Would-be admin Davidwr's dark secret? Options

[A Horse With No Name]

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal...e_in_their_past

[Kato]

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

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?act=S...ighlite=davidwr

Starting with this post by me:

A guy on Wikipedia writes (bolding mine):

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

Coincidentally, having made that comment, the same editor (davidwr (T-C-L-K-R-D) ) later went and removed an unrelated comment elsewhere made by User:Shapiros10 - the very young editor from the NY meetup who passionately argued against "ageism" at Wikipedia, which he took to mean the "discrimination" against 12 year olds and other minors who are devoted Wikipedia editors.

[Wikileaker]

Kato's suspicions are dead-on.

[Jon Awbrey]

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

ja³ (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif)

[Kato]

Kato's suspicions are dead-on.

I don't know anything about this guy other than his absurd statements back in December during the Virgin Killer kerfuffle. But judging by our Review archives, and some initial research, Squeakbox is the person to ask about this - as he seems to have clashed with Davidwr more than once, going back to 2007.

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

[GlassBeadGame]

Kato's suspicions are dead-on.

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

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

[Eva Destruction]

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

[Kato]

Kato's suspicions are dead-on.

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

Just the sheer tastelessness of it all. On Wikipedia; one minute you're proclaiming your "human right to watch, keep, create, and distribute some child pornography", the next you're interacting with some 12 year old who argues against "ageism" on the Wiki. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif)

[JoseClutch]

Kato's suspicions are dead-on.

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

Just the sheer tastelessness of it all. On Wikipedia; one minute you're proclaiming your "human right to watch, keep, create, and distribute some child pornography", the next you're interacting with some 12 year old who argues against "ageism" on the Wiki. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif)

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

[carbuncle]

Coincidentally, having made that comment, the same editor (davidwr (T-C-L-K-R-D) ) later went and removed an unrelated comment elsewhere made by User:Shapiros10 - the very young editor from the NY meetup who passionately argued against "ageism" at Wikipedia, which he took to mean the "discrimination" against 12 year olds and other minors who are devoted Wikipedia editors.

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

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

[Eva Destruction]

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

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

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

[A Horse With No Name]

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

http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?act=S...ighlite=davidwr

Starting with this post by me:

A guy on Wikipedia writes (bolding mine):

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

Coincidentally, having made that comment, the same editor (davidwr (T-C-L-K-R-D) ) later went and removed an unrelated comment elsewhere made by User:Shapiros10 - the very young editor from the NY meetup who passionately argued against "ageism" at Wikipedia, which he took to mean the "discrimination" against 12 year olds and other minors who are devoted Wikipedia editors.

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

[JoseClutch]

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

[Eva Destruction]

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

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

[GlassBeadGame]

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

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

[JoseClutch]

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

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

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

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

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

[carbuncle]

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

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

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

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

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

I thought in some countries Young Earth Creationists were valued members of the government?

This post has been edited by carbuncle:

[JoseClutch]

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

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

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

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

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

I thought in some countries Young Earth Creationists were valued members of the government?

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

[Kato]

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=268737614

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

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

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

[Viridae]

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