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.

[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.