User talk:Anthony JKenn

This will be my one and only statement on the Sara Jay Wiki situation, and the false accusation that I am a "sockpuppet" account of "Ilovepitts". (And the same goes for "ElPasoWalt", and the others who testified on behalf of Sara who have also been falsely accused and "convicted" of being "sockpuppets".)

First off, it is obvious that the clique who runs the Wiki porn section is simply on a vendetta to banish any porn performer they don't like simply out of personal spite, using the lack of "notability" as simply a convenient ruse to justify their blackballing and censorious behavior. It should be obvious from any random surfing of porn performers with active Wiki pages that Sara Jay is more than deserving of a Wiki page by virtue of her years of service and her social media stardum....but apparently, for some people, that's not enough to define "notability"....even though performers and models with far less than Ms. Jay's cache and no awards have had their Wiki pages gone unchallenged.

But, while the criteria used to reject Sara Jay deserves both transparency and critique, the attitudes and aggressive hostility of the moderators of the porn subsection, combined with their heavy-hammed thermonuclear response to legitimate criticism of their decision, really deserves to be exposed and opposed, because it absolutely runs counter to both the spirit and the objectives which Wikipedia was founded upon: the free exchange of ideas and debate. To simply label any critic as a "sockpuppet" and deny him/her of any defense of his speech is bad enough; but to arbitrarily banish him under the assumption that if he merely questions your position, he must be a "sockpuppet"?? Simply and unbelievably dictatorial. Even worse is the retribution of banishing a person from even commenting for the punishment of merely "pissing off" the moderator; this is sheer pettiness on top of the assumption that their arbitrary decision making can rebuff actual history and experience.

Ilovepitts made a reasoned and complete case for Sara Jay's worthiness to have a Wiki page; you may disagree with his case and say he may have been overemotional in his delivery, but for the moderators to simply blow him off by merely comparing his tone and style of writing with that of a letter from two years ago from a different person, and concluding that he MUST be THE SAME PERSON as "VickyVette", smacks of sophistry and a priori censorship. Strangely enough, it seems that the group who opposed Ms. Jay's inclusion seemed to be far more overemotional in their defense of their actions; resorting to minted outrage that they should ever be called "racists" and "antiporn" (even though one commentator specifically mentioned Ms. Jay's interracial films as a reason for his vote for deletion, and another voter explicitly refered to the charge of racism as one of "the pornographers' latest tricks" to "stifle their opponents". Yet, we are to believe that their decision is based solely on impassioned fact and evidence?? Really?? One would wonder if even someone like Nina Hartley would have passed this group's criteria, even with her many awards won, her over 600+ video credits, and her career as a spokeswoman for sexual freedom and sexual media.

I will acknowledge for the sake of disclosure that I am a paid subscriber/member of Vicky Vette's Vette Nation Army website network, and a moderator at her forum, and have been a long time member of the VNA and of Sara Jay's site for the past 5 years. I am paid by no one, however, and I make my own decisions and stand by my own words as a porn consumer, an observer, and a pro-sex/pro-porn blogger. I do not need nor do I seek permission or authority from anyone to state my opinions; they as well as I stand on their own accord. And the same can be said of all the others who commented in defense of Sara; they came to her defense on their own accord, as a means of opposing what they see as a misguided and totally biased decision. The actions of the moderating group has only justified my worst fears that the porn section of Wikipedia is no more impartial and open to actual transparency and analysis than Donny Long's original Porn Wikileaks was when they used their database for gay-bashing and bigotry. (Not to be confused with the current Real Porn Wikileaks site, of course.)

I'm sure that this will further rankle the clique, and even initiate the same calls for my banishment as it did for ElPasoWalt. To put it simply, bring it on, please. Someone might as well reveal to the world the real undercurrent of authoritarianism that lies just underneath the surface here, and if not me, who will? Some people seriously need to upgrade their porn education to fit the 21'st Century....or Wikipedia might as well give themselves to the likes of Gail Dines and proclaim themselves to be as rabidly antiporn as every other activist group.

Anthony J. Kennerson Lafayette, Louisiana

Anthony JKenn (talk) 16:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Quick Sara Jay update
It seems that the attempt to freeze out those opposed to the decision to delete Sara Jay's Wiki as "sockpuppets" has been blunted by Wiki clerks, who have ruled that the opponents such as ilovepitts, elpasowalt, and others are not sockpuppets per Wiki policy. Of course, the main perpetrators of the War on Sara are defending their actions and still moaning, but that's their issue. It seems that there are humans after all.

It may be tilting at windmills here, but later on I will attempt to make a positive case for Sara Jay's inclusion, using modern day criteria and calling for more transparency in the selection process for porn performers/models/camgirls. Watch this space for more details.

Anthony

Anthony JKenn (talk) 01:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)