Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ash

The following discussion is an archived record of a user conduct request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.

---

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 15:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 19:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC).

---

• Ash (talk · contribs · logs)

---

Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Contrary to policy and guidelines, Ash has improperly added citations which reference facts that are not present in the sources to multiple articles, including at least one BLP.

The desired outcome of this RFC/U is a voluntary agreement by Ash to cease editing BLPs (biographies of living people), which require "particular care" in the sourcing and verification of facts as per WP:BLP. Further investigation into the extent of the misuse of citations may also be warranted.

In a recent ANI thread (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive604#Fraudulent referencing), Ash's use of a particular gay porn website as a reference was called into question. In the course of that ANI discussion, I requested that Ash respond to a BLPN discussion from December 2009 in which I had explicitly identified misuse of sources. After multiple requests ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], & [6]), Ash did so, but denied any wrongdoing.

Believing that the subject matter (gay pornography performers) and sources (including gay pornography sites) were discouraging other editors from reviewing the evidence, I went through the articles recently created by Ash to find two that were not related to gay pornography (Pleasuredrome & Chariots Shoreditch). These articles had been edited almost exclusively by Ash, so that Ash was only sourcing their own additions. I found several instances of citations being added to support facts that were not present in the sources. I provided diffs and links to the original sources in a new section of the aforementioned AfD discussion. Despite the agreement of four other editors expressing concern about the citations ([7], [8], [9], & [10]), Ash continued to deny any wrongdoing or take responsibility for their actions. It is not clear to me why this wasn't swiftly dealt with at ANI.

Diffs and links to original sources have been provided in the original discussions at BLPN and ANI. For brevity, and to see the complete discussions, those links are below, as well as links to talk pages wherein Ash explained their actions:

• December 2009 BLPN discussion of Vladimir Correa
• Ash's March 2010 response in ANI thread about fraudulent referencing
• ANI discussion of Pleasuredrome and Chariots Shoreditch
• comments Ash's response on Talk:Pleasuredrome
• comments on Talk:Chariots Shoreditch

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
2. Wikipedia:Verifiability
3. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

1. The initial comments about the sources used in Vladimir Correa came in the AfD in comments ([11] & [12]) made by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz.
2. The AfD's closing admin started this discussion on WP:BLPN to continue discussion of sourcing. User:Delicious carbuncle identified several specific issues related to the sourcing of this BLP.

(Provide diffs to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute.)

1. Ash's comment at the Vladimir Correa AfD that sourcing issues should be addressed on the article's talk page suggests that they are uninterested in dealing with sourcing concerns.
2. Rather than fixing the citations pointed out in the BLPN discussion, Ash resorts to ad hominem attacks ([13] & [14]).

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Jack Merridew 17:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC) — I tried to fix List of male performers in gay porn films and engaged with Ash and others on the list's talk page, circa December. I advocated the removal of redlinks from the list, not using unreliable sources (imdb, specifically), and disentangled several non-porn BLPs from this list (Ben Andrews vs. Ben Andrews (pornographic actor)). Ash seems intent on undoing much of this, specifically creating a huge number of improperly sourced BLPs to flesh-out that list. My impression is that his focus is on inclusion of non-notable persons wo/regard to BLP and reliable sourcing concerns.[reply]

1. Bali ultimate (talk) 16:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Guy (Help!) 21:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. ++Lar: t/c 19:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response to sourcing question raised by Delicious carbuncle

The criticism of "wrongdoing" is not supported by the examples provided. These date back to edits I made in 2009, no more recent specific examples have been given. Taking these in turn:

• Chariots Shoreditch and Pleasuredrome - these are articles created for the largest gay saunas (bathhouses) now open in London, notability has never been in question. The sources for these articles have been discussed at length on the article talk pages. Delicious carbuncle made no response to those explanations (even when invited to do so), continuing to complain on ANI instead. No administrator action resulted. There are no current sources in the articles that are under debate as anyone who examines the articles or the talk page can verify.
• Vladimir Correa - sources were discussed on the article talk page as well as being discussed at length in the ANI referred to by Delicious carbuncle. I removed all questioned sources from the article as I could not see the point of discussing further. The article did not rely on the removed sources for its existence and the article has not been put up for deletion. There are no current sources in this article that are under debate as anyone who looks at the article can verify.
• General "wrongdoing" - I can only respond to examples provided when this RFC/U was raised and these examples were addressed a long time before this RFC/U was raised. I see no reason to "defend" myself against unsourced claims of wrongdoing and I do not believe that is how RFC/U is supposed to be used. As for Delicious carbuncle's confusion about why no action was taken when s/he raised the same points on ANI, this can easily be explained, no action was taken as I acted in good faith and attempted to discuss and address complaints at the time. There was no administrator action that would have been appropriate to apply policy.

Response to off-topic comments about "non-notable" BLPs.

These comments do not seem to relate to articles about actors appearing in gay pornography that I have created. None of these articles has been successfully nominated for deletion as they comply with the guidance of PORNBIO. The comments may be about articles I have not created but may have improved, no diffs or examples have been provided so I can only assume good faith. If any editor feels an article is non-notable it is puzzling as to why they would want to criticise me in an RFC/U and not just go ahead and raise AfDs on the articles. I do not expect or ask to give permission before other editors take action. As for the generic comments about articles "in this genre", I suggest these points are taken up on the PORNBIO / notability talk page and not this RFC/U as this is the wrong forum. I am not responsible for the existence of PORNBIO.

Comments about notability are outside of the scope of this RFC/U as raised by Delicious carbuncle. See #Statement of the dispute.

Response to off-topic comments implying that I have accused other editors of homophobia.

I have made no such allegations. I have explicitly stated (more than once) that there is no reason to believe that Delicious carbuncle has acted out of homophobia. I did once ask a question about apparent off-site lobbying by several editors against gay pornography articles on Wikipedia, I made no conclusions about motivation.

I have been the victim of a personal attack, this matter is not the topic of this RFC/U as it has nothing to do with the BLP issues raised. I ask that Bali ultimate show my family some respect and strike these unsupported hurtful allegations, his/her inappropriate speculation about these matters and use an appropriate dispute resolution process or ANI if they want to make a complaint and not take this RFC/U off-topic.

Comments about personal attacks are outside the scope of this RFC/U as raised by Delicious carbuncle. See #Statement of the dispute.

1. Ash (talk) 07:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. 207.237.230.164 (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

(I have provided some diffs on the talk page in response to Ash if anyone cares to read them.) I wouldn't be considered overly outside/uninvolved here as i've been on the fringes of this dispute and don't get along with ash and a few of the folks who work with him. The core problem here is a simple one: Repeated use of sources by Ash that are advertised as supporting claims that, upon examination, do not support the claims. Whether this is because of a failure by Ash to comprehend the source material or an act of deliberate deception is of no matter; when editors repeatedly falsely attribute claims, in BLPs particularly, there's a big problem. This problem was demonstrated and brought to the attention of Ash. He dismissed the concern and began to write of "hate crimes" "homophobia" and (variously) threats to his "security" and/or "safety." While none of this was specifically directed at DC, as far as I recall, it certainly created the strong implication that the user he was in a dispute with was guilty of these and other crimes. The evidence for it? To this point, none provided. So a nice outcome would also include an undertaking from Ash not to launch such apparent personal attacks without strong evidence for them.

I am also concerned about the use of the porn industry's marketing tools (the "Grabby Awards" the "Gay Video News Awards" etc...) to both establish purported facts and to determine "notability" for BLP subjects, but this problem is a large one that extends far beyond Ash and probably will need to be addressed by other means (a difficult problem; given the partisans who created their own special notability guidelines at the porn wikiproject). The porn industry routinely lies about the physical measurements, names, biographical backgrounds, likes/dislikes etc... of its performers and so its promotional literature and events should not be used as reliable sources.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Bali ultimate (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Jack Merridew 17:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC) — Many of the "sources" being pasted about are simply industry marketing tools; this is not an issue unique to Ash or even to porn articles. It's problem in large area of the project. Reliable Independent Sources really should be independent of the subject being covered. A huge number of sources on-offer are pretty tight with their subjects.[reply]
3. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:39, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. This entire subject area needs an outside review to weed out this "we determine our own reliable sources" mentality. Tarc (talk) 15:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
7. The whole subject suffers from this systemic weakness Schrandit (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
8. Exactly so. ++Lar: t/c 19:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. Regrettably. AniMate 17:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10. Sensible and accurate. Pantherskin (talk) 07:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the deisred outcome this RFC/U (a voluntary agreement by Ash to cease editing BLPs) is somewhat futile and harsh. Futile, since it is apparent that Ash has ALREADY stopped editing; and harsh given that this was a disagreement between editors, not instructions from any Admin (as the ANI did not receive Admin intervention). Perhaps Ash might have been significantly more BOLD that you're accustomed, but this does not make all their edits incorrect.

If further investigation into the extent of the misuse of citations may also be warranted is a goal, I would support your investigating that.

I also need to note that some of Bali's comments above stray somewhat off-topic of Ash's editing of BLP's. 207.237.230.164 (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. 207.237.230.164 (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who often defends Wikipedia by saying some articles are good and some are bad, it all depends on how they are sourced, the mis-attribution of sources is a very serious problem. Obviously, there are serious problems with BLP's, but, as noted, there are also problems when it occurs in non-BLP articles.

With nothing better to do,for some reason I decided to go through Ash's history, and quickly (within 10 to 15 minutes, maybe) found three problematic additions to sources. Listed in chronological order they are:

1) Wind turbines (UK domestic) This was one of the first articles that Ash worked on. He created it in 2006. The problematic citation is number 2. The article states that "In England planning permission has been granted to only 50% of applications while in Scotland more than 90% are being approved." However, if you look at the source, which from the time he checked is now available on the Internet Archive, nowhere is this data found on that page. Now, maybe it is somewhere on this website. But, it seems to me that it is the responsibility of the person adding the source that the source directs the person directly to where the information is.

2)Council of London (1102) In these two edits, Ash added a source to the sentence "It is best known for confirming homosexuality a sin in the English and wider church[2], and for outlawing the export of Christian slaves to non-Christian lands." with this: (Boswell, 1981) p.215 states "The Council of London of 1102 ... insisted that in future sodomy be confessed as a sin." To me, it seems that the citation is for the entire clause, that this Council is best known for confirming homosexuality as a sin. Reading the source quotation, though, it shows that the Council made homosexuality a sin, but, it is far from clear that it is best known for that. I don't have access to the book in question, but, it seems to me that Ash, who must have had access to the book in question, could have taken the initiative to either explain more fully what the council or rewrite the sentence so that referenced material was referenced and non referenced material was not. This is probably the weakest of the three examples, but, I feel it is still relevant.

3) Regiving. In this edit, Ash added an article on regifting as the main source for an article on regiving. The citation is entirely about regifting, which is a specific act about giving an unwanted gift to another person, as opposed to just giving unwanted goods. Regiving now redirects to regifting, so maybe it is a difference between British and American English. But, it seems to me that Ash should have either put the article at the bottom of the page under a further reading category, or placed the reference where regifting was on the page on the page. But, no where in the citation that was added was the word regiving defined as it was where the citation was placed in the article.

These might seem like minor concerns, and I am sure that Ash added this information with the best intentions. But, if Wikipedia is to have any trust as an encyclopedia, references must be correctly placed in articles, whether BLP or not. It seems natural that editors edit articles to match the what any references they have added to an article say, and not leave it for others to do so at a later date.

I have no interest in the Wikidrama that is going on between the editors involved, nor do I want to pile onto Ash in a time of personal sorrow. But, I wanted to make my opinion known about the importance of the correct sourcing of all articles on Wikipedia

Users who endorse this summary:

1. XinJeisan (talk) 08:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Historically, sourcing seems to be a problem with this user. However, these examples are years old. AniMate 17:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Old, but seems to be part of an ongoing pattern.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Convincing and apparently a worrisome pattern. Pantherskin (talk) 07:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Old edits, but problematic pattern. -- Cirt (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

User has stopped editing Wikipedia. Delisted due to inactivity.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.