He didn't but the fact cryptnoob felt the need to mention it suggests he/she is concerned about. I myself don't go around registering multiple accounts "in case something happens" to one of the accounts. Do you?
>"WHOIS records are only 'supposed' to be used to contact the site admin, etc"
Dude, cry me a river. I own a shit ton of domains and so I get that spam all the time. The spirit of the rules around public record of WHOIS data (for com/net/org at least) is that someone can be contacted for technical and administrative reasons about the domain. It's a reasonable rule and so if people fundamentally disagree with it perhaps they should lobby ICANN/etc.
From my own experience running a web hosting business in the past that most people who anonymize their WHOIS details are doing so for suspicious reasons.
> "So the fact that a person wants a site to be 'anonymous' means that it's by definition a sleazy site?"
No, and my apologies for not being clearer on that - perhaps the word "ghetto" wasn't what I meant. What I meant was shared hosting is like being in the ghetto - you are at the mercy of your neighbors on the same server. An account on the same box sharing warez forums is going to affect YOUR site's performance.
> "Should the site admin be forced to be contacted/harassed by possessive (and potentially violent) men that are trying to find where their girlfriend/wife that ran away is?"
As someone whose domestic partner is a leading voice in women's rights online, who receives regular abuse and has had numerous death threats, I can assure you I am very familiar with this subject.
There is a difference between anonymous (read:un-contactable) whois vs using a business address or mailbox where you can receive communication but is not your private residence, etc.