Seems that the page [1](X), which was used as a source for the information linking TNG actor Brad Phillips to the gay porn star, has been removed at the request of Brad Phillips who confirmed the information was true during the telephone conversation. Now someone, maybe Brad, is trying to remove the information from this page as well. Brad says "he is ashamed of his past career now that he is a born-again Christian." So that's the situation. Didn't we remove someone's birthday once because they didn't want people to know how old they were? --Bp 23:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

We removed an actor's birthday at his request, but the birthday was not readily available to the public. We seem to have the same issue here now that the source connecting Phillips to Trek is gone; if we can't find another source,w e may have to delete this page entirely, which would suck very much big time. --From Andoria with Love 23:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

"which would suck very much big time"? Stop with the gay porn jokes you insensitive clod! Anyway, some more information: the actor who's birth year was removed is Todd Bryant (talk). Also there is the issue of Marco Palmieri (talk). Todd Bryant's information was completely purged from talk and history. So there is now some precedent for making a fact unmentionable. Can we mention that the fact is unmentionable? But, also, that blog link wasn't the only source of information. Click the links in the "External links" section, if you dare. --Bp 00:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Michael Okuda's birthday was also removed under the same pretenses, though it seems that little clandestine move was performed with little say and less nay. Additionally, this is a person's bio, there is much more to the removal of this, versus a trivial birthyear or screencap. It's not like his "work" isn't (likely readily) available to the mass pubic. --Alan 00:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
RE:Bp: Yes it is. I loved doing Star Trek NG. It was so cool being an extra on that show. I was on about 10 episodes. I was first one of the proto type costume guys and got to model costumes for Gene Rod. and producers then became an extra 3 months later. I do appreciate the removal of the adult entertainment history. I am a good person with a new spiritual life, walking in a better direction thank you for your understanding. My acting name on Star Trek was Steven Oliver not Brad Phillips thank you. --DJ Pirate Steve.
RE: bp, for the record, that wasn't a gay porn joke, just a poor choice of words. That's actually a phrase I tend to use a lot; I'm sure I've used it on Memory Alpha many times. It's derived from an episode of Harvey Birdman, Attorney at Law in which Hadji from Jonny Quest explains how certain people owe other people "very much big time." Just thought I would clarify that.
RE: Alan, Mike Okuda's birth year was uncited, and I couldn't find a valid source for it.
RE: DJ Pirate Steve -- thank you very much for this information! I hope we can accommodate your request somehow or reach some sort of compromise. Since you do not wish to acknowledge your prior work in the adult film industry and since you went under a different name and since the is prior precedence of us removing some personal information upon request, then perhaps we could very well remove the info detailing your adult film work. I don't have a problem with removing it now that everything's been explained. You must understand, though, that, as an encyclopedia, we try to be as complete as possible so it will probably need to be discussed a bit before we remove it -- unless everyone agrees with its removal, in which case, there won't be any problem. :) --From Andoria with Love 03:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Support removal if that's what he wants. It's about him, after all.--31dot 03:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to vote either way at the moment, but please think about what you're doing here before deciding anything. Some past examples about removing or not removing information have been brought up, but the circumstances were actually different from case to case. There's the Marco Palmieri case (very relevant talk page, btw) - there, the subject of an article wanted to have all valid information about himself to be erased and never be added again, although information could be cited and was relevant.
The other cases are about individual pieces of information that couldn't be cited in the first place, and thus should probably have been removed (or not added in the first place) even without "subject request".
Here, we have information that apparently can be cited. However, the question is whether information about the article's subject unrelated to Star Trek is relevant, and thus needs to be kept in this article.
So, whatever is being decided here, it should be based on some general understanding of "citeability" and/or "relevancy" - and that understanding should be put in policy form somewhere, to be applied consistently in all such cases. It can't be that we're deciding to remove one piece of information just because it might be awkward for someone, and perhaps keep the next bit of information although it is equally awkward for someone else. -- Cid Highwind 15:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Most of my view was based on the information that the prior work in question was under a different name. If this person was still using the same name, I might feel differently.
I do agree that we should have a larger discussion about policy in this area, to allow for consistency across MA.--31dot 15:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Since I doubt that any Mr. Oliver's/Mr. Phillips' adult films have any Trek connections, we could remove that information as being irrelevant to Trek, as I believe Cid suggested above. --From Andoria with Love 20:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I didn't really suggest that, because I'm trying to see the bigger picture here. If we remove "other work" of an actor (adult content or not) in one case, based on some definition of "relevancy", then why shouldn't that same definition apply in many other cases as well? For example, the first actor article I found using Special:Random is "William Smithers" - where, apart from some 6-degrees style name-dropping, probably everything but the first paragraph has the same "relevancy" and should be removed.
I'm not advocating that removal, mind you, as I think it adds flavour to an otherwise very bland article - just asking how this case might be different from that. -- Cid Highwind 00:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't see why removing the information here should have any effect on any other page. We should only get into this discussion if the person wants the information removed. If no such request is made, we follow our ordinary rules of what is and isn't relevant. So, in this situation, I think we should remove info if:
  • The person requests it
  • The information is not particularly relevant to Star Trek, and
  • The removal request is reasonable (eg. it's a personal detail/birthdate or some embarassing career we don't really have to reveal)
If the person doesn't request removal, then none of these considerations effect any other page. It's not "relevancy" or "citability" alone that gets the info removed, it's the combination of the above factors.– Cleanse 00:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Cleanse...except for #3. Embarrassing career? No. It was stuff they did. Under a pseudonym... but something they did all the same. For argument's sake... take the guy who played Worf's kid... he got charged (and jailed I think)... should we remove that if he asks? No. Same applies here, in my view of the world. -- Sulfur 02:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Of course, what is "reasonable" would always be something to discuss. I should have phrased my comment better - more like "Is it reasonable to remove this birthdate or career detail".– Cleanse 10:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Removal (or non-removal, for that matter) of information here will have an effect on other pages - just have a look at earlier comments in this discussion: previous decisions to remove or keep bits of information are being cited as precedence influencing the decision here. The same will happen with this discussion in case of future requests for removal - that's the nature of at least this wiki, and probably wikis in general. :)
That aside - one problem with removing information on request, while not removing information otherwise, is that it will make the wiki look inconsistent. Inconsistency will lead to someone trying to re-add the same information in the future, as long as it is publicly available. What do we do then? We shouldn't warn/ban/attack the new user for adding valid information - and we can't put a note regarding the "unwanted" information somewhere without defeating the purpose of actually removing it now.
The only way out seems to be one where we define a "relevancy" criterion (even Cleanse's suggestion still contains that) and allow the removal of information according to that criterion even without explicit subject request - because, as we're seeing here, right now, requesting some piece of information to be removed only brings more attention to it, not less. -- Cid Highwind 10:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
So long as such a "relevancy" criterion doesn't involve the removal of all the "six degrees" information found on practically every performer/production staff article I've ever edited. ;) --From Andoria with Love 10:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I apologize that an article I wrote is causing so much trouble. I think the list of films Mr. Phillips appeared in is not necessary. But with all respect this career is part of his life and we are an encyclopedia which is listing all possible and relevant information to a specific person or link to these information. If I understand it right the "wish" include the removal of the text except the first paragraph and the external links. IMO we can put this together and only say that Mr. Phillips had a career in the adult film industry and was photographed for several magazines and print-ads, and remove the links except the IMDb listings. Two weeks ago I had a discussion with an actor who wanted to removed the whole article about him because of his privacy although I would say people in the entertainment industry should know that they should not work in this industry if they're so concerned about their privacy. I've tried to tell him that he is a part of Star Trek and also a part of this encyclopedia which should list all known facts without opinions or "thoughts" and his name could be found on several sites in the web. Were will we go when we remove complete articles at request? Then this encyclopedia will not list all known facts and is incomplete. I know that this is not the case here, just want to mention this. Maybe Mr. Phillips can provide us with more information about him and his career. I am sure he did more work in film and television than Star Trek and these other productions and this would expand the article and maybe leave just a short sentence about this at the end of the article. Just my thoughts on this. – Tom 17:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Plan & Vote Edit

So apparently he has contacted Wikia and tried to have this removed, and the discussion hasn't gone anywhere for some months, so this is an attempt to conclude this issue.

Points Edit

  • The man is now a "born-again Christian" and he "is ashamed of his past" career. Whether he should be or not is irrelevant. He is.
  • Due to MA's status as a Wiki, it is not reasonable to expect a piece of otherwise completely true and relevant information could be hidden. There is simply no reliable process to keep a fact unmentionable because there are (supposed to be) no secret policies or discussions. As individual people however, we can sympathise, and together, at this one time, for this one instance, we can take action and spare this guy the extreme embarrassment and shame he continues to endure.

The Plan Edit

  • Remove the parts of this page that reference his gay porn career, purge the history, remove this discussion.
  • This action relates to this one instance only. It changes no policy, sets no precedent, has no further implications of any kind. If someone was to come along later and re-add the information we would proceed as though this never happened and have the same discussion over again. Obviously, this means an Oppose voter could just add the information again, but we will have made an effort.

The Vote Edit

(Approve supports "The Plan", Oppose does not), Five days and majority decision seems reasonable.

  • Support. --Bp 16:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • As noted above, that seems somewhat reasonable to me. Now, if he tries to have the entire article removed? No. Not a chance. Same as Palmieri, etc. -- sulfur 16:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Perhaps the users involved in this decision can also try and enforce it even after the discussion and data is gone. Again, in this instance only, not establishing any policy or precedent. --OuroborosCobra talk 16:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • (Oppose) Actually, further thought... one major problem that does strike me... is that "Brad Phillips" and indeed "Brad Philips" can be easily cross-referenced to their IMDB entries, and voila. Now, I see above that he says that he worked under the name "Steven Oliver" on Star Trek, but there's no information out there connecting that name to Star Trek. So... if we remove the paragraph with the films, then what's left? A blurb at the top, a broken link, and that's it. So... if we remove a bit, we'll have to essentially remove it all. And what's that leave us with? A picture or two? And no name. So... it comes down to... what's the point? -- sulfur 16:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
    • A stub is better than nothing. --OuroborosCobra talk 16:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
      • The point is to spare the guy embarrasment. Cross-reference makes it harder to find at least, and we've done something, the least we could do, but something. And leave it at Brad Phillips, the last good information we had, it's as proven as most the other background-actor names. The background note can be removed since it "has yet to be verified" and the link is broken. Yeah, it would be a stub. --Bp 17:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
    • So, it would look like this according to OC and BP. -- sulfur 17:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - not because I just like to ridicule reborn christians with a past gay porn career (if this is true) - but because this is still not the encyclopedic way to go. We already have other rules to deal with this, and if we'd enforce those, there would be no need for this discussion or any special-one-time-and-no-precedent decision. That rule has been explained in the discussions above as "citeability". If we can't cite a good enough source for this, then tough luck (for us). If we can, then tough luck (for him). So, do we have a good enough source? -- Cid Highwind 17:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. If the information is out there and if it's citable, it's usable. --From Andoria with Love 14:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. On every other actor page we only list references that have other people related to star trek. Why should this be any different? — Morder 16:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
  • That is a good point. As I said before, I will support the information's removal on the basis that it has no connection to Star Trek or because it is not citable. I do not support its removal because the subject asked for it. As I stated in the discussion above, though, there doesn't seem to be anything else which cites this information (unless something has changed since then); that coupled with the fact that there are no Trek-related links to the info, I would say removal of the info is probably best. --From College with Love

Sample Stub ArticleEdit

Brad Phillips (also known as Brad Philips) is an actor who appeared in a few episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generations first season. As an extra he received no on-screen credits for his appearances.

Uncredited Star Trek appearances Edit