Wikipedia fan fiction, Oh Jimbo, she gasped as I thrust my turgid prose... Options

[carbuncle]

I guess it was inevitable. Please enjoy this really, really lame piece of soft-core porn Wikipedia fan fiction:

"M-Mr. Wales? You wanted to see me?"

Her words jolted me from my trance and I immediately returned to presence.

"Oh, ah... I did want to see you," I nervously stumbled over my words. "I mean ah, well, yes. I wanted to see you - I mean speak to you." She smiled at my nervous attempt to speak, but I knew she was just as nervous as I was. "I mean... I mean call me Jimbo. Jimbo Wales. You don't need to call me Mr. Wales."

She smiled serenely again, a lock of her blue hair falling over her eye. She gently brushed it back into place.

Clearly the author hasn't seen those text messages allegedly sent by Jimbo to the completely sane and not crazy at all Rachel Marsden.

[TungstenCarbide]

I guess it was inevitable. Please enjoy this really, really lame piece of soft-core porn Wikipedia fan fiction:

needs some pictures

[Peter Damian]

I guess it was inevitable. Please enjoy this really, really lame piece of soft-core porn Wikipedia fan fiction:

needs some pictures

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kasuga is responsible for these images.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Works_by_Kasuga

It was he who drew this notorious image

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lolicon_Sample.png

as being his own work. His deviant art site is here

http://kasuga39.deviantart.com/

where one of his pictures got banned for underage nudity. He does not yet have any products for sale

http://kasuga39.deviantart.com/prints/?utm...paign=printstab

He says here that he draws pornographic comic strips

http://kasuga39.deviantart.com/journal/12617458/#comments

And his website is here

http://www.geocities.jp/kasuga399/

where you can find many images of underage girls drawn in a sexualized way.

[edit] And one of the sites he links to on this page http://www.geocities.jp/kasuga399/bookmark.html#policy is very disturbing.

http://satsuki-yamai.net/top DOT html (do not link from work)
http://satsuki-yamai.net/status_doku/index DOT html (probably illegal)

Cartoons of little girls being tortured. Why is he linking to this? Why is the artist behind the famous Wikipedia 'Wikipe-tan' linking to websites showing little girls with their genitalia being mutilated, screaming in pain? Beyond belief.

See also here http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:...icon_Sample.png for the usual idiotic discussion about whether the lolicon image was illegal or not.

It's a ridiculous assertion. First, Kasuga wouldn't have drawn it if it was pornographic. Second, there's no nudity, and no sexual situation portrayed. We have pictures of real naked children on Commons, and have for a long time; this doesn't even come close. Powers (talk) 22:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit]

Another site he links to portrays graphic sexual abuse of minors

http://avonlea.sakura.ne.jp/dojin DOT htm (almost certainly illegal)



This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[Peter Damian]

----- Original Message -----
From: The Damians
To: Jimmy Wales
Cc: Sue Gardner ; Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) ; Cool Hand Luke ; Alison Cassidy ; Anthony DiPierro ; Gregory Kohs ; Judd Bagley ; John Vandenberg ; Durova ; Delicious Carbuncle ; tarantino ; Somey
Sent: Saturday, January 02, 2010 11:34 AM
Subject: User:Kasuga


Dear Jimmy,

You are almost certainly familiar with the work of the Wikipedia user:Kasuga http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Works_by_Kasuga who is the author of the famous manga character 'Wikipi-tan', the lolicon who personnifies Wikipedia itself. I am sure you are, because there is a picture of you with Wikipi-tan here http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jim..._Wikipe-tan.jpg .

What do you know about the 'artist' Kasuga, who is also an administrator on the Japanese Wikipedia? I am very disturbed about this person. He is the author of this picture, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lolicon_Sample.png still on Commons, which depicts little girls in sexual poses. He is the owner of this website http://www.geocities.jp/kasuga399/ where you can find many more images of pre-pubescent girls in sexual poses. More disturbingly, he links to a number of pornographic websites on his page here http://www.geocities.jp/kasuga399/bookmark.html#policy some of which are obviously and uncontroversially illegal, since one shows pictures of little girls with their genitals being mutilated, the other shows pictures of them being sexually abused.

Wishing you a happy and child-friendly New Year,

Peter

[The Wales Hunter]

Jimmy deleted the slash fiction!

12:54, 2 January 2010 Jimbo Wales (talk | contribs) deleted "User:7107delicious/Wikipedia stories" ‎ (G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP)

Thank you for pointing this page out, Skomorokh. I have deleted it. I would block the user, but since the page was a pornographic story written about me, some might consider me to have a conflict of interest, so I'll let someone else deal with that aspect of things.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Please tell me someone took a copy first?

This post has been edited by The Wales Hunter:

[Peter Damian]

Jimmy deleted the slash fiction!

12:54, 2 January 2010 Jimbo Wales (talk | contribs) deleted "User:7107delicious/Wikipedia stories" ‎ (G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP)

Thank you for pointing this page out, Skomorokh. I have deleted it. I would block the user, but since the page was a pornographic story written about me, some might consider me to have a conflict of interest, so I'll let someone else deal with that aspect of things.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Please tell me someone took a copy first?

My thoughts exactly. I didn't. But try here

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/UnBooks...y_of_Wikipe-tan

I have made a copy of this.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

[The Wales Hunter]

Is it not related to this?

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/UnBooks...y_of_Wikipe-tan

[The Wales Hunter]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...r:7107delicious

I'm uneasy about this. An indefinite block for what appears to have been a rather dumb prank? Would a stern warning and maybe a block of a few days not have sufficed? -- ChrisO (talk) 13:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Writing slash fiction about Jimbo sleeping with underage girls is hardly a minor offence! GTD 13:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

This post has been edited by The Wales Hunter:

[GlassBeadGame]

Jimmy deleted the slash fiction!

12:54, 2 January 2010 Jimbo Wales (talk | contribs) deleted "User:7107delicious/Wikipedia stories" ‎ (G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP)

Thank you for pointing this page out, Skomorokh. I have deleted it. I would block the user, but since the page was a pornographic story written about me, some might consider me to have a conflict of interest, so I'll let someone else deal with that aspect of things.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Please tell me someone took a copy first?

My thoughts exactly. I didn't. But try here

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/UnBooks...y_of_Wikipe-tan

I have made a copy of this.

This is somewhat complex. Mr. Wales has a personal background in soft-core porn and a public reputation for flings and woman chasing. He is one of the founders of project (Wikipedia) that has persistent and ongoing issues on a number of fronts relating to child protection, including hosting images depicting children in highly sexualized manner. Because Wikipedia is very much a creature of internet culture and a vehicle for hosting "fanboy" content it has a large amount of content relating to manga prevalent in internet culture which sexualizes and exploits children.

Given this background I would not dismiss a parody or satire of Mr. Wales having a magna girlfriend as completely inappropriate. It may well have a place in constellation of dissent opposing Wikipedia. The Unencyclopedia piece has selected relatively modest images and for the most part the content of the text is not sexualized beyond what is needed make the piece seem minimally plausible, although one or two sentence maybe go to far. I think perhaps Mr. Wales was more concerned about criticism to himself than any child protection concern.

BTW I was a bit taken aback by this Urban Dictionary entry for "Wikitan." So Wikipedia has a "mascot" of a sexualized child image whose very name refers to someone a person wants to have sex with?

[The Wales Hunter]

There's a difference between chasing a bit of skirt and it being suggested you are sexually attracted to children.

[thekohser]

Jimmy deleted the slash fiction!

12:54, 2 January 2010 Jimbo Wales (talk | contribs) deleted "User:7107delicious/Wikipedia stories" ‎ (G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP)

Thank you for pointing this page out, Skomorokh. I have deleted it. I would block the user, but since the page was a pornographic story written about me, some might consider me to have a conflict of interest, so I'll let someone else deal with that aspect of things.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Please tell me someone took a copy first?

I suppose that all has to do with the e-mail I sent Jimbo about the page in the wee hours of last night. I congratulated him on the WMF meeting its financial goal, and I expressed delight in how the server space was being thusly utilized:

==The Story of Wikipe-tan==
I just can't stand it. When I see her I can only grit my teeth and clench my fists as hard as I can from jumping out and screaming "I love you!" at the top of my lungs. I literally have to bite down on my tongue, sometimes until it bleeds or else I'll lose control and caress her with kisses until the end of the world. She's just so beautiful. Not in that super model barbie doll way. She's legitimately beautiful. The super models put on make up and dress up and get air brushed so they can look like her. She doesn't need that shit, she's wonderful on her own.

"Mr. Wales, you have a visitor." It's my secretary. I tell her to let her in, I already know who it is. I asked her to come to my office so we could talk. Not about work or anything, just... talk. I know it's against office policy but I just want to see her again. That gorgeous, naive smile, those huge, innocent eyes that seemed to take in the world so carefully. Her body was small, delicate, as if the slightest breeze would shatter her like a glass rose. I couldn't stop thinking about her. Always. She was always on my mind.

There was a knock at the door.

"Come in, Wikipe-tan."

I could see the very edges of her lips move, forming a subtle smile as she gracefully took a seat opposite me. She sat there, so serenely, her hands holded on her lap like the necks of two swans asleep in a lover's embrace. I could see her feet moving nervously and her back was stiff with tension. Still, she was more beautiful than I had remembered. I stared at her a moment, drinking in her hour glass curves and supple, almost nubile body.

"M-Mr. Wales? You wanted to see me?"

Her words jolted me from my trance and I immediately returned to presence.

"Oh, ah... I did want to see you," I nervously stumbled over my words. "I mean ah, well, yes. I wanted to see you - I mean speak to you." She smiled at my nervous attempt to speak, but I knew she was just as nervous as I was. "I mean... I mean call me Jimbo. Jimbo Wales. You don't need to call me Mr. Wales."

She smiled serenely again, a lock of her blue hair falling over her eye. She gently brushed it back into place.

"I asked you to my office, Wikipe-tan, because I wanted you to know that I lov-" I clenched my fist and took a deep breath, steadying myself. "I mean, I wanted to know if... if you'd like to go to dinner with me." I did it. I actually asked her. I asked her if she wanted to go to dinner with me. I couldn't believe I'd actually done it. There was silence for a moment; it was almost like I could see her thoughts through her clear eyes. I held my breath waiting for an answer.

Then her sweet, melodic voice broke the silence. "I'd like that." My heart raced, I couldn't find the words to say. I wanted to jump up and down and shout for hours about how Wikipe-tan and I were going on a date, and I probably would have if I hadn't clenched my fist so tightly that the whites of my knuckles were visible. The brief pain brought me back.

"I, uh," I stammered, "I'm glad. I'll have uh, I'll have my secretary make the arrangements, okay?"

"Okay."

She lithely got up from her chair and made for the door, her slender body swaying slightly as she moved. I couldn't help but shout "YES!" in jubilation as she left the room. In just a few hours, we'd be on our first date.

* *

"You... you look amazing," was all I was able to stammer as I gaped in awe at her. The intricate, silk kimono she wore was tight on her body, displaying her nubile curves. She grinned slightly.

"Thank you, Mr. Wales," she responded.

"We went over this, Wikipe-tan. Call me Jimbo."

"O-okay, Jimbo."

I couldn't take my eyes off of her, she was so beautiful, so radiant. Her crimson red lipstick shimmered on her lips and signaled to me almost like a lighthouse signaling a ship. I wanted to reach over the table, kiss her, and it took all my willpower to stop myself from doing it. I couldn't believe it, I was actually at dinner with Wikipe-tan. I felt like I was going crazy, I wanted to touch her, to feel her willowy body in my arms and hold her forever, to let her know she'd be safe in my arms and that I would never let go. I'd gently caress her with the tips of my fingers, running them from her head to her back, up and down, tickling her delicate frame.

I shook myself. What the hell was I thinking? I needed a drink to calm myself down. I reached over to get a drink from my wineglass, but my hand bumped into something. It was Wikipe-tan's hand. She was holding the glass.

"Oh, I'm sorry!" I quickly apologized.

She grinned softly again and I realized I hadn't taken my hand off of hers yet. I quickly let go and put my hand in my lap, but she began to giggle. "There's no need to be sorry." I laughed too. We both let out belly laughs and I could feel the tension between us drifting away. The mood was lightening.

"I want to know about you, Wikipe-tan. I want you to tell me about yourself, what makes you tick, what you like and dislike." I told her.

"I don't know what there is to tell," she said softly. "I'm just an ordinary girl from the city. There's nothing special about me."

"I don't think so," I said. "I... I think you're very special, Wikipe-tan. I think that you're a lot different from the other girls and I..." I paused for a moment, trying to think of what to say, "I like that."

"Thank you, Mr... Jimbo. I," she looked down and blushed, "I think you're special too."

I placed my hand back on the table and slowly inched it towards hers. Her skin was soft, downy to the touch and her hands were small and delicate. She smiled as I placed my hands around hers; I could feel a real connection.

"I think you're very beautiful, Wikipe-tan. I've..." I sighed, my eyes glancing away in embarrassment. "I've thought that for a long time."

"Thank you..." She blushed again and brushed a stray lock of her blue hair. "I'm... I'm not so good with compliments."

"You don't get them often?" I asked.

"No..." She said. "You're my first." She smiled at me, but her eyes widened when she considered the double meaning of her words. "No, no, I mean that you're the first person to have ever called me beautiful!" She quickly exclaimed.

I grinned a little and looked back at her. "You're my first too."

"What do you mean?" She asked quizzically.

"The first girl I've ever called beautiful."

* *

"This is where I live," she told me, her hand still clasped in my own. "It's nothing special, just a small apartment. Would you like to come in?"

I couldn't believe it. Wikipe-tan wanted me to come into her home. I squeezed her hand a little in exhilaration and nodded, "I-I'd love to." She and I walked inside the old building, hands locked together, and walked up the stairs to her apartment. She unlocked the door and we stepped inside. The first thing I immediately noticed was the number of beautifully-drawn anime wall scrolls hanging on her walls.

"I'm an aspiring manga-ka," she said bashfully. I stepped over to look at one of her pictures, a warrior with a katana clad in red robes cleaving through a swath of foes. In the corner I recognized the Japanese character for 'Inuyasha'.

"Is this Inuyasha?" I asked her.

She nodded timidly, "Yes," she squeaked.

"This is... amazing," I gasped. "Why didn't you tell anyone about your drawings?"

She gazed at her feet in embarrassment, "I didn't think anyone would care..." I stepped over to her and ran my fingers through her hair, pressing her against my chest. I don't know if she was expecting it or not, but she didn't fight back. She held me too and looked into my eyes. I'm not entirely sure how long I was locked into her eyes, but it felt like an eternity of bliss.

"They're not blue." I said.

"Wh-what?"

"Your eyes, they're not blue." I paused for a moment and looked at them again. "They're... They're sapphire."

She smiled, and for a moment I thought she was going to say something, but then I felt her press in closer to me. She pressed her soft, angelic lips against mine and I felt a surge go through my body. I held her close, her fragile body in locked against mine as I explored her velvet lips with my own.

"There's... something I want to show you," Wikipe-tan spoke softly. She grabbed my hand without waiting for an answer and lead me through her apartment until we finally arrived in her bedroom. She laid me down on the bed and I pressed myself against her. I could feel my engorged member rising as the heat of the moment escalated. She kissed me again and spoke softly into my ear. "I... I want you to be my first."

"I want you to be mine too."

* *

I held her closely in my arms, underneath the protective covers of her bed sheet. I couldn't tell if she was still awake or not. My fingers ran up and down her back and I listened to her gentle rhythmic breathing, watching as her nubile chest moved up and down with each breath. I smelled her soft, blue hair and kissed her forehead.

"I... I love you, Wikipe-tan." My whisper was barely audible underneath the chirping of the crickets in the midnight air. She squirmed a little in my arms, rustling the covers, and then looked back up at me. She kissed my chin gently and put her hand on my naked chest.

"I love you too..." she whispered. I smiled a little.

"I've... I've wanted to tell you that for such a long time." I told her.

"Me too." Her eyes slowly closed and her breathing slowed down. I held her against my chest and kissed her one last time before she fell asleep.

[The Wales Hunter]

She kissed me again and spoke softly into my ear. "I... I want you to be my first."

"I want you to be mine too."

Hang on...are WikiWeirdos trying to claim Jimbo is a virgin? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif)

[thekohser]

Is it not related to this?

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/UnBooks...y_of_Wikipe-tan

I've just sent Jimbo another e-mail regarding "the rest of the library". That page will likely soon be down, too.

We have to remember, this is the guy who, when faced with a threatened boycott of his advertisers on a "Spanking Art" wiki that glorified child abuse, got his feathers ruffled because the "proper channels" for complaining about the site weren't exercised.

Anyway, at the bottom of Uncyclopedia, I see this ad for Lostpedia.

We really do have to wonder if maybe Jimbo doesn't "deserve" at least some of this sexualized garbage following him around.

[The Wales Hunter]

I've just sent Jimbo another e-mail regarding "the rest of the library". That page will likely soon be down, too.

I doubt it. I told him about it on his talk page but he said he doesn't get involved in policy on Unencyclopedia and that site seems an appropriate place for satire/humour.

He really doesn't get it.

Edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...r:7107delicious

Could get interesting. Certainly different viewpoints of Jimbo/Loli-slash.

This post has been edited by The Wales Hunter:

[Doc glasgow]

Is it not related to this?

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/UnBooks...y_of_Wikipe-tan

I've just sent Jimbo another e-mail regarding "the rest of the library". That page will likely soon be down, too.

We have to remember, this is the guy who, when faced with a threatened boycott of his advertisers on a "Spanking Art" wiki that glorified child abuse, got his feathers ruffled because the "proper channels" for complaining about the site weren't exercised.

Anyway, at the bottom of Uncyclopedia, I see this ad for Lostpedia.

We really do have to wonder if maybe Jimbo doesn't "deserve" at least some of this sexualized garbage following him around.

There is a very serious question of the total failure of Wikimedia and Wikia to take moral responsibility for their content and have realistic child protection policies, and zero tolerance towards contributors who seek to push the bounds.

That's a good thing for this site to highlight.

However, let's not confuse that with Jimbo's allegedly slightly sleezy sexual reputation, which should be of no interest to us whatsoever. This thread has the possibility to bring out both the best and most useful critique that WR can provide, and the worst type of salacious nonsense.

[trenton]

I would block the user, but since the page was a pornographic story written about me, some might consider me to have a conflict of interest, so I'll let someone else deal with that aspect of things.

No, he promised not to block anybody after getting embroiled in controversy. Nice to see him twist that into being so virtuous as to not block someone he has a conflict of interest in, though. The guy is a shameless self promoter.

[thekohser]

However, let's not confuse that with Jimbo's allegedly slightly sleezy sexual reputation, which should be of no interest to us whatsoever.

It is relevant, Doc. And I have access to further information about Jimbo's sexual reputation that is not only not "slightly" sleazy -- it would make your head spin. Since it is first-hand hearsay, I'm comfortable reporting that it does exist, but I'm uncomfortable repeating it word-for-word. That would be the choice of the person who holds that information first-hand.

You see, as per usual with Jimbo, it's about hypocrisy and maintaining appearances otherwise.

[CharlotteWebb]

BTW I was a bit taken aback by this Urban Dictionary entry for "Wikitan." So Wikipedia has a "mascot" of a sexualized child image whose very name refers to someone a person wants to have sex with?

Unless it's attested elsewhere it's just another thing somebody made up.

See OS-tan for the actual etymology.

[Kelly Martin]

Please tell me someone took a copy first?

Of course. http://www.webcitation.org/5mTjWt7k0

[Doc glasgow]

However, let's not confuse that with Jimbo's allegedly slightly sleezy sexual reputation, which should be of no interest to us whatsoever.

It is relevant, Doc. And I have access to further information about Jimbo's sexual reputation that is not only not "slightly" sleazy -- it would make your head spin. Since it is first-hand hearsay, I'm comfortable reporting that it does exist, but I'm uncomfortable repeating it word-for-word. That would be the choice of the person who holds that information first-hand.

You see, as per usual with Jimbo, it's about hypocrisy and maintaining appearances otherwise.

This post is contemptible.

"It is relevant"

Sorry, the burden is on you to show that. I can't see how the hell it is. Jimbo is no icon of mine, but he's not setting himself up as a moral crusader, or perpetuating any "appearances otherwise." Muck chucking, just shows your own hypocrisy, nothing more.

I neither care about, nor am I titivated by, Jimbo's sexlife.

And I have access to further information about Jimbo's sexual reputation that is not only not "slightly" sleazy -- it would make your head spin. Since it is first-hand hearsay, I'm comfortable reporting that it does exist,

That's even further beneath contempt.

Now, you'll smear someone on the basis of information you wont disclose? So, we either "trust you" and your hearsay source, or we sink to your level and demand the details from you?

Frankly, this is the post of an amoral hypocritical guttersnipe.

[The Wales Hunter]

I don't particularly care where Jimbo chooses to get his jollies, as long as it's legal - the issue here is that there is a lot of stuff on Wikipedia that promotes/alludes to the illegal sort. There's a big differential.

[Doc glasgow]

I don't particularly care where Jimbo chooses to get his jollies, as long as it's legal - the issue here is that there is a lot of stuff on Wikipedia that promotes/alludes to the illegal sort. There's a big differential.

Precisely.

Whether Jimbo has the sex-life of the Marquis de Sade or Saint Teresa of Ávila makes no difference to the propriety or otherwise of WP's content, nor of the moral responsibility or otherwise of the WMF.

[GlassBeadGame]

I don't particularly care where Jimbo chooses to get his jollies, as long as it's legal - the issue here is that there is a lot of stuff on Wikipedia that promotes/alludes to the illegal sort. There's a big differential.

Precisely.

Whether Jimbo has the sex-life of the Marquis de Sade or Saint Teresa of Ávila makes no difference to the propriety or otherwise of WP's content, nor of the moral responsibility or otherwise of the WMF.

Come on now, Doc, the guy is the front man and chief donation solicitor for WMF. His public indiscretions are fair game. At the very least it is another illustration of the culture of irresponsibility that surrounds and permeates Wikipedia. This shouldn't be the most important point of any critique, but it is certainly relevant.

[The Wales Hunter]

Come on now, Doc, the guy is the front man and chief donation solicitor for WMF. His public indiscretions are fair game. At the very least it is another illustration of the culture of irresponsibility that surrounds and permeates Wikipedia. This shouldn't be the most important point of any critique, but it is certainly relevant.

The problem is that even if Jimbo has shagged 200 nubile blondes since Christmas Day, accusing him of sexual impropriety on a thread about quasi-paedophilia doesn't seem on.

Sure, if we're discussing ethics/morals/etc then fair enough, but when discussing the sexualisation of young children via Japanese-style cartoons, any talk of sexual impropriety can easily look as though it's suggesting something it is not.

If I were accused, in the real world, of putting it around with some 20-something-year-olds, I'd not care a jot. But if it was hinted my sexual tastes include 12-year-olds, I clearly would.

[Doc glasgow]

I don't particularly care where Jimbo chooses to get his jollies, as long as it's legal - the issue here is that there is a lot of stuff on Wikipedia that promotes/alludes to the illegal sort. There's a big differential.

Precisely.

Whether Jimbo has the sex-life of the Marquis de Sade or Saint Teresa of Ávila makes no difference to the propriety or otherwise of WP's content, nor of the moral responsibility or otherwise of the WMF.

Come on now, Doc, the guy is the front man and chief donation solicitor for WMF. His public indiscretions are fair game. At the very least it is another illustration of the culture of irresponsibility that surrounds and permeates Wikipedia. This shouldn't be the most important point of any critique, but it is certainly relevant.

Rubbish.

How do the man's personal relationships impinge on his ability to do his job? Sure, if there's evidence that he was editing a lover's bio etc, that might be fare comment. But beyond that?

This is just part of the "we hate Wales and we'll rip into him with whatever" argument - that justifies commenting on his relationships, marriages and even child-rearing on some basis of "public interest".

Now, personally, I'm a moral conservative, who believes in chastity and fidelity, but I will not let that colour my interactions here. I'll comment on what people say, and their responsibility in doing the job they purport to do, I'll not bring my moral compass and impose it on the unconnected antics of others.

[GlassBeadGame]

I don't particularly care where Jimbo chooses to get his jollies, as long as it's legal - the issue here is that there is a lot of stuff on Wikipedia that promotes/alludes to the illegal sort. There's a big differential.

Precisely.

Whether Jimbo has the sex-life of the Marquis de Sade or Saint Teresa of Ávila makes no difference to the propriety or otherwise of WP's content, nor of the moral responsibility or otherwise of the WMF.

Come on now, Doc, the guy is the front man and chief donation solicitor for WMF. His public indiscretions are fair game. At the very least it is another illustration of the culture of irresponsibility that surrounds and permeates Wikipedia. This shouldn't be the most important point of any critique, but it is certainly relevant.

Rubbish.

How do the man's personal relationships impinge on his ability to do his job? Sure, if there's evidence that he was editing a lover's bio etc, that might be fare comment. But beyond that?

This is just part of the "we hate Wales and we'll rip into him with whatever" argument - that justifies commenting on his relationships, marriages and even child-rearing on some basis of "public interest".

Now, personally, I'm a moral conservative, who believes in chastity and fidelity, but I will not let that colour my interactions here. I'll comment on what people say, and their responsibility in doing the job they purport to do, I'll not bring my moral compass and impose it on the unconnected antics of others.

Have you every noticed how seldom Larry Flynt speaks on behalf of groups defending free speech despite his sincere commitment to freedom of speech and considerable financial support? That guy has been in a wheel chair for 30 years. Propriety matters in normal charitable and non-profit endeavors. In WMF, not so much.

[Doc glasgow]

Propriety matters in normal charitable and non-profit endeavors. In WMF, not so much.

Why should it matter?

And can you define "propriety" please?

[GlassBeadGame]

Propriety matters in normal charitable and non-profit endeavors. In WMF, not so much.

Why should it matter?

And can you define "propriety" please?

Well, as long as you asked, is Mr. Wales divorced or still married? In the USA their are only two marital statuses, married or single. "Getting a divorce" or "separated" (absent a rarely used judicial proceeding know as "separate maintenance" made available for people who don't can't divorce for religious reason...hate to belabor this but, you know...) are in fact married. Married people, particularly married people with minor children, ought not to date or have sexual relationships with people who they are not married too. This is know as "adultery" and is a criminal offense in most US jurisdictions. It is also though to be a relevant consideration in determining the fitness of a person to discharge their parental responsibilities. Of course becoming involved in a public break-up with a girlfriend (while still married?) in which sexually related items are sold on eBay is a very bad version of this kind of thing. Of course large bar bills and Russian massage parlors are also pretty bad. This kind of thing would be known as "impropriety." Many Non-profits would frown on this kind of thing for a front man.

[Doc glasgow]

Propriety matters in normal charitable and non-profit endeavors. In WMF, not so much.

Why should it matter?

And can you define "propriety" please?

Well, as long as you asked, is Mr. Wales divorced or still married? In the USA their are only two marital statuses, married or single. "Getting a divorce" or "separated" (absent a rarely used judicial proceeding know as "separate maintenance" made available for people who don't can't divorce for religious reason...hate to belabor this but, you know...) are in fact married. Married people, particularly married people with minor children, ought not to date or have sexual relationships with people who they are not married too. This is know as "adultery" and is a criminal offense in most US jurisdictions. It is also though to be a relevant consideration in determining the fitness of a person to discharge their parental responsibilities. Of course becoming involved in a public break-up with a girlfriend (while still married?) in which sexually related items are sold on eBay is a very bad version of this kind of thing. Of course large bar bills and Russian massage parlors are also pretty bad. This kind of thing would be known as "impropriety." Many Non-profits would frown on this kind of thing for a front man.

I don't care whether he's divorced on married, and I don't care whom he sleeps with.

But, I'm flabbergasted by your post.

*Separated people "ought not to date"? Can you give me a citation to a legal code that says that? Or are you just assuming Leviticus something or other?

*Adultery "is a criminal offense in most US jurisdictions"? Is it? Is it even in one? Does that include California?

*"It is also though to be a relevant consideration in determining the fitness of a person to discharge their parental responsibilities." Maybe, but this is a website that's about considering people's responsibilities to run a wiki. Last time a checked this wasn't "Parentworthy Review".

*"Of course large bar bills and Russian massage parlors are also pretty bad." That's an old allegation that was made by a disgruntled ex-employee, denied and never authenticated. Dragging it up again without any evidence is scurrilous.

*This kind of thing would be known as "impropriety." What kind of thing? And by whom?

*"Many Non-profits would frown on this kind of thing for a front man." Fails to answer the question of whether they should, and therefore on what grounds you are critiquing the WMF. That lots of low-grade tabloids muckrake, is a poor excuse for muckraking.

[Krimpet]

Even worse than this, there were once several borderline-pornographic images of Wikipe-tan on Commons, wearing a leotard, legs spread, with a disturbing look on her face. People were actually arguing to keep it at the deletion discussion before Jimbo himself stepped in and deleted it.

Particularly puke-inducing is this "keep" vote from "Oven Fresh," aka Sade (T-C-L-K-R-D) , an enwiki sysop who was later defrocked after his many pro-pedophilia sockpuppets were discovered:

Oppose all censorship. Here's hoping for wikipe-tan toddlercon~ (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) Oven Fresh 23:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[GlassBeadGame]

Propriety matters in normal charitable and non-profit endeavors. In WMF, not so much.

Why should it matter?

And can you define "propriety" please?

Well, as long as you asked, is Mr. Wales divorced or still married? In the USA their are only two marital statuses, married or single. "Getting a divorce" or "separated" (absent a rarely used judicial proceeding know as "separate maintenance" made available for people who don't can't divorce for religious reason...hate to belabor this but, you know...) are in fact married. Married people, particularly married people with minor children, ought not to date or have sexual relationships with people who they are not married too. This is know as "adultery" and is a criminal offense in most US jurisdictions. It is also though to be a relevant consideration in determining the fitness of a person to discharge their parental responsibilities. Of course becoming involved in a public break-up with a girlfriend (while still married?) in which sexually related items are sold on eBay is a very bad version of this kind of thing. Of course large bar bills and Russian massage parlors are also pretty bad. This kind of thing would be known as "impropriety." Many Non-profits would frown on this kind of thing for a front man.

I don't care whether he's divorced on married, and I don't care whom he sleeps with.

But, I'm flabbergasted by your post.

*Separated people "ought not to date"? Can you give me a citation to a legal code that says that? Or are you just assuming Leviticus something or other?

*Adultery "is a criminal offense in most US jurisdictions"? Is it? Is it even in one? Does that include California?

*"It is also though to be a relevant consideration in determining the fitness of a person to discharge their parental responsibilities." Maybe, but this is a website that's about considering people's responsibilities to run a wiki. Last time a checked this wasn't "Parentworthy Review".

*"Of course large bar bills and Russian massage parlors are also pretty bad." That's an old allegation that was made by a disgruntled ex-employee, denied and never authenticated. Dragging it up again without any evidence is scurrilous.

*This kind of thing would be known as "impropriety." What kind of thing? And by whom?

*"Many Non-profits would frown on this kind of thing for a front man." Fails to answer the question of whether they should, and therefore on what grounds you are critiquing the WMF. That lots of low-grade tabloids muckrake, is a poor excuse for muckraking.

I'm wasting my time with you. While this is not an important part of my critique of Wikipedia, it is relevant and people who raise it should not be criticized for doing so. California does not have a adultery statute. Florida does however:

CHAPTER 798

ADULTERY; COHABITATION

798.01 Living in open adultery.

798.02 Lewd and lascivious behavior.

798.01 Living in open adultery.--Whoever lives in an open state of adultery shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. Where either of the parties living in an open state of adultery is married, both parties so living shall be deemed to be guilty of the offense provided for in this section.



798.02 Lewd and lascivious behavior.--If any man and woman, not being married to each other, lewdly and lasciviously associate and cohabit together, or if any man or woman, married or unmarried, engages in open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior, they shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

My recollect as to the "travel expenses" was that he was made to reimburse WMF for inappropriately charged items and the amount was so large he had to do it in installments.

[taiwopanfob]

I don't care whether he's divorced on married, and I don't care whom he sleeps with.

I doubt GBG does either. His was a round-about way of answering your question what "impropriety" is. In this case, taking money from a man of questionable morality (as many would think Larry Flynt is) would probably put a charity into some amount of disrepute. Whether this is good, bad or irrelevant is beside the point: it's just what will happen.

The sensitive donor recognizes this and just does his job anonymously.

It's not too difficult to extend this kind of impropriety to the charity/non-profit itself. If the people hosting local television begathons were proven to be child molesters or something, it's not entirely unreasonable to think they won't be hired again for the job -- regardless of how well they did it in the past, or how unrelated it may be to child molesting.

In essence, the question is whether Wales, as a mouthpiece for the WMF, is a liability. The answer does not come from how the world ought to work, but how it actually does. How does he look from the outside, looking in?

And, yes, adultery is in fact a crime in some US states. Are you truly surprised to learn this?

[Doc glasgow]

And, yes, adultery is in fact a crime in some US states. Are you truly surprised to learn this?

Yes.

[Sarcasticidealist]

And, yes, adultery is in fact a crime in some US states. Are you truly surprised to learn this?

Yes.

Me too. Does anyone know if these are ever enforced and/or whether any of them have been challenged constitutionally? The Florida statute appears to provide for prosecution even if two single people live in such a state, though I'm too lazy to look up the referenced sections.

[Doc glasgow]

And, yes, adultery is in fact a crime in some US states. Are you truly surprised to learn this?

Yes.

Me too. Does anyone know if these are ever enforced and/or whether any of them have been challenged constitutionally? The Florida statute appears to provide for prosecution even if two single people live in such a state, though I'm too lazy to look up the referenced sections.

In the United States, laws vary from state to state. In those states where adultery is still on the statute book (although rarely prosecuted), penalties vary from life sentence (Michigan)[38], to a fine of $10 (Maryland), to a Class I felony (Wisconsin)

But that's taken from Wikipedia - so probably crap. At any rate, don't risk your $10 in Maryland on the strength of this.

[GlassBeadGame]

And, yes, adultery is in fact a crime in some US states. Are you truly surprised to learn this?

Yes.

Me too. Does anyone know if these are ever enforced and/or whether any of them have been challenged constitutionally? The Florida statute appears to provide for prosecution even if two single people live in such a state, though I'm too lazy to look up the referenced sections.

They are of course seldom enforced. The state legislatures revisit these laws from time to time and overwhelming decline to repeal them. This is mostly as a matter of public policy. There is a strong interplay between these criminal statutes and civil family law. It is felt that if they withdrew the criminal sanctions that there would be rational no basis to uphold child custody and property divisions effected by the conduct and they would fail as invidious discrimination for what would then be lawful behavior. This makes a strong working coalition of social conservatives, progressives and feminists opposing repeal. Adultery is universally considered to be fault in determinations of child custody and property division. Even states with "no-fault" divorces allow consideration of adultery on those issues.

[Trick cyclist]

Doesn't this discussion make this picture of "Wikipe-tan" just a touch ambiguous?

(IMG:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/55/Uncle_Wikipe-tan.svg/200px-Uncle_Wikipe-tan.svg.png)

[Sarcasticidealist]

It is felt that if they withdrew the criminal sanctions that there would be rational no basis to uphold child custody and property divisions effected by the conduct and they would fail as invidious discrimination for what would then be lawful behavior.

Forgive the silly question from a Canadian law student making a conscious effort to remain as ignorant as possible about family law, but if the legislatures want adultery to be a factor in child custody and property division, why couldn't they just write that into the relevant statute? Surely there's plenty of lawful behaviour - say, habitual consumption of large quantities of alcohol in private - that factors into child custody fights?

[Somey]

Now, you'll smear someone on the basis of information you wont disclose? So, we either "trust you" and your hearsay source, or we sink to your level and demand the details from you? ... Frankly, this is the post of an amoral hypocritical guttersnipe.

I'd probably go more with "opportunistically over-moralizing sensationalist," at least in this case, but ehhh, whatever. It would be better if he didn't post such material, but the fact remains that Mr. Kohs has been reliable about such things in the past, and has earned a certain amount of leeway in that respect. Moreover, it's absolutely vital that Jimbo not be allowed to obtain real-world political power, under any circumstances, even if it means allowing for the occasional bit of salacious rumor-mongering.

Nevertheless, it might be a good idea to tarpit this part of the thread (or maybe the whole thing) until such time as more details are revealed, assuming that ever happens... (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif)

...if the legislatures want adultery to be a factor in child custody and property division, why couldn't they just write that into the relevant statute?

Maybe I should just let GBG handle this question, but I believe the answer is that at least in US law, the tradition has always been to try to avoid "prescribing" the judicial decisionmaking process, so as to give judges as much leeway as possible. Anything else would probably be considered an impingement on the judicial branch's independence, and would be thrown out (by the judicial branch itself) as "unconstitutional."

Statutes obviously prescribe ranges of sentences and fines, but I personally have never seen language in them that says "judges must weigh factor X in their decisions to a greater degree than factor Y, or other extenuating factors (more or less)" - there would be little chance of that being enforceable anyway, IMO.

[GlassBeadGame]

It is felt that if they withdrew the criminal sanctions that there would be rational no basis to uphold child custody and property divisions effected by the conduct and they would fail as invidious discrimination for what would then be lawful behavior.

Forgive the silly question from a Canadian law student making a conscious effort to remain as ignorant as possible about family law, but if the legislatures want adultery to be a factor in child custody and property division, why couldn't they just write that into the relevant statute? Surely there's plenty of lawful behaviour - say, habitual consumption of large quantities of alcohol in private - that factors into child custody fights?

Making criminal sanctions available is a strong measure to affirm the underlying policy concerns. I don't know if Canada has anything quite as flexible in application prohibit discrimination as US 14th Amendment, although I'm certain many forms of discrimination are prohibited on one level or another. The concern is that if you prohibited conduct among one group ("single" , or "not married to each other") and not other groups ("married to each other") you need a strong policy concern and a rational basis connecting the law with advancing that policy. Of course having intact families to care for children is a proper policy concern. Having the criminal sanctions, even if not used is a belt and suspenders approach.