Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Porn and BLP

Porn and BLP

 * Editors involved in this dispute
 * 1) – filing party


 * Articles affected by this dispute


 * Other attempts at resolving this dispute that you have attempted
 * Talk:List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films

Issues to be mediated

 * Primary issues (added by the filing party)
 * 1) The editors need to respect BLP and stop violating
 * 2) Editors need to stop attacking SqueakBox for enforcing BLP,. just because they dont like it


 * Additional articles (added by other parties)


 * Additional article 1
 * Additional article 2
 * Note: the above list is from Squeakbox's user page, describing articles he intends to address. Not all are necessarily in dispute, although we will not know until Squeakbox decides to edit them or announce what his plans are. The RfC discussion concerning lists is broader in scope, applying to all list articles. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC) 


 * Additional issues (added by other parties)
 * 1) Will Squeakbox agree to honor the portion of the closing findings of the recent RfC on BLP that reads: editors are asked not to go through the pre-existing lists making large-scale and unilateral challenges, as this will overwhelm the people who maintain these lists with work, and there is a legitimate concern that this is unfair. If you do intend to remove unsourced entries, please proceed at a reasonable, non-disruptive speed dealing with what you judge to be the highest-priority cases first. If you could easily source an entry yourself, then removing it as unsourced is rather unhelpful.
 * 2) If the community objects to any mass BLP edits of Squeakbox as unhelpful, will Squeakbox respect the consensus of the community on the matter rather than edit warring and accusing other editors of BLP violations, among other things?
 * 3) Will Squeakbox respect the consensus of the community on whether, and how, to deal with sourcing on Wikipedia's many lists of people?
 * - Wikidemon (talk) 05:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Additional issue 1
 * Additional issue 2

Parties' agreement to mediation

 * 1) Agree. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 22:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Refuse this nonsense. I have not edited any of the above articles except List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films, weeks ago, an article which raised a large disagreement between editors and a large discussion (see relevant talk page and ANI discussion). Both the related AfD discussion and the RFC are now closed. I have no idea why my name was included and on what I would actually need a mediation with SqueakBox. He seems do not want drop the stick and keeping on battle, I have zero interest in playing this game. --Cavarrone 22:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Disagree - I really don't think that there's anything to mediate here. I have not edited Chronology of adult videos in Japan at all. I have not substantially edited Talk:List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films at all, except to note that the page was previously tagged for deletion after being blanked by "Squeak" in the first place. I have not sustantially edited Pornography in Japan at all, except to fix some reference errors in December 2013. I have not substantially edited List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films at all, except to try & fix some citation formatting errors twice. I have not substantially edited List of bondage models by decade at all, except to try & fix some reference errors. Finally, I do not believe that there are any current (or even valid former) BLP concerns with AVN Female Performer of the Year Award. I would also like to echo much of Cavarrone's comments above, and note that apparently what this "dispute" is really about is pretty much exclusively "the behaviour of a Wikipedia editor", namely Squeak himself, which does not appear to fall under the valid prerequistites for this page. Guy1890 (talk) 22:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Disagree - As well. This is more of a personal issue for Squeak than it is a Wikipedia issue. He was found to be disruptive in his "edits" and used BLP as his blanket defense. Regardless of how many times others have said that his choice of tactics or editing methods are counterproductive to the communal efforts of the site, he won't listen. I agree with the other editors. Squeak, please move on. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Agree - if broadened to include SqueakBox's conduct per the issues I added above, and if SqueakBox acknowledges that he (?_ is open to doing so. Those are the real issues here. I have no problem agreeing upfront that I will not knowingly commit BLP violations, attack SqueakBox for enforcing BLP, or attacking SqueakBox because I dislike BLP. I have done none of those things, so there is nothing to stop, but I am willing to pledge this on an ongoing basis if Squeakbox is willing, this being mediation, to honor the will of the community regarding mass content edits and some attendant behavioral issues. In fact, if everyone could address this in an openminded way intending to reach an accord on how to approach these BLP articles, there does not have to be a lingering dispute. The bigger picture of what if anything to do about the thousands or tens of thousands of Wikipedia articles that have lists of people names in them is a bigger issue that cannot be decided by several editors on a mediation page. We can just agree to keep things copacetic pending a broader community decision. On the other hand, if SqueakBox refuses to consider his(?) own acts and this is supposed to be a mediation to prove that everyone else is wrong and SqueakBox is right — which may be the reason other are refusing to mediate Squeakbox's accusatory mediation questions standing alone — then it is SqueakBox, not the rest of us, who is refusing to try to work this out. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikidemon, as far as I understand it mediation absolutely means that you and indeed any participants also get a chance to air their grievances. I have included my grievances, and any editor who agrees to mediation should also do the same. It is a real shame that the other editors are not willing to go to mediation but I guess it still has value even if it is only you that agrees and the fact that you have agreed is good. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 01:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want to participate and exhibit good faith during the mediation process, please do not try to force this sort of result, which I have reverted, while the process is underway. Wait until mediation reaches a conclusion before editing according to your favored version. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Disagree. Forum shopping by SqueakBox to arm-twist this issue the way he wants, despite the RfC consensus. The editor should be banned for continuous disruption, and refusal to abide to consensus - which can and should be discussed at WP:AN/I. WP:HEAR, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:NOTHERE apply.-- cyclopia speak! 14:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Decision of the Mediation Committee

 * Recommend rejection: Majority of opponents decline mediation (and one more conditions acceptance on inclusion of conduct issues which we do not handle here, so is in effect also a decline). — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:38, 26 September 2014 (UTC) (Committee member)
 * Reject: Majority of parties decline mediation. Mediation prerequisite #5 not met. For the Mediation Committee. — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 16:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)