Could you take a look at User:SqueakBox edits? This editor insists in having the page List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films completely blanked under BLP-complaints. Note the lists is enterely consisting of blue-links, and all the relevant articles unambiguosly refer to the subjects as "pornographic actors". Talk page consensus appears against him, but he seems to ignore it and keeps on edit warring and blanking the page. I invited the editor to nominate the article for deletion and let the community decide, especially as he had previously proposed the article for deletion, but he refuses, he just want the article empty. Also look at his edits history, he has a long history of blanking/boldly removing large chunks of sex-related articles. I suggest reading discussions at Talk:Pornographic_film_actor#Autobiographies_and_BLP and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive193#List_of_members_of_the_AVN_Hall_of_Fame, which are quite enlighting. --Cavarrone 13:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am enforcing BLP policy. Not everyone who has an article is a porn star. Therefore having an article on wikipedia (ie a blue link) is not evidence of being a porn star. Therefore when somebody appears on a porn star list and they are living a reliable source is required that this person is in fact a porn star. Otherwise we at wikipedia have no way of guaranteeing that the person in the article is in fact a porn star. If an article is about porn actors who have appeared in mainstream films a ref is also required that they have appeared in mainstream films, possibly the same ref but both pieces of information must be reliably sourced. If you look here Talk:Pornographic_film_actor#Autobiographies_and_BLP you can see Andy the Grump supporting my position and reverting a user for the same BLP violation of restoring material that has been identified as BLP non compliant on its removal and that Cavarrone has also been restoring. Enfrocing BLP is not blanking when BLP is cited in the edit summary. Cavarrone has claimed my arguments are just laughable which has not helped. I have quoted the relevant BLP policies and would indeed urge an admin to look at this case objectively and not assuming that I am the problem. As I have stated elsewhere, I dont want the article empty, I want the page full again but with each living person reliably sourced. I have never proposed the article for deletion though last night Andy did mention that it maybe should be deleted, but this is not an opinion I agree with. I have no interest whatsoever in censoring porn, my interest is ensuring porn lists are BLP compliant and I fail to see how thta is being disruptive. The solution to all this is that we all get on with the hard work of reffing these living people and returning them to this and other articles, there is no substitute for that work when it comes to living people. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 13:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. "Enfrocing (sic) BLP is not blanking when BLP is cited in the edit summary", everyone could check if the page is actually blanked or just "BLP enforced". Blanking a page is a statement of fact, not something you can dialectically "decorate". "Not everyone who has an article is a porn star. Therefore having an article on wikipedia (ie a blue link) is not evidence of being a porn star" is even more nonsensical as long as all the relevant linked articles unambiguosly refer to the subjects as "pornographic actors". And your claim that you " never proposed the article for deletion" is just false: [1]. You blanked the article and simultaneusly prodded with the rationale "empty list". Cavarrone 14:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Squeekbox is at 5RR and should be given a final warning before blocking. ATG should be cautioned about tag-team edit warring. There is no BLP violation here, and even if there were on a case-by-case basis, then rather than wasting everybody's time getting into a kerfuffle here to enforce prudish mores about adult entertainment they ought to just follow the blue links to make sure each of the articles linked to has a well-sourced and biographically significant statement that the person is in fact a current or former adult entertainment actor. BLP is basically a Citizen's arrest, you have a right to do it if you are correct but that doesn't mean you can go around dictating and enforcing your own personal views about Wikipedia policy if you are not. I'll refrain from restoring until this is settled here or at BLP/N so that I'm not WP:INVOLVED as a non-admin. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP violations are exempt from 3RR policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If they are applied reasonably and properly... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 22:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The list in question asserted that multiple persons were porn stars. None of them had a reference for this. That is a clear and unambiguous violation of WP:BLP policy - which states that "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." There really isn't any wiggle room here - blanking the article was the only policy-compliant option. The suggestion that because sources supposedly exist elsewhere on Wikipedia, the list should be exempt from policy, simply won't wash. We don't cite Wikipedia as a source, and if valid sources exist, they must be cited in the list. It should also be noted that the list had no citations for the claims that these individuals appeared in mainstream films either - and many of the films named were redlinked, making the claim entirely unsourced anywhere. It should also be noted that prior to SqueakBox editing the article in January, the list named numerous individuals with no Wikipedia article whatsoever - a clear and unambiguous violation of WP:BLP policy under any circumstances. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually the list asserted nothing. In reference to WP:PORNBIO which states that Notability of Adult industry performers can be established by appearances in Mainstream media, its a collection of mainstream films and television productions that are also listed in the articles for these performers; in other works its the WP version of Data analysis. The assertion that any of these people is involved with the Adult industry is in the individual articles which were/are clearly linked. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 22:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously. Noone is pretending to "use Wikipedia like a source". All the bluelinked items have the sources in their relevant articles proofing the actors are adult actors. It is what our BLP policy prescribes for lists, categories and navigation templates here. Otherwise, now I need to add an inline source for every actress in List of Italian actresses stating "x is an Italian actress"? Or am I authorized to blank the page "per BLP"? Not to mention that blanking a page is not a "policy-compliant option", it is just silly. Cavarrone 15:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the bLP articles not say lists are BLP exempt, it says they are not BLP exempt, Cavarrone♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the blue links weren't being used as a source, then the list had no sources for a contentious assertion, in violation of Wikipedia BLP policy. Blanking was obligatory. 15:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I will take that as a no, so it is your interpretation of policy. Others interpret policy differently. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:54, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the forced blanking of the list is counterproductive and borderline POINTY if Squakbox and ATG's actions serve to prevent the very improvement they claim to want. However, they are quite correct that a list like this should be supported by references on the article directly. Regardless of ATG's overzealous interpretation of policy, I would personally support unblanking the list iff you or others undertake to source it. But not before, and with the expectation that they would remove unsourced entries after a reasonable time has passed. Resolute 15:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There does not appear to be a dispute over what Squeakbox did in January, so that is pretty much irrelevant distraction. The obvious solution here is to allow interested editors to go through and source the list (as one has indicated a willingness to do on the talk page), but I suspect that this is impossible to do with Squeakbox edit warring to prevent anything but a blank page. Resolute 14:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That allegation is simply false, Reso, all I want is to see the entries reliably sourced. If you can provide a diff that shows me deleting a single sourced entry on that apge please do so but if you cannot then please do not claim that I am only interested in a blank page. My only interest is in seeing a BLP compliant article.

There is nothing whatsoever preventing anyone finding references, and adding properly-sourced entries to the list - meanwhile, per WP:BLP policy, the list cannot contain unreferenced entries - this is simply not open to negotiation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I think it is an overly strict interpretation of BLP Policy to say that the list is required to be blanked. If the text of each article does support inclusion in the list, and the articles themselves are properly sourced, I think it would be reasonable to say that inclusion in the list, and the claim that makes, is not contentious. That said, BLP policy strongly favors removal first, and discussion second. Further, the simple way around this is to add citations to the list. We have a lot of lists like this, albeit not involving the porn aspect, where the inclusion criteria is not cited in the list, relying on the article (If we are lucky, many don't have that). Monty₈₄₅ 14:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(after many edit conflicts, addressing ATG): Can you point to any policy provision blue links in a list article requires a reference citation in the linking article? If not, I'm afraid you're advancing an argument to make policy, not enforce it. The argument that appearing in an adult entertainment production is contentious by definition is questionable as well. I don't believe that BLP is supposed to be a scheme to bowdlerize the encyclopedia. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you are asking - WP:BLP policy says that contentious material on living persons must be referenced - and unreferenced claims that individuals are pornographic actors are clearly contentious. It wasn't referenced. It violated Wikipedia policy. End of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking if you know of a policy statement, or a definitive interpretation of policy, that a blue link in a list article requires a reference citation next to the blue link in order to meet WP:V. If so, it is a BLP issue. If not, then you haven't shown that it is a BLP issue.- Wikidemon (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP policy says that contentious material must be referenced. A blue link is not a reference under any circumstances. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I take that as a no, you are aware of no such policy, only your argument that this follows from policy. Others, and Wikipedia practice, disagree. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was one of the editors that discussed the matter with SqueakBox. After we discussed that WP:BLP applies to contentious material, SqueakBox didn't seem to understand what WP:BLP meant by contentious material. As far as I can tell, SqueakBox recognizes that the actors mentioned in that article had been in porn movies. Here's my last message to SqueakBox, which wasn't responded to. [2] --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Err, why do you claim I dont understand what contentious means. On what basis? Porn stars and mainstream film stars are both contentious areas. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP policy isn't open to negotiation - it clearly and unambiguously states that unsourced contentions material must be removed immediately. Whether contributors believe it is true or not is entirely irrelevant. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a simple solution for both sides, which is to begin adding some citations, and insist for this specific article that any additions come with a reference citation. However, unless there is a clear policy statement somewhere that a blue link in a list needs to have a citation on both ends of the link, it would be disruptive to carry a novel policy interpretation to edit warring in other articles. That is a policy question that needs to be addressed at BLP/N for a single article, BLP or WP:V if this is a wider issue, not by edit warring. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the solution I proose too, Wikidemon. All that is required is relioable sources for the inclusion of these people and that is the only possible solution without a change in policy.♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Policy is already clear and unambiguous - contentious BLP material needs references. There is no policy anywhere that even remotely suggests that a blue link to another Wikipedia article counts as a reference. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue when it comes to any potential administrative action is that IF the interpretation forwarded by AndyTheGrump is correct, then the removals are exempt from edit warring policy. Now I happen to disagree with that interpretation, but I don't think we can do anything to stop the removal until consensus is reached that the interpretation is not correct. (Obviously if the entries are fully cited in the list and removed anyway, its a different issue) And again, BLP policy favors removal, so we need consensus to overcome that. Monty₈₄₅ 15:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having an article is no evidence that someone is a porn star, Barak Obama has an article! Hence what is required and is easy technically to accomplish is a reliable source for each entry. If we all get on with that it can be done really quickly but debating here wont improve or start to fill up the page at all. This is so for all porn lists and not merely this page. The benchmark is List of male performers in gay porn films, fully refd, while Template:Editnotices/Page/List of male performers in gay porn films needs extending to all porn list articles so they can all be made compliant with our BLP policy. Anything else is simply not fair to living porn stars, they are people too♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention we already asked you at least twice which actors do you think do not belong on the page, and you have only responded quoting BLP policy rather than pointing out specific examples. Tutelary (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that a reference is only Required when the material is contentious. Many of us don't accept that asserting someone is a porn star, where no one argues its factually inaccurate, is inherently contentious. Obviously, a fully referenced list is better, but I don't think its clear that it is strictly required. Monty₈₄₅ 15:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If an entirely unreferenced assertion that someone is a pornographic actor isn't contentious, we might as well scrap WP:BLP policy entirely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with User:Monty845 above. What is supposed to mean "Having an article is no evidence that someone is a porn star, Barak Obama has an article"? The point is that the Barack Obama article says that he is the President of the United States, then he is certainly eligible for being listed in the List of Presidents of the United States and in other similar lists. The Ron Jeremy article states he is a pornographic actor, then I don't see what is contentious in listing him as a pornographic actor. If someone is arguing the Ron Jeremy article or another bluelinked article is false or poorly sourced, then he should ask the deletion of THAT article. "Unreferenced assertion that someone is a pornographic actor"? Just click the bluelink. Cavarrone 15:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[User:Monty845]], nobody has even once removed or proposed the removasl of cited material from this article so please do not bring this up as a red herring. If an editor claims the material is contentious then that means the material has been challenged and needs sourcing to become BLP compliant. Anything else is trying to avoid BLP compliance and that is not open to negotiation except on the BLP policy talk page. Claiming neither porn nor mainstream films are contentious is simply not credible for wikipedia to take as a viewpoint to be sued to avoid BLP compliance. How is a reliable source not required? Nobody claiming this has shown me one policy statement to back up their claim. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

well, claiming that it is contentious to note that Traci Lords, for example, is a former porn star is stretching things considerably. But that is neither here nor there. My question is, accepting that this list requires sources, will you act to prevent any interested editors from unblanking the list for the explicit purpose of sourcing it? Resolute 15:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That you have challenged the factinclusion does not inherently make it contentious, the question is why you challenged it. If it is your position that the people you removed from the list, as a matter of fact, are not porn stars, or that the movies are not in fact mainstream, then yes, they are contentious. But as I understand it, your not disputing the underlying factual basis, but claiming the inclusion is contentious anyway. To provide an example: Speaker_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives#List_of_Speakers_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives provides inline citations for none of the members of the list, which includes living members. That is fine because no one is contesting the factual basis. If I went and removed the list, or at least the living members of the list, citing BLP policy, but admitted the list is accurate, the inclusion in the list would not all of a sudden become contentious under policy. Monty₈₄₅ 15:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the non-content issue is whether an editor can blank an article by claiming that it violates WP:BLP, when there are objections and there isn't a consensus for that. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to that is yes, see WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE. Monty₈₄₅ 15:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a burden for those proposing inclusion of contentious material about living people to establish appropriate sourcing, but if there is a consensus that they have met that burden, or that it is not a BLP issue to begin with, the person trying to blank the article is not entitled to apply WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT indefinitely behind a flag of BLP. At some point it becomes disruptive behavior.Wikidemon (talk) 15:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • Yes, they can, Bob. Our BLP policy does not talk about gaining a consensus or taking note of other users objections and these are not required. If the whole article is a BLP violation policy requires all non BLP compliant material to be deleted immediately and prior to discussion. Yesterday the list was full of people whom editors had decided were porn actors who have appeared in mainstream films. Then editors object that I demand reliable source for all the living people on this list. It could equally in its shape yesterday be considered originl research because there has been no evidence provided that a single person on that list is actually a porn actor who has appeared in a mainstream film. It has to be the refs and not solely editors who decide who appears in this list. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except in this case Squeak, its a single handed effort by you aimed specifically at porn related articles. It's not a BLP issue, its tendentious and disruptive editing when you are interfering with the efforts of other editors to work on articles. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 16:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Monty, In that section is "If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first". I think that is your point? If so, it appears that there was consensus for restoration when it was last removed. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a sufficient consensus anywhere I have looked. My thought at this point is that they best way forward is to just start an RFC at WP:BLP on the main question, and leave it to anyone who wants to to work on references in the meantime. Monty₈₄₅ 16:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I presume by your use of the qualifier "sufficient" that you recognize there was a consensus. The section of policy referred only to consensus, "If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first". There were only two editors there that wanted to remove the list. Four supported keeping it. Also note that we're discussing an established article that over 300 editors have worked on over the years.[3] --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recreating list

Guys, I've recreated the list as a single entry with a source.[4] Please help by adding any others that can be sourced, and if not leaving them out and possibly dealing with the linked bio article. Can we agree that this particular article should have sources next to each actor's name (living or not, no need to restrict it to BLP) to establish that they are or were an adult entertainment star? We don't have to agree that BLP requires it, just that we agree to do it here. We do a very similar thing to ensure quality at a very contentious non-BLP article I tend, List of Internet phenomena. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• For the record, the most recent and appropriate discussion about lists of names appears to be this Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Stand-alone_lists#Lists_of_names. No one seems to be questioning that these people are or are not adult industry performers and the first line of every one of their individual articles says as much. The only controversy or contention in play here is that which has been created by SqeakBox IMO. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 16:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note with complete disregard for the ongoing discussions here, Scalhotrod has just restored the WP:BLP-violating material. [5]I ask that he be blocked immediately for provocative behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the edit. He/she was adding sources to the article and temporarily restored it to add more sources. Indeed, I ask that you look at the edit you're reverting before assuming things, the edit added a lot of references to support the material, I thought that was what you wanted? Tutelary (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec - addressing ATG) Did you actually look at the edit you're complaining about and edit warring over? The restored list had citations. We can discuss whether IMDB citations are appropriate, but please be more careful. You've also violated 3RR now here on AN/I over the section heading. You need to cool down a bit. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The restored material lacked citations for most of the entries, and there is no way that we can cite IMDb for contentious material - it simply isn't trustworthy enough for this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please promise not to violate 3RR, at least on this discussion page?[6][7][8][9] - Wikidemon (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please promise not to violate WP:BLP policy? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, no? Okay, you're only weakening your case by edit warring a section title here. This looks like sheer tendentious in trying to force your opinions on the community, not about policy. And yes, I do abide by BLP policy. Nobody has hinted here that I have not. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP policy is not 'my opinion' - it is policy arrived at by the community, and via input from the WMF. Trying to weasel-word around a clear and explicit requirement for referencing of contentious material by falsely claiming that blue-links are some sort of 'reference' doesn't look like abiding by policy to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm violating policy by even pointing out that your argument has no policy justification? That logic is beyond the deep end, we're not even in the swimming pool. Good luck with that :) - Wikidemon (talk) 17:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What we are objecting in this discussion, and what colleague SqueakBox seemingly does not want to get it, is the heavy-handed dealing of a one-shot deletion of a long-standing page without any discussion whatsoever. Then his completely taking over the page and now I see also the talk page too, as a one-against-all heavy handed intransigent approach that boils down to I know best and what you say doesn't matter, I will have my way. Sure we always assume good faith of editors, so assume good faith in us objectors to your heavy handed approach if not a one man campaign of "win it all or lose it all". It shouldn't be that way. It is your approach that led colleagues to refer you to this Administrator page, after all attempts of reconciling with other views failed with you and the page remained blank despite it all. The solution was very clear. If SqueakBox could have put specific names (even if they are 10-15-20 I don't mind) and explained the reason he excluded them, I am all for it. Admittedly the list may have included a few such names. But what is very clear from the list we had before his "one-editor intervention" was this: One: Are their clearly tens of pornographic stars listed there on the list whose pornographic status, fame and credit is beyond any doubt? The resounding answer yes! Absolutely a resounding number of those listed there are porn stars. The list contains tens of such non-contentious porn stars (now deleted without any justfication). TWO: have these clearly established pornographic stars been also in non-pornographic films. The answer is again a resounding yes. An actor is an actor. Porn stars are actors and some very talented. Plus some have obvious charisma and at times a great following for various reasons we like them or approve of them or not. So they were offered roles by mainstream film directors and they did play sometimes very impressive roles in non-pornographic films that matter. This list is about them as actors beyond just being some "piece of meat" on the screen. THREE: Is this list needed. Sure! Absolutely. We should acknowledge in Wikipedia that porn starts are not just porn stars but veritable artists. Their non-pornographic roles should be highlighted, I say even encouraged, and not oppressed. This was precisely the raison d'etre of this article and the useful purpose it played. This is what you deleted citing an "umbrella" clause or policy that you used. Clearly there are porn stars beyond a shadow of doubt found on the list and clearly showing in non-pornographic sometimes very mainstream movies as well. These are the people SqueakBox eliminated in one massive non-substantiated edit and then prevented any development of the list for all intents and purposes. He did this by deleting en masse simply citing a few actors (just a few) where pornographic status was not clear or substantiated. So the full list (with almost 90-95% legit names and entries) disappeared instead of the list being edited, reformed and cleaned up. Again, what you should have done was to pinpoint those specific individuals you were objecting to and take them off the list. What you did was to take a well-formulated policy we have and applying it indiscriminately even on actual porn stars who did appear in non-pornographic roles and whose status was beyond any shred of doubt. And no, we don't actually need references for each and every one of those listed there as you want. No Wikipedia lists we have are fully referenced for each line we insert. That's absurd... Applying them for porn stars simply because they are porn stars doesn't make sense. Keep the list with the obvious ones (a huge majority of what the list was) and remove the "contentious list of specific individuals" (very few indeed as far as I can tell), not delete the whole very useful list. This is your task. Make a list of the ones you believe are "contentious". Keep the rest for what is a very useful list werldwayd (talk) 20:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

werldwayd, you cannot accuse me of not discussing this, I have discussed it extensively. On the other hand BLP says offending material must be removed prior to discussion. On the porn actors in mainstream films article it may have been long standing but contained nothing more than the unsourced assertion that various individuals have been porn stars and have appeared in mainstream films. I have explained clearly the reason I have excluded all the names, it is because they are likely living people and their inclusion in the list was not reliably sourced. How much clearer than this can I get. All entries require reliable sources that they were or are porn stars and have appeared in mainstream films, that is 2 pieces of information that need to be reliably sourced for every person. The only reason i removed anyone from the list was the failure tor eliably source those 2 pieces of information, if that meant removing everyone dont blame me. I didnt add these people without reliable sources so I am not to blame for their removal. And you are wrong about no list being BLP complaint, see List of male performers in gay porn films. Claiming that we dont need to reliably source as we have in that article is essentially calling for the breaking up of our BLP policy because people cannot be bothered to reliably source. And this sex actors in mainstream films list was also WP:OR|original research]] as it was editors alone who made the decisions about inclusion without having to justify those decisions with reliable sources to back up their assertions that x,y, and z were porn actors and have appeared in mainstream films as would normally be the case with anything that appears to be original research. The claims that "we know the info is correct" are not the watermark wikipedia demands in ensuring we are a good encyclopedia. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I have opened an RFC on the policy question at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons if anyone would like to participate there. Monty₈₄₅ 17:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a random example, consider Major League Baseball Player of the Month Award. I see no citations that these guys are actually major league baseball players. Should I therefore blank the list? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think someone would sue for libel if they were included in error? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment/Question Doesn't policy say the sources don't have to be in the specific article/list but must be on WP? Aren't there sources at the articles for blue linked names that identify the individuals as adult/mainstream film performers? I think when there is contention inline sources are preferable but my understanding is that they are not mandatory. It doesn't seem like it would be too difficult to copy the appropriate sources from the linked articles. Just my two pennies. - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is pretty widely accepted, and has been for a long time, that lists may have the inclusion criteria sourced either on the list page or in the article the list element refers to. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC).

Accepted in which policy is that, Rich? None I have seen. Especially when the list is making claims that the bio articles may or may not support. Saying BLP violations are widely accepted is not exactly true either. If an article says someone is a porn actor performing in mainstream films a reliable source is required in that article or verifiability fails and we do not knowingly allow verifiability to fail with BLP, especially not in contentious areas like porn. Please, MrBill3, do quote the policy you mentioned which you alleged allows users to evade BLP and then we can discuss it but "doesnt policy say" isnt that. You need to be certain about your policy assertions coming here not thinking aloud. You are of course right that it is not a hard task to add reliable sources which is why I cannot understand what all the fuss is about. People should just get on and add them instead of arguing as to why porn lists are BLP exempt, which ultimately threatens the BLP protection wikipedia offers to porn workers, that protection is known as verifiability and there are no excuses for ignoring BLP non complaince ever for even one minute. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Especially when the list is making claims that the bio articles may or may not support. That is precisely the point. To be added to "list of Saxophone players" either Bill Clinton's article must support his saxophony, or a cite must be given in the list. Clearly the article is not allowed to contain "contentious unsourced assertions", so by implication neither is the list. The only difference for lists is avoidance of make-work duplication of citations. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:02, 4 August 2014 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#Citing sources

It has just been brought to my attention that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#Citing sources explicitly states that lists should be "sourced where they appear", and that they "must provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations" - contentious BLP material of course being one of the 'four kinds'. I think that this should clear any lingering doubt as to whether sourcing is required. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I get that Andy and Squeak are trying to use the standpoint that anything involving the Adult industry is contentious and/or controversial, but we're not talking about completely unsourced claims. No one seems to be arguing that these performers were in these films or tv shows, nor does anyone seem to be contesting that they are in fact performers in the adult industry. If the list is populated by notable porn actors who have an article, why is there so much discourse over this?

As for Andy's claim that no one accidentally listed on those other lists wouldn't be offended is pointless. Anyone can be offended about anything, the recent discussions about Civility all over this site easier demonstrate that. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 20:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The claims are completely unsourced in the list that makes the claim - contrary to what the MOS requires. And yes, unsourced claims that people are pornographic actors are self-evidently controversial. As indeed are assertions 'sourced' to sources that don't actually back up the assertion, as I have shown occurred as a result of your recent edit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Self evidently", oh really, that's a new one. On a list titled "List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films", no one has yet to challenge that any of them are not in the industry. Please elaborate... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 22:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no knowledge of porn stars, Scalhotrod, so I am indeed arguing that all the unsourced people on the list may not be porn stars and I want to verify that they are. That I could not do so with reliable source yesterday is depressing. My knowledge of mainstream films is not much better so a reliable source as to that claim is definitely also a good idea for all living individuals without exception. If you argue that porn work is not contentious it then becomes hard to argue that ANYTHING is contentious outside criminal behaviour, which would fundamentally undermine BLP policy and make wikipedia a more hostile place for all the living people mentioned in the encyclopedia. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the only one challenging your belief system Squeak, its just not your day to make this assertion. Not that many, in fact Andy and maybe 1 or 2 others by my count are agreeing with you. Even then their not really saying why. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 22:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scalhotrod, f you believe you have a consensus to change our BLP policy you should perhaps propose a change there and see how the wider community takes to it. I have been waiting 6 months for this day so today is as good as any day and I feel very satisfied with the progress made so far, I was not expecting it to be easy. But I am at least confident that your consensus of porn article interested editors do not trump our BLP policy as it is currently written. As I am sure you are aware by now nowhere does BLP say that a consensus of editors can choose to ignore BLP and with good reason as this would withdraw the protection that BLP offers to living people mentioned in articles. So go and change the policy then come back and we can talk about what to do on these porn list articles. But until then BLP as it is currently written stands. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one is saying that BLP needs to be changed, most disagree with your interpretation and application of it. Luckily its just the porn articles that you are focusing on, so I'm still advocating for a Topic Ban. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 22:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly do you disagree with my interpretation of BLP? Are you saying claims that someone is or was a porn actor and is now in mainstream films do not need reliably sourcing. How do you interpret BLP to allow you to do that? How you propose to achieve a topic ban for enforcing BLP should be interesting to see and of course I can say now I am not willing to abide by any agreement that allows other editors to ignore BLP standards in porn lists while barring me from enforcing BLP compliance. Youn cannot evade BLP by proposing topic bans on people who annoy you because they wont allow you to add the names of living people unsourced to articles. You should start thinking about the protection wikipedia needs to give to porn workers as real living people and not just thinking about your own, selfish needs as an editor who does not want to be BLP compliant. And you would only propose a topic ban in order to evade BLP compliance in porn articles. Perhaps you are the one who should face the topic ban if you persist in knowingly adding material that you have been told is a BLP violation, ie unsourced material about a living person in an article. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your admitted ignorance of this subject disqualifies you from discussing anything to do with the alleged "contentiousness" of listing well-known porn actors as being porn actors. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• MOS is a guideline. This particular item was added in July 2013, in the middle of a discussion about this precise question. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC).
  

Baseball Bugs, where does BLP require one to be knowledgeable in the field of whatever BLP area one ois looking to see complaince in? It does not require such specialist knowledge and so you are stretching it somewhat claiming I have no right to be editing these articles. My lack of knowledge means I demand BLP from any likely living person mentioned and to require reliable sources in no way requires a knowdedge of porn. I do on the other hand have experience of working with BLP on wikipedia over a number of years which makes me eminently suitable to demand BLP compliance so you wont be able to shut my voice up merely by claiming I am not knowledgeable about porn stars. An your claim that one has to be knowledgeable abpoiut porn to identify the porn industry as contentious re BLP is not aa serious argument. You cannot just exclude other editors for demanding simple BLP compliance though you are not the first who has tried to do so since yesterday. I dont appreciate people claiming my voice should be excluded just for demanding BLP compliance as if editors are more important than the subjects of articles. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where do BLP rules allow you to invent "contentiousness" which is strictly a product of your own ignorance of the subject? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Working in the Entertainment industry is contentious?

I'm quoting from an earlier comment...

• Porn stars and mainstream film stars are both contentious areas. [signed by♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)][reply]

Sorry, come again? You're saying that working in the Entertainment industry is contentious??? How? Why? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 22:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YES! I have worked with one well known Hollywood person who was very unhappy about BLP non compliance in his article so I speak from personal experience when I say that the entertainment industry often IS contentious when it comes to BLP. Far more contentious than many other fields of human endeavour and especially when very famous people are concerned. Mocking my BLP concerns is not a good way of making a serious point or proving your rightness. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so the personal bias is finally revealed; and you're throwing in anything sex or porn related for good measure? But none of what you just stated is any kind of explanation or justification for your actions on the series of articles that you blanked. By the way, I've worked in the Entertainment industry too and have my own listing on IMDb. I don't know what the problem was/is with the person your worked with, but I suspect that it had more to do with that person not liking how they were represented in the press rather than on Wikipedia. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 23:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My personal bias here, Scalhotrod, is towards defending the subjects of articles through enforcing BLP and I make no apologies for this bias. When I say I worked with someone fromm Hollywood I mean at wikipedia as SqueakBox not outside wikipedia. The problem had to do with the person having poorly or unsourced information in his biography, not how he appeared in the press itself, so you are wrong in your speculation on that BLP case. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So you did or did not know some famous Hollywood person, I'm confused by your previous statement. If I do understand it correctly, then you actually have no direct experience working in the Entertainment industry, correct? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an extremely hasty generalization. One person complained on-site that they felt their article does not comply with BLP? How does this justify unprovoked blanking of a list of actors? moluɐɯ 03:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's absolutely contentious. How is this even in dispute? The porn industry is marginalized and actors in adult films frequently face unfair and damaging reactions inside and outside the entertainment industry. We can imagine a world where everyone has a sex-positive view about adult films and the actors in them, but we don't live in that world. As such, marking someone as an adult film actor in a list like this without inline sourcing is problematic. Protonk (talk) 15:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Jessie Andrews starred in Portrait of a Call Girl." Is this statement contentious? If so, how? moluɐɯ 16:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's in a list that (by definition) identifies her as a porn star. It's not the page for Portrait of a Call Girl. So, for instance, if Sibel Kekilli is trying to get out of the adult film ghetto, this is a list designed to make sure that we don't forget there was a time where she had sex on camera. I'm not saying the list shouldn't exist (I mean, I think it shouldn't, but that's not really a likely outcome), but membership is certainly contentious. Protonk (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't an actor worried about their past roles be sort of a WP:COI issue? The purpose of this project is not to facilitate an individual in creating a public image; the purpose is to create an encylopedia based on verifiable information. moluɐɯ 16:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Wouldn't an actor worried about their past roles be sort of a WP:COI issue?" Only if that actor is editing the page. I'm not sure I understand the comment. I understand the basic concepts, and I understand that Wikipedia has lots of pages which contain neutral, verifiable and true information that some people wished weren't on there, because it reflects poorly on a subject. But let's not adorn List of actors who got their baps out on camera in films where people don't generally get their baps out with too much significance for humanity. You say that the purpose of the project is to create an encyclopedia, and I agree! I'm saying is that the claim that someone deserves an entry on this list is by itself contentious and should be supported by some sourcing indicating that it's not just an intersection of iafd and imdb. If not, we're building a directory of entries notable largely because the subject has personal and professional stigma associated with it. It's not unreasonable to ask that we be judicious about sourcing it. Protonk (talk) 17:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI describes any instance where the edit is made with outside goals. So no matter who does it, someone removing an actress from the list because "she doesn't want to be a porn star anymore" is a conflict of interest. I don't really see documenting someone's roles as contentious. Even if it were objectively contentious as described by policy, it would only be so for the initial claim. If I add an actress to the list and cite a statement made in another article and backed by a reliable source, am I making a controversial edit? No. I also don't understand the "where people don't generally get their baps out" part of your statement. This subdiscussion is specifically pornography-related. Generally, you're going to see more than just bare "baps". The issue about IMDb and IAFD is more an issue of reliable sources than it is citing your sources. If there is a problem regarding the sources used, then I have no objection to removing the entry and raising the question "Can we get a reliable source for this?", but if the source is reliable and is on the subject's page backing the categorization, why is it a problem? moluɐɯ 17:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's not a definition of COI I'm familiar with. If someone is editing on behalf of someone or in exchange for payment/recognition/whatever, that's a COI. Otherwise it's not. The "get your baps out" bit was to point out that yes, we're building a reference for all of humanity, but we can certainly weigh the public interest in this sort of list against some purported harm. So we're not talking about soft-pedaling a conviction or scandal due to BLP (which happens sometimes and shouldn't), but building a list that's interesting solely because the two industries are much less porous than, say "dramatic actors in comedic films". My point about reliable sources was this: We have sources for the cast lists of notable films. We also have sources identifying actors as adult film stars. What we should have is a source which connects the two. Those sources do exist, especially for particularly notable AV stars. In response to the below comment, it's not a separate issue. It's the animating issue of this entire discussion. Without it, we're making a directory of actors based on a classification which is itself plainly contentious. Protonk (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's sort of bolded in the first paragraph of WP:COI: When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest. "I don't want to be a porn star anymore" is an outside interest, regardless of who is advancing it, because it is not within the scope of Wikipedia's goals. Whether or not an actor should be included on the list if they meet the criteria is certainly an issue here, but the exact definition we should use for inclusion is a content issue, and we should not be discussing it here. moluɐɯ 17:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) That's what the text says, but interpreting it to mean that an editor with a particular editorial viewpoint has a COI is strained and tendentious. There's no reading of COI which supports the view that plain editing, without an outside material interest, is COI editing. Especially because it presumes that one editorial position is somehow magically advancing the aims of wikipedia while another is not. Protonk (talk) 17:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree. The spirit of the policy is that to edit productively, you must have the same interests as Wikipedia. Editing against these goals would be a COI, because I can't imagine any case where an editor would believe (for example your statement: if Sibel Kekilli is trying to get out of the adult film ghetto, this is a list designed to make sure that we don't forget there was a time where she had sex on camera.) that an actress wanting to get out of the business and have everyone forget she was ever there is a valid reason to remove her. It's against the mindset of the project, and if I saw an editor doing that, I would immediately raise the question "Who are you to this person?" moluɐɯ 17:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Protonk, I would completely agree with that if it wasn't for the fact that in this instance every single entry on the list had an entire article describing and proving that these people are in fact in the adult industry. No red links, no text only non-links, just blue links for each person. Inclusion on the list is not contentious, its just data. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is your assertion, Scalhotrod, but not one I expect you have even bothered to check yourself. And if you had, so what? You having gone through the list does not make it verifiable for me. And until you come up with reliable sources for every single person on that list I will take your statement as an unproven assertion and not as the fact you want us to take it for. Our verifiability is reliable sources and not editors who claims to be experts in a subject. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What determines membership? A notable porn star has a credit on a notable film? Or is the essential element of list membership actually noted by a source? Meaning, is Wikipedia the first place to take note of that connection or does a reliable source do so? Protonk (talk) 17:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a separate issue, and it would be more appropriate on the article's talk page. We shouldn't distract ourselves with what to include when we haven't yet established a consensus on whether to include them at all. moluɐɯ 17:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not mistaken, before a person is even placed on the list, they must meet the inclusion criteria to be placed on that list. That's the way it works for all the lists that are on WP, you must meet the inclusion criteria before being placed on a list. So in this instance, it had already been established that these individuals were indeed working in the adult film industry, therefore they met the inclusion criteria and were placed on the list. There is no new revelation being made about the individual, nor is there a controversial statement being made about the individual. They already have an article on WP where it has been established through reliable sourcing that they work in the adult film industry. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's take a different example. Say we have male actors whose career started in their late teens after appearing in a Bryan Singer film. For each actor, such a fact is verifiable and would be cited and noted in their article. Further, we have the allegations that Singer traded access for sexual favors. That (contentious and potentially damaging WRT BLP as it is) can be cited and supported in Singer's article. We could, under this framework, make List of actors whose career started after a Bryan Singer party and justify it by noting that both conditions for membership on the list are present in the linked articles. But we wouldn't, because that would be monstrous. That's a deliberately unfair example and it's probably not something we would maintain even with sourcing, but it's not that far off. Protonk (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This article is an example of the real damage shoddy sourcing in Wikipedia porn articles can cause. Let's not pretend this isn't an issue or that porn acting is merely an uncontentious job in the "entertainment industry". Even seemingly uncontentious jobs like (non-porn) modeling can be contentious. This actor found being labeled a model by Wikipedia quite controversial. Gamaliel (talk) 18:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your first example, and one thats trounced out regularly, is a case of mistaken identity that happens to be associated with Wikipedia. The actor example is laughable. Back to the subject at hand, no one is disputing (or confusing) the fact that every person on the list is question is in the adult industry; their articles prove that. Inline references were then provided to show that they had been in mainstream productions. Nothing shoddy was even attempted, but how 2 editors choose to respond is Draconian, naive, and ignorant. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So if everything is on the up and up, and sources are so readily available, why can't one of those editors arguing in favor of the list take a bit of time away from arguing about it in multiple fourms and slap some references in the list article? Gamaliel (talk) 19:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The ones who have a problem with the list should assume responsibility for reviewing it - especially as the chief complainant here admits to having no knowledge of the subject. By fixing the list himself, maybe he'll learn something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, the onus is on those who wish to include potentially controversial material to insure that it is properly cited. Gamaliel (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two problems. First, mass deletion of sourced content is disruptive no matter what the excuse, and the community usually will not stand for it. Second, the information is properly cited. This needless ruckus is over citing methodology, not whether this information is reliable sourced. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One problem. The content wasn't sourced. A blue link isn't a source. Not ever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've made this silly argument enough times that everyone has read it by this point. Of course the information is sourced. You just want one of the sources copied from one place to a second place. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I want is for articles to comply with policy. WP:BLP policy says contentious content on living persons must be sourced. Nothing anywhere in Wikipedia asserts that a blue link is a source. The existence of a blue link proves nothing beyond the fact that the subject has an article on Wikipedia. Nothing... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are inventing contention where there isn't any. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a straw man argument with a dose of IDIDNTHEARTHAT, repeatedly claiming that blue links are held out as sources in order to argue against it, instead of dealing with the reality of the situation, which is that they're proposing copying some of the sources from the articles back to the list. - ~~

Wikidemon is exactly right. What Andy and other's are asking is that when a list is created about people (presumably just those in the adult film industry?) that there be a reaffirmation of already sourced content. That's what this discussion is about is whether editor's should be required when compiling a list of people to reaffirm already sourced content. Because when a list is compiled from existing articles on WP that are reliably sourced, they must meet the inclusion criteria to be placed on that list. That's the way it works for all the lists that are on WP, you must meet the inclusion criteria before being placed on a list. So in this instance, it had already been established that these individuals were indeed working in the adult film industry, therefore they met the inclusion criteria and were placed on the list. There is no new revelation being made about the individual, nor is there a controversial statement being made labout the individual. They already have an article on WP where it has been established through reliable sourcing that they work in the adult film industry. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It's certainly important for someone compiling such a list to be sure that the entries belong on the list. Someone had suggested categorization instead of lists. Guess what: Categories don't have citations. You have to go back to the article to ensure that the entry belongs in that category. Just as with a list. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason why we cannot just copy the sources used in the original articles for use in the list article? This seems like a legalistic or courtroom debate over something easy to fix! Alicb (talk) 04:30, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It takes many hours of work, and the last editor that attempted this was reverted almost immediately. Twice. moluɐɯ 04:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a quick diff for one or both of those reverts? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I twice invited User:SqueakBox to check the refs of the bluelinks of the Pornographic film actor#Autobiographies entries to verify that that they were indeed porn-stars (bluelinks not as "refs", but as leads to finding them). He stated he was unable to verify that many of them were porn actors (see Talk:Pornographic film actor#Autobiographies and BLP. The underlying articles state that they were and have refs (and some even use (porn star) or similar as a disambiguation-term in their article title). Based on those aspects, we seemingly have tons of actual bio articles (not just lists thereof) that are BLP problems by making these claims with bogus refs. He twice ignored my suggestion to push for remedying at that level. But I cannot WP:AGF of his statement that he could not verify the claims. The first two from the autobiog list that he says he could not verify were easy to verify from the linked refs in their articles. I added them as refs and he did not contest. And he also removed ones that did have substantial refs and discussion of high notability in the genre even within that Pornographic film actor article itself, just not in the list section. He also rejects cites to the autobiographies themselves because "google books is not a sufficient ref according to our reliable sources policy". If a person writes that he/she was a porn star (even in the title of the autobiog) and the publisher's blurb/summary of the book uses similar wording to describe this as a point of fame, isn't that pretty definitive and reliable?

I don't know much about this genre, and I am not often involved in "contentious" BLP claims (for whatever definition of that term you could envision). Obviously anyone can actually dispute (or even merely claim as disputable) any info, and adding cites to improve verifiability is a worthwhile activity in any place one finds it deficient. But I think this edit pattern is based on taking some intersection of BLP+RS policies to a nonsensical extreme or taking an overly disruptive and inefficient approach to solving what BLP problems that actually do exist. DMacks (talk) 05:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So DMacks, demanding refs for people labelled as porn stars without a relable source on an article that is not even a list just a plain article is taking BLP to a nonsensical extreme? What then would not be taking BLP to a nonsensical extreme involve in your eyes? Never enforcing it. Or just not for porn stars or living being alleged to be porn stars? And you are an admin? OMG! ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of consistency, I invite SqueakBox to start blanking List of members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee as many of the contentious allegations that the men listed on the page are in fact politicians are unsourced. While we're at it, I believe List of female Nobel laureates should also be blanked as there is no sources indicating that the Nobel laureates are indeed female, and that can also be contentious. Some sources on List of current Indian chief ministers do not specifically indicate that the politicians belong to that particular political party; that should also be partially blanked. On a more serious note, I realise that if there is some concern about the actual occupation of some of the individuals on the page and that the occupation is actually contentious, then it may merit removal. However this is simply absurd. I challenge anyone to explain why it is more contentious to be a porn star than to represent a specific political party. —Dark 10:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dark this article outlines some of the stigma attached to being a real porn worker, if you can show me a similar article about the stigma of being involved in the nobel area you will have a point, until then though, I wont take what you have to say onboard too much. IMO the hostility some editors here on wikipedia show towards porn workers is very similar to the contemptuous beliefs held in the wider society. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure there is stigma in many corners of America and in most but not all places in the English-speaking world (remember, this is not just an American project). There is also stigma about a number of other things that society basically accepts or puts up with such as being a lawyer or politician, being Jewish, gay, or African-American, being disabled or mentally ill, and so on. All of these are potentially contentious labels and deserve some extra attention whether the claim is made in an article, category, list, lede, anywhere. The concern is that if we declare an entire topic area to be inherently contentious to the point where Wikipedia's coverage of that topic area suffers, we're carrying on and contributing to society's shunning. If every last mainstream actor, film, role, etc., gets unreferenced lists but we set a higher bar for porn, we're helping to keep it underground. I do think we need to give some extra thought before calling someone a porn star, not just that we have a good source but that it's actually relevant to their notability. So it's okay in the Paris Hilton article that she's introduced as an "American socialite, actress and entertainer" even if the actress and entertainer parts are dubious. Many people are called philanthropists, businesspeople, or educators on very flimsy grounds, but that's an accolade. But we would have to think very carefully before saying she's a porn star just because she's been in a porn production. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Having political preferences, and expressing them, are within societal norms for everyone in a free society. Having a gender is a given. You gotta source someone working in porn because, unlike having a political party or a gender, saying someone is a porn star is libelous if they are not. Performin sex acts in public, no matter how jaded we have gotten to it, is still not within societal norms. John from Idegon (talk) 10:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is the same situation, and it is consistent with the arguments raised here. Just imagine wrongly including a pedophile or a serial criminal in a member Nobel Committee list or in the Indian chief ministers list, potentially it is even more contentious. Cavarrone 10:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT aside, I find it odd that so many people are pushing the bizarre fiction that being a porn star is just another random occupation that nobody would ever find controversial and thus couldn't possibly have any BLP implications for real people and their lives off of Wikipedia. Gamaliel (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So is every single instance of every politician (another just as controversial occupation) referenced across this site? If its not, then you're just being anti-porn. Which is OK, but its better if you just admit it rather that argue this stance. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 15:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I love porn. You're being anti-WP:AGF. Gamaliel (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that was a bit much, my apologies. I'm just saying that there are other controversial occupations that Editors don't seem to pick on in the same way that porn is. If mainstream actors are on a list, no one demands redundant references that they are actors, same goes for politicians. In my opinion, there is a clear anti-porn (not you) bias on this site. Sheesh, we have a list article List of prostitutes and courtesans that has few references. Granted many are dead (or presumed), but no one is scrutinizing that list to the degree that anything porn related is. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The people with the anti-porn agenda here are those like Scalhotrod and others who dismiss the BLP protection we at wikipedia offer to porn workers by claiming it is not a contentious profession and want to weaken our coverage of porn at wikipedia by making it not reach encyclopedic standards, ie verifiability throughb reliable sources. I have a strong pro porn workers agenda and hope the day will come when porn workers are not stgmatized and when the porn industry has shed its misogynist, prejudiced world view to create better quality porn. So count me among the pro porn activists here. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Time for a ruling

Seems like it's time for a ruling by an administrator. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A ruling on what? Admins don't determine content issues, and there certainly doesn't seem to be any consensus here that anyone should be sanctioned regarding behaviour. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andy is right here. The only solution is going to be to source the list. That does not require any ruling by an admin. Nor does the fact that most people involved could have handled themselves and/or communicated better. Resolute 16:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The content issues are a distraction from the behavior issues which are in the purview of this page, e.g. alleged disruptive behavior by edit warring against a consensus. It's time for a ruling by an administrator. The content issues can be continued on the article's talk page. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Not guilty by reason of insanity What are we talking about again? I haven't even read this thread or know who it's about.--v/r - TP 21:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bob K31416, are you asking for those who re-added material that had explicitly been labelled non BLP compliant in the edit summary and on the talk page. Because you, if my memorey serves me, were one of the offenders. As you know BLP says in the opening that ADDING material in this way is a blaockable offence, and indeed from what i can see it is the only blockable offence anyone has committed. BTW I am asking for anyone to be blocked myself! ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• What this unduly overly long thread is really about is this type of behavior, which is blanking article content & then immediately trying to have it deleted, which has been the kind of conduct that has gotten other Wikipedia users sanctions against them in the past here at AN/I. This thread is about conduct, not article content. Article content issues should be (and are being) discussed elsewhere, not here. Guy1890 (talk) 04:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This deletionist problem can be solved by abolishing "list articles" altogether and using categories instead, because categories don't require redundant citations. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That might be the ultimate solution, but has anyone had a chance to go through all of the list articles (or a sample of them, realistically) to see if the problem that we have here is prevalent? I kind of get the impression from the debate that the main issue is with accusing people of being porn stars without citations provided in the line. If that's the case, then list articles aren't the problem -- articles about porn stars are. Unless this issue is central to lists, it might be unfair to have us go through every list article on wikipedia and transmute them into categories. It also would still anger Squeakbox and Andythegrump since categories won't have citations and they might still consider that a WP:BLP article. Alicb (talk) 22:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem is that Squeak didn't bother to look at the articles - he just said, "No redundant citation, so it's fair game to delete." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Maybe so, but that's hardly the fault of list articles, is it? I feel like whatever answer we get from the RFC over at WP:BLP won't be that we should go ahead and delete all list articles. Alicb (talk) 02:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • (ec) List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films , the first list that Squeak blanked, initially setting off the parent thread, was restored and direct citations added by a number of editors over the course of several days.[10] AFAIK it was not found not to contain any people who were not porn stars, and sourced as such in the linked articles. If the goal were simply to quality-check the list to make sure there are no mistakes, it could have been done in a fraction of the time. I don't think any of them are "accused" of being porn stars, they are, and it is part of their professional bios. That is all a content policy issue, but the fact that there was no problem here to begin with tends to support the observation that there was no emergency worth troubling so many community members over. - Wikidemon (talk)
            • To Alicb: implementing any outcome of the RfC, if there is in fact an outcome, would be a further decision for the community. That will likely end up back here if people go cowboy as enforcers. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for deletion

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, let's see that. AndyTheGrump is nominating for deletion a list article for lack of references, and at the same time deleting references on it based on a particular interpretation of BLP which is being heavily contested. I suggest that you withdraw the nomination until the interpretation of policy is settled, instead of gaming the system by starting debates at venues away from the ones where you've been questioned. Diego (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about actually reading my rationale for deletion? I nominated it for deletion not because it is unreferenced, but because there is nothing whatsoever to indicate that the subject matter (a trivial intersection) meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination for deletion was closed by an administrator with the result to Keep. [11] --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked the closer to revert, and/or to provide an explanation for this precipitate action. If none is given, I shall raise the matter at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Closing an AfD after five hours, when few uninvolved contributors have had a chance to look at the issue seems entirely unjustified to me. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This does need to go to deletion review. There was division on the matter and the nomination was not even open for 24 hours. Carrite (talk) 14:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was closed because it was a cynical, bad-faith nomination. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

We're far from the point IMO where anyone deserves a block or ban based on this specific incident so far, but to preserve the record for the inevitable next time, I just wanted to consolidate a couple now-stale behavioral issues here. Perhaps a closing administrator can consider warning parties against escalating things.

• 3RR violation on this page[12][13][14][15] (mentioned above)
• WP:OWN and WP:TEND issues, process gaming, edit warring a notice I tried to put on the top of the deletion discussion that it was referring to a blanked page.[16][17] along with nonsense block threats on my talk page.[18]
• Next time?? I believe ATG and/or Squeak have threatened that no outcome of the RfC at WP:BLP will deter them from repeatedly blanking lists of names. Let's hope they don't, but just noting that if it does happen, we saw it coming. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think that drawing attention to the way you attempted to disrupt an AfD nomination by posting a misleading assertion into the middle of the AfD rationale is going to do your case any good? (note that the 'blanked' page had been unblanked shortly after I removed Wikidemon's original misplaced post. And note how Wikidemon continued to edit-war it back in.) AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? The diffs speak for themselves, my friend. Please don't make up nonsense to try to disparage the good faith editors around here. Whatever your cause you're not doing it any service by being rude, aggressive, edit warring, and process gaming. If you can at least try to get along with other editors instead of making the community's Wikipedia experience that much more miserable you might find them a little more open to your efforts. No doubt you'll have a venomous comeuppance for that, so I'll just say in advance, se ya later, gater! - Wikidemon (talk) 22:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. The diffs speak for themselves - you dumped your commentary right into the middle of my AfD rationale. As for 'good faith' how about showing some by actually finding proper sources for the List of uncredited bit-parts in straight-to-video non-porn movies played by pornographic actors that you seem to think is of such importance to this encyclopaedia? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Untrue that.[19] See ya later, gater! - Wikidemon (talk) 22:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Not by you, though. You proceeded to blank most of the list and shortly dereafter nominated it for deletion; Wikidemon's notice was attempting that editors arriving to the AfD could have an adequate reading of the article that was being debated, and it was accurate at the time it was placed - and it certainly wasn't "in the middle" of your deletion rationale at any point. Diego (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Shortly after'? Two days. And it should be noted that I blanked it because it was being 'referenced' via an unreliable source (IMDb - see Wikipedia:RS/IMDB#IMDb, numerous threads on WP:RSN, etc, etc) that didn't even in some cases state that the persons involved were pornographic actors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you nominated the article for deletion two days after blanking the content that had been there for about seven years. And, as the point of debate was that the entries had valid references at the linked articles, the fact that IMDB references were placed inline at the list is a red herring. When you blank an article prior to nominating it and keep removing all hints that such content exists, you're breaking a long-standing rule of AfDs and showing very little respect for the editors that come to review the nomination. Diego (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Working thru this entire thread, I can't help but conclude that SqueakBox has way too much time on his hands by blanking this article for an incredibly silly reason. And AndyTheGrump violated the policy known as WP:BEANS. As an Admin, I'm very tempted to sanction one or both of them for wasting everyone's time on this, but I'm going to do the laziest solution: this article is indefinitely protected from further edits until there is a consensus about how to fix it. Now I'll be unavailable for an hour or more, so another Admin is welcome to undo my protection if adults can be found to handle this mess. -- llywrch (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm too old to have too much time on my hands, llywrch, but it is true that I chose a weekend when I had some time as I suspected that doing this would cause a reaction based on the reaction in January when I did a similar thing. Unfortunately I did not have the time in January which is why I withdrew and indeed stopped editing completely for a while. But I would point out that in terms of useful editing tasks these porn article BLP enforcing edits are easily the ones I am most proud of this year because they are the ones which have done most towards protecting the people we write about as well as improving the encyclopedia, and therefore they have been the most useful in terms of use of my time. On the other hand to see the regular stream of editors who would rather go on about their rights as editors (with never a single thought for the living subjects they and we write about) seem to have abundant time on their hands but never enough, in too many cases, to actually add reliable sources or to remove further BLP compliant material, both routine "boring" tasks that are hard work. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your candor. If you know in advance that something you are about to do will trigger a major spat among other editors, I think you should seriously consider going through one of the many other channels available to resolve disputed content questions. BLP enforcement and its equally emphatic cousin COPYVIO are no exceptions when there is serious legitimate debate over whether the policy even applies. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There were some adults that started the process of adding references before the full protection, but I will defer to your judgment on this and hopefully in due time, the adults can get back to editing and improving this article in a collaborative effort.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In response to a thoughtful request, I've went ahead & unprotected the page. I probably acted too hastily, but anyone reading thru this thread would be puzzled -- if not annoyed -- at the kerfuffle here. Common sense would hold that the articles on these people would be sufficient proof they are porn actors/actresses -- although sourcing their roles in different movies might prove more difficult. (In which cases, the links to the movies should then be removed -- not blanking the whole list in a childish pique!) -- llywrch (talk) 01:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved comment; I accept IMDB as an appropriate source for mainstream movie credits (as the ultimate source is the credits in the films themselves, which need not be online). I do not necessarily accept IMDB as an adequate source for working in the adult industry. There are perhaps better sources found in the articles about each actor/actress themselves. --Zfish118 (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The greater Wikipedia consensus would agree that IMBD is inappropriate for sourcing contentious material about living persons: Wikipedia:Citing IMDb Wikipedia:RS/IMDB#IMDb. --Zfish118 (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved comment

The WP:BLP and other policies make it pretty clear that entries in lists should be properly referenced individually when there is any dispute. If, as many claim here, the article's make the claim that an actor/actress worked in pornography, then it should be a simple case of copying the reference from one list to another; creating a new reference regarding their work in the adult industry from IMDB, as I have seen done here, should be unnecessary (and opens the door for circular referencing as IMDB is itself based on user submitted content, which could have come from Wikipedia). Using the IMDB for the mainstream works the actor/actress appeared in would not seem contentious to me, as the source is the movie credits in the film itself, which need not be online. Perhaps the adding of sources could be done in draft space.

As for the claims that this is merely tedious, I don't really find that credible. If this were an automatically generated category list, then the lack of inline sources would make sense; however as it was a manually generated list, the burden should have been filled when individual entries were added. [If anything, t]he "tedious" task would in fact be for the uninvolved editor to click each entry in the list to very the claim was sourced. Knowledge of who worked in the adult industry is not necessarily common. It was entirely appropriate that the list be blanked until sources were added by editors willing to do so. --Zfish118 (talk) 13:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To actually verify the claim, would they not still have to click the source? No matter where it is. Simply having a source is not verification. The purported tedium is not much different from the ideal case of everything being cited. moluɐɯ 15:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By your assertion mol they would have to click one link, search through a page and then click another link whereas in my assertion they would only have to click one link. Why create that extra burden for the reader? ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it wasn't additional work, only that it's hardly much more of a burden. Ideally, there would be a mention of occupation in the lead and an easy to find filmography. Not that hard to find. moluɐɯ 01:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is somewhat correct, but as I said, I find claims that properly documenting sources is a "tedious" and thus not warranted to be dubious, and really this applies to both documenting and verifying (added a slight clarification in [brackets] to my comments above). In articles or lists involving living persons, Wikipedia editors must properly document all claimed facts, especially contentious claims. The mere truth of a claim does not exclude its need to be documented; Wikipedia can only repeat factual assertions that can be attributed to external reliable sources. This is simply the entry requirement for creating such lists, not a "tedious" technicality. Lacking proper citations, removing the unsourced material by blanking or otherwise is a perfectly acceptable response. --Zfish118 (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been much more useful f the time and energy that has been expended on this pedantic discussion had beed used to reference the list in question.TheLongTone (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The list was referenced, reverted, re-reverted, reverted, then referenced again. The issue isn't simply that this list wasn't referenced. There are users arguing ridiculous points and a disagreement on the fundamentals of a policy. It is neither correct nor helpful to tell the users involved in this debate that they could have used their energy to cite this article rather than participate in discussion. moluɐɯ 21:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I think this is an issue that could be resolved with perhaps a request for comment? It seems elementary to me that, since the original websites for each porn star had citations in order to pass through the WP:BLP and WP:V policies, you could just copy and paste the same references over to the list. For some reason this is not accepted by the editors here, but I am having a hard time parsing why. I think the best bet to resolve this is a request for comment or other dialogue to determine exactly what solution should be. Moving over links seems like the most obvious answer but if that is wrong then that is wrong... Alicb (talk) 23:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alicb how does a request for comment help the living subjects we write about? To advise or enforce such a move would certainly involve rewriting our WP:BLP policy and to shift the balance of power in favour of editors and away from th living people we write about? Actualy all any editor wants is for reliable sources taken form the bios and added to the list articles, its not that some editors dont want this, its the opposite, its the some editors dont want to be bothered to do this tedious work, as ZFish calls it. You need to understand what is actually going on in order to get your head around it, I am not surprised you cannot get your head around something that actually is not so. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there might have been a misunderstanding here. I am not advocating rewriting WP:BLP or violating that policy in any way. I am saying that we should keep the changes that you have made to protect the privacy / sensitivity of living person information who may not be fairly linked to being adult film actors. The RFC is more of a long term approach that I feel would be good so that we can resolve the content dispute in such a way that it is easy to understand. I think we can all agree that there is a dispute here about policy and I feel like an outside impartial approach can help clear things up for everyone involved. I am not disagreeing with you, I am only saying that it would be reasonable as a long-term solution. That does NOT mean that an RFC is the only thing that should be done, only it is something that we should consider to avoid circular arguments in this manner in the future. Alicb (talk) 01:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There is an RfC about these very issues located here. Guy1890 (talk) 04:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alicb This isnt the place for a policydispute, that has to be diecided at the BLP talk page which Guy has linked to. IMO the only responsible approach is the one that puts the living subjects we write about as our number 1 priority. I am not opposed to the RFC I just have no intention of letting it slow down the vital work of BLP compliance in porn articles where possible because we cannot lessen our protection either for porn workers or for those we wrongly cliam of being porn workers, if there are any merely because some editors want to use procedure to slow dwn or evade BLP enforcement so they can get to edit how thye like without consideration for the living subjects they are writing about. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 05:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A correction

The BLO policy treats lists and categories identically (Wikipedia:BLPCAT#Categories.2C lists and navigation templates). The policy allows the sources in the article to justify inclusion in the list. Whether this is sufficient to override the requirement that "stand alone" lists require inline sources, I do not have an opinion. --Zfish118 (talk) 02:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That article has been advanced at the RfC, I believe the original complaint to justify the removal of the content was because porn was considered to be a contentious subject matter which would require inline citations per BLP.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 03:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was not the slightest evidence these people ever were porn stars. So what sourc4es allegedly in the articles confirmed this? None that were verifiable? Having an article is not evidence of being a porn star and it is entirely up to the person adding the material to show that said reliable sources exist. The BURDEN is not on the remover to prove that they do not exist but for the adder to prove they do. So unless someone can verify the sources in the article actually exist these lists are not covered by that BLP point. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 16:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the articles linked to in the aforementioned list do not have reliable sources, then I support the deletion or blanking of the articles and removal from the list. That would be a clear policy dictate. As a caution, a source need not be online to be "verifiable". --Zfish118 (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What Squeak is saying just above your comment ("There was not the slightest evidence these people ever were porn stars") is a falsehood. He never looked at the articles, or he couldn't honestly make that claim. Ron Jeremy, for example, is indisputably a porn actor. Had Squeak actually looked at that article, it would be abundantly clear from any number of citations. Squeak's behavior here is not in good faith. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over the current state of the list/article, I am Satisfied that at a minimum, the "click through" criteria has been met for all actors/actress not directly cited in the list. I generally support continuing to add direct inline citations (and am glad to see the references to IMBD for inclusion were removed), but do not believe the entire page warrants blanking at this time. Any lingering entries should be given reasonable time to be made compliant, or voluntarily blanked. (I withhold any comment regarding Squeakbox, as I have not personally investigated). --Zfish118 (talk) 19:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Squeekbox continuing

Just a heads up here. @Squeekbox: is currently removing blue-linked porn stars from another article, Chronology of adult videos in Japan.[20]. Spot checking the first name removed, there seems to be little doubt and no lack of sourcing that Kyōko Hashimoto is in fact an adult video star. I'm sure others have some opinions so I won't offer mine right now. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 01:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And now there are at least 8 in support of this proposal: Any entry of a living person in a list that is not referenced with an inline citation may be removed, and under BLP Policy, it may only be restored when properly cited. That covers a lot of lists and I would hate to see this indiscriminate blanking carry over elsewhere. I was under the assumption that when a RfC was opened, we waited for a consensus to gel, and that there be a moratorium on blanking until the community weighs in on this whole issue. Are we really going to allow this to continue? Can we at least get an admin involved to address the blanking of articles, as a pre-emptive measure.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 01:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am removing BLP non compliant material from the article till it becomes reliably sourced as our BLP policy advises and compels us to. On the other hand adding this material is a BLP violtion when the material has been challenged, asmIhave challenged it. There can be no consensus to stop me because editors are not more important than the living people they write about. This article is not even a list so dont start claiming internal links are sufficient, wikiepdia has rejected this from way back. Why would an admin be required to look at straghtforward BLP enforcement in a highly contentious area like porn. Where in our BLP policy does it state that that arequest for comment means the rights of our living subjects can be dismiseed? Why was a new header with my name on it (sic) made without informing me. That is blatantly against ANI procedure or did you just hope I wouldnt get to discuss what you are discussing about me, Wikidemon. That is in itself is totally unacceptable. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hooo Wee! Squeak is going to make it open season on articles (and lists) about Politicians and any other category of living person who any Editor takes issue with and declares it "contentious". --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop inventing, Scalhotrod, I never said anything of the sort. I am just a humble editor enforcing BLP in highly contentious areas like porn when I have the time and energy. I may not know who the US's most famous porn stars are but I am interested in sexual issues and have a track records going back years in editing this delicate area enforcing wikipedia policies. Some editors, such as User:Cavarrone, are aware of this history. I also have a long track record of enforcing BLP. I myself was highly sceptical in the early days (before the BLP policy had been written) but was talked around, by one individual especially who was well known on the site a few years back. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 02:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He did attempt to notify you by using the {{ping}} template, but he misspelled your name, so nothing happened. It was an honest mistake, cut him some slack. moluɐɯ 02:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The burden is on him to get it right, if he cant spell dont blame me. This has to be one of the most spurious entries ever. Reporting an editor for simple BLP enforcement. What policy have I broken in removing unsourced contentious material about living people while citing BLP? If this is a policy offence BLP is already broken but it isnt, there's a surprise. And of course the only ways to stop me are to block me indefinitely or of course change BLP policies. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 02:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The burden? Why does it feel like you're simply throwing policy names around? Why can't you just assume good faith that he made the spelling error as an honest mistake, not as some way to slip under the radar? moluɐɯ 02:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ecXn)Indeed a minor WP:FLOP Violation followed by some ridiculous vituperation that seems pretty typical of the course of this dispute. Squeak is already on this thread and in fact seems to have noticed this subtopic before anyone else. I'm deliberately avoiding comment on the underlying issue; this latest deletion appears relevant to the topic of this overall thread - Wikidemon (talk) 02:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming this was not a new thread about me is being dishonest and you were clearly hoping to get an admin to block me (though what for?) without me being aware of the discussion. Nor have either of you answered any of my points about why I should not enforce BLP when material about living people in an artice which s NOT a list and is about a highly contentious area is not reliably sourced. What admin intervention is required? ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 02:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ask to you to stop a few days until the relevant RFC is closed is too much? Cavarrone 02:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will not stop protecting the rights of our living suvbjects, absolutely no. I dont think it looks good that you are even asking me to do so a thing. What about the living people in a an article about Japanese adult video? Or dont they count? This is not even a list its a plain article but I wont stop BLP enforcing porn lists either. What I will do is to do as arbcom member Newyorkbrad asked and to prioritize, so I am focussing on articles that are most open to abuse, such as this Japanese adult video article, and focussing less say on porn award winners lists or BLP non compliance in bios, for the moment. I certainly cannot promise any more than to follow Brad's advice, just as I stopped editing for 36 hours after his comment sunday night, to let things cool down. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 03:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "contentious material" that is referred to by WP:BLP is contentious because someone believes it may not be true. There doesn't seem to be any contention about the material being true in the case of the subject actors being in porn films because that assertion is sourced in the individual articles about the actors. If anyone thinks it is not true, then go to any of the individual articles about the actors and remove the statements that say the person is a porn actor.

SqueakBox wrote, "I will not stop protecting the rights of our living suvbjects, absolutely no."

--Bob K31416 (talk) 06:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Err, Bob K31416, you talk of cases says SOMEONE believes material may not be true. Well I am that SOMEONE. There is on the other hand no requirement on my part to check the article itself. For instance a porn article may assert X is a porn star and when I check the article it may not mention this but still be fully BLP compliant. So what is your point exactly, Bob? The BLP article does not require users to do what your are suggesting so why mention it ehre at an ANI thread, not a place for general discussion but to discuss things that require admin intervention. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I won't respond in kind with my own mock outrage for being called "dishonest" here for simply and carefully bringing something up. It is telling about the behavioral issues here, as it tends to shut down meaningful discussion and good faith participation in the content question. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Squeak, we are requiring that of you, here on ANI, as a behavioral matter that may require administrative attention. You are under an obligation to edit in a civil, collaborative fashion to improve the encyclopedia. You have not been doing so lately on this matter, and that is a problem that is wasting a lot of people's time. To quote a famous film, your methods are unsound. To date I don't see any effort by you to try to work with the community, only digging in your heels and lashing out. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, a third list blanked[21]] and a hit list[22] - Wikidemon (talk) 07:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removing offending material citing BLP is not page blanking, sigh. It is blp enforcement list in favour of living people. And compiling a list ofpowrn articles that may not be BLP compliant is ¿only a hit lsit to someone with contempt for our BLP policy and the protection it offers to our living subjects, people for you, Wikidemon, and others have shown scant regard so far. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think that making stuff up, antagonizing other editors, and disrupting other people's work is actually good for any living people on or off the encyclopedia? I'll go ahead and restore one of the lists that is obviously sourced.[23] Do not resort to edit warring again here. If you have any specific list items that you think are not adequately supported in the articles themselves then feel free to flag that. Otherwise, wait for the RfC to conclude before continuing this campaign. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That lasted all of seven minutes.[24] I won't join Squeak's edit war here, as that would be futile and it would drag me down to that level. Nothing anybody can do or say individually or collectively, and apparently no consensus by the community, can stop Squeak from repeatedly blanking content he doesn't approve of, citing his interpretation of BLP's content and behavioral standards as unimpeachable. I trust it is obvious why this pattern is untenable. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth and sixth porn list blanked

Here.[25] - and then here, the classic blanking a page then PRODding it.[26] I don't know how many of Wikipedia's many thousands of people lists Squeak plans to blank, are they going to stop after working their way up the current hit list of 20? Should we just wait for the RfC to end and then roll them all back if there is no consensus that BLP policy requires this? - Wikidemon (talk) 17:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The only problematic edit is this by wikidemon in which he restores material which has been identified as BLP non compliant with a link to the BLP policy in the edit summary. BLP does allow editors who make such additions in violation of BLP to be blocked whereas it does not allow this for editors who remove non compliant BLP material about workers in a contentious industry to be blocked for tyhese removals, indeed it requires these removals prior to discussion. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 17:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I rolled back a couple of those lists. Squeakbox, your interpretation of BLP in reference to those lists is not consensual, so far. When it will be decided that your interpretation is correct, then I'll gladly abide, but so far your arm-twisting is disruptive.--cyclopia^speak! 17:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Cyclopia has also violated BLP here. A consensus of editors is unable to override BLP, we dont give any wikipedia editors such power over the living subjects we write about and the burden of proof is on those such as yourself and wikidemon who choose to knowingly ignore BLP. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 17:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Squeak, the issues you are concerned about are in discussion in multiple places. These articles have been in place for years, running and around and blanking them in a day is not solving anything. Let the RFC run its course. I am concerned IP vandals are likely to come in and insert crap amongst the fighting, and then we'll have an identifiable problem. Your behavior is uncivil.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ecX3 - addressed to Squeak)Please review WP:TEND before lobbying to have your perceived opponents blocked, also misrepresenting their edit history. Also, it might be instructive to review User:Betacommand's spectacular flame-out before deciding to wage war against a major part of the editing community. His excuse that his edit warring wasn't actually edit warring was COPYVIO, also that he wasn't him but rather his bot that was repeatedly reverting. We all know the issues and arguments here. I reserve the right to revert edits you make based on your faulty interpretation of BLP, but as long as you're edit warring like that it is futile, so you're forcing us to waste a lot of time dealing with you. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)...and now he's blatantly edit warring, plus accusing people of BLP violation. SqueakBox, your interpretation of BLP is not consensual. There is no consensus that such lists violate BLP, nowhere so far. *sigh* I won't revert back, but this is a worrying attitude.--cyclopia^speak! 17:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SqueakBox: For what is probably the tenth time: No one is saying we are going to override BLP Policy. There is a good faith question on how to properly interpret the wording. Its not clear how that discussion will be closed, but IF it determines your interpretation is wrong, it wont be overriding BLP Policy. Your continued insistence to the contrary is unhelpful. Monty₈₄₅ 17:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reading this thread it seems to me that perhaps a temporary topic ban for SqueakBox on such lists is in order. He is being disruptive, no matter what consensus will decide on the issue. Once the discussion is ended on the topic, this can be lifted. --cyclopia^speak! 17:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot topic ban because I would not agree to it. You would have to find an admin to permanently block me. And why do you want to topic ban me? So you can ignore our BLP policy in a contentious area like porn? The only peopel deserving of blocks are those who knowingly add BLP non compliant material at the expense of the living people we write about, as BLKP explicitly makes clear. You might though try to the arbcom, Cyclopia. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 17:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You would have to find an admin to permanently block me. - Yup, quite exactly, hopefully. If consensus decides so, of course. You don't want to listen that your battle is not as consensual as you think, so some action, in my humble opinion, is in order.--cyclopia^speak! 18:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I have restored the list at AV idol.[27] per WP:BRD among other editing principles. I do not intend to edit war over this and will not go past 1RR if reverted (though I may complain) but after considering the issue carefully, and in accordance with my position and that of many other editors that the information is duly sourced in each article on the list, I do not believe this presents a legitimate BLP problem. I believe that removing a long list like this degrades our encyclopedic coverage of the notable cultural phenomenon of Japanese pornography, and risks losing a lot of hard work of editors over time. IF the decision is eventually made to require individual sourcing of each name on a list of people, then the Wikipedia community can find a way to make that happen. This list has been around for many years and nobody has sued anybody, and nobody from the outside world has complained. There is no deadline to get things right. So let's get things right and not do anything hasty. Let's see what the community wants to do from here. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Squeakbox was absolutely correct in blanking the two lists in question here. It is evident that the editors complaining about his edits have generally not bothered to review the material in question and are, at best, rushing to judgment.

• The List of Japanese bondage models had five entries and no relevant references. Four of the five performers listed were not, in their individual articles, even categorized in any way as bondage models. (The fifth was, but without any supporting content, sourced or unsourced.) Three of the five articles included no text mentioning "bondage"; the stated fourth stated that the performer had appeared in several videos with S&M/bondage themes without describing her actual roles; and the fifth WP:SYNTHesized the bondage model claim from an interview statement that the performer had been tied up in a film and didn't enjoy it. (If we accept that last inference is valid, the most prominent contemporary bondage model is certainly Kiefer Sutherland, and Pearl White a pioneer in the field.) The RS failure for this wretched little list was utterly complete.
• The list of "Notable AV idols" embedded in AV idol failed basic standards, not just for BLP but for RS and for lists generally. It was infested with redlinks, which absolutely do not belong in lists of this type. The list claims to identify particularly notable/significant performers in the genre, but neither the article itself nor, for the most part, the linked articles provide any reliably sources attesting to a listed performer's significance/importance. Just to pull some randomly selected examples (one for each decade}:
  • Rena Murakami (1980s): The claim of particular significance is that she is notorious for a scandal involving a foreign head of state. It is sourced only to these two (NSFW) plainly unreliable sources [28] [29]
  • Riria Yoshikawa (1990s): Described in her article as "one of the most popular AV idols in Japan during the early 1990s", but that claim is supported only by a page from a site advertising her videos (NSFW) [30]
  • Hikari Hino (2000s): Primary claim of significance is her placement in various vendor polls ranging from 28th to 62nd, which hardly demonstrates historical significance
  • Hitomi Tanaka (2010s): Claims of significance appear to be that the subject "is well known for her large breasts" and once reached the top 10 in a vendor popularity poll of no established significance

• No one has provided any evidence or reasoned analysis that either of these two actions by Squeakbox was inappropriate. The case here amounts to nothing more than judgment by unsupported (and frankly unsupportable) accusation. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And with that you repeated an action for which SqueekBox is under discussion here for.[31] I've gone ahead and restored the list. There are no red links on the list, but I will review the four items you claim here as a content matter to be lacking in sourcing or relevance. Please feel free to bring up your content concerns there. In the meanwhile, please do not try to force any points about lists generally before the RfC has established consensus if any on what the policy actually says on the subject. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban for User:Squeakbox

From all lists of porn actors or articles including such lists, broadly construed, until a consensus is reached either way on the interpretation of BLP in this respect.

• Support as proposer.--cyclopia^speak! 18:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Topic-banning someone for something that a significant proportion of those discussing the matter consider to be compliant with policy isn't the way to resolve anything. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support except that he should be permitted to add sources to any BLP lists, which is the only way to truly improve the project. The ban would not be punitive, but to allow us to get something constructive done. Same goes for you, Andy. Squeak is being extremely uncivil, and it is taking every fiber of my being not to go off on a rant like I used to do. No more pizza cheese jihads for me.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I would only support a much more limited topic ban. As a counter proposal, I would propose a topic ban on removing blue linked list entries unless Squeakbox has checked the linked article, and found no way to verify the inclusion criteria based on the references at the article. The topic ban to remain in force until either the RFC at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons has closed, or a month has gone by without it being closed. Monty₈₄₅ 18:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed to support In light of the comment in the section above indicating they wont abide by a topic ban. No point in going out of the way to pass a very narrow topic ban if the editor isn't going to respect it. Monty₈₄₅ 18:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Seems a reasonable way to stop the disruptive and wp:battleground actions while a decision is made on the merits of the actions. Meters (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain because I'm too close to this situation, as much as I wish I were not. I suggest any WP:INVOLVED editor stand back in favor of people who can look at this with fresh eyes and think this through neutrally and as a behavior rather than policy question. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Though I will note I am involved in this debate. I don't support a topic ban on the grounds of his interpretation of WP:BLP, but rather his disregard for building consensus through discussion. This whole debate has been conflagrant, and his continuing to remove material based on a policy that is currently being discussed is unhelpful and belligerent. moluɐɯ 18:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (edit conflict) I'm completely uninvolved in this debate, but I've been following it and SqueakBox's behaviour has been entirely unacceptable. I, like Monty, would've said to do a smaller topic ban, but the editor seems to disregard the concept. Further, I don't think the interpretation of WP:BLP is the issue, but rather the way he's gone about it. Continuously removing materal mid-discussion is extremely counterproductive.

Additional note: I see that this comment is almost exactly the same as that of The Mol Man, but I'm keeping it here anyway. Sock (tock talk) 18:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support and support a wider ban from BLP lists in general. KonveyorBelt 18:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Squeak's complaints about "ignoring BLP policy" are inaccurate. His statement that he won't abide by any topic ban does not speak well of any good faith we are to assume. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Abstain - For the same reasons as Wikidemon. I brought up a Topic Ban initially in Talk page discussions, but wanted sufficient conversation to take place first. Not only has that happened, but someone else has proposed the ban. I do support a broader ban to include everything under the purview of the Porn Project based on Squeaks comments on his User page and the lengthy blog posted off-Wiki [32] --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ban from BLP lists, at least until RFC is closed. It is very important to note he uses to remove not just BLP links, but also links of deceased people [33] and references that justify the inclusion of the links [34], actions that could justify an even longer topic ban. Cavarrone 19:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support indef block of user. They have already said they will not abide by the communities decision and that they will wilfully ignore an topic bans. In essence they have stated they continue to be disruptive until blocked. Tivanir2 (talk) 19:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I happen to agree with this user's position and I think that he means well. I think that, for better or for worse, porn is very controversial in our society (it doesn't take too much digging to find articles about teachers getting fired for posing nude decades ago) and it's important to make sure that calling someone with a porn star has good sourcing. However, I disagree with the general tenor of his conduct at this WP:ANI thread. He comes across as very combative and hostile in such a manner that even someone like me who is trying to support his position ends up feeling attacked by him. I think he might need some distance from porn topics to cool down because this debate has become way more fiery and fractious than it really should be, and part of that unfortunately is because of his approach to making his points. Alicb (talk) 20:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The community hasn't got time for this user's time wasting. Britishinvader (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This would have a chilling effect on BLP enforcement if editors had to worry that they would get topic banned for zealously enforcing a policy that we want editors to zealously enforce. Gamaliel (talk) 20:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about zealous enforcement at all. Its about being uncivil and a detriment to article improvement. He running around with an RFC pending claiming that BLP requires things I've never seen in 5 years of editing, even if some of those ideas could have merit. While he ran around talk pages, a few of us have added 200 sources to one list article already.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There has been plenty of incivility to go around during this debate, which hasn't exactly been a shining example of how this community should behave. I have no patience for incivility, but neither do I see a reason to single out a particular editor for it and ignore other, plentiful examples from the same debates. Gamaliel (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Besides Squeak, which other editor on either side of the debate has said he intends to continue deleting stuff no matter what is decided? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose there are a few people here who need to get a grip on reality. It's really easy to let slack lists go and to suggest "well, that list doesn't have any references, so why should any other?", but as Gamaliel suggests, we have a mandate to enforce policies such as BLP. Relying on linked articles etc is nonsense, and topic-banning an editor for trying to improve the situation is patently absurd. I note we have some equally absurd "indef block" calls above. Perhaps some folks here don't even know what they're voting for. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There has to be a limit on what is considered adequate enforcing of BLP according to the spirit of the policy, beyond which the edit warring and refusal to collaborate is considered disruptive. Otherwise, I could go to any B-class BLP article and perform a removal like this (performed on a copy, not the real article) of every single sentence that doesn't have a direct inline reference within it, and keep edit warring any revert in the name of BLP enforcement way past the 3RR and refusing any request to stop or help fixing the removal. Gutting the article to an unreadable mess that, per policy, could only be fixed by inserting a new reference within every sentence in the article. If I start doing that right now to all BLP articles at Category:Living people, would you say that I was being disruptive and call me to stop, or will you agree that it's improving BLP coverage? Diego (talk) 06:22, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Agree with Gamaliel and TRM. --Randykitty (talk) 20:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose at this point. But to be frank. Squeakbox is well into WP:POINT territory. Resolute 20:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Emphatically support Off & on over the last several months Squeakbox has been obsessively attacking all lists of people involved in the sex industry on the pretense of BLP, as shown by examining his last 500-1000 edits. He has been repeatedly blocked for disruptive edits related to sex topics in the past -- see this list of appearances here at WP:AN/I -- & in 2007 apparently decided to exercise his right to vanish -- only to return & continue this campaign in the most disruptive manner possible. His actions have only made it more difficult for impartial Wikipedians to take WP:BLP concerns seriously. He isn't concerned about inaccurate information, he is concerned that these people are identified as "porn stars" despite the fact their articles detail careers as such. Based on his actions in this thread alone, I would block him indefinitely because of his lengthy history of disruption, but I will not because of this !vote. -- llywrch (talk) 20:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment SqueakBox's claim of upholding BLP here is misleading, & is obvious if you look closely at the original page he indiscriminately blanked. The list on the page included names of people best known for (uh, well) performing in porn movies: Annie Sprinkles, Harry Reems, James Deen, Jenna Jameson, Marilyn Chambers, Ron Jeremy & Traci Lords. No reasonable person would expect a reliable source to affirm these people are pornographic actors any more than they would expect reliable sources to include Charlie Manson & David Berkowitz in a list of mass murders, or a reliable source to include Bernard Madoff in a list of embezzlers. (And being labeled a murderer or embezzler is far more insulting than being called a porn star.) Had SqueakBox simply removed less familiar names from the list on List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films, one could argue he was acting in good faith to uphold BLP although not acting in the best manner. Instead, he is blanking all content on the pages -- both the self-evident & those arguably in need of a reliable source -- in what appears to be a campaign against lists of people working in the sex entertainment business.

• Comment In reference to the above comments, here is the "original" page that SB challenged; [35] and here is the page after SB first blanked it and tagged it for deletion;[36], then there was some edit-warring, it survived an AfD and the current version is linked in the comment above. Thanks to everyone who chipped in and helped in the rescue and rehabilitation of this article. Isaidnoway (talk) 07:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• One thing to note here: after checking, every single name on the list was a legitimate porn star. After hundreds of hours of ridiculous drama, the hypothetical harm to be avoided turns out to be just that, hypothetical. The list, though sourced on the other end of the click instead of the end Squeak demands, turns out to be carefully compiled and sourced, and of no harm to living people. It is pure fantasy that there is some kind of legal or moral emergency on Wikipedia that demands this kind of social breaching. Yes, the community got together and spent hundreds of hours answering Squeak's accusation, and perhaps that is an improvement to the list, perhaps not. But it did nothing to advance the cause of BLP as it turns out that there was neither a BLP problem nor a BLP consequence to the list. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support When I see comments announcing that - There can be no consensus to stop me...the only way to stop me are to block me...I will not stop...I wont stop BLP enforcing porn lists either - it leads me to believe that they won't be stopped from disruptive editing. We really shouldn't be relying on one editor's opinion in interpretating a policy to justify disruptive behavior. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Unfortunate support Squeakbox has been given numerous times and numerous chances by the community regarding this issue, and he has dismissed every single dissenting voice to his specific interpretation of BLP. Blanking lists was bad enough, but that he admits that he will incessantly continue until he is blocked is the very definition of a WP:DISRUPTIVE editor. Tutelary (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose topic ban based on everything I said here. Chillum 21:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - This kind of disruptive activity has been ongoing since the beginning of this year and enough is enough at this late date. Whether or not "Squeak" will abide by this type of ban, which I should state clearly here should apply to both "porn actors" and actresses as well, is irrelevant at this time. This kind of activity is just going to keep going on & on until something is changed in our BLP policy wording, and that discussion is ongoing now at an RfC. Guy1890 (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Guy, for context, what was the outcome of that earlier event? - Wikidemon (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I already said over at the BLP RfC, "Squeak" was warned about his actions back then when he was blanking content from articles, mostly related to adult film awards, and threatening to blank even more content on various talk pages of those same type of articles. He was clearly told in several different venues (including at BLP/N) that his actions were not valid and yet he returned again recently to continue basically right where he had left off before. There's really nothing new in his recent editing behavior or "style" of collaborating with other editors now. Between back then and now, a significant amount of work has been done (by more than a few editors) to improve the content & sourcing in many adult film award articles. Guy1890 (talk) 02:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: if it passes and he refuses to cooperate, a block may well be in order, but I don't think a topic ban is really the right answer. The problem here is not the removal of inadequately sourced lists. If editors didn't keep trying to put the inadequately sourced items back, this conflagration would have stayed small and contained.—Kww(talk) 23:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I'm not involved, though I've worked with SB in the past. It wasn't pleasant, and from the comments above it looks like he hasn't changed much, but unless he moves into being intentionally pesty, and we will all know it when we see it, he shouldn't be stopped from enforcing BLP policy.Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Bad idea to sanction users who take a hardline stance on BLP matters. We need them to clean up the articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No position on wikipedia is immune to sanctions for acting like a horse's ass. As I'm reading the newer comments though, I see some feel he's been this way for many many years, and taking actions harmful to productive BLP work, which is depressing.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And if you look closely, this is actually not a BLP dispute, it's a manual of style dispute. The possible exception to this fact is Squeak, who admittedly knows nothing about the subject and also can't be bothered to check the individual entries for potential BLP violations. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it carefully, and contributed to it, as has BB. The discussion at the BLP talk page is quite clearly a discussion about BLP and its application to lists incuding living people. The MOS has been quoted, but the focus of the debate is precisely how BLP should be applied. Saying it is not a BLP dispute is not correct. Deltahedron (talk) 07:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that it's not a BLP dispute may be a simplificaton; the fact remains that the original dispute is over how to give style and format to the available references, and at no point was there a challenge of the accuracy nor verifiability of the stated facts. Diego (talk) 08:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An oversimplification to the point of being incorrect. The discussion at the BLP talk page is about what BLP mandates in terms of requirements for verification by citation of references in various kinds of BLP article, and what actions are required or permissible in the absence of the required level verification. That discussion is not restricted to the case where those assertions are correct and verifiable, nor is it restricted to the case where references are available in some other article. Those possible use cases are part of the discussion but do not form the whole of it. The discussion is about policy, not about the behaviour of one particular editor on one particular article. Deltahedron (talk) 11:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What BLP mandates for verification, it does so in order to protect the reputation of those persons. That was not at play at the case being considered here, which *is* about the actions of one user which can't be considered to be furthering the goal of BLP policy. Diego (talk) 13:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. My point was that the discussion at the BLP talk page is about the requirements of BLP in a broad range of cases: it is not about matters of style or specific cases as has been stated, in my view incorrectly, here. What is under discussion here is the behaviour of one particular user, on which I make no comment. Deltahedron (talk) 15:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The continual pooh-poohing of the very same BLP issue that exists within categories, with the excuse that the rules don't require it, has convinced me that this is a MOS issue, not a BLP issue. The entire megillah should be moved to the MOS talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with this much of the comment by BB, that the inability of categories to support verification by citations could well be problematic expecially in the case of BLP, and I certainly don't think I have pooh-poohed it. The fact that categories technically cannot support citations, whereas lists can, means that it makes sense for current policy to require citations in lists. If categorisation leads to a BLP problem, then policy might have to be changed, and if BB would like to propose that, I might well find myself in support. However, there is no point in discussing the matter on the MOS talk page, as the MOS is already clear on the matter. Deltahedron (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no evidence that there were any BLP issues with the list in question. Squeak is using an alleged MOS rule for the sole purpose of unwarranted deletion, and hence, disruption. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Even if Squeek is correct (and I don't think he is), he's being disruptive. If an RfC determines that his interpretation of WP:BLP is correct, my !vote would shift to 1RR per item per list per year, rather than a topic ban. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Arthur Rubin. This goes well beyond reasonable upholding of BLP policy into the territory of disruption and belligerence (@Two kinds of pork: yes, he is being intentionally pesty). It was demonstrated that the lists have never failed WP:V, the basic pillar, and it only took two clicks (one to the actor's article and another to a reference there) to verify their status in the adult industry. If that is deemed inadequate in the RfC, then fine, someone should go and properly source it inline, but blanking them in the face of numerous and reasonable opposition and in the midst of discussion is not acceptable. No such user (talk) 08:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment — SqueakBox is clearly a lightning rod, i.e. "One that attracts and absorbs powerful, typically negative feelings and reactions, thereby diverting interest from other issues".[37] Administrators not taking action in this matter would be condoning and enabling his combative behavior and helping maintain the combative part of the Wikipedia editing environment. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose topic ban, but favor that administrators keep a close eye on Squeakbox for potential disruption and a fast block if necessary, since this is starting to smack of a personal crusade rather than consensus-based action. Carrite (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for the duration of the duration of the RFC. Only in the truly exceptional cases (such as certain troublesome users for whom wikipedians have developed reflex triggers for) do we have a single question in so many venues all at the same time. Either SB can contribute to establishing a consensus in now we should handle individuals connected to porn or they can sit on the sidelines (either voluntarily or by force) and not get an opportunity to help. Either way is fine with me as long as the moving battle for this topic stays put at one location and no behind the scenes machinations occur. Hasteur (talk) 21:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Pointless Support - this is clearly disruptive behavior, and while the user has stated that they would not abide by such a ruling (which is pretty evident in itself), it would be good to attempt to restrain them until a definitive result (or lack of result) is reached. Ansh666 22:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per AndyTheGrump. --John (talk) 06:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus seems to be forming. How long should this stay open before closing? Honest question.--cyclopia^speak! 14:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. There is no consensus that Squeakbox's edits were inappropriate. There has been no evidence or analysis presented that the two list blankings that precipitated this rush to judgment were in any way not consistent with applicable policies and guidelines -- indeed, there is a very strong case that they were compelled by BLP and RS requirements (see my comments above). Enforcing even the simplest BLP requirements with regard to articles involving pornography has been unreasonably controversial for a long time, and there is no legitimate reason to impede it further. As someone who has removed hundreds of spurious and fabricated entries from porn-related lists, even such high-profile ones as List of members of the AVN Hall of Fame, I have previously demonstrated that the scrutiny of such lists for accuracy by the editing community has been wretchedly substandard. Squeakbox's actions may have been imprudent or provocative, but nowhere near as imprudent or damaging as the long-standard tolerance of unsubstantiated, inaccurate, and sometimes fabricated claims in articles on the general subject. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HW, in reference to your edits on "hundreds of spurious and fabricated entries from porn-related lists" is it safe to assume that you're talking about [38] and [39] with edit summaries like "another gross BLP violation" and "gross BLP violation, more porn-related blithering idiocy" (respectively) when all that you did was remove a Wikilink?

I don't think it's safe to assume that, but for what it's worth, those were two examples of wikilinks to bios from unrelated people who shared the same name. Requiring a citation would actually make this problem worse, not better, because instead of clicking the link to find the sources and seeing it's the wrong person, someone would just click the source and not realize the link is wrong. It would be a stretch to call that a BLPVIO in any event, because in a million years I do not think that would give the person in question any harm or cause of action. But again, unless H.Wolf said that's what he's referring to it's not fair to make that assumption. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And speaking of lists, since you've edited List of bondage models by decade [40] it would seem that you have less of a contention about bondage models than you do porn stars since you haven't raised the same reference issues there. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 22:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re "There has been no evidence or analysis presented that the two list blankings that precipitated this rush to judgment were in any way not consistent with applicable policies and guidelines " — The evidence and analysis was presented on the talk page. You may disagree with it, but it was presented in good faith. At the time of the blankings, there were four editors in favor of restoring the material, while only SqueakBox and another were in favor of deleting. Removing the material wasn't an emergency situation to protect the actors mentioned since this list has been up for years. SqueakBox's actions were needlessly inflammatory. I think it could have been settled without all this disruption. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For sure it is not the job here at AN/I to decide whether the BLP justification for the repeated reversions was correct or not, only to note that there is an ongoing discussion with sincere opinions on both sides. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per the reasonings above. Disruption has to stop - one way or the other. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 22:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• support due to his clear intention to continue to disregard the accepted interpretation of policy. DGG ( talk ) 00:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose People should not be sanctioned for good-faith BLP actions, even if others think their interpretation of policy is wrong. In BLP cases, the burden is on those seeking to retain contested material. There is no requirement to obtain consensus before deleting material where there is known to be disagreement over whether it violates BLP; in contrast, there is a requirement to obtain consensus before restoring. Thus is it not Squeakbox who should be under scrutiny, but those who restored material that Squeakbox had deleted without first starting a discussion and obtaining consensus that the deletion had not been required by BLP. Neljack (talk) 00:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was a consensus for restoring the List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films after considering whether it was a BLP violation, a consensus that SqueakBox disregarded and edit warred against. --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there was a clear consensus. Neljack (talk) 04:49, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot topic ban because I would not agree to it. Does not sound like good faith to me. It sounds more like bellicosity. moluɐɯ 04:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment From the discussion above, it is clear there is no consensus either for or against a topic ban. I still can't see why those who are so aghast at SB's blanking just restore the information with an inline reference? SB is royal pain in the ass, no doubt, but BLP policy is clearly on "his side". Just copy and paste the links and be done with it.Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whose side the policy has yet to be decided. WT:BLP contains over a quarter-million bytes that show blatantly there is no agreement as to whether or not his interpretation was correct. Is his interpretation of BLP correct? That's open for debate on the aforementioned talk page. But it is absolutely false to say whose side the policy is on yet, especially "clearly" so. moluɐɯ 04:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I meant to add "IMO" about the policy part. It IS clear however that there is no consensus about a topic ban as someone else suggested above. Further discussion is pointless and unless something changes. Who wants to close the TB proposal?Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And to drive home the point of why I think this is "clear" is because the manual of style enforces this point. "Being articles, stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not, as well as the notability guidelines." SB is well within his "rights" (whatever rights we have according to the TOS) to insist that claims made are verifiable. There appears to be genuine disagreement if blue links are valid sources. Many blue linked articles have proved to be inadequately sourced for a variety of reasons. BLP requires strong sources for contentious material. Inline sourcing >>> blue links. Now of course this is boiling down to who is going to do the work. The burden is on those wishing to restore the material removed. Period. There are some who indicate they believe SB is thumbing his nose and doing this for the sheer enjoyment of annoying people. I personally would not ague against this theory. I would open up an arbitration request and ask them to decide if blue linked articles are acceptable as sources for BLP contentious material, but I'm not willing to spend the time putting it together. I'd welcome it if someone else would. Selfish of me I suppose, but I'm too ADDHD to tackle this sort of job. Man has to know his limitations.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ryulong has a history of edit warring, with an extensive block log which has featured eight blocks within the past 12 months. The most recent of these was on 25 July for disruptive editing, and the last block specifically for edit warring was on 18 July 2014, for a period of 48 hours for this edit war

Blocks have varied in length between 24 hours and 2 weeks, the longest relating to an edit war with one editor which stretched to 90 reverts across several articles (for which I was the blocking administrator). [48] [49]

I and several other editors (some administrators) have worked tirelessly to try and persuade Ryulong to stop edit warring, but this doesn't appear to be working. I believe it is now necessary to place Ryulong under a group of editing restrictions, following his most recent edit warring episode, on 4-5 August at Ghost in the Shell [50].

I propose the following

• A blanket 1RR restriction - that is, to prevent Ryulong from making more than 1 revert per page in a 24 hour period - this restriction would apply across all namespaces, with the exception of his own talk page user space (user page, talk page, drafts under his user space etc).
• An interaction ban between himself and Lucia Black.
• Article probation - Ryulong may be banned from any page if any individual administrator thinks that he is causing disruption. This restriction would also apply across all namespaces.

Feedback, comments, requests for supplementary diffs/evidence are welcome, as ever. Nick (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the incident in question, I would say the problem was Lucia Black failing to respect BRD. Ryulong was perfectly entitled to revert her changes if they did not have consensus. Number 57 16:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Without commenting on the respective merits of the proposed sanctions, the "1RR" one should be subject to the usual exemptions, including at least his entire userspace and not just his talk page. It should also clarify whether it is "1 revert per 24 hours per page" or 1 revert across the entire project. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Please give this careful consideration before acting. Ryulong works in an area of the project that is extensively vandalized. In fact, I believe one of the blocks mentioned by Nick for edit warring was overturned because he was reverting vandalism. He's constantly removing POV, badly sourced or non sourced material, and a lot of just plain silliness. Is he prickly doing it? Yes, but I think that it's only natural given the amount of grief he deals with in keeping the areas he patrols up to wikistandards. If these sanctions are (unwisely) enacted then you had better line up someone to take his place or you will very quickly see degradation in those areas. Here's a counter idea, just simply ask that he tone it down some. 209.197.26.68 (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The block you're thinking about was overturned so he could deal with some sockpuppetry issues, but that wasn't why he was blocked. Very little of the trouble Ryulong gets himself into and has been blocked for is related to dealing with removal of POV, bad sources or unsourced material. Today, for example, sees Ryulong edit warring with an established editor over their preferred layout for an article. Do you know how often I and other administrators have told Ryulong to tone it down some ? If there was the faintest chance left I thought that would work, I wouldn't be here, looking for an alternative to blocking Ryulong again and again and again, until it's an indefinite block and everybody is sick to the back teeth of his behaviour. Nick (talk) 17:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, I'm reluctant to see 'any' colleague of mine have restrictions placed on themselves, even if it might be in their best interests. AFAIK, Ryulong doesn't vandalize articles & so shouldn't be restricted. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support All - That block log says it all. He's one of a handful of editors that do great work, but need to stop bothering the community with their inability or unwillingness to get along with others or play nice. Sergecross73 msg me 17:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. How on earth is that content-forking spat still going? I thought it'd been settled 18 months ago. --erachima talk 17:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow, I take a long wikibreak and things change. Ryulong was an admin back when I was a new admin and he was a good one. I am very surprised by his block log. Sadly I support 1RR(with usual exemptions, specifically talk page ones) but oppose interaction or topic ban. It seems both problems the iban or tban would solve are obviated by 1RR. Chillum 17:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The last two blocks were both reversed. So, are there ongoing problems? Howunusual (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At least one of those unblocks was no indication that he was not edit warring. There was a ridiculous edit war over a section heading on an article talk page that resulted in Ryulong and another person being blocked. It was an ongoing problem and very recent. The block was 100% correct. The unblocking admin did not discuss the block with the blocking admin and the reasons given for the unblock were confused and dubious at best. Chillum 18:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose any community sanctions on Ryulong. It is true that Ryulong is the subject of too many quarrels that are brought to these boards. That is largely because Ryulong edits in areas where there are too many quarrels about the encyclopedia. It would be deeply unfortunate if the “community” were to sanction Ryulong for involvement in contentious areas of editing, where Ryulong is usually on the side of neutrality, the removal of POV, and the improvement of the encyclopedia, without sanctioning the other editors (some of them vandals and sockpuppets). That would reward editors who are not here to improve the encyclopedia. Also, for an editor whose positive and negative history goes back as far as Ryulong’s does, the noticeboards do not fully consider his contributions for better and worse. They will only decide whether the pro-Ryulong entourage or the anti-Ryulong entourage is noisier. Instead, any issues about Ryulong’s long-term editorial behavior deserve a full evidentiary hearing. Send to ArbCom. ArbCom, with all of its limitations and delays, is a more judicial and judicious forum than these noticeboards, and an inquiry into Ryulong (and his critics) should be judicious. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per the reasonings provided by GoodDay and Robert McClenon. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose at this time. If there's a complex, long-term problem a RfC/U should be the next step. ANI is really not the place to hash out things this complex. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to those recommending RFC/U-ArbCom - Please make sure you are aware of the existing RfC/U which led to the existing ArbCom case which led to desysopping. These are quite old and renewed inquiry may be warranted, but I think it is important to keep the existing history in mind. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A RfC/U from seven years ago is informative but not dispositive. Same for the ancient ArbCom case. This is a matter so complex and involved that it cannot be dealt with in the summary manner that ANI dispute resolution works. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why me trying to say that the status quo of an article where someone else made a bold change and I'm not the only one who disagrees with he change (another editor appeared on the talk page who agrees, I think) means I should be subject to anything. Nick has had it out for me for a while, at least whenever I've gone to IRC requesting some sort of help for something. And I'm not doing another god damn arbitration case. I don't want to sit through months of character assassination, again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ryulong - I'm interested to know why you think I've had it in for you for a while ? I wonder if it correlates to your decreasing standards of behaviour and self restraint ? You worked largely trouble free (and certainly block free) for several years, then you got into the biggest edit war I've seen in 9 years, where there were a hundred reverts across several articles, where you and the other editor broke 9RR more than once. It's been downhill every month since, eight blocks since December, with you edit warring across numerous articles, blanket reverting good faith edits because reverting them with a correct edit summary was too much trouble, being disruptive across various articles and talk pages (GITS is a perfect example of this) and generally becoming increasingly hostile and combative. I don't particularly want to request Arbitration, I really want you to revert to how you were last year or the year before, giving little or no cause for concern. If you don't want to do that, I will, as suggested above, file an Arbitration case, but it's nothing like my preferred option. Nick (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

in the case you're referring to, wasn't the other party ultimately banned for their behavior that I initially was reverting? Or was that someone else? Because I'm fairly certain you're referring to where I was reverting an editor whose name I can't remember right now who was making hundreds of crap "X in fiction" or "fictional Y" articles after being told to stop multiple times and who I had brought to ANI to get a wider view. But I digress. It is true that I've been involved in way too many petty arguments but as noted by Number 57 above, it is almost always a case of people not respecting BRD. I will do my best to work on curbing my behavior further. I just don't want to end up punished, as usual, for trying to respect BRD and coming across others who refuse.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I was confusing the category guy with the person who added all the financial and academic results to the NCAA pages. IIRC, there was a consensus supporting my edits prior to having discovered that mess. But in retrospect it was wrong for me to have gotten so involved.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose If anyone has evidence of Ryulong damaging articles or driving away useful editors, please start a new section without all the baggage about the past. Does anyone have a proposal that would help these articles withstand enthusiasts? Johnuniq (talk) 23:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Johnuniq sums things up perfectly. Ya know I these things make me miss WQA - yes it only occasionally solved anything but there are way too many threads opened here because editors refuse to go the RFC/U route that they should be taking. MarnetteD|Talk 02:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment In this particular circumstance, the BRD isn't the only issue. Ryulong believes he can revert other edits and make edits related to the article after and not question them himself. So there is definitely WP:OWN tendencies because even though he uses the claim of "status quo", he wont apply it to himself. In the past, i would abide BRD rule with Ryulong, so long as we had a discussion and attempt to reach consensus. However, Ryulong would not continue the discussion any further as shown here and here. So as you can see, Ryulong is quick to dropping discussions, but still wants his "status quo" to be kept.

In this most recent situation the dispute is formatting, but for the right reasons? It looks like Ryulong is quick to change his decision when it comes to the formatting simply because he wanted to keep one subtle differences (that the original video game spin-off of the manga get its own section). In these rendition: shown here and here You can see that Ryulong supported the idea that not all media is relevant and deserve their own section, and he has moved the video games based on SAC series onto the more relevant section, while keeping the original video game apart. Unknowing that the original video game is just as much a spin-off belong to the manga, as the SAC video game spin-offs to the original SAC media. So now as the discussion is going , Ryulong is now slowly but surely trying to go back to the rendition he originally was against shown here. And this only began because he wanted the original video game have its own section, not because this is the best way to organize the article. Even further points, he was using this situation to prove to merge the manga back shown here.

I'm not here to gain consensus (here in the ANI), but i am here to show that there is a more subtler destructive behavior. he is very quick to go back on his original rendition on a whim and his more controversial edits happen in GITS-related article over less-than-impressive reasons and he is not willing to compromise over the more subtle (but significant) changes. And in the past when "BRD" is mentioned, he would often stop discussing. And i'm sure the same occurs elsewhere whether we notice or not. I'm not making a vote, but there is more to this than meets the eye. Lucia Black (talk) 03:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My personal opinions on how these handful of articles should be set up has no basis in whether or not I should be under 1RR restrictions.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting that you are, but i definitely disagree you can go scot-free. Afterall, this isn't about opinion, its about how much you're willing to alter the article not to enhance the article, but for personal preference. Lucia Black (talk) 05:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, no basis for sanctions. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support 1RR. The trouble Ryulong has, I think, stems from the fact that he tends to treat reverting as the only tool available to him. Someone socking? Revert. Someone still socking? Revert again. Someone still socking? Keep reverting, no time for SPI. Vandalism? Revert. More vandalism? Keep reverting. Content dispute? Revert. Discussing content dispute? Keep reverting while discussing. Getting problematic behavior dealt with administratively or via the community either doesn't occur to occur to him, or occurs to him so far down the line that everything's gone to hell in a handbasket before he gets around to it. I've discussed this with him before, and at the time he agreed that he needed to stop clinging to the stick and start reaching out for help when this stuff happened, but I haven't really seen that reflected in his behavior.

  I'm not interested in "sanctions" on him, per se. Ryulong's heart is in the right place, and as often as not at the bottom of the edit war is something reasonable. But the "when your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" use of reversion needs to stop, and I think a 1RR would be a good guidepost there for him, and act as a reminder that when reverting doesn't work, trying something else is a more reasonable route forward. If the sanction doesn't pass, as seems likely looking at this discussion, I would still urge Ryulong to please, please stop treating reversion as your only option. There are community noticeboards aplenty around for you to report things to; you don't have to handle it all singlehandedly with the "undo" button. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fluffernutter: Ryulong actually has been calling on admin action and the assistance of other editors in more recent difficult situations.--Nowa (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't banned user's sockpuppets reverted on sight and not subject to 3RR anyway? And I constantly go to talk pages, noticeboards, etc. Sockpuppets are incessant. Editors don't honor BRD. No one wants to help me with anything anymore.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that you are instructed to revert vandalism on sight. Vandalism? Revert. More vandalism? Revert more. is exactly what you're supposed to do when you encounter vandalism. Vandalism is one of the 3RR execeptions, too.(Reporting to WP:AIV after the 4th edit is advised.) I commend Ryulong for reverting vandalism in that regard. Tutelary (talk) 12:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I mean when I say "at the bottom of the edit warring is something reasonable". It's possible to do something within policy that is nevertheless a very bad solution; constantly reverting a vandal or sock instead of reporting them and waiting for it to be dealt with is an example of this. If reverting once or twice doesn't help, reverting three, five, or fifty times isn't likely to either, whether policy says you can or not. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But I always report them. AIV and SPI are always just backlogged. And the only cases where I've been doing this lately is where the socking is obvious and it's a banned user.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support 1RR for the reasons Fluffernutter set out so succinctly above. Supported the same thing last time round. I know this is not going to win me any friends. Well, tough luck for me. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: (I’m not here to sit in judgment) Ryulong and I have certainly had our battles, but truth be told, I was kind of looking for a fight. Based on my more recent interactions with him, however, I’ve come to respect his ability to sense when something is wrong and needs to be fixed. This is especially important on BLPs where a little aggressive reverting of poorly sourced insertions is called for. This is not to diminish the anger and frustration other editors have experienced, but there may be more effective ways of addressing it.--Nowa (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This would just end up in more blocks for Ryulong when he is attempting to prevent unhelpful edits. He is an adult and should attempt a 1RR himself. Shii (tock) 15:02, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Facepalm Not this (Redacted) again... What have we learned from the last time, that Ryulong thinks that being right means you can break the rules and stick their digits in the community's eye over and over without penalty. Support the sanctions as written. If other editors are misbehaving after repeated trips to various consensus locations, then Ryulong can bring and propose sanctions for them, but for now it's time to slap the handcuffs on Ryulong since they can't help themselves. I've proposed extreme measures with respect to Ryulong/Lucia Black/ChrisGualtieri before, so my patience/AGF is completely drained with these editors and their Anime/Manga disruptions. Hasteur (talk) 21:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  All this because I'm in a disagreement on one page and restored the original version when there was no consensus to change it? Perhaps you need to restore the good faith you say has run out. Not to mention this talk of an interaction ban with Lucia is entirely unnecessary and unfounded. I don't know anyone thinks one is necessary like Lucia herself. I have worked with her on various pages. Just because I don't agree with this one (Redacted) article's layout and content does not mean jack (Redacted). I start or request discussion in content disputes. I report vandals and sockpuppets. Just because the other party doesn't care and admins and checkusers are too bogged down to block when found does not mean I should be limited from improving this website and keeping it in tip top shape like every other volunteer here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  And that is why you are getting into trouble, because you think protecting Wikipedia from incorectness is more important than following the basic BRD. If someone else is violating the BRD rules, bring it to an administrator's attention and wait patiently as there is never a deadline. Because you can't put down the your favorite omnipurpose tool of revert is exactly why we're here having to discuss this and why consensus is forming up against you. Hasteur (talk) 12:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I have followed basic BRD. No one else does. Even when I ask them to directly (and he did later do so but it was POINTy as hell). And there's no consensus here. This has been open for practically a week and it's 50/50. And time and time again I try to get outside input on content disputes but no one wants to touch it because it's all fancruft garbage that no one but myself and the people I get into arguments with give a shit about. Just look at the shit between me and Lucia that spawned this. Arguments over whether or not a video game gets its own section because of continuity issues. And the bullshit over adding a colon to the Power Ranger page titles. Or having that section break header on a comment I made on a talk page. No admin wants to touch this shit. No one wants to have the taint of having assisted me in some way. What the hell am I supposed to do?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, for a limited term, possibly 4 months, 6 months, or a year.  Note that Ryulong is exhibiting denial at a current Arbcom case, [51].  Unscintillating (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  That case is being declined (3 accepting, 7 declining) and I am not involved as the nominator says so. I make 1 comment that the nominator thinks is suspect and I'm dragged into that quagmire all over the use of one dirty word.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Regretful Support, per fluffernutter. I think that Ryulong is a hard-working editor, and I'm happy to cut a lot of slack to people reverting vandals or socks on controversial topics &c.; but even on much more mundane pages, if somebody disagrees with Ryulong's preferred version, tough luck, because it's easy for Ryulong to hit revert. bobrayner (talk) 11:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Of course we don't want to prevent reverts of obvious vandalism, self-reverts, and so on; so I think any sanction should retain the the usual exemptions - thanks, Salvidrim! bobrayner (talk) 11:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this seriously going to be dragged out until a consensus is reached? This is ridiculous. There's clearly no consensus here, certainly not for Nick's original proposal that I be subject to 1RR, discretionary bans, and and interaction ban, and it's still split down the middle regarding 1RR. All that I need to do is not revert a second time when it's a content dispute. Fine. I'll do that. But I shouldn't be penalized because people like Lucia Black or Niemti don't respect BRD or some new editor doesn't bother to look at talk pages. Nor should I be penalized if I identify one of the various long-term trolls I come across constantly and have to clean up after them and both AIV and SPI are heavily backlogged as they usually are. I mean it's been half a week and not even a clerk has touched this one.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:55, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See here [55], and the edit summary for the following post. [56] It appears that User:Jim-Siduri has taken it upon himself to issue a press release on behalf of a non-existent 'Wikipedia Reform/Civility Movement', giving the URL for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force as a 'mirror', and consequently implying that this is some sort of official project. I'm at a loss as to what exactly he is trying to achieve, but whatever it is, I can't help feeling that it is an abuse of Wikipedia facilities to be doing it. It should be noted that this isn't the first time that Jim-Siduri has invented fictitious Wikipedia projects, and that he has repeatedly been told to learn how Wikipedia works before embarking on ambitious projects to 'reform' it. Given this latest episode, I suspect that it may finally be time to show him the door... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For now I've collapsed the section, in case he actually sends it and someone actually comes to the page. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given that he edited the press release to read 'submitted', and given the edit summary "Fly fly little bird, make our dreams a reality...)", it seems reasonable to assume, lacking evidence to the contrary, that it has been submitted somewhere or other... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears already to have been distributed but embargoed until about 45 minutes from now. If this is not legitimate, he needs to withdraw it immediately. SPECIFICO talk 03:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've blanked the section. The material posted by Jim-Siduri was a misrepresentation as to what the off-wiki project "is" and it contained WP:TPNO personal details about another person. Also, had WP:ELNO problems. – S. Rich (talk) 16:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd assumed that the contact details were for Jim-Siduri himself. If they were't, we have a more serious issue here. In either case, I think we need to consider whether further action is needed. Personally, I had already prior to this latest event come to the conclusion, based on JI-Siduri's prior behaviour, that he shows little sign of ever becoming a useful contributor to Wikipedia, and this bizarre behaviour merely confirms my opinion. I have no doubt of his good intentions, but he seems unwilling to actually do any significant encyclopaedic work, shows no inclination whatsoever to actually learn how Wikipedia works before going off on another flight of fancy over proposed 'reforms', and seems entirely oblivious to the fact that his repeated spamming of multiple pages with his ill-researched ideas has been disruptive. To be blunt, in my opinion he seems to simply lack the competence to be permitted to continue like this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with ATG. A history of very verbose postings on his mostly impractical ideas of how Wikipedia should be changed, and nothing much else. His proposed policy in hisWikipedia:Executions that any editor willing to be voluntarily blocked should first get three uncontested changes to Wikipedia was particularly strange. He seems well-intentioned and has been given a pass on several things (using multiple accounts, misuse of user space, etc.) and the community has devoted quite a bit of time and effort in an attempt to assist him, but I think this last episode is too much. Meters (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I assumed the details were about another person. The material was just too "off-topic" to be reliable. He has no userpage which might have served to verify the details. Even if the data was about Jim-Siduri, it was bizarre and spamming. – S. Rich (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately Necessary Proposal

There have, as noted, been problems with this editor in the past. He initially wanted to use three user accounts, all of which would be shared by the potential members of his project. I have no idea what the purpose of his project is, except to use Wikipedia as his web platform to make the world a better place. After he was told that this was not how Wikipedia works, he agreed to use only one account. It now seems that he is issuing a "press release" for some unrecognized project, thus complicating an area in which Wikipedia already has enough difficulty of its own making, without the need for further confusion due to well-meaning but apparently deeply ignorant thinking. I have to recommend an indefinite block. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per proposer, and per my reasoning above. Good intentions are all very well, but combined with an apparent inability to get a clue, they may result in a net negative to the project - which is clearly the case here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – The "press-release" was just to strange. Talk pages should not be creative writing exercises. Unless Jim-Siduri would own-up to the disruptive nature of the editing, and demonstrate a clear understanding of the guidelines & policies I cannot see how his continued participation would be helpful. – S. Rich (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose We should not simply indefinitely block editors who engage in this sort of stuff. Jim seems to have his heart in the right place, and he took the initiative to finally use LightBreather's 'proposal page' for the civility stuff. All in all, he has not breached any exact policy/guidelines that I can see, except maybe WP:NOTWEBHOST, but the way we deal with that is by deletion/omit the material and eventually a block if they continue to recreate the page. He seems to not be reverting any hatting of the content. I !vote to Put on notice. Tutelary (talk) 20:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does LightBreather even know that Jim-Siduri posted all that [57] in her user space? She seems not to have responded to it... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just checked with Lightbreather - she wasn't aware of it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it. Partially because it was actually the only hit on Google for this 'proposal', but also because I didn't see anywhere he'd asked/told her about it. I've explained this to her and obviously said she can restore it (with the noindex template I added left there). Dougweller (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support far more heat than light coming from this user. Well-intentioned disruption is still disruption. Yunshui ^雲_水 20:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support We've invested enough time and effort. Per WP:COMPETENCE "If, after an appropriate amount of time and coaching, someone still isn't competent, don't make a heroic effort to defend them. Cut them loose, and focus your mentoring efforts on a better candidate." Meters (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to add that I agree with the caveat by S. Rich. I can't see anything coming of it, but I'm usually in favour of another chance for good faith editors. Meters (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I've been thinking about this all day, but he's just taken up to much time that other editors could be using constructively, and either used other accounts/IP addresses or his friends have been working with him. See for instance Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of Siduri from April 2012. Dougweller (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Just disruptive. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Sorrowful support Wikipedia is not the right place for everyone, and there is enough work to do here without distractions. Johnuniq (talk) 00:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support And add this name to the ban list. These people come here hoping to use the project for other means. We, as a community are way too patient with these types of disruptive users. --Adam in MO Talk 02:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Jim-Siduri has a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is all about. A chance was given for them to get to grips but rather than use it wisely, they've squandered it on this other odd venture. If this isn't nipped in the bud, who knows how long this will go on for? Blackmane (talk) 14:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Regretful Support per Yunshui. Disruption is disruption. They can be unblocked in the future if they make it clear they understand what Wikipedia is (an encyclopedia). ♥ Solarra ♥ • _{T ♀ C} 07:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Melancholy support. I have to agree with Adam above. Bishonen | talk 12:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Support some editing restrictions. Jim-Siduri has just created Draft:Beyond Differences with the edit summary reading "Some of us suggest some of us help new non-profit organizations (such as perhaps this one...) find their feet on Wikipedia and we might be just a touch more welcoming and friendly to our new interested potential editors...". While probably unrelated to the press release issue above, it does stray uncomfortably far into advertisement/advocacy territory. I'm not entirely sure an outright ban is necessary, but some editing restrictions do appear necessary. Woodroar (talk) 20:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One of Jim-Siduri's more persistently irritating habits is the endless repetition of the phrase 'some of us...' in his walls of text. Whether he is intentionally doing it to give the impression that he's speaking for other people, or whether it's just another symptom of his cluelessness I'm not sure - but I would have to suggest that if he is to be permitted to continue editing, it should be on the condition that he stops misrepresenting his personal opinions as anything but just that - no imaginary 'projects', no drafting in other people into his schemes without their consent as he appears to have done while creating his 'press release', and no assertions that 'some of us...' think anything whatsoever. He should either speak for himself, or put a cork in it - it doesn't fool anyone... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per Yunshui and Robert McClenon. This pattern of disruptive editing has gone on long enough. (Non-administrator comment) Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]