User talk:Ssbohio/Justin Berry

Justin Berry on Oprah

Preface: This isn't directly related to the editing of the Justin Berry article. However, it is the kind of background that I'm viewing this article in comparison to when trying to determine whether it is NPOV.

Justin Berry's full-hour segment on Oprah from February ran again today. It was the same sotry of complete victimization that Berry has told the New York Times' Kurt Eichenwald & the testimony he gave to Congress. Objectively, Oprah's intent was to tell this story, but she did so uncritically. Berry appeared "despite death threats" & at the risk of losing a six-figure book deal. Subjectively, Berry reads as someone who is constructing a story. He pauses to think, verbally hesitates, and appears to choose his words carefully. He doesn't shy away from talking about these matters, but instead smiles occasionally & treats this subject seemingly as a matter-of-fact. Again, this is my subjective read of his appearance. If I were talking to Berry in person, I wouldn't accept what he said at face value. Interviewing subjects & detecting deception & inconsistency is part of what I do for a living, so I have some measure with which to gauge his behavior by.

That said, actually seeing Berry on Oprah convinced me that Berry, while indeed a victim, was also part of a criminal enterprise. He was compromised at an early age by people who can best be described as amoral hedonists. The men Berry performed for gained his confidence with emotionally seductive conversation and gradually lowered his inhibitions. They created a pedophile's dream in Justin Berry. While that explains & mitgates Berry's actions, I still feel it is wrong to ignore his role. Based on facts given on Oprah & in other sources, his monthly income from this business would most likely have exceeded $10,000 and could have reached as high as $70,000, based on the number of subscribers and the range of monthly fees that have been discussed. He received funds throughout his teen years, and I find it incredible to think that the realization never struck him that this is not a normal, healthy way to live his life. Leaving the sexual component aside, any enterprise that must be conducted in secret, whose income must be hidden from everyone, parents & government included, and the consequences of which forced flight to another country, isn't likely to be a legal line of work. My view is that some time between 13 & 19, Justin Berry reached a point where he was conscious of what he was doing, and made a conscious choice to continue on the same path. No situation features entirely pure heroes or entirely evil villains, and this is no exception. It's a facet of our media culture to reduce things to good vs evil, regardless of the nuances or gray areas. So, blame the adults who seduced him, but don't absolve Justin Berry of all responsibility for his own situation.--Ssbohio 11:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Justin Berry

• The {{TOCright}} is as fracking ugly as hell. I removed it in the archive because it disrupted the natural flow Jimbo's header and that converstaion. When you push the "archives" box on there the thing looks even more awkward, three boxes breaking the natural flow of your comment (the first one). The archives box looked fine sitting to the right of the TOC; it filled the space nicely.

• According to the National varieties of English bit of the MOS, "Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the spelling of that country." Further on down it adds "usage and spelling." Justin Berry is an American citizen and would use July 24 instead of 24 July. Date preferences are irrelevent; an biography of an American should use their DOB preference (July 24) and not the internatinoal way (24 July)

I won't edit war your revisions out, I just wanted to let you know why I did what I did. -- Hbdragon88 23:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• I assume good faith in the edits you made, and would have never thought of either of our actions as constituting an edit war. I normally don't revert removals of {{TOCleft}} & {{TOCright}}, but it seemed appropriate in the case of the talk page archive, if for no other reason than to keep the top of the page from consisting of an large swath of whitespace. I had originally used the left variant, but, in consultation with other editors, changed it to right because it was being seen as interfering with the flow of indents between responses. While I see your edits as anything but fracking ugly as hell, I do understand that we see it differently.

• And the MOS entry on dates indicates that as long as the date is properly Wikified, either date format can be used. Furthermore, in WP:MOS#Disputes over style issues, it says that "when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." Since date formats are controlled by users' preferences, I'm not seeing a substantial reason to change from one date format to another, especially considering both date formats are used in the U.S., albeit that the 24 July format is more often found in military & government documents in the U.S. than in general use. Either way, Wikipedians can set their preferences to view the date according to their preferences. In that sense, it's like the discussion about how many spaces to put after a period. As the National varieties of English section of the WP:MOS says:

In the event of conflicts on this issue, please remember that if the use of your preferred version of English seems like a matter of great national pride to you, the differences are actually relatively minor when you consider the many users who are not native English speakers at all and yet make significant contributions to the English-language Wikipedia, or how small the differences between national varieties are compared with other languages. There are many more productive and enjoyable ways to participate than worrying and fighting about which version of English to use on any particular page.

• I hope you can see that, in my view, which way the date goes isn't terribly important. I simply don't think others' work should be corrected unless it's actually wrong, as opposed to simply being non-preferred. In the end, though, it's unimportant. The important thing is that we're all here working on improving the articles. I don't want to let my gratitude for your contributions get lost amid issues like these.--Ssbohio 03:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

And yet, he persists, without regard for consensus or for being careful not to break the links on the page. De gustibus non est disputandum. --Ssbohio 22:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Sshobio, I'm not sure if you wrote to me on my blog or not (Julien's Gay Rant Page) but I just wanted to say thanks for your fight on the JustinBerry article. I've been dealing with the same crap from the Brent Corrigan article where every time I try to make a change, I get skewered by Corrigan's disciples; even though my changes are valid, meet BPL standards and the like. I have started a Timothy Ryan Richards article in order that an alternative perspective can exist. Some of the edits I'm seeing on Justin's page are clear violations of wiki. I'll try to help you the best I can. Good work, once again! --Julien Deveraux 20:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The ampersand conflict

First, I would actually appreciate it more if you'd actually talk to me on my talk page rather than making rather snide comments such as "And yet he persists, without consensus" on your talk page, which isn't assuming good faith. It seems that we're headed into another conflict over the ampersands, and once again I'd like to bring the issue to your talk page.

To begin with, "consensus" is not "your opinion." You have been reverting my edits; nobody else has reverted the edits, and nobody has started any talk page discussion on the talk page declaring support for either your or my opinions on how the page should look. I wouldn't revert your edits and call it "consensus" because you clearly disagree with me; likewise, I take strong offense when you revert my edits and call it "breaking consensus" when no consensus has been established.

Additionally, the Manual of Style is not "policy" as the TOP OF THE MOS states. You seem to cling hard to the idea that MOS is a bible, even going so far as to state that "Talk:Ampersand carries no policy weight" when the MOS itself isn't policy. It is a style guide, and as the top of the page says, it should be applied "with a certain degree of elasticity." Just because it isn't explicitly stated in the MOS doesn't mean that the change should be reverted on sight.

Third, as the Ampersand page itself states, the ampersand has fallen out of usage and has generlaly been replaced by the word "and." The ampersand is also a special HTML character and causes problems when put into direct text [1]. This is not the MOS, but since Wikipedia is silent, and because the state that the rules should be applied loosely, I choose the "accessibiilty and technical" solution and rational. Therefore, for the ampersand conflict, all ampersands should either be converted into & or be changed into "and". For the sake of simplicity and readability I would suggest the latter, and I come directly to your talk page in the hopes of building "consensus."

That is all. Hbdragon88 06:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll answer your points in order below, to avoid breaking up your text:

1. First, I would actually appreciate it more if you heeded the request on Talk:Justin Berry to discuss substantial changes there. That, to my mind, respects consensus. This article has not had an easy life, and a global edit like yours, especially the way you implemented it, presents problems. It broke several of the linked references, and, as ampersand infers but does not explicitly state, there is a stylistic difference in using "&" over "and," in that it creates a closer connection between the terms being joined. But, even if none of this were true, my view would still be that respecting consensus would best be achieved by discussing proposed global changes before implementing them, rather than complaining when global edits you made, edits which broke the article, were reverted. That said, my comment above does read rather more snarky than I was intending. Please accept my apology. The tone I intended for the comment was lighter than the tone I achieved. As an aside, I do assume good faith in your edits. However, your comments above make me worry that I may no longer be able to assume the assumption of good faith on your part. The combination of the insubstantial change & the breaking of the reference links made reversion my best option. It's nothing personal, just my attempt to do the right thing, just as your edits represent your attempt to do the right thing.
2. To begin with, consensus is not my opinion. On that we agree. We have had two situations so far where you replaced one element of style & usage in the article with another, even though the original element was valid. In the MOS section covering disputes over style issues, it says that "when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." Since we both agree that the MoS, the document that speaks on questions of style within articles, makes neither style unacceptable, then, by the MoS's own words, changing the style is "inappropriate."
3. Additionally, we agree that the MoS is not policy. However, quoting more broadly from THE TOP OF THE MOS, "the consensus of many editors formed the conventions described here" & "Wikipedia articles should heed these rules." It seems that you & I are like most people: we value a source more highly when it backs up what we believed in the first place, an instance of the confirmation bias. Comparing Talk:Ampersand with the MoS:, it can be objectively stated that the MoS carries more weight on the subject of the style of Wikipedia articles, as it addresses the subject directly and exclusively, whereas a talk page is a discussion, rather than a setting of policies or guidelines. After all, Talk:Ampersand doesn't say that "editors of new and existing articles should strive to have their articles follow these guidelines," as the MoS does.
4. Third, while the ampersand article does state that "the ampersand has lost popularity in recent years," that's not the same as saying that it has fallen out of usage. Indeed, the article goes on to cite such literary luminaries as Hunter S. Thompson as modern users of the ampersand. IT is also important to bear in mind that a term's becoming less common does not make it wrong to use. While the ampersand is a special character in certain limited places in HTML code, like URLs, it is a well-understood & well-handled element of the chracter set, since, quoting the article, "the ampersand corresponds to Unicode code point and ASCII character 38, or hexadecimal 0x0026." It is rendered the same across most platforms, and is a standard part of the punctuation portion of the ASCII character set. In any case, it's important to remember that we're not actually coding HTML, as the MediaWiki software correctly renders the ampersand, whether within URLs or in ordinary text. Perhaps if you gave a more detailed explanation of the technical issue you see, I'll understand it better, but, based on the information I have now, I'd have to say that I'm not convinced there is a technical issue.

My suggestion to you is that, if you feel that we should abandon use of the ampersand in Wikipedia articles, you should propose that change to the MoS, or, if you feel there is consensus, be bold and make the change yourself. Similar rules regarding other stylistic elements, such as French spacing and the serial comma have recently been considered for inclusion in the MoS. As long as there is no global standard on the use of the ampersand, I have to defer to the Arbitration Committee, who, in a June 2005 ruling, held that when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. Since both have extremely similar meaning, & the MediaWiki software handles both with aplomb, I assert that no substantial reason exists for making the change. I'm open to being convinced, however. --Ssbohio 10:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Sshbohio. You left a request for a third opinion on the use of ampersand in the Justin Berry article. I havn't read it or the discussion with Hbdragon88 yet but will do so in the next hour or so and offer MHO. Best. Ekilfeather 12:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Opinion is over on [Talk:Justin_Berry]. Best Ekilfeather 13:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Footnote reference problem

I've tried everything I can think of to make this footnote work in the Justin Berry article, but it won't show up correctly in the references section. It works here, but not there. I don't get it. I'm guessing I'm missing something obvious.

Dunno how, but it just started working... weird... --Ssbohio 10:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Justin Berry article

Steve, I read your comment on my discussion page regarding the Justin Berry article. I have been pretty occupied with other things lately. I might go to Gourlay's trial hearings if possible. Though, I think the article has more than enough information on Justin Berry and other related incidents.--Dan Asad 07:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Greetings

I'm a former wikipedian who left in spring after having my fill of userbox deletionists, the userbox wheel war, and the ridiculous WP:OFFICE. I might be coming back, but I'm not ready to sign back in just yet. However, I could not resist thanking you for two things:

1. Taking a strong stand in defense of userboxes and against the speedy deletionists and relocationists. I know the pain of dealing with the usual suspects who bully anyone who tries to stand up in favor of unfettered userboxes in template space.
2. Taking an objective look at the Justin Berry article. We cannot allow legal bullies to push a POV into the article. He is no hero. Oprah got played.

Nick --130.127.121.188 15:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

(crossposted to your talk page)

It's nice to be appreciated. In my view, the userbox controversy & the Justin Berry article controversy are two of a kind. In both, we have a faction that believes that the majority point of view can be substituted for the neutral point of view. That faction is opposed by a faction that believes that NPOV means both covering points of view equitably and disclosing our affiliations and our biases. I am part of the latter faction. I hope you'll consider rejoining the community on a permanent basis. Thanks for your kind words! --Ssbohio 23:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Rookiee block

I suggest you contact the Foundation about it. David.Monniaux 10:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Timothy Ryan Richards

Praise for the pre-nuking Justin Berry article

Thanks for the note re: the Justin Berry article. I actually found the article precisely because I was looking for information on Timothy Ryan Richards. He'd randomly sent me a friend request on Myspace, so I figured I'd investigate to figure out the backstory on this case. The article's summary was rather helpful (and fascinating). Of course, I then felt that Wikipedian urge deep inside to start copyediting. Keep up the good work! Esrever 17:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Deletion of Image:Timothy Ryan Richards.jpg

Undeleted. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 05:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

reWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy Ryan Richards

Right, I now understand about the benign impetus for the article. Herostratus 23:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Timothy Ryan Richards.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Timothy Ryan Richards.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 07:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Warning to User:JustinBerry about removal of content from Justin Berry

It's always delicate handling biography subjects who come to edit their articles. However, since you've expressed a negative POV on the subject it'd be best if you didn't also put yourself into an enforcement relationship with him as an editor. -Will Beback · † · 16:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I would hope my personal POV regarding Justin Berry's story isn't taken as an indication that I have a POV as an editor on the article. My history shows that I have acted to maintain NPOV even when leaving the content unchanged would bolster my position. Whatever else I do, I'm here to write an encyclopedia, and my strong belief is that not even the subject of an article is above the law, so to speak. That said, with your consent, I'll bring my concerns to you for disposition, rather than applying further warning levels to JustinBerry. This in no way indicates that I believe I don't have the privilege or duty to repair or prevent out-of-policy actions, even involving this particular user. Thanks for your patient work to educate & moderate in this controversial situation. --Ssbohio 17:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Berry.JPG & 68.99.126.175

I haven't received any replies. -Will Beback · † · 06:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

SatyrTN re removal of LGBT project banner from Justin Berry

Greetings! I note that in this diff you removed the LGBT project banner from the talk page for the article on Justin Berry. Were the story strictly one of pederasty, I would agree with your removal, even though the banner - in modified form - appears on the NAMBLA talk page. From my perspective, since the story involves both legally underage & legally of-age male-male sexuality, I feel that it meets the criteria for inclusion in the project. I'm posting the same message on your talk page, and I invite you to enter into a dialogue here. --Ssbohio 14:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Steve! I don't feel strongly enough about the article or the banner to argue for its inclusion or not, so feel free to re-add the banner. If you feel called, there's an "|explanation=" parameter in the banner, but that may or may not be needed. Thanks for checking in - and sorry if I stepped on toes! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No toes were harmed in the removal of this banner. :-) Although the edit summary could have been taken as offensive, I took it in the spirit it was obviously intended. You looked at the article, said "Hmm, this looks like a pederasty issue rather than an LGBT issue." As a member of the "LGBT communty" myself, I'm well aware of the tendency in some quarters to try to link us to crimes against children, and I sympathize with attempts to keep the two issues separate.

I've been dealing with the headache that is this article for a year or so now. I've seen it created (by an avowed pedophile), speedy'd, recreated, deleted under WP:OFFICE per Jimbo, argued about, warred over, and edited by Berry himself. It's been a long, strange trip, and I thought flagging it for the LGBT Project (of which I'm a member) might bring some editing help from people familiar with the subject matter. --Ssbohio 18:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Justin Berry

The text, as I understand it, was provided by Justin himself. I'm waiting for confirmation before I act on the copyright issues, accordingly. But no - the article in its current form is not good. Phil Sandifer 19:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

My concern is that copyright self-asserts on a published work. Since the work was published on at least one website, copyvio is going to be a foregone conclusion unless it can be proven otherwise. On the other hand, the last thing I want is to be the one who tags it {{db-copyvio}} after Berry added it. In its present form, the article is worse than when it was a stub, since it implicitly portrays that version of events as the version of events. Regarding the Justin Berry is a person stub, another editor jokingly suggested I should {{fact}} tag it, since it was unreferenced. --Ssbohio 19:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Phil Sandifer's repeated "nuking" of Justin Berry

Justin Berry reference deleted by Phil Sandifer

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Sandifer (talk • contribs)

Email re User:Phil Sandifer's actions

FYI, I've sent you an email. JoshuaZ 15:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Phil Sandifer's lack of compromise on Justin Berry

Phil isn't budging, and I think we have exhausted attempts to resolve this content dispute through negotiation. I've been reviewing his edits, and he's destroyed a number of other articles, and has refused to discuss those as well. An Arbcom case was brought against him for deleting the Child Pornography article, and then speedily closing his own deletion review. The case was apparently moved to email and has disappeared from the board. I find his arguments for deleting content, including Justin Berry, to be specious and unimpressive. Suggestions on how to proceed from here are welcome. Hermitian 18:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Involving other admins in the issue of Phil Sandifer's deletion at Justin Berry

Nice to meet you, Ssbohio. I'm glad we're in agreement on the current shape of the article. I have been involved in a few Rfcs and one Arbitration, so I can help organize one if necessary. I also know a few sympathetic administrators who trust my judgment and would be willing to take a look at the issue. Obviously I won't canvass them, but just ask them to take a look at the article and talk page. If I'm lucky I will be able to get to that in the course of today (currently 07:45 here). Let's hope that several editors working in concert and good faith can bring this article back to something less than a disgrace to Wikipedia. Jeffpw 05:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh look! Another factual article about Justin Berry & Kurt Eichenwald's alliance! We mustn't add it to the article! It violates WP:BLP/Phil! Forgive the sarky manner, but I am so frustrated by the inability of Wikipedia to deal with this subject like an encyclopedia. --Ssbohio 23:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Phil and Jimbo's Revenge?

17:11, 20 September 2007, Ryulong (talk · contribs) blocked Hermitian (talk · contribs) (never, account creation blocked) (Please address all questions about this block to the Arbitration Committee.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.109.195.50 (talk • contribs)

Interesting. Hermitian can be a bit strident, but he's overall a good editor. --Ssbohio 20:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ken Gourlay & Justin Berry.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Ken Gourlay & Justin Berry.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. DanB†DanD 00:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It's amazing the lengths to which you will go to gain the advantage in preserving one point of view rergarding Justin Berry. I would've expected better, given your edit history. Please, abandon the forum shopping and discuss your issues with the article on its talk page. --Ssbohio 01:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Rfc for Justin Berry article

Here is the template I am using. I will be working on this for the next hour or so, then will post it on the talk page, with notices at various other pages (not canvassing, just following the standard guidelines for this as I understand them). Feel free to edit and add to it as well. Let's get this started ASAP. Jeffpw 18:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

ifd

Well my apologies, it wasnt deliberate, I'm too old a hand to ganme the system especially re an image (look above and see the 2 fair image deletion requests that I am myself very unhappy with (Lincoln Thompson being one of the few articles I am genuinerly passionate about here). I think if I had ifd'd it myself you'd have a point...well you have a point, I certainly dont want to exclude you and my apologiers but it was not deliberate. I live in Honduras in a poor area so Im genuinely sympathetic to the Mexican worker but also I am happy to engage in arguments and diiferences with you but dont want to game the system to gain an advantage. I see from your user page that you are a mature and responsible adult, wish you the best and am happy to listen to anything you have to say, SqueakBox 19:47, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Undeletion request for Image:Justinpicture1.jpg

The way the image was used in the article was merely for identification nothing more. The image was not used in the article in a way that made his appearance at the time significant. There needs to be supporting, referenced text to tie the image into the article. You may take the discussion to Wikipedia:Deletion review for further consideration. -Nv8200p talk 13:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Fucking amazing that when there was clear consensus to keep, the image was deleted anyway. Talk about editing with an agenda............Jeffpw 13:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not an agenda, it's a good-faith effort to improve the project. I don't agree with the effort, but that doesn't make it ill-intended. As an admin, you can look at the deleted revisions and see that, prior to other issues, the article did discuss the issue of Berry's advertising his sites as having 18 & over content. As a compromise, if the language gets worked out, will you undelete the image then, and, until then, can you redelete the image under a deletion reason that won't make it easy fodder for speedy deletion as recreated deleted material? --Ssbohio 14:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The way the article is written, it is not significant to show what Barry looked like when he was that age. There is nothing documented in the text that Berry portrayed himself a particular way when operating his websites. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Your best bet is to request review of the closure at Wikipedia:Deletion review. -Nv8200p talk 20:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The article has recently been decimated. The discussion about what content to restore is ongoing. As an adminstrator, you can review the deleted revisions and see exactly what I'm talking about. What your deletion does in effect is to support one faction in the current RfC discussion rather than let the process do what it's supposed to do. All I'm asking you to do is to review more than just the revision present at this moment, since this is, after all, a Wiki. Do you contend that if I remove the reference to an image from an article, that you could delete the image based on that moment's revision? I think your duty is larger than that, especially in cases where your actions would adversely impact another ongoing perocess, like the RfC. --Ssbohio 15:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Get the content stabilized, then revisit the image issues. -Nv8200p talk 18:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I looked at several revisions of the article and saw nothing that was much of any difference as far as this image is concerned. -Nv8200p talk 18:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. You may want to weigh in here. I really don't mean to keep stirring up trouble over an article that's been such a headache for you, but I think the opposite decision on the two IfDs leaves the question of fair use criteria really unclear.

Anyway, the question isn't really about Justin Berry, but I was certain you'd want to be kept in the loop!

DanB†DanD 23:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleting edit

Unfortunately, the same vandalism keeps recurring, probably from the same vandal. The main thing is catching it quick and reverting it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

hbdragon88 RfA

Well, if you want to really know my opinion of it now, I find the debate to be extraordinarily petty (on my part) and kind of ridiculous. I used a talk page to justify changing it to "and"? And downplaying the technological prowess of MediaWiki? I acknowledge now that attempting to force the change was a bad thing, the approach was wrong, and I should have carried out a talk page discussion before trying to change it back, or after seeing it change back not to crusade and change all & to & to make a point. The MOS is flexible and consensus on talk pages determine when the MOS is ambigious and isn't definitively clear.

I don't see you to as a problem editor. In fact I congratulate you on boldness and sensitivity in handling the WP:BLP minefield of Justin Berry, having to be ever viligant and careful about sourcing negative facts, especially after Jimbo Wales personally deleted the article himself. As is my convention, I deliberately do the completely safe, cursory, non-controversial (as much as possible) edits. Nobody is going to yell at me for moving "high school years" up in a biographical manner (before it was being deleted as unsourced material), or achiving the talk page, or, as I thought, changing the & to and. And no one's particular feelings are hurt, or real damage wrought, when I source gameplay information on video game articles.

As for the wikilink issue, can I see the diff? hbdragon88 (talk) 06:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me say right off the bat that what you've said above has gone a long way to allay my concerns. I've already sampled your contribs and find you to be a thoroughly capable editor. It was a nagging concern in my mind that, had you had admin tools during our conflict, you would have been tempted to use them. I'm glad to report that I no longer feel that concern; You're not the same editor you were 17 months ago, & neither am I.

As for the wikilink issue, an admin who has since left the project deleted almost 700 revisions from the history of Justin Berry, including diffs from the time of our disagreement. What it boils down to is: I was adding dates in the form [[24 July]] and you thought they should be added as [[July 24]]. I think you see now that the date format in the Wiki markup is superseded by the user's preferences, and I see now that it's better to be consistent, even when the inconsistency is invisible to most users. I'm prepared to waive the point since I'm now satisfied with regard to your RfA.

Finally, concerning the Justin Berry article, it's in even worse shape now than when you and I were tussling over ampersands. The same admin deleted the article history once, had his deletion reverted by a fellow admin, then deleted the history again a couple of months later. He has never said what the BLP-violating issues were, so they can be avoided in the future, and, to my mind, the deletion hasn't been supported. After your successful nom, would you be interested in taking a disinterested look at the issue and discussing it with some of the more-involved admins? I feel that the deleting admin may have used his BLP concerns in order to preserve a "preferred" version of the article. To me, this particular article has been an overall failure in terms of the wiki process. It's been very difficult to achieve a stable version.

To paraphrase Winnie the Pooh), it's awfully hard to be brave when you're a very small user. The current article ignores much of the published information about Berry in favor of the telling of Berry's story in a way favorable to one side. So, would you be willing to turn your methodical nature to this thorny issue and help create a balanced article? --Ssbohio (talk) 10:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I dunno...Wikipedia is fun when the issues are simple and clear, and I dislike getting bogged down into minefield issues. I've been tearing through the CSD backlog, for instance, instead of mucking up in AFDs (though most of those are fairly non-controversial). I don't think I read it very closely, but –

Hm. I can see the diff now, and I don't see what was wrong with it. I knew that the truth about justin was a bit leery. But the bit about Eichenwald and his payment to Berry? It seems reliable enough, nothing particularly bad. But it's been deleted by two very respectable editors (Sandifer and Bebeck). Did you try asking a Village Pump for whether they agreed or not? hbdragon88 23:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a stagnant Bebeck-Sandifer-Ssbohio conflict. Sandifer seems to disappear and not acutally say why he did what he did. I'm wondering too about teh question you posed to him on 30 October 2007, and why he didn't respond to it other than ask, "You're joking, right?" hbdragon88 23:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

To clarify: Sandifer deleted the article, Beback restored it when Sandifer didn't back up his action. A month or so later, Sandifer deleted it again and Beback explicitly stated that he didn't object. Another admin, JoshuaZ, was considering undeleting the history, but Jimbo voiced an opinion, which everyone immediately took as holy writ (except me). Forgive my intemperate language, but the Justin Berry article has been the source of a mind-boggling level of frustration for me. I want more facts in the article. Sandifer (& others) want fewer facts in the article. On balance, I favor more facts over fewer. Eichenwald has (after the information about his $1000 to Berry was removed, etc. from Berry's article) admitted that he gave Berry more like $4000 over the time he knew Berry online. Berry, being part-victim & part-perpetrator, attracts POV-pushers from all sides. Sigh. --Ssbohio 06:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. I've glanced through that article before, and let me tell you, it's almost like maybe it belongs on WikiNews for a while - a month? A year? See what other RSs show up, what 3rd party sources put together, etc. Maybe after a bit of that, more of the "truth" will be accessible. I can totally understand and empathize that article being a source of WikiStress for you! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 06:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

That one article has made me most willing to pack in the two years I've spent editing here and take up a less stressful hobby (like bullfighting, maybe). I wasn't the creator of the article, a self-described pedophile was. I came in after Jimbo (personally) deleted the article. I spent the first part of its life defending it mostly against pro-pedophile & vandal edits. Now, I'm dealing with people like Phil Sandifer, who has repeatedly used his admin tools to enforce his preferred outcome in this content dispute; Will Beback, who reversed himself to agree with Sandifer after undoing his admin deletion of the article, and SqueakBox who has a passionate drive against manifestations of pedophilia that sometimes overwhelms other considerations. What stresses me the most is the continuing unwillingness (particularly on Sandifer's part) to make plain his objections so I can do something about them. The number of reliable sources he has denigrated is astonishing; That he's backed up his editorial judgment with his admin tools is appalling. This is the first case where I've seriously considered formal dispute resolution, but I fear my lack of experience there versus Sandifer's home field advantage. If it weren't for people like you, Dev920, JoshuaZ, and others, I'd've walked away already. We have effectively insulated a sex offender from the verifiable, reliably sourced, public evidence of his criminal activities. All I want is for the article to present the facts (as we know them to be) and allow the reader to make up his own mind. How do I proceed? --Ssbohio (talk) 12:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

Thank-you for your honest and constructive comments at my RFA. I do appreciate your concern, and recognize that it is a real problem when certain members of the community feel like they have authority or superior clout. Being a user-contributed resource, Wikipedia needs a constant stream of fresh perspective and energy. If we allow an atmosphere where new users feel like there is a hierarchy of authority obstructing their participation, we will squelch the creativity and growth of the project. I hope you can see from my reply that I do not see adminship as a shiny sherriff's badge or aristocratic symbol. I really do just want a mop to clean up the messes. JERRY ^talk _contribs 21:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Ssbohio, there is still time to change your !vote on my RFA. I would really appreciate either further dialogue with you on your perspective, or you changing your !vote to support. It seems you drew a strong conclusion of my intentions from just my answer on RFA standard candidate question #1. I wonder if there are additional evidences or reasons to be concerned? It would really be great to have a clean slate (X/0/0) at the end of this RFA, and your opinion is very important. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I've been on the losing end of a battle with a particularly egregious abuser of his admin powers at Justin Berry. Since you have opined that adminship goes beyond the mop & bucket work that I think it's confined to, I'm open to being convinced of that, or to being convinced that what you meant isn't what I understood. Just clear the situation up for me & I'll be happy. --Ssbohio (talk) 03:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the opportunity to further explain my answer to RFA question #1, in the hope that it will be less offensive to you. My answer was intending to contrast the typical mop and bucket tools from those that require greater understanding and practice. So I was talking about two subsets of mop-and-bucket tasks, not 'the mop-and-bucket tasks from all the other administrative tasks. As I understand it, there are essentially 11 administrative tasks:

• Deleting pages and images
  • Performing Speedy deletion
  • Closing XfD and performing associated deletion per concensus
  • Ending Prod and deleting as appropriate
• Undeleting pages and images
• Merging page histories
• Performing requested moves
• Protecting or unprotecting pages and images
• Editing a protected page
• Protecting a non-existent page
• Editing the interface
• Block a user, IP or range of IPs
• Unblock a user, IP or range
• Using admin revert (rollback)

Some of these functions are really straight forward, and were in the group I was wanting to call "typical mop and bucket" functions. These are functions where as an inexperienced administrator, I would be highly unlikely to cause a worse mess by making a mistake. Yet others are likley to get messed-up, and still others have political ramifications, and generally require community concensus before taking the action. My answer was intending to say that I would forge into the former right away and wait until I fully understood the procedures and pitfalls of the latter.

I hope this is a better explanation of my mindset on the role of wikipedia administrators. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your speedy reply. Your more detailed explanation alleviates my concern. To me, all the tasks you listed above are "mop & bucket" tasks, albeit some require more mopping skill than others. I will point out a couple of things, however: It's perfectly appropriate for any community member to close an AfD. It's not a decision reserved for admins; And admins also act to completely delete particular page revisions or entire page histories, as well as the tasks you listed. In fact, it's this last one that forms the basis for my dismay at what happened in the Justin Berry article. An admin, for what he saw as good reason, deleted 600+ revisions from the article's history and consistently refused to provide support for his action or for his contention about problems with the article that he "solved" by deleting them. --Ssbohio (talk) 04:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Byzantine and misleading

You recently commented:[2]

• Will says: "The ArbCom needs to be more responsive and less opaque," yet his actions with regard to the Justin Berry article have been not merely opaque but absolutely [Derogatory use of "Byzantine"|Byzantine] and misleading. Similarly poor candidates ^{1,2} have withdrawn. --Ssbohio (talk) 15:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I've ever been intentionally misleading or 'Byzantine' about that article. Sure, biographies of living people are often delicate. Imagine if the article were about you. I think I've supported an honest and direct approach while maintaining important BLP limitations. I'd be happy to discuss the matter here or on my talk page as there's apparently been a misunderstanding. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Will. I'll give a couple of examples of what I see as opaque, Byzantine, or misleading statements on your part:

1. You supported forking information about Timothy Ryan Richards off into its own article. You then turned around and advocated for the article's deletion. Forgive me my bluntness, but were you misleading when you supported spinning off the content or misleading when you advocated the spun off article's deletion?
2. You reverted Phil Sandifer's history deletion on the Justin Berry article, then, paradoxically, supported his doing the same thing over again, without explaining your change of heart, and neither you nor Sandifer ever explained the problem. Since neither of you elected to cite any but the most vague and nebulous of reasons, my view (there was no BLP-violating material in the article as it existed) stands unopposed. These radical rescissions have been made by Sandifer and supported by you, all for no apparent reason.

I know that this is a tough topic. My heart went out to Berry after I read the NYT article. However, it's become exceedingly clear that the Times exposé was both factually and ethically compromised. I've spent, over time, a great deal of energy trying to keep this article from becoming a vehicle for the pro-pedophile/anti-pedophile POV conflict that's been rampant in other articles.

There are editors on this project whom I've come to expect not to be trustworthy. What bothers me most about this situation is that you weren't one of them. But now, how can I look at what you've done and the (unintentional) POV-pushing effect of your words and actions and still extend trust to you? How can I support you as a neutral arbitrator when I can't count on you to support NPOV when in my view you didn't stand up in this case? For that matter, how can I be comfortable with your continued adminship? This is disturbing; Moreover, it's disappointing. Where do we go from here? --Ssbohio (talk) 06:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I've split the two issues so we can directly address each without ambiguity or spillover. --Ssbohio (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Tim Richards

The article on Justin Berry is about Berry, not about Richards. It was appropriate to move the material out, and let it stand (or not) on its own. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

First, Richards is a notable part of the article on Berry, as they allegedly engaged together in a criminal enterprise, with one participant (Berry) getting immunity for helping prosecute the other (Richards). In the same way, Gilo Tunno, Aaron Campbell Brown, and Greg Mitchel are all notable elements of this article.

Second, as to the appropriateness of removing the material on Richards, I categorically refute your assertion. Excising Richards (and the others) from the article places Berry in a false light and misleads the reader as to his status in the ongoing criminal enterprises that the Federal government has prosecuted. The only criminal actor left in this article is Ken Gourlay. The facts of that case tend to paint Berry as a sympathetic victim only. The article now makes no mention of Berry's numerous criminal co-conspirators whatsoever. Is that "appropriate?"

Third, you failed to address one scintilla of my criticism of your actions in this regard. You encouraged the creation of a new article about Richards on Talk:Justin Berry, then, once you had the content out of the Berry article, you completed the flanking maneuver by supporting the deletion of the Richards article. As you ignored my main point, it implies an answer to my question: Was this a deliberate attempt on your part to mislead me into thinking I had your support for a spinoff article? You can't tell me you support creation of the article and also tell AfD that you support deletion of the same article. One of those positions is diametrically opposed to the other. How do you explain your words and your conduct? --Ssbohio (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

History deletions

Regarding the deletion of the article history, The first time it was done without prior discussion. The second time came after the article had once again grown quite long and a different approach was needed. I don't recall being asked for an explanation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Neither of the deletions was discussed beforehand. Phil Sandifer unilaterally deleted essentially the same content & history twice. Once, you disagreed and reverted him. The second time, without explanation, you reversed yourself and supported him. Sandifer never provided facts to support any of his allegations, either of unacceptably "salacious" material, of unreliable sources, or much of anything else.

An editor's opinion shouldn't be the basis for a content decision, especially when he refuses to provide support for that opinion. An admin shouldn't be using his admin tools to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. I opposed his action both on principle (one can't find consensus by bringing a gun to the fight) and on specific grounds (multiple reliable sources, maintaining NPOV, etc). Sandifer did a lot of arguing, but he couldn't even say that he'd read the sources he was challenging, much less establish why they should be treated as unreliable when other similar sources fall well within policy. By your inexplicable agreement, you're saying that you support his action, but, like Sandifer, not giving any factual basis for your determination. No one has to ask you to discuss your position; That's what talk pages are there for. But, to bypass your semantic objection, I'll ask: Why did you support Sandifer's second (essentially identical) history deletion but oppose his first? --Ssbohio (talk) 17:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Berry article

The best place to discuss proposed changes to the Berry article is talk:Justin Berry. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't discussing proposed changes to the Berry article with you. I was discussing your previous course of conduct WRT that article and related topics. Please see #Byzantine and misleading above and respond to the issues touched on by your previous comments. --SSBohio 11:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Outing a McDonald's worker

I notice you tried to attack (as in wikipedia attack) a poor McDonalds worker, young female, lately on the Justin Berry page. Your trolling has been noted, please wait for further communication, and I would advise you not to repeat in the mean time. Pol64 (talk) 00:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I haven't edited the Justin Berry article in over a month. What is your intent in accusing me of something that the article history disproves? Who have I attacked? Who have I trolled? Who is this McDonald's worker? What have they been outed as? So far, you've made a demonstrably false accusation about what I've been doing lately; Do you have something of substance in your comments? Please provide diffs and I'll give them due consideration. --SSBohio 01:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You know I can't do that. its been deleted. But blatant lying isn't a good idea on a site that records your every word. Pol64 (talk) 01:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The Justin Berry article was last history deleted in August. Is that what you meant by lately? And, if it happened before the history deletion, where did you just now see it? As to your allegation of lying, I'm not. You're making an accusation against me, so it's up to you to prove it, not up to me to disprove it. Your allegation that I outed a McDonald's worker lately at the Justin Berry article is demonstrably a false one. I assume no malice in your making it, but it's just as false innocently as it would be maliciously. --SSBohio 02:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

SSB, are you confused? "on the Justin Berry page" seemed pretty clear to me, and that page isn't deleted. I was hoping to take a look and back up Pol's accusations and warn you myself... Oh well... VigilancePrime (talk) 01:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

It was history-only deleted twice, the last time in August 2007. I still don't understand what Pol is talking about. Pol hasn't told me who I'm supposed to have outed, what I'm supposed to have outed them as, or how I'm supposed to have done all this. I'm as in the dark as when we started. --SSBohio 02:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Does Pol assume that working at McDonald's is a bannable offence that people prefer to keep quiet about? That's harsh! --TlatoSMD (talk) 02:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Pol is apparently going to be doing all her assuming somewhere else. She's been indefinitely blocked from editing. Her unfounded allegations will remain unfounded. I consider this matter resolved. --SSBohio 06:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words, Ssbohio. It can be disheartening to find yourself in the middle of a strange conflict like that one, however I won't let it get me down. I came here to write before I had even heard of admining, so as long as I can write, I can handle strange admin-related events. Thanks again. SGGH ^speak! 09:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Now where have I heard this kind of talk before? A self-appointed gumshoe on a crusade to rid Wikipedia of "ripened" evildoers. No doubt, she even has her own sekrit "sleuthing" techniques, too! --130.127.48.188 (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)