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

[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?

[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: Thu 5th February 2009, 9:01pm

[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 ...