Elliot Page

I reckon a special display logic was implemented to mitigate the "problem" of a class of event known as deadnaming.

I've not found any other pages in the same peculiar condition, so I hope that I reckoned incorrectly. Yet who knows what kind of experiments are afoot?

Right, never mind. I see how it works. The inconsiderate lack of announcement would likely be to mitigate two things: (1) overflow of personal requests pursuant to new policy; (2) overflow of panic scraping of site content.

This forum doesn't have a great track record regarding discussion of gender issues. Didn't it get Ed suspended?

I was never certain as to why such a diligent helper of customers was banned (for the final time), but I thought it might have been due to something more along the lines of name-calling or disparaging remarks against fellow conversers in regards to any semi-political social subject matter, not only gender issues. Maybe there was stalking and pestering involved? Perhaps beyond the forum? Such is more serious of a pattern of undesirable behavior. There was a period of time in year 2020 when I simply wasn't paying all that close of an attention to the IMDb Community forum. I don't know what went down in threads that I hadn't set to "follow" mode, for receiving notifications via email. The migration from GetSatisfaction to Sprinklr kind of inspired me to become more active again, not to mention that I wasn't particularly able to binge-play some of my preferred video games.

Wow. Okay.

Well, there are exchanges of words that occur confidentially among participants of the forum, or between the IMDb staff and somebody who isn't IMDb staff. How people conduct themselves in those conversations (or in the explanation fields in the submission interface) is just as important as how they do in public. We can never really know in what ways customers or contributors have committed offenses against IMDb, whensoever the offenses are address strictly through a private channel. I'm definitely no saint. There are some anonymous stalkers of the forum who are well aware of at least one unacceptable judgemental remark that I made about the the IMDb staff, of all entities, back before I was broken of the habit. That only cover events that IMDb non-staff besides myself can see. I'm polite through the Help Desk or contact form, so that signifies discrepancy on my part. Sometimes people like the rabblerouse on the forum, and I for a period of time was that way. I could still be, but I prefer not to reinforce negative emotions, so let it be shift-graded from "victim" rabblerousing to the more standard "good spirits" grandstanding.

Enough about me. I suppose, Kati Knitt and Emma Arpin deserve congratulations for achieving some variation of their goals for IMDb. Maybe this next bit is a matter of perspective, but I don't recall ever observing a thread containing disgraceful discussions of gender issues. There have been several outspoken participants of the forum who were highly unsympathetic to issues, but none of them abused the activists, not even our dear Rob Sieger with his traditional sentiments.

The way I see it, Ed got Ed suspended. He seemed to enjoy pissing people off and stated on more than one occasion that he didn't care about when that happened. The biggest surprise for me was that IMDb allowed him as long on GetSat as they did.

About the congratulations for Kati Knitt and Emma Arpin: They were advocates of removing data from a database and they have succeeded. The result will be a less complete database and users unable to find certain information (as is pointed out in this thread, searching for 'Ellen Page' does NOT lead to the person that played Juno). Also, this might result in people trying to add data that is already listed in the database.

Hi, marco. The kind of data in question was not actually removed from the database, but rather access to it has been restricted to a limited degree. Such is an important nuance, and it represents a whole other can of worms. The database itself is no less complete than before. I see what you mean, though, or so I think; in the sense of how information that used to be present in the content at a specific URL is no longer present there, stricken from part of the overall publication that the website represents. The situation does beg the question about what now is or isn't allowed (as an unwritten rule) in mini bios and trivia sections that are about persons who wish not to be "deadnamed". I find it disturbing the great quantity of undocumented policies IMDb may have. Actually, the situation is somewhat horrifying. The IMDb site authorities are consistently silent about these kinds of problems, no matter what feedback that IMDb contributors and IMDb customers provide. What does that tell us, though?

Jeorj, you're right. Strictly speaking, some data is still on site. The name 'Ellen Page' is still listed, for example, on the page for the film Juno. However, it is not listed on the page for Elliot Page and, as I've said, a search for the name doesn't give Elliot Page as a result. So while the information is still out there, somewhere in the database, it has been neutered, so to speak.

Note also that the birth name of Elliot Page has been completely removed from the database, as per the wishes of Kati and Emma.

About unwritten rules: I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of photos of Elliot Page will be removed from Page's page... So yeah, I share your concerns. I think these are very valid concerns that should be addressed by staff.

Just to note, one of the earlier posts by me (nested under Peter's here) have lost context in the wake of the disappearance of a certain participant of the forum.

jeorj, your link goes to Peter's profile, not to the post.

Right, as I intended. I meant "here" as in "right here above" or "right here earlier", in this thread. Also, as a general rule, I avoid creating hyperlinks that have hypertext consisting solely of the word "here". That's actually a major pet peeve mine. Had I been more specific, I would've made clear that I was referring to the post starting with the words "wow" and "okay". That post was in response to remarks made by Karen concerning Ed. The posts in question were/are nested "here" under Peter's post.

Which individual? I guess, it doesn't matter. Even though the subject heading of this thread pertains to the IMDb name page about Elliot Page (formerly known the given name "Ellen"), we're not really focused on him in particular (here referred to by the masculine pronoun out of the contemporary notion of respect); and we're also not really concerned with Courtney Cox (known for a period of time by the surname "Cox-Arquette"). Anybody who requests for his or her former names to be censored from the publicly-visible IMDb name page about him or her wouldn't likely do so if the circumstances weren't detrimental to him or her. If the requester feels as though he or she made a mistake, then I figure, the entry-specific censorship can be ceased through the same means by which it was instated to begin with. This is probably different from the way that Wikipedia operates, since its policy is to go automatically base everything off published "reliable sources". The world is simply getting too complicated now, and all Western nations may soon be on the brink of unrelenting civil unrest.

That's just an example of somebody who has not requested that his "alternate names" be hidden on the IMDb name page about him.