. You can't list someone's opinions about an individual on wiki. Claims about revenue only existing in the start seem wrong considering a consensus of credible reporting on recent contracts e.g. https://thequantuminsider.com/2025/01/22/aramco-and-sandboxaq-sign-ai-agreement/.

A few points:

1. I am unaware of any policy that should lead us to consider otherwise-reliable sources to be unreliable due to common authorship.
2. Roddan is not "the only one" writing about SandboxAQ; one of the articles in The Information cited as a source, and repeatedly removed, had a co-author
3. The supposed "recent" counterexample cited by @Enigma orange is misleading: it is from January 2025, whereas the most recent article in The Information is from July 2025.
4. Additionally, this is at least the second time that a newly-created account has immediately jumped into removing WP:RS information from this page. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jaybee1296 for the previous case.

Accordingly, I am re-reverting @Enigma orange's latest edit. Please discuss here with any concerns. —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 17:06, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

1 and 2: Please see the wikipedia rules for biographic pages: "Immediately remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, especially if potentially libellous (including on the talk page)." via (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons) One news agency does not constitute enough information and it is definitely a libel type article which is something to be careful of.

3. Some other recent developments: https://www.executivebiz.com/articles/sandboxaq-army-c5isr-center-ai-lqm-battery-health, https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/sandboxaq-unveils-sair-structurally-augmented-ic50-repository-a-novel-open-dataset-of-protein-ligand-structures-labelled-by-binding-affinities-302485328.html, https://innovate.research.ufl.edu/ioncologi-partners-with-sandboxaq-ai-driven-drug-discovery-for-glioblastoma/, etc. Enigma orange (talk) 04:12, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

The material in question is neither unsourced nor poorly sourced. You have now removed it three times, note WP:3RR. Also noted that you didn't address my point (4) above, the fact that you're the second brand-new account editing this page to revert recently-reported information. —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 04:21, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

One news agency reporting with no others is a good example of "poorly sourced." The agency stands to gain by creating libel type articles. This is explicitly against wiki rules for bios.

No it is not. You are making up non-existent policies. Additionally, The Information is a well-regarded source for tech and business news, and is cited frequently on Wikipedia. Furthermore, you have now removed information about Jack Hidary's campaign finance violations, which cite a complete separate set of sources. —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 15:03, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, its is WP:Verifiability states "poorly sourced" refers to: "contentious material about living and recently deceased persons." This is contentious WP:Libel information. I am sorry but it is very reasonable to request that this needs more backing up. Either put it in beter context or remove completely. Enigma orange (talk) 19:36, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

1. Are you really claiming that a 12-year old article from the Wall Street Journal and a PDF published by a public body constitute "contentious material"? Because you have removed direct quotes from those sources repeatedly.

2. You're omitting or overlooking a key sentence from WP:BURDEN, namely "a fact or claim is 'verifiable' if a reliable source that supports it could be cited." In fact, all of the factual information that you have removed is cited by sources which are considered reliable by consensus here on English Wikipedia. —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 19:54, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

What I am saying is that for a wiki bio the quality of information has to be higher than usual. I am definitely claiming that the opinion of one author from the independent is not sufficient to support the libel type claims it makes. Can we please resolve this by finding a WP:Consensus?

That information added in point one was old so I was confused why it was added now, it seems you have a bad WP:POV from which you are making claims but if the information is valid we can add it back in.

The independent citation is not sufficient for the language and claims that were made and does not represent WP:BURDEN for a bio. Would you be willing to work on adapted language? Enigma orange (talk) 20:08, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Please be mindful of the edits you make. This is very clearly not something that should be here, I am sorry we disagree. Perhaps there is a way we can resolve this by adapting the language.

If you were actually interested in "adapting the language", rather than in simply removing relevant and well-sourced information, you would discuss the specific language here rather than continue to edit war. —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 15:03, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Happy to adapt it, how about something along the lines of "There is also speculation that --- though this has not been broadly substantiated" followed by the info from the information. This way it can be included with context. Let me know your thoughts. Enigma orange (talk) 19:33, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Also please see some of the articles I listed for point three and any others you might find useful you can feel free to add. On point 4 brand new account, yes this is one, I try to seperate my wiki accounts when I edit otherwise it gets messy. Regardless of account age I hope you can be more objective. Thank you Enigma orange (talk) 04:34, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Okay, so you are simply admitting to violating the WP:SOCK policies. —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 15:03, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes it is a new account, that does not reduce the validity of my statements nor does it address the points I am making which are which you did not address. I offered to compromise I don't know why you are being unreasonable. Please let me know if we can word on something more objective. Enigma orange (talk) 18:23, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

This^^ has been reported on WP:AN3: —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 15:45, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Continued unreasonabe editing by User:Moxfyre

I have removed badly sourced information by Moxfyre, who is continuing to add contentious information to this article against consensus. Bleebirp (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Just like @jaybee1296 and @Enigma orange, @Bleebirp is a brand new account who's only editing on the topic of Jack Hidary, and is primarily removing well-sourced material with edit comments that contain the phrase "bad sources."

I've reverted @Bleebirp's edits. —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 14:20, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

@Moxfyre The Information is the only source that makes the claims you are adding. Including this on a biography is UNDUE and should be prevented unless multiple sources report and corroborate. Bleebirp (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

We've been over all of this before:

1. The fact that there are only one or two reliable sources for a specific claim does not make those sources less reliable. If there were other reliable sources making differing claims about a topic, those could be cited as well.

2. Contrary to what has been claimed by both @Bleebirp and @jaybee1296 (who I suspect to be an earlier sockpuppet or paid editor for the subject of the article) in edit summaries and talk page comments, The Information is generally considered to be a reliable source on Wikipedia.

3. I don't think @Bleebirp understands what WP:UNDUE is about. There is no reason why reliably sourced information about a living person's leadership of a company should not be included on the Wikipedia page about that person.

Let me also note that @Bleebirp is following the exact same script as earlier PoV editors @jaybee1296 and @Enigma orange (the latter of whom straightforwardly admitted to operating multiple accounts in likely violation of WP:SOCK):

• First, delete all of the obviously-unflattering but reliably-sourced information from the article Jack Hidary, including not only information that references 2025 articles in The Information but also a much older Wall Street Journal article about the subject's campaign finance violations.
• After being confronted with the unreasonableness of this initial edit, proceed to delete only the reliably-sourced information which references 2025 articles in The Information.

I've re-reverted @Bleebirp's edits and plan to open another WP:ANI if this continues further.

—Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 00:31, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

@Bleebirp: I would encourage you to stop editing the Jack Hidary page, and gain consensus before making major changes. @Bleebirp and Moxfyre: I would again ask that you both disclose any conflicts of interest with the subject (or related subjects) of this page, even if you are not being paid by the subject. As of now, Bleebirp has denied a conflict of interest (which may be inaccurate) and Moxfyre has not replied on his talk page. TheObsidianGriffon (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

As of now, Bleebirp has denied a conflict of interest (which may be inaccurate) and Moxfyre has not replied on his talk page.

Thanks for the heads-up! Replied —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 18:27, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello Moxfyre,

I’ve reverted this edit in accordance with WP:BLPRESTORE. The material you restored concerns living persons and remains disputed with respect to sourcing, reliability, and due weight.

As noted in the administrator notice under “Introduction to contentious topics” on your talk page, you were explicitly instructed that consensus must be established before this content is re-added. That consensus has not yet been reached.

Please continue discussion on the article talk page and seek clear consensus before attempting to restore the material again.

Thanks. NightTrain31 (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Just an FYI, no edit warring on this and make sure to follow the WP:COI guidelines. TheObsidianGriffon (talk) 20:09, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

Lawsuits against J. Hidary

Wondering if mentioning the following ongoing lawsuit may be pertinent to Jack Hidary's page: Robert Bender, former Chief of Staff at SandboxAQ, filed a lawsuit against the company, CEO Jack Hidary, and VP of People Suzannah Radack in the San Francisco Superior Court in mid-December 2025. The case number is CGC-25-631667.

Key Allegations: The lawsuit contains several high-profile accusations against the leadership of the $5.8 billion AI and quantum startup: 1) Financial Fraud: Misrepresenting over $550 million in transactions and presenting revenue figures to investors that were significantly higher than those shown to the board. 2) Misuse of Assets: Claims that Hidary used corporate funds for personal sexual misconduct and to conceal such activities. 3) "Girlfriend Conspiracy": Allegations that the company fabricated a story to investors that Bender was a "leaker" plotting with a journalist. 4) Stock Liquidation: Alleging Hidary buried changes in governance documents to allow him to liquidate personal stock without investor notice.

The $550 Million Revenue Discrepancy According to the complaint, the core of the financial fraud allegation involves a massive disconnect between internal and external reporting: 1) Dual-Track Reporting: Bender alleges that during a February 27, 2025, board meeting, he saw internal 2025 revenue figures that were more than 50% lower than those being used to pitch external investors. 2) Fundraising Bait: The complaint states SandboxAQ used these "materially higher" figures to solicit the final $100 million of its $475 million Series E financing. 3) Concealment Tactics: CEO Jack Hidary allegedly told Bender the discrepancy would only be a problem "if anyone else found out," and instructed that all discussions of the "real" internal numbers happen only via Zoom screen-share or encrypted Signal messages to avoid creating a discoverable paper trail. 4) Personal Enrichment: Bender claims these inflated valuations allowed Hidary to personally sell tens of millions of dollars in stock during a July 2025 tender offer at a premium price based on "false information". NanoQuant (talk) 11:56, 26 April 2026 (UTC)