Talk:Brent Corrigan/Archive 1

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brent_Corrigan#replying_to_request_for_comment
Natoma 20:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Arbitration Resolved

message: I have opened an arbitration case to have the Brent Corrigan article locked until the legal dispute is finalized. Due to the sensitive nature of the release of his real name, as well as the allegations of underage sexual performance, I do not believe that Wiki should be involved in the dispute. 
Once the facts are laid bare, then this account should, in my opinion, either show or hide his information. Until such time, I believe this serves no one except those who intend harm to Mr. Corrigan.
Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Current_requests
Natoma 14:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Arbitration

message: An earlier edit of the article had listed Brent Corrigan as Jewish. Someone else removed it. I have been unable to find any verification that he is Jewish, but was curious if anyone else had seen something to that effect. 68.36.193.233 13:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Religion

message: The AVN-articles linked from this article give added insight on the age matter. In addition, both links together are quite NPOV since they shed light on the issue from two different pespectives. Thus, I think they should both remain in the article. Spheroide 00:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The continuing removal of relevant external links

message: This is ridiculous!  There is no relevance whatsoever to this article in the significance to the importance of Brent Corrigan's true identity, other than the individual or individuals who are insistent in reverting it back.  They are queenly aware that if under various search engines when "Brent Corrigan" is entered under almost any context the Wikipedia entry is one of the first few results.  Therefore the inclusion of his true identity only serves the purpose of jeopardizing his safety.  At this time, for Mr. Corrigan’s personal safety reasons, could you please remove the identity and keep it off?  If not I am requesting the entry be removed or deleted all together! 
Thank you,  --66.75.43.6 10:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mr. DeBug 

message: The request for deletion is there due to some people continually placing the stars legal name in the article. Reasons for this not being a good idea are obvious.
Also with this happening, the star doesn't want the article to be there, and therefore if it does get deleted, is there a way to ensure it stays like that?
Cheers Reedy Boy 19:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Deletion 

message: Ec5618's edit to remove the birth name was accompanied by the comment "I'm not aware of any specific policy on this matter" (or something to that effect). If there is no specific policy saying that we should not include a performer's birth name, then why would it be removed? There is a policy that the subject of an article does not get to determine its content. If it's verfiable, and it is certainly relevant, it probably should stay in. I have, for the record, only once reverted the  removal of his birth name, as far as I can recall, and do not edit anonymously. Zeromacnoo 03:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, don't misunderstand me. I agree that the name probably warrants inclusion. However, since a single anonimous editor is incessantly trying to add the name, I am left to wonder as to the motives of that editor. And since the article currently states that it does not include the name, this anonimous editor isn't very thorough, and seems only interested in adding the name. -- Ec5618 08:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been thinking the same way as Ec5618.  It's clear that we have someone who is interested in nothing other than adding Brent's name, seemingly for malicious reasons. That's why I listed them all in the previous section  Can we block that one editor?  Is it possible to ban an IP range (63.22.x.x) from editing a specific page?  Can we block unregistered users from editing a specific page (and even if we can, is it fair)? -Bindingtheory 14:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for clarification, can we find the policy and site it on this talk page before we include his real name? CaveatLector 22:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Policy

message: The yahoo "fansite" is not worth linking here. The entire site consists of 12 messages posted over only the last 3 weeks, by a total of (at most) 5 different people, all complaining about Brent, plus 1 photo of someone who doesn't even look like Brent, plus 2 links to sites that this article already links to.  It's fairly obvious that someone set up the yahoo group specifically to hurt Brent by linking from the Wikipedia article.  The group is actually named "Sean Paul Lockhart" rather than "Brent Corrigan," despite the fact that there is no group called "Brent Corrigan".  What "fans" are going to even going to search for him under his real name??  Further, the yahoo group was created on January 28, which was coincidentally at the height of the controvery surrounding including Brent's real name in the wikipedia article.  I repeat, it should not be linked from this article.  Please discuss if you disagree.  -Bindingtheory 04:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Yahoo Fansite

message: I've made some changes on this page because I believed there was a lot of babble and unverified claims. I may be new to Wikipedia, but I know for sure that, if you claim something, the claim must be verifiable.
Deleted  - The claim about a lawsuit filed by Cobra Video concerning the age matter. No external link provided to confirm that claim. The link provided only speak about copyrights and trademark violation.
Deleted - Names of Sean Lockhart's business partners. The names are not quoted in the avn news article (link provided in external links).
Deleted - Multiple quoting of Jasoncurious.com report that had no relevance with the age matter. I provided an external link for everybody to read the complete article and thus provided a way for readers to make their own mind.
Deleted - Claim that "Lockhart had admitted publicly to forging his government ID's in order to work for Cobra Video". No link provided to a verifiable source. 
Kept - Link to an AVN article where the news media allege that Brent Corrigan told them he obtained a false ID in order to work in adult industry. (In this cas, Sean Lockhart/Brent Corrigan never admitted forging his ID, but obtaining one... slightly different... but different.)
Deleted - Claim that "If this new License is proven to be valid, Sean Lockhart would have committed multiple felonies including fraud and misrepresentation." It's up to a court to decide if felonies have been committed... Until now (and up to my knowledge) no such decision has been made. Therefore, that claim is a mere opinion, and has not its place in an encyclopedia.
Fixed - External links to Brent Corrigan Blog (somebody put the link of Cobra Video in place) and added the Cobra Video website.
And some other minor changes !
--Sam67fr 11:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * As some of you may have noticed, I constantly revert this page to its former state when anon user 24.54.90.231 insert "Neither Lockhart nor his lawyer have ever supplied evidence to support their allegation". The point of this paragraf is to explain what happens with the 4 videos removed from circulation, not to support a POV. Until now, only Cobra Video and its representatives claim that "no proof has been supplied". As this claim can not been verified, I assume that a Cobra Video supporter wants his POV to be prevailing. I will continue to edit this article as long as these attempts do. I'm open to suggestions. --Sam67fr 19:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you for these insiders informations that are unfortunately not verifiable. As for your edition, I question its relevance with the subject of the article, to say the least. As you may have noticed, the article you edited is about Brent Corrigan, not about Cobra Video or its owner and his private activities. If you want to include informations about Cobra Video, use the Cobra Video article. If you want to include informations about Bryan Philips (or whatever his name is...), create an article about him. Before making any changes or creation, see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons. Of course, you may want to consider the importance of such an article. But if you can provide informations about Brent Corrigan along with verifiable sources, feel free to edit the article. --Sam67fr 07:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Facts and verified content

message: :meaning that those videos would be considered child pornography in most American jurisdictions
What does "American" refer to here? By federal law it would be considered child pornography in the U.S. In some other countries it wouldn't. The sentence makes it sound as if this were a state issue, which it isn't. AxelBoldt 02:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  American jurisdictions? 

message: I am requesting this article be permanently locked until legal proceedings have been settled.  It is obvious that a person or persons sympathetic to Cobra Video is using this highly trusted open source public forum to further their agenda of propaganda and misinformation.  They will continue to use various and anonymous IP addresses and fictitious emails to further their unscrupulous cause.  
--63.110.230.99 17:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request to Permanently Lock Article, or Delete

message: I am requesting that the article be unblocked and that the censored information about the public federal court case Cobra video vs. Brent Corrigan be permanently locked in to end future vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.109.225.10 (talk • contribs) 
:You know you're being a nuisance. Please stop. -- Ec5618 14:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The information is not being censored. You are posting a complete news article in direct violation of US Copyright Law, and you know it. You have been repeatedly advised that the external link to copyrighted information is allowable, but not the article itself. You have disregarded this wantonly with such edits as "I am now going to post the complete article EVERY SINGLE DAY in the text. Don't bother with your whining, I will not respond to you any further. If they ban me I will set up new hotmail accounts in 1 minute flat. I do not have a static IP number so you will not win.". At least one other admin agrees with the article's protection. Request denied. RadioKirk talk to me 17:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest semiprotection as a solution. However, pasting in a news article is blatant copyright violation. Stifle (talk) 18:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Response (and why semi wouldn't work, IMO) on your talk page. :) RadioKirk talk to me 19:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just can't believe how immature and childish some people are being over this article.... Reedy Boy 10:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request to unlock article

message: Given that the video cover shown is from a now withdrawn copy of Every Pool Boy's Dream which contains scenes of Brent Corrigan (cover model) engaged in underage sex might it be possible that use of any such images may contravene child protection laws. The fact that his penis isn't exposed on the cover means little as the picture is clearly sexual in nature featuring a minor.
As I don't live in the US and know even less about the laws surrounding child protection I could of course be wrong but I think it is something that should be considered.
:Additionally, it is a fair use image, meaning, as its tag states, it can be used to to "illustrate the DVD in question", in this case "Every poolboy's dream". All other uses are questionable. -- Ec5618 22:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will remove the image in a day or so (unless opposed), as per the 7th counterexample listed on Wikipedia:Fair use: "An image of a magazine cover, used only to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover." If it is removed, it will probably be deleted. -- Ec5618 12:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I oppose the removal of the image.  It clearly illustrates the subject of the article and the major content of the article (the legal battle with the video distributor). SchmuckyTheCat 16:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I also oppose the removal of the image.  I don't understand why you'd even want to.  Unless it is demonstrably illegal, I think it should be left as is.  It's a good photo of Brent, it's the movie he's probably best known for, and as SchmuckyTheCat says, it's a good illustration for the "legal issues" section. -Bindingtheory 01:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe I have just made a case for deleting the image, based on fair-use law. We may be able to adhere to the law, by changing the way in which the image is presented, but if we do not, we will need to remove the image, I'm afraid. -- Ec5618 11:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the video cover used legal 

message: Unprotection of this article has been requested, and as it's been twenty days since the article was protected complete unprotection would likely make sense. However, as was suggested by RadioKirk, I believe semiprotection to be a better answer given that the bulk of the previous edit-warring was done using anonymous accounts and sockpuppets and that I see several anonymous users who seemed to be threatening to continue as they were before. If you think it's ready for complete unprotection, let me know; however, I think this will be a better solution. AmiDaniel (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semiprotected 

message: Sorry for not being constructive, I'd just like to pint out I have never seen such drama on Wikipedia before (and I thought the crap on the front page about the World Cup was bad).  When I see Corrigan I see a damn hot boy, and perhaps it's because he's a year older then me that this whole underage thing doesn't really seem like such a big deal.  What disgusts me is that there are people who obviously feel they have the right to edit Wikipedia in clear voilations of its established policies.  No one is making them use Wikipedia.  (That said, his real name should absolutely be placed in the article.) -b 21:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I honestly can't believe this