Jump to content

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
    Shortcuts

    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:



    Steele dossier/"Golden Showers" Show in Las Vegas

    [edit]

    Our Steele dossier article is larger than our articles on World War I and World War II combined, and unlike most Wikipedia articles, the vast majority of article text was authored by a single user, Valjean. I am troubled by a recent revert by Valjean that I feel at least potentially compromises WP:BLP (as well as WP:NPOV). The gist of the dispute is whether Wikipedia can state, technically with attribution but ignoring sourced information that tends to contradict or undercut the claim, that "Trump watched a golden showers performance [in Las Vegas in 2013] 'with delight'," and whether veteran journalists who investigated but were not able to confirm the story should be included or omitted. Related issues are the implication by innuendo that this alleged prior activity tends to confirm the validity of a Russian "pee tape" featuring Donald Trump, and whether information from a prominent journalist citing a source close to Christopher Steele himself doubting that this incident in fact corroborates the Russian "pee tape" should be included or omitted. More minor issues are that the "with delight" quote is a truncated version of the actual quote from Michael Cohen, and that the Las Vegas club in question ("The Act") never actually featured "Golden Showers" with real urination (all such acts were simulated performances), but the current version of the article fails to make that clear to readers. But first, a bit of context:

    I would not seek to personalize this dispute, but considering the authorship, and as a disclosure of potential bias, Valjean self-identifies as a "maybe peeliever," a term borrowed from the pundit Jonathan Chait (external link to Chait's article coining the term), and has extensively written about "Why to believe" that there is a "pee tape" featuring Donald Trump with Russian sex workers including, in Valjean's own words, that "It would be totally in character for him to consort with prostitutes. ... There is no reason not to believe it" ([1]). Valjean also has a separate user page, User:Valjean/Donald Trump Moscow tape rumor and kompromat allegations, in which he provides what he considers to be evidence vindicating the likelihood that the "pee tape" is real, which is currently being considered for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. In the course of the MfD discussion, several other editors, including Rotary Engine, Stikkyy, and Robert McClenon have argued that Valjean's edits to the subpage contain improper synthesis, introduced unsourced derogatory information about living persons, or that Valjean has bludgeoned the MfD discussion, although other editors, including AndreJustAndre ([2], [3]) and Tryptofish ([4]) have offered limited defenses of Valjean's approach.

    For all of these reasons, while I am choosing to come to BLPN due to the potential WP:BLP issues associated with a specific recent revert, more eyes in general are needed at the Steele dossier article, whether from WP:BLPN, WP:NPOVN, or other well-meaning volunteer editors without any particular axe to grind on the topic. Unfortunately, while I would not expect for Valjean to agree with this assessment, as a longtime page watcher I feel that Valjean displays WP:OWNERSHIP of the Steele dossier article and has regularly, over a period of several years, reverted proposed edits/changes to his preferred version of the article. This segues nicely into Valjean's latest revert:

    Currently, Steele dossier#Role of Agalarovs contains the following passage:

    • "On June 15, 2013, five months before the 2013 Miss Universe contest in Moscow, Trump was accompanied on a visit to the Las Vegas nightclub 'The Act'[335] by Crocus Group owner Aras Agalarov, his son Emin, Ike Kaveladze, Rob Goldstone, Michael Cohen, Keith Schiller, and others, where Trump was photographed[325] and the group stayed 'for several hours'. The club featured 'risque performances'[336] and, according to Cohen, Trump watched a golden showers performance 'with delight'.[349]"

    Many users have raised concerns about this anecdote on Talk:Steele dossier, but Valjean has consistently argued for retaining the current version largely drafted by himself. For example, in a May 2020 discussion regarding a reverted edit (edit, revert) Tambourine60 responded to Valjean: "I don't think that Wikipedia needs to include that Trump visited a nightclub that at some times featured shows with simulated urination, although there's zero evidence that he saw such a show. And if it's really WP:DUE, then it at least needs to be made clear that there's no evidence he saw the show being described."

    I recently looked into this further and found significant potentially exculpatory information related to the living subjects from Jane Mayer's 2018 reporting, one of Valjean's core sources for the information relating to "The Act" nightclub, which summarizes Russian Roulette by Michael Isikoff and David Corn (Google Books) and also includes original reporting by Mayer. I made the following WP:BOLD edit ([5]):

    • "As recounted by Mayer: 'Isikoff and Corn note that ... they were unable to determine which skits were performed the night that Trump attended, or even whether Trump paid any attention to what was onstage.'[335] Mayer also cites an unnamed 'source close to Steele' acknowledging: '"There's a risk that there was some conflation of the story," meaning a blurring of what happened at the Act and what allegedly happened at the Moscow hotel. But at the same time, he noted, "It does suggest that there is some kind of track record here. This behavior was not unheard of in Trump's circle."'[335]"

    Valjean reverted my edit, providing the following rationale in his edit summary:

    I am troubled by this revert for multiple reasons. First of all, there were two aspects of Mayer 2018's reporting reflected in my proposed edit:

    • 1.) Isikoff and Corn tried to verify, but were not able to independently confirm, whether Trump himself saw a show featuring simulated urination, and;
    • 2.) According to a source close to Steele quoted by Mayer, the similarity between the alleged incidents described at "The Act" nightclub and The Ritz-Carlton, Moscow five months later raises the possibility that the latter incident was somehow "conflated" with the former in Steele's reporting.

    Valjean's edit summary (quoted above) only addresses the first part of the reverted material. Understanding that edit summaries have notable space limitations, Valjean did not provide an explanation for removal of the rest of the material in his summary. And with regard to Valjean's contention that Steele dossier (which again, is larger than our articles on World War I and World War II combined) does not have space to include the caveats from Isikoff and Corn because Trump's disbarred former attorney, Michael Cohen, supposedly "confirmed" in 2020 that Trump witnessed a simulated urination show at the nightclub, this does not strike me as a particularly strong argument— especially for such a sensitive topic with bearing on the reputations of living persons.

    When I checked Valjean's source, an article in The Independent which cites excerpts published by The Washington Post (original WaPo source), the claim originates with Cohen's 2020 memoir Disloyal (Google Books), published more than seven years after the alleged incident, and Cohen did not make this claim under oath. As described by The Independent, there is no love lost between Trump and Cohen: "Cohen's book also describes the president as 'a cheat, a liar, a fraud, a bully, a racist, a predator, a con man.'" Additionally, The Washington Post describes Cohen's "challenges as a credible narrator" in light of Cohen's criminal convictions, including perjury: "In 2018, Cohen pleaded guilty to lying to Congress about the Trump Moscow project ... He also pleaded guilty to tax evasion and lying to a financial institution, crimes that were unrelated to his work for Trump." As a final consideration, Isikoff and Corn are seasoned investigative journalists with decades of experience who likely interviewed multiple sources in their attempt to verify the story.

    Given all of the above factors, I contend that it shows poor editorial judgement and at least possibly violates WP:BLP to remove Isikoff and Corn in favor of treating Cohen's account as definitive proof that Trump took "delight" in a "golden showers" performance in Las Vegas. I also note that the "with delight" excerpt is a truncated version of Cohen's original "disbelief and delight," per WaPo, and that Valjean has consistently incorrectly implied (or stated outright) that "The Act" featured real "Golden Showers"/urination, whereas the cited sources are clear that this was only an act (e.g., "Cohen asserts that the group watched a debauched strip show that included one performer who simulated urinating on another performer, who pretended to drink it"). After being corrected on this point by another user, Valjean agreed that "'Simulated' should be included," but that was over six years ago, and there is still no correction in the current version of the article.

    Rather than starting another thread at Talk:Steele dossier that would likely involve only myself and Valjean and go nowhere, I welcome fresh eyes on this latest dispute. I had thought that my edit was a simple addition of potentially exculpatory information of the kind that Wikipedia routinely includes for virtually all WP:BLPs, and if even this is promptly reverted by the primary contributor, then I don't see how the Steele dossier article could ever be improved or made more compliant with Wikipedia's content and sourcing policies.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm responding to the ping. The pages named in this section header are not on my watchlist, and I don't recall ever editing them. The post above strikes me as tl;dr, and I have no intention of reading all of it. As linked above, I have commented at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Valjean/Donald Trump Moscow tape rumor and kompromat allegations. This BLPN thread was started remarkably soon after I posted this at Talk:Cover-up: [6], which kind of makes me wonder why I was really pinged here. As I said in that diff, I am concerned that TTAC has been making WP:NPA violations against Valjean; there certainly appears to be some bad blood going on.
    As a general comment about BLP issues pertaining to pages about the Steele dossier and possible urine-related phenomena, I think the major considerations are that high quality sourcing must be used, and that we are talking about public figures rather than private persons. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If the question is how to balance what Michael Cohen said against other sources, and whether the golden showers were real or simulated (and whether Trump was paying attention, or there but not paying attention??), I think it's reasonable to quote Cohen beyond the two words ("with delight"), and then say that some journalists had difficulty confirming that account. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have the prior context to accurately judge the above, but I note that Valjean has edited almost nothing but Trump and his relationship to Russia for the past ten years. Stikkyy (talk) 19:51, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you @Tryptofish: for some sanity. Cooler heads are appreciated. I didn't expect this venue to pop up on my watchlist, as the Steele article issue has been fixed very easily and civilly. (see below)

    So much for TTAC's "not seek to personalize this dispute" and then just go ahead and do it with a wall of PAs. TLDR. TTAC's long block log is filled with blocks for doing this. This issue was already fixed before I discovered this thread. Look here and read my edit summary. That was an easy fix. That's what the article's talk page is for. Instead TTAC came straight to this page, which is a violation of our procedures and just poisons the well against me with a lot of accusations about old matters that have usually been resolved a long time ago. We are supposed to de-escalate conflicts, not pour gasoline on them by misusing drama boards. That's destructive. He should stop doing that and stick to the current issue. Comment on content, civilly, only on the article's talk page, and collaborately improve the content. I'm easy to work with.

    Now about the early coverage of the Las Vegas incident. Earlier writers, no matter how qualified, may have difficulty confirming some alleged occurrence, and when they literally describe how their ignorance is because they can't confirm the allegation, we should either ignore it, or just document their ignorance at the time. That's our normal practice.

    When later evidence comes forward that provides the facts, we usually delete the old, uninformed, content and substitute it with what actual witnesses have later said. That's what happened here. Cohen was with Trump and saw it happen. I have his book. Other RS (which I of course have) have described how Trump and those with him are accustomed to such debauched entertainment, and that it's naive to believe otherwise. As Jonathan Chait put it: "[T]he notion that a display of exotic sex acts lies totally outside the range of behavior Trump would enjoy is quaint and unfounded."1 Jane Mayer digs deep into this definitely NSFW (don't click the link at work) cesspool, and it's just as bad as one would expect considering those in attendance.2 The club's shows were so bad that a Las Vegas judge shut them down a few months later, and that's in a town where literally anything goes. This was even too gross for Las Vegas. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:00, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    A few comments, following up. Having interacted a lot with Valjean, I can understand why some editors, as with Stikkyy above, would note that Valjean has a very focused interest in this difficult topic area. That, in itself, is not evidence of needing to correct BLP violations in content, and editors are entitled to work on whatever topics they choose, so long as there aren't the kinds of problems that are dealt with at noticeboards that are not this noticeboard.
    I've just looked at the recent edits at Steele dossier. It seems to me that the two most recent edits, as of the time I post this, which are: [7] and [8], look to me like they are reasonable and collaborative, and they appear to me to address everything I raised in my comment above. As for the issue of some parts of Cohen's account that reportedly were difficult to confirm, when I look at this edit from just before: [9], I guess some argument could be made for adding back some of it, but it mostly strikes me as uninformative. (Not having independently verified what Cohen said, is not the same thing as casting doubt on it, and we should balance the BLP considerations pertaining to Trump with the BLP considerations pertaining to Cohen.) If there is still a BLP problem, I'm not seeing it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Minority report: I'm not really interested in who is right or wrong here. I've suggested to Valjean that he take all of the Trump-related subpages offline to his desktop and recommended different ways of doing it. I think that's the way forward in regards to that specific dispute mentioned above. Viriditas (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    [Edit Conflict] Valjean, BLPN is not a "drama board" like WP:AE. When there are clear WP:OWNERSHIP issues with an article, it is perfectly appropriate to solicit feedback from the broader community, whether at WP:BLPN, WP:NPOVN, WP:3O, WP:RfC, or other appropriate dispute resolution forums that exist within Wikipedia, and this is not improper or something to be frowned upon, nor is there a requirement in policy that disputes must be addressed "only on the article's talk page".
    In any case, while I WP:BOLDly corrected some of the more minor factual errors that have persisted for years ([10]), this does not mean the underlying problem has been "fixed" (and even if it were fixed, that would not mean that more outside eyes on the Steele dossier article would be a bad thing). I contend that it remains severely problematic from a NPOV perspective, and likely from a BLP perspective also (even granting that Trump is a public figure), to present as fact that "Trump watched a golden showers performance 'with delight'," citing a statement seven years later (not under oath) by Michael Cohen, whom The Washington Post describes as having "challenges as a credible narrator," who was convicted of perjury, and who has been involved in litigation with Trump, and to omit that the story could not be independently verified by Isikoff and Corn. Tryptofish indicated that "it's reasonable to quote Cohen beyond the two words ('with delight'), and then say that some journalists had difficulty confirming that account." If you are willing to reverse your earlier revert or propose another solution, that might resolve the immediate concern.
    More broadly, I was of course concerned that other users might perceive the initial post as tl;dr. However, while I don't have any sense of entitlement when it comes to the time of our volunteer editors, the time commitment and the lack of a single bright-line violation (e.g., WP:3RR) is a major reason why Wikipedia is relatively inefficient at deterring long-term civil POV-pushing. See, for example, the MfD statement by Rotary Engine: "It's also taken 750+ words and more than an hour's work to explain how these sources have been synthesised to form a compound claim which is not directly supported by any of them. For one claim in one sentence. It is not reasonable to expect the community to have to expend the effort required to do this across the whole 25,000+ words of this draft."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:31, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand this BLPN filing to be about Steele dossier and not about the MfD or anything else, so I think we should focus on that. As I understand it, the page now says that Cohen said that Trump watched "with disbelief and delight". That's what I meant by "two words": changing "with delight" to "with disbelief and delight". If there is something else Cohen said that needs to be added, I'm not aware of it. I find it quite strange to imply that it's a BLP violation (with reference to Trump) to quote Cohen when he was not under oath, but not a BLP violation (with reference to Cohen) to say that we should quote him only when he is under oath. (Yes, there are reliable sources questioning Cohen's accuracy, but there are even more questioning Trump's.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no real WP:OWNERSHIP issue at the Steele dossier article. Just because you don't alwasy get your way does not automatically mean there's an ownership problem. The reason I'm there so often is because I just happen to be interested in the topic and probably know more about it and what RS say about the topic than anyone else here. BUT, a BIG but, even subject-matter experts do not know everything, and I always welcome improvements. Anyone who comes to the talk page and is civil and AGF gets a good reception from me. Many who have believed the "ownership" lie about me have been surprised that their suggestions resulted in an improved article. Try it sometime instead of assuming bad faith and not using the talk page. Coming here was a bad idea that violated our normal procedures. This is a place of last resort, when an issue on a talk page cannot be resolved. That is not the case here, as evidenced by the immediate and easy resolution of the problem. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:34, 26 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll add another issue with not exhausting the talk page before coming here. This ends up misusing this board as a form of CANVASSING violation. This board is often used for seeking to resolve a deadlocked situation at a talk page. That's when other eyes are needed. That has not happened here. There was no discussion there at all, much less a long and deadlocked one.

    My response to TTAC's edit was to thank him for improving the article. Is thanking another editor a crime? I also moved a closing quote mark per MOS and reformatted the ref to a standardized format used throughout the whole article. That was all. What did I do wrong? Was there an even better way to react than my appreciation for and acceptance of TTAC's edit? I was not uncivil, combative, or even the slightest bit showing any form of "ownership" behavior. What crime am I guilty of in this case? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:00, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd agree that what Mr Cohen says about Mr Trump's delight is worthless. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:55, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Length of Arguments about Length of Article

    [edit]

    Is the proper response to a complaint that an article is too long to write a post that is too long and difficult to read? Some editors in Wikipedia appear to confuse strength of arguments with length of arguments. The original poster of this thread complains about an article that is longer than the combined articles about World War One and World War Two by posting a thread of 1600 words, beyond the limit that is allowed in any forum in which there is a word limit. I haven't read the original post in detail and am not sure whether I will, but I will note that User:TheTimesAreAChanging is doing the same thing as I said that User:Valjean was doing, which is bludgeoning an argument. I didn't say that Valjean was engaged in original research or guilty of BLP violations. I didn't read all of the back-and-forth, but I didn't need to read all of the back-and-forth to know bludgeoning when I see it.

    The amount of data in this case is excessive, too much to expect the community to analyze to get useful information, let alone actionable knowledge, from. I have a suggestion that maybe a limited number of factfinders should be asked to read through the evidence and find the facts and assign the remedies. I am not suggesting that this case be referred to ArbCom, but I am asking whether it can be filed at Arbitration Enforcement as a matter of tendentious editing in the contentious topic of biographies of living persons. There are word limits at Arbitration Enforcement, and effective sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:29, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    I said that the biographies of living persons content is a contentious topic. So is the American politics content. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:16, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I was going to say that at this point it would probably be better handled at a conduct board than a content board. I don't edit in this area, and yet I still knew this would be about Valjean's editing, solely from reading Steele dossier/"Golden Showers" in the table of contents here. WP:AE might be for the best if they want to pursue this further. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:00, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    My guess is that the Steele dossier article could be trimmed and split some. But I think comparing to the World War One and World War Two articles aren't great example because those are already well split. Many sections in both of the war articles link to other articles that cover that subtopic in more detail while very few of the sections in the Steele article do, so it is not really fair to imply that we're giving more coverage to Steele than WWI or WWII, since we're absolutely not. Skynxnex (talk) 02:29, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I also think there are issues here about blurring the distinction between content disputes and conduct disputes. At the same time, I'm also an advocate of looking for ways to deescalate disputes, so I'm not particularly convinced that anyone is going to benefit from jumping over to AE, especially since, given the recent 2-party rule, whoever files the AE complaint will risk a boomerang. For now, we are at BLPN. It goes (mostly) without saying that BLP is a very important policy. Nonetheless, WP:CRYBLP is a thing, too. There are a lot of conduct issues on Wikipedia that, ultimately, boil down to WP:NPOV – COI comes quickly to mind. I think that this dispute is ultimately a POV issue. Claiming that there are BLP issues about content that concerns Donald Trump's character, well, let's just say that's a morass. The content dispute here is primarily an NPOV dispute, about the degree to which content about Trump should or should not include yucky stuff. As for BLP, I suggest that it's time for this to be closed. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:34, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    There are significant BLP issues with the article as it stands, there's just too much there to really bite into since it's longer than The Old Man and the Sea.
    • Right now it uses WP:ROLLINGSTONE (According to a 2021 RfC discussion, there is unanimous consensus among editors that Rolling Stone is generally unreliable for politically and societally sensitive issues reported since 2011) to support 180 words, including a 140+ word quote from Igor Danchenko in order to mention the pee tape. Immediately following that is 800 words mostly sourced to primary sources used for portraying Trump as having been aware of tapes under the subsection Trump's previous knowledge of compromising tapes. This section uses Rolling Stone again, along with over a dozen cites to primary sources for uses that clearly violate WP:BLPPRIMARY.
    • We have a source that says There is no evidence that this tape exists.[11] used to support After years of scrutiny, the rumor remains unproven: "neither conclusively corroborated nor conclusively disproven". We're all pretty well aware you can't prove a negative, and "no evidence this exists" shouldn't be framed as "well, nobody knows, here's another 10,000 words about it."
    • We've got sections sourced to WP:NEWSWEEK, WP:ROLLINGSTONE, and WP:DAILYBEAST.
    • We have footnote f which supports During later testimony, Schiller was unable to provide an alibi for Trump's later activities during the early morning hours of November 9,[326] hours described by Rob Goldstone as a "five-hour window" of time that Trump was afforded to sleep early Saturday morning".[327] This time is suspected by several writers of possibly being the time of the alleged salacious incident,[f] Only one source of the five, Washington Monthly under the Political Animal blog, not the actual magazine and not a news story, supports the time. One of five sources uses the term salacious about the dossier itself, not the incident. The This time is suspected by several writers language is OR anyway.
    And this is just from scrolling down and stopping randomly and looking. The whole article is like this, full of cherry picking, bad sourcing, OR, misuse of primary sources, which all falls under WP:BLP.
    Just to make sure this wasn't isolated I scrolled around and stopped randomly and checked again.
    • Steele believes 70–90 percent of the dossier is accurate,[71] a view shared by Simpson.[70] sourced to a NYT piece that says Mr. Steele has reportedly appraised the memos as 70 to 90 percent accurate, an estimate that Mr. Simpson is said to embrace himself. Wikivoice to add weight not present in the source about Simson.
    • Immediately followed by a quote from a primary source about a BLP.
    The whole article has glaring BLP problems and at 25,800 words it's almost impossible to get a handle on without just hacking out the vast majority and actually writing a summary of what is found in the best sources. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:03, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    And it is also now deleted, so no need for this. I will be much more careful in the future and seek advice before publishing such things. It was a stupid and careless error that it happened at all. As I promised in the MfD, I would never try to use that draft to create an article like it again. I just wanted to have access to all the good sourcing and good wording (there actually is a lot of that) in the article, where I could access it from the history and mostly keep it hidden, not open where anybody would read it without having to actively dig into the history. But now, a purely punitive action was taken to delete it. That has no protective effect as it was not going to be misused anyway. We normally userfy articles that are prematurely released that still have problems.
    Otherwise, SFR, I really appreciate and take seriously your examination of the issues you mention. That kind of criticism and analysis from a mainstream experienced editor, whom I really respect, goes much further than a whole mass of fermented grievances and falsehoods from a PROFRINGE editor who thinks Trump can do no wrong, that all of our articles that document Russiagate matters (and how the Russians did interfere and Trump knew about it and cooperated) are all wrong, and that any criticism of Trump, no matter how well sourced, needs to be deleted. That's the kind of shit, thrown at the wall in case some part sticks, we're dealing with in the now-closed MfD, and because "some" of it "seems" to stick (and upon further examination often falls apart, but I'm not allowed to debunk it because that's "bludgeoning"), "that" part is then seen to validate the whole pile of crap and the votes are then "delete".
    When PROFRINGE editors are allowed to hound and abuse longtime mainstream editors and get away with it, something's very wrong. I have to reevaluate my relationship to Wikipedia and whether it's worth supporting a project that allows this abuse to happen. It's unhealthy for Wikipedia and its editors. My problem is that it's my only outlet. As someone with what I call "aspie-lite", editing here is essential to my quality of life. Without it there isn't much left. It's pretty much my whole life. Take that away from me, and you see the problem. That itself makes Wikipedia a party to the abuse. I have to figure out some solution. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 13:11, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Lest my mention of the MfD throw us off, this really concerns about three edits at the Steele dossier article. Above, Tryptofish tried to get us back on track: "I understand this BLPN filing to be about Steele dossier and not about the MfD or anything else, so I think we should focus on that." My last edit at the Steele article fully accepted TTAC's edit, thanked him for improving the article, but he had already taken off, openly expressed bad faith that I would not deal with it properly, and opened this BLP thread. So this thread was opened in bad faith, while I was, without knowing the thread had been opened, fully accepting TTTAC's edit and thanking him for it. This thread is the thanks I get for being a collaborative, civil, editor. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 13:21, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Now it dawns on me that SFR is talking about the Steele dossier article, not my MfD deleted article. Shit. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 13:23, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    If it is true that PROFRINGE editors are allowed to hound and abuse longtime mainstream editors and get away with it, then this sounds like a user conduct issue, one that you ought to raise at the appropriate noticeboard. Stikkyy (talk) 18:49, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that SFR has made some very valid and useful points, so thanks for that. And I'm glad to see that Valjean is being receptive and collaborative about taking those constructive criticisms on. Valjean has also been going through some tough stuff in real life, so I'd advise everyone to read his comments in that light. As for hounding by civil POV pushers, yeah, but I think an open-eyed reading of this thread can show some of what's going on with that. However, the focus for now should be, in my opinion, on fixing the content on the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Clinton plan intelligence conspiracy theory

    [edit]

    Continuing on with ScottishFinnishRadish's excellent analysis above, I've decided to scan the next article down on Valjean's most-edited articles. Here's the current state of the article.

    • [7], [8], [26], and [89] are all sourced to Marcy Wheeler's blog, in contravention of WP:BLPSPS. Even if this were acceptable for attributed opinions (it is not), the sources are sometimes used without attribution, as in Several sources discussed possible reasons Durham kept the material classified in an annex,[50][40] placed it in burn bags,[8] and did not include it in his final report, with Lawfare describing the underlying material as "so suspect that John Durham himself declined to include them in his final report".[29]
    • The memos asserted that on July 26, 2016, Hillary Clinton approved a "plan" in the form of "a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisers to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service".[15][23] 23 is a misused opinion piece.
    • 9 is another misused opinion piece.
    • each found that Russia interfered in the 2016 election in a "sweeping and systematic fashion",[64] 64 is an opinion piece.
    • Use of primary documents for BLP purposes, Durham annex [21] is cited extensively, [80] is a Congressional hearing transcript.
    • WP:DAILYBEAST, WP:ROLLINGSTONE, WP:SALON.COM

    Stikkyy (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    I just realized that this article passed DYK and got sent to the main page! Template:Did you know nominations/Clinton plan intelligence conspiracy theory Stikkyy (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    DYK has a poor track record of quality assurance and catching POV articles/hooks. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:41, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thebiguglyalien: DYK has a poor track record of quality assurance and catching POV This is an old claim that I used to see bandied about a decade or so ago. I don't believe it has been true for a while now. It would be instructive to collect data about errors incident reports and post-hook autopsies, but having read the project talk page daily for several years, it looks like they are doing a great job. There have been a few hiccups here and there, mostly in the categories of sex and politics, and those are still being ironed out as they occur in real time. As for this hook in particular, I was the first to look at it and make comments, but I did not review it. I mostly focused on the format of the submission. Looking back, I knew it was problematic and did not take the necessary steps to put a stop to it, and passed it off to someone else. This was partly because I played a key role in preventing a controversial hook from running on Republican makeup (now called beauty trends among American conservatives), and received a lot of pushback for my role. Because of that controversy, I chose to take a step back here and not rock the boat. Viriditas (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed several usages Wheeler as BLPSPS and I'll be happy to help remove other BLPOPINIONS or BLPSPS. I think it's forgiveable why Valjean used Wheeler. Many regard Wheeler as an expert. She has had real bylines and has been CITEBYOTHERS. However under the presumption of BLPSPS I think we can remove these, and look for better sources in uncontroversial cases. I just want to point out that you could simply remove these lines yourself and cite BLPSPS. The problem would be if Valjean was intractable and refused to see reason. Since this is the first time anyone is pointing this out, it is hardly evidence of a CIR problem or a behavioral dead end. Andre🚐 22:10, 30 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    "The problem would be if Valjean was intractable and refused to see reason." Indeed! That would be a problem, but not at all like me. I'm easy to work with, never edit war, and always abide by consensus. I appreciate when others point out problems, as long as they are AGF and being civil. When they come at me with bad faith and accusations, rather than asking for clarification, well, I might get irritated, but most editors would
    Editorial stuff should be dealt with on article talk pages. Only if the "intractable" situation were to happen should drama boards get involved. I have no problem with this current approach, as long as PRESERVE (an effing POLICY!) is followed. This is in good hands, and I'm backing out anyway. I wish you all well.
    One last thought about this topic. Official .gov sources on this topic are poisonous. They are pure conspiracy theories from the current administration and totally unreliable. Keep that in mind. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:48, 31 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    John Hope Bryant — inaccurate CEO role in lead section

    [edit]

    The lead section of John Hope Bryant currently states that Bryant is "chief executive officer of Bryant Group Ventures and The Promise Homes Company." This is factually inaccurate on two counts:

    1. Bryant was never the CEO of The Promise Homes Company — his role was Executive Chairman.
    2. The Promise Homes Company has since been recapitalized and sold and is no longer part of his current professional portfolio.

    Retaining this language in the lead of a Biography of a Living Person misrepresents the subject's title and current professional status.

    I submitted an edit request on the article's Talk page on May 27, 2026 (Talk:John Hope Bryant) requesting removal of "The Promise Homes Company" from the lead. The request has not yet been actioned.

    The proposed correction is a simple removal — no new content or citations are required. I am requesting that an administrator review and action the existing Talk page request at their earliest convenience. Thank you. — Rachaeldoff (talk) 20:34, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    I removed all mention of his leadership roles that were placed in the introductory paragraph that did not have references. If you have references for other roles he apparently held, such as those at CEO of Bryant Group Ventures and co-founder of Global Dignity, please provide them so that this is accurately reflected in the biography. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) You posted on the article talk page, but did not mark it as a formal edit request, so no one has seen it. Please see the edit request process.
    Do you have a connection to this topic? 331dot (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Jayesh Saini - BLP concerns regarding allegations and sourcing

    [edit]
    This doesn't specifically require an administrator; administrators have no more authority than any other editor, just extra tools.
    You appear to have created your account for the specific purpose of editing about this person. What is the source of your interest in this topic? 331dot (talk) 09:41, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Just came across the article while checking the recent edits around it. while reading this page, I am concerned about wheather some of the wording that you mentioned is meeting WP standands for biographices of Living Person. I not trying to attack the sub. My focus is on the content that you made itself wheather its presented in a neutral and properly sourced manner. Rks2050 (talk) 13:14, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    you mention "Given the strict requirements of WP and WP", were you trying to reference specific guideline pages with shortcuts? it seems you could have some valid concerns, but as 331dot has mentioned above it seems you've made you account solely to edit this specific biography. i reverted your edits partially because of this, as sometimes it is indicative of a conflict of interest. do you have any suggestions for rewriting of the content as opposed to simply blanking it? InRRainbows Lets chat! 10:34, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I ran it through a checker, 100% AI generated. Rks2050, we would prefer to hear from you directly and not from an AI. 331dot (talk) 12:43, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    its worth noting that AI checkers can be inaccurate as it is basically AI trying to detect AI. however i was wondering the same given strangely accurate but highly variable use of wiki etiquette and guideline referencing despite being a new account (eg. citation of specific guidelines on the talk page discussion but failing to sign this message) as well as certain giveaways like bolding.
    at any rate, Rks2050, please refrain from LLM use if you wish to have a productive discussion on the matter InRRainbows Lets chat! 12:52, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Usually I only use them to confirm what I already suspect. 331dot (talk) 14:23, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    understandable! i’m glad you did or i probably wouldn’t have connected the dots, happy editing InRRainbows Lets chat! 14:29, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we might need a WP:Don't overlook LLM reports. Most outsiders have no idea what our rules on LLMs are, and going to an LLM to navigate our labyrinthine processes is about par for the course nowadays. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    hmm i could potentially be on board with that. i hope you don’t think i was overlooking the issue! i just thought it was a good catch and important to acknowledge for the sake of this thread. anyways, if you intend to propose/discuss the idea i would be happy to weigh in. InRRainbows Lets chat! 15:50, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed the section. Only one source in the entire section mentioned the subject, and the source that did attributed claims to another party. Wholly insufficient sourcing for a BLP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:16, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    My concern was that some of the content seemed to reply on allegartions and sources that did not directly discussing subject of that article. I apriciate @ScottishFinnishRadish reviewing the references that was mentioned there and explaining your reasoning. Rks2050 (talk) 13:31, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Trial of Jeffrey Donaldson

    [edit]

    Trial of Jeffrey Donaldson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Is a minute by minute account of an ongoing criminal case involving a living person really appropriate? Obviously in the adversarial system we're hearing the prosecution's case first (with some cross-examination), which tends to make the coverage somewhat biased against the living person concerned. FDW777 (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    A 'minute by minute account' of a trial would be inappropriate regardless of the legal system involved, but clearly the imbalance you note is an additional problem. Having said that, actually enforcing WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTNEWS in relation to subjects like these is almost impossible. You could try removing and/or summarising some of the bloat, but getting it to stick is likely to be problematic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    jury have been sworn in and charged by the judge NOT to do any research online & ONLY rely on what they have heard in the court room, all facts are backed up by a several online news articles that have been cleared by the news outlets legal teams, therefore i cannot see how the article could affect the trial .... as per triming the article you would run the risk of making it biased by excluding certain points in my opinion & better off detailing the majority of what is a complex case WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 08:09, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW there is also a daily podcast by the BBC about the trial [1] that reports even more details about the trial thats left out of the newspapers, which again has been cleared by legal teams & has zero effect on proceedings obviously... and according to the latest episode the defence get their turn next week WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 08:17, 7 June 2026 (UTC) WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 08:17, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    "i cannot see how the article could affect the trial". That's not the only argument for not having this material. In fact, it's not even the argument that either FDW777 or AndyTheGrump made. Morwen (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    i don't get the point u are trying to make ? WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 16:10, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly, not affecting the trial doesn't equate to not presenting potentially biased content to general readers, and secondly you haven't really addressed the issue of excessive detailing of everything that is reported. Again, Wikipedia articles are supposed to summarise secondary sources, not replicate them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    the defence is starting next week so that will balance it out, i suggest the article is trimmed down after the Verdict is delivered, as we will have a better idea of what was relevant & what can be removed WorldTravleerAndPhotoTaker (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ "Court told Eleanor 'still loved' Jeffrey". The Donaldson Sex Abuse Trial (Podcast). No. 9. BBC Northern Ireland. Retrieved 5 June 2026 – via YouTube.

    Daniel Ichbiah

    [edit]

    Daniel Ichbiah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Not a single reference can I find. No bestsellers, no official connection to people he writes books about. One of thousands of people who interviewed Bill Gates over the years, he writing a book based on some interviews he did, but I see no signs of it being notable. Not seeing any contact at all with the other subjects of his books. Can anyone speak French and see if he gets reliable coverage there? Just a biography of someone without a single reference seems odd. Dream Focus 00:03, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    This would clearly fail NPP today because of a lack of sources. I've nommed for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Ichbiah. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:27, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The article AFD notice doesn't link to there, you made an error. Dream Focus 10:51, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It does. If you click the link it works. But it did show up as a redlink. Purging the article fixed it. Nil Einne (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Hassan Nemazee

    [edit]

    Hassan Nemazee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    New York Times has numerous stories on Hassan Nemazee’s massive fraud scheme and subsequent conviction and 10 year prison term. Here is just one:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/16/nyregion/16nemazee.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share

    As important is the fact that Nemazee Capital had NO cited investments. There is no evidence that Nemazee Capital ever funded ANY businesses, in any of industry sectors your page refers to.

    Accordingly, there is the glaring absence of ANY news stories about Nemazee Capital.EVER.

    Your wiki page on him is inaccurate, woefully incomplete, and shockingly misleading. It should either be corrected immediately. His story does deserve to be included in Wikipedia. However, your organization's standards for basic accuracy have been completely disregarded.

    https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2010/03/19/fundraiser-for-obama-and-clinton-admits-fraud/?smid=nytcore-ios-share

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:~2026-33383-83 (talk • contribs)

    Content regarding Nemazee's conviction etc seems to have been removed in the past six months or so: the article from December last year looked very different. [14] Note though there was considerable unsourced content and some blatant editorialising in that version, and neither that nor the current whitewashing appear to comply with Wikipedia policy. It needs cleaning up, preferably by someone who understands WP:BLP policy, has unrestricted access to the existing sources, and is willing to look for more. Any volunteers? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:39, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Leanne Harrison Tennis Player

    [edit]

    My cousin Leanne Harrison passed away on the 17th January 2026. She shifted to Atlanta shortly before she passed away. Can you please update her profile. ~2026-33791-65 (talk) 00:53, 7 June 2026 (UTC)Sheila Kemp[reply]

    I'm sorry for your loss. Do you have a published source with this information, such as a news report or obituary? 331dot (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @331dot: This obituary seems to corroborate the TA's claims about Leanne Harrison. Would it be suitable? Left guide (talk) 01:33, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    A news report would be better, but I think an obituary is good enough to establish that the person has passed(nothing else, though). 331dot (talk) 01:34, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Southeast asia

    [edit]

    Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1295#h-Southeast_Asian_BLP_articles_have_lots_and_lots_of_unsourced_"model"_claims-20260524174500. Also cross-posted to WP:NORN. It is possible that this is an undocumented WP:ENGVAR in the Philippines, but even then we need reliable sources to support claims of model-ship. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:35, 7 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    BLP violation on Talk page, denying victimhood/victim blaming, and sourcing disruption on Talk:Brian Peck

    [edit]

    Hi everyone,

    I hope this is the right place to report this. I wanted to avoid getting into an unproductive back-and-forth on the talk page, so I thought it would be better to bring this straight to the noticeboard.

    An editor (temporary account @~2026-88206-5) recently posted a highly problematic thread on Talk:Brian Peck titled "Severe sourcing problems with this article". The post directly violates WP:BLPTALK by engaging in severe victim-blaming, denying the victim's status, and making defamatory claims against the victim Drake Bell. Specifically, the user attempts to downplay Brian Peck's 2004 convictions by claiming the victim's identity is unproven, calling him a liar ("Bell is patently lying"), and accusing the Quiet on Set docuseries of fabricating the entire connection. They also mischaracterize the victim's age, suggesting he was 17 during the abuse, when court records and reports show he was actually 14/15 but 17 at the time of the abuser's arrest. They basically claim Bell is not the victim and lying about it.

    Additionally, the post contains serious legal mischaracterizations, repeatedly labeling Bell a "convicted child molester". To be absolutely clear, Bell has never been charged with or convicted of any sexual misconduct. His 2021 plea was for attempted endangering of children and disseminating matter harmful to juveniles (see Drake Bell#Child endangerment conviction), and the user on the talk page completely fabricated a sexual offense history to attack him. Furthermore, even if Bell had been convicted of such offenses, it would have absolutely no bearing on the historical facts of Brian Peck's 2004 convictions. Bringing this up serves no encyclopedic purpose and is purely an unnecessary, defamatory attack on a crime victim.

    The fact that Bell was the victim in the Peck case is thoroughly documented by mainstream reliable sources, including The New York Times (see [1][2][3][4]).

    To ensure absolute clarity and leave no room for doubt, I have proactively streamlined the biographical section and added precise reports of court references connecting the 2004 sentencing directly to the established facts in the article today. While providing this level of granular sourcing is usually not even necessary for universally accepted facts, I felt it was important to secure the article against this type of ongoing disruption.

    Using a talk page to attack a living person and spread conspiracy theories about a crime victim is a clear violation of BLP guidelines.

    Could an administrator please take a look, remove or strike the defamatory thread, and warn the user? If I have made any procedural errors in bringing this here, I apologize in advance and would appreciate any guidance on the correct noticeboard procedure.

    Thank you so much for your help! Serienjunkie2014 (talk) 12:53, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    I have removed the post as a violation of WP:BLPTALK given the shit sourcing the user linked. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:19, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! Have a great day, Morbidthoughts! Serienjunkie2014 (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    unsourced birthdays and real names of a band

    [edit]

    Hi, I've started a discussion at Talk:The Featherz#BLP issues outlining the main issues. There's unsourced personal information (birthdays, real names, relationships) about several members of the band; and many people mentioned (usually as briefly joining the band) in the article that are completely unsourced.

    The reason I'm raising it on talk (and pinging here) is because I know a former member of the band (I should note very little of the information I am talking about is about this person) and therefore may have a COI, and I think the sheer amount of unsourced content makes careful WP:COIADVICE edits difficult. Morwen (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    I have taken a quick look and I think you should just go ahead and delete the information you describe. I would do it but I think you will find it easier and quicker. They are obvious BLP issues and that outweighs any possible COI, which isn't that obvious here anyway. --Slp1 (talk) 13:55, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I've done the worst of it now. Morwen (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Anthony Lister

    [edit]

    A COI editor brought this to WP:AN after getting blocked for edit warring. [16] This is sort of a DOLT variant I guess, no legal threats but don't ignore editors just because they have a COI and didn't work out the proper way to ask for help. The disputed information is well sourced so there there's no question it can be included. And despite the weird edit summary, it doesn't seem to be out of date, our article covers the relevant details. The only question is whether it should be per WP:BLPCRIME since it involves accused crimes which ended with what seems to be total acquittal. Personally I feel the seriousness of the crimes and the high profile nature of the trials is enough to keep it, but I've noticed that I tend to be on the keep side of these things more than the community often is. I'm not certain if the subject is a public figure but possibly they are given their career, the short film someone made on them & given that a judge suggested they reduce their online presence making it sound like they've intentionally drawn attention to themselves online. Nil Einne (talk) 05:06, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Having a quick look online I find [17] which is sort of what I expected. Regardless of acquittal, the seriousness of the accusations means that this has significantly harmed their career which continues even now after the acquittal. Therefore our article is fairly incomplete without covering this in some way, as readers don't understand what happened with what makes them notable i.e. their career. So at most, IMO at most perhaps a reduction in what our articles says. Nil Einne (talk) 05:11, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=1358593343"