Talk:Brent Corrigan/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Request for Arbitration Resolved

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brent_Corrigan#replying_to_request_for_comment

Natoma 20:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


Nice one

Reedy Boy 20:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

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)

Real Name

Whatever one feels on the Brent Corrigan/under age/Cobra issue, there is no reason not to include his real name. Except for the fact that Mr. Corrigan was under the legal age of 18 years at the time of the filming of a Cobra Pornographic Film that Mr. Corrigan was taking part in. The video producers purposely gave Brent a false name to avoid a lawsuit. Like any actor/performer, Wikipedia lists facts about them. The birth date, birth place, and birth name of actors are certainly appropriate information to list in an encyclopedia. Such a listing does not "take sides" in the on-going dispute regarding Mr. Corrigan. As an article with a NPOV, I hope basic facts can be left in the article. 68.36.193.233 13:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Even if some online news media gave once Brent Corrigan real name, he has never agreed for his real name to be off public knowledge. Stage name for porn performer are here to protect their private life. Furthermore, the underage controversy isn't settled. Until then, I think the presence of his real name on this page is inappropriate, not to say unlawful, for the respect of the right of privacy. (Not user, but reader)

I respect that opinion, but disagree. As a public performer - he chose to go into acting/pornography - his real name is not a protected secret. I can understand not listing his current address, his email, or anything else, but why is the real name of an adult public performer a protected piece of information? For any other porn performer, would you remove their real name too? Why don't we both stop reverting the page for a while and see what the rest of the WikiWorld thinks of this issue? My opinion - a person who voluntarily enters public life loses certain privacy rights - one of them is basic facts (name, age) about them. There is nothng unlawful about revealing a public perfomer's given name. (I am huge Brent Corrigan fan by the way and have tried to keep this page NPOV and fair - check previous edits). 68.36.193.233 14:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree to this opinion as to the public nature of his craft and thus the public nature of his name.
Indeed, I agree as well. Thus, I will try to keep this page as non POV as possible, and restore "vandalism" as soon as possible. Spheroide 18:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, [[User: Spheroide]Spheriode]] has something personal against Brent, why else would he be so insistent to include his real name in the entry? His real name was only made pubic by Cobra's unenforceable "writ of summons" which is basically a legal exploratory maneuver to gather depositions to determine if enough evidence even exists to justify a lawsuit. The file was made in an effort to acquire Brent’s valid ID for the purpose to legally release newly obtained content of Mr. Corrigan, not for verification of the claim he made on August 16, 2005. Had Mr. Phillips actually filed a legitimate suit, he too would have been required to provide testimony, an option which would not have been very attractive. A convicted felons claim and testimony carry little weight in a courtroom setting. (Unclean hands) Therefore, Mr. Corrigan’s true identity is of no concern to this entry as is Mr. Phillips or his background which probably does carry merit for inclusion. If the unnecessary disclosure of Mr. Corrigan’s does not halt, a detailed complaint outlining Mr. Phillips questionable background and negligent intent towards Mr. Corrigan. Furthermore a "Discontinuance without Prejudice" was submitted on Cobra's behalf in regard to the "writ of summons" the civil action used to reveal Mr. Corrigan's identity to the public. In other words, no action was taken. The only thing discovered from this proceeding was Mr. Corrigan's private information.

Thank you, signed, a concerned party.

"Obviously, [[User: Spheroide]Spheriode]] has something personal against Brent" --> Not at all. Please have a look at the article history and note that I even wrote the initial version, long before any age concerns surfaced. I just feel strongly that factual data should be included, and a Real Name for those in entertainment is among that kind of data. Thus my continuing efforts in keeping this article NPOV and informative. Spheroide 00:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Then why do you remove the factual data and corresponding links that I added detailing the Mr. Phillip's identity and felony conviction. Please explain that? If that has no significance to this entry than Mr. Corrigan's true identity surely does not!

They should be part of a "Mr. Phillips"-like article, and not of this one. Feel free to create one. A wiki-link could be added, for example, to the Cobra Video page to the Brian Phillips-page. Please create a complete and informative, but most of all encyclopedic article if you do so, and not just a one-point-of-view one that serves no purpose but to name-and-shame. I'm looking forward to reading your efforts! Spheroide 00:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Please don't put the real name of the person in the document. If the name is not publicly known it should not be disclosed, because it is violating his privacy. Dr Debug (Talk) 00:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Fact of the matter is that his real name *is* publicly known, due to the dispute between Mr. Corrigan and Cobra Video. Spheroide 12:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice on creating an entry for the "Mr. Phillips"-like article. I will get to work on that immediately and will take extra precaution to assure the article is very detailed as well as historically and legally accurate. I will be sure to include a full compliment of links and articles for authentication and verification purposes.

I would appreciate your infinite wisdom and input on this matter since you seem to have specifically detailed knowledge of background of Cobra Video and its models. Are there any other studios in which plan to outline in the near future?

I find it hypocritical that Brent has asked people not to use his real name when he has links about Bryan's past directly on his site. These links provide Bryan's real name. If Brent were truly serious about his own privacy, he would remove those links about Bryan. He hasn't done that, and I doubt ever will, as he continues to play the role of victim, even after all the debate has pretty much subsid ed. Why should Brent's name be kept private, but Bryan's name be public? Is this at all fair? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.83.96.69 (talk • contribs) .

Hmm. -- Ec5618 22:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Bryan was the one who first played the card that revealed Brent’s name by issuing the press release of the lawsuit, then added the links to his website in addition to sending text versions of the article to members (Cobra fans) in which he claims he has a data base of well over 10,000 If Bryan would remove all reference to Brent’s name and identity from his site, I am sure Brent would be happy to do the same.

1. First of all, a person's name is a highly relevant piece of information in an encyclopedia article that is about that person, so please don't argue that Brent's "true identity is of no concern to this entry". Wikipedia already lists the real names of porn stars (Jenna Jameson, Billy Brandt, Tommy Hansen, etc.) so there's certainly no policy against it.
2. He is a celebrity. (One I think about quite a bit, in fact... *drool*) As such, he does not have the same expectation of privacy as an average citizen.
3. I'm totally sympathetic to Brent's plight here. i certainly wouldn't want my own real name to be made public in his situation. But his name is now a matter of public record. It doesn't really matter how it got to be that way. Printing a publicly available fact is not an invasion of privacy, and it certainly isn't illegal.
4. There are no "personal safety reasons" here that any other celebrity doesn't have to contend with. Even David Letterman has stalkers. There are consequences of being a celebrity, not all of them desirable. If he were a witness in a mob trial trying to stay hidden, that would be one thing. But this is someone who voluntarily got into porn acting, and continues to do so even today (thank god).
5. We can't exclude relevant, verifiable information purely because the subject of the article doesn't want it mentioned. Remember the congressional staffers who removed undesirable information about their bosses? [1] How is this any different?
6. Now, all that being said, the last thing I want to do is hurt someone. Especially someone like Brent. (I repeat: *drool*) How about this as a (semi) compromise: add a sentence that states something like, "Brent's real name, not listed here, was released (against his will) [2] in a lawsuit relating to his claim that he was only 17 during the time he was working for Cobra Video." Don't state his real name, don't link to the site that lists it. It's not a perfect solution, but it should make Brent happy in that it doesn't list his name and makes clear that it shouldn't be listed here, and it makes Wikipedia purists happy in that it makes clear that Brent Corrigan is not his real name and that his real name is publicly available for those who want to put the effort into tracking down the court documents. In fact, I'm just going go ahead and put it in the article now.
p.s. what the heck: While I'm at it, Brent, *please* don't make the mistake Brent Everett did and bulk up like that. Ugh! What was he thinking??? Muscular, pumped up porn stars are a dime a dozen. Embrace your twinkdom! -Bindingtheory 01:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


++++++++ So... this name issue is persistent. It's stupid, really. We all know his real name. Therefore, it should be in this encylopedia article.

Right?

BernieD 19:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


Yes, his real name has been revealed in some news media. Now, as "public knowledge", it can be included in that encyclopedia, as it has been made for other porn actors. But the way his name has been thrown to the lions is somewhat dishonest, and clearly with intent to cause prejudice. And that bother me A LOT! Furthermore, with or without his real name, the article won't be more or less truthful (because it concerns his porn persona, not his private persona), and that's what is important. So, I vote for NO REAL NAME. --Sam67fr 22:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
OMG, my opinion is so biased... OK, his name is known, and even if I don't like how he became known, it's now a verifiable content we can add (but shall we?)in this article. But there is no need to add it in each sentence as some users try to do. A one citation is enough! As I was saying before, it's an article about a porn perfomer, not an article about a private citizen.--Sam67fr 13:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I see that "arbitration" has made it clear that his name should be included, or, at least, that it can be included. There's nothing prohibiting it. BernieD 18:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
So, really, what we're talking is not the fact of its inclusion but how it's included. I can agree with that. The Middle Ground! So, where should we put it? BernieD 18:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Religion

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)

Then there is no reason, not to add Bryan's real name or his backgroud.

The continuing removal of relevant external links

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)

Proper action taken

Thank you Dr. Debug we feel the appropriate action has been taken to safeguard Mr. Corrigan's identity while maintaining the integrity of the article. Due to the open source nature of this medium it is important certain precautions are taken for individuals protection.

Thank you,

Mr. DeBug

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)

I have removed it again today

Reedy Boy 09:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for Deletion

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)

  • No, that isn't the way thinks work in Wikipedia. Famous people don't get to have their articles deleted just because they don't want them here, just like any other encyclopedia. There are other ways of dealing with an editing problem. An administrator can lock the article so that it cannot be edited, for example. I don't know, however, what the Wikipedia policy is on including birth names of people using pseudonyms. If there is no Wikipedia policy against it, then there may be nothing that can be done about it. You might want to review Wikipedia's policies, which you can find here. Zeromacnoo 14:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Its more he doesn't want his real name adding for legal reasons. If it was possible to get an administrator to lock this article, so that people cant keep adding it, that would be great. How would i go about doing it? Would i just contact an admin? As for his name as mentioned above, hasn't been disclosed for legal reasons Reedy Boy 16:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • You can request protection for an article. However, you should note that articles are rarely protected for long periods. Also, real names are generally included in articles. -- JJay 17:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    • How would i go about requesting it locking? Reedy Boy 21:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Page protection requests are made here Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Your best shot would probably be semi-protection, which blocks anon access. -- JJay 21:12, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Unregistered users and the Changes they've made to the article

Here are all the unregistered users who have edited this page, along with what they've done. Most of them are one-edit-wonders, who've never touched a page other than this one.

These 5 IP addresses remove Brent's name from the article. It seems likely that they're all different individuals.

  • 83.226.173.128
  • 69.248.102.13
  • 66.75.43.6
  • 213.54.133.118
  • 67.173.173.120


67.85.205.37 removes brent's real name and adds Bryan Philips real name.


As you can see, the following 7 IP's are probably the same user. He/she consistently adds Brent's real name to the article and make no other edits to any other pages:

  • 63.22.175.73
  • 63.22.252.126
  • 63.22.254.250
  • 63.22.191.91
  • 63.22.164.15
  • 63.22.176.71
  • 63.22.173.152


12.176.206.205 adds Brent's name via the yahoo group link.

141.43.144.10 adds Brent's real name


Made changes unrelated to this edit war:

  • 87.194.18.172
  • 194.159.73.69

Policy

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)

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)
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)
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)

I think the question, Lector, is "Is there a policy against including his real name?" If not, then I don't think there is a basis for deleting that information. Admins can ban individual anon IPs and ranges of IPs, although it is discouraged, and the bans are intended to be temporary. I think that the bans apply to all of Wikipedia, and not just to one page, though. All unregistered and new users can be blocked from editing an individual page: temporary page protectoin is possible in cases of vandalism, for example. But a violation of Wikipedia policy has to be determined before an admin would impose portection. For the record, I don't have a real problem with the compromise position that excluded the name but linked to an external site where the name oculd be found. It's not strictly within how I understand Wikipedia works, but if it makes peace, then it's okay. Zeromacnoo 13:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Lock in real name?

Can anything be done to lock in the performer's reral name? If some fool was constantly deleting Marilyn Monroe's real name (Norma Jean Baker I think) or Elton John the information would be locked in.

Skin Deep

Civilization is skin deep. Freedom of speech is as firm as a rubber band. It needs protection only when it serves you. The craving for smothering opposing opinions lurks in the deep darkness of every individual's mind. Whenever there is the slightest hint of power, the urge of censorship burns like wild fire. It is so tempting, isn't it, to get rid of the eye sore rather than accomodate it, even though facts take no side themselves.

"Expose their IP addresses, block them. Freedom for me and persecution for you becuause I am the righteous one, and I am even righteously outraged for your refusal to go away because you can certainly tell who I support in this case. Who gave me the right to rule the information flow? It doesn't matter."

Freedom of expression is to caricature someone's prophet while sentencing another to 3 years in jail for denying the Holocaust. Somewhere in this beautiful conutry, brilliant young minds are growing up on campuses to sustain just such tradition.

If the majority of population are gay, will they just persecute the other side?

I have never posted anything on this web site before and just stumbled on it this afternoon. I couldn't care less about the subject in this dispute. But the desperate effort of certain individuals to withhold neutral and common facts from the public is astonishing. But then again, we are all animals on this pale blue dot.

Why Not Include Brent's Real Name

Ok, for real this time. Despite my attempts at a compromise, it borders on the absurd not to include a person's name in an article about that person without an extremely solid reason not to. "Brent doesn't want to list it here," and "Brent might get stalked" are not valid reasons. That being said, please list here any reasons you have NOT to include his name. We should evaluate those reasons as a group and come to a decision about this once and for all. If nobody has any good reasons, then we will just list Brent's name and defend against vandals who remove it. -Bindingtheory 04:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, when a person has requested that their private information, which was not released in an entirely legal manner, be kept private and not be disseminated on the internet, that person has the right the their privacy, regardless of who the are or their standing as a celebrity, especially in this case where said person feels as though such an inclusion of their name would constitute a threat to their safety, regardless of whether or not it truly does. One could ask where this information stops. Posting a home-city? A telephone number? An address? I feel that, in concern for Brent's rights to his personal privacy, which nobody ever just 'gives up' by any stretch of the imagination, we should keep his name removed and defend against its inclusion. CaveatLector 08:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Could you explain "which was not released in an entirely legal manner"? I am interested in this point -- it may be the one thing to convince me of your position on this this. Thanks. Zeromacnoo 14:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Brent claims on his site that the writ of summons was unenforcable and later invalidated. Is there any way someone can confirm this? Like I said before, unless we can CONFIRM a wiki policy that REQUIRES his name to be included, I feel as though we should respect his wishes and his fear for his safety, irregardless. CaveatLector 02:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
CaveatLecor (or someone else), could you provide the link to the relevant part of Brent's site? Thanks. -Bindingtheory 03:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
The following address should take you there, a post on his blog. Just for the record, the following site DOES contain sexual images. http://www.brentcorriganonline.com/blog/?p=32 CaveatLector 08:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

His name was released in a VERY legal manner. It is on a Writ of Summons issued in Luzerne County Pennsylvania. Anyone can walk into the County courthouse (in Wilkes-Barre) and get it-it is a public document. This whole censorship debacle reeks of Stalinism when someone's image was airbrushed out of photos when they were purged.

Well then please by all means include Bryan Kocis aka, Bryan Phillips convicted felon for the Sexual Abuse of a Child (15 year old boy) back in 2002. The boy declared in a statement given to police that Mr. Kocis referred to him as his "prince". That one got away but Brent unfortunately didn't. --66.75.43.6 16:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

What does that mean, "Brent unfortunately didn't"? Brent lied about his age so he could get a job working in porn, and continues to work in porn even today, so he's hardly a "victim" in these circumstances. That being said, yes, obviously Bryan Phillips's real name should be listed in the article about Brian Phillips, which nobody has written yet. But right now, we're just trying to determine why we *shouldn't* include Brent's real name in the article. -Bindingtheory 17:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The person or persons that seem to spend so much time adding Brent's name to the article should focus their effort creating the article/entry on Mr. Phillips aka Mr. Kocis and his colorful past if they were truly interested just in the integrity and authenticity of this piece? Rather than spend all their time in the exposure of a boy who made a highly very misguided decision as a minor, they would provide the article the balance they seek if they insisted on the same scrutiny of the adult who has shown an obviously suspect pattern of behavior. An adult who operates a business extremely sensitive and is susceptible to the potential sexual exploitation of children if basic precautions, research and confirmations are not performed. He has claimed that, twice two different minors deceived him within a two year time period of misrepresenting their age! He is clearly a reckless man who has only ill will toward Brent.--66.75.43.6 04:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Sean Lockhart is an ADULT man who operates his own porn site. His name is publicly available in court documents, newsgroups, message boards and a Yahoo group. Furthermore, Sean, on his own site, identifies Bryan Kocis by not only name but address. A case of the pot bitching about the kettle's blackness? I have no problem adding Bryan Kocis's name to the "Corrigan" page-if the Stalinistic fool who keeps deleting Sean Lockhart's name will cease and desist. -63.22.248.82 Comment edited by CaveatLector in order to preserve the subject anonymity.
Ravings of Stalinism aside (the unregistered user who loves leveling that term as well as adding Brent's name to the article might want to read its entry and aquaint herself/himself with terms before s/he uses them), the points for not including Corrigan's real name still stand. His standing as an adult does not matter in this case, being an adult does not revoke rights to privacy, nor does running a website such as he does. No matter what sites are violating his privacy, Wikipedia should not follow suit. On a side note, including his name in the talk page (which I have edited out of your comment) seems to speak to your unwillingness to actually discuss this issue, as does your continual addition of the name to the article from an unregistered IP. Please either state your case lucidly and MATURELY. Perhaps we can act like adults here. CaveatLector 21:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

CaveatLector, in your eyes, what *would* constitute a reason to include Brent's real name? Would it only be acceptable to you if Brent himself agreed to it? People who are the subjects of wikipedia articles don't get to decide what information what information is included and what information is left out.

To the unregistered user (63.22.x.x), please register for an account. It's free and anonymous and fast, plus your ip address won't be broadcast to the world anymore. -Bindingtheory 23:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

To this extent, the subject of the article has expressed worry over his safety. Would we post his address as well, if it were released? I'm not quite sure why his real name is such pertinent information to this encyclopedic entry either, considering that all the work he has done has been under his alias...where does his real name actually have a place in this entry at this time? I think we should justify its inclusion before we justify its exclusion. Especially in this way it is included now (quote: "His real name is...")...shouldn't that real name be included bolded in parenthesis after his false name per wiki style? I also haven't yet seen the wikipedia policy that you are referring to, that subjects cannot affect the content of their articles...could I get a link? -CaveatLector 02:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if publishing BC's name will actually endanger him, but I feel his birth name should be excluded for other reasons.

I read earlier on this discussion page that there was no law protecting his identity, that he chose to be a public figure. In fact, there is a legal restiction against releasing a model's name, it is part of the same law that requires models be legal adults. BC entered into this profession with not only the belief, but the legal assurance that his birth name would not be released against his will. The Cobra representative could not release his true name except through a civil action.

I don't know the motivation behind the writ of summons, but, from a purely legal standpoint it was a useless gesture. The writ had no power whatever outside of the state in which it was issued, and it has been challenged and rendered moot. This does not mean that it never happened (I think that is called "expunged"), just that is has been legally recognized to be invalid. Since there is no legal reason to file a powerless writ, it makes me wonder if the accusations against the Cobra guy might not be valid.

It is possible that Cobra guy did it for the sole purpose of releasing the model's name without risking getting sued or prosecuted, perhaps in an effort to embarrass BC and damage his personal relationships outside of his profession. If, and I do mean if, that is the case, then the inclusion of the real name would be allowing the article to be used as a vehicle for the Cobra representative's agenda, and therefore the ulimate "POV".

Further, there is an argument that the birth name of BC is public record, making the comparison to the Cobra guy's name being public record. I do not accept this argument. There is a distinct difference: BC's name was released through legal papers filed for dubious reasons in civil court, against the subject's will. The Cobra guy's name is public record due to criminal prosecution and conviction, the result of his own actions. It does not seem equal to me to compare the two instances. Cobra guy could not have expected any degree of anonymity, like BC did. If BC's name were released from prosecution of the underage disaster, I would be in bed asleep now, instead of typing this.

The likelihood is that the release of his birth name was probably at least partially personally motivated. I know that Wikipedia should report facts, but it shouldn't be used as a weapon to personally attack someone. The bell has been rung, his name is out there for anyone who wants to find it, why not let them? The fact is that we have a precious gift that BC did not have: a choice.


Please refrain fom editing my posts on this discussion of Sean Lockhart and I will do the same. I am registering as a user. You Stalinists are not going to win this war. Lockhart's name is in the public domain and the genie will not be put in the bottle. Also, why does Lockhart, on his site put not only the name but the picture and ADDRESS of Kocis? If I can get ahold of Lockhart's address you can be sure that like Kocis' it will be put in the public domain. Something about the goose and the gander being equally treated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.22.226.18 (talk • contribs)

Please stop making personal attacks, and please stop forcibly adding the name. -- Ec5618 17:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Note that the user claims that he would illegally release private information that would undeniably put Corrigan at personal risk if he had it? There seems to be a personal issue here, but as long as the article remains without his name, I will refrain from editing this talk page. However, I would encourage admins to do so for the same reasons that his name should be kept out of the article. CaveatLector 20:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Where in the law is it "illegal" to release a name publicly revealed in a lawsuit? Only in that strange parrelel universe known as Lockhartland? On Monday a multimillion dollar lawsuit was filed by Cobra Video against Lockhart in the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles-anyone can walk into the clerk's office and look at it. The story has hit the Associated Press and AVN with Lockhart's name prominently displayed. Game, set and match. Censorship loses. -Melbedewy

There's nothing on AP or AVN about it. -Bindingtheory 15:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

As of Thursday 9AM Eastern Time it is on the front page of http://gayvn.com. The article is titled "Cobra video ratchets up offenive against underage model"[3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melbedewy (talk • contribs)

Removed pasted article for copyright reasons. Included a link to the article. -- Ec5618 14:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yahoo Fansite

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)

  • It was NOT set up "to hurt Brent by linking from the Wikipedia

article". It was set up to continue the lively conversation on the matter that was obviously of interest to the members, but cut short by the administration, of the JuicyGoo forum. That's all. The site was set up by a fan of Brent, and if the only posts there are anti-Brent, that is the fault of his fans alone for not posting in support of him there. Let us hope that more join and do so. Now stop removing my link to the group, or I'm going to pull your tongue out

Facts and verified content

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)

  • 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)

All claims asserted in the updates provided from this IP address were reported and given in person in an interview by Brent Corrigan to the San Diego FBI field office on Feburary 3rd, 2006, including all copies of IDs and birth certificate. I assume if they were interested in arresting him or at least holding him for questioning pertaining the allegations claimed by Cobra, they could have done so then? --68.88.69.35 00:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

replying to request for comment

What's the problem? Could each side explain their case, preferably backed up with links to edit history and grounded in Wikipedia policy? I have no view on this guy(don't even know who he is), but just want to help enforce Wikipedia policy. Thanks, --Urthogie 20:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

  • [4] <-- That's the question. Should the real name of this actor be in the article or not? One side says that stating the real name of celebrities is normal procedure on Wikipedia if it's verified. The other side says this celebrity doesn't want his name disclosed and is suing his promotional agency for disclosing it. SchmuckyTheCat 21:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
If what you're saying is correct then you seem to be the one in line with wikipedia policies. What trouble have you run into with the other editors? revert warring?--Urthogie 22:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
It's -not- my dispute. One of the editors was putting a demand in edit summaries to stop editing and then went to Arbcom because s/he thinks it's "illegal" to put the name in the article. I read the complaint there, came here and fixed up the article, and filed the RfC, since these editors don't seem to know how dispute resolution works. But, yes, it's obvious the name should be included in the article. I don't want to be involved in their revert war, so I left it in the same state as I found it, name removed. SchmuckyTheCat 22:39, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

IMO, this article belongs on WP:RFD, but if it stays, Wikipedia policy is undeniably that an appropriately-sourced real name should be included. -- Gnetwerker 22:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I assume you mean WP:AfD, in which case feel free to nominate it. Wikipedia does seem to be a massive repository of information on porn stars though. SchmuckyTheCat 22:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

SchumckyTheCat, if you're going to leave commentary on this issue, at least get the story correct. I did not say it was "illegal" to put the name in the article. I first said that knowingly and maliciously spreading the private name of a porn actor is prosecutable. Given the intent of several of the editors and their commentary in the history, as well as the revert wars from several months ago, it was obvious that there was a malicious intent involved, which is legally prosecutable.

I elaborated further with:

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.

and

If the arbitration committee has no jurisdiction over content, who does then? Keep in mind, I have no qualms with the display of his real name as it is a matter of fact. It is my concern that Wiki has become the "battleground" for a dispute that is currently in the courts. Given that the release of a porn actor's name without prior consent, particularly when dealing with a potentially underage performer, is illegal, why bring further headache until this court case is resolved? This is why I requested the lock until the dispute is finalized.

and

Porn Actors sign legal agreements with the companies they contract with to use pseudonyms. This is primarily for their protection, given their line of work. It is that reasoning which I am following. Cobra Video released the real name of Brent Corrigan in a newsletter to all those who had subscribed, as well as to AVN. That is potentially thousands of individuals, if not more, that became privy to that information. That act was illegal in and of itself and is currently in court from a counter-suit by the Corrigan team. Due to the potential legal problems, I don't think it would be wise to continue to place this information on Wiki, at least until the dispute is resolved. Once it's resolved, then people should do what they will given their own conscience. But at that point, the questions of legality would be answered. Have I explained my stance on this issue appropriately?

It should be duly noted that I asked for a lock only until the court case was resolved, in order to avoid any potential legal issues. But after that point, people should do what they will with Brent's real name as it is indeed a matter of fact available for the world, unfortunately. That was my reason for going to arb, i.e. to get the article locked until the court dispute was resolved. Nothing more, nothing less.

Natoma 03:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I've left commentary because this dispute about this article disrupted lots of other places on the Wikipedia, and YOU raised the issue at the Arbitration Committee, which attracted attention. So here goes:

  1. The legal issues have nothing to do with Wikipedia, or anybody else except the people named in the suit. That issue is worthless to this discussion.
  2. Releasing a celebrities name isn't prosecutable - anywhere (in the US), for any reason.
  3. He has a civil tort against his agency. Wikipedia is not party to that suit. There is no legal issue we have to care about.
  4. Contracts between porn actors and their agencies don't bind anyone else. What Cobra did might be reprehensible, but we just don't care, except to report the facts of the matter.
  5. Users, via policy and consensus have jurisdiction over content, which is why I put this on Request for Comments.
  6. The responses thus far are unanimous, there is no reason not to put the real name in the article. I agree though, it doesn't need to be repeated over and over. Once in the intro should be fine. There is a separation though, between his persona and real person. In the part discussing the legal case, it may be more appropriate to use his real name. So far, I neutralized that section by referring to "the actor" rather than the name.

SchmuckyTheCat 09:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

1) I didn't disagree with you leaving commentary. I disagreed with your commentary because you got the story wrong.
2) The comments left in the history section of this article clearly show an argument between the Corrigan team and the Cobra owner team dating back months in which they revert warred on this article over and over again. And then there are anonymous users who have done nothing but insert Corrigan's real name as well as the Cobra owner's real name, with no comments whatsoever. Not to mention allegations of child pornography, drugs, alcohol abuse, etc.
That is where the release of his name is prosecutable, because it's clear that this was done by the Cobra team. That then involves Wiki in the legal dispute, if it goes that far, as a matter of record.
The rules that were quoted to me on the RFA page, and the ones that I read personally, stated that when revert warring on this scale happens over and over again, a legitimate request for lock, or close watch by global wiki editors, can be submitted.
As I stated before, there is absolutely no reason for Wiki to be the battleground between those two parties, or 3rd party affiliates, i.e. fans, while this legal dispute is going on. We have absolutely no idea how this affects Wiki's involvement due to Corrigan potentially being underage at the time of his performances, as well as both sides in that dispute using Wiki as their personal sounding board in what should be a private legal matter.
3) You say that this dispute disrupted "lots" of other places on Wiki. Erm, only two other places other than this article was "disrupted", and that was the RFA page and the redirect.
4) In closing, I do not believe that it is Wiki's place to be the bludgeon tool of rabid fans of Corrigan and rabid fans of Bryan Phillips. Nor do I believe that it is conducive to what Wiki is supposed to be. There have already been cases where articles were locked in the past due to egregious content disputes that were reported in the news, such as when politicians send their lackeys to remove any "negative" comments about them.
This warring had gotten out of hand and that's when I requested arbitration to lock the article until the court case was over.
Natoma 17:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm glad you sought outside help. Sorry if I got some of the facts incorrect. Yes, large scale revert wars need to be cooled down. For future reference, the place to get a page protected is WP:Rfpp - which I did request for you. Reading up about Wikipedia:Dispute resolution might be helpful.
There is still no legal issue for Wikipedia to care about. And you're absolutely correct that the participants in the legal dispute and rabid advocates from either side should not be using Wikipedia as a battleground. In that case their behavior might stand to get them blocked. Try to find an interested admin who might care to watch the article. SchmuckyTheCat 18:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Schmucky. All I wanted in this case was for my intent to be understood, i.e. that I'm interested only in protecting the integrity of Wiki as well as stop content wars where I see them. I'm glad that we have an understanding now. :) Natoma 18:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, sorry there was any mis-understanding. Putting this flare-up on the arbitration board is like pulling a fire alarm. My reaction to put out the fire was to 1, neutralize the wording of the article and 2, Request for Comments so other experienced editors can also try to put in their opinion to the editors on this article. SchmuckyTheCat 19:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

As I stated before, I see no reason (except moral, but that's not the point) why not to include the real name in the article. My only concern was how to include it. I agree with SchmuckyTheCat about the inclusion in the intro. That's how it's commonly done with any performer when the real name is known. I'm not sure about an inclusion in the "legal issues" part because only the pending law suit concerns the performer "real person". Maybe should we rewrite that part or stay with a reference to "the actor" or "the performer".

--Sam67fr 09:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to see the revert warring, nor do I want to see the Corrigan/Cobra team using this place as their personal battleground, or their rabid fans using this as their personal battleground, as I've said before.
Frankly, reading the history of this article is pretty disgusting imo, and is a big part why I requested the lock in the first place.
Natoma 17:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Lockhart is not "a potentially underage performer" but an adult whore who runs his own sexually explicit web site. Maybe we should censor Elton John's or John Wayne's real name too? Absurd. Lockhart's real name has been published in the media and this is in no way "prosecutable". Grow up-the name is not going away.

He was "a potentially underage performer" at the time, which is at the heart of the legal dispute brought by the Cobra team. He's an adult now, but that's not what the suit is dealing with is it? Given your comments about "growing up", you obviously have no comprehension of the point I was trying to make. Natoma 17:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

People, people. Chill for a second. I see that the argument against putting his name here is that it might be a legal issue. Could whoever believes this please supply a link to any truly enforced law against the inclusion of this guys real name?--Urthogie 18:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

That's the thing Urthogie. I don't know the legal ramifications as they pertain to Wiki as a conduit for this information. I only know the legal ramifications as they pertain to the Cobra/Corrigan team. One can extrapolate what the legal ramifications for Wiki might be, but it is uncertain.
It is that uncertainty, as well as the use of Wiki as a battleground, that led me to want to nip this thing in the bud and put in a lock request until the dispute was settled in the courts. That's all. Natoma 18:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Instead of lengthy arbitration, perhaps you should look up any relevant laws before you continue this dispute. Knowledge is power, y'know-- your case has no value until you prove that any law is being broken by the inclusion of his real name.--Urthogie 19:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
No no, you misunderstand. Me, or anyone else not affiliated with Cobra, including Corrigan's real name isn't illegal. It is the fact that Cobra's team are including his name that is the legal issue at hand. Because Cobra's team is blatantly doing so, as per the comments in the history log as well as the traceable IPs, that is where I see a potential problem coming as it pertains to Wikipedia. They are clearly breaking the law as it pertains to their contract, which is currently in court dispute. I just don't want to see Wiki potentially involved in that, and would rather it remain an impartial arbitor in this "war". Have I explained appropriately? Natoma 19:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, so you're saying that Wikipedia is being used as a vehical for a personal dispute? If you can verifiably prove this, then they would in fact be in violation of WP:POINT. However, until you have solid evidence, I don't think arbitration could much help.--Urthogie 19:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
There is no way to 100% verify my claim Urthogie. I have traced several IPs from both sides of the argument, and they are geographically almost identical to Cobra Video and Corrigan's current locations within the USA. Given the content of the history, one can strongly infer the obviousness of this article as a battleground between those two camps.
Again, there is simply no way to prove it 100% without contacting the ISPs and verifying what I have seen. As you can guess, the ISPs would be very unwilling to provide that information. They'd only open a can of worms, particularly when it comes to dealing with organizations like the MPAA and RIAA This is a case of "If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck". Natoma 19:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
The edit history probably does show a lot of violations of Wikipedia policy. As they are IP addresses and throwaway user names it isn't worth the time to pursue who and why they did what they did. So let's forget the past.
Let's move forward. We have general agreement that including the using the real name, which has been sourced and verified, in the intro paragraph, and using neutral phrases such as "the actor" in places where it would be inaccurate to use the stage name. Right?
Since the actions by "Cobra" appears to be insisting on including the name, that should neutralize their actions - we can stop worrying about it. The other edit warring behavior then is the removal of the real name. Wikipedia policy encourages the addition of notable information and I don't think there is a meaningful solution that makes that faction happy. The anonymous editors who continually remove the real name have not spoken up to defend that action. On Wikipedia, removal of sourced information that the community agrees is notable (such as the real name), is Wikipedia:Vandalism.
Can we agree that removal of the real name from the intro paragraph is vandalism? If so, then the procedures on Wikipedia:Vandalism tell us how to deal with it. We can revert those changes without being accused of edit warring. We should put the vandal templates on the talk page of the accounts used to vandalize. We can put the article on administrators watchlists Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and the username or IP addresses should get blocked. If it really flares up again into wholesale revert warring, Wikipedia:Requests for page protection may be warranted - we currently have a stable article to protect.
These steps should help get the article in line with Wikipedia policy and under control from revert warring. Discuss. SchmuckyTheCat 19:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I am comfortable with this decision now that there is some oversight on this article. Thank you very much!
p.s.: Cobra Video should also be watched as well as several of the anon IPs responsible for including Corrigan's real name in this article have gone to great lengths to remove Bryan Phillips' real name from that article. The same goes for anon IPs responsible for removing Corrigan's real name from this article, and including Phillips' real name in the Cobra article.
That is also another "suspicious" feather in the cap of this "warring". Natoma 19:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I suggest that you guys cancel the request for arbitration and simply treat removals of the name from the intro as vandalism. If the anons are incredibly persistent, I would suggest a request for comment or a partial page protection. I won't be here to help you with the vandalism, unfortunately, because I have a personal policy of avoiding anything relating to gay porn on the internet. Heh. Peace, --Urthogie 20:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

If we agree that removal of real name in intro is vandalism, what about those who want to include that real name 4 or 5 more times in the article? --Sam67fr 14:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I would agree that our current neutral wording referring to the actor rather than the stage persona is the result of consensus here on this talk page. But, I wouldn't go so far as to call it vandalism. We always assume good faith that a contribution is well-meaning. Some editors may be using the real name to distinguish from the stage name to distinguish the real life legal person who is being sued to prevent him from using the persona of the fictional person. In a large expansion of the article, it may make sense. However, we don't have to suffer for the benefit of trolls. Edits like this one [5] that you reverted are clearly disruptive attempts to make a point. I would revert it once or twice, but not three times - the rest of the editors here will also revert such changes. SchmuckyTheCat 17:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Lockhart's year of birth-85 or 86- is very much in dispute. 2. The phrasing "Brent Corrigan (Sean Paul Lockhart 1986)" is stunted and awkward English compared to the complete sentences I use. 3. Some fool is STILL editing out the name every day, under either version. melbedewy

Need to Make Our Minds Up

We are arguing about whether to have his name in, or out.

As overall, it is just creating may pointless edits for wikipedia

There is no other information being added, just his name and that of the MD of Cobra Video


I think due to his age being in dispute, but must be over 18 now due to him starting Adult Movies again, it should be left out, and the article locked from all editing?

Let me know your Opinions, and then we can decide with the help of some admins, where we are going to proceed

Cheers

Reedy Boy 15:20, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


I've just looked, nearly the last 500 edits have all been related to his real name....


Reedy Boy 15:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It's because people like you, Reedy, keep changing it.

BernieD 16:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)



I have previously posted both the link and the actual article from Gayvn.com which identifies the case as COBRA VIDEO VS. SEAN PAUL LOCKHART. Idiots here deleted the article. If you want you can search through the gayvn.com archives so please stop whining about posting the link while I have already done so. I am ready to do this every day-so stop complaining and whining and GET USED TO IT because I am not giving in to the self-appointed censors here. Melbedewy


If you can't source your commentary Melbedewy, it will continue to be removed. If you want your version to be the consensus, source it in the article. The onus is on you to provide this information, not on the rest of us.

We've already come to a consensus on this. If the article you linked to was deleted, put it in and it will become part of the consensus. If you can't find this GAYVN article that you say exists, then we shall continue to use the one reference of Corrigan's real name, i.e. at the beginning of the Brent Corrigan article, as it is done with other performers.

If you truly have this information as you say, it should be a simple matter for you to find it and appropriately source it.

Natoma 15:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)


A link is required for this, not the actual text of the article. Also, no court case name is referenced in this article, thus it doesn't support your claim of "COBRA VIDEO VS. SEAN PAUL LOCKHART" being the official court case title.

Can you reference Melbedewy? Thanks.

Natoma 17:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

THANK YOU for deleting the article you were whining for. You are the gold medalist in ball-busting. 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. Melbedewy


You don't get it. I said link the article. Not post the entire article without linking to it. You didn't do what I've been saying you need to do. You can view the history of the article to see so. I said everytime, reference your comments with links.
If you think this is about "winning", then you're just a child. It's called referencing your material appropriately for Wiki.
And beside all that, you didn't even post an article that supported your claim of the court case being called "COBRA VIDEO VS. SEAN PAUL LOCKHART". There was NOTHING in that posted article that supported your claim. Post something that does, otherwise it's irrelevant to this article and will be removed, as will other attempts to remove sourced material.
Frankly your behavior to date has been nothing but trollish in trying to paste Corrigan's real name all over the place rather than discreetly at the very beginning; once. Your behavior has been disparaged by the consensus and you should adhere to that imo.
Natoma 20:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Melbedewy, there are thousands of court jurisdictions across the US, assuming the case is even in the US - which shouldn't be assumed on an internation website. Maybe if you can cite the case and work it into the article, (not by cutting and pasting junk), it can stay. Wikipedia isn't a place for random information but there is no reason not to cite the actual case in an Wikipedia:NPOV way. SchmuckyTheCat 05:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't really understand Melbedewy point as the Gayvn article he wants to include is already listed in "External links". And the Brent Corrigan article already cite the federal lawsuit... So there's no need to cite this case once more. --Sam67fr 06:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

He's trolling at this point. He absolutely refuses to reference his articles in the proper fashion, and even then, he's not even posting articles that support his actual claim. Sigh.... Natoma 14:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Page protected pending review by other admins. User:Melbedewy has gone way beyond his original purpose and is now violating both WP:COPY and WP:POINT. More to come, no doubt... RadioKirk talk to me 20:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

American jurisdictions?

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)

Request to Permanently Lock Article, or Delete

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)

Request to unlock article

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)
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)
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)
Response (and why semi wouldn't work, IMO) on your talk page. :) RadioKirk talk to me 19:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


I just can't believe how immature and childish some people are being over this article.... Reedy Boy 10:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Is the video cover used legal

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

Brent will provide Wikipedia with a current non-graphic, legal photo today for this entry. --Groy@san.rr.com 19:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The image DOES illustrate the DVD. The DVD is mentioned twice in the article, and it is especially relevant since it is the vehicle which made Brent so notable in the first place (and continues to keep him in the spotlight due to the controversy that surrounds the film itself). The image is not only a DVD cover; it is also a photo of Brent, who is the subject of the article. It is being used for non-profit, educational purposes. It is a low resolution photo and its inclusion here has no effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work (particularly since the movie itself no longer has a monetary value, since it is illegal its original form). How does that not constitute fair use? -Bindingtheory 21:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Semiprotected

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)

I honestly can't believe this

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)

I too, can't believe this

This article is laden with bias. I realize that the main point of the article is to talk about Brent Corrigan, but all the edits and reverts that they seem to cause are all based on whether or not ALL of the information is presented in a pro-Corrigan light. Let's get some facts straight.

1) This person appeared in a relatively "new" type of gay pornography (bareback, non-safe porn that featured younger looking guys instead of guys who actually looked like men) 2) The guy who produced the movies has been in trouble for pedophilia before 3) Corrigan has CLAIMED that he was underage when he made a few of his movies (but no independent, oustside VERIFIABLE source can either confirm or deny this) 4) No one seems to know, for sure, WHY he has made this claim but the results have had profound effects on Cobra Video and Corrigan himself 5) The majority of the debate in here is coming from the fact that this revelation has caused a lot of controversy.

Can people at least agree on these propositions? or are even those debateable?

apologies...

Please delete this comment if it's been noted already... I'm not really following the discussion anymore as it's clear that it's way too passionate for someone as mellow as me...

Anyway... if you're been reading Brent's blog, he's more than once said that he's sorry for the events of two years ago (two?). Isn't it worth a sentence to mention that in the article?

Bareback Sex and recent videos

That's not entirely correct. Those movies were filmed prior to Corrigan's split with Cobra. He has nothing to do with them at this point. However, he did perform in those films. Once Fuck Me Raw is released, it should be added to the list. The others are already listed. Natoma 23:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

So we keep adding Cobra's video library in this venue so Bryan Kocis can continue to cash in on the fact that he produced "child pornography". That is basically what this article has turned into. I big add filled billboard for a convicted felon and child pornographer! I say no new entries for additional videos until the matter is cleared up in court no matter how long Mr. Kocis trys to prolong the process!--Groy@san.rr.com 07:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

If the individual is not going to leave their signature after making the defaming and degrading entry, then the entry should be deleted! --Groy@san.rr.com 23:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

  • The correct title should be changed to Fuck Me Raw; Corrigan will release another video on September 1 called Take It Like A Bitch Boy. In both these videos Corrigan engages in semen eating and receptive bareback anal sex. Clips of Corrigan engaging in this activity are available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.171.207 (talk • contribs)
I am restoring both comments, more or less. My previous edit summary was directed to 68.9.171.207, who needs to address the points made by Groy@san.rr.com, not delete them (in other words, if it's not a "defaming and degrading entry",explain why not). I am, however, cutting your comments down as they're potentially commercial for Cobra Video and unnecessarily expository. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Not to be an apologist for Brian but he was given a no jail slap on the wrist sentence because the "victim" not only looked 18 but represented himself on the internet as 18. Brian was never charged or convicted of any pornography offense-just having consensual sex with a person trolling the internet for sex who looked and represented himself as 18. Let me address the issue of "defamation". For something to be defamatory it must be untrue. I have stated as fact:
1. Corrigan engages in semen eating and receptive bareback anal sex. Fact-This can be easily confirmed by anyone who has seen his videos or just by googling Brent Corrigan Bareback Or, one could easily go to the Cobra commercial site listed in the Wikipedia article and view such scenes yourself-free. Indeed, a large measure of Corrigan's popularity derives from his uninhibited sexual practices which mainstream porn actors shun.
2. Corrigan's Take It Like A Bitch Boy will be released on September 1. Fact-This was stated on the Cobra Video site (which is a link in the Wikipedia article). Further proof, if required, can be found in the free clip on that site which shows Corrigan eating semen in a scene from this upcoming release. Again,in large part Corrigan's success in the business is due to his willingness to engage in uninhibited "no-holds barred" bareback sex acts. He is to be commended for his honesty. Last August, on the Juicygoo forum he published a lengthy and unabashed defense of his bareback sex videos.
I need to interject once again; even though Wikipedia is not censored, there is such a thing as unnecessary exposition, and you have made it a point to include a specific sexual phrase (or slight variations thereof) in each of your posts here, sometimes more than once within a paragraph. This suggests either of two possibilities: 1) You have a healthy (or not so much) preoccupation with this activity, or you work for Cobra Video and are using promotional language to augment video sales. I understand you are attempting to counter accusations of "defaming and degrading" posts, but the appearance of PR needs to stop. Also, use four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your messages to "sign" them. Thanks.
Also, to Groy@san.rr.com: I have removed your last comment; TYPING IN ALL CAPS is the internet equivalent of shouting and is considered rude. Please feel free to restore without using all-caps. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I use caps mainly to distinguish titles, as in Citizen Kane was one of the great films of the 20th century, as was Casablanca 68.9.171.207 23:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)Tommy (UTC)
A quick note: for film, album and similar titles, Wiki uses italics (two single-quote marks before and after the word or phrase). RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

All caps? No, we wouldn't want anyone to get the wrong idea that Wikipedia allows its site to be a haven for these sick individuals and child predators!

Bryan's business practice is to find young, naive boys with little or poor sex education awareness or experience then represents to the boys that with a negative test from their local clinic along with a home test taken just before a scene is shot then they are free and expected (demanded) to do the scenes bareback with all the dangerous "no holds barred" sex acts he produces! All the while the boys fully believe their best interests and safety are in Mr. Kocis' hands! This is why he never uses a boy after a few scenes. They usually wise up and realize he's been manipulating and misleading them all along! The likely person adding these posts, (Kent Barclay) or Damon Kruezer is just a sick individual who has nothing better to do then be Bryan's mouthpiece and try to wreck other's lives from his anonymous postings! It is the same person who was vandalizing the article before and will continue to do so unless it is locked until after a legal decision has been made!--Groy@san.rr.com 19:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

To include an individual's work on that individual's page, irrespective of your unsourced beliefs, is not vandalism; please read WP:VAND (what vandalism is and is not) and WP:NOT (including a soapbox—your opinion is commendable, but an encyclopedia is not its forum). Meantime, like it or not, others will tend towards dismissing you and your arguments far more easily if you need to resort to all-caps to make them. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 19:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)