Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TarnishedPath (talk | contribs) at 03:50, 10 August 2014 (→User abusing PROD). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admins tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• AI-generated images depicting living people
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation
• Proposed rewrite of WP:BITE
• LLM/chatbot comments in discussions

Persistently making contentious actions during discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi,

The Banner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been nominating endless aircraft templates for deletion; here, here and here at least. They have been asked to stop while the matter is discussed, primarily here on the WikiProject Aircraft talk page, and specifically warned here about their behaviour. Now the nominations have restarted - see diff. This is creating a mass of work for those involved, while the Project discussion remains ongoing. This editor is clearly not prepared to wait for consensus. Can someone take a look and review their behaviour? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I've complained once before about this sort of behavior with redirect nominations, though apparently my complaint wasn't correct in some way. While I've had positive interactions with The Banner in the time since, my belief is that this sort of mass-nomination behavior is disruptive. I sort of look at is as an extension of the rulemaking versus adjudication distinction in American administrative law: think of XfD as an adjudicative process (good for small numbers of items, and not generally binding on future decisions), while a RfC is a type of rulemaking (good for making general rules that can be applied over and over without much argument).

I believe there are more than enough templates at issue here that it's inappropriate to handle them through piecemeal adjudication (i.e., TfD). Keep in mind that Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines are descriptive rather than prescriptive, and if a significant mismatch between the codified policy and the actual practice appears, the answer is to first reevaluate the policy to see if it still reflects community consensus. In this case, I would argue that there are more than enough "violating" templates from more than enough sources to make this an inappropriate matter for resolution via XfD.

Yes, Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy... but that same argument cuts against creating dozens of individual XfDs claiming some basis in practice... when each of those XfD subjects is a counter-example to the practice. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 14:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Just to highlight The Banner's approach to collaborative editing, here is a statement of their personal vendetta against another editor. When they post their own defence, the Banner then has the nerve to accuse them of lacking good faith, see this post to their talk page. This issue is not really about how to nominate, but how to behave during this, or any other, discussion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Have you seen the banging at the door heres User talk:The Banner/Archives/2014/July where I told Ahunt multiple times that it is not the case of convincing me or his peers, but that he has to convince the administrators active at TfD. That was an argument no one wanted to accept. The sheer fact that I accepted a barnstar for the nominations, was followed by a backlash. Referring to the revenge aspect: almost from the beginning Ahunt was accusing me of doing bad faith nominations. I have asked him multiple times to stop with those false accusations, as it is not true (I still believe the WP:NENAN-nominations are valid). He went on and on so at one time I make the (not so clever) remark that I would nominate the templates of an extra letter as long as he did not stop with the false accusation. He did not stop, so I nominated. The Banner talk 15:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

See what I mean? Two fingers up to ArbCom, we know it's not so clever, but let's just spite another editor anyway. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Nice that the aggressive defence is ending up on AN/I. A beautiful case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. In general, the aircraft boys refuse to believe my argument dat WP:NENAN is a valid argument, although it is an essay. See a few links:

1. Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 June 8
2. Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 June 2
3. Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 June 4
4. Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 May 13
5. Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 June 3
6. Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 August 26

And then, off course, you have the editing guideline WP:REDNOT with is argument: Red links generally are not included in either See also sections or in navigational boxes, (...).

The very reason to nominate just a few templates a day is to give Ahunt, and the rest of his Wikiproject, a fighting change to write the articles needed to comply with the threshold of five valid blue links. Flooding TfD with long lists of articles failng WP:NENAN is also possible but that is in my eyes unpolite, as it reduces the time/chance to write the needed articles. The Banner talk 15:14, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

In fact, there are 478 pages on TfD where WP:NENAN is mentioned/used as argument. The Banner talk 15:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

So after more than 450 times of usage, it is suddenly not a valid argument? The Banner talk 21:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Mass nominations of this type have been strongly discouraged by ArbCom as fait accompli. They've asked you to take this to discussion, not deletion, you should be discussing those there. --MASEM (t) 15:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The Project did. The consensus has so far been solidly against The Banner - see here. Hence the repeated returns to TfD in a bid to gain a more persuadable audience. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment, the vast majority of the templates closed with the primary reason of "Failing NENAN" were uncontested deletions. A significant subset were "moved" rather than "deleted". --Zfish118 (talk) 18:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

That is right, quite a few are merged, moved or extented. That is what I mentioned as "rescued". There are just very few templates with less than five relevant links kept. That was usually based on good arguments (IIRC arguments like the likelihood of more links coming in the near future). The Banner talk 20:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The Banner is being disingenuous in his invocation of WP:REDNOT although "red links generally are not included in either See also sections or in navigational boxes", "An exception is red links in navboxes where the red-linked articles are part of a series or a whole set, e.g. a navbox listing successive elections, referenda, presidents, sports league seasons, etc.", which is the case with these navboxes. He is also being disingenuous when he says that his acceptance of a barnstar for these nominations was followed by a backlash: the backlash is clearly caused by the way he accepts, which very much looks like this is a personal issue for him. Generally, this editor is much too free with accusations that other people are making personal attacks when all that is being done is questioning his reasons for these mass deletion nominations and expressing disagreement.TheLongTone (talk) 16:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I was hoping this problem could be resolved simply by the upcoming admin closures of the existing template nominations for deletion, since all have clear consensuses to "keep", which should have sent a clear message that further noms would be a waste of time. But it seems that User:The Banner wished to force the issue here to ANI, as had been discussed by some editors previously here, by his continuing to nominate WikiProject Aircraft manufacturer navigation box templates for deletion against a solid consensus that was established, with his participation, here. User:The Banner has stated here and here that he will not accept any consensus about these nav boxes and will continue to nominate them for deletion against consensus regardless. This is Misplaced Pages:Tendentious editing and he has been warned about that previously here. Here and again here he indicates that his motivation for continuing to nominate templates against consensus is one of revenge. He has been warned before not to do this to make a WP:POINT but has continued, adding uncivil edit summaries, such as here and uncivil responses such as here for two examples. At this point it is clear that User:The Banner has become disruptive just to make a point and that means that he is WP:NOTHERE. I would suggest that the the best resolution at this point would be a topic ban of all aviation articles, and specifically a ban on nominating aviation templates for deletion for User:The Banner. - Ahunt (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't forget your long list of accusations of bad faith nominations, for instance on Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 July 16 (3x), Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 July 17 (4x). And don't forget to tell that your false bad faith accusations were just a part of you protecting your own templates. And in the mean time you just go on with your harassing. Just wait a bit more and see what happens when the administrator starts judging the templates. In the mean time: there is nothing illegal to write extra article or add more relevant links to a template to have those 5 relevant links. The Banner talk 20:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

As someone who frequently !votes at TfD, (and one who individually examined and !voted keep or delete on most of the templates in question here,) I don't think either Ahunt or The Banner acted in bad faith. The Banner was only nominating as he believes correct. The way he went about it annoyed me in this situation, but was not bad faith. If he had been approached in a different way, he probably would have worked with the project, at least allowing more time between nominations. Many of us have been notified of XfD nominations or other deletions. Ahunt and others in the project received an intimidating stream of these. I didn't follow user talk pages well enough to know if anyone overreacted, but I haven't seen anything I would call bad faith, (though calling each other bad faith came pretty close.) I hope an RfC would be a good way to settle the dispute. Although NENAN significantly overlaps many other editors' basic requirements for a navbox, there is enough variance that consensus can be hard to reach. —PC-XT+ 04:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The Banner seems to have a flawed understanding of WP:POLICY. The Aviation project's MOS at WP:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide#Navigation templates proscribes the use of the template series as "beneficial for providing a consistent appearance to the entire set of articles within our scope." This is consistent with the WP:MILHIST project's use of the Campaignbox template. And just as some military campaigns may have few battles, some aircraft manufacturers may have few planes. The way in which these templates are used by both projects (and, I'm sure, other projects), they are something more than simply navigation templates. There's no violation of WP:CONLIMITED here since the WikiProject Aviation's Consensus (which is a policy) is not contradicted by a community consensus policy or guideline on a wider scale, since WP:NENAN is merely an essay. Mojoworker (talk) 21:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I am just a rude guy who treats every template, regardless of local hobbies, exactly the same. Just like articles are judged on their own merits, I judge templates on their own merits. The Banner talk 09:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Your rudeness doesn't bother me (although it might bother others). Your stubbornness on the other hand... I believe that you were originally acting in good faith, however, you seem to be digging your heels in (and digging yourself a deeper hole), despite a preponderance of seasoned editors telling you that you're mistaken. Mojoworker (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

The Banner clearly has no intention of listening to consensus. Is there any good reason why he should not be banned from nominating any further templates for deletion under pain of an indefinite block? Mjroots (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I am willing to listen to consensus. That means, a wiki-wide consensus not a local one invented to protect the interests of a very limited group of people. Put in an RfC and I certainly will listen to the outcome of that. The Banner talk 21:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Banner, you repeatedly illustrate that you cannot accept consensus. You're one of the most stubborn individuals I've ever encountered on the website.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

A limited group we may be, but we are trusted by the community. This is because we work together, discuss things and have the grace to accept when consensus is against our particular point of view. We also have the ability to prevent you from editing. Let me be quite clear, the only reason I've not topic banned you or blocked you from editing indefinitely is that I'm involved insofar as I commented at the Wikiproject discussion. I dare say that if I were to block you, there wouldn't be a rush to reverse the block. It's getting late here in the UK, so I'm minded to leave this open overnight, unless sufficient consensus is gained for action to be taken or not, as the case may be. Mjroots (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose as not necessary. Start a RfC to resolve the underlying policy question, list it at T:CENT. If Banner starts more TfDs while that RfC is pending, then you can talk ban. But I suspect Banner will be reasonable enough to allow that RfC to run. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 23:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support - as a minimum . This emphasis on RfC is a little invidious. The WP:RFC section on Before starting the Request for comment process states, "If the article is complex or technical, it may be worthwhile to ask for help at the relevant WikiProject." All aircraft articles have by their nature a degree of technicality and complexity, while uniform presentation across articles is also important. At risk of repetition (link given twice already), we had that Project discussion and the result was total community consensus against The Banner. Their plea for an RfC and debasing remarks about the project look suspiciously like an attempt to wiggle round that. Also, judging by remarks made above, ArbCom et. al. have cut little ice with this user in the past, why should we expect sudden compliance with an RfC now? A ban would at least get across the reality of the message. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • A list of airplanes in a navigation templates is not difficult to create. The Banner talk 14:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

    Don't be silly. These templates serve to orchestrate the presentation of the technical and sometimes complex articles they appear in. From the viewpoint of RFC, they are effectively part of the article structure and need to be discussed in that context. Recall that favourite essay of yours, where it says that in such circumstances, a few simpler members of a much wider set are acceptable? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose There's nothing wrong with nomination templates for deletion, yes nomination a lot of them at the same time could be considered a disruptive act, but nothing presented here shows that to be true in this case. Kosh Vorlon    10:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - the main disruptive act is that we have a consensus here not to do that, which he participated in, but didn't like the outcome of and is ignoring. Predominantly the issue here is one of editing against consensus to make a WP:POINT. - Ahunt (talk) 12:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Comment SOunds like a localconsensus issue. Localconsensus would have bearing , as far as I know , on the page being worked on, as long as it didn't conflict with Misplaced Pages policies at large. There's no policy on submitting anything for deletion, unless, of course, it's disruptive, which again , hasn't been shown to be the case. Kosh Vorlon    16:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Really? You are happy for anyone to persistently mass-nominate templates for deletion during discussion, are you? Even a bunch of templates you might happen to be discussing at the time on the relevant Project talk page? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:35, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• • • And in fact you keep ignoring the fact that I am stating that you try to create a consensus on the wrong venue The Banner talk 14:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support Since he has shown he will not accept consensus and is being intentionally disruptive, I support a ban from nominating any further templates for The Banner. I don't see the point of an RfC at this point since it will just duplicate the consensus arrived at here. - Ahunt (talk) 12:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • What about my proposal Put in an RfC and I certainly will listen to the outcome of that. Are you afraid that a RfC might get an outcome you dislike? The Banner talk 14:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
• Strongly oppose I think the templates should be deleted. It would be in line with other TFD results and WP:NENAN has long been considered a valid argument. Also I see this whole ANI thread as an attempt to shut an editor up. Sometimes that might be in need of doing, but in too many cases its just an abuse around here....William 12:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

This ANI is not about trying to shut an editor up: it's about getting him to listen to counter-arguments and accept consensus. The principal counter-arguement is well put below by DieSwartzPunkt, a non-involved editor.TheLongTone (talk) 13:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

comment This sideswipe at the ANI nominator is from the very same editor who took a sideswipe at the project in his barnstar award to The Banner for starting their campaign. It is now clear that this campaign has been about circumventing the Project consensus from the word go. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• • What about my proposal Put in an RfC and I certainly will listen to the outcome of that. Are you afraid that a RfC might get an outcome you dislike? The Banner talk 14:32, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support but read on: {uninvolved editor} If one starts with AGF, one should assume that, to begin with, the nominations were made in good faith following WP:NENAN. However, it has been repeatedly pointed out that that is not a policy but an essay (i.e. nothing moe than a point of view). However, despite that being pointed out, the nominations continued. As it is just an essay, one should consider the points that the essay is attempting to address with respect to the use to which the template is put. The text makes it clear that the issue with articles is, ".. before you know it, the article suddenly is more template than article". Looking at the affected articles, that does not seem to be the case as the infoboxes are relatively small. Therefore, I would suggest that WP:NENAN is a non arguement in this case. However, as far as I am concerned: WP:AGF left the stage when The Banner made it clear in various talk pages, that most (if not all) of the later nominations were in direct retaliation to the opposition put up to the deletions by (if I have this right) one or more other editors. This cannot be acceptable behaviour. Reviewing The Banner's edit history (always a good idea) shows a past substantially free from many of the editing problems seen at these pages, suggesting that a block may be excessive. My recommendation would be that The Banner should accept that the consensus is largely against him and withdraw all the nominations. If he is not prepared to do that, then a topic ban 'broadly interpreted' would be the best solution for the project. If the topic ban is ignored: then go ahead and block. (See below) DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Please, take a look at the edits of Ahunt too who accused me multiple times of bad faith nomination and is still continuing his campaign of discrediting me.
  • Secondly, the NENAN-agument was a valid argument for a couple of hundred times. Just the fact that one Wikiproject has a problem with it, does not my my nominations invalid. They are out there and soon an administrator will judge them. And soon, there will be an RfC to see if WP:NENAN is in the future a valid reason for nomination. I will honour the outcome from that RfC. The Banner talk 14:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC) And I will refrain of using the NENAN-argument till the new (RfC)-consenus is reached.

I did review all the contributions involved - it would be impossible to provide an uninvolved viewpoint otherwise. In the first place: it was clear from all those contributions that consensus was against you (though granted, not entirely unanimous). In the second place: you made it clear that your nominations were retaliatory. Both of those factors made subsequent nominations bad faith. I said so above. I am not interested about the history of the WP:NENAN arguments, I am considering this only in the current context which is what the established consensus is addressing. Essays have to be interpreted in the context of the current discussion - it actually says so within the text. I do not accept that others are discrediting you, when you continue to act outside of consensus. This is not your encyclopedia any more than it is mine. This is a comminity project and can only work with co-operation. The only question in my mind is: 'why are you persuing this?' - given that you do not have a history of tendentious editing. (See below)

I fail to see why an RfC is required when consensus is already against you. This is merely trying to game the system by trying to get a larger consensus because you do not like the outcome of the current one. What would you propose if such an RfC went against you - a world wide referendum?

A more important question is: 'why does this bother you so much?'. Why can't you just accept the position as it is and move on to editing something more acceptable and worthwhile? (See below) DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Because the discussion was not on a neutral venue and that specific local consensus was en is clearly intended to protect the own project and its templates. It is not a consensus set up to match the best interest of Misplaced Pages, something a RfC will most likely do. The Banner talk 19:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

So if you really believed the project was so rotten and the wider community would overturn its consensus at RfC, why didn't you just take it to RfC yourself? Why start a vendetta? That was the behaviour that got you dragged here. And why should we believe your pleadings for an RfC are not motivated by that same vendetta? Misplaced Pages is a big playground, why not just move on and recover your composure. That's why I like this proposal, it buys you that space. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC) Except, contrary to the suggestion of good conduct made by DieSwartzPunkt you have a history of losing your cool and getting banned - see my later comment below. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

User:The Banner, it is local consensus, but it is indeed consensus. What part of WP:CONLIMITED do you think applies here. Quoting from there: "participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." What policy or guideline do you think trumps the consensus of the WikiProject in this situation? Mojoworker (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support – As I said above, The Banner appears to have a flawed understanding of WP:CONLIMITED. He needs to read and understand WP:POLICY before taking anything else to TfD. Mojoworker (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • My friend, that is why I suggested to start a RfC. Just as WP:CONLIMITED says: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.. Seeing the few hundred times that WP:NENAN was used on TfD, there was at least some consensus that it was a valid argument. TfD is the wider scale, so a RfC is the way to go to get the wider scale consensus. The Banner talk 21:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Might the solution be to replace the typical begging-for-money banners with one directed to a referendum page? Then, anyone connecting to Misplaced Pages could post an opinion. Hard to get a much wider "community" than that. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• Strong support That The Banner is even still allowed to edit wikipedia is because of the incompetence of the admins in dealing with his repeated problematic behaviour. He was allowed to return by HJ Mitchell on condition that he meets certain terms, and as far as I can see he's violated every one of them. Any editor who can't respect consensus should not be permitted to edit wikipedia, and Banner repeatedly illustrates he cannot accept consensus. In fact I'd say that the ban proposal should be extended to nominating articles for deletion as he repeatedly illustrates incompetence in nominations too and nominating notable articles which just need cleanup.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment It has been said above somewhere that The Banner's edit record has generally been good. Let me refer you to their block log and to this archive of their user talk page, in which the most recent indef blocks are discussed. Nobody can hold that The Banner is innocent in all this aggressive PoV-pushing, deafness to argument and personal antagonism. It has quite evidently been their personal style for a long time. The current proposal may well not go far enough in dealing with such a chronically aggressive editor. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. It is indeed troubling. I see that his allegations that the members of WikiProject Ireland were conspiring against him three months ago seems very similar to his interaction with WikiProject Aviation now. A disturbing pattern. Mojoworker (talk) 17:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks like WP:NOTHERE to me. - Ahunt (talk) 01:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Ahunt, I am willing to accept that Banner has stepped on a bunch of toes, and that he can be abrasive. I could accept a lot more, maybe. But what I will not accept is someone saying that NOTHERE applies to Banner. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:04, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I think his record and his block log speaks for itself. He is consistently disruptive and ignores consensus. - Ahunt (talk) 11:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

And when I responded on your many bad faith accusations, block fishing and personal attacks, your block log would also grow quickly. Please use arguments in this dispute, do not get personal. The Banner talk 11:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

That was me. It was very remiss of me not to check the block log or to see if there was a talk page archive. In the light of these revelations, I have struck parts of my posts above. Also, it is now apparent that this is indeed a case of WP:NOTHERE. I have also changed my !vote to an unqualifie 'support'. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• Banner cites NENAN as a rationale for deletion nominations. It looks like (from the RfC linked below) that NENAN is thrown out as a rationale for deletion nominations. Ergo, Banner will no longer cite NENAN as a rationale for deletion nominations. If he does, he's courting a block.

  No need for anything more drastic: this is not a discussion on his general behavior, but on the narrow one of his deletion nominations for templates--the most drastic measure I'll agree with is a limit on the number of deletion nominations, in general or specifically for these templates. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I have always said that I will honour the outcome of the RfD. No matter what the outcome is. The Banner talk 10:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

We need to let that RfC run to conclusion, which it will soon do, but I agree right now the consensus there is that WP:NENAN is of no value at deletion discussions. The only editor who seems to be still defending it there and opposing the WikiProject consensus on the matter is User:The Banner. - Ahunt (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

What consensus? That consensus reached on WikiProject Aircraft that according to the closing administrator of quite a lot of the nominated templates is NOT a convincing argument? The Banner talk 21:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

You have already been challenged to explain how you come to that non-logical conclusion but have failed to explain it, as usual. - Ahunt (talk) 11:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

No, you fail to understand/accept what the closing administrator did. But I am willing to repeat that over and over again for you: Easy: an administrator is not counting votes but is balancing arguments. The fact that so many nominated templates are kept as "no consensus" means that the administrator was not convinced by the arguments to delete nor convinced by the arguments (in this case the local consensus) to keep it outright. The Banner talk 11:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Drmies is wrong about this discussion. The narrow issue over the templates is being discussed at TfD. I specifically brought The Banner's behaviour here to ANI. It has now emerged as part of a wider and longer-term pattern of destructive behaviour and it needs dealing with. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Yep, you do not have the arguments to win the dispute, so you try to get me blocked. The Banner talk 10:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

The matter at RfC has been firmly decided by yet another consensus against you. What we are discussing here is your record of intentional disruption of Misplaced Pages to make a point. As I have said before your record speaks for itself, you have been blocked multiple times in the past for the same thing. There is no need for you to keep pretending this is a content dispute when it isn't. Your response above shows clearly that you don't "get it" and aren't willing to change your behaviour. - Ahunt (talk) 11:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Please, mr. Hunt, stop this harassing and personal attacks. Just accept the facts. Indeed, except for miracles WP:NENAN will be shot down as argument for a deletion nomination. But you fail to accept that the closing administrator also shot down your local consensus as argument for an outright keep. The Banner talk 11:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

You can stop trying to deflect the discussion here. It is your behavior that is being discussed here, not mine and your response is to accuse other people of "harassing and personal attacks" without any evidence. I have provided diffs above that support all complaints about your behaviour, as have other editors. Your attempts at deflections here provide only vague accusations and continue to show that you "just don't get it", aren't willing to admit that your editing is a problem and aren't willing to change. - Ahunt (talk) 12:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support Deleting templates while they are under discussion and refusal to accept the consensus of the community mean that this user shouldn't be allowed to continue this behavior. I don't know why we keep putting up with these editors who continue to try our patience. This editor has had the repercussions of their behavior explained to them and now it is time to take away their ability to continue disrupting the project. We all have better things to do than swat flies.--Adam in MO Talk 04:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, provisionally. I think there are some problems, but we see the same type of problem on AN/I many times. An editor or editors interested in some broad policy/technical area (templates, MOS things, cats, etc.) stirs up a hornets nest when their attempts to stretch content over the procrustean bed of standardization offends some parochial interest (usually a medium sized wikiproject). Bringing the outside editor here and asking us to impose a topic ban should be a last resort. I may revisit this later after looking at the links more, but I'd bet there's a less severe remedy available. Protonk (talk) 19:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
• Support What is the point of anyone trying to make this a usable encyclopedia in the face of this. Op47 (talk) 17:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 2: RfC

As nobody started anything: Misplaced Pages talk:Templates for discussion#Request for Comment: WP:NENAN.

And yes, I know not everybody is happy with this and I will get some flak and maybe a ban, but it has to be done.

Yours sincerely, The Banner talk 22:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

This is not relevant to the current discussion, which is about you. Posting about it here looks like just another of your attempts to deflect attention from your violation of your previous promises, as discussed above. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

It is related, and a notice here is appropriate. --Zfish118 (talk) 23:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes indeed. I just wanted people to be aware that "related" and "relevant" are not the same thing. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

It just got WP:SNOWBALL-ed. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment

The original behavior in question was the mass nominations, which I agree was done poorly due to limitations of automated tools. This behavior, alone, is not enough for a ban. The resulting discussion has been sufficiently heated, that the occasionally snarky responses from TheBanner could easily be argued to be provoked. He has even conceded that he will respect the templates for discussion outcome. The request for comment on WP:NENAN at templates for discussion would seem to be a good faith attempt to reach a wiki-wide consensus, but it too is ensnared in the current controversy. I have been bitten by the TheBanner's snark, and may have bitten back to. I recommend WP:CONCEDE and move on. --Zfish118 (talk) 23:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't tell me why I brought this here. The wikiproject is big enough to take a bit of template foolery, no way is that an issue I would bring here. The original behaviour in question was the manner in which consensus was ignored, civility was flouted and all the rest. This has turned out to be part of a long-term pattern of abuse. The mass nominations just happened to be the pawn in play at the time. Last time it was a different wikiproject got this treatment. So - please deal with the issue at hand and not with the Banner's skilful smokescreen. FYI I was not involved in the template game save at the end when one of my colleagues in particluar was suffering badly from The Banner's personalising of their constant attacks in the face of consensus. I know it was a long way back up the thread, but please do follow the links I have been providing before you make such uninformed judgements about my motives. Look, if you want to bring the template discussion itself to ANI, will you please start a separate topic and not divert mine? Thank you. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know why you brought the case here; TheBanner is a jerk has been acting as like jerk. That being said, I don't know what is left to be done. The deletion nominations were doomed to fail. Turning it into a brewhaha was unnecessary. A link to the manual of style for the Wikiproject and a request that all the templates be considered together were all that were necessary. Engaging each and every snarking response TheBanner made just provoked more; this is what I am posting about. --Zfish118 (talk) 20:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify for you. It was not obvious to the wikiproject that the nominations would be bound to fail. Stranger things have been sanctioned and this project does have an awful lot of templates. But of course, we are drifting away from the root issue here - the disruptive community behaviour surrounding those nominations. Think of my topic title as "Persistently during discussion: ", as I restate below. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:54, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Restatement

This discussion is about The Banner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and their behaviour. Check out their block log and talk page archives for more about why this is important. I am the OP, I know why I posted here. Please do not fall for their skilful distractions on the matter of a few templates. I would not waste your time over a few templates. Please stay on course here, thank you. I will come back and clarify recent events/discoveries as I can but at the moment am too busy off-wiki to go round collecting the links. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:00, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I posted here because this user was "Persistently during discussion."

The Banner's block log (see link in the above para) reveals a history of sanctions for destructive behaviour. The account has been blocked 8 times since July 1911. Reasons repeatedly given include edit warring, personal attacks and general disruption. In the present dispute, we see all these in spades. Rather that show any repentance, the Banner has detemonedly argued to justify their actions. In the last of those older incidents, The Banner undertook four promises. Here again is the snapshot of the discussion that I already posted. The most relevant discussion is near the bottom, where The Banner unconditionally accepted four conditions:

1. You agree to a topic ban from articles related to Irish parishes (civil or of any religious denomination), except to make your case for your edits at WT:Ireland;

2. You conduct yourself properly on talk pages, in a manner consistent with good-faith discussion intended to improve the encyclopaedia;

3. You refrain from referring to good-faith contributions as "nonsense" or "vandalism"—you can disagree with an edit without attacking the editor;

4. You refrain from making any further allegations that the members of WikiProject Ireland have conspired with Dr Blofeld against you, unless you make it in an appropriate forum and with credible evidence.

Conditions 2. and 3. have been very blatantly broken, not only with a self-confessed crusade against another wikiproject but also an equally open personal vendetta against one particular project member, even taking it to their talk page. I too have received passive-aggressive harrassment on my own talk page, here and here.

So, I would now ask that Admin attention be directed at this user's apparent flouting of unconditionally accepted terms of behaviour previously laid on them by an Admin, and their apparent total unrepentance. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

LOL, you do not have the arguments to win the dispute (neither do I, to be true) so you try to get me blocked. Cool. But be aware of boomerangs. The Banner talk 15:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

By the way, have you seen this: Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 July 31#Template:1992 FIFA Futsal World Championship. The Banner talk 22:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The reason for deletion is "only 2 links, red links are to subject titles unlikely to prove sufficiently notable in their own right to require a fork to an individual article user:Fenix down. This would be a sufficient to propose deletion even if WP:NENAN were not mentioned at all. Other posters agree, but it is still subject to consensus. --Zfish118 (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd call that unrepentant. Talk about digging yourself a deeper hole. LOL, indeed.TheLongTone (talk) 22:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I just call that asking for a block out of revenge. Not to serve the encyclopaedia. The Banner talk 13:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Close

Reading through the discussion, consensus seems to be clear enough. Can an admin please shut this down, invoking whatever sactions have attracted consensus? Thanks, --Mdann52talk to me! 10:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll second that - the bots are getting restless. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree, too, this discussion is stale and the thread needs addressing and closing. Can an admin please action this? - Ahunt (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Another proposal

No admin has yet had the will to bite the bullet. To be fair, there seems a lack of exactness in what is expected. So, although I am involved and am not an admin, I now make my own specific proposal.

Rationale: As evidenced above, The Banner is a generally well-meaning encyclopedic editor who periodically handles himself badly enough to earn sanctions such as topic bans, blocks, etc. Recently, to avoid yet another block, The Banner made an unconditional promise to stick to a set of rules imposed by an Admin. The Banner has since broken at least two of those conditions and remains utterly unrepentant that they did so. The Banner is well aware that this should earn them a block and has been taunting me personally to this effect.

Proposal: That Misplaced Pages's admins bite the bullet and live up to their collective word. Please will an admin; a) block The Banner for a sufficiently punitive period of time to re-establish the authority of Administrative decisions, and b) impose a ban on proposing templates for deletion. Otherwise, please give us a damn good explanation why not? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Steelpillow, you are just out on a block as revenge for stepping on the toes of you and your WikiProject. The RfC has been run, NENAN is off the table and the case could have been closed. But you are still fishing for blocks and harassing me in this way. By now, it will be suitable to block you! The Banner talk 15:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Irrelevant distractions as ever (though not of course unrelated). I just changed the title of this ANI to make that clearer. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Not an irrelevant distraction, Steelpillow. Just a fact. Yes, I stepped on your toes by nominating so many navigation-templates that had nearly nothing to navigate between. Yes, WP:NENAN is shot down as argument for removal. But it is also a fact that the closing administrator did not consider the hastily drawn consensus at WikiProject Aircraft as a serious argument. (At least, he did not consider it strong enough to outweigh my WP:NENAN-argument and closed the nominations as "no consensus" instead of a clear keep in many cases.) And now you are after me to get revenge and set an example to show the world that the navigation-templates of WikiProject Aircraft are above the law and can not be touched. The Banner talk 16:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow! I rest my case. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Yet another whinge from User:The Banner which, had it been directed at him, would have produced accusations of personal attacks or the like. It also clearly demonstrates that he clearly still believes himself to have been completely in the right in this affair: which is why some form of sanction against him is necessary.TheLongTone (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree, this needs to be all assessed by an admin, closed and an appropriate length block against User:The Banner levied. As shown repeated above, including in this thread, he seems to think that everyone else but him here is the problem, continues to try to deflect this thread away from the topic of his behavior, continues to attack other editors, has repeatedly disregarded consensus and his own agreements after previous blocks and shows no intention of changing his behavior. Can we have this resolved please and get back to improving the encyclopedia? - Ahunt (talk) 22:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

No, sir, I have not disregarded the local consensus. It was an administrator that ignored it when closing the nominations of many navigation-templates as "no consensus". And perhaps we should pay attention to your numerous false accusations of "bad faith nomination" at TfD. The Banner talk 22:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for continuing to go out of your way to illustrate the problem here. - Ahunt (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry that I have stepped on your toes, but as far as I know that is not illegal. In earlier cases when I nominated templates for WP:NENAN in many cases the authors tried to save the template by creating content or adding previous unmentioned links. You and your friends just went on the attack. No positive action at all. The Banner talk 23:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

By the way: The RfC is clear is shooting down WP:NENAN. As promised earlier, I will respect that outcome. The Banner talk 23:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

It's been over two weeks, no admin has seen fit to close the discussion, and the thread has already been archived once. Maybe an uninvolved user (who is less averse to drama than me) should close this discussion as "no consensus". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Except that "no consensus" would not be appropriate, there is a very clear consensus expressed here. - Ahunt (talk) 00:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

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: . You blanked the article and simultaneusly prodded with the rationale "empty list". Cavarrone 14:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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

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

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 Misplaced Pages, the list should be exempt from policy, simply won't wash. We don't cite Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages article whatsoever - a clear and unambiguous violation of WP:BLP policy under any circumstances. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• 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)

Seriously. Noone is pretending to "use Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

If the blue links weren't being used as a source, then the list had no sources for a contentious assertion, in violation of Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

(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)

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 Misplaced Pages policy. End of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages article counts as a reference. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

], 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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

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)

• • 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)

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)

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)

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)

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. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Recreating list

Guys, I've recreated the list as a single entry with a source. 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)

• 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)

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

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)

(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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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

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 carrots→ 17:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

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

• 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)

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)

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).

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

It has just been brought to my attention that Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 carrots→ 23:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• 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)

Where do BLP rules allow you to invent "contentiousness" which is strictly a product of your own ignorance of the subject? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Working in the Entertainment industry is contentious?

I'm quoting from an earlier comment...

• Porn stars and mainstream film stars are both contentious areas.

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 23:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

"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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages'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)

(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)

I completely disagree. The spirit of the policy is that to edit productively, you must have the same interests as Misplaced Pages. 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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages the first place to take note of that connection or does a reliable source do so? Protonk (talk) 17:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• This article is an example of the real damage shoddy sourcing in Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages quite controversial. Gamaliel (talk) 18:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Your first example, and one thats trounced out regularly, is a case of mistaken identity that happens to be associated with Misplaced Pages. 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)

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)

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 carrots→ 19:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

On Misplaced Pages, 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)

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)

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

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. Nothing... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

You are inventing contention where there isn't any. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

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 carrots→ 20:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

Can you provide a quick diff for one or both of those reverts? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 04:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages'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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages. Gamaliel (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

Time for a ruling

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

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)

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)

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)

*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)

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)

• 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Nominated for deletion

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

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)

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 Misplaced Pages notability guidelines. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

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 (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. along with nonsense block threats on my talk page.
• 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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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

(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)

'Shortly after'? Two days. And it should be noted that I blanked it because it was being 'referenced' via an unreliable source (IMDb - see Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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 Misplaced Pages). 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. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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 to my comments above). In articles or lists involving living persons, Misplaced Pages editors must properly document all claimed facts, especially contentious claims. The mere truth of a claim does not exclude its need to be documented; Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

A correction

The BLO policy treats lists and categories identically (Misplaced Pages: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)

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)

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)

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)

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 carrots→ 19:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

Squeekbox continuing

Just a heads up here. @Squeekbox: is currently removing blue-linked porn stars from another article, Chronology of adult videos in Japan.. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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. 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)

That lasted all of seven minutes. 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)

Fifth and sixth porn list blanked

Here. - and then here, the classic blanking a page then PRODding it. I don't know how many of Misplaced Pages'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)

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)

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 17:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

• 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 • 17:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

(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)

(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 17:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@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)

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 17:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

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 18:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I have restored the list at AV idol. 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • And with that you repeated an action for which SqueekBox is under discussion here for. 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)

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 18:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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 • 18:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
• 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 Misplaced Pages talk:Biographies of living persons has closed, or a month has gone by without it being closed. Monty₈₄₅ 18:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

• Support and support a wider ban from BLP lists in general. KonveyorBelt 18:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
• 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 carrots→ 19:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
• 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 --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
• 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 and references that justify the inclusion of the links , actions that could justify an even longer topic ban. Cavarrone 19:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• Support The community hasn't got time for this user's time wasting. Britishinvader (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
• 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)

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 • 20:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

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 carrots→ 21:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

• Oppose Agree with Gamaliel and TRM. --Randykitty (talk) 20:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose at this point. But to be frank. Squeakbox is well into WP:POINT territory. Resolute 20:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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; and here is the page after SB first blanked it and tagged it for deletion;, 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)

• 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

• 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)
• 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)
• Oppose topic ban based on everything I said here. Chillum 21:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
• 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)

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

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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 • 13:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

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 carrots→ 18:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 carrots→ 16:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

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 carrots→ 21:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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". Administrators not taking action in this matter would be condoning and enabling his combative behavior and helping maintain the combative part of the Misplaced Pages editing environment. --Bob K31416 (talk) 12:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Oppose per AndyTheGrump. --John (talk) 06:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

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

• 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)

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 and 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?

And speaking of lists, since you've edited List of bondage models by decade 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)

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)

User abusing PROD

User:AlanS is blatantly abusing the PROD system to get articles he doesn't like deleted without discussion. Thankfully most admins have been sensible enough to reject them. He has tagged over 50 articles so far, some of which are correctly tagged, but others clearly meet none of the criteria for deletion per WP:DEL-REASON. He has tried to get articles on NFL, MLB, and NHL players, a former Chilean national football team manager, and a member of the Indian parliament deleted. These are ridiculous and disruptive edits. He needs to be stopped, warned, and maybe blocked. I've tried to undo some of his edits, adding references and such, but there's too many. 124.148.207.219 (talk) 12:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Please note offensive language by this editor on my talk page. And remove of legitimate PROD at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Nelson_Acosta&diff=619948981&oldid=619936217 AlanS (talk) 12:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Please note further offensive language at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3A124.148.207.219&diff=619950105&oldid=619950053. AlanS (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Does the word "filth" offend you? I'm terribly sorry, and I cheerfully withdraw it. Less offensive synonyms are available on request. 124.148.207.219 (talk) 12:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Some of the articles I Prod'd might be incorrect, but I'd suggest the vast majority are Biographies of Living People with no references. That is a legitimate reason to Prod them. If you can find references, feel free to improve the articles with them. AlanS (talk) 12:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Seems legit to me. All the ones I've looked at were BLPs without references. Number 57 12:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

No that is not a legitimate reason to prod them. "Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" (from WP:DEL-REASON) does not mean any article without a source can be deleted at any one time – this user makes no effort to find sources, just tries to delete article. What worthless contributions – detracting from the total sum of knowledge and giving nothing back. Sources listed under external links are still references. 124.148.207.219 (talk) 13:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people. Number 57 13:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

No admin action seems to be required here. My only advice would be for AlanS to use the {{Blpprod}} template instead of {{Prod}} when tagging such articles. --Mdann52talk to me! 13:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Any BLP create after March 18, 2010 that does not contain any sources can be tagged with {{blpprod}}. These prod tags cannot be removed unless the one contesting the deletion provides at least one reliable source. (see WP:STICKY) —Farix (t | c) 13:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with the report, AlanS is doing good job and he don't have to write tags because he can select PROD type from page patrolling tools. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

No, he absolutely does need to provide good reasons for a PROD. "select PROD type from page patrolling tools" without a proper investigation and rationale is not acceptable, as explained below by Calathan, with regards to older BLPs, as just one example. I remember your name, OZ, from an earlier discussion about automated tools. Users are entirely, and personally, responsible for the quality of edits they make with such tools in exactly the same way as if they had not used a tool at all. The details page for any reputable tool will tell you exactly that. The tool may never become a substitute for thought and care. If the edits are in any way below the standard which a manual edit, with thought, would have been, then the tool is being used inappropriately, and such use must be discontinued. I truly shudder to contemplate the number of potential editors we scare off daily by use of these tools as though this was some shoot-em-up video game, where quantity of edits is more important than quality. I'd put that as Misplaced Pages's number one problem, right now. Really. Begoon  16:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll take the opinion of the only admin to have commented on this thread so far. AlanS (talk) 03:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

You are, of course, free to pick and choose whichever advice you wish. However, even a quick glance at User talk:AlanS/Archive 1 seems to indicate that there have been multiple occasions on which experienced editors have had concerns about the deletion related edits you have made. Of course, they could all be wrong. As Calathan says below, I'm sure you're acting in good faith, as are those who have expressed some concerns, or advised a little more care. I'd just ask you to consider that. Thanks. Begoon  04:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not so much about picking and choosing advice. I always am wary of cherry picking. More so the case of an admin saying that what I am doing seems legit to him. Sorry I'm going to take the words of admin with a bit more weight than I would any one else. You are quite right about others previously expressing concern at my haste in slapping CSDs around. I've tried to take quite a bit more care with them. As far as I'm aware though with prods, it's quite legitimate to place one an article with no references (especially given that anyone can remove it if they disagree). AlanS (talk) 04:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

That's great. All any of us can do is try to improve, and hope we get it right. Below this post, 2 other editors disagree that all of your BLP prods were unproblematic, and they give a reasonable explanation of why they think that might be so. Sure, another editor can remove an erroneous PROD, or even one they just disagree with, but really, why should they need to, and why should we run the risk of unnecessarily upsetting editors, or even article subjects, by tagging articles in this way? Begoon  08:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I commented about a similar situation to another user yesterday, and wanted to give a similar comment here. The BLPPROD policy was brought about as the result of a long and contentious discussion, as a compromise where recent BLPs would be deleted just for being unsourced and older BLPs would not be deleted just for being unsourced. For any BLP older than March 18, 2010, it is not a valid reason for deletion to just say the article is unsourced (as again, one of the key parts of the compromise was that older BLPs would not be deleted just because they were unsourced). AlanS, I see that you have tagged some older BLPs with PROD tags with a deletion rationale that only states they are unsourced (e.g. David Aldus and Adewale Ayuba). While I think you are acting in good faith, and disagree with most of what 124.148.207.219 said, I do agree that this isn't a valid reason for deletion for those articles. Please just put a little more into the deletion rationale, such as a statement that you did a quick search for sources and didn't find any, or that you think the subject is non-notable (if you think they are notable, it would obviously be much more helpful to add references rather than tagging them for deletion). Calathan (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

AlanS has ignored what I wrote here, and is continuing to tag older BLPs with prod tags that only say they are unreferenced. I consider that disruptive, as the prod reason isn't a sufficient reason for deletion for those articles. AlanS, remember that the idea is to build an encyclopedia that includes articles on notable subjects and excludes articles on non-notable subjects. Spending less than 5 minutes looking for sources on an article will often allow you to tell whether the subject is notable or not, and is much more helpful than just tagging lots of articles without even looking for sources. If you do even a cursory search for sources and don't find any that look sufficient, then that is a valid reason to PROD an article. I'm not asking you to stop cleaning up those unsourced articles, and indeed cleaning them up is quite helpful. However, please just go about it in the right way, by giving valid reasons for deletion when you tag them and by checking first if any of them are subjects we should have articles on. Calathan (talk) 14:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The two examples given by Calathan two comments up both have external links in the article - which makes them ineligible for BLPprod even if they had been created post-2010. Hack (talk) 07:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the BLPprod from the one which had external links that were working and removed the link from the other one that was broken. AlanS (talk) 11:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

For the record, AlanS placed PROD on Adewale Ayuba, an article created in 2003, with the rationale "Article contains no references" while it still had an external link (diff). Hack (talk) 13:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you enjoy nitpicking? AlanS (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

And again, this latest one is for an article created in 2009. Clearly there is a persistent problem here. I suggest the following:

What exactly is the problem with that PROD. The Article is completely un-referenced. AlanS (talk) 14:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• Firstly, AlanS should stop marking articles for deletion while this discussion is taking place.
• Secondly, he should use the appropriate template - in other words {{Prod blp}} instead of {{Proposed deletion}} for BLPs without references.
• Thirdly and most importantly, he should acknowledge that (to repeat Calathan's words verbatim) "For any BLP older than March 18, 2010, it is not a valid reason for deletion to just say the article is unsourced.", check the history of the articles he is marking for deletion before he tags them to see when they were created, and stop tagging articles that don't meet the BLPPROD criteria with immediate effect.
• Fourthly, he should endeavour to search for appropriate references where none exist before even considering marking an article for deletion
• Finally, failure to abide by the "Thirdly" paragraph going forward should result in a ban on marking articles for deletion for six months. WaggersTALK 14:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• @Number 57:, I hear what User:Waggers is saying. Do other admins agree? AlanS (talk) 14:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

To answer your query above, AlanS, the problem is that the article you prodded was created before March 18, 2010 and therefore does not qualify for BLPPROD. That's been explained so many times in this thread now I'm beginning to think this is a WP:DONTGETIT situation. WaggersTALK 15:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

To some extent, I am beginning to think there is a problem here. BLP prods for post-2010 articles are reasonable (although if you can see the subject is clearly notable, why not just find a reference yourself - Google is very quick!), but prodding pre-2010 should only be used if the subject is not notable – tagging many articles of subjects that are clearly notable (e.g. sportspeople that have represented their country) for deletion for no other reason than a lack of references is not particularly productive. I think there are also issues with returning to tag now-referenced articles with {{ref improve}} when in some cases one or two references is perfectly adequate (e.g. tagging the two-sentence Ronny Aloema twice, even though it had a reference that covered pretty much everything in the article). Number 57 16:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll take what you've said onboard. AlanS (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to topic ban AlanS from New Page Patrol

• This is far from the first discussion I've had involving AlanS and deletion-related disputes. I think plain talking isn't obviously working, so unfortunately I'm going to throw open a proposal that AlanS is topic banned from all NPP activities, broadly construed, for three months. The evidence can be found in numerous discussions links off User talk:AlanS/Archive 1, particularly the notifications of declined speedies, plus comments such as "I think you should be banned from having an opinion." and "Do you enjoy nitpicking?" as seen above are just not helpful when dealing with new editors and articles. He's not the only one to blame in the dispute that kicked this thread off, but with a bit more tact and diplomacy, the thread might not have been created in the first place. Your thoughts, please. Ritchie333 14:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
• Something in the area of responsiveness to guidance, and willingness to exercise required care needs to change. I agree that there have been some very unhelpul responses, so far, and I share deeply the concern for new articles and editors, as I expressed in the discussion above. I'm reluctant to support a topic ban unless AlanS continues to reject guidance and exercise care, now that it is being put to them more plainly. So, I guess that's a "no, unless no alternative remains by the end of this discussion", at this point. Begoon  14:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• Disagree completely given my massive improvement in CSD's. I feel, by and large, I've been using PRODs appropriately. AlanS (talk) 14:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• Since your acknowledgement of Waggers' comment above (approximately fifteen minutes ago), you PRODed several pre-2010 articles with the rationale that they had no references. Hack (talk) 15:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oof - that doesn't help my reluctance to support the topic ban one bit. That, and the dismissive responses to guidance are starting to make me nervous, I confess. Begoon  15:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• I have to say that putting a "notability" tag on a César Award-winning actress appearing in several major films is ... unhelpful. Ritchie333 15:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• ...yeah... I think, at the very least, AlanS is going to need to remove his fingers from his ears and acknowledge all the valid concerns. Absent that happening during this discussion, I'll need to support your topic ban, I'm afraid. Begoon  15:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support - AlanS doesn't seem to be conscious or aware of the issues and has made 120+ PRODs in the last 72 hours, and they are ineligible, but it continued in this very thread after AlanS responded to it. I also see basic issues with the Notability tag - which should never have been applied to Anne Brochet in the first place. Combined with the attitude, the user is simply not able to be trusted with New Page Patrol if any new editor (or even an experienced one) has to deal with someone who doesn't understand the basic guidelines themselves. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - I contest that the majority of the Prods I've applied have been legitimate. Further, if anyone has a look at the page of unreferenced BLPs, they will see that it is pretty much halved in the last 72 hours (for persons with surnames starting with A or B). As per applying a notability tag incorrectly to one article. My mistake, I'll cop to it and take more care. Further I’ve taken Number 57 (talk · contribs) comments on-board. AlanS (talk) 01:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support and support banning of Prod - Recently encountered this editor when he placed a notability tag on the article of César Award winning actress Anne Brochet. Wow. I didn't know this was the tip of the iceberg as indicated here. The mentioned article even stated in the version of this dif that she was an Ceasar Award winning actress who has starred in many films including the iconic Cyrano de Bergerac. This blatant disregard to WP:DEL-REASON occurred days after this thread began - It's as if he's thumbing his nose at WP's rules and editors who have a concern of his behavior. --Oakshade (talk) 02:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

It's as if you're ignoring WP:AGF in saying 'he's thumbing his nose at WP's rules'. AlanS (talk) 03:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The full sentence is "It's as if he's thumbing his nose at WP's rules and editors who have a concern of his behavior." Trying to AGF but you're not making it easy.--Oakshade (talk) 22:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, but.. - TL;DR: seems hasty, why not try other things first? Long version Mass deletion proposals or any mass invocation of process is a problem if it's not done in an orderly, competent way, and we do have a quality issue here. New page patrol is a partial exception because AFAIK the majority of new pages aren't worthy, and particularly new bios that tend to be unsourced or non-notable. Even that has to be done carefully, politely, helpfully, and with compassion because this is many users' first and only experience trying to edit Misplaced Pages, and we don't want to turn away the occasional good new editor, or alienate the public. So a soft careful touch is useful even when making high-volume templated edits. A topic ban is a rather extreme remedy, not the first thing to try. AlanS seems to be a good faith, sincere editor. Unless I'm getting something wrong there's no incidence of prior trouble, incivility, lack of cooperation. If AlanS will agree to slow down a bit, learn some more, perhaps work with mentorship of a more experienced editor, or just try a little harder, is there any indication that he's not going to do this work just fine? All I see is a 3 day old report where he's trying to be helpful and explain, and not quite hitting the mark. 3 days is too hasty to topic ban someone for 3 months. If there's an immediate present problem, a warning or (very short) block might be more appropriate if it's extreme. Otherwise, just step back and let's get back to normal business here. Disclaimer: I'm not an admin, and I"m here on this page watching other business and abstaining from another topic ban !vote, I just thought I'd be useful by offering my $0.02 on a dispute where I'm completely uninvolved. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I am always trying to learn. I will admit that I do make mistakes sometimes and I can be hasty on occasion. If it is of any help to others I will make a concerted effort to slow down and by no means do I want to be putting new editors off or alienating the public. I do apologise if it has seemed like I have pushed back a bit. I do find the tone of this discussion has been a bit off putting. In particular the tone of IP editor who started it (please compare their edit history to a conversation that occurred in Whitehouse Institute of Design at and tell me there isn't some wikistalking and violations of WP:AGF occurring). AlanS (talk) 05:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think your comment doesn't really apply because AlanS was picking BLPs from before the policy change in 2010 and was PRODing them. Not only that, its that quite a few were also ineligible because they had external links. Not only that, the problem continued during this thread. Not only that, AlanS was being rude in response to the legitimate issue be called out. Then, the final straw for me was even after all that - managing to do it all again and slap tags that were ineligible without so much as checking the claims already present in the article. This is also not the first time issues have happened - all those comments apply to new issues. The "Unless I'm getting something wrong there's no incidence of prior trouble, incivility, lack of cooperation." - shows that this very thread itself hasn't curbed the issue since its beginning and the issues predate it. My core issue is that AlanS doesn't understand the policies well-enough to do New Page Patrol and its a WP:CIR issue as well. I'd be open to mentoring however, I just don't want to see this return in a month's time to ANI. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I hear you, but the key word for me in your explanation is "was" — if this is in the past, remedies are to prevent *future* disruption, not to punish or deter. If AlanS is committed to trying, why not give him the chance? He's promising to be more careful here. I haven't noticed the civility problem but if there is one you can ask him to stay civil. Accusations of wikistalking are a tough one, because if they're true they aren't uncivil. If they aren't true, sometimes it's just a question of perspective. If you see someone doing something surprising or wrong it's reasonable to look at their edit history to see where else they may have done it and perhaps take action or piece together the bigger picture. But if you're on the receiving end of that it can seem like someone has it out for you. If it does end up back here in a month, fine. You would have the record of this report, and an actual promise AlanS said he would keep but didn't. Strike two, you know. Regarding the pre-2010 BLPs, that's kind of surprising. I was part of the big free-for-all argument that ended up in that agreement to start the BLP rescue project (mostly arguing, not tagging or defending more than a few BLPs). I thought we had gone through them all. If there's still a pre-2010 BLP that looks like it's missing sources, then either someone made a mistake and passed it over without rescuing it, someone removed an earlier source, or the person doing the PROD is missing something. In theory there should be no virgin source-free pre-2010 BLPs here anymore. And in theory there shouldn't be any new ones either, any post 2010 BLPs should be deleted or sourced as soon as they appear. I do think that a single external link or improperly formatted, or tangential reliable source, isn't really keeping with the letter or spirit of BLP, it's just barely enough to survive BLPPROD. After four years now we ought to be trying to add some real sources to these articles, not the bare minimum. But that's not really an issue for this page. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

My accusations are backed up by solid evidence. Please have a look at the two links I have provided and compare the names of the pages the IP has recently edited to his comment on the discussion page of Whitehouse Institute of Design. No excuse for me previously being a bit bull headed, but off putting all the same. AlanS (talk) 06:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to be a little lazy but I'll take you at your word without necessarily endorsing or agreeing. I've definitely been wiki-stalked, and also accused of wiki-stalking. I've seen everything here. People throw a lot of mud on AN/I and in any dispute, and no matter how clean you are when you come in, when mud gets thrown everybody gets dirty. You will rarely come out ahead on AN/I by insisting, however sincerely and correctly, that the person who is accusing you of something is completely wrong and made it up. And if you accuse someone of something on AN/I, however sincerely and correctly, you can expect to be accused yourself of the same thing and for some percentage of the participants to believe that you're the instigator and culprit. This is true in real life, by the way. The best solution I think is to rise above that and just do your best job as an editor. So what if you have an IP wiki-stalker, probably one of the named editors around here who is deliberately not signing in? Sure, there are certain admins with tools who could figure that out. Sure, IPs participating in process discussions are very suspicious (though there is sometimes a legit reason). But so what? You've been wiki-stalked. Welcome to the club. Let them stalk your edits. If you make good edits, own up to your mistakes, treat even your detractors with some respect and kindness, you just have observers, not stalkers. Sometimes that means you have to give up on an edit you know is right, or let someone get away with doing something they shouldn't, for a greater goal of having a good Misplaced Pages experience. Hope that helps! - Wikidemon (talk) 06:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - having a look at the PRODs listed at User:AlanS/PROD log, there have been 74 PRODs (ignoring BLPprods) placed on biographical articles in the month of August. Of these 37 were placed with the rationale "Article has no references", one with "Article does not have any references", 35 with "Article contains no references" and one with no rationale. All of the 74 were created before the 18 March 2010 BLPprod cutoff date. None of the rationales are valid deletion reasons making 100% of the PRODs invalid. Hack (talk) 05:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose NPP ban, support PROD ban I think a complete topic ban is unnecessary, but Alans does need to stop prodding articles that don't meet the necessary criteria. His responses above and continued editing suggests he either doesn't get it or doesn't care, so sadly I think some kind of sanction is necessary, and banning him from prodding articles seems appropriate. There's no reason (at present) to stop him adding maintenance tags or taking things to AfD/CSD as appropriate. WaggersTALK 11:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose and counter-proposal - Let's try to channel AlanS' enthusiasm into making him a valuable contributor in NPP where we desperately need more reviewers. When I started reviewing, I made a lot of mistakes. Fortunately people were very patient with me, and I took their advice and improved. A way forward for AlanS may be some sort of mentoring. If he doesn't demonstrate improvement, or if he ignores advice or continues making the same judgement errors, then a NPP/CSD/PROD ban should be seriously considered.- MrX 14:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Could be a good idea. Personally, I've been periodically checking this thread, hoping to see a response from Alan to Hack's comment above, outlining which of those PRODS have been fixed by others, which ones he has dealt with himself, which ones may still be problematic, etc... That would be enthusiasm, and a beginning to the learning process you envisage. Begoon  17:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

When others have named specific pages by name where I have made a mistake I've usually gone back to the page to see if someone one else might of corrected my mistake or to see if the correction still needs to be done. Sorry if I haven't indicated that when people have brought up specific examples. AlanS (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Hack's message is specific. It refers to a longish list, but it's a specific list. Did you have some other way in mind, rather than running through the list, to check for outstanding issues? Begoon  03:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Every article I Prod'd is sitting in my watch list. When they had sources added I removed them from my watch list. There's not much left in my watch list at the moment from those articles that I Prod'd. I'll have a look through the ones that are remaining now. AlanS (talk) 06:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

From what I can see there is only about 10 of them left (could be missing one or two) and they are BLP Prod variety and those articles are still un-referenced. AlanS (talk) 07:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. I think mentoring sounds like a good alternative. If AlanS rejects mentorship and shows no improvement, then we can come back. Sorry to potentially extend this drama, but I'm not completely convinced at this time that the disruption warrants a ban. I strongly advise AlanS to take a mentor; otherwise, it's likely that he will return here shortly. If we're back here in less than a month, I'll accept a trout and change my vote. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Who do you propose and what does it involve? AlanS (talk) 03:22, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Anyone can remove a prod. A prod is nothing more than a suggestion that deletion is uncontroversial, anyone can dispute that and remove it. Having a valid reason for deletion is not the same as consensus for deletion and is open to personal interpretation. I strongly advise AlanS to use specific prod templates for BLP and such and also provide detailed reasons for each and every article he prods.

  "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline" is a valid reason for deletion and thus prod too, even if the article is prior than 2010 or not a blp. The notability policy does not simply require that a person or subject be notable but that this be demonstrated. The burden of meeting this policy is on the person seeking to include it not the person trying to remove it.

  I find those suggesting that he should fix the articles instead of removing content contrary to policy to be missing that fundamental point.

  Frankly I think it is time people learn that unreferenced articles are not long for this encyclopedia. It is a simple standard that if met improves our credibility from a joke to a respectable source of information. I would rather be involved with a referenced encyclopedia 500 times larger than the next largest encyclopedia than an unreferenced one 5000 times larger. Chillum 05:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I think I'll just take a break from NPP for a little while. I thought I was actually doing something useful by helping reduce the number of un-referenced BLPs (with surnames starting with A and B) from in excess of a page at to half a page. Others seem to disagree. Fine. I'm sure there are plenty more people who are prepared to go entirely through all un-referenced BLPs. AlanS (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm responding to AlanS's comment above that I can be hasty on occasion. If it is of any help to others I will make a concerted effort to slow down. Only a few hours ago he resumed edit-warring over his pet article at Whitehouse Institute of Design while a BRD-flagged discussion was in place. It's night in Australia and when I paused for sleep, he said (in edit summary), Doesn't seem like you're so interested in the discussion part of WP:BRD. I think this editor should accept his own advice and slow down. In this global project, not every editor is simultaneously awake, let alone on-line. There's always time for discussion, and very few of our encyclopaedic articles need to be up to the minute. Least of all the sort of articles AlanS is PRODding. --Pete (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

What you trying to game WP:BRD to have material that you simply don't like not included in a page has to do with Prod'ing I fail to comprehend. Or is this a case of you having a go just because you can? AlanS (talk) 03:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support - On viewing AlanS's recent behaviour, I'm disturbed at the amount of damage he is causing. A lot of the articles he wants removed represent a significant investment in editing effort. Just because one editor has no interest or knowledge of a topic doesn't mean that articles in that area are deletion targets. He wants to remove bios of MLB players, such as Bob Adams of the Detroit Tigers, a man with his own Topps card. Geez. --Pete (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Prior to my tagging that article it was un-referenced. Now it referenced. Surprising how that happened don't you think? AlanS (talk) 03:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong - request for sanctions

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).

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 .

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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

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)

• 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)

• Oppose per the reasonings provided by GoodDay and Robert McClenon. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
• 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//_Δ's/ 18:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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//_Δ's/ 19:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

• Oppose, no basis for sanctions. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

  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)

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

Long standing editorial POV issues at Historicity of Jesus

This request for support follows on the recommendation of DRN coordinator User:MrScorch6200 to seek ANI assistance as noted in his findings here, and following from previous Talk Discussion, and Request for Review. Content mediation has been request as per DRN recommendation at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Historicity of Jesus. This request is for conduct investigation and mediation/arbitration as per DRN recommendation at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Historicity of Jesus.

The long term pattern of actions and behaviours by a set of editors, as found and in archived Talk pages going back several months, gives the appearance that there is a long-term campaign of collusion to develop and maintain a distinct and narrow POV. In short, a vocal sub-set of editors conducts the following:

1. Editwaring
2. Pettifogging
3. Biting newbies
4. Personal attacks
5. Inappropriate consensus
6. Spurious polling
7. System gaming
8. Conflict of Interest
9. Assumption of bad faith

and the skilled use of rhetoric, obfuscation and intentional distortions to discourage, and drive away new editors and recommended edits, or to confound and dis-empower consistently engaged editors striving to bring balance to the article.

Please advise on next steps and process to find some sort of peaceful, reasonable and inclusive solution. --IseeEwe (talk) 01:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

A similar topic came up when Jesus was featured on the front page, or nominated for it, I think. I actually took a class in college which examined this subject somewhat. I can assure you, no college-level class studying this would have a syllabus as Christian-centered as Misplaced Pages's sources. However, to be fair, the main subject I remember from college was the resemblance of any likely historical figure to modern conceptions, rather than existence in itself. The basic idea was the the modern conception of Jesus shouldn't be considered to have existed. It then gets into how one defines Jesus..... I remember my professor asking if we thought a time-machine would settle the question of whether Jesus existed, and the general consensus of our class was that it wouldn't. Howunusual (talk) 02:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you Howunusual. I believe that you are close to the root of my concern. I believe that there are a variety of academic opinions that would range from 100% acceptance of the full biblical story, right through to 100% acceptance that it is a myth. These various perspectives all have meaning and value within different disciplines and religious groups. It is my position that as editors we are not here to assert the value of one over the over. It is for us to lay out the various positions to allow the reader to better understand the discussion taking place, and to tell the story as it is told by those who best represent the diverse opinions at play. I perceive that the general behaviour of a select group of editors prevents NPOV and seek a way to curb this behaviour, but retain the engagement of this group as a valued contribution to one piece of the discussion. Your advice on next steps would be highly appreciated. --IseeEwe (talk) 05:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

(ec) That's funny: As an interested lay observer of the Jesus historicity debate, I have come to exactly the same conclusion, which I submit as evidence that I understand the underlying problem quite well even as an outsider. The problem, namely, that there is no certainty about virtually anything regarding Jesus, not even if Jesus was based on a single person, or multiple people, and in what way, and even what most mainstream scholars consider relatively certain about Jesus is so generic it is not really helpful, even if we could travel back to the relevant time and place and look around for historical people who could have been the basis for Jesus. That's the heart of the issue. To adapt two classic quips: "Would the real historical Jesus please stand up?" and "Who was Jesus, and if yes, how many?" Many scholars appear to be rather agnostic now, even if they are hesitant to admit so in public. I have even encountered the suggestion that the Jesus figure was based on an indefinite number of people, a generic type just like a cop character in some Hollywood film might be based on many policemen that the scriptwriters have encountered in their life. Jesus-type characters were dime a dozen at the time and in the region. That's what most people do not realise, and that's why most people are puzzled that the historicity of Jesus should even be a problem in the first place. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I believe that there are a variety of academic opinions that would range from 100% acceptance of the full biblical story, right through to 100% acceptance that it is a myth. These various perspectives all have meaning and value within different disciplines and religious groups. It is my position that as editors we are not here to assert the value of one over the over. It is for us to lay out the various positions to allow the reader to better understand the discussion taking place, and to tell the story as it is told by those who best represent the diverse opinions at play. I perceive that the general behaviour of a select group of editors prevents NPOV and seek a way to curb this behaviour, but retain the engagement of this group as a valued contribution to one piece of the discussion. Please advise on next steps. --IseeEwe (talk) 05:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

See User:BruceGrubb/CMT Material/FAQ, question 3, for what I believe to be a very fair and unbiased representation of the spectrum.

Just a remark: 100% acceptance of the full biblical story (maximalism or literalism) means acceptance of virgin birth, all miracles, etc., and amounts to creationism. Don't forget that even in the New Testament, there are assertions that squarely contradict science, such as when Satan shows Jesus all the kingdoms in the world from a very high mountain (which implies a flat Earth), which are therefore best interpreted in a metaphorical way. Frankly, I doubt that maximalism is a position that has any appreciable support in serious academia, even among devout Christian scholars.

The current mainstream is probably best represented by scholars like Bart Ehrman, whose position is sharply differentiated from both maximalism and minimalism, let alone mythicism. However, Richard Carrier has just published a challenge of the historicist position, arguing that the evidence in its favour has been misrepresented and is really quite insufficient, while various considerations point rather in a quite different direction. Personally, I have leant towards mythicism for a long time, find Carrier's arguments persuasive and tend to agree with his conclusions, and I believe it will be increasingly difficult to ignore his arguments given that they often seem to be quite accepted already by the likes of Ehrman – only the conclusion is not. My impression is that the consensus in the field is unstable and while outright mythicism may remain fringe for the time being, minimalist or agnostic positions will become more accepted. This is a difficult situation. Editors sceptical of the historicist consensus will anticipate this development eagerly and push for a greater representation of less-than-historicist positions especially. However, even though I share their bias, I think it is too early to start to increase Misplaced Pages's coverage of these positions significantly, as per WP:CRYSTAL Misplaced Pages should absolutely not "lead the way" and anticipate coming developments. We must remain conservative. Therefore, despite my sympathies for mythicism, I would admonish the historicism sceptics to hold their horses and keep patiently observing the developments in the field. There's no reason to rush things. Moderate historicism may have feet of clay, but it is still top dog for the time being.

Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox and not a substitute for blogs where editors can advertise their opinions, argue and debate them. Nor does the academic dialogue take place here. It is wiser to confide in the strength of the arguments against historicism and rest assured that they will eventually prevail. This is also what I am sure Carrier, Doherty et al. would advise were they asked. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 07:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The next steps would be naming specific editors instead of "a vocal sub-set of editors", notifying them of the thread, and pointing out specific concerns supported by diffs. Explaining how this is an appropriate attitude would be a nice bonus. Personally I think that someone whose reply to being found to have misrepresented sources is "I will not debate sources with you" is unfit to edit Misplaced Pages. Huon (talk) 03:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure of next steps which is why this formal request exists with an explicit request for direction. I will not engage any further with you as one of those I would bring forward as culpable in this matter. Unlike you and your editorial group I have repeatedly asked first, then acted, sought direction, then decided, asked for external review, mediation and now arbitration in order to stop your continuous abusive harassment of one editor after the other. --IseeEwe (talk) 05:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)IseeEwe, once again, you make accusations without providing evidence. You added material that included a dozen citations that don't actually mention the article's topic, several that are misrepresented, and a few that were outright polemics, all to give equal validity (if not more) to what the article's sources generally indicate to be a minority (if not WP:FRINGE view). You were reverted five times by three different editors in the past two days, and you'v responded all but the last time by reverting once time has passed ( , , , including a hypocritical accusation on edit warring from the first time an editor reverted you). You have:

• hypocritically accused anyone who shows the slightest disagreement of being part of some sort of POV pushing cabal while expecting good faith in turm, as if it means a free pass to add whatever to the article
• make unevidenced accusations that I've been attacking people for "the last 6 months (at least)" when I've barely been at that page for four months,
• responded to evidence that you've engaged in POV-pushing OR by outright insulting my intelligence ("Whatever. I accept that you are unable to understand 21st century approaches to critical theory -as dumbed down as I wrote them.")

You are only tendentious. You had a slight point in that, while everyone was wondering if you were a sock puppet (not that that's gone away), I did not leave you a message asking you not to make the exact sort of edits that most people on the talk page were saying not to make, even though your behavior gives no reason to believe it'd've made a difference, especially with you indicating you are familiar that those conversations occured -- for which I did apologize even though I'm convinced you're of no use to articles on religion. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure of next steps which is why this formal request exists with an explicit request for direction. I will not engage any further with you as one of those I would bring forward as culpable in this matter -if you persist in harping and attacking. Unlike you and your editorial group I have repeatedly asked first, then acted, sought direction, then decided, asked for external review, mediation and now arbitration in order to stop the continuous abusive harassment of one editor after the other. As per the note on the talk page I have suggest a solution to you, , and believe that mediation and cooperation will help us move down that road. I am here seeking mediation, not to exclude, but to include, not to punish, but to calm. There is no evil intention here. Please consider. --IseeEwe (talk) 05:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The next step is that I have blocked you for two weeks for personal attacks, disruptive editing and edit warring at Historicity of Jesus, User:IseeEwe. This post, cited by several users above, is little short of amazing, and there are more examples in User:Ian.thomson's post above. I realize you are a new user (assuming that the sock concerns are unfounded), but this amount of assuming bad faith is not to be tolerated here. I'd have placed a considerably longer block if you'd been here longer. Bishonen | talk 08:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC).

Request to User:Bishonen. Please consider shortening the block. I agree with you that ISeeEwe was being tendentious and disruptive, and was using a request for resolution in a way that was itself disruptive, by continuing to make allegations of abuse without providing diffs. However, in the absence of a previous block history, I think (even after the most recent tirade on the talk page) that the block could be shortened to one week, which still might be long enough for ISeeEwe to learn that making repeated unsupported allegations is not useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Talk about hypocritical and heavy-handed. More abusive comments than that are a dime a dozen on Misplaced Pages, and IseeEwe actually sought dispute-resolution and was told to come here. Howunusual (talk) 18:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

So, the precedent being set is that if you've made poor edits in the past, you shouldn't later do the right thing via dispute resolution, because it will call attention to your poor edits, and the result of seeking dispute resolution will be that you are blocked. Howunusual (talk) 18:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

In the past? The egregious edits that I referred to, and in one case linked to, were made two days ago at the most. "Misplaced Pages time" pushes things into the past pretty fast, but not that fast. Also, "hypocritical" is a serious accusation concerning my motives. Can I trouble you to explain your basis for it, Howunusual? Bishonen | talk 19:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC).

As mentioned above, I would suggest that User:Bishonen shorten the (necessary) block. With no previous block history, we don't know that such a long block is the only way to restore useful discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The user has posted an unblock request, and I prefer to let an uninvolved admin review it in the usual way. I have no objection if that admin, or another, should decide to unblock or to shorten the block, and I've made a note to that effect on the user's talkpage. Mind you, it wasn't a very good unblock request (as you imply above, Robert), and I've told the user so. S/he can change it at any time. Bishonen | talk 22:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC).

I agree with user: user:Robert McClenon, user:FormerIP and user:Howunusual that the block should be shortened and was absolutely excessive. Also, the user never actually made an unblock request. What they posted was basically a rant. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 03:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Call for an uninvolved admin to review the block

I have already invited an admin — any admin — to unblock or shorten the block on their own responsibility, without asking me, but it's possible that not many admins have read this thread. None have commented, anyway (excepting Huon, who is involved in the content dispute). I don't myself feel like reducing the block, both because I think it was about right to begin with and because of the user's demeanour after the block, such as in their "proofs" that they did nothing wrong and their continued attacks on those who disagree with them. Even after allowances made for venting while blocked, and for the user's newness, I don't like it much. But your mileage may certainly vary, and in view of the voices above calling for a reduction in block length, I'm putting this appeal where it'll show up in the ANI table of contents. Please review and, non-admins, please comment. Bishonen | talk 16:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC).

• Two weeks seems a bit much. I personally would've topped out at 72 hours but most likely I would've given 24 to 48 hours to stop the accusations w/o evidence and edit warring. Now that IseeEwe has listed his evidence, an unblock might be appropriate with that content copied over here and discussion can resume over their concerns if they agree not to edit war.--v/r - TP 17:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
• I agree that two weeks may be too long, but I will not unblock at the moment, because in the most recent message linked by TParis, IseeEwe continues to frame the revisionist views he promotes as being on their way to supplanting academic consensus (i.e. Prometheus Books being a "divergent academic perspective"). I think blocking IseeEwe is an imperfect but acceptable way to give everyone some time to cool down. Shii (tock) 13:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
• Any block may be deemed too long by someone, and perhaps this one is, perhaps not. Calling it "absolutely excessive, MrScorch6200, is not a productive way of convincing your de facto opponent. But for any block deemed too long, there is an easy way out: a well-phrased unblock request that basically says "OK, I won't do it again". Rants rarely lead to unblocks; they do nothing but suggest that the block was proper. Drmies (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Quite right, there is a difference between "what the fuck are you thinking" and "I would have done it differently".--v/r - TP 22:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
• Reviewing/discussing with another administrator presently ... Go Phightins! 17:52, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Unblocked. Go Phightins! 20:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

User Jim-Siduri again - I think this might merit admin attention

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

See here , and the edit summary for the following post. It appears that User:Jim-Siduri has taken it upon himself to issue a press release on behalf of a non-existent 'Misplaced Pages Reform/Civility Movement', giving the URL for Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages facilities to be doing it. It should be noted that this isn't the first time that Jim-Siduri has invented fictitious Misplaced Pages projects, and that he has repeatedly been told to learn how Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Agree with ATG. A history of very verbose postings on his mostly impractical ideas of how Misplaced Pages should be changed, and nothing much else. His proposed policy in hisMisplaced Pages:Executions that any editor willing to be voluntarily blocked should first get three uncontested changes to Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages as his web platform to make the world a better place. After he was told that this was not how Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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

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

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)

• Support far more heat than light coming from this user. Well-intentioned disruption is still disruption. Yunshui _水 20:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
• 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)

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)

• 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 Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Church of Siduri from April 2012. Dougweller (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support Just disruptive. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
• Sorrowful support Misplaced Pages 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)
• 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)
• Support Jim-Siduri has a fundamental misunderstanding of what Misplaced Pages 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)
• Regretful Support per Yunshui. Disruption is disruption. They can be unblocked in the future if they make it clear they understand what Misplaced Pages is (an encyclopedia). ♥ Solarra ♥ • _{T ♀ C} 07:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
• Melancholy support. I have to agree with Adam above. Bishonen | talk 12:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC).
• 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

• 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)

PS171 and disregarding consensus

This has been an ongoing issue for several months now, and I have no idea what else to do at this point, so I come here. This is my first report at AN/I, so please forgive me if it is unnecessarily detailed; I'm honestly not sure where to cut off the information, as I believe all of it is relevant.

PS171 primarily edits the Misplaced Pages page of Leonardo DiCaprio, which is where our disagreements began. The user's first edit, as far as I can tell, was in December 2013 when he/she changed the picture from a recent (but admittedly bad) photo of DiCaprio at a Wolf of Wall Street premiere to one of him at a Shutter Island premiere. Nothing wrong with this at the time, no one really argued that the older image was better. I changed it back to the Wolf image without really thinking it through, and was reverted without an edit summary by PS171. I didn't really think anything of it, and let it go. Then, in early February, Muboshgu changed it to an alternate photo from the same premiere, which was again reverted, again without an edit summary, by PS171. Despite this behaviour, it didn't really become an issue until May, when I added a high-quality photo of DiCaprio from the London premiere of Wolf.

I added a photo of him from January 2014 in this edit, dated May 3, 2014. This change was reverted by PS171, again without an editor summary, a little over a week later. Due to the lack of edit summary, I reverted with the edit summary "Inexplicable and unexplained removal of higher quality, more recent, better picture." I was met with another revert, but with a well thought out edit summary: "I think the quality of this picture is good, besides, it refers the reader right at the beginning of the article to a movie that is more representative of DiCaprio's work (he's not a comedy actor)". At this point I'm still assuming good faith, guessing that the editor is unaware that the relevance to a person's career does not necessarily define what should and shouldn't be included (DiCaprio is still in his prime, so any photo from this period is acceptable). I reverted again, saying "That does not make a difference at all. If a recent, higher quality image exists, there is no reason not to add it. Suspense/horror isn't his usual work either." I get reverted again, with PS171 citing DiCaprio's alleged "strange, forced smile on pic" and that he/she "wouldn't call it the same quality." I stopped reverting to avoid violating WP:3RR, but MrX reverted sourcing technical reasons the photo was better ("Less cropped, better exposure and color, and more current.") PS171 reverted again (now in violation of 3RR) stating simply "well, we don't agree then". He/she was reverted yet again by ForteSP33, agreeing that the "Newer Photo is better."

I, Corvoe at the time, posted to PS171's talk page (a discussion that has recently been deleted) and we discussed our disagreement at length. In a bit of a side note, at one point during this discussion, I compared the new DiCaprio photo to the one for Angelina Jolie, a Featured Article: the photo was almost immediately changed by PS171, sourcing "shock value" (a statement that would appear several times later). Our discussion started going in circles with neither of us agreeing, so I opened a discussion on the talk page which ended in a consensus to change to the new image. PS171 did not remove the image, but removed the reference to Wolf from the caption stating "the lead image guideline still applies here." This is a recurring statement from PS171. I reverted this, unable to find anything that backed up PS171's claims. I was again reverted with the rationale that "the movie does not represent the subject fairly and this is the lead, so we swap the images as I suggested or shorten the caption..." So, again, I went to the talk page. PS171 repeatedly accused me of not acting "in spirit", a claim which was never explained over the duration of the discussion. Lady Lotus sourced WP:CAPTION as a reason to include the premiere mention, to which PS171 said "We could mention Titanic, Inception, The Departed, The Aviator etc. twice in the lead, but if you try to act according to WP:Leadimage, you won't mention this mess of a comedy TWICE in the lead. Or rather use the other image instead." At this point, a red flag is raised; this becomes a clear-cut case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT in my eyes. Erik joined the discussion, but was relatively neutral in the matter, stating that he "would even be fine with keeping it simple with "DiCaprio in January 2014" because we do not have to be explanatory with the lead image", and PS171 agreed with him. I expressed my confusion as to what I had done wrong in regards to WP:LEADIMAGE, and was again told that I was "going clearly against its spirit by mentioning a comedy twice in the lead of an article about a DRAMA actor" before he/she references a passage from LEADIMAGE: "Lead images should be selected to be of least shock value; if an alternative image exists that still is an accurate representation of the topic but without shock value, it should always be preferred". At this point, some editors were confused as to what PS171 meant by shock value. Lady Lotus asked what PS171 meant by this, to which she received no answer. I posted one more reply, and since the conversation ended with most editors supporting the mention of the film's premiere, I added it back.

Then, in July, PS171 came back and changed the caption again, back to not including an edit summary. I posted on his/her talk page once more, strongly suggesting that the editor restart the discussion on the article's talk page. I reverted yet again, sourcing the talk page discussion. The edits died down for a few weeks, before, this morning (August 6), PS171 reduced the caption again. MrX reverted the edits, noting the lack of consensus.

PS171 has worked exclusively on Leonardo DiCaprio's article since December 2013, and almost all of his/her edits have been restoring to the preferred version; whether it be content that was agreed to be deleted, the image change, or the image caption, this editor has done nothing but argue against consensus and change back to the version he/she likes. I don't believe this editor is able to collaborate with others, so I am reporting PS171 here. Sock (pka Corvoe) _{(my stuff)} 12:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The majority (around 80%) of this lengthy comment deals with an issue (about the image) that was dealt with quite a while ago, while only touching the current, I mean real issue here (the right proportions of movie mentions in the lead). The issue: User:Corvoe and User:Lady Lotus are trying to push as many mentions of the comedy Wolf of Wall Street into the lead of the article as they can, while being more moderate with the real milestones like Titanic, Inception, The Departed etc.

This is their favorite version of the lead with no less than three(!) mentions of this particular comedy. The problem is that this is a drama actor, not a comedy actor and movies like Titanic are only mentioned once which to me DOES seem disproportionate representation of the actor's work in the lead.

"At this point, a red flag is raised; this becomes a clear-cut case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT in my eyes." I'm asking the dear admins according to them how should the lead of the article look to represent the career of this guy proportionately. Isn't Titanic or Inception more important movies than this easy-going comedy (Wolf of Wall Street)? In this case why on Earth are we mentioning the comedy more times than these movies? I repeatedly argued that if Wolf of W. S. is mentioned once, we could add a whole paragraph on Titanic or Inception? How do you see it? Should I cite the profit margins or the number of awards to emphasize the problem or do you too feel it?

"PS171 primarily edits the Misplaced Pages page of Leonardo DiCaprio" - lately, yes, I have less time to edit, but if you look at all my edits I think it looks a little bit more diverse than that.

In a nutshell. PS171 (talk) 19:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Where are you getting this stuff? This argument, still, isn't over the lead section. In no way are myself nor Lady Lotus wanting to give undue weight to anything. We just want the photo's caption to be as descriptive as possible. I don't understand how this is confusing, I've been extremely straight forward. In no way is any of this about the lead section, it is entirely focused on the image's caption (yes, the image issue was resolved, but you were still editing against consensus). My post here has no double meaning, no hidden purpose. This post is to report that you are an editor who edits against consensus frequently. That is it. As for your last point, I hardly think eight months qualifies as "lately". Other than that one Angelina Jolie edit, you've worked on either DiCaprio's page or his filmography page since December 2013, with almost all of the ones to his article restoring the same version every time. Reverting the image, reverting the caption, reverting the lead, reverting something that was agreed upon or that shouldn't be controversial. I have nothing to do with the lead of this section, I've changed "In the 2000s" to "Since the 2000s" and that's it. So stop throwing all of these accusations at me when there's nothing to back them up. You're reading between the lines, but there's nothing there. It's fabrication. I just want you to discuss your changes first, is that too much to ask?

This argument is going nowhere. I keep trying to reason with you, explain my motivations and my reasonings, and you just decide that I'm lying. I always hate to link to WP:CIR, but I believe that it applies here. We are not out to get you, we don't think you're editing in bad faith, you just don't seem to accept that you need to discuss controversial changes first. Sock (pka Corvoe) _{(my stuff)} 19:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a clear case of ignoring consensus and slowly edit warring. I would recommend a final warning, followed by escalating blocks if this conduct continues. I think it's telling that PS171 blanked most of their talk page moments before making the edit to Leonardo DiCaprio.- MrX 12:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

This is your recent opinion on how the lead should look like. Probably you forgot this edit of yours? Read my comment below before again rushing your judgment.

I blanked my talk page, because there was only irrelevant stuff there (discussion regarding the image, an issue we already dealt with). The relevant discussion can be found on the talk page of the article, right now. PS171 (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Sock when the majority of PS171's points were just I don't like it. He wouldn't answer questions, he just kept repeating "least shock value" when no one knew what he meant by that. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

You found my arguments strange, because you STILL haven't read WP:LEADIMAGE: Lead images should be selected to be of least shock value; if an alternative image exists that still is an accurate representation of the topic but without shock value, it should always be preferred. And I had to build concensus with editors who didn't even bother to read the rules... PS171 (talk) 17:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

You keep quoting that segment without explaining how it applies. Why is the image of Leonardo DiCaprio the one of "least shock value"? How is saying he was at a premiere for a film he is in surprising to anyone? We have all read WP:LEADIMAGE, particularly that portion which you've quoted before. It just does not apply in this case, and you aren't explaining how you think it does. Sock (pka Corvoe) _{(my stuff)} 17:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I only reacted to the comment of Lady Lotus. The Shutter Island photo is better and the concensus was we may keep the image you favor (the current one) but without mentioning the comedy title. It's already mentioned in the lead once and it would disproportionately overemphasize a comedy in the lead about a drama actor. Remember? PS171 (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The last major argument on the talk page is this:

You can make light of this, but this is the lead of the article. I hope you do realize that if we do mention Wolf of Wall Street just once (as it is now), we could proportionately add at least a whole paragraph on Titanic or Inception, and we could still add a short description of movies like The Departed or Shutter Island... just to name a few movies with more artistic value than that comedy. PS171 (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Nobody ever countered this argument with anything and we finished the discussion.
If we do add the comedy twice, we could write a whole novel on Titanic, which is still the second highest grossing movie all time and was the highest grossing movie at the time.
Feel free to read the relevant discussion and draw your own conclusions about the "concensus" that you find there.
80% of the comment of admin-wannabe User:Corvoe details the image issue above which has been dealt with long ago just to throw mud on me, but he's doing only everything to hide the real issue here: Finding the right proportions in the lead of the article. This is a drama actor to whom we can thank movies like Titanic, Inception, Shutter Island etc. and all he and User:Lady Lotus are trying to do is overemphasizing a comedy that is not characteristic of this actor in the lead of the article. PS171 (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh for god's sake, stop calling me an admin-wannabe. I'm not rushing to judgment, I've been debating on whether or not this was worthwhile for some time now. When I saw you'd reverted again, I figured that was the last straw. I don't care about the content of the lead, that has absolutely nothing to do with it. What this comment is about is that you keep undoing others' edits with no justification. The current issue is that, despite constantly being reverted and disagreed with, you reinstate and reinstate your version, over and over.

Also, what are you talking about? The last major point was talking about what shock value you meant. You were the only one discussing the content of the lead, while the discussion was supposed to be focused on the image and the caption. If you want to discuss the lead, go ahead. I actually support some of your edits (including the one you tried you use as "evidence" that I'm being contradictory when it's completely unrelated), but that's neither here nor there. I was simply pointing out that you had edited without consensus.

This has gone on long enough. The image changing issue, you ceased. I will give you that. It doesn't change the fact that you are still edit warring by changing the caption we all agreed on. Erik was neutral on the matter, and suggested a theoretical option, while myself, Lady Lotus, and MrX were in favour of the current caption. 3-1-1 does not mean you just change it. We would need to have another discussion, maybe involve more editors, and that's just unnecessary.

To sum up all that, the issue is that you keep changing the caption without discussing it or talking to anyone. What you need to do is stop. WP:BRD would be good reading; you were bold, we reverted, we've discussed, and we reached consensus. That's it. Either leave it be, or start another discussion. Sock (pka Corvoe) _{(my stuff)} 17:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I changed the title of this thread to Finding the right proportions in the lead of the Leonardo DiCaprio article to avoid personal attacks, but User:Corvoe changed it back. So much about this guy, who wants to be an admin here one day.
Regarding the actual issue that we are discussing here I rest my case. PS171 (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

That's a personal attack? You are a user called PS171 who is disregarding consensus. I didn't call you a name, I didn't say you were a horrible person, I didn't even say you were acting in bad faith. I stated the subject of discussion, which is you and your disregard for consensus. Please, stop changing the title of this thread and stop reverting people on DiCaprio's article until this is settled. Sock (pka Corvoe) _{(my stuff)} 17:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I almost forgot, why did you change the title of this comment? Sock (pka Corvoe) _{(my stuff)} 17:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)PS171 has reverted to his/her preferred version yet again, despite us being mid-discussion about it. Sock (pka Corvoe) _{(my stuff)} 17:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

PS171, repeatedly changing the title of this thread is in violation of WP:TPO. This header is not a personal attack, as WP:PERSONAL states that "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" are personal attacks. I've provided a great deal of evidence in regards to my accusation about your behaviour, and therefore am not personally attacking you. Leave it be. This shouldn't even be argued. Sock (pka Corvoe) _{(my stuff)} 18:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Corvoe, I only added a "disputed title" sign in brackets without removing your title again, you even deleted that one, so while you're complaining about revert warring you reverted on this page three times so far!
Isn't it ironic that while you're complaining you also link your own revert on the DiCaprio article? Mid-discussion?
To the admins: Please read the relevant discussion to understand what kind of "concensus" Corvoe refers to. Don't divert the attention from the real issue with the lead section of the article here:

(...)I hope you do realize that if we do mention Wolf of Wall Street just once (as it is now), we could proportionately add at least a whole paragraph on Titanic or Inception, and we could still add a short description of movies like The Departed or Shutter Island... just to name a few movies with more artistic value than that comedy.

PS171 (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not edit warring by restoring content you shouldn't be changing. WP:TPO is a guideline, one you are flagrantly disregarding every time you change the thread title, so I'm not in the wrong here. As for the content, I intentionally linked to my revert, which was undoing an edit you made that was directly related to this discussion. As for you still thinking the discussion is about the lead section, I don't know what else to say. I guess now I play the waiting game. Sock (pka Corvoe) _{(my stuff)} 18:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Hm... WP:TPO is a guideline and it also says: Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better header is appropriate, e.g., one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc.

Is the thread title that I suggested Finding the right proportions in the lead of the Leonardo DiCaprio article more descriptive, less one-sided or not? Or your major goal was to attack me, not to solve the issues with the lead?

You only create new issues to divert the attention away from the real issue behind this? PS171 (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

And you slyly neglect the very next sentence: "To avoid disputes, it is best to discuss a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible, when a change is likely to be controversial." Also, the proportions of the lead is still isn't what this discussion about. This discussion is in fact about you, the behaviour you've exerted as an editor, and the disregard for consensus that you have shown. This isn't about the content. I'm not saying we're right or we're wrong. I don't want an admin to come in and tell me that the caption is perfect and the image is great. That isn't the point. What I want is for you to build Misplaced Pages with us, not against us. You participate in discussions when there are disputes, which is an admirable quality, but you completely ignore the outcome of those discussions and go about your editing, which is, to understate, not an admirable quality. I want to be able to work with you, I really do. But I can't if you won't listen to what anyone else has to say. When consensus is built and you disagree, that's okay; work with people to find a middle-ground. Maybe create a draft of the lead, work through it with other editors, then put it in the article when you all agree that it's sufficient. Don't just flagrantly disregard everything that was discussed in favour of the version you prefer. Sock (pka Corvoe) _{(my stuff)} 19:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

How am I "overemphasizing a comedy that is not characteristic of this actor in the lead of the article"? That doesn't even make sense. I was saying where he was when the picture was taken. DiCaprio does comedies, he's an actor, he's all over the board. Saying where he was when the picture was taking isn't overemphasizing anything, it's just telling people where he was! The lead is a summary of his career and article, if you don't want to wikilink the article in the caption then don't, I don't care.

And do not change "PS171 and disregard for consensus" as this is about you and your disregard for consensus. You might join the conversation but ultimately you will change it to whatever you think is best. Nope. Not how it's done.

One of your arguments on the caption was "The Wolf of Wall Street has very little to do with the 20-year long career of this actor, and the movie is already mentioned in the lead text." Again, it's JUST saying where he was. It's not trying to say THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT FILM OF HIS CAREER! it's just stating where he was when it was taken. Much like the majority of many other peoples infobox captions. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Although sometimes third party people chimed in (pro or contra), User:Corvoe and User:Lady Lotus ususally called themselves "concensus", so if admins look into the real deal here (the representation of this drama actor's career in the lead with the right emphasis and the right proportions), that's OK to me. PS171 (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

If 3 editors are telling you to stop reverts and take it to the talk page where then no one agrees with you, I think the consensus is clear. If you wish to RfC then go for it. And your edit summary "If we do mention Wolf of Wall Street just once (as it is now), we could proportionately add at least a whole paragraph on Titanic or Inception" What does saying where he was in the caption have anything to do with mentioning other movies to his lead? Seriously. I don't understand your arguments, please explain. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. This is not the place to hash out a content dispute and admins do not adjudicate content disputes. If PS171 is not able to convince most of the involved editors that his edit should be included, then the next step would be for him to start an RfC. Reinserting the same content over and over, against the protests of other editors is edit warring, even if it spans several months.- MrX 21:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Holy crap. It seems obvious to me that PS171 needs a short block to stop this disruption. Whether PS171 needs a longer block, I do not know. But this edit waring, disruption, and ignoring consensus needs to stop immediately. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• In the past month I edited the article basically just yesterday without violating any rule.
• I won't count how many times just in this thread I referred the admins to the relevant talk page discussion, the outcome of which seems to be disputed. (User:Corvoe and User:Lady Lotus stopped adding arguments after my last one which you can find above quoted more than once, I won't copy it here again.)
• When somebody stops adding any relevant arguments on the talk page and keeps pushing one specific comedy in the lead of an article about a drama actor, it's difficult to see here "concensus". MrX did remove multiple mentions of certain movies from the lead after reading the talk page discussion, but now probably changed his mind, so he needs to decide what kind of lead he wants... I'd still say that usually Corvoe and Lady Lotus called themselves "concensus", also see the point below.
• Besides, I really don't know whether tricks here and there are even allowed to influence the decision of the admins at a thread like that, especially from someone who declared someday he himself would be an admin here. PS171 (talk) 09:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

That last response from you just proves that you don't want to explain what you mean and it's like you don't even read what we wrote. I asked you to explain your argument because honestly to me, it makes no sense. You have such a problem with "pushing one specific comedy in the lead" when you won't respond to me when I ask how is it pushing when it's just saying where he was? Answer that. It's a caption, it's allowed and also proper to just say where they were at the time. He was at a premiere of his movie.

We also said that consensus was clear and if you weren't ok with it then you could have RfC but you didn't. And what "tricks" are you talking about? He didn't try to sway my thinking, he didn't tell me what to say, he just wanted me to weigh in which is perfectly acceptable. I had already weighed in once and he was tired of stressing out of this with your arguments going no where and not responding to any of ours. That is not a trick. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Why does my desire for adminship have any bearing on this? Yeah, I would like to be at some point, but it's far from a priority and not anything I see happening in the near future. Even assuming I was wanting to be one right now, it still wouldn't matter in the context of this discussion. Further, I suggest you read over WP:CANVASSING so you can understand that posting to the talk pages of Lady Lotus and MrX was not trickery. I posted "on the user talk pages of concerned editors" and " mentioned in the discussion", both listed as appropriate notification under that guideline, and I did not try to sway them in any direction, just that I wanted additional opinions. I encourage you to notify editors of this discussion as well, that way we could get more outside perspectives rather than running in circles. All that said, I would appreciate it if you would stop making these baseless accusations against me just because we disagree. Sock (tock talk) 14:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

The editors already knew about this discussion, no second notification was needed. Does WP:CANVASSING demand repeated notifications when your argument seems to fade a bit?
You called Lady Lotus back, because you were getting insanely stressed out over this whole thing, which couldn't be a more neutral wording in a more neutral tone (see the guideline that you cited) for a note.
If you're stressed out, it's because you openly admitted that you're ONLY here to attack me and not to solve the issues with the lead. PS171 (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

How is me acknowledging my stress over this situation non-neutral? I said I wanted other voices so I didn't have to keep going in circles with you, which didn't exactly work out how I thought it might. They may not have been following the discussion closely (as it appears they weren't, probably unaware it had bloated this much) so I asked for them to return and express opinions on the recent developments. You keep focusing on me, like I'm out to get you and that I'm masking some lead issue. I'm not going to repeat this again: This is not about the lead, this is about you ignoring consensus. Look at the thread title, that's why I keep changing it back. Nothing about this involves the lead. The one edit I've done to the lead, as I already said, was making a tiny change to one of your edits to the lead because the 2000s and 2010s aren't the same. That is it. Look through the edit history, see if you can find other times where I've done anything related to the lead. Half of it, unfortunately, is me reverting you for your changes against consensus. I'll repost one of Lady Lotus's comments you may not have seen, since she words it better than I can: "One of your arguments on the caption was "The Wolf of Wall Street has very little to do with the 20-year long career of this actor, and the movie is already mentioned in the lead text." Again, it's JUST saying where he was. It's not trying to say THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT FILM OF HIS CAREER! it's just stating where he was when it was taken. Much like the majority of many other peoples infobox captions." You didn't answer this argument, you went right back to fruitlessly harrassing me and ignoring completely counter points, then digging up "dirt" that is really me just following a perfectly acceptable procedure. This is entirely about the photo caption that you keep changing without any reasoning and against consensus. I'm not attacking you, I'm reporting your behaviour. I feel like a broken record.

Are any admins willing to comment on this? I'm guessing the size of this conversation is probably a deterrent, but I really think some outside opinions are needed if this circular argument is ever going to end. Sock (tock talk) 16:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Until you answer the questions that you think you have so slyly avoided, I am done with this discussion because it's going no where. PS refuses to answer questions and is completely missing the point of this ENTIRE discussion. Sock, I suggest quit responding too because at this point, he either doesn't get it and it's not going to take you or I to make him see it, or he knows he's wrong and is trying his hardest to dance around the point.

• Questions:
• What "shock value" are you referring to in regards to images. Explain this instead of just repeating it because NO ONE knows what you mean by it.
• Your edit summary "If we do mention Wolf of Wall Street just once (as it is now), we could proportionately add at least a whole paragraph on Titanic or Inception" What does saying where he was in the caption have anything to do with mentioning other movies to his lead? LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

This seems to be half content dispute and half behavioral dispute. Content disputes should go to WP:DRN, but they won't accept a request while it's still discussed somewhere else. In light of that, I think this discussion should be closed, a strongly worded warning should be delivered to PS171 in which is he instructed to respect consensus, and a case should be filed at DRN. Come back here with a much more concise summary if PS171 continues in his disruption after DRN or an RFC. Few people are likely to wade through this sprawling, tl;dr discussion, and there's not much point in keeping it open when other alternatives are available. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I was only intending for it to be a behavioural dispute, but that didn't exactly work out how I thought. The content dispute was the reason for the behavioural one, so I suppose an overlapping was inevitable. It's definitely way, way too long, and I had the sneaking feeling I had over-detailed it. I agree with everything suggested by NinjaRobotPirate. Sock (tock talk) 06:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Endless soapboxing on Talk:Soka Gakkai is becoming disruptive to collaboration

We need to use Talk:Soka Gakkai to reach a consensus about various changes being made to a large article about a very complex subject with delicate sourcing issues. I believe the article is in the process of being improved. But we have a problem with soapboxing by User:SafwanZabalawi. For years now, Safwan has been using the talk page to post long essays about media bias, religious freedom, and Japanese politics that are somewhat related to the topic of the article. Safwan does not edit the article, and has not since his rewrite was completely reverted and the article extended at length, around 2013. His only edits in 2014 are to this talk page and to a previous, unresolved ANI discussion about this soapboxing: Special:Contributions/SafwanZabalawi.

Something needs to be done about this. The talk page is becoming unusable precisely when we need to start using it more. Please take a look for yourself. Shii (tock) 06:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

As a contributor to the Talk page, I have to say that I find User:SafwanZabalawi's soapboxing as annoying as anyone. However, it's not exactly true to say that he doesn't edit the article. Here are the edit stats for the article, and here is a breakdown of his contributions. As you can see, he has contributed 44,881 bytes, far more than anyone else. The problem is that almost all of that material is gone. Here is the article as it was 1 year ago, and here is the article as it is today. They are two completely different articles. The article as it exists now has been systematically purged of all material sourced to people or organizations affiliated with the Gakkai, and replaced by material apparently selected to portray the Gakkai in the worst possible light. From comments in the Talk section, the editors in control of the article now seem to be on a mission to portray the organization as a cult, to bring to light incidents that (they contend) it is trying to hide, and to demonstrate that what the organization says about itself is untrue. The result is a highly negative (some might say defamatory) article. Unsurprisingly, people arrive on the Talk page to complain. And when they try to bring some balance back into the article, they are reverted almost immediately, usually on the grounds that the material is sourced to people or organizations affiliated with the Gakkai. I'm no expert in religious studies, but this seems like a strange attitude to me. Would it be possible to write an article about the Catholic or Luthern churches while systematically excluding material written by Catholics and Lutherns? So I would be as happy as anyone if the soapboxing would stop, but I suspect the problem might solve itself if these people were allowed to contribute again. --Margin1522 (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Soapboxing on the Talk page, involving several SPAs, and POV pushing with primary sources in the article go hand in hand. There have been editors, most prominently Daveler16, advocating the position that SG is a "sect" of Buddhism, and therefore should have its program/beliefs/etc., represented using primary sources without question. Catflap and I have gone over that particular issue from various angles, but he continually tries to reintroduce the subject matter.

The soapboxing is accompanied by wall of text after wall of text, and that is symptomatic of an WP:IDHT attitude. The wave-after-wave of soapboxing walls of text has to be brought to an end.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 18:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

What is an SPA? And speaking of WP:IDHT I have patiently explained to both you and Catflap08 the difference between a "secondary" source and a "third-party" source. It seems you still don't get it. But thank you for highlighting the issue. Is it justified to enforce a blanket ban on all sources affiliated with the Gakkai? When we want to explain Catholic beliefs, is it unacceptable to cite a Catholic? --Margin1522 (talk) 19:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I presume you are referring to the thread in which you made this post? Aside from the fact that you left out the aspect of the relationship between being independently published and having a COI, there are other assertions you make that seem inaccurate. Catflap and I have been editing the article in accordance with the sourcing policy, and the statements from publishers affiliated with SG have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to see if they are validly used or have a promotional dimension that exceeds the provision of information.

You also said that you thought the "sect" issue was nitpicking, but since you are not well-versed in religious studies. Apparently didn't understand the quote I posted in response to you from the source published by Middleway press in which SG is referred to as a "sect". That source was presented by Daveler16 in an attempt to assert that SG is a sect, which is most definitely is not, and that makes the use of that source for unacceptable because it is a promotional assertion made in a source that is published by a press owned by SG.

An SPA is a "single purpose account".--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 20:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

A case-by-case evaluation would be fine with me. About "sect", which you are making such a huge issue of, have we even established that the word appeared in a book? --Margin1522 (talk) 23:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• @admins Part of the reason that Margin1522 is asking content related questions here is because there is an inordinate amount of text on the Talk page due to soapboxing. I'm not going to rehash the issues here, or respond to Margin1522 until they read all of the related discussions; however, this clearly demonstrates the degree to which the soapboxing has become detrimental to content creation.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 11:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

  I have to add that I am quite disappointed this has had no outside response so far. Shii (tock) 13:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

  Seeing there is still no discussion here, I am going to unilaterally give Safwan {{Uw-chat4}} and block him if he continues this behavior. Shii (tock) 20:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

  Shii, I would recommend you not use you admin rights in an area where you are heavily involved. Doing that would be a good way for you to lose your admin rights quickly. GB fan 13:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

  GB fan, in the face of deafening silence on this noticeboard, what else could I possibly do to stop this behavior? Shii (tock) 13:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

  • • • • • GB fan If that is the only input you--whom I assume are an admin--are willing to provide here, then Arbcom is on the horizon for this article in the not-too-distant future. AN/I seems to basically be a waste of time and effort.

OK, I've done the research. Lightbreather was originally TBANed from Gun Control due to the multiple reports filed at ARBCOM enforcement and an ongoing edit dispute in the ARBCOM sanctioned area involving multiple editors. The edits on the AE request linked above were specifically allowed by the admin applying the TBAN. Lightbreather's !vote here is in direct violation of her TBAN on Gun Control per WP:TBAN. I have to recommend that the closing admin here take a close look at the TBAN violation brought up by the IP.

DebnathSourav (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the latest username who, immediately after creation, spammed a chunk of advertising on Vinod Gupta School of Management. This chunk was almost a complete copyvio per Dupdet. This is the third time (after Madhavparashar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 9 days ago and Meethv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 2 months before that) in recent history that a new account has been created and immediately tried to add promotional material to the article. I initially reported to AIV because it seemed obvious to me, but Daniel Case felt it should be brought here.

In response to Monty, I don't believe there is a justification for my edit summary at all. I'm not even going to claim it was justifiable as he did it first (some cunt reverted for no reason) as that is rather childish. But this has been going on for 5 years and I've had enough of it. Why do we even have a WP:CIVIL policy at all - its never enforced? If a named account behaved like this IP editor, he'd have been banned long ago, as he hops IP he gets away with it. Why should editors be expected to simply put up with long term abuse? WCM_email 14:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards