From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

One editor claimed yesterday I had "lost" the dispute. Quite the opposite, the porn articles in question are looking far better than in years and are much more BLP compliant and the Rfc resulted in a policy change which I feel very positive about. It is a shame I have had to encounter such resistance from those who didnt want to see the porn articles made BLP compliant but after my first attempts in January I did at least know what to expect. I myself opposed the BLP concept when I was an much less experienced editor but aftere xtensive conversations here with a well known Texas privacy advocate I chnged my mind. The Hollywood producer whom I also had dealings with also very much inspired me in this BLP work. I hope my actions will inspire others to go through the same kind of Road to Damascus experience I have been through. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 August 25. I am busy in real life right now so may not always be available for discussions, especially during the (American) day in the working week.

I so respect the wikipedia articles on science, an area where I ma learning so much, that I like to give back to the encyclopedia in other areas where I can contribute. So for me enforcing BLP is certainly about helping make for a better encyclopedia and not just about helping out the living subjects we write about though I do believe that we should always put these people first int he sense of if there are no reliable sources they have the right that the information not reliably sourced is not included in wikipedia.

Topic_ban_for_User:Squeakbox Not only would I have refused to abide by any such ban for enforcing BLP, leaving no other option but to indef block me, but it would have had a terribly negative effect on the community if this idea had actually been taken seriously. Topic banning people so other editors are then free to violate BLP would send out entirely the wrong message which is why I would never agree to such a topic ban, and I am linking to this now closed proposal so that we can all see how absurd it would be. BLP has to defy consensus because otherwise we are not protecting the living people we write about. As someone said on the thread, some people need to get a grip. And as another editor pointed out, the problem is those editors who restore BLP non compliant material. If I choose to stop editing for a few days it in no way means I have given up defending the rights of those we write about. IMHO the thread was nothing more than me being harrassed for enforcing BLP ON PORN ARTICLES by those who dont want to see it enforced on porn. If wikipedia decided to block me for doing that it would have to face the consequences of its actions, the main one being that the BLP policy would be dead on the ground because it is those who added BLP non compliant material who need to face topic bans and blocks, not those who enforce the policy. I acted because our BLP has been so wretched on porn and this is not acceptable to the living people we write about, not even for 5 minutes. And those who dont like that should create a porn fork where reliable sources are not required.

I also believe certain editors are deliberately reverting my BLP enforcement to make a point, and at the expense of the living subjects we write about. Such people should not be made welcome on this project as long as we continue to write about living people. Disgust is too tame a word for it, these are living people and deserve our protection and not our contempt or wikilawyering in order that editors can evade their own BLP obligations.

Blog entitled Wikipedia, BLP and porn and describing events of this last weekend from my point of view

An article first showing why porn is perceived as contentious and then why too many people treat porn workers with utter contempt. Exactly what has been happening on wikipedia, on this project the rights of editors to contruct original reseach lists is considered more important and sacred than the rights of mere porn workers or any living person wikipedia editors choose to accuse of being a porn worker with no evidence to support their claim. And wikipedia is clearly committed to allowing these people free range and doing nothing to protect the rights of living porn workers. And God help anyone who actually tries to enforce BLP to give porn workers the same rights other living people at least allegedly have on wikipedia. Disgust is too mild a word for it.

Note that while the article says prejudice against porn workers is unjust and based on shoddy evidence and stigma it does not claim, as various wikipedia editors have claimed to me, that this prejudice against porn workers does not actually exist, it merely postulates that it should not exist. I agree it should not exist but I also agree that it very much does exist. Those who think prejudice against porn workers does not actually exist are not interested in defending the rights of porn workers but of continuing the stigma against them.

61,000+ edits on this wikipedia. I was originally User:Squiqui fox Squiqui fox contribs and then User:Squiquifox, Squiquifox contribs

Fiftysomething British ex-pat, have lived in the same place in Latin America for 10+ years.

I was involved with TV Genius for a number of years but am not any more so have no conflict of interest in editing that or related articles. Roberto Weiss was my grandfather though I do not believe that in any way affects my editing of that article.

á Á é í Í ó Ó ú Ú ñ Ü ü å ø ¿ ¡ * £ @ € ¥ ø æ å ♫ ♪ ♬ ♥ ♡ ✔ ★ ☆ ☺ ☻ ❀ ღ  ⁂ ✈ ☮ ☎ | ā \

en This user is a native speaker of English.
es-4 El nivel de este usuario corresponde al de un hablante casi nativo del español.
xml This user can write XML.
Search user languages

Favourite authors

Spanish language

English language

Porn lists and BLP

A useful quote, I wont cite the author out of respect for her or his privacy. "A category is not functionally identical to a list: the differences, and the advantages and disadvantages of each are discussed at length in Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, which begins "Categories, lists, and navigation templates are three different ways to group and organize articles". One of the stated advantages of a list is (7) "Can be referenced to justify the inclusion of listed articles". Hence the differences in policy to reflect the differences in functionality."

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. It can be very difficult for living people to be removed from these lists once they are reliably sourced there even if they do not wish to appear in the list and this is because our watermark for inclusion is one or more reliable sources. Thus efforts to undermine this should be treated with supicion. 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 the list is of British porn stars refs are required that they are a porn star and that they are British.

Our Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy clearly states "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.[2] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."

Boddhi 1994-2003
Squeak RIP
April 2013
my wife and I in 2006
outside our old places (las cuarterías) with one of Squeak's puppies, roughly 05