Talk:Justin Berry/Archive 1

Total rewrite?

I'd like to see this article totally rewritten by uninvolved wikipedians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbo Wales (talk • contribs) 04:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry...is this part of some project? JHMM13 (T | C) 04:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's called Wikipedia. --kingboyk 23:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree. This article was founded with verifiable facts and sources. All "controversial" areas were placed directly as such and in the open, and left for reader interpretation as per Wikipedia policy. If you don't believe me, judge for yourself. --Rookiee Revolyob 23:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The article, and the actions of Jimbo Wales, made Cryptome. Congratulations.

Redirect instead?

I think that this article should possibly be a redirect to Kurt Eichenwald. Academic Challenger 04:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The subject of the article called Jimbo personally and was very upset about something in the article. So we're going to go through and rewrite being very careful about sourcing. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

"and was very upset about something in the article"—Aww, poor baby. Why doesn't Justin simply log into the article and adjust it himself? After all, this is the "encyclopedia which anyone can edit". Could it be he can't disprove anything I've said? Could it be my sources are correct?

Do you seriously expect a victim of child abuse (self identified) to edit an article written by a pedophile (self identified)? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Which of my sources were unverifiable? This article does not belong on a redirect to Eichenwald because it is a biographical article on Justin, not Kurt. This article was not removed because of unverifiable sources. It was taken off because it pissed Justin off at other people have a say in the truth and there's nothing he can do about it. --Rookiee Revolyob 23:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It was removed because Jimbo ( not Justin) decided to remove it. It was restarted over so that non pedophiles can write it. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Rookiee wanted to reply to you, but found himself blocked again, indefinitely this time, by Neutrality for "pedophile trolling". Clayboy 10:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I've contacted Neutrality anout the block and an waiting for his reply. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Possible references

• "Through His Webcam, A Boy Joins A Sordid Online World" - The New York Times (December 19, 2005)
• "NY Times Internet Documentary" - The New York Times (December 19, 2005)
• "The New York Times Legal Aid Society" - Slate Magazine
• "KurtEichenwald.com: The Back Story" - Slate Magazine
• "A Heartbreaker From Eichenwald And The Times" - CBS News
• Justin's Amazon.com Wishlist.

These are the sources used in the old version of the article; they are a good place to start, I suppose. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I added them in as external links (except the last one, that's rather creepy) and rewrote this to have some semblance of relevance. It's bare bones, and I doubt (hope!) that those changes won't be disputed.--Sean Black ^(talk) 04:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The amazon wishlist is a big part of the story. You should read the times article. I also don't see why the previous article was completely trashed. From what I recall it was fairly well done. -JJay 09:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Just standard operating procedure in a case like this.--Jimbo Wales 14:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo, why don't you write the new article, since you are apparently the only person who knows what was wrong with the prior one, and you don't seem to be forthcoming with any details. Hermitian 22:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean because I'm not really privy to the details. I will say that I had previously read the article and didn't see anything outlandish. I'm also somewhat surprised that Mr. Berry would complain. Given how he achieved his fame (webcam, Times expose with which he fully cooperated, Oprah, etc), I wouldn't have thought he was opposed to exposure. -- JJay 18:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Photo

Is there any reason why we can't have the photo Image:JustinAt15.jpg in the article? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 18:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Because it is a copyvio.--Jimbo Wales 21:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm so it is. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Bone to Pick...

Alright, now that I have my VOICE back, having been blocked... let me start out by asking a few simple questions. I will try the best I can to stay to the point and stay rational.

• Why was I blocked? I did nothing to deserve a blocking. I broke no rules. I made an article; a controversial one, yes, but as far as I know, that does NOT constitute blocking someone from responding to an issue, and you did just that, Jimbo.
• Why was my article removed? I posted NOTHING infamatory, NOTHING that was "personal research", and I stayed as best I could to the facts presented by credible sources including but not limited to:
  • The New York Times article
  • Archive.org's unrefutable content
  • Oprah.com
  • Justin Berry's own words
  • Google Groups
  • Slate.com articles
• Why were all previous histories of the page completely wiped from the database? What is this, the third reich??
• Did Justin Berry complain about my article, and if so, what was his grounds for the article's complete removal? As I said before, I made SURE that all facts had supporting sources. Did you check my sources before removing it? I've said nothing that he either did not present himself or that other noted sources did not present.
• If there were any disputes about this article, why did the usual due-process of disputation not take place rather than this full-on, blatent cover-up of the entire article?
• Jim, with all due respect, who placed you as the almighty voice of the truth? I thought this was a democracy. I might have a controversial POV, but I am definately capable of restraining myself, and in my opinion, I had done so in the writing of this article.

I want a full copy of the previous, unmolested article for my own records. (Pun intended.) I would like it sent to my email address listed under my personal preferences, and I would like a sincere apology from the Wikimedia Foundation for this blatent act of discrimination and prejudice. I can understand knee-jerk reactions, but nothing excuses what happened today.

As stated by Jimbo himself on his User page: "Freedom of speech is critical for all cultures." All except the childlove community, apparently.

"Be bold", my ass.

--Rookiee Revolyob 05:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to answer you here. So here goes.

You were blocked because jimbo decided to block you while he sorted out the complaint made about the article. It's only a short block, I realise you feel hard done by but Jimbo has to look at the whole picture.

He blocked me because he decided to block me. Interesting reasoning. --Rookiee Revolyob 22:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, on what grounds did he have the right? According to Wikipedia:Blocking_policy, I did not fit into a single one of those categories. My original question remains open and unanswered. --Rookiee Revolyob 22:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The histories were wiped from the database because there was a complaint made about the article. Jimbo has stated that he wants the article written by neutral editors.

Define "neutral". I'm pedosexual, and you're most likely heterosexual. Either of us are going to have a bias; a POV. Everyone has a POV. There is no such thing as a "neutral" editor. This is stated by Jimbo Wales, himself: "Of course, 100% agreement is not possible; there are ideologues in the world who will not concede to any presentation other than a forceful statement of their own point of view. We can only seek a type of writing that is agreeable to essentially rational people who may differ on particular points."[1] I'm going to guess most people would assign me to the role of "the man who will not concede". I argue just the opposite. Because the majority push their own ideologies of pedosexuality as "correct", they leave the rest of us hopefully rational thinkers in the dust. Because of this bias, and because of Wikipedia's self-proclaimed stance to allow all ideologies to have a fair say, Wikipedia has become probably one of the only potentially open and available forums for us minor-inclined individuals to offer our point-of-view. Lately though, it would seem that the opposite is happening. Articles which were previously deemed as fair or balanced are now being reverted, altered, or recategorized by a small handful of elitist editors to reflect heavily on what they believe the majority opinion is. An invisible hierarchy is forming. Furthermore, the media is now beginning its process of manipulation, outcasting and discrediting the childlove community with biased commentary. In one such article entitled: "Online Encyclopedia is a Gathering for Online Predators", (which I might add I was featured in), the author goes so far to state right out: "It has come to the attention of the Parents for the Online Safety of Children (POSC) that there is a underground cabal of pedophiles who edit WikiPedia, trying to make WikiPedia a distribution center for pedophile propaganda."[2] Words like "underground cabal" are used to make this sexual minority appear to be deceitful with their intent. They are essentially equating free speech to "online predation of children". Folly. It is because of this recent trend on Wikipedia and the surrounding online communities that I believe the article was removed and wiped without due-process of disputation.

The argument that the article must be written by "neutral" peoples is flawed. Jimbo, himself, appears to be contradicting his own statements. When the article was pulled, he commented: "I would like to see the article written by uninvolved Wikipedians."[3] First he's admitting that everyone has an ideology. NOW, he's stating that apparently there are apparently some who don't have ideologies? He's saying two completely different things! By using subjective terminology such as this, he is discrediting himself. Either way, as stated by many others before me, it's impossible for truly "neutral" editing to occur happen in the real world unless both POVs have their say. He is essentially barring me from doing so by calling me "involved". The only other explanation for his argument is to go on the assumption that perhaps he means "those who have not been directly in contact with the subject of the article." Theresa, I have not been a customer of Justin's, and presumably, neither have you. I don't know a single one of his customers, and as far as I know, neither do you. Furthermore, I don not know a single one of his former partners-in-crime. In any way you look at it, Jimbo's reasoning for having pulled my article is flawed, and moreover, completely irrational and unexcusable.

Ultimately, all of this is beside the point: Justin has absolutely no right or basis to complain about the article. I did my research on the man. Again, I must stress, the sources I used for the article are public, unrefutable, and are still readily available for anyone who chooses to look at them. Nothing relating to Berry that I have stated in the article is untrue or unsupported. Justin, himself, has stated on the Oprah.com message board, (a resource I didn't even bother citing on the article), that he did make bad choices and decisions in his life. Both he and Kurt Eichenwald have publically admitted that Justin was able to and could have used better judgement during the five-year period in which he performed as a sex worker.[4] Justin then instantly turns around and begins blaming others: "It's the pedophiles' fault! They molested me! They lured me at 13! They fed me drugs! Poor me!" This is completely unacceptable. In another example, both he and Oprah skip around chronologically to push an anti-pedophile argument. The teaser trailer is proof enough of that. Her opening words state: "An honor-roll student."[5] Justin was (and is) a smart cookie. They prevaricate around the fact that for the first 2-3 years of his activities, he did not take drugs nor did he meet up with anyone! He was acting of his own sound mind and body, in his own room, behind his parents' backs, and did what he did because he desired money and gifts. He betrayed himself. He betrayed his better judgement because of materialism. Whether or not there were adult men and women who wanted to see him naked (God, forbid...), he chose do to it, and not only did he admit he didn't care, but he did it for profit! Assuming he's a strictly heterosexual male, he most likely would not have done it for any other reason. (We cannot speculate on his sexual orientation at this point.) He might have thought it gross. Alternatively, he might have gotten a big kick out of it! (He was able to achieve an erection, remember...) Thus, being in full knowledge and consent of the act, however illegal, he was and is capabale of understanding it was his choice to do so. I stated these facts in as plain and unbiased a way i could muster. He does NOT have a case for complaint.

In conclusion, because of his contradiction of words, I presented both sides of the controversy evenly. I stated that most believe him to be genuinely regretful of his actions, while others feel it's a cover-up to make himself look like the victim to avoid federal charges. This is indeed the word "out on the street"; the arguments being made by everyone, not just pedophiles. According to Wikipedia's own Official Policy on NPOV: "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions." I have done just that. I was thoughtful of everyone's side of the story.

I'm just going to add a bit of insight into what's being said between the lines. What Jimbo is essentially saying is that I am not allowed to edit or contribute to the article on Justin Berry because I am of a particular sexual orientation. Under that token, it's safe to assume that any article written on heterosexuality must be written by a 110% homosexual because any heterosexual would be considered "involved". He is barring me from having a voice when his own mission statement is that "Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia that everyone can edit." He is tripping over his own words and ideologies to save his butt from a lawsuit. He is being discriminatory.

Afternote: I am fortunate that a fellow Wikipedian was kind enough to have retained an "undefaced" copy of the article (using his words) and send it to me. I have posted it to allow people to judge for themselves whether or not my facts were indeed credible or are grounds for removal based on being libel. Any other basis for removal is inherantly flawed and unexcusable. Just because Justin does not want certain truths to come out doesn't mean he has the right to change history to fit it the way he wants it. "Conflict of Interest" is the term that comes to mind... --Rookiee Revolyob 22:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes he did complain. The grounds for removal was because that's what Jimbo thought was the best course of action.

You thought wrong when you thought this was a democracy. It is not. Jimbo can do whatever he thinks is best.

Pity. You should post that on the frontpage when you guys redesign it. I know it's under consideration for revisal. Be honest with the public. Don't purport and portray this as an open forum when it really is not. --Rookiee Revolyob 22:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Your pun was not in the least bit funny.

Some puns aren't intended to be, my dear... --Rookiee Revolyob 22:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

In short we dont want self identified paedophilles editing articles about people who claim to have been molested and abused as children. We will write the article ourselves thank you. Personally i don't object to paedophilles editing pages about peadophillia but writing articles about abuse victims is simply not on.Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the key words here are "claim to have been molested." Justin was an Internet sex entrepreneur and a high paid male prostitute, who had numerous opportunities to get out of the business had he wanted to do so. It is only society's blind and blanket characterization of everyone under the age of 18 as having been "molested" when they engage in problematical sexual activity, which permits Justin to make a quick transition from selling his body to selling his victimhood. Rookiee's article was fact-based and properly sourced. That Justin didn't like it when the facts weren't spun from a victimologist perspective is immaterial.

Wikipedia pretends that it's run by consensus as long as volunteers are happily creating multiple millions of dollars in free intellectual property for Jimbo. Once that task is largely complete, the truth is revealed, which is that this is basically Jimbo's private BBS where he can do anything he feels like, and the contributions he paid nothing for are his to exploit any way he wishes.

No they aren't his to do whatever he wants with. He is bound by the terms of the GFDL. But he is certainly free to delete contributions if he sees fit. Of course everyone has the right to fork - that's what's so good about the GFDL. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV is a good measurement for the quality of an article. The sexual orientation of one or some of the editors is not. You can check each of my contributions to this wiki, and you will find that every single one is constructive, neutral, ice-coldly fact-based. From what you are saying, it seems Jimbo has decided that for this article, you are not allowed to edit it if you are of pedophile or ephebophile orientation, regardless of your attitudes or moral values. So, a class of Wikipedians are prohibited from contributing, under the threat of blocking. I believe that Rookiee's original article was pretty badly POV, but I wish we could have fixed that by applying NPOV and fact-checking, instead of defining a lower class designated for "the back of the bus". But these are just the times we live in, I suppose. Clayboy 19:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

As I see it this "high paid male prostitute" was in fact a child. Anyone paying for sexual services from these prostitutes is abusing a child. Anyone writing about this child (even though he is an adult now) who self identifies as a paedeophille is perpetuating the abuse. Pedeophiles should not write about child protestutes. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Keywords: "As I see it". You are not the authority. No one is. This shows you are biased. And you expect the rest of humanity to allow you and other like-minded editors to be the only ones to edit the article? I think not. --Rookiee Revolyob 22:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

What a complete crock. By calling everyone under the age of 18 a "child", which the dictionary correctly defines as a human between the ages of infancy and puberty, you can make everything even remotely sexual sound salacious and evil. Teenagers are insulted to be called "children," and if you start using terms like "teenage sex" and "teenage sex with adults" to describe problematical behavior by kids old enough to know better, the "poor little abused children" angle is more difficult to sell. Maybe we should just go to the ultimate extreme, and legally define everyone under 18 as a "baby." Then all sex with minors could be "poor little babies being abused and raped," which would no doubt please the Judith Reisman's, John Ashcroft's, and David Finkelhor's of the world. When such semantic games have to be employed to sell an agenda, with disqualification of everyone holding a different perspective as "perpetuating the abuse", what you have is pseudo-science and flim-flam, and not unbiased reporting.Hermitian 20:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

What do you want me to say? First you put words into my mouth and then go off on a rant. I'm English BTW. Our age of consent is lower than yours, I know who Operah is but I never watch her show, I have no idea who Judith Reisman, John Ashcroft or David Finkelhor are I'm afraid.

"Our age of consent is lower than yours"— Again, this shows the subjectivity in which people view situations. The ages in which Justin was an active sex worker was 13-18. In the article written by Eichwald, he states: "When Justin became 18 he turned from victim to predator." Yet in your case, the statement would have to be altered... "When Justin became 16, he turned from victim to predator." ... Huh?? Does this make sense? This minor is a victim, meanwhile shows like Queer as Folk are able to legally portray a 15 year old hitting up an older man for sex at a club, and while controversial, it becomes a smash hit! When the show was ported to the U.S., the minor's age jumped from 15 to 17. This shows the hypocricy in our culture of what becomes acceptable behavior for a minor. Give me a break! Justin could consent, and he did. It's quite obvious. --Rookiee Revolyob 22:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

How would I be "perpetuating the abuse" by participating in the writing about the subject in an encyclopedic, neutral, cited, verifiable style? Some obscure form of voodoo? If I really would have abused him by writing things that someone else would have written anyway, just because my sexual orientation is called something particular, if that really, really is true, I will certainly abstain from writing, because I would sooner die than abuse a child. But so far I think you are pretty far fetched. The five pillars by which we judge the quality of an article remains; the sexual orientations of the writers is not amongst them. Clayboy 20:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It's true that someone else will write them anyway. It's much better all round if the person who writes them is not someone who self identifies as a Pedeophile. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Should we make the same argument for those who self-identify as Jews writing Holocaust articles? The only possible rationale I could see for prohibiting self-identified pedophiles from writing articles on people claiming child abuse is that it provides right wing cranks with an opportunity to publicly attack Wikipedia. Given the collaborative process, it certainly isn't going to make any difference in the quality of the resulting article, and most minor attracted adults editing Wikipedia aren't going to publicly announce their orientation anyway.Hermitian 21:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

And why would we want to give anyone (right or left, crank or sane) ammunition to publically attack us? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo should've thought about that before deciding to make this website and proclaiming the ideology of "open and free editing for all!". Are you saying this is no longer the case? --Rookiee Revolyob 23:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

What i am saying is that an article on a child prostetute should not be written by a self claimed pedophile. This website is above all an encylopedia. The free editing for all is a means to that end not an end in itself. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles usually aren't written by just one person, but as a collaboration. As this article moves along in its new purified version, how much could a pedophile collaborate? Would adding a small paragraph here and there be OK? Would fixing POVs or factual errors be OK? Would fixing typos be? Or should we just steer clear? It's a little hard to play when you don't know the rules, as I think Rookiee is finding out. Clayboy 00:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

To be honest i don't know what Jimbo's views are on this. Personally I'd like for people who state that they are pedophiles (or activists in the childlove movement etc) on Wikipedia (or off wikipedia for that matter if the connection can be made) to not edit articles on live people who claim to have been molested when they were children. That is my personal opinion - I am not on the board so have no particular authority here. My worry is that victims of molestation should not have to suffer criticism from people who proudly identify with their molesters ( and like it or not that is how you are perceived). I'm not saying that this article shold present justine in an entirely glowing light. I have no problem with negative comments about his own part in his sordid entry into the porn industry. However those comments should not come from self identified pedophiles. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Theresa, the scariest thing I have seen in this whole discussion is your assertion that there is a class of people who should be restricted from editing certain areas of the Wikipedia regardless of their ability to add useful information to the Wikipedia. Essentially you are advocating the establishment of a virtual ghetto (or Wikighetto) where people like Rookiee, myself, and others who make you uncomfortable should stay. At least you do state that it's your "personal opinion" - for that I am thankful, as there is certainly nothing logical or rational about your position.

Theresa... perhaps you should read this? Like Rookiee and Clayboy, I am a self-identified Pedo, BUT this does not in any way make me a child molester. I've never even touched a child, so if you think that our orientation makes us child molesters, then you are quite badly mistaken. Another thing, since Justin was a teen when he pimped himself, the ones who alegedly abused him were not pedophiles(child lovers) but ephebophiles(teen lovers), so leave us alone about this, huh? = Silent War = 07:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

(losing indent) I am not advocating a ghetto at all. I'm avocating an exclusion zone. I'm happy for you to edit all wikipedia articles except articles of victims of child sex abuse who are currently still alive.

I never said you were a child molester. I said it was distressing for people like Justin to have a page on him edited by people who identify with the people who molested him. In the real world pedophile is generally used to indicate anyone who has sex with an underage kid. To use to mean "I want to have sex" is unusual and not understood by the public. Also ephebophiles is not used by the public. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 08:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself, but I certainly do not identify with child molesters. Do you identify with heterosexual rapists? You don't have to answer; I know you don't. But if I thought you did, you would find it pretty offensive, wouldn't you? Clayboy 10:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes I would, and I am sorry to offend you. However, despite this, I am still asking you not to edit articles like this. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 14:09, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Theresa, at the risk of being blocked, which seems to be happening to those who are not toeing the line here, I'd like to note that you've just said that if Clayboy identifies himself as a paedophile, because your perception of that, which you take (correctly, I think) to be shared by the general public, is that it means he "identifies" with child molesters, he must not edit articles about people who were molested as children. In that case, if Clayboy were to identify himself in some other way, would that not put him in the clear? What could a person who is attracted to children but in no way supports, identifies with, or condones child molesters or child molestation identify themselves as to put themselves on a par with me, say, a heterosexual, when I edit an article about a rapist? Or are you quite frankly suggesting that only people with a bias against men who are attracted to under-18s is permissible for this article? What other article types would Clayboy be banned from? Could he edit articles about sexuality in general? About children? Again, I'm not trying to vex you, but I want to be clear on it, because I've worked on paedophilia-related articles myself and I was not aware that I had to hold a particular view, which I do not, to do so. Is there a policy that you believe supports your view? Grace Note 00:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I think Theresa has been clear in this discussion that it is only articles on child sexual abuse victims that people who consider themselves pedophiles cannot edit. Go over her entries and you will see. Clayboy 00:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I wasn't aware she had asked you to act as her spokesman. Would you mind answering the other questions I asked? Grace Note 02:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't speak for Theresa at all (that's absurd). I do find it unnecessary to repeat a question she has already answered, when that question may give the impression that she is a kind of segregation-happy fascist, and she is clearly not. She shouldn't have to keep answering such questions when she already have. Let me repeat her: "Personally i don't object to paedophilles editing pages about peadophillia but writing articles about abuse victims is simply not on." "[Pedophiles should stay away from] only the [articles] on living child pornographers and abuse victims, and only if you proclaim yourself a pedophile." So although that's still outrageous in my view, it's not as bad as you seem to suspect it is. Clayboy 11:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Grace as i have repeatedly stated above my view is my own personal opinion as to what is best for wikipedia. There is no policy for it. My concern is that for a victim of pedophilia being written about by pedophiles here on wikipedia exposes wikipedia to a n accusation of continuing the abuse. What I have been asking (not demanding - I've always made it clear that it is my personal opinion) is that if you are going to state that you are sexually attracted to children on your user page then please don't edit articles like this one. Justin has already complained about this article. Let's not give cause for further complaint. As for blocking. I've blocked one person, Hermitian over this. I did it for particulaly nasty personal attacks.So you are not at risk from me.

are you quite frankly suggesting that only people with a bias against men who are attracted to under-18s is permissible for this article? no I'm not.

I've worked on paedophilia-related articles it's only victims of pedophilia articles that i am concerned about.

Hopefully that answers your questions. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

If pedophiles aren't to edit articles about child abuse victims, what is the stance on Nazis (or even Holocaust survivors) editing articles on the Holocaust? What of slaves editing articles on the modern day slave trade? I don't understand where someone's affiliation should prevent them from expressing an opinion, especially if it's done in a way that's as nuetral as possible. Where do these restrictions end?

I don't understand where someone's affiliation should prevent them from expressing an opinion - that's the whole point, this is not the place to express an opinion of any kind. And if you are so close to any subject that you cannot edit it without including your opinion, then you should not edit that subject on Wikipedia. -- sannse (talk) 19:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

You People are A Joke

Wikipedia has come a long way baby! Wasn't the idea to promote informative articles? Isn't Justin Berry a public personality, and isn't his story worth telling? No sex please, we're Wikipedia! Nothing controversial please, we're Wikipedia! When the NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW (God bless the view from nowhere) gives Wiki-pedestrians the license to delete entire articles, full of facts, then Wikipedia has lost it's reason for being. But I figured that out 4 years ago! Pity on fools who continue to believe in the Wiki-fantasy. Anon-o-Christ 01:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Apparently Wikipedia works like Orwell's "Animal Farm", all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. As usual, anything written by a pedophile (even if entirely correct, well researched and entirely documented) is subject to scrutiny and censorship by the "normal" people. I resent the hell out of this! Your UNREASONING hatred is apparent when you delete (burn a book) a well written article that relies on solid research. This stinks of Hitlerism and medieval witch burning! Shame! Shame! Shame! - Jeffrey Gold --JeffreyGold 01:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Eichenwald

One thing that caught my attention when I read the NYT article was the claim that Justin gave his "customer records" to the Times, and they checked the 1500 "pedophiles" and found they were from all walks of life. Now, at the time Justin shut down his porn operation, he was a legal adult, and was running a web site indistinguishable from any other pay adult site, replete with the required notice that "All Models are over 18 years of age, records on file." Does that mean that anyone who paid for access to that Web site with a credit card got lumped in with the people who paid Justin for webcam performances when he was 14? This is the kind of shoddy agenda-laden reporting typical in these cases. Does anyone remember when the US government busted an age verification service because two web sites that used their codes, located in foreign countries, had underage material on them? They then characterized everyone who'd bought an age verification code as "people who had paid for access to child porn," and shopped the customer list around to a bunch of other countries for sting operations.

Any reporting on alleged child porn in the US suffers from a number of problems, most notable of which is the fact that even journalists are legally prohibited from looking at the material in question to report to readers whether its content is being lied about. It's basically a situation in which you can write anything, no matter how outrageous, about "international pedophile rings" and "luring" and "poor little abused children" and it will get published with no fact-checking, and in an environment in which no one can be publicly suspicious about its claims, for fear of attracting negative attention to themselves.

I haven't seen a single article in the mainstream press in the last ten years on the subject of child porn that wasn't deliberately inflammatory, dripping with value-laden terminology, and full of deliberate lying by omission, juxtiposition, and innuendo. Mr. Eichenwald's relationship with Justin Berry clearly violated almost every rule of objective journalism. Given that the NY Times article is a single source for the entire Justin Berry story, basing an encyclopedia article solely on that article, and on derivative journalism generated by it, is an example of "truthiness," not "factiness."Hermitian 20:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you arguing for deletion of this article as inherently unverifyable? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Well some facts about it can be verified. Justin is an Internet celebrity. Justin performed sex acts on his webcam for attention, money, and gifts. Justin later became a successful adult webmaster. Justin had a drug problem. But the NY Times treatment of all this, with its "sky is falling" approach to predators and underage sexual performances on the Internet, and calls for parents to seize and destroy all their childrens' webcams, is definitely the Kurt Eichenwald story, and not the Justin Berry story. I suspect we can keep the Justin Berry story short, and to the point, and put the soap opera version in the Kurt Eichenwald article where it belongs.Hermitian 20:58, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's stick to the verifyable facts only. That way everyone is happy, Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Please explain to me which of my facts are unverifiable and "soap opera"? This article does in fact belong on its own page because there are many issues which do not deal with Eichenwald. He is not the sole source of information on Berry. He is but one source. We cannot turn Eichenwald's bio page into a romping ground for controvery on another individual. --Rookiee Revolyob 23:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking to me or Hermitian? If me then I never claimed anything about any of your facts. All I've ever said is that you should not be the one to write an article on a child prostitute because you proclaim yourself a pedophile. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

And I suppose we pedophiles should just keep our learned articles to ourselves as the darkies and Jews had to do in times past? This is clearly unreasoning bigotry!--JeffreyGold 01:54, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Only the ones on living child pornographers and abuse victims, and only if you proclaim yourself a pedophile. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 02:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Three words: Ad. Hominem. Fallacy. The only valid standard by which an article's quality can be gauged is the information contained in the article itself. The alternative is to discriminate against an individual, and to set an arbitrary and dishonest standard which calls every article here into question. So some people are pedophiles. They're not accountable to you or anyone for that, and to pretend that they are invites other pedophiles to stop being open. What they're accountable for is the veracity of the information they provide. If any other standard is applied, the only possible conclusion is that those responsible consider their personal opinions of a given type of person more important than the facts. A source which does that should not be considered reliable, or consulted or contributed to by anyone who values objective fact and rationality above prejudice. Of course, open prejudice has been admitted to here. So I'll simplify your situation. You know that someone here is a pedophile solely because they decide to tell you they are. So you can knowingly have such articles edited by pedophiles, or you can unknowingly have such articles edited by pedophiles. The question of whether pedophiles should be allowed to edit these articles is moot - neither you nor Jimbo have any say in that unless you wish to abandon the open nature of Wikipedia (in other words, abandon the entire project). What is being attempted here is not only unethical and dishonest, but ultimately impossible.

[Catherine N.X. - catherinenx@yahoo.com]10th March 2006

Oh yeah. I am not saying that pedophiles cannot edit aticles like this one.How the hell could we ever know? I am only saying that people who state "I am a pedophile" on their user page (or similar) should not edit articles like this. If someone claims to have been sexually abused as a child by a bunch of pedophiles( which is what Justing is claimimg is it not?) then they should not have articles written about here him by pedophiles because that victim will feel he is being victimised a second time. Now there is certainly some debate over who exactly is to blaim for his slide into pornography - how much is an adolescent responsible for his own behaviour? How much is his parents responsible and how much are the people who paid a minor to do things that he would not have done without those payments. If that debate should go into the article (and as long as it is attributed to actual sources then why not?) then it should be put in by someone who does not call themself a pedophile. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the logic is flawed. You are saying it is OK for a pedophile to edit such an article if they claim they are not a pedophile. User:Strait as a die

What I am saying is that if you claim to be a pedophile it would be better if you did not edit articles like this one. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Justin Berry's feelings have no more bearing on the standard that should be applied to a wiki than those of Fred Phelps towards the wiki about himself. If Mr. Berry feels that the information in the article is invalid or biased (which is the only valid standard for editing it, if Wikipedia is to be objective), he can edit it himself. There is nothing harder about that emotionally than about reading it in the first place. Earlier you stated that you personally considered it further 'perpetuation of the abuse' for pedophiles to help with these articles (before thinking to project that onto what Justin Berry may or may not feel). Victimization takes one and only one form - direct action by one person against another, in a form which violates the latter's rights. There is no such thing as the right to be free from seeing things you don't like written by people you don't like.

The statement that it would be 'better' for non-pedophiles to edit these articles is purely arbitrary, and the entire question has no place here. The sole justification for this assertion has been your own personal feelings and what you suspect another person may or may not feel.

If factual veracity and a neutral point of view are no longer to be the sole standard by which articles are judged, then the Wikipedia experiment has failed. That certain parties don't like seeing factual information provided by pedophiles is a perfect test of whether Wikipedia has any rational backbone (the primary measure of its value). It is failing that test. The ability to apply an irrational standard doesn't come with the ability to avoid the consequences - biased information and lost credibility.

Mr. Wales has not stated whether he distinguishes between open and closeted pedophile contributors, but must obviously realize that those are the only two options.

Catherine N.X. (catherinenx@yahoo.com)

And I suppose if I am a negro then it is better if I do not edit any articles that describe American slavery?? No, this wiki is being capricious. This will not be dropped. We are talking about filing a civil complaint.--JeffreyGold 00:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Please don't make legal threats here. We generally block people for doing that. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 14:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, let's block more people. LOL. 64.40.61.83 15:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Please, that isn't constructive, 64.40. Theresa, I don't think that was a legal threat as such. Clearly, there are some upset people here. Jeffrey, there's a policy here that you're probably not aware of that we don't make suggestions of legal action. We are all trying to get along, no matter that our views can be distasteful to one another. If you want to start legal action against Wikipedia, you can, but please don't throw it around as a debating point! It's not very nice. This policy is a sine qua non here and it's just not civil to shout about legal action on talkpages. Grace Note 00:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Link

Someone placed a link to the prior article, which has been archived off Wikipedia, and is no longer Wikipedia's responsibility, in the current article. Since this is a hot news story, and the new version of the article is a stub, I see nothing wrong with giving people a link to the old version while the new one is rewritten, so they at least have something to read. Justin is of course welcome to complain to anyone hosting the old article, but as you know, trying such things on the Internet just makes more people replicate the information on their sites, and is a fruitless exercise.

If someone can come up with a really good reason why we shouldn't do this, I am willing to listen, but barring that, I will happily use up my two reverts to maintain the link to the old article until the new one contains more than 2 sentences of information. Hermitian 00:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I have replaced the external link to the mirror of the original article, in the Links section. Any further changes to this article should be discussed, rather than simply made without comment. Catherine N.X. - catherinenx@yahoo.com

links to articles should have valid content and come from a reputable source. The whole point about the changes to this article is that this wasn't (or we are not yet able to prove it was, there is always potential for information to be readded in time of course.) So this link is not appropriate. And remember, you do not have two reverts to "use up". The 3RR is an electric fence, not an entitlement. I'm happy to make this part of the office action on this article, but would prefer that the sensible reasons for not having the link are the reasons we use here. -- sannse (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Wales' stated reason is that he does not want a person of a certain sexual orientation to edit this article. No statements have been made by any Wikipedia staff about the veracity of the information, a tacit statement that there is no doubt there. The offsite article is fully referenced and factually correct. It is also directly based on reports in established newsmedia. Catherine N.X. - catherinenx@yahoo.com

The link that keeps being removed is to an article that gleans information ONLY from reputable sources. If you have any proof that this is not the case, I think you should present it here before removing the link. Corax 21:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The fact that a complaint by a camwhore got an entire article deleted from Wikipedia is itself news, and that makes the prior article relevant and linkable from the current article irrespective of whether the old article meets or doesn't meet the standards for inclusion on Wikipedia. The link should stay.

Various sourced facts

Merely in a spirit of pendantic referencing, here are some sourced facts that can be added to the article.

• According to the NY Times article(Eichenwalde, December 19, 2005), Justin was shown how to create a Pay Pal account in 2000, by someone he met online.
• According to the article, the deal was that he would sit bare-chested in front of the webcam for three minutes in return for $50 dollars.
• According to the article, Justin was an honnor roll student.
• According to the article, Justin was found by the Times in June 2005.
• According to the article, Justin has a younger sister.
• According to the article, in 2000, Justin was living with his mother and step-father in Bakersfield, California.

I think you may be leaving out about several hundred other facts that are contained in the NYT article. Corax 02:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure I am - note what I said, "here are some sourced facts that can". Feel free to add more... JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Reverts

Why is a sourced, informative article being continually reverted to a stub? Tomyumgoong 05:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo has asked for the page to be rewritten from scratch. By someone who does not self identify as a pedophile. People aren't doing that and so that is why the page is being reverted. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 14:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

So are you alleging that everyone who's trying to edit the article is a pedophile, or that they are simply copying from the old article? I don't see any evidence of the former, and clearly a new article, written without looking the prior one, will replicate some of the original article's sourced facts. Yet all recent additions to the article have been reverted, and when people complain, they are being banned for a variety of frivolous reasons. The "Wikipedians Against Censorship" project has been nominated for deletion by one of the admins doing the banning, apparently in retaliation for the censorship of the Berry article having been discussed there. Of course, all the banned people won't be able to vote on that, will they? 64.40.61.83 15:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

No, and yes and of course but that is not what is happening. People are not writing a new article without looking at the former one. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 18:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I've made a start on expanding the new article from scratch. It's a very small start, but i want to take it slowly. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 18:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

If the old article contained some things that were factual but unsourced, a new article that is factually accurate will source things that are similar to statements in the old article. The previous article was seriously flawed, but that should not bar any shred of truth it contained from being expressed in a new one. Tomyumgoong 20:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Article expanded based on information from the linked sources. Catherine N.X. - catherinenx@yahoo.com 12 March 2006, 2:45 PM PST

Value Neutral Terminology

Teresa, thanks so much for starting the new article. A few minor points. Let's look at the following two sentences. I've exaggerated to make a point.

At age 13, Justin Berry, seduced by the lure of easy money and attractive gifts, began a downward spiral into the depths of human depravity, falling deeper and deeper into the secretive online world of child sex predators and pornographic performances, which offended Jesus, and threatened to cast his immortal soul into eternal Damnation for polluting his bodily temple of the Lord.

At age 13, Justin Berry set up an Amazon wishlist and a Paypal account, and masturbated in front of his webcam for money and gifts.

Can you tell which sentence belongs in an encyclopedia, and which one does not?

The new Justin Berry article needs to state the facts in a value neutral way. It can of course have a critical section, which tells us how Justin feels about these facts in his own words, what the law and others say about his culpability, the responsibility of his customers, and what the consensus is on the journalistic ethics employed by the reporter. However, the main fact reporting shouldn't contain value laden terms like "lured", "seduced", "sinking deeper and deeper", etc.

OFFICE protection

Mr. Wales requested that this article be rewritten by a non-pedophile. This was done, and every subsequent contribution save the first non-objective one has been deleted regardless of content. For this to be done with no explanation of what was wrong with the content or what should be changed runs counter to Mr. Wales' request and essentially amounts to vandalism. The article has since been placed under OFFICE protection, and if the first admin edit is any indication of what Wikipedia admin are looking for the new article will be an embarrassment to the entire project.

If the last attempt I made at constructing a new and objective article is not to be restored, an explanation is in order as no further explanations for any of these reverts have been posted by admin. If you don't like what someone is doing, you can't improve things by undoing them without a word as to what the problem was.

HolokittyNX 00:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

And a suggestion. There is no reason why a new article cannot be written and submitted via e-mail to an admin before being posted. If even that won't be allowed, the only conclusion is that admin are not interested in having an article on this topic. HolokittyNX 01:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Application of WP:OFFICE to this article

I would like to know how the OFFICE policy applies specifically to the Justin Berry article. It seems that anytime information above and beyond a basic stub is inserted into the article, even with citations, an admin invariably removes the inserted information, claiming that it is a violation of WP:OFFICE.

So, how exactly has the direct application of WP:OFFICE changed the guidelines for the creation of the Justin Berry article, and how do these guidelines differ from the normal guidelines regulating the content of an article? Are a certain number of citations needed? Are certain facts, no matter how verifiable, not allowed to be added? Since many administrators here have been reflexively clearing the article of what would be perfectly acceptable content for other, far more controversial articles, without so much as justifying or explaining this removal apart from making vague allusions to WP:OFFICE, I and every other user who has tried to reconstruct Justin Berry deserve a clearly articulated, detailed answer. Corax 02:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The real problem, as I see it, is that one of our policies (WP:AUTO, specifically) basically holds that nobody should edit an article in which they have too close an interest to the subject as to be able to edit it objectively.

Literally and inarguably false. WP:AUTO addresses individuals editing articles about themselves, and absolutely nothing else. Nor does it imply anything about situations other than that of a person editing an article about themselves. For the sake of excessive politeness I will assume that you haven't read it in a while and were honestly mistaken. HolokittyNX 07:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thus, people should not edit articles about themselves; this is relatively obvious. People should also not edit articles about subjects that they have strong, passionate feelings about.

False. This is not stated in WP:AUTO and cannot be construed from it. Nor is it part of any other stated policy. The goal is objectivity. If a Republican strategist writes an article about the Democratic party and even the Democrats who read it find it objective, there is no problem. HolokittyNX 07:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thus, it is my opinion, and probably the general consensus opinion of Wikipedia, that self-declared pedophiles, especially those who are engaged in political activism related to pedophilia, should not edit articles about pedophilia.

No such consensus has been taken, and it has been repeatedly stated both on this talk page and in WP:NOT that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Making consensus irrelevant. There are no stated policies anywhere on Wikipedia concerning who can edit certain topics unless they are under WP:OFFICE protection due to policy violations which have already taken place. Nowhere on Wikipedia is there any stated policy as to who can edit any type of unprotected article. What is relevant (unlike opinions) is that pedophiles have contributed to various pages on pedophilia, with Wikipedia admin allowing this due to the objectivity of the content provided. HolokittyNX 07:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

In addition, the subject of this article appears to be the victim of criminal conduct, and respect for the dignity of criminal victims strongly suggests that the perpetrators of the crimes against him, or people who may be difficult to distinguish from those perpretrators, should not be permitted to edit this article.

That certain people choose to make no distinction between criminals and all persons of a given sexual orientation is not Wikipedia's problem. Nor is it responsible or policy-consistent for Wikipedia to share that viewpoint (or any viewpoint on any topic - remember?). It also bears mentioning that the article's subject is both a victim and an adult perpetrator who was not prosecuted because he assisted the investigation. HolokittyNX 07:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not prohibit pedophiles from editing Wikipedia, but we do generally take a very dim view of people either (a) using Wikipedia as a forum to push any particular point of view or (b) using Wikipedia as a means to harass, intimidate, demean, or abuse any other person, whether or not that person is himself or herself a member of the Wikipedia community. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Explicitly justify the above references to 'pushing a point of view' or 'harrassment,' using examples from articles edited by self-described pedophiles. Then realize that all of the above (including any such justification) is irrelevant. If an article pushes a point of view or harrasses an individual, then it should be edited. But if an article is POV-neutral and does not contain pejorative statements about an individual, that is not changed by the fact that it was written by someone who personally has a POV (as every author of every article does). All that matters is whether that POV is present in the article. The above arguments are illogical and both misconstrue and deliberately contradict Wikipedia policy. They stand corrected. HolokittyNX 07:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The WP:AUTO policy is meant to prevent people from writing about themselves. If anybody has come close to violating this policy, it is Justin Berry himself. The other portion of your response does not pertain at all to enforceable policy. Rather, it deals with your opinion -- which is fine. However, you should probably think long and hard before standing by such an opinion, as it would prevent blacks from editing any article on slavery, prevent Jews from editing any article on Israel or the Holocaust, etc. My opinion is that, regardless of how strongly one feels about a particular subject, he should feel free to contribute to the articles pertaining to that subject so long as he is able to conform his behavior to clearly stated Wikipedia policies. Lastly, aside from the AUTO policy, the identity or personal demographics of an editor have no bearing on the quality of the editor's contributions to the encyclopedia. And it that standard by which an encyclopedia -- and an editor -- should be judged. If you had your way, white men wouldn't be able to edit the article about Rodney King. It's silly, quite frankly. Corax 03:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

"People should also not edit articles about subjects that they have strong, passionate feelings about." But we only consider that worth mentioning in the context of paedophilia, apparently.

Your suggestion that it may be difficult to distinguish Wikipaedophiles from child molesters is disgusting, by the way. It's precisely equivalent to suggesting that I cannot be distinguished from a rapist, as has already been pointed out.

I'd argue that it simply doesn't matter that a paedophile edits this article so long as they edit in accordance with the policies here. Why you feel it is right to single out one sexuality for special treatment is your problem; I don't see why we should institutionalise it. The rich irony of your suggesting that "we" take a dim view of POV pushing while fiercely pushing your own POV on paedophiles and their fitness to edit is delicious though. Grace Note 03:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The public at large does not consider pedophilia to be a sexuality. They consider it to be a sexual perversion. It it ilegal in most (if not all) countries. It will do Wikipedia no good whatsoever if pedophiles edit articles on victims of pedophilia. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Many cultures consider homosexuality a perversion and ban homosexual sex. The difference between a perverse orientation and any other kind is solely a matter of personal taste, and Wikipedia does not apply personal taste regardless of its popularity. That most of us hate Osama bin Laden doesn't justify lacing an article on him with things like 'crazy fuck' or 'rabid murderer.' And a reminder - pedophilia is not illegal anywhere. Acting on it is. The first irrational reaction to this subject is failing to make that distinction. Pedophiles are allowed to edit articles on pedophilia, with admin allowing them to, as long as the edits are factual, sourced and objective. What does Wikipedia good is encyclopedic content. What does it bad is unencyclopedic content and nothing else.

That's quite enough consideration of particular opinions. The above is an explicit statement that Wikipedia's highest goal is invalid. WP:NPOV HolokittyNX 01:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Pedophilia is not like homosexuality. Although many cultures may well consider homosexual sex to be perverse they do recognise that it is between consenting individuals. With pedophilic sex one of the parties is too young for consent and that is never going to change. For all your arguing you will never get pedophilia recognised as an ordinary, natural or non perverse act.

I have not expressed an opinon on whether pedophilia (or homosexuality) is 'ordinary' or 'non perverse,' and would consider it a WP:POV violation for an article to do so either. That someone recognizes something as a sexual orientation doesn't preclude them from seeing it as a problem. I refer to it as a sexual orientation because it is a primary or exclusive attraction to a specific type of person, which does not change over time. That's not an apologia for it - if a person is a sociopath they'll never change either. There is of course the question of whether it's an illness. The DSM-IV has listed and de-listed it as such, along with homosexuality. Certain viewpoints hold that there are sexual orientations which are also illnesses, but 'sexual orientation' is objectively defined while 'mental illness' is not. As for natural...well, we're on computers, lol. HolokittyNX 01:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all of what I've written here, but it's really beside the point. It doesn't matter whether pedophilia is a sexual orientation or not. The difference from a discriminatory standpoint is purely semantic. All that matters is that it is an aspect of the user as opposed to the content they provide. There are many aspects of a person that we would all like to see ignored in considering the quality of their work, and most of them have nothing to do with who they're attracted to. HolokittyNX 03:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not talking about lacing this article with "'crazy fuck' or 'rabid murderer.' so you argument there is moot

Both are examples of Wikipedia taking a value stance on a subject, as is factoring an opinion on pedophilia (society's, mine - whatever that is, yours, Rookiee Revolyob's, anyone's) into its decisions. HolokittyNX 01:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I am talking about preventing pedophiles from editing this article so as to prevent distress to a vitim of sex abuse and to preseve the reputation of wiikipedia. And before you go on about "it's not policy!" I know that.

I apologize in advance for any offense caused by the following, but I cannot justify responding any differently. I cannot find any way in which the above stated course of action is not a direct policy violation. WP:NOT and Wikipedia:Content disclaimer warn readers that articles may be offensive or even trigger episodes of post-traumatic stress disorder. Wikipedia:No personal attacks, also states: "Comment on content, not the author," and lists an example as "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views - regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme."

I sympathize with your reasons - I would fully expect a victim of sex abuse to take extreme umbrage at articles by pedophiles on this or any topic, and do not even see what choice they have in that reaction. But preventing such stress is the purpose of the above policies and disclaimers. Preventing such stress by editing an article based on its author as opposed to its content violates the same policies. I wish I could state it more gingerly. HolokittyNX 01:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

And before you go an about the stated goals of wikipedia and a failure of an experiment then I'd like to remind you that i am a very long term contributor who has been here through the making of all the current policies. My aim is to futher the reputation of wikipedia the encylopedia, not to particlipate in a free speech experiment. I am and always have been against censorship in articles. I have no problem with any facts going into this one. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Argumentum ad verecundiam. That a person helps write policies or is in a position designed to enforce them is not a guarantee that any statement made by them or action on their part cannot contradict policy regardless of what they do or say (look at politicians - and they're being paid). If an admin, for example, states that there is no such thing as WP:NPOV, that does not cause it to disappear. And it would be just as illogical for me to assign merit to a person's statements based on their seniority as it would be for me to criticize your statements based on some aspect of yourself. In either case I would be evaluating the person rather than the action or content. HolokittyNX 01:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

See also this proposal: Wikipedia talk:Censorship#Discrimination Against Certain Editors, which appears to have been inspired by this dispute. -Will Beback 22:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "victim of pedophilia". You most likely meant "victims of child sexual abuse". Pedophilia is not illegal anywhere that I know of, but age-disparate sexual relations where one part is below the age of consent is. Neither is synonymous with "pedophilia". Clayboy 21:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that what a policy is for? That as long as edits are in accordance with it, everything's dandy? I don't get what's so hard about it. Oh, right. Repeatedly and explicitly stated prejudice on the part of editors and admin. Not to mention literally false statements about Wikipedia policy. HolokittyNX 07:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

What "literally false statements about policy"? Are you talking about? I've not mentioned policy, only what I perceieve to be in the best interests of Wikipedia. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 06:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, tacitly. While I find that some of your statements have been inconsistent with policy (WP:NOT, WP:No personal attacks, WP:Content disclaimer), you have not made any direct statements about policy itself. The direct statements to which I was referring were made above by user Kelly Martin, and my original use of the phrase 'literally false' is in response to those statements. HolokittyNX 01:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: WP:OFFICE

Copied here at request of User:Corax via IRC --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 03:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like to know how the OFFICE policy applies specifically to the Justin Berry article. It seems that anytime things are inserted into the article, even with citations, an admin invariably removes the inserted information, claiming that it is a violation of WP:OFFICE.

So, how exactly has the direct application of WP:OFFICE changed the guidelines for the creation of the Justin Berry article, and how do these guidelines differ from the normal guidelines regulating the content of an article? Are a certain number of citations needed? Are certain facts, no matter how verifiable, not to be allowed? Since you are one of the many administrators who have been reflexively clearing the article of what appear to be perfectly factual pieces of information, but who have not justified this removal besides making a vague allusion to WP:OFFICE, I think you owe not only me but every other user who has tried to reconstruct Justin Berry a clearly articulated, detailed answer. I will also be posting this to the talk page of the article, in the hopes that other admins engaged in the reverting will respond. Corax 02:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Dear Corax: Thank you for your message. I'll try my best to explain the above to you, although to be perfectly honest with you I don't know too much about the mechanics of the policy in question myself and the best person to ask on the subject would be an officer of the Wikimedia Foundation. I will answer each of your points in turn as separate headings. Please note this is only my understanding of the situation and not necessarily what the Foundation considers to be the case:

How the OFFICE policy applies specifically to the Justin Berry article

An officer of the Wikimedia Foundation invoked the WP:OFFICE policy on the Justin Berry article to remove text which had been disputed by the article subject. This basically means that the editing action carried out under the policy is non-negotiable and not to be reverted. As stated on the page:

Do not unprotect or revert a WP:OFFICE edit without authorization from Jimbo or the Wikimedia Foundation, or else you could be blocked or even desysopped. There may at times be legal reasons for this.

This basically means that the change will be enforced by Wikipedia administrators. In the case of the Justin Berry article this means the text removal isn't permitted to be reverted, either in whole or in part.

How the application of WP:OFFICE has changed guidelines for article editing

Editorial policy is identical to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines with the exception that the action undertaken via WP:OFFICE, in this case, the removal of text, may not be reverted by any user except on decision of the Wikimedia Foundation. Wikipedia:Cite sources and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view applies as usual.

Citations needed for new material

Wikipedia:Cite sources must be followed as with all articles on Wikipedia, and this is not changed by WP:OFFICE unless specific sources are prohibited by the Foundation from being included in an article (in my opinion). I would note however that citing isn't enough to override WP:OFFICE - that is even if you retroactively cite text which has been removed as per WP:OFFICE it doesn't make it permissible to be reinserted.

Are certain facts prohibited?

No facts are prohibited, rather the text that had been removed by the Foundation is prohibited from being restored. It is an issue of content rather than context and thus of course ordinary Wikipedia editorial standards apply to the article.

Jimbo Wales explicitly stated that the problem was with the author of the original content, and made no statement about the content itself. HolokittyNX 07:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I do hope the above is of some assistance. If you have any further questions or queries do please let me know. With regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 03:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Although I appreciate your attention to my questions, Nicholas, I must confess that your responses raise more questions than they solve.

If the guidelines regulating the introduction of text have only been modified to prevent the re-introduction of text from the prior article, why was this version of the article removed? Did it contain whole phrases or sequences of words lifted from the version that Jimbo had removed? Or, to clarify your meaning here, are the facts that were included in the prior article not to be re-introduced (in which case, the current stub violates the OFFICE policy and should lead to the banning of its author, User:Sean Black)?

Again, the problem here is that admins have made endless referrals to the OFFICE policy, blocked editors for violating the OFFICE policy, yet they have refused to explain in a systematic or detailed way how OFFICE policy relates specifically to the content of the future article. It would be helpful to know which facts in particular the subject of the article disputed, so that editors trying to construct a well-sourced article in compliance with OFFICE policies do not inadvertantly violate the OFFICE policy in the process.

If you cannot answer these questions, I respectfully request you cease enforcing the policy -- as it is absurd to enforce laws or guidelines which have not been sufficiently explained to those expected to abide by them. The same goes for every other administrator. If a wiki admin possesses detailed enough knowledge about how the removed "content" is to be construed in this context (Does "content" refer to ideas? Or does it refer to the way in which those ideas are phrased?), then that admin in turn should have the courtesy to share this knowledge with editors. Corax 03:12, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm more concerned because Nicholas is "answering" the questions without having any information as to why the choices were made! Nicholas, you are misleading poor Corax as to what the reasons are by the Wikipedia Office. (Not to poop in your diaper or anything.) While I'm sure we'd all like to guess as to what's going on and why WP is acting like this, we're all kind of in the dark about it. Let's wait and see what they say. --attendsboi 03:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Dear Corax: Thank you for your reply. In answer to your questions:

Reverted revision that you linked to

The example you cite above (this revision) wasn't reverted as per WP:OFFICE but was reverted because of the fact that it wasn't in compliance with WP:CITE and WP:NPOV; the claims were not sourced at all, and it didn't read (to me at least) as being written from a neutral point of view - it seemed to have a similar slant to the revision that Jimbo Wales deleted when WP:OFFICE was first invoked.

Then attempt an edit to improve the quality of the content rather than simply removing it. If you will not cite examples of the article having a POV, then you cannot expect other editors or contributors to agree that there was one (leading them to view the deletion as simple vandalism). As for sourcing, much of the article was paraphrased from the original New York Times article, simply edited for brevity and to remove any sense of value judgment or 'drama.' If you are familiar with the subject of the article, then you are familiar with the NYT article linked at the bottom. Admittedly, I should have clearly mentioned that article as the primary source. The next revert will do so. Before editing it for any reason, do all contributors a favor and explain the reasons for each edit. Altering the text for improved objectivity or sourcing is a contribution. Removing all of it and leaving no useful replacement for the factual information included is vandalism. Edit and partial revert in progress. Let's see that each further edit leaves more usable facts than the last. HolokittyNX 07:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Referrals to OFFICE policy

If there are any referrals to OFFICE which you still feel have been inadequately explained, please ask me (or the individual who enacted the action) in reference to the specific referral and I am sure that the matter can be adequately clarified; I can't help you with an unnamed incident because obviously I can't look into it and give you my opinion.

Particular content disputed under OFFICE

I regret that I don't have confidence on which facts were disputed by the article party, and the Wikimedia Foundation has not to my knowledge made the details of this case publically available. Unless the Foundation releases such details I'm afraid I don't know specifically what about the text was disputed; however it may be assumed that since the text was disputed and not the existence of the article in general the only material that may not be added is the specific text rather than particular facts.

Your request to explain or not enforce OFFICE

I will explain all matters which are unclear to users editing this article on request, to prevent any misunderstandings relating from this; I thus believe it is acceptable for administrators to enforce the policy provided the matter is adequately explained (which I hope I have done to some degree). I will share all information that I possess about the matter in question, although as I've said I don't have any confidence on the Foundation's reasoning, and if I did I would likely not be able to disclose information confidential to the Foundation.

I hope the above is of some assistance. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 03:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. So the only additional guideline applied to the article is that "the text that had been removed by the Foundation is prohibited from being restored," and "ordinary Wikipedia editorial standards apply to the article," yet a sizable addition to the article that didn't violate OFFICE was removed in its entirity without going through any content improvement or dispute resolution process. Somewhere in there is a contradiction. Either the article should have been left as is with the POV and questionable claims disputed, or what you just said about additional guidelines applying to the article is incorrect.

Furthermore, if the details of which facts in the deleted article were disputed by Berry are not made public, how in the world can an editor possibly abide by the OFFICE policy and not inadvertantly reintroduce the fact sometime in the future? Surely you understand how strange it is to enforce a policy which has not been made public. Rewriting the article under such conditions can best be characterized as a game of "Pin the Tail on the Donkey."

Like you, I believe "it is acceptable for administrators to enforce the policy provided the matter is adequately explained." The problem is that the matter has not been adequately explained for the reason I cited in the above paragraph. Corax 03:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Corax: POV edits are commonly reverted by administrators as part of standard practice; regardless of whether the addition was of large size or not it is still not permitted in the article as per WP:NPOV, and admins don't generally just leave articles with POV content and questionable claims in it when a particular edit makes them. In the case of where there was a clear dispute involving the article subject it is even more important that the article doesn't contain anything to give rise to further issues, which is why in that case I reverted the edit. There isn't thus any contradition between OFFICE and standard NPOV practice; they are two separate policies.

As for your second point I'm afraid there is fairly little I can do about the fact that the Foundation haven't made the rationale behind the policy application public. I have no control over the Foundation's workings, and indeed don't have anything to do with their administrative processes; in that respect you are right, although users will always be warned prior to being blocked for violating OFFICE. One issue is that this is a fairly new policy and thus perhaps things like this haven't really been worked out. I should have thought that if the article is rewritten in good faith from scratch, citing sources and being written from a neutral point of view, there is no chance whatsoever that it will come close to violating OFFICE - the only time an edit will violate this policy is if it is a reintroduction of removed text.

I'm sorry the matter hasn't been adequately explained to your satisfaction; there is precious little I can do other than explain what I know, however, although you could perhaps ask a member of Foundation staff if you are dissatisfied with my rationale. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 04:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

POV comments should be removed in a timely manner. However, removing them without first discussing them should only be done if the content in question is blantantly POV (which the content of the version I linked to was not), or if the content was subject to the normal rigors of dispute resolution (which it wasn't). Instead, every addition was removed without any meaningful discussion about which (presumably all?) statements were POV or of questionable veracity. And this has been the problem with all attempts at rewriting the article -- they are ALL removed without any informative discussion about why they are removed. Corax 04:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Please use common sense :-)

Speak neutrally. Always write about the subject by last name. Avoid repetition. Be concise. Avoid inflammatory sentences when a neutral one conveys the same information. &c, &c... I made a few copyedits. Let's make this a clean, brief, and informative article. +sj + 06:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense, but we should still have all the verifiable facts. Just about everything that was recently deleted is directly from the nytimes article in the sources. For example, one notable fact previously in this article and mentioned in the NY Times article but now not here is that his father was, according to Justin, aware of the source of his funds and collaborated with him on his online ventures. A serious allegation, yes, but one that the New York Times printed, and therefore worth mentioning IMO. --Delirium 07:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The NY Times lists each day many facts and details in its pages which are not encyclopedic. Nor does the simple fact that someone has been the cited in an NYT article mean that every detail of that report is encyclopedic. Really, what it comes down to is that not only is this a living person, this is a young person. Just as we need to be careful in not overplaying the (arguably) bad decisions of Prussian Blue (American duo), Prince Harry of Wales, Sean Cassidy, and other (once) immature individuals. While I am not opposed to truthfully noting the foibles of public figures in their adulthood, I think we can afford some latitude to the errors of youth. We have a million articles-we do not need to devote one of them to publicizing the bad choices of a 15-year old kid. He has the rest of his life to look forward to. Our job is to record useful information, not all of the gossip and salacious details that appear in this world, even if verifiable. -Will Beback 08:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like dangerously POV territory. As a Wikipedia editor, I'm not here to make moral decisions; I'm here to document the world in a verifiable manner. There are plenty of things that, given moral considerations, maybe we should leave out of the encyclopedia. People have already suggested we should leave out autofellatio for moral/ethical reasons. Or that we shouldn't include classified information that was leaked, since that's damaging to national security of some countries. That's a path we really can't afford to start down, since people have such widely disparate morals. That said, I'm not arguing for reprinting every fact in the NY Times article; it's 7 pages or so long, and clearly a news article and an encyclopedia are different types of media. But if they're verifiable facts helpful to understanding the subject and might be searched for by future readers, then it's our job as encyclopedia writers to include them. --Delirium 09:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Just because something is verifiable doesn't mean it's encyclopedic. It's verifiable that I bought a bag of frozen Swedish meatballs at IKEA yesterday (I have a receipt, and IKEA's POS logs can probably verify it as well). There's no way in hell that this fact is encyclopedic. Let's not lose track of the fact that we're not a tabloid press: we don't print everything that fits. We have to balance the desire for a complete, neutral, and factual record of the pertient facts with the dignity of our subjects and the fundamental role of the encyclopedia. Let's not forget one of our policies relating to user conduct: users should refrain from anything that would tend to bring the encyclopedia into disrepute. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

That sounds really noble and all, but your statements presuppose a set definition of "disreputable," "pertinent," and "dignified." As you are no doubt aware, these are descriptives whose use and meaning vary from person to person. To try to dictate the content of a supposedly neutral encyclopedia using YOUR understanding of what those words means is incompatible with neutrality. The fact that some poeple on here think that "pedophiles" should not edit this article because their so doing would "perpetuate the abuse" presupposes as fact that "pedophiles" or "child molesters" bear the full responsibility for Justin's poor decision-making, and totally disregards the fact that Justin himself was an "abuser" according to the law after he turned 18 and perhaps even before. This pedophile-scapegoating, manifest most clearly in the attempt to exclude self-labeled pedophiles from editing the article, is similarly premised on disputable interpretations, yet we are supposed to pretend that this is "neutral" point of view. Yeah, right. I'm not buying it. Corax 22:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

A good example for the tone of the Justin Berry article is the Traci Lords article. Traci forged an ID, worked in the adult film industry while under 18, was immune from the consequences of her actions because she was a minor, and made sure she owned the rights to the one film she made after turning 18, realizing that the notoriety over her earlier films being "child porn" would make the one legal film a huge hit, and ensure that she never had to work again.

The article on Traci Lords presents the story of her life in factual terms, and doesn't attempt to glamorize it, titillate the reader, or to portray her as a "poor child lured by pedophiles." The Justin Berry article would do well to strive for a similar balance. Self-Adjoint 09:10, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree; the previous Justin Berry article certainly was not particularly good, and I didn't mean to be defending that specific incarnation. --Delirium 09:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Progress!

I would like to thank everyone who has edited to this article since last night, for preserving existing encyclopedic content while improving the sourcing and such. We now have a reasonably informative article, and apparently everyone who has edited it since last night wants it to stay informative. Let me think...what's the word for that? Oh, right. 'Wikipedia.' ^_^; HolokittyNX 22:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• I agree, great job everyone, continue adding good, sourced, verifiable content. There's definitely enough information out there to have an article that is much more educational than a mere two-sentence stub as seen on Cryptome. --Cyde Weys 06:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Ms. Knott, the mention of fraud charges against Mr. Berry's father is from the part of the New York Times article detailing Mr. Berry's move to Mexico. But looking back I agree it isn't really relevant. HolokittyNX 14:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does it seem that many of the admins who have gotten invovled in this mess have not carefully read the NYT article? Hence, the mass reverting of information paraphrased from the article, with the justification that the paraphrased information wasn't cited or neutral. Quite strange, considering it's the main source for anything about Berry. Corax 15:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Um since when did removing one sentence become a mass reversion? Anyway yes I did read the article in full and no I do not think it is a good enough source for accusing someone of fraud. We need a source such as a quote from the police saying that he was wanted for fraud or a copy of a warrent for his arrest or some such thing. Now we could go looking for them but since it's not particlualy relavent to this article I chose to simply remove the sentence. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 17:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

That's nice, but your reversion of the sentence about the fraud accusation was not what I was discussing when I mentioned "mass revert". Regards, Corax 21:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

OK I just assumed it was because you were replying to a comment about the fraud sentence. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

INTEL PEDO!

Berry mentioned he was abused by one of the designers of the pentium 4 processor when he testified before congress!

Not only that but I googled one of the name's Justin mentioned and it took me directly to Ken Gourlay's blog. His posted resume verifies he is the man Justin mentioned before Congress, being the former owner of Chain Communications.

This is the site of one of the abusers: ken gourlay .. google the name.

So, there are reasons for law enfrocement not to take action against the persons who abused Justin. All the wrong ones.

justinsfriends

Hey, I just googled "justinsfriends" and the following domain came up: http://www.justinsfriends.net?

Is this one of Berry's domains? --Dan Asad 02:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It appears to be, and I think "justinsfriends" was the name of his latest site (if I'm not mistaken). I did some checking on www.archive.org, and it appears that justinsfriends.net was, as of early 2005, advertised as an 18+ site. I wonder if Justin is including the names of the subscribers of that site everytime he mentions "1,600 pedophiles." Corax 21:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there a bigger issue?

This entire controversy troubles me. I've been here several months, and I thought I understood the philosophy under which Wikipedia operates. Read at face value, the controversy over deleting the article, restricting the access of some users, and applying WP:OFFICE to this article. Without letting this topic devolve into a discussion of the specific content of this article, I'd like to understand how the actions taken both by users like Rookiee Revolyob and Theresa Knott among many others, and the actions taken by Jimmy Wales, the Wikimedia Foundation, and various admins, can be understood as advancing the founding precepts & guiding principles of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia's slogan is "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit," but under WP:OFFICE, only a handful of people can edit this article. At the same time, my underlying respect for this noble experiment leads me to believe that such drastic action would only be taken if it were truly necessary. I'm torn. I can speculate positive and negative reasons, but, because the reasons are shrouded, niether I nor anyone else among the community of people interested in this article can judge hte merits of either side's position.

Among the facts known to us is the fact that Justin Berry made contact with Jimmy Wales, which prompted the removal of the original article, both from the current incarnation of the page and from its history. After further acts by both sides, the article was placed under OFFICE protection. One thing that makes sense is that if the presence of the original article exposed the Wikimedia Foundation to the threat of legal action, or some similar sanction. While abiding by our guiding principles is important, the argument can be made that it would be a hollow victory to keep our principles but lose Wikipedia. If restricting this topic is the price to pay, then I could understand that. But, without the facts, neither I nor anyone else can judge. We're left to wonder, in the dark, why things are the way they are.

I always try to assume good faith in the acts of others. Wikipedia holds the same values. If each side is acting in good faith, then productive dialogue can only improve the community. In the interest of spurring a discussion of the higher-level issues surrounding this article and its ardent supporters & opponents, I'd like to insert a couple of quotes from [[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimmy Wales], courtesy of his User page, and some of the questions each raised for me with regard to this matter. I believe these quotes bear directly on some of the questions raised by proponents on all sides of this controversy.

• Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That’s what we’re doing.
  • If free access to human knowledge is the goal, then how do these actions serve that end?

• ...I advise the world to relax a notch or two.
  • Looking at the Talk page, is it possible that this topic is not well served by the level of intensity with which it is being approached?

• Freedom of speech is critical for all cultures
  • Is the critical value of freedom of speech better served by allowing a free exchange of opinions, even those violently opposed, or by a controlled expression of as much as we can express without putting the larger project in jeopardy?

• To me the key thing is getting it right. And if a person's really smart and they're doing fantastic work, I don't care if they're a high school kid or a Harvard professor; it's the work that matters.
  • If that's true, then does it apply equally to those whose perversion/orientation is pedophile? Or are some perspectives so far beyond the pale that the harm from their inclusion is more important than the "work?"

• (Wikipedia is) like a sausage: you might like the taste of it, but you don't necessarily want to see how it's made
  • Is this discussion living proof of Wales' paraphrase of a common quote? Is the heat & noise contained herein detracting from the mission of Wikipedia? Or, is this kind of spirited debate just what the community needs to resolve issues of controversy such as this?

I'd like to raise the debate, if I can, to the bigger questions. So, without adding to the rancor this has engendered, and without addressing the specific details of the article, is the way this controversy was handled effective/appropriate/correct? Should it be the model for other threats to the community? Which is the more important moral tenet, holding to our principles or preserving our community? As an aside, this echoes some of the questions in the national debate, about the conflict between security and founding principles. A diversity of opinion exists here, but I suspect a consensus can be reached on the "bigger questions." SteveB 01:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

{{TOCleft}}

I've removed {{TOCleft}} because it messes up the indentations of the comments in the first couple of sections, hence causing confusion with attribution and who is replying to whom. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 04:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. In retrospect, I agree. SteveB 02:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Justin Berry & Religion

In Eichenwald's NYT feature, he included a reference to Justin Berry's religion. Doing a search brought me to BlogRodent's report on Berry's reconnection with his Pentecostal faith. While I'm reluctant to marry the Justin Berry article to the hot-button issue of religion, a paragraph on this might serve to contextualize Berry as more than the camwhore or hapless victim that various media outlets have portrayed him as. Until I hear back from BlogRodent, inclusion of Berry's baptismal picture would be questionable, but might be fair use. I'm hoping to have ownership info in order to request permission. However, look at the picture. It really does show a different aspect of him than anyone in the media or in our community is really discsussing. The man is more than the story. I'd just feel better about including a ¶ about Berry & his religion to a controversial article like this if I feel there's a consensus about it. SteveB 02:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

This is Rich Tatum, blogger at the site mentioned above. I included the image of Justin being baptized as taken from the New York Times website. Unfortunately, there was no credit given on that photo, so I assume it was provided by Berry himself. I presume to use it under fair use guidelines, but I have not been given permission by anybody. Regards, Rich. (rich (dot) tatum (at) tatumweb (dot) com)

Also, note, I have no idea what particular Christian sect or denomination Berry has affiliated with. There's no published evidence he has joined a Pentecostal church that I know of. -- Rich.

More Justin Berry links

I've found some additional information about Justin Berry and one of the men who both molested him & enabled his porn business. Sources like the Congressional record should go a long way toward satisfying the need Jimbo Wales identified for a neutral, verifiable telling of Berry's tale.

Berry's Congressional Testimony

The law firm representing Mr. Berry

DetroitWonk Blog about Ken Gourlay - Includes a picture of Berry & Gourlay together

Gourlay's blog re a meeting with Berry

Google cache of the page

What a Weekend

From Hell to New York and back

Filed under: General — Ken @ December 3, 2002, 5:02 pm

So yeah. I don’t know what to think. I was going to spend the weekend with my friend Justin and some other people, but the day before we were to leave Justin got really pissed at me about something and went back home. So I ended up going to NY feeling sick and depressed, missing my friend and wondering what I did wrong.

The trip wasn’t all bad. We went clubbing in Niagara Falls and experienced what was subsquently defined as a “Mongolian Clusterfuck”. I guess that’s what you call it when 80+ teenagers get their freak on in unusually close proximity. It was an experience. I think I would recommend it, as much as I would recommend any such secular behavior: it seemed like the crowd there was a good type with which it would be reasonably pleasurable for one to get on with one’s freak.

I’ve got pictures of the trip that I’ll upload at some future point in time. Oh, one other thing. If you’re interested, $1000 for full motion video and sound of me quickly and forcefully placing my vacuum cleaner through my kitchen table. Hah. Just a thought.

Gourlay's blog containing an online chat between him & Berry

Google cache of the page

News from Cleveland of a cosmic jerk...

Filed under: General — Ken @ October 15, 2003, 4:02 pm

Justin Berry: Hello :-)

Ken Gourlay: hiya

Ken Gourlay: did you hear about the cosmic jerk?

Justin Berry: cosmic no?

Justin Berry: what about it

Ken Gourlay: 5 billion years ago there was a cosmic jerk that made the expansion of the universe accelerate…. or so say the scientists

Justin Berry: ok..

Ken Gourlay: There’s also "cosmic jerk" the marinade… and even "cosmic jerk" the musical artist!

Justin Berry: ok…

SteveB 11:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Ken Gourlay's blog was taken down sometime today, I believe.

Dan Asad 02:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I've added links to the Google caches of the pages... Ssbohio 02:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Gourlay's company website (Chain Communications, Inc.) w/info regarding Berry's involvment with the company

lol, on a side note, his company was a just short walk from my father's townhouse.. right off of State St.

BTW, the computer camp Berry attended was most likely CAEN Dan Asad 05:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Given what we know now, the following sentence from the Chain Communications website is, at the same time, ironically funny & rather disturbing: Justin Berry ... has been making waves in the web design industry since he was a young teenager.

I've also located information for a company located near me, Byte Hosting. Apparently, this company, founded by an 8th grade student, worked closely with Ken Gourlay's Chain Communications, providing web hosting services, and acquired Chain's customers in October 2004. Ssbohio 16:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's another thread from Gourlay's blog:

Mazatlan

From Mexicantown to Mexico

Filed under: General — Ken @ September 28, 2003, 1:37 am

So I took a week off work to go visit my friend Justin in Mexico.

Woo, quite a place! He’s having fun there, that’s for sure.

The trip had a lot of firsts for me: first time in Mexico, first time I saw the Pacific

Ocean, first time I danced in the rain on the beach, first time I sailed a Hobie Cat (… on

the Pacific Ocean), first time I had a conversation in Spanish, etc. etc.

Well, without further ado, here’s the pics. Enjoy!

Also, some links:

CAEN forum, '02 postings from Berry under the username "Xpert-Hosting", the name of Berry's IT company.

Archive.org caches of Berry's original website: justinberry.com

Googled-cached message posted by Berry w/justin@thechain.com listed as email addy

He posted under a few usernames: "ComputerNERDxp", "Xpert-Hosting", and "sexyJustinCAM". The last one is an AIM un listed on one of his cached porn sites.

Gourlay's email was ken@thechain.com

Most of Gourlay's clients appear to be teenage boys, ironically.

Check this out:

"bill.thechain.com" Another webcam site hosted by Gourlay's company Dan Asad 09:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey, what do you know.. I found another one: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://mikeyscam.thechain.com

Well, I think I've contributed more than enough to this article. Maybe we'll be doing an article on Gourlay soon. . . Dan Asad 10:21, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

And, Justin Berry's website is back up & running, updated as of 5 April 2006. The site advertises the IT services he provides. I know it's POV, but I think it's courageous of him to establish a Web presence considering all that's gone on with him & the Internet.

I plan on making some additions to the article page, based on the sources I've identified. It probably won't happen for a while, but it's in the plan.  :-) --Ssbohio 03:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

^ lol.. Well, if Gourlay goes to trial, this will definitely come up, but I doubt it

will happen.

Dan Asad 01:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Request for Expansion

is there any non-biased, citable information available on the boy's current whereabouts? (I'm just curious how it turned out for him given his disturbing background)

Check Justin Berry's website for his current contact information. --Ssbohio 03:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The phone number listed on his new site has a Houston, Texas area code.

Dan Asad 01:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, I just found out that Texas is where Berry was/is in rehab. Dan Asad 07:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Birth month

Added August per NYT: "On Sept. 7, prosecutors informed Ryan that his client would be granted immunity. A little more than four weeks after his 19th birthday, Justin became a federal witness." [6]

May Need Some More Work

The original comment I left got out of hand, mostly written after seeing the WP:OFFICE bullshit and not examining the new article more closely, so this is my attempt to clarify my concerns. Something about this article and his story just doesn't pass the smell test. Perhaps it is because it so heavily relies on Justin's version of the story. It also would appear that my beloved Times has yet another reporter doesn't understand the boundries of journalistic integrity. I need not remind people of the whole Glass incident at TNR. All I'm saying is that much of the references circle back to Kurt and Justin. Slate's criticism should be incorporated in somehow. I think there is much more to this then meets the eye, especially since it would seem that Justin isn't stupid. Also, it seems rather strange that he "cleaned" up so quickly. While watching the congressional hearings, I noticed some telltale signs that he may not be as clean as is purported (speculation, for now, on my part). Having know people who struggled with cocaine abuse, it just isn't something you can cure in a couple of months. I just wonder why it shouldn't be noted what laws he has actually violated. I'm dubious about the alleged passive role he played throughout this tale. I wish there was more information so as to give a complete picture. Just some thoughts... --Dragon695 00:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that the article shouldn't play up his alleged "victimhood" (after all, he was only a victim of his own greed), but actually I think the current state of the article is written from a tolerably good NPOV. It would be great to get some sources that don't rely on his version, but it'll be hard -- isn't his version actually the only version known? Has anyone else involved (his father for instance) ever talked about this? Pais 20:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

New request

I'd like the wording to be changed when describing Justin as initiating in sexual contact with customers. According to his testimony, he was sexually assaulted..he did not intend to engage in contact with site members he agreed to meet.

Aeonfluxed 03:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I've reviewed his Congressional testimony and the New York Times article... From what I see, there's no allegation that force was used upon him, but rather (and I'm interpreting here) that he was sexually assaulted in the statutory sense, by virtue of his age. Further, published reports indicate he accepted sums of money & other things of value for these meetings, so the totality of circumstance would point to these meetings being planned as more than simply a casual get-together. I don't want to seem vulgar, and I do believe he was taken advantage of, but, when you fly to Vegas to meet a stranger in his hotel room, a stranger who has paid your expenses & more, a stranger who has watched you perform sexual acts at his expense, it would be hard to construct a circumstance where those facts pointed to something other than a planned sexual encounter. If allegations have been made that he was assaulted in the common law sense, that is to say, forcibly, then reference should be made in the article. However, I haven't seen anything that points that way. Given what we currently know, my feeling is that his encounters with these men are being presented from a tolerably NPOV.--Ssbohio 21:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

New Article

Justin Berry is a weasel. Suggesting that he is a victim is a slap in the face to real victims everywhere. He made money from his pornography sites by making adults think he was 18, and now he is making money from his appearances on shows like Oprah. Would this have had the same response had he been a 16 year old girl that filmed herself and put the videos online? Would her adult viewers have been called pedophiles? Or is it more likely this is just a twisted form of homophobia attempting to rid the net of disgusting gay pornography? It’s an interesting idea to think about… http://www.mogenic.com/article.asp?article_id=281

What a Horror

This entry is an abomination, dripping with POV from pedophiles who are furious at this kid for standing up to them. Wikipedia should be ashamed of itself for allowing this to happen to this brave kid.

Moreover, Berry shows that everything the pedophiles believe is a lie. He made decisions at 13 that tore him up and that he enormously regrets at 19. He is the living, breathing evidence that this stuff should be illegal. And pedos don't like that -- so they attack him.

How does this show up in the entry? Well, let's start with this: What is Berry best known for around this country? Riveting the nation with his tesimony before Congress, which set in motion an effort to re-write the laws on child porn. But there is not one word about this -- there is, however, plenty of room to print anonymous speculation about what may or may not have been on some of the illegal videos. What garbage.

Then, take the section on the article "controversy." The writers see fit to mention two letters that were written to the Times (probably by them), but....what were the letters about? NOT the Berry article, as the entry says. Instead, it was about a full examination by the Public Editor of everything that was done in this story by the Times -- which concluded that the Times handled everything right. In fact, EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE where the Times was praised by critics is dropped, and the handful of nay-sayers is quoted. The entry suggests that the Times reporter did someting unethical, without mentioning -- as is disclosed in his entry on wikipedia -- that he won a journalistic ETHICS award for what he did in this case.

So, what's the deal wikipedia? Are you really about being an encyclopedia? Or are you just the wall that the pedophiles can use to spray-paint their filth?

RE: This entry is an abomination, dripping with POV from pedophiles who are furious at this kid for standing up to them.

Please point out the material that you think is POV so that it can be edited. You are certainly free to edit the article yourself.

And also, please add your signature or handle to your posts. Thank you.--Dan Asad 02:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's start with a few things: The entry says "this is just Justin Berry's side of the story, as told to the NYT" but the Times said that they confirmed the story through thousands of pages of records, including years of records from his instant message conversations. In fact, the description of independent corroboration goes on for two paragraphs, which is reduced in this entry as "it's just what Berry says." Then there is the decision to refer to Berry as a "prostitute." Given what he described in his testimony, it seems hard to call this prostitution. But the WORST thing is that entry about what is on the videos. The entry may as well begin with the words "rumor has it. Why is the statement that there are "allegedle" videos of Berry with Mitchel, or Berry doing anything, worth printing, if not to titillate the pedos and embarrass the molestation victim? And let's face it...whoever could write that sentence as FACT is either going to be with the FBI, or will be somebody who has been breaking the law. It has NO significance, it is rumor, and it is damaging. And it is only there to inflict pain on the victim. Sellsoft

Why is it that everything that isn't Sex Abuse Industry agitprop is described as having been authored by "The Pedophiles." Is it inconceivable to these people that anyone who's not a pedophile could actually have critical thinking skills, or the ability to to see through their weasel-worded value-laden tripe, replete with its conclusions built into its definitions? Hermitian 05:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I would say it is people thinking for themselves if it was accurate. it is not. It is people who are trying to spin this story to a meaning, based on nothing but their own emotions. You can refer to the FACTUAL stuff that has been written, you can refer to the testimony, or you can refer to original documents. everything else is just theory, and does not belong in an encyclopedia. Sellsoft

p2p reference and "Steve"

. They are freely downloadable from P2P file-sharing services and refer to the man visible in the clips as 'Steve'. His face is never shown although Berry can allegedly been seen smiling and waving at the camera. Other sources suggest that 'Steve' may be Ken Gouley, another of Berry's alleged molesters, or even Gino Tunno.

This is POV, and encourages people to download illicit pornography. Also, according to the Queerplanet article, "Steve" was a teenage friend of Berry's. --Dan Asad 02:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a big leap to suggest that the factual information that Berry's various performances still have wide circulation on the Internet is a call for anyone to run out and download them. Idle speculation as to the identity of "Steve" is not encyclopedic, and should be replaced with a sourced statement as to Steve's identity, or removed. Hermitian 05:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The reference to "Steve" definitely should be removed until we know more details. I see no problem with mentioning that recordings of Berry's performances are being circulated on p2p networks as long as details of the recordings are omitted.--Dan Asad 18:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The history of this article

Well what exactly happened? It seems that Jimmy Wales created it then Berry contacted Wales and the article was rewritten from scratch and a request was made that it was to be written by non-pedophiles. Am I right? Skinnyweed 18:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

As I know.. you can read about it on Wikitruth or Cryptome. I suspect they locked the article was for legal reasons. They unlocked it around the time Ken Gourlay was arrested. It would have been nice if reasons were given so that we would know why the original article was deleted. Certainly, the article is more NPOV now.--Dan Asad 19:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Dan, I took you up on your invitation. I have made my own fixes to this entry, making it reflect what the Times story *actually* says and incorporating elements of Berry's sworn testimony before Congress. All of the criticism remains, although I have fixed numerous errors. I did remove anything that said "speculated, could be, might be" -- in other words, the two sentences about what was on the videos, since nothing was stated as actual knowledge, but was (hopefully) rumor. I don't think wikipedia should be giving people their jollies with descriptions of child porn anyway, particularly when it is irrelevant to the issues here..--Sellsoft

And now Dan, you will see why I didn't bother to edit this piece. I worked hard on it, incorporating all of the stuff that the pedophiles don't want mentioned, the things that contradict their point of view, and after just a few hours, it was put back right the way it was. My version, if you can still find it, was very balanced -- incorporating everything from THIS piece that was true, fixing the errors based on what the Times and the testimony actually said, and pointing out the items that contradict what people want to argue here. But no -- that doesn't advance the cause of pedophilia. I hope Berry sues you people. There is so much stuff in this piece that is NOT referenced in any of the factual resources that are available, there is so much stuff that is contradicted by other evidence...I am going to publish this notice everywhere I can, in hopes that Berry sees it. This is reckless disregard for the truth. Wikipedia should be sued for libel. There is no point in trying to make this thing accurate and true when you are simply allowing the pedophiles to use it in their continued effort to harass this kid because he had the audacity to turn them in FOR MOLESTING CHILDREN AND BREAKING THE LAW. --Sellsoft

Wikipedia, I Can't Fight the Pedophiles

I now see that someone just came in and reverted the story back to what it was. Loaded with errors, rumors, and unsubstantiated -- or DISPROVABLE -- claims. (Examples of lies: that the Times story is simply Berry's version, without mentioning all of the substiating documents; that he met *a number* of his members (all of the evidence suggests no more than 3 out of 1500) that he was born in August, 1986 (all other records say different); that the encounter with Tunno in Vegas, when Berry took money, was the first molestation, when in fact the only evidence that exists is Berry's testimony, which says he met Tunno in Bakersfield before that and wanted to hang out with him because he thought he was was a big-time computer executive and was molested; leaving out the original molestation at 13 that affected him so deeply (and that has now been charged); saying that Mitchel OFFERED money for sex (NOTHING says that anywhere...it says that Mitchel wanted to visit Berry, Berry agreed, he was molested, didn't care, and just wanted to use the guy for his money...never does it say he was paid for sex.); the horror of the guesses and possibilities that are listed to describe things in videos; leaving out that Berry went to the feds because of his concerns about other children being molested; that there was loads of praise for the Times article (let's face it...the criticism is from a gay publication, Slate and a couple of letter writers; the praise is from the Times Public Editor, the SHorenstein Center and prize-givers...why is one being listed and not the other? POV!!!!); that the letters were sent in response to the original story, when they were sent in response to the Public Editor column praising the article (can't let any praise slip in...contradicts the pedo POV!!)

All of these errors, efforts to remove all praise Berry received, plus the glaring attempts to only represent the critics, shows that this is a piece of garbage, attempting to make Berry look as bad as possible, ignoring the things that he accomplished that were good, ignoring all the praise he has received and the story received, pulling out ever bit of context and attempting to portray him as someone who is universally viewed as a horror. If you want to see the changes I made, look at the history -- and you will see that it is a straight up story, warts and all, without being loaded down with speculation and lies. Most important of the lies -- the removal of anything that suggests Berry might have been a victim. Instead, he is portrayed as a prostitute, from start to finish.

I ask the editors at Wikipedia -- read my version in the history. I would revert it, but the pedos would just revert it right back.

Also, I have decided to email both my version and all of this conversation and controversy to Kurt Eichenwald at the New York Times. Perhaps the Times might be interested in exploring how Wikipedia has allowed itself to become part of a campaign to torment an adolsecent sexual abuse victim. --Sellsoft