Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Wikipedia Review _ Editors _ Would-be admin Davidwr's dark secret?

Posted by: A Horse With No Name Thu 5th February 2009, 4:25pm

Hey, what’s the buzz with Davidwr and his alleged shaky past? Balloonman and some of the Wiki RfA addicts are trying to push him into adminship, but there seems to be some dark Wiki secret that’s keeping him from stepping forward. His statements in the WT:RfA makes it seem that there would be off-Wiki damage if his on-Wiki wackiness became known. Anyone have a clue as to what he’s hiding?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Straw_poll_about_RFAs_from_people_with_thi
ngs_to_hide_in_their_past


Posted by: Kato Thu 5th February 2009, 4:30pm

Take a look at these posts and draw your own conclusions.

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?act=Search&CODE=show&searchid=245e92c3e432073fb7bde6afd5d39ba7&search_in=posts&result_type=posts&highlite=davidwr

Starting with http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=21516&view=findpost&p=146022 by me:

QUOTE(Kato @ Tue 9th December 2008, 11:04am) *

A guy on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/2008_IWF_action&diff=prev&oldid=256704764 (bolding mine):

QUOTE(Davidwr)
as long as album covers like the one at issue are classified as child porn by someone's definition, then I will vehemently claim that I ahve a human right to watch, keep, create, and distribute some child pornography, at least as it's defined by the IWF, and as long as I don't market it as child pornography. It is only when the definition is tightened up to something reasonable that I will drop that claim. I think many Wikipedia editors agree with me. davidwr


Coincidentally, having made that comment, the same editor (davidwr (T-C-L-K-R-D) ) later went and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/BSCOUT13&diff=prev&oldid=256728815 elsewhere made by User:Shapiros10 - the very young editor from the http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=21184&view=findpost&p=141763 who passionately argued against "ageism" at Wikipedia, which he took to mean the "discrimination" against 12 year olds and other minors who are devoted Wikipedia editors.


Posted by: Wikileaker Thu 5th February 2009, 4:38pm

Kato's suspicions are dead-on.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey Thu 5th February 2009, 4:44pm

who is davidwr and why is he trying to give wr a bad name?

ja³ yak.gif

Posted by: Kato Thu 5th February 2009, 4:49pm

QUOTE(Wikileaker @ Thu 5th February 2009, 4:38pm) *

Kato's suspicions are dead-on.

I don't know anything about this guy other than his absurd statements back in December during the Virgin Killer kerfuffle. But judging by http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?act=S...ighlite=davidwr, and some initial research, Squeakbox is the person to ask about this - as he seems to have clashed with Davidwr more than once, going back to 2007.

Davidwr was indefinitely blocked back in 2007 as well, for reasons that are not clear. And then unblocked shortly after by Fred Bauder.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame Thu 5th February 2009, 4:50pm

QUOTE(Wikileaker @ Thu 5th February 2009, 11:38am) *

Kato's suspicions are dead-on.


I'm not following the Shapiro10 aspect. I understand that davidwr make some irresponsible comments about "his right" to child pornography, but how does the kid at the "meet-up" fit in?

The mixture of ubber tolerance of everything from pedophilia and child pornography to bestiality will and a social platform for both children and adults is dangerous beyond description. It is to child protection what Bernie Madoff was to investment. Someday people will be held to account for why they ignored such glaring warning signs.

Posted by: Eva Destruction Thu 5th February 2009, 4:54pm

While I don't agree with his view, I don't think the particular statement you highlight is an outright nutty view; as I read it, what he's trying to say is "if Virgin Killer is classed as child pornography, then the definition is worded too loosely, given that most people who own the album have no interest in child pornography". Just my take on it and I may be wrong; I know nothing about his history elsewhere or whether he has a track record on this issue.

Posted by: Kato Thu 5th February 2009, 5:00pm

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Thu 5th February 2009, 4:50pm) *

QUOTE(Wikileaker @ Thu 5th February 2009, 11:38am) *

Kato's suspicions are dead-on.


I'm not following the Shapiro10 aspect. I understand that davidwr make some irresponsible comments about "his right" to child pornography, but how does the kid at the "meet-up" fit in?

Just the sheer tastelessness of it all. On Wikipedia; one minute you're proclaiming your "human right to watch, keep, create, and distribute some child pornography", the next you're interacting with some 12 year old who argues against "ageism" on the Wiki. sick.gif

Posted by: JoseClutch Thu 5th February 2009, 5:06pm

QUOTE(Kato @ Thu 5th February 2009, 12:00pm) *

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Thu 5th February 2009, 4:50pm) *

QUOTE(Wikileaker @ Thu 5th February 2009, 11:38am) *

Kato's suspicions are dead-on.


I'm not following the Shapiro10 aspect. I understand that davidwr make some irresponsible comments about "his right" to child pornography, but how does the kid at the "meet-up" fit in?

Just the sheer tastelessness of it all. On Wikipedia; one minute you're proclaiming your "human right to watch, keep, create, and distribute some child pornography", the next you're interacting with some 12 year old who argues against "ageism" on the Wiki. sick.gif

That seems perfectly consistant with the "Libertarians do not know how to handle the ethical problems associated with children" issue that crops up all over the internets. (Of course, I am not sure any other ethical system knows how to deal with children either, but that is neither here nor there).

Posted by: carbuncle Thu 5th February 2009, 5:32pm

QUOTE(Kato @ Thu 5th February 2009, 4:30pm) *

Coincidentally, having made that comment, the same editor (davidwr (T-C-L-K-R-D) ) later went and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/BSCOUT13&diff=prev&oldid=256728815 elsewhere made by User:Shapiros10 - the very young editor from the http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=21184&view=findpost&p=141763 who passionately argued against "ageism" at Wikipedia, which he took to mean the "discrimination" against 12 year olds and other minors who are devoted Wikipedia editors.


That's odd. I tried to view the link Kato provided to Davidwr's interaction with Shapiros10 and found that it no longer existed.

QUOTE

09:23, 2 January 2009 MBisanz (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BSCOUT13" ‎ (Speedy deleted per CSD G6, non-controversial housekeeping deletion. using TW)


Posted by: Eva Destruction Thu 5th February 2009, 5:37pm

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Thu 5th February 2009, 5:32pm) *

That's odd. I tried to view the link Kato provided to Davidwr's interaction with Shapiros10 and found that it no longer existed.

QUOTE

09:23, 2 January 2009 MBisanz (Talk | contribs) deleted "Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BSCOUT13" ‎ (Speedy deleted per CSD G6, non-controversial housekeeping deletion. using TW)


An RFA which was created but never transcluded. Having read it there's nothing controversial there.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name Thu 5th February 2009, 5:40pm

QUOTE(Kato @ Thu 5th February 2009, 11:30am) *

Take a look at these posts and draw your own conclusions.

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?act=Search&CODE=show&searchid=245e92c3e432073fb7bde6afd5d39ba7&search_in=posts&result_type=posts&highlite=davidwr

Starting with http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=21516&view=findpost&p=146022 by me:

QUOTE(Kato @ Tue 9th December 2008, 11:04am) *

A guy on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/2008_IWF_action&diff=prev&oldid=256704764 (bolding mine):

QUOTE(Davidwr)
as long as album covers like the one at issue are classified as child porn by someone's definition, then I will vehemently claim that I ahve a human right to watch, keep, create, and distribute some child pornography, at least as it's defined by the IWF, and as long as I don't market it as child pornography. It is only when the definition is tightened up to something reasonable that I will drop that claim. I think many Wikipedia editors agree with me. davidwr


Coincidentally, having made that comment, the same editor (davidwr (T-C-L-K-R-D) ) later went and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/BSCOUT13&diff=prev&oldid=256728815 elsewhere made by User:Shapiros10 - the very young editor from the http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=21184&view=findpost&p=141763 who passionately argued against "ageism" at Wikipedia, which he took to mean the "discrimination" against 12 year olds and other minors who are devoted Wikipedia editors.




As I am reading the Davidwr comments in WT:RFA, it appears that he had at least one sock account that was up to no good. His indef block in June 2007 was very hush-hush -- the edit summary only states that Arbcom needs to contacted. If this sock was engaged in pushing pedophilia, then there are significant questions that need to be asked as to why he is still allowed to edit.


Posted by: JoseClutch Thu 5th February 2009, 7:41pm

Is davidwr tied to a real name? Should there be privacy concerns about speculating that he advocates pedophilia? Even if the former is no, might the latter be yes?

Posted by: Eva Destruction Thu 5th February 2009, 7:53pm

QUOTE(JoseClutch @ Thu 5th February 2009, 7:41pm) *

Is davidwr tied to a real name? Should there be privacy concerns about speculating that he advocates pedophilia? Even if the former is no, might the latter be yes?

My personal feeling is that (a) there's no "real name" listed on his userpage, and (b) he's (effectively) confirmed the speculation himself on WT:RFA. IIRC this forum is hidden, anyway.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame Thu 5th February 2009, 7:56pm

QUOTE(JoseClutch @ Thu 5th February 2009, 2:41pm) *

Is davidwr tied to a real name? Should there be privacy concerns about speculating that he advocates pedophilia? Even if the former is no, might the latter be yes?


Yes, people speculating ought to be concerned. The more he is tied to a real life identity the greater the concern should be. This is not to say we ought not to pursue the discussion. Always best to tie to statements (such as "I have a right to child pornography".) His statements and the reaction of others on Wikipedia is highly relevant to a critique of Wikipedia.

Posted by: JoseClutch Thu 5th February 2009, 8:09pm

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Thu 5th February 2009, 2:56pm) *

QUOTE(JoseClutch @ Thu 5th February 2009, 2:41pm) *

Is davidwr tied to a real name? Should there be privacy concerns about speculating that he advocates pedophilia? Even if the former is no, might the latter be yes?


Yes, people speculating ought to be concerned. The more he is tied to a real life identity the greater the concern should be. This is not to say we ought not to pursue the discussion. Always best to tie to statements (such as "I have a right to child pornography".) His statements and the reaction of others on Wikipedia is highly relevant to a critique of Wikipedia.


Right, but here there is a range of speculation, from "He made an over-the-topish statement about the Virgin Killer album cover, but probably does not advocate anything" to "he's a pedophilic advocate". Tied with all the associations that come with that (i. e. nobody is going to think you are a pedophile advocate on principle), it might be dicey.

I am just asking, obviously I cannot force the mods to do anything. But in the somewhat more reformed "set an ethical example" era of Wikipedia Review, it seems worth asking "Is it really appropriate to make public possibly dubious allegations that someone is a pedophile?"

I am reluctant to say much about the sock account(s), one of which I am positive is davidwr, and three or four of which are possible. At least one of which is not related to pedophilia, but would very likely cost me enormously if I were tied to it in real life (it is, for the record, not a position I advocate. I am merely saying that, for instance, being tarred as a Young Earth Creationist, or a radical animal rights activist, or ... (other examples) could easily fit the mode here).

Posted by: carbuncle Thu 5th February 2009, 9:00pm

QUOTE(JoseClutch @ Thu 5th February 2009, 8:09pm) *

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Thu 5th February 2009, 2:56pm) *

QUOTE(JoseClutch @ Thu 5th February 2009, 2:41pm) *

Is davidwr tied to a real name? Should there be privacy concerns about speculating that he advocates pedophilia? Even if the former is no, might the latter be yes?


Yes, people speculating ought to be concerned. The more he is tied to a real life identity the greater the concern should be. This is not to say we ought not to pursue the discussion. Always best to tie to statements (such as "I have a right to child pornography".) His statements and the reaction of others on Wikipedia is highly relevant to a critique of Wikipedia.


Right, but here there is a range of speculation, from "He made an over-the-topish statement about the Virgin Killer album cover, but probably does not advocate anything" to "he's a pedophilic advocate". Tied with all the associations that come with that (i. e. nobody is going to think you are a pedophile advocate on principle), it might be dicey.

I am just asking, obviously I cannot force the mods to do anything. But in the somewhat more reformed "set an ethical example" era of Wikipedia Review, it seems worth asking "Is it really appropriate to make public possibly dubious allegations that someone is a pedophile?"

I am reluctant to say much about the sock account(s), one of which I am positive is davidwr, and three or four of which are possible. At least one of which is not related to pedophilia, but would very likely cost me enormously if I were tied to it in real life (it is, for the record, not a position I advocate. I am merely saying that, for instance, being tarred as a Young Earth Creationist, or a radical animal rights activist, or ... (other examples) could easily fit the mode here).

I thought in some countries Young Earth Creationists were http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockwell_Day?

Posted by: JoseClutch Thu 5th February 2009, 9:16pm

QUOTE(carbuncle @ Thu 5th February 2009, 4:00pm) *

QUOTE(JoseClutch @ Thu 5th February 2009, 8:09pm) *

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Thu 5th February 2009, 2:56pm) *

QUOTE(JoseClutch @ Thu 5th February 2009, 2:41pm) *

Is davidwr tied to a real name? Should there be privacy concerns about speculating that he advocates pedophilia? Even if the former is no, might the latter be yes?


Yes, people speculating ought to be concerned. The more he is tied to a real life identity the greater the concern should be. This is not to say we ought not to pursue the discussion. Always best to tie to statements (such as "I have a right to child pornography".) His statements and the reaction of others on Wikipedia is highly relevant to a critique of Wikipedia.


Right, but here there is a range of speculation, from "He made an over-the-topish statement about the Virgin Killer album cover, but probably does not advocate anything" to "he's a pedophilic advocate". Tied with all the associations that come with that (i. e. nobody is going to think you are a pedophile advocate on principle), it might be dicey.

I am just asking, obviously I cannot force the mods to do anything. But in the somewhat more reformed "set an ethical example" era of Wikipedia Review, it seems worth asking "Is it really appropriate to make public possibly dubious allegations that someone is a pedophile?"

I am reluctant to say much about the sock account(s), one of which I am positive is davidwr, and three or four of which are possible. At least one of which is not related to pedophilia, but would very likely cost me enormously if I were tied to it in real life (it is, for the record, not a position I advocate. I am merely saying that, for instance, being tarred as a Young Earth Creationist, or a radical animal rights activist, or ... (other examples) could easily fit the mode here).

I thought in some countries Young Earth Creationists were http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockwell_Day?


Yes, but if you work in hard sciences and are a Young Earth Creationist, you probably would not want to tell anyone. If you work at NASA, you might not want to admit you think the moon landings were faked. And so forth ...

Posted by: Kato Thu 5th February 2009, 11:38pm

Davidwr writes a rebuttal / explanation / apology of sorts. (paragraph breaks added by me for ease of reading):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&diff=268738234&oldid=268737614

QUOTE(Davidwr)
Davidwr's statements on the gist of the nut-jobbery: Without going into details, the gist was libertarian POV-pushing of certain social issues. Before being allowed back, I had a chat with the arbitrator who unblocked me. He was satisfied enough to lift the block on a single account, subject to certain conditions including no POV-pushing. This meant two things: I had to look in the mirror and realize that what I believe is "neutral" is not necessarily what wikipedia's consensus history defines as neutral, and it is the latter that must be adhered to. It also means that it's not healthy for me to edit, or admin, or in some cases even read topics that are likely to push my buttons.

Initially, this wasn't easy. The temptation to read and edit in those areas was high. After a few months it got a lot easier, but when things make the news or wiki-news, such as the December UK ISP censorship, I do jump in. I do have to be careful. Thinking back to December, there were things I would've said but didn't, and probably a thing or two that I did say that Wikipedia would've been better off if I hadn't said. I can't say I will never make a disruptive comment again, but I can say that my level of unchecked, ignore-wiki-neutrality posts will be close to zero, as it has been since my return. I've also had some real-world experiences similar to, but thankfully much less dangerous, than the guy who stared down the tanks in Tienanmen square. A reporter followed up with him about 10-15 years afterwards and basically he wanted to forget it ever happened. He just wanted to move on with his life. Of all the people in China now, he's probably among the least likely to stand up to the government. In a similar way, I'm much more cautious than I was even 2 years ago for standing up for what I believe when I know my viewpoint is unpopular.

There are also things I once believed but no longer believe as strongly. Call that lack of a backbone, call it self-preservation, or call it the maturity of knowing you aren't the center of the universe, either way, the outcome is the same: Whether I get the bit or not, the things that got me into trouble in 2007 are well behind me. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Posted by: Viridae Thu 5th February 2009, 11:44pm

Tienanmen square guy's identity was never publicly released and is considered unknown.

Posted by: Kato Thu 5th February 2009, 11:50pm

QUOTE(Viridae @ Thu 5th February 2009, 11:44pm) *

Tienanmen square guy's identity was never publicly released and is considered unknown.


And let's face it, standing in front of tanks and protesting for a social glasnost in China, isn't really the same as anonymously arguing a few times on Wikipedia for the "human right to watch, keep, create, and distribute some child pornography, at least as it's defined by the IWF". Is it?

Posted by: Viridae Thu 5th February 2009, 11:51pm

QUOTE(Kato @ Fri 6th February 2009, 10:50am) *

QUOTE(Viridae @ Thu 5th February 2009, 11:44pm) *

Tienanmen square guy's identity was never publicly released and is considered unknown.


And let's face it, standing in front of tanks and protesting for a social glasnost in China, isn't really the same as anonymously arguing a few times on Wikipedia for the "human right to watch, keep, create, and distribute some child pornography, at least as it's defined by the IWF". Is it?


I should hope not.

Posted by: Somey Fri 6th February 2009, 5:57am

One thing I can say about most Wikipedians, and this is also (purely by coincidence I assure you) true of most narcissists who are caught doing something bad, is that they're very good at framing the debate about their activities, beliefs, etc., themselves. In as self-serving a way as possible, of course...

Mr. Davidwr (T-C-L-K-R-D) would like to be an administrator, and doesn't believe that his "past" should get in the way, and who can blame him? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Wikipedia_talk:RFA#Straw_poll_about_RFAs_from_people_with_things_to_hide_in_thei
r_past, though (and I've removed the boldfacing, underlining, etc., a time-honored technique for making already-unreadable prose seem even more unreadable):

QUOTE(User:Davidwr @ 04:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC))
The question is, how long is long enough before 70-80% of active Wikipedians would not object to an administrator candidate who had a checkered long-ago past under another account or accounts and who refused to give details of what that past including the specific edits or the specific account, but did openly admit there serious problem in the past and was willing to discuss the issue in broad terms and it was clear that the offensive editing behavior was long-ago abandoned, or if not completely abandoned [see Virgin Killer discussion elsewhere in this thread], what steps the editor was doing to edit with discipline, and would 70-80% of active Wikipedians be okay with arbcom members and checkusers remaining silent about it? Are we talking 1-2 years or 10-20?

Having read that over a few times I'm tempted to say that the answer is obviously "17 years, 4 months, 9 days, 6 hours, and 48 minutes." But by donig so, I'd be doing exactly what he wants, wouldn't I?

In fact, "the question" being posed isn't the question at all. If we were to assume (falsely, of course) that the WP community was made up of reasonably ordinary, responsible people, there simply should be no "question" here whatsoever. People who live within the bounds of modern social acceptability, discretion, and propriety - and those bounds are extremely wide these days - would, instead, want to know whether or not Mr. Davidwr has abandoned, or better yet reversed, his ideological positions on the things that "got him into trouble in the past," assuming those things are in fact what some people are speculating they are. Whether or not he merely abandons the "editing behavior" isn't something people should care about. And by no means should they want to have to come up with some arbitrary number to represent a length of time that has to pass before three-quarters of the WP user base is willing to simply look the other way.

One might well go further by saying that this is not only a self-serving question, but also a stupid question, because no single answer can possibly be correct. But of course, Wikipedia is all about the "consensus," and since consensus can be gamed, that's why you get the question.

You'd hope that nobody would answer this question at all, but of course, lots of WP'ers are eager to do so. And so, he wins, at least in his effort to frame the debate.

Posted by: Bottled_Spider Fri 6th February 2009, 12:06pm

Reading through the David guy's turgid talkpage gives me the impression that he would mud-wrestle his own grandmother for the chance to become an admin. There's an air of desperation about him; an almost single-minded pursuit of recognition and "status" that is very sad to behold. Presumably he thinks that a successful election campaign would nullify his awful past and make him loved in the community. Jesus.

I don't think the Wiki nobodies who are showering him with mindless/embarassing praise ("Now you know, david, why we are so desperate to hurry you through RfA - because that's the kind of AGF and helpfulness we need in an admin :-)") realise how cruel they're being. Or maybe they do.

Posted by: Michaeldsuarez Thu 4th December 2014, 12:22am

QUOTE(Kato @ Thu 5th February 2009, 6:50pm) *

And let's face it, standing in front of tanks and protesting for a social glasnost in China, isn't really the same as anonymously arguing a few times on Wikipedia for the "human right to watch, keep, create, and distribute some child pornography, at least as it's defined by the IWF". Is it?


https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Evil-unveiled.com/Davidwr.

Davidwr was particpant on the Christian Boylove Forum, BoyChat, and GirlChat.

Posted by: Retrospect Sun 14th December 2014, 6:36pm

Why oh why do Wikipedians tolerate fuckers like that? Don't they know it will ruin their image? Bloody fools.

Posted by: Anonymous editor Fri 15th September 2017, 7:18pm

the result?