Coren's Off-Wiki Activities, Would you have voted for him if...? Options

[Coren]

Moderator's note: This topic was split from the Sam Blacketer thread, as the material deals primarily with Coren (T-C-L-K-R-D) 's "off-wiki" activities, which were presumably not related to those of "Sam Blacketer." In addition, several posts containing speculation relating to Mr. Coren's activities on Usenet in the mid-1990's, and how they might be in some way related to Mr. Boothroyd's activities on Usenet in the mid-1990's, were split from there and moved to a non-public forum. Please note that an extremely large number of people were active on Usenet in the mid-1990's, including several WR members. Past Usenet activity is not necessarily evidence of collaboration, or even personal familiarity, though it could be evidence of one's having had a poorly-developed social life during that time.

_______________________________

I don't think that Coren has much of a choice but to do that, as we shall see shortly...

(Read my last akahele post for clues about this...)

Oh, wait! I realize you might be talking about http://gai-eros.org

And here I thought you were talking about something interesting.

For those of you not in the know, I am the system administrator for a Francophone alternative erotica archive site. It's pretty much the French equivalent of the Nifty archive, though nowhere near as large or old (gai-eros is only 13 or so years old). Not only is it boringly legal, but I don't actually have much to do with the contents itself.

(Note: very much NSFW address).

Someone once said that the Internet is but trolls and porn. I dunno about just the trolls, but good ol pr0n is pretty much universal. I do have very strong convictions on the topic of free speech and sexual freedom, and erotica is the intersection of the two. :-P

At any rate, if anyone was hoping to scare me away with this, or blackmail me... hah!

And no, it's not even a secret from ArbCom. I don't publicize my association with the site on Wikipedia for the simple reason that enwp isn't about getting traffic for a site I'm maintaining, and I very much doubt it's notable enough to be an article topic (though, IIRC, it got some very nice positive press coverage some years ago).

As for what this has to do with my being an Arbitrator... well, I'll be damned if I can guess. I promise to recuse if *any* website I am the sysadmin for ends up being involved in a case? Heh.

-- Coren

This post has been edited by Somey:

[Somey]

And no, it's not even a secret from ArbCom. I don't publicize my association with the site on Wikipedia for the simple reason that enwp isn't about getting traffic for a site I'm maintaining, and I very much doubt it's notable enough to be an article topic (though, IIRC, it got some very nice positive press coverage some years ago). ... As for what this has to do with my being an Arbitrator... well, I'll be damned if I can guess...

I take it you don't believe that the "community," had they known about this prior to the ArbCom election, would have cared one way or the other? And you believe that it wouldn't have reduced your vote count significantly?

I'm not saying it would have, but that strikes me as being the actual issue here - not whether or not it would have any effect on how you vote in ArbCom rulings, now that you're in.

[Kato]

As for what this has to do with my being an Arbitrator... well, I'll be damned if I can guess. I promise to recuse if *any* website I am the sysadmin for ends up being involved in a case? Heh.

-- Coren

I remember your answers to the questions during the Arbitration election. They stank. We highlighted them here:

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&sh...ndpost&p=141422

[Coren]

I take it you don't believe that the "community," had they known about this prior to the ArbCom election, would have cared one way or the other? And you believe that it wouldn't have reduced your vote count significantly?

I'm not saying it would have, but that strikes me as being the actual issue here - not whether or not it would have any effect on how you vote in ArbCom rulings, now that you're in.

Given that the vast majority of enwp users are American, it probably could have. (Then again, it's even more likely that being openly Republican or Democrat would have had more impact).

On the other hand, that kind of thing is pretty hard to guess in advance -- it may have had no effect, or it may have had a positive effect (there are, after all, a surprisingly large number of libertarian wikipedians and votes against me might have roused them to support in backlash).

More importantly, it has no bearing on whether I can do the job right or not, it's part of my professional life (which, frankly, is no damn business of anyone except insofar as it can affect my neutrality), and I couldn't possibly think of a good reason to disclose them or any other client that I do system administration for on-wiki.

*shrug*

It's also possible that the fact someone could have a smaller chance of being elected if they are known to be socialist, or gay, or jewish, or black. In all honesty, does it matter? Should we require disclosure of all those things because it might affect votes?

-- Coren

[Kato]

It's also possible that the fact someone could have a smaller chance of being elected if they are known to be socialist, or gay, or jewish, or black. In all honesty, does it matter? Should we require disclosure of all those things because it might affect votes?

But it wasn't any of those things.

Coren, back in December when you were trying to get elected, you wrote:

A serious reexamination of Wikipedia governance will become increasingly important as time passes;

No shit. When do you start?

[thebainer]

I take it you don't believe that the "community," had they known about this prior to the ArbCom election, would have cared one way or the other? And you believe that it wouldn't have reduced your vote count significantly?

Why would computer nerds disapprove of a porn site?

[Coren]

A serious reexamination of Wikipedia governance will become increasingly important as time passes;

No shit. When do you start?

To some degree, it has already started. The audit subcommittee is a step in the right direction (though not as far as I would have wished). Have you seen my original review board proposal?

It's always a bit depressing to feel like you're rearranging deck chairs, and the very great inertia of such a large apparatus as Wikipedia is... overwhelming.

I am, after all, just 1/15th of the Committee. And the Committee has influence but little "legislative" power; even if all the cats could be herded in the same direction, we could not effect revolution.

I plan on revisiting the theme of governance in a few months; to start a real public discussion about moving a little closer to a constitutive system with actual teeth. Expect much wailing and gnashing of teeth as the more anarchist elements of Wikipedia battle this with conviction and zeal.

Ad-hoc governance was good enough to bootstrap the project, but I don't believe it's enough now. *Changing* things will be hard. I'm willing to take the banner up, but I obviously won't be able to singlehandedly give you the revolution you are hoping for.

I can, however, do my best to push in the right direction.

-- Coren

[Coren]

Why would computer nerds disapprove of a porn site?

Because it has teh gayz? :-) But then again, there is a number of hot girl-on-girl action in the archive too, so it would have been a toss-up. :-P

-- Coren / Marc

[No one of consequence]

And no, it's not even a secret from ArbCom. I don't publicize my association with the site on Wikipedia for the simple reason that enwp isn't about getting traffic for a site I'm maintaining, and I very much doubt it's notable enough to be an article topic (though, IIRC, it got some very nice positive press coverage some years ago). ... As for what this has to do with my being an Arbitrator... well, I'll be damned if I can guess...

I take it you don't believe that the "community," had they known about this prior to the ArbCom election, would have cared one way or the other? And you believe that it wouldn't have reduced your vote count significantly?

I'm not saying it would have, but that strikes me as being the actual issue here - not whether or not it would have any effect on how you vote in ArbCom rulings, now that you're in.

Of the terms French Alternative Erotica web site, the only one I can imaging Wikipedians objecting to is "French."

[tarantino]

Of the terms French Alternative Erotica web site, the only one I can imaging Wikipedians objecting to is "French."

Different strokes for different folks, and all that stuff I guess.

[Coren]

Different strokes for different folks, and all that stuff I guess.

Uhuhuh. You said "stroke". Uhuhuh. :-D

-- Coren

[the fieryangel]

It's also possible that the fact someone could have a smaller chance of being elected if they are known to be socialist, or gay, or jewish, or black. In all honesty, does it matter? Should we require disclosure of all those things because it might affect votes?

-- Coren

Yes, and you should also be required to disclose your real life identities, occupations and other things that might affect your positions as an arb.

(Actually, the website wasn't the issue, although that was known...)

[Kato]

Why would computer nerds disapprove of a porn site?

Because it has teh gayz? :-) But then again, there is a number of hot girl-on-girl action in the archive too, so it would have been a toss-up. :-P

-- Coren / Marc

Different strokes for different folks, and all that stuff I guess.

Uhuhuh. You said "stroke". Uhuhuh. :-D

-- Coren

I don't know "teh gayz", but I reckon the material about sex with horses would probably have put off a few voters on your Arbitration election bid.

[Somey]

Of the terms French Alternative Erotica web site, the only one I can imaging Wikipedians objecting to is "French."

Perhaps... I mean, personally I doubt that having "admin of a French erotica site" on one's wiki-resumé would have made that big a difference overall. I, for one, wouldn't have had a problem with it, given that the "You must be an adult to enter this site" warning stays in place - something that doesn't exist on Wikipedia, I might add... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Of course, I myself am something of a nerd, and male, and fairly liberal-minded, so I'm more likely to not care. IMO, women of all political/religious stripes would have been more likely to object than men, and religious conservatives looking to stir up trouble for others would have objected most of all - but then again, User:Ottava rima opposed you anyway, so maybe not much difference on that score either.

It also might have occurred to a few people that the experience Mr. Coren has gained from administering such a site might color his perceptions of how people behave online, and what they're likely to do in the event of a dispute... But personally, I doubt that any but a tiny handful of WP'ers really think in such subtle and complex terms. (And to be fair, I doubt much of anyone does these days.)

Still, I've found it's best never to underestimate Wikipedians' propensity for self-righteousness and hypocrisy! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)


Btw, I suppose we'll want to split most of this Coren-related stuff to another thread soon, since it's off-topic for this thread....

[GlassBeadGame]

I take it you don't believe that the "community," had they known about this prior to the ArbCom election, would have cared one way or the other? And you believe that it wouldn't have reduced your vote count significantly?

Why would computer nerds disapprove of a porn site?

Again, Wikipedians are not all that matters. It probably wouldn't matter in an election on Wikipedia. It might well matter in the wider world. Especially given:

• Wales' Bomis past.
• Moeller "sex with children is ok if the kids consent" statement.
• FT2 "sex with animals is ok"statements.
• The volume of pornographic images contained on Wikipedia.
• David Gerards "skull dance"'response to thwarted efforts at some minimal limits on the offensive material.
• WMF's refusal to take any steps at all in the direction of child protection.

Given all of this another Wikipedian selected for a position of trust with a career in pornography might in fact matter.

[Coren]

I don't know "teh gayz", but I reckon the material about sex with horses would probably have put off a few voters on your Arbitration election bid.

I suppose, though there is some rather icky stuff involving the "wrong" body excretions in there that probably would give some even more pause. (The french slang word you're looking for is "crade").

I don't actually write any of this, I manage the CMS that stores it. Given the stats, I can tell you there are more people who actually enjoy the really... different... stuff than you might guess (though most of the traffic goes to the "tame" stuff).

I'm still quite mystified about why any of this would impact my ability to be an Arb.

-- Coren

[Casliber]

<snip>
Incidentally, "Marc-Andre" is a fairly common first name, and "Pelletier" is, last I checked, the second most common last name in Quebec (second only to Tremblay) -- I'd be careful to ascribe things you find to a random "Marc-Andre Pelletier" to me. In fact, I even know of one that's a dentist that flies small prop planes that was born on the same day I was (which, lemme tell you, makes getting insurance a pain).
<snip>
-- Coren

Wow, never knew any in Oz (surname Pelletier that is), but then again there are very few francophones here. Ya learn something new every day (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

[Coren]

Wow, never knew any in Oz (surname Pelletier that is), but then again there are very few francophones here. Ya learn something new every day (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)

It's a common French name, though especially so in Quebec. It means furrier, if you're wondering. It's very common especially in Quebec because 3 or the the original 100 settlers (the "Cent Compagnons") were Pelletiers; and I'm in the 14th (very prolific) generation off of the Guillaume branch. Not counting the later arrivals, the original 3 have, I think, around 25000 living descendants in Quebec and New England (though, in the States, the name has often been spelled "Peletier" over the years).

-- Coren

Well, that's one of the things that I wanted to have discussed. There are other issues which are being examined. It would seem that other venues are also discussing these issues.

My main question is why weren't these issues discussed before, as in before the arbcom elections?

Well, for your first point, there is the obvious question: Why not just ask me? I mean, too simple? Too straightforward?

As to your "main question", the answer is trivial: Because it had no effing relevance to those elections? I suppose that's also too simple for your tastes -- it is much more fun to evoke all sorts of silly conspiracies and covert things for some people.

-- Coren

[Kato]

In that particular case, I was that Marc-Andre. I think my stance of freedom of expression is well known. And, again, that still brings the same question forward (which nobody has answered with anything else than victorian outrage that I might be *shudder* involved in the pr0n "millieu"): what the hell does that have to do with my capacity to be an Arbitrator?

-- Coren

Is it now "Victorian" to shudder at the idea that you managed a website promoting bestiality?

One of the more curious features of hard-core Wikipedians is the inability to understand boundaries, and the inability to differentiate between exploitation and erotica. During the numerous debates about pedophilia and sexualized images of children on Wikipedia, it became apparent that many Wikipedians actually saw the matter as one of Freedom of Speech. This was extraordinary to observe. Wikipedians also seemed unable to distinguish between what was adult pornography, and what was gross exploitation / abuse of vulnerable subjects.

Another feature of their arguments was the use of cringy Internet-speak to defend themselves. Lots of "Think of The Children" mocking against complainants.

Coren, you can write things like "pr0n" all you like to try to play the site down, but a place that advocates abusing animals isn't anything to do with "pr0n" or "freedom of speech".

[Coren]

Is it now "Victorian" to shudder at the idea that you managed a website promoting bestiality?

[...]

Coren, you can write things like "pr0n" all you like to try to play the site down, but a place that advocates abusing animals isn't anything to do with "pr0n" or "freedom of speech".

Your definition of "promoting" lies somewhere outside of reality, Kato. Stories about people defecating on each other, or having sex with animals, or rape fantasies, or -- well, you get the idea -- do not "promote" any of those things. Nor do stories about graphic murders, vast conspiracies, or sex and corruption in the government (or perhaps you'd turn away Christie, Moliere and Huysmans as promoting those things)?

You may not like such tales, and you are in no way obliged to write or read them. You may disagree that they are literature. (Indeed, most of what is on gai-eros is prurient trash in my own opinion as well (though there are a few genuine gems)). Nevertheless, the ability to read and write those stories are a matter of freedom of expression.

-- Coren

[Kato]

Coren is another FT2? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

I don't know. I wasn't satisfied by the evidence against FT2 - and thought a lot of it was overblown and came from a whispering campaign against him.

I've seen Coren's site with my own eyes, unprejudiced, and take a dim view for what its worth.

And Wikipedians need to understand that there is a big, big, big difference between reactionary outrage at some erotica or adult porn, and genuine disgust at the promotion of abusive acts like zoophilia.

[Sarcasticidealist]

Your definition of "promoting" lies somewhere outside of reality, Kato.

Stories that are prefaced with "I tried with this story to make a compilation of everything or almost everything that a man can do with a horse. Though this story is fiction, everything described in it is something that I or a friend of similar taste has done, which is why you won't find an exact inventory of absolutely every practice imaginable, but only those in which I actually engage and are within my physical abilities." come pretty close to promotion, in my view.

(Apologies for the shoddy translation - my French isn't what it once was.)

This post has been edited by Sarcasticidealist:

[Coren]

(Apologies for the shoddy translation - my French isn't what it once was.)

Your translation is pretty good, actually.

Eww.

Would you like to bring that crusade over to nifty? I see have have a vastly more expansive bestiality section at http://www.nifty.org/nifty/bestiality, and a cursory look at the titles show much greater diversity. (There are also more sections there, including man-boy sex which isn't allowed on gai-eros).

It's not "promotion" either. That archive (the biggest in English) has existed for some 20 years at least, and for a long time at CMU on University equipment. I'm sorry if your sensibilities are vexed by not everyone agreeing with the desire to quash authors whose topics of fiction you find distasteful.

-- Coren

[Sarcasticidealist]

Would you like to bring that crusade over to nifty?

No.

I'm sorry if your sensibilities are vexed by not everyone agreeing with the desire to quash authors whose topics of fiction you find distasteful.

I'm actually in favour of liberal laws on questions of what fiction should be allowed (I thought R. v. Sharpe probably didn't go quite far enough in that direction, though I'd rather it go not far enough than that it go too far). But
i. just because I think something should be allowed doesn't mean that I have to respect people involved in purveying it (or want them running Arbitration Committees on websites I frequent), and
ii. that fellow's preamble established him as something more than the author of fiction I find distasteful; it established him, by his own admission, as an animal abuser and a criminal.

(I'm assuming here that that story describes illegal acts; I admit that I haven't actually read past the preamble, because it seemed neither desirable nor necessary.)

[Kato]

Would you like to bring that crusade over to nifty? I see have have a vastly more expansive bestiality section at http://www.nifty.org/nifty/bestiality, and a cursory look at the titles show much greater diversity. (There are also more sections there, including man-boy sex which isn't allowed on gai-eros).

Do you think people writing erotica about "man-boy sex" is a "freedom of speech" issue?

[Coren]

ii. that fellow's preamble established him as something more than the author of fiction I find distasteful; it established him, by his own admission, as an animal abuser and a criminal.

(I'm assuming here that that story describes illegal acts; I admit that I haven't actually read past the preamble, because it seemed neither desirable nor necessary.)

It may or may not. Personally, I wouldn't take their preamble at face value. I've only skimmed the text, but some of the things in there look a little... implausible.

For what it's worth, "the narrator did it" is a fairly old trope in mystery stories, and I very much doubt the authors went and killed someone to write them too.

-- Coren

Do you think people writing erotica about "man-boy sex" is a "freedom of speech" issue?

If they write about it rather than go out and do it, yes, without a doubt. I'd suggest castration with a blunt instrument for those who do rather than write, though.

And if it were promotion, "go out and do these things", then repeated application of a brick to the cranium sounds about right.

-- Coren

[Kevin]

Do you think people writing erotica about "man-boy sex" is a "freedom of speech" issue?

If they write about it rather than go out and do it, yes, without a doubt. I'd suggest castration with a blunt instrument for those who do rather than write, though.

And if it were promotion, "go out and do these things", then repeated application of a brick to the cranium sounds about right.

-- Coren

Even if such writing is illegal - http://www.efc.ca/pages/law/cc/cc.163.1.htm? Much the same law as Australia, so far as I am aware.

Glad to find out where you stand though.

[Sarcasticidealist]

Even if such writing is illegal - http://www.efc.ca/pages/law/cc/cc.163.1.htm?

That definition was narrowed somewhat by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Sharpe - not sure of the legal situation in Australia, but in Canada statutes will often stay on the books after they're declared unconstitutional, so you really need both the statute and case law to know what the law is.

[Obesity]

It's not improbable that Coren, like FT2, is {involved in usual sexual practices} (Note: Substitution by moderator) or something like unto it. I'd bet a modest sum of money that he is.

However, I'll get behind him (figuratively speaking) him on the freedom of expression front, as it pertains to the realistic depictions of upsetting and despicable acts (though I stop well short of affiriming one's "right" to post gross images Wikipedia).

There are quite respectable genres of heavy metal, hentai, literature, horror flicks, etc, that deal exclusively with such subject matter, in a manner that--ambiguously or otherwise--seems to condone or celebrate the acts.

For example, any serious student of cinema will tell you that Salo is a meaningful and groundbreaking movie... Unfortunately, the fact that Passolini actually was a twisted fuck and a pederast in real life, does little to bolster the argument that the knowing-narrator thing is an innocent "trope", entirely separate from the monsters he creates on the page.

I daresay that, for a genius afflicted with such demons, this sort of art is therapeutic/cathartic, and that--whether they were making art or not--they would be up to no fucking good in their downtime. So hate the artist, not the art. Unless it's, like, really amateurish and stupid.... which I suppose most of the stories on Coren's website are... but I wouldn't know.

This post has been edited by Somey:

[Milton Roe]

Your definition of "promoting" lies somewhere outside of reality, Kato.

Stories that are prefaced with "I tried with this story to make a compilation of everything or almost everything that a man can do with a horse. Though this story is fiction, everything described in it is something that I or a friend of similar taste has done, which is why you won't find an exact inventory of absolutely every practice imaginable, but only those in which I actually engage and are within my physical abilities."

Well, then one supposes it doesn't include rupturing one's colon and dying of peritonitis. Since you'd have to be alive to tell about it... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/mellow.gif)

[EricBarbour]

Those stories are greatly improved by running them thru Google Translate.
Thus:

We had all taken part in ridding the table, back at the show said Lucia sas hugs with Amandine, they literally ate one undresses the other and vice versa. Pierre, he had had the quilt on the floor after entering Vulcan and Thor, he undressed burning impatience to protrude through one of the dogs, me offering to take care of the second.

Coast to coast, we were assembled by him and me by Thor Vulcan, for our pleasure. I took the bite of my new friend to masturbate, it made me politeness. Tortionnant me a bit, I managed to dive head under him for sucking. It was great a big bite of a dog in my ass and a beautiful tail in mouth, I was delighted!

Excellent.......... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[Milton Roe]

Those stories are greatly improved by running them thru Google Translate.
Thus:

We had all taken part in ridding the table, back at the show said Lucia sas hugs with Amandine, they literally ate one undresses the other and vice versa. Pierre, he had had the quilt on the floor after entering Vulcan and Thor, he undressed burning impatience to protrude through one of the dogs, me offering to take care of the second.

Coast to coast, we were assembled by him and me by Thor Vulcan, for our pleasure. I took the bite of my new friend to masturbate, it made me politeness. Tortionnant me a bit, I managed to dive head under him for sucking. It was great a big bite of a dog in my ass and a beautiful tail in mouth, I was delighted!

Excellent.......... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

Methinks whatever was lost in translation there, was probably better lost. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

[Somey]

Methinks whatever was lost in translation there, was probably better lost. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Indeed. Funny though this may be, it's also rather unfair. I mean, if we're going to make fun of Coren here for administering a website that promotes these, er, unusual sexualpractices, we might as well make fun of all the Wikipedia admins for administering Wikipedia, which essentially promotes such practices too.

All I'm saying is that we shouldn't single out one person for involvement in this sort of thing, even if he is doing it on two sites, rather than just one...

[JohnA]

Methinks whatever was lost in translation there, was probably better lost. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif)

Indeed. Funny though this may be, it's also rather unfair. I mean, if we're going to make fun of Coren here for administering a website that promotes these, er, unusual sexualpractices, we might as well make fun of all the Wikipedia admins for administering Wikipedia, which essentially promotes such practices too.

All I'm saying is that we shouldn't single out one person for involvement in this sort of thing, even if he is doing it on two sites, rather than just one...

I think the point is: these are the kinds of people who are controlling an online encyclopedia that any child can see. I also think Coren shows admirably what is wrong with Wikipedia's governance.

[LessHorrid vanU]

...

I think the point is: these are the kinds of people who are controlling an online encyclopedia that any child can see. I also think Coren shows admirably what is wrong with Wikipedia's governance.

Since, as every parent knows, your children are just dying to bypass the Hannah Montana website, ignore the Nicklodean (whatever) page, flick past the Disney channel, just so they can comb Wikipedia for articles on unusual and/or illegal sexual practices...

Yes, any child can see - although in reality they don't because it doesn't appeal to them; but never mind, because it is far more effective to conjure up images of blond haired, blue eyed children (toddler age + 2 years, preferably) with milky white skin recoiling in uncomprehending horror upon viewing Tribadism when they had imperfectly searched for rabbit (I couldn't think of anything "naughty" that might be mistaken for bunny) to project ones own moral minimalism upon those who are inclined to allow access to any adult who wishes to peruse articles upon expressions of human sexuality.

If you want to edit the online version of Pear's Junior Encyclopedia, then by all means ensure that it is moderated by persons who are fit to interact with children and young teenagers. When considering the breadth and - a term that might appeal to you - depth of articles within Wikipedia, it is appropriate that persons are not only mature enough to determine the appropriateness of content, but having experience of involvement in some sites hosting adult material is a bonus (for instance, they are going to know what legally may or may not be published on a website). You have a choice in viewing material that you find repugnant, so please allow others the same freedom of choice and if you do have children - or intend to - take responsibility in managing their web browsing to that appropriate to their age.

[Peter Damian]

If you want to edit the online version of Pear's Junior Encyclopedia, then by all means ensure that it is moderated by persons who are fit to interact with children and young teenagers. When considering the breadth and - a term that might appeal to you - depth of articles within Wikipedia, it is appropriate that persons are not only mature enough to determine the appropriateness of content, but having experience of involvement in some sites hosting adult material is a bonus (for instance, they are going to know what legally may or may not be published on a website). You have a choice in viewing material that you find repugnant, so please allow others the same freedom of choice and if you do have children - or intend to - take responsibility in managing their web browsing to that appropriate to their age.

Oh I get it, it's our fault again.

On the argument that having experience of 'adult' websites is a bonus because of the knowledge of what is legal, why not use one of the admins of Boychat or some other pedophile forum who have very precise judgment about what will land them in prison, or not. That would be the logical choice.

of blond haired, blue eyed children (toddler age + 2 years, preferably) with milky white skin recoiling in uncomprehending horror upon viewing Tribadism when they had imperfectly searched for rabbit

Oh of course, those of us who dislike Wikipedian filthy pornographers corrupting our children are some kind of white-pride racists. Thanks, LHVU.

Also it's not really about content that can be shocking to some. Very little on Wikipedia is shocking in that kind of way. What is more insidious is the constant promotion and advocacy of certain lifestyles that can easily undermine the sense of what is right and wrong for juvenile readers. The quote below, for example, (since deleted from Wikipedia) is clearly arguing that while some commercial bestiality pornography is morally wrong because it is abusive or coercive, other kinds are OK because there is no force or coercion involved, and the animals enjoy it.

An adult with mature judgment will view it as the special pleading and big lie that it is. A child, who views this as coming from an authoritative source, will most likely believe it. And so ultimately less support for campaigners against for a vile industry that is still legal in some places and which causes untold suffering and death to animals.

Commercial animal pornography can sometimes be abusive or coercive, and amount to forcible rape, with restraints and force visible in the final versions of some productions. In other cases involving the filming by permission of established human-animal sexual partnerships, no force or coercion is involved and the act is an established mutual interest. Since animals are very open about their feelings and sexuality, the nature of the material is often clearly visible to, and can be assessed by, an informed impartial viewer familiar with both coercive and non-coercive material.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[sbrown]

Of course. Its a law of nature that wikipeida IS NOT CENSORED. How dare anyone suggest that any attempt should be made to protect children from pictures of naked women and worse. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wacko.gif)

We must dance on the skulls of anyone who says such a vile thing. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif)

[Somey]

...in reality they don't because it doesn't appeal to them; but never mind, because it is far more effective to conjure up images of blond haired, blue eyed children (toddler age + 2 years, preferably) with milky white skin recoiling in uncomprehending horror upon viewing Tribadism when they had imperfectly searched for rabbit...

I don't think people are so worried about the 2- to 6-year-old demographic - they're more worried about adolescent boys. For that group, I would certainly challenge the notion that online porn "doesn't appeal to them" - on the contrary, I'd say it was practically made specifically for them.

In any case, these "think of the children!" arguments are pretty much irresolvable. If you try to pass off content-control responsibility exclusively to the parents, as most legal systems have done after throwing up their hands and giving up, the parents will still complain - justifiably - about the near-impossibility of maintaining their own filtering regime, they'll turn to third-party services that are run mostly by censorship advocates, and you're back where you started.

I realize that doesn't help much... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

Anyway, if we're going to bash Coren for his porn-related activities, I still think it's unfair to single him out. The issue should be whether or not his judgement is fundamentally unsound for thinking it's "no big deal" in a more generalized quasi-social context like Wikipedia, but for that he clearly has plenty of exemplars to support him, some of whom have far more extensive porn backgrounds than his.

[sbrown]

he clearly has plenty of exemplars to support him, some of whom have far more extensive porn backgrounds than his.

Surely you dont mean the sainted Mr Jimbo? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ohmy.gif)

[LessHorrid vanU]

...

of blond haired, blue eyed children (toddler age + 2 years, preferably) with milky white skin recoiling in uncomprehending horror upon viewing Tribadism when they had imperfectly searched for rabbit

Oh of course, those of us who dislike Wikipedian filthy pornographers corrupting our children are some kind of white-pride racists. Thanks, LHVU.

...

I apologise for assuming that everyone here would recognise a description of cherub - although upon reflection I should have realised that self censoring individuals needed the extra hint of "wings" to distract them from outraged considerations of Aryan perfection being defiled. Blame me for my Christian atheism, since I am unfamiliar with depictions of idealised innocent children in other faith systems.

And anyhoo, it is a small "v" for fucksake!

[A Horse With No Name]

Your definition of "promoting" lies somewhere outside of reality, Kato.

Stories that are prefaced with "I tried with this story to make a compilation of everything or almost everything that a man can do with a horse. Though this story is fiction, everything described in it is something that I or a friend of similar taste has done, which is why you won't find an exact inventory of absolutely every practice imaginable, but only those in which I actually engage and are within my physical abilities." come pretty close to promotion, in my view.

(Apologies for the shoddy translation - my French isn't what it once was.)

As WR's most prominent equine, may I state that I would never allow anyone like Coren anywhere near the foals in my stable! I also believe that Coren's porno activities make this person a highly unlikely role model for a web site with an extremely high number of minors. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)

Boy, ArbCom really stinks. First a sock puppeteer, now a moral degenerate. Where do they find these creeps? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif)

This post has been edited by A Horse With No Name:

[LessHorrid vanU]

Your definition of "promoting" lies somewhere outside of reality, Kato.

Stories that are prefaced with "I tried with this story to make a compilation of everything or almost everything that a man can do with a horse. Though this story is fiction, everything described in it is something that I or a friend of similar taste has done, which is why you won't find an exact inventory of absolutely every practice imaginable, but only those in which I actually engage and are within my physical abilities." come pretty close to promotion, in my view.

(Apologies for the shoddy translation - my French isn't what it once was.)

As WR's most prominent equine, may I state that I would never allow anyone like Coren anywhere near the foals in my stable! I also believe that Coren's porno activities make this person a highly unlikely role model for a web site with an extremely high number of minors. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)

Boy, ArbCom really stinks. First a sock puppeteer, now a moral degenerate. Where do they find these creeps? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif)

To quote Blake Edwards/Peter Sellers/Inspector Clouseau "Weeeel, furst zey aysk fur zee arpleekayshun paypars..."

[RMHED]

Boy, ArbCom really stinks. First a sock puppeteer, now a moral degenerate. Where do they find these creeps? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif)

How are you defining moral degenerate?

As I understand it Coren doesn't write these stories he is a paid custodian.

By your definition of moral degenerate most librarians working at public libraries would qualify as moral degenerates.

[Kato]

...

of blond haired, blue eyed children (toddler age + 2 years, preferably) with milky white skin recoiling in uncomprehending horror upon viewing Tribadism when they had imperfectly searched for rabbit

Oh of course, those of us who dislike Wikipedian filthy pornographers corrupting our children are some kind of white-pride racists. Thanks, LHVU.

...

I apologise for assuming that everyone here would recognise a description of cherub - although upon reflection I should have realised that self censoring individuals needed the extra hint of "wings" to distract them from outraged considerations of Aryan perfection being defiled. Blame me for my Christian atheism, since I am unfamiliar with depictions of idealised innocent children in other faith systems.

And anyhoo, it is a small "v" for fucksake!

What on earth are you talking about?

By your definition of moral degenerate most librarians working at public libraries would qualify as moral degenerates.

Libraries don't tend to have books of overt "erotica" promoting sex with animals. "Moral degenerate" doesn't come into it. Sex with animals is an illegal, grossly exploitative act by virtually everyone's standards regardless of background.

[RMHED]

By your definition of moral degenerate most librarians working at public libraries would qualify as moral degenerates.

Libraries don't tend to have books of overt "erotica" promoting sex with animals. "Moral degenerate" doesn't come into it. Sex with animals is an illegal, grossly exploitative act by virtually everyone's standards regardless of background.

Sex with animals is illegal in a lot of countries, though by no means all.

Public libraries contain all sorts of novels some with very disturbing themes including incest & beastiality.

This post has been edited by RMHED:

[CharlotteWebb]

of blond haired, blue eyed children (toddler age + 2 years, preferably) with milky white skin recoiling in uncomprehending horror upon viewing Tribadism when they had imperfectly searched for rabbit

Oh of course, those of us who dislike Wikipedian filthy pornographers corrupting our children are some kind of white-pride racists. Thanks, LHVU.

I apologise for assuming that everyone here would recognise a description of cherub - although upon reflection I should have realised that self censoring individuals needed the extra hint of "wings" to distract them from outraged considerations of Aryan perfection being defiled. Blame me for my Christian atheism, since I am unfamiliar with depictions of idealised innocent children in other faith systems.

And anyhoo, it is a small "v" for fucksake!

What on earth are you talking about?

Oh, can't you bloody brits understand each other? P.S. LH[sub]v[/sub]U I think you need to add halos to get the full effect.

[sbrown]

cherub

Doesnt anyone read a bible no more? The cherubs were the soldier angels with swords that God used to stop Adam and Eve returning to Eden! Look at the last verse below.

http://www.dltk-bible.com/genesis/chapter2-kjv.htm

[Peter Damian]

I apologise for assuming that everyone here would recognise a description of cherub - although upon reflection I should have realised that self censoring individuals needed the extra hint of "wings" to distract them from outraged considerations of Aryan perfection being defiled. Blame me for my Christian atheism, since I am unfamiliar with depictions of idealised innocent children in other faith systems.

And anyhoo, it is a small "v" for fucksake!

Stop prevaricating. There is nothing in the definition of 'cherub' that says 'blond hair and blue eyes'. To repeat: you are clearly insinuating that anyone who objects to this sort of thing is objecting to the corruption of 'blond-haired and blue-eyed' children, and is by implication a racist of the worst sort. (I shall Google 'blond-haired and blue-eyed' as a check).

[Peter Damian]

The cherubs were the soldier angels with swords that God used to stop Adam and Eve returning to Eden!

See also Ezekiel cap. 10 http://www.newadvent.org/bible/eze010.htm#vrs14. The word is used to designate the spiritual servants of God, who closely surround him and administer to his requirements.

The childlike putti faces e.g. this sort of thing http://www.mcsweeneys.net/books/everything..._cherubs345.jpg are simply a post-Renaissance fantasy. Note the Raphael putti do not appear to have blue eyes, and their hair is a sort of mousey brown.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Lar]

Your definition of "promoting" lies somewhere outside of reality, Kato.

Stories that are prefaced with "I tried with this story to make a compilation of everything or almost everything that a man can do with a horse. Though this story is fiction, everything described in it is something that I or a friend of similar taste has done, which is why you won't find an exact inventory of absolutely every practice imaginable, but only those in which I actually engage and are within my physical abilities." come pretty close to promotion, in my view.

(Apologies for the shoddy translation - my French isn't what it once was.)

As WR's most prominent equine, may I state that I would never allow anyone like Coren anywhere near the foals in my stable! I also believe that Coren's porno activities make this person a highly unlikely role model for a web site with an extremely high number of minors. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif)

Boy, ArbCom really stinks. First a sock puppeteer, now a moral degenerate. Where do they find these creeps? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif)

I'm not seeing the hard evidence here, or anywhere else, to back up all this... slurring.

Seems like a bit of a whisper campaign to me.

[Kato]

I'm not seeing the hard evidence here,

The hard evidence is that Coren, who has been nominated to arbitrate the largest information source in the world, has another role as "manager" of a database that promotes acts like bestiality. And on questioning, Coren believes that descriptions of acts of paedophilia are a "freedom of speech" issue.

Given the rocky history of Wikipedia, and the controversies surrounding arbitrators in the past, the fact that Coren nominated himself knowing he had that skeleton in the cupboard shows poor judgement on Coren's part, and Wikipedia's part if people there seek to defend it.

However, poor judgement on Wikipedia's part is hardly news, is it?

[Lar]

I'm not seeing the hard evidence here,

The hard evidence is that Coren, who has been nominated to arbitrate the largest information source in the world, has another role as "manager" of a database that promotes acts like bestiality. And on questioning, Coren believes that descriptions of acts of paedophilia are a "freedom of speech" issue.

Given the rocky history of Wikipedia, and the controversies surrounding arbitrators in the past, the fact that Coren nominated himself knowing he had that skeleton in the cupboard shows poor judgement on Coren's part, and Wikipedia's part if people there seek to defend it.

However, poor judgement on Wikipedia's part is hardly news, is it?

Waitaminit, Kato.

If I run a site that hosts pictures of LEGO element based creations, but whose ToS (Terms of Service) allows posting pictures of anything built with any brand of building element, and someone posts some creations that are built with MegaBloks brand elements, that doesn't mean that I "promote" use of those despicable clones (remember, there's the One True Brick, and then there's everything else...) by anyone.

You can fault me for not having set up my ToS correctly in the first place, or even for not changing it, or of poor judgement, yes.... but you can't accuse me of promoting clone usage, because I don't.

[Kato]

We're not talking about using Lego. We're talking about sex with animals.

Where I come from, there is a difference between the two.

[GlassBeadGame]

We're not talking about using Lego. We're talking about sex with animals.

Where I come from, there is a difference between the two.

Maybe the hybrid of "adult entertainment industry" and major provider of after-school and latchkey services for children will be replicated elsewhere. After all it has been such a smashing success on Wikipedia.

[Lar]

We're not talking about using Lego. We're talking about sex with animals.

We're talking about analogies. This one holds, regardless of the subject matter. Allowing does not equal promoting. Regardless of the subject matter.

[GlassBeadGame]

We're not talking about using Lego. We're talking about sex with animals.

We're talking about analogies. This one holds, regardless of the subject matter. Allowing does not equal promoting. Regardless of the subject matter.

No you're confused again. Strange as it might seem "Wikipedia is full of pornographers as well as supporters of bestiality and pedophiles" is not an analogy. It is a literal fact.

But the mistake is understandable. You probably thought it was like saying "Congress is full of whores" or something like that.

[Peter Damian]

We're not talking about using Lego. We're talking about sex with animals.

We're talking about analogies. This one holds, regardless of the subject matter. Allowing does not equal promoting. Regardless of the subject matter.

Even if we concede your assumption that 'allowing' never implies 'promoting', still 'allowing' is almost as bad. Are you saying that 'allowing' depictions of sex between humans and animals is no different from allowing pictures of, er, megablocks?

[Moulton]

Wikipedia is a lamentable study in contrasts when it comes to tolerance vs intolerance.

[Lar]

We're not talking about using Lego. We're talking about sex with animals.

We're talking about analogies. This one holds, regardless of the subject matter. Allowing does not equal promoting. Regardless of the subject matter.

Even if we concede your assumption that 'allowing' never implies 'promoting', still 'allowing' is almost as bad. Are you saying that 'allowing' depictions of sex between humans and animals is no different from allowing pictures of, er, megablocks?

I am no fan of bestiality. And my revulsion of it is far stronger than my revulsion of Megabloks. But clearly it's a waste of time to talk about this, you guys have all already made up your minds and are proceeding with the lynching. Anything I say just gets twisted around. Carry on.

[Peter Damian]

I am no fan of bestiality. And my revulsion of it is far stronger than my revulsion of Megabloks. But clearly it's a waste of time to talk about this, you guys have all already made up your minds and are proceeding with the lynching. Anything I say just gets twisted around. Carry on.

Your argument is what? How am I 'twisting' what you say? You clearly implied that allowing depictions of disgusting immoral and illegal activities was OK although promoting was not OK. I then objected that allowing such depictions is wrong as well - and rightly so. You then complain I have 'made up my mind' about the issue, and that I am 'twisting' your words. How?

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Lar]

We're not talking about using Lego. We're talking about sex with animals.

We're talking about analogies. This one holds, regardless of the subject matter. Allowing does not equal promoting. Regardless of the subject matter.

No you're confused again. Strange as it might seem "Wikipedia is full of pornographers as well as supporters of bestiality and pedophiles" is not an analogy. It is a literal fact.

But the mistake is understandable. You probably thought it was like saying "Congress is full of whores" or something like that.

You're not paying attention to what I said. I drew an analogy. But don't let that interfere.

[Kato]

We're not talking about using Lego. We're talking about sex with animals.

We're talking about analogies. This one holds, regardless of the subject matter. Allowing does not equal promoting. Regardless of the subject matter.

Do you seriously believe that allowing people on your site to boast about having sex with animals, or to describe (in Coren's words) "Man-boy sex" in lurid detail, is the same as some issue about lego?

[Lar]

I am no fan of bestiality. And my revulsion of it is far stronger than my revulsion of Megabloks. But clearly it's a waste of time to talk about this, you guys have all already made up your minds and are proceeding with the lynching. Anything I say just gets twisted around. Carry on.

Your argument is what?

That you are making an unsupported leap from

"runs a site which contains content on a broad number of topics, including some on topic X"

to

"Advocates the practice of X"

Me, I wouldn't run such a site in the first place. And if I did, I'd think harder about the ToS, as soon as I realised I had loopholes that allowed topics I didn't care for.

[CharlotteWebb]

I am no fan of bestiality. And my revulsion of it is far stronger than my revulsion of Megabloks.

Well depending on the order of magnitude this might hint to you that it was a poor analogy.

Of course you'd want to have proper 2257 documentation in case you can't tell kind of block it is. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif)

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb:

[Lar]

Do you seriously believe that allowing people on your site to boast about having sex with animals, or to describe (in Coren's words) "Man-boy sex" in lurid detail, is the same as some issue about lego?

No. Not at all.

Again, it was an analogy about content, site focus, and what allowing content implied or didn't imply about advocacy. Nothing more.

[Kato]

But Coren was not only administering the current "erotica" sites where zoophilia features prominently, he was supporting the creation of Zoophilia forums on Usenet as far back as 1993.

Sorry, but that to me is someone who has promoted zoophilia, by any stretch.

And Coren's response regarding the "man-boy sex" question implies that this is someone with no boundaries as to what is Adult Erotica vs what is tantamount to promoting Gross Exploitation.

The fact that Coren willingly nominated himself for the arbitration committee, with all this in the background, indicates someone completely lacking in appropriate judgement.

[Lar]

How am I 'twisting' what you say? You clearly implied that allowing depictions of disgusting immoral and illegal activities was OK although promoting was not OK. I then objected that allowing such depictions is wrong as well - and rightly so. You then complain I have 'made up my mind' about the issue, and that I am 'twisting' your words. How?

I think if anyone objective compares what I actually said to what you have just asserted I said, it's pretty obvious you're twisting my words. First, I never implied that allowing depictions was "OK" (although I point you to lots of examples of published more or less mainstream fiction that depict various things...)

But more importantly... Again, allowing depictions != promoting. That's the sum total of my point here.

You want to crucify Coren for running a site that allows depictions? Go right ahead. I might even join in.

But none of you have, in this thread, established that Coren promotes. Maybe he does. Maybe he doesn't. You just haven't shown it.

But Coren was not only administering the current "erotica" sites where zoophilia features prominently, he was supporting the creation of Zoophilia forums on Usenet as far back as 1993.

Sorry, but that to me is someone who has promoted zoophilia, by any stretch.

And Coren's response regarding the "man-boy sex" question implies that this is someone with no boundaries as to what is Adult Erotica vs what is tantamount to promoting Gross Exploitation.

The fact that Coren willingly nominated himself for the arbitration committee, with all this in the background, indicates someone completely lacking in appropriate judgement.

That's better. It's at least an argument.

[Kato]

As ever, Wikipedians seem unable to comprehend boundaries of what is tasteful or tasteless porn for adults, and what is encouraging totally unacceptable exploitation. I put this down to inexperience, naivety and that strange libertarian hangover.

Wikipedians seem to find matters of race much easier to determine. If Coren had been running sites dominated by racist diatribes, everyone would be up in arms and he would surely have to resign. "Freedom of Speech" would be tossed aside within seconds.

Whereas sexual exploitation, rape, child abuse, bestiality etc suddenly becomes a "Freedom of Speech" matter worthy of protection. Wikipedians seem to confuse these very real horrors with some kind of woolly Sexual Liberation movement.

I'll never forget the tacky quote from that awful Wikipediot during the Virgin Killer debacle:

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.

[The Joy]

Let me try to understand Lar's argument.

Suppose Coren owns a billboard company. Anyone can put anything on his billboards as long as he gets $1000 a month. A client gives him the money and puts his billboard up. It turns out the billboard is of a man making out with a horse. The police say the billboard is illegal. Coren claims he just owns the billboards and lets people rent them.

Does this mean Coren shouldn't be arrested or held morally responsible because he just provides the boards and it's the responsibility of those putting up the content to make sure laws are followed?

Isn't this the same excuse the Wikimedia Foundation has been advocating for Wikipedia?

[RMHED]

If Coren had been running sites dominated by racist diatribes, everyone would be up in arms and he would surely have to resign. "Freedom of Speech" would be tossed aside within seconds.

In this belief you are totally correct Kato, Coren would undoubtedly have been tainted by association.

It would seem that Wikipedians find stories about bestiality and man-boy love far more acceptable than the promotion of racial hatred.

Does this make any sense?

Does anything on Wikipedia make much sense?

[Lar]

Let me try to understand Lar's argument.

Suppose Coren owns a billboard company. Anyone can put anything on his billboards as long as he gets $1000 a month. A client gives him the money and puts his billboard up. It turns out the billboard is of a man making out with a horse. The police say the billboard is illegal. Coren claims he just owns the billboards and lets people rent them.

Does this mean Coren shouldn't be arrested or held morally responsible because he just provides the boards and it's the responsibility of those putting up the content to make sure laws are followed?

Isn't this the same excuse the Wikimedia Foundation has been advocating for Wikipedia?

Um, that's not my argument either. Unless the stuff the site (that Coren helps administer) hosts is illegal?

[Peter Damian]

Um, that's not my argument either. Unless the stuff the site (that Coren helps administer) hosts is illegal?

The argument is that he (in this hypothetical case) would be morally responsible.

And you haven't answered the argument about if the site involved fantasies about racist killings, holocaust denial and the like. If the argument about allowing-but-not-promoting were valid, would it be OK in the latter case also?

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[thekohser]

Let me try to understand Lar's argument.

Suppose Coren owns a billboard company. Anyone can put anything on his billboards as long as he gets $1000 a month. A client gives him the money and puts his billboard up. It turns out the billboard is of a man making out with a horse. The police say the billboard is illegal. Coren claims he just owns the billboards and lets people rent them.

Does this mean Coren shouldn't be arrested or held morally responsible because he just provides the boards and it's the responsibility of those putting up the content to make sure laws are followed?

Isn't this the same excuse the Wikimedia Foundation has been advocating for Wikipedia?

Hey, hey, hey -- speaking of billboards and the Wikimedia Foundation...

(NSFW)

[Grep]

The question of course is not what you, I or Lar think of this stuff (and I think it's vile), but what the proles would have thought of it if they had been allowed to know it at the various not-a-vote sessions that elevated Coren. Can anyone seriously believe that it would have made no difference? And if, as it surely must, it would have made a huge difference, then concealing it was a form of deception.

[Random832]

Can anyone seriously believe that it would have made no difference?

It is a little-known fact that I base my votes in various contests on Wikipedia exclusively on the total number of words I have read on the subject. If the number is an exact multiple of three, I do not vote, if it is one over a multiple of three, I support, if it is one under a multiple of three, I oppose. So it is a matter of some uncertainty which way I would have voted had there been a discussion of this issue. Does this hold any relevance?

My point is not that it is irrelevant, merely that the subject of whether or not it should be considered irrelevant (and thus whether or not it's worth considering whether people would have voted differently) is not beyond debate

That is,

Sockpuppetry? Relevant. People who would vote differently based on this should be considered.

(e.g.) Race? Irrelevant. People who would vote differently based on this shouldn't be considered.

This issue? ________. People who would vote differently based on this ________ be considered.

Total number of words one has read about someone? Absolutely relevant. Well, maybe not so much, and it anyway begs the question of what conditions should be considered ideal for measuring this.

What this blank should be filled in with should be discussed, not presumed.

----

Note that I am not saying that it's actually irrelevant. I think it probably is [edit: probably is relevant]. I'm just saying that "would it have made a difference" is not the question to be asking.

This post has been edited by Random832:

[Kevin]

I am no fan of bestiality. And my revulsion of it is far stronger than my revulsion of Megabloks. But clearly it's a waste of time to talk about this, you guys have all already made up your minds and are proceeding with the lynching. Anything I say just gets twisted around. Carry on.

Your argument is what?

That you are making an unsupported leap from

"runs a site which contains content on a broad number of topics, including some on topic X"

to

"Advocates the practice of X"

Me, I wouldn't run such a site in the first place. And if I did, I'd think harder about the ToS, as soon as I realised I had loopholes that allowed topics I didn't care for.

Maybe that is a stretch, but there is little difference between "hosting content on topic X" and "facilitating the promotion of topic X". From there to "advocating" is less of a leap, though not one that I am making.


On another note, there does seem to be a trend away from allowing the leadership, for want of a better term, to remain anonymous. As that progresses, past indiscretions and off-wiki activities are going to play a larger role for would-be leaders.

[LessHorrid vanU]

cherub

Doesnt anyone read a bible no more? The cherubs were the soldier angels with swords that God used to stop Adam and Eve returning to Eden! Look at the last verse below.

http://www.dltk-bible.com/genesis/chapter2-kjv.htm

Did you even click the link, or hover the cursor over it? Because if you did you will have noted that it was to the article entitled "Putti"; which are depictions of winged infants so beloved of Renaissance painters and frequently misnamed as cherubs in popular culture - but, as much of the preceding editing indicates, that people are not interested in listening to what is being said by those trying to explain themselves.

At least I have some knowledge of the religion I am atheist upon.

[Milton Roe]

Let me try to understand Lar's argument.

Suppose Coren owns a billboard company. Anyone can put anything on his billboards as long as he gets $1000 a month. A client gives him the money and puts his billboard up. It turns out the billboard is of a man making out with a horse. The police say the billboard is illegal. Coren claims he just owns the billboards and lets people rent them.

Does this mean Coren shouldn't be arrested or held morally responsible because he just provides the boards and it's the responsibility of those putting up the content to make sure laws are followed?

Isn't this the same excuse the Wikimedia Foundation has been advocating for Wikipedia?

Yes. But the law has allowed this very excuse, under the mad sec 230 of the CDA. "You can't be serious" says you. Oh, yes. Not only does sec 230 allow this, but it says that you (the renter of the billboard) can actually paint in the picture of the cowboy violating the horse, and you are still not liable for the content. If it doesn't violate somebody's copyright or their civil rights (according to the case law on the last) you get a free ride (ahem) for whatever you want to do. You're not held liable for standard print publisher standards, IF you publish electronically.

"You can't be serious", says you. Answer: Damn it, you CANNOT figure out what the law "ought to be" by thinking about what should/would/ought to be reasonable, or at least logically comparable. It really is crazy. It is also the present law.

Will it always be the law? I doubt it, because it is crazy. And yet, many crazy laws endure for years, even decades, if the powers-that-be (those who have money) benefit from them. Example: do you like robot dialers to call your home with recorded ads? Your car warantee has expired! Well, they still do it. It may not be strictly legal, but the penalties and remedies are such that if it happens, there's not much you can do about it. Everything you can think to personally do about it, really IS far more illegal, with STIFF penalties. Which will be enforced if you try. It's a situation that 99.9% of people are unhappy with, and yet it's been going on for decades. You follow?

Just one more reason why "the law" is respected only because it out-guns us. Civil society is really just about as corrupt as Wikipedia. Yes, it doesn't have the anonymity problem. But it makes up for it by being directly corruptable through theft/expropriation of real-world goods and services. The Golden rule is that those with the gold make the rules. Even in democracies, although it's not quite as a bad.

[Grep]

Can anyone seriously believe that it would have made no difference?

My point is not that it is irrelevant, merely that the subject of whether or not it should be considered irrelevant (and thus whether or not it's worth considering whether people would have voted differently) is not beyond debate

An interesting point. Concealment suppressed that debate. If Coren was sure that he could make a case that it was irrelevant, and that people who used that fact to form their opinion should not be heard, he could have said so, and the debate could have been held. As it was, debate was suppressed and decisions skewed.

[Random832]

An interesting point. Concealment suppressed that debate. If Coren was sure that he could make a case that it was irrelevant, and that people who used that fact to form their opinion should not be heard, he could have said so, and the debate could have been held. As it was, debate was suppressed and decisions skewed.

Maybe it never even entered his mind that it could be considered relevant. Nobody has claimed to have tried to introduce it at the time, so how can it have been "suppressed"? And anyway, as to whether or not it's relevant - we can have that debate now.

[sbrown]

Did you even click the link, or hover the cursor over it? Because if you did you will have noted that it was to the article entitled "Putti"

So were you deliberately trying to mislead us by linking to one article and appearing to link to another?

At least I have some knowledge of the religion I am atheist upon.

Have you any reason to think Im not a tenured professor of religion? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

cherub

Doesnt anyone read a bible no more? The cherubs were the soldier angels with swords that God used to stop Adam and Eve returning to Eden! Look at the last verse below.

http://www.dltk-bible.com/genesis/chapter2-kjv.htm

Did you even click the link, or hover the cursor over it? Because if you did you will have noted that it was to the article entitled "Putti"; which are depictions of winged infants so beloved of Renaissance painters and frequently misnamed as cherubs in popular culture - but, as much of the preceding editing indicates, that people are not interested in listening to what is being said by those trying to explain themselves.

At least I have some knowledge of the religion I am atheist upon.

[MZMcBride]

Let me try to understand Lar's argument.

Suppose Coren owns a billboard company. Anyone can put anything on his billboards as long as he gets $1000 a month. A client gives him the money and puts his billboard up. It turns out the billboard is of a man making out with a horse. The police say the billboard is illegal. Coren claims he just owns the billboards and lets people rent them.

Does this mean Coren shouldn't be arrested or held morally responsible because he just provides the boards and it's the responsibility of those putting up the content to make sure laws are followed?

Isn't this the same excuse the Wikimedia Foundation has been advocating for Wikipedia?

You've lost me. The billboard is the mechanism to distribute the content to an audience, right? And the content is objectionable to some, making Coren morally responsible?

I see the billboard much like an Internet service provider. Do you call Time Warner every time you find an objectionable site on the Internet? Do you think you should be able to hold them liable (either legally or morally) for providing the content to you?

By the same token, I'm sure there are a few executives at Sirius who find Howard Stern's radio show objectionable (and certainly some Sirius subscribers). But I'm not holding Sirius morally responsible, either. Is that what you're advocating?

I simply don't see how this argument gets off the ground.

[The Joy]

Let me try to understand Lar's argument.

Suppose Coren owns a billboard company. Anyone can put anything on his billboards as long as he gets $1000 a month. A client gives him the money and puts his billboard up. It turns out the billboard is of a man making out with a horse. The police say the billboard is illegal. Coren claims he just owns the billboards and lets people rent them.

Does this mean Coren shouldn't be arrested or held morally responsible because he just provides the boards and it's the responsibility of those putting up the content to make sure laws are followed?

Isn't this the same excuse the Wikimedia Foundation has been advocating for Wikipedia?

You've lost me. The billboard is the mechanism to distribute the content to an audience, right? And the content is objectionable to some, making Coren morally responsible?

I see the billboard much like an Internet service provider. Do you call Time Warner every time you find an objectionable site on the Internet? Do you think you should be able to hold them liable (either legally or morally) for providing the content to you?

By the same token, I'm sure there are a few executives at Sirius who find Howard Stern's radio show objectionable (and certainly some Sirius subscribers). But I'm not holding Sirius morally responsible, either. Is that what you're advocating?

I simply don't see how this argument gets off the ground.

My argument is probably more moral than legal, but if Coren knows people are putting illegal content or content going against local community mores and standards on his billboards, shouldn't he act against the content provider even if the law does protect Coren as a service provider?

[Heat]

Unfortunately there's no way to remove someone simply for not having publicly disclosed aspects of their past.

[Random832]

Unfortunately there's no way to remove someone simply for not having publicly disclosed aspects of their past.

How is this unfortunate - without evidence that he deliberately concealed it (and none has been presented), and no clear guidelines on what should or should not be disclosed, this could hit anyone for any reason - and people are refusing to have the debate on whether or not this is something that should have been disclosed, instead simply presuming it to be true.

[Heat]

My point is there is little transparency when it comes to senior people. If someone doesn't disclose an involvement which many would see as a conflict of interest there are no consequences.

[GlassBeadGame]

My point is there is little transparency when it comes to senior people. If someone doesn't disclose an involvement which many would see as a conflict of interest there are no consequences.

Involvement in pornography among the leadership in Wikipedia is so common as to be seen as not worth mentioning. Only the wider world might give a care. On Wikipedia work is something you do for free and sex is a commercial activity. Go figure.

[MZMcBride]

Let me try to understand Lar's argument.

Suppose Coren owns a billboard company. Anyone can put anything on his billboards as long as he gets $1000 a month. A client gives him the money and puts his billboard up. It turns out the billboard is of a man making out with a horse. The police say the billboard is illegal. Coren claims he just owns the billboards and lets people rent them.

Does this mean Coren shouldn't be arrested or held morally responsible because he just provides the boards and it's the responsibility of those putting up the content to make sure laws are followed?

Isn't this the same excuse the Wikimedia Foundation has been advocating for Wikipedia?

You've lost me. The billboard is the mechanism to distribute the content to an audience, right? And the content is objectionable to some, making Coren morally responsible?

I see the billboard much like an Internet service provider. Do you call Time Warner every time you find an objectionable site on the Internet? Do you think you should be able to hold them liable (either legally or morally) for providing the content to you?

By the same token, I'm sure there are a few executives at Sirius who find Howard Stern's radio show objectionable (and certainly some Sirius subscribers). But I'm not holding Sirius morally responsible, either. Is that what you're advocating?

I simply don't see how this argument gets off the ground.

My argument is probably more moral than legal, but if Coren knows people are putting illegal content or content going against local community mores and standards on his billboards, shouldn't he act against the content provider even if the law does protect Coren as a service provider?

It makes me pretty uncomfortable to think about content providers filtering content that they deem immoral. Illegal content is one thing. Objectionable content is an entirely different matter.

The people who run Internet service providers have the ability to filter all sorts of content, but I don't see too many people advocating that they do it. The uproar regarding the Internet Watch Foundation would be a good recent example in my mind.

And, even if Coren were morally obligated to remove objectionable content, I still fail to see how any of this is relevant to his ability to decide whether to impose revert restrictions on the "Ayn Rand" article or whatever.

[Somey]

It makes me pretty uncomfortable to think about content providers filtering content that they deem immoral.

This is a typo, isn't it? Presumably you meant to say "service providers filtering content." If the person providing the actual content knows it's immoral, then that means the person is either am internet sociopath or well on his/her way to becoming one.

[Grep]

A modest proposal, for anyone foolish enough to still be editing Wikipedia. Just ask at each RFA a simple question "Are you engaged in any activities off-wiki which, if made public, would bring Wikipedia into disrepute?" That makes the concealment unambiguously an issue of deception.

[Heat]

A modest proposal, for anyone foolish enough to still be editing Wikipedia. Just ask at each RFA a simple question "Are you engaged in any activities off-wiki which, if made public, would bring Wikipedia into disrepute?" That makes the concealment unambiguously an issue of deception.

Let's see if anyone picks this up.

[Milton Roe]

A modest proposal, for anyone foolish enough to still be editing Wikipedia. Just ask at each RFA a simple question "Are you engaged in any activities off-wiki which, if made public, would bring Wikipedia into disrepute?" That makes the concealment unambiguously an issue of deception.

Well, there's going to be endless argumentation after the fact. "Yeah, sure I was sending raunchy text messages to my girlfriend with my Apple about what I was going to do to her, while getting details on her life, just before I got my soldier Guy Chapman to do re-do her WP BLP. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) But it's not like we haven't all done that....."

"And having the company pay for me to get to the Russian hookers? Well, it's pretty cheap travel. You want I should walk to Russian hookers? I could freeze something off."

[sbrown]

Are you engaged in any activities off-wiki which, if made public, would bring Wikipedia into disrepute?

Such as a married man having an affair with a Canadian journalist?

[RMHED]

Just ask at each RFA a simple question "Are you engaged in any activities off-wiki which, if made public, would bring Wikipedia into disrepute?" That makes the concealment unambiguously an issue of deception.

Just make sure all admins are under 12, how many under 12's are likely to engaged in dubious activities?

[Heat]

Just ask at each RFA a simple question "Are you engaged in any activities off-wiki which, if made public, would bring Wikipedia into disrepute?" That makes the concealment unambiguously an issue of deception.

Just make sure all admins are under 12, how many under 12's are likely to engaged in dubious activities?

So no change then.

[RMHED]

Just ask at each RFA a simple question "Are you engaged in any activities off-wiki which, if made public, would bring Wikipedia into disrepute?" That makes the concealment unambiguously an issue of deception.

Just make sure all admins are under 12, how many under 12's are likely to engaged in dubious activities?

So no change then.

Apart from compulsory renewal at the grand old age of 12.

[Coren]

Maybe it never even entered his mind that it could be considered relevant. Nobody has claimed to have tried to introduce it at the time, so how can it have been "suppressed"? And anyway, as to whether or not it's relevant - we can have that debate now.

And, indeed, it did not.

Certainly, I would expect some amount of outrage by those who feel that allowing a forum where one can express sexual fantasies (no matter how distasteful) somehow diminishes my own character. (For the record, the topic matters of the very vast majority of what you can find on that site pretty much make a list of "things that would freak me out and turn me off", if someone was interested into making such).

I note that nobody here even bothered asking what my actual role is with this site -- so outraged were they that I dared not join them in universal condemnation of what they don't like. (Also for the record, I am the effing system administrator. I maintain the database software, help with some of the coding, administer the actual hardware -- I neither provide, post nor in anyway handle the contents).

But most of all, I note that nobody has yet managed to successfully explain how doing technical support for that site in any way affects my capacity to be an arbitrator beyond the fact that some people might have been offended by one of my customers. Would you expect Newyorkbrad to give you a list of all his clients? After all -- he might have defended someone you disapproved of! Hell, he might have allowed someone who did something you feel is really really nasty to get off because he did his job right!

-- Coren

[RMHED]

Would you expect Newyorkbrad to give you a list of all his clients? .... Hell, he might have allowed someone who did something you feel is really really nasty to get off because he did his job right!

-- Coren

What a vicious personal attack on Bradley, Coren I'm not angry at you, just very disappointed.

[Coren]

Would you expect Newyorkbrad to give you a list of all his clients? .... Hell, he might have allowed someone who did something you feel is really really nasty to get off because he did his job right!

-- Coren

What a vicious personal attack on Bradley, Coren I'm not angry at you, just very disappointed.

Er, what? I'm pretty sure that making sure a client gets his way is pretty much the definition of what a lawyer is supposed to do. How is presuming Brad does his job well and with diligence a personal attack?

(And if this was sarcasm, I admit total failure on my part in just getting it.)

-- Coren

This post has been edited by Coren:

[Guido den Broeder]

That was indeed uncalled for, Coren.

But most of all, I note that nobody has yet managed to successfully explain how doing technical support for that site in any way affects my capacity to be an arbitrator beyond the fact that some people might have been offended by one of my customers.

It shows bad judgement, so you fail the main qualification for a capable arbitrator. I would not have voted for you had I known.

This post has been edited by Guido den Broeder:

[GlassBeadGame]

I note that nobody here even bothered asking what my actual role is with this site -- so outraged were they that I dared not join them in universal condemnation of what they don't like. (Also for the record, I am the effing system administrator. I maintain the database software, help with some of the coding, administer the actual hardware -- I neither provide, post nor in anyway handle the contents).

But most of all, I note that nobody has yet managed to successfully explain how doing technical support for that site in any way affects my capacity to be an arbitrator beyond the fact that some people might have been offended by one of my customers.
-- Coren

Spoken like another clueless and irresponsible Wikipedian. Exploit women, children, animals... whatever. Your entitled. Fabulous night for a skull dance...

[RMHED]

(And if this was sarcasm, I admit total failure on my part in just getting it.)

-- Coren

Yes it probably was sarcasm with a dash of whimsy, I'm no longer capable of determining exactly what my motivations are. I blame James Joyce, the bastard!

[Cedric]

(And if this was sarcasm, I admit total failure on my part in just getting it.)

-- Coren

That seems to be a very common affliction among Wikipedia functionaries.

[Nerd]

A modest proposal, for anyone foolish enough to still be editing Wikipedia. Just ask at each RFA a simple question "Are you engaged in any activities off-wiki which, if made public, would bring Wikipedia into disrepute?" That makes the concealment unambiguously an issue of deception.

Imagine the uproar asking such a thing would cause! Have you looked at RfA much lately?

[CharlotteWebb]

Just ask at each RFA a simple question "Are you engaged in any activities off-wiki which, if made public, would bring Wikipedia into disrepute?"

That would arguably only leave candidates who have no life/activities off-wiki, so everyone would lose.

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb:

[Kato]

Just ask at each RFA a simple question "Are you engaged in any activities off-wiki which, if made public, would bring Wikipedia into disrepute?"

That would arguably only leave candidates who have no life/activities off-wiki, so everyone would lose.

If a School Teacher was discovered to have been operating that website as Coren had been, he'd be fired. Simple as that.

Seeking a position of authority with that background displays chronic poor judgement.

I'll give you administrators, but if I didn't know better, I'd expect prominent Arbitrators of somewhere like Wikipedia to at least have similar basic educational standards. Of course, I now know better and assume no such standards. That's why I don't go near WP and haven't done for a long time.

[CharlotteWebb]

Would you expect Newyorkbrad to give you a list of all his clients? .... Hell, he might have allowed someone who did something you feel is really really nasty to get off because he did his job right!

-- Coren

What a vicious personal attack on Bradley, Coren I'm not angry at you, just very disappointed.

Er, what? I'm pretty sure that making sure a client gets his way is pretty much the definition of what a lawyer is supposed to do. How is presuming Brad does his job well and with diligence a personal attack?

I can't be too sure but I think RMHED interpreted this (for humorous effect) as "he helps nasty people get off" in some other sense than you intended. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif)

You raise a good point, but it's not fair to single out lawyers. If you shoot somebody who breaks into your house, but the doctor saves his life at the ER... that doesn't make the doctor a bad person. We're all mercenaries once you strip away the grandiose job titles.

This post has been edited by CharlotteWebb:

[Sarcasticidealist]

You raise a good point, but it's not fair to single out lawyers. If you shoot somebody who breaks into your house, but the doctor saves his life at the ER... that doesn't make the doctor a bad person. We're all mercenaries once you strip away the grandiose job titles.

In the cases of both doctors and lawyers, by assisting "bad" people they are not being mercenaries, but rather adhering to the ethical standards of their profession. While the individual's motivation may indeed be the money, both are acting for the good of society as well; hardly "mercenary".

[CharlotteWebb]

If a School Teacher was discovered to have been operating that website as Coren had been, he'd be fired. Simple as that.

Okay if it was limited to activity on the internet, the question wouldn't quite so personal. Or further to the types of web sites one operates... well most people don't.

Faced with a question like:
*"Are you engaged in any activities off-wiki which, if made public, would bring Wikipedia into disrepute?"
Here are the possible responses:
A. "No", because they really have no life, or
B. "No", estimating their Potential For Disrepute differently than the peanut gallery would, i.e. "yes, but WP is liberal enough that anyone offended by it would be banned for bigotry, so no", or
C. "No", i.e. "yes, but I'm confident they'll never be made public anyway, so no", or
D. "None of your business". I know I'd plead the fifth on general principle. That doesn't mean I'm a porn mogul, or a trial lawyer, or a tax collector, or an assistant crack whore, or an SEO. In fact I'm none of these things (you can keep guessing).[1]
E. "No", i.e. "I'd like to say 'none of your business', but that's too WP:UNCIVIL, so no".

Nary a "yes" among them.

Overall the unlikelihood of getting an affirmative answer from anyone makes this exercise even more unproductive than the funky polygraph test Rootology has been promoting. Well-intended sure, but guaranteed not to have the desired effect.


-----------
[1] I do know people whom the particulars of my job would offend. I mean hell, a lot of it offends me too but I can't afford to quit. Like I said... we're all mercenaries.

[Grep]

Overall the unlikelihood of getting an affirmative answer from anyone makes this exercise even more unproductive than the funky polygraph test Rootology has been promoting. Well-intended sure, but guaranteed not to have the desired effect.

Yes, I know, but the point is that when they do turn out to be a lying weasel they can be desyopped for lying rather than being a weasel. (It's like those question they ask you on the visa form: "Are you a Nazi war criminal" for example. It means they can deport you for lying to immigration.) I think the real question is, is there any way at all of getting abusive admins desysopped. The evidence is that there is not.

This post has been edited by Grep:

[GlassBeadGame]

Just ask at each RFA a simple question "Are you engaged in any activities off-wiki which, if made public, would bring Wikipedia into disrepute?"

That would arguably only leave candidates who have no life/activities off-wiki, so everyone would lose.

If a School Teacher was discovered to have been operating that website as Coren had been, he'd be fired. Simple as that.

Seeking a position of authority with that background displays chronic poor judgement.

I'll give you administrators, but if I didn't know better, I'd expect prominent Arbitrators of somewhere like Wikipedia to at least have similar basic educational standards. Of course, I now know better and assume no such standards. That's why I don't go near WP and haven't done for a long time.

Someone with Coren's background would be completely incapable or securing the most humble elected position in the most local level of American political life. The local political landscape whether Democratic or Republican would make no difference. Nor would his individual views or skills. It would be an absolute bar. I imagine it would be the same in Britain.

[Random832]

Someone with Coren's background would be completely incapable or securing the most humble elected position in the most local level of American political life. The local political landscape whether Democratic or Republican would make no difference. Nor would his individual views or skills. It would be an absolute bar. I imagine it would be the same in Britain.

Lacking in this explanation: a coherent explanation as to why beyond "people wouldn't vote for him".

Now, once again, I'm not saying that there isn't a good reason somewhere in there... but if you want to have that debate then have it!

Your existing argument fails because your statement would likely be every bit as true, so far as it goes, if the site didn't have anything other than stories about stuff happening between consenting adult humans. Hell, even if it didn't have anything other than stories about stuff happening between one consenting adult man and one consenting adult woman.

This post has been edited by Random832:

[Somey]

I note that nobody here even bothered asking what my actual role is with this site -- so outraged were they that I dared not join them in universal condemnation of what they don't like. (Also for the record, I am the effing system administrator. I maintain the database software, help with some of the coding, administer the actual hardware -- I neither provide, post nor in anyway handle the contents).

You told us at the outset what your role was, didn't you? I personally saw no reason to challenge you on that...

Besides, essentially what you're talking about is infrastructure provisioning. There are lots of people who would say that the person who provides and supports the infrastructure for a porn site is actually more culpable than a person who provides actual porn. And given what we know about Jimbo Wales' background, I might even go so far as to say that the percentage of such people here on WR is probably higher than average.

[UseOnceAndDestroy]

Lacking in this explanation: a coherent explanation as to why beyond "people wouldn't vote for him".

Now, once again, I'm not saying that there isn't a good reason somewhere in there... but if you want to have that debate then have it!

…but make sure you "have it" off-wikipedia, there's a good chap.

The "why" in this case isn't very relevant. It's quite possible wikipediots may have ignored the issue completely - indeed, given the responses of "ZOMG censorship" during last year's kiddie-spanking fiasco, some may well have considered it a positive.

Or maybe it would have been seen as too bad for wikipedia's reputation to put this character in such a visible position. We'll never know, because the information wasn't available. It's a lie of omission, and it's the kind of thing that makes wikipedia's institutions look increasingly bizarre when viewed from the real world.

[Grep]

What is it about the Inner Party of Wikipedia and zooerasty?

[The Adversary]

<snip>
But most of all, I note that nobody has yet managed to successfully explain how doing technical support for that site in any way affects my capacity to be an arbitrator beyond the fact that some people might have been offended by one of my customers. Would you expect Newyorkbrad to give you a list of all his clients? After all -- he might have defended someone you disapproved of! Hell, he might have allowed someone who did something you feel is really really nasty to get off because he did his job right!

-- Coren

Hmm. My view would be that it is not up to you to decide if this is important to potential voters, I think potential voters should be allowed to make up their own mind as to if providing tech. sup. for any such site is relevant.
Or not.

And I do not think it is quite at level with, say, lawyer´s work: all accused murderers/rapists /masskiller have a right to a defence lawyer, at least in civilized society. I would assume we all agree with that? And if their defence lawyer gets them to walk free, we have to assume the accused were innocent, etc, etc. That´s the rules of the game.

...............

As for providing a platform for people to vent their rather dark and sick (zoophilia, etc) fantasies; there seems to be two, rather conflicting, views about it:
Positive: better that they write about it, rather than that they go out and actually do it
Negative: Writing/reading about it lowers the treshold for doing the "real life" acts

I have frankly no idea as to which of these views are correct. (Maybe it is a mixture?) Does anyone know if there has been any research into this?

[EricBarbour]

As for providing a platform for people to vent their rather dark and sick (zoophilia, etc) fantasies; there seems to be two, rather conflicting, views about it:
Positive: better that they write about it, rather than that they go out and actually do it
Negative: Writing/reading about it lowers the treshold for doing the "real life" acts.
I have frankly no idea as to which of these views are correct. (Maybe it is a mixture?) Does anyone know if there has been any research into this?

Well, you could always go to Anontalk and ask the question. That place has become a haven for pedophiles and zoophiles. Emphasis on pedos......

[The Adversary]

Well, you could always go to Anontalk and ask the question. That place has become a haven for pedophiles and zoophiles. Emphasis on pedos......

Very funny. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/angry.gif)
I have problem enough getting through some of the stuff on WP without puking. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[Random832]

Hmm. My view would be that it is not up to you to decide if this is important to potential voters, I think potential voters should be allowed to make up their own mind as to if providing tech. sup. for any such site is relevant.
Or not.

Suppose some potential voter would have voted against him on the basis that he had ham salad for lunch on June 18, 1997. There are lots of "legitimate" reasons to do so - perhaps someone is opposed to eating meat - or to "salads" that don't contain lettuce. Should he have anticipated this objection? Should he have accomodated it? At some point you're telling your entire life's story and being too verbose becomes a legitimate objection.

Or, to take a different angle on it - some candidates might not reveal their race / gender / religion / sexual orientation. Now, surely even as progressive as Wikipedia is, there's at least some chance that there exists at least one voter who would oppose for one of those reasons.

I'm not trying to draw an equivalence between those cases and this specifically, merely pointing out that the set of things that a voter might actually vote against something for is NOT equivalent to the set of things that a voter should consider a reason to vote against something (and therefore that it is wrong to "lie by omission" about). Thus, to support the claim that something "should" have been disclosed, merely claiming that it is in the first of the two sets is insufficient.

This post has been edited by Random832:

[The Adversary]

<snip>Or, to take a different angle on it - some candidates might not reveal their race / gender / religion / sexual orientation. Now, surely even as progressive as Wikipedia is, there's at least some chance that there exists at least one voter who would oppose for one of those reasons.

I'm not trying to draw an equivalence between those cases and this specifically, merely pointing out that the set of things that a voter might actually vote against something for is NOT equivalent to the set of things that a voter should consider a reason to vote against something (and therefore that it is wrong to "lie by omission" about). Thus, to support the claim that something "should" have been disclosed, merely claiming that it is in the first of the two sets is insufficient.

Sorry, I disagree with that last bit. It actually sounds quite condescending to my ears.

As to the first bit: In most "civilized" countries there are laws against discriminating anyone because of their race / gender / religion / sexual orientation. So; that someone would not want/care to reveal their race / gender / religion / sexual orientation would be perfectly ok in my book.
To put it a bit flippantly: by not revealing your race / gender / religion / sexual orientation you would only be helping any bigot voter not to break the law (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)

However, there are no laws in any country I know of which say that you cannot discriminate against/vote against people with interest in/associations with zoophilia. (AFAIK: when the law where I live say that I cannot discriminate against anyones "sexual orientation", then it is quite specific gay/lesbian orientation they refer to.)

Btw: I accept that Coren just did´t think it was a relevant thing to disclose during the arb.com elections. What this thread has shown, if anything, then it is that that is a view many strongly disagree with.

Please respect that, and dont tell people what they should think/believe.