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  & , 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, 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. 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 &amp;amp; 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:


 * 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.
 * 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."
 * 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.
 * 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)

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: 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)
 * ''[[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|18px]] 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)
 * 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:
 * 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?
 * 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  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)