Talk:Justin Berry/Archive 1

message: *"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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Possible references

message: 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)
replies: text: Because it is a copyvio.--Jimbo Wales 21:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm so it is. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: You People are A Joke

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Various sourced facts 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Reverts 

message: 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)
thread_title: OFFICE protection

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Please use common sense :-) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Progress! 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  justinsfriends 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Is there a bigger issue? 

message: I've removed  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)
replies: text: Thanks.  In retrospect, I agree. SteveB 02:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|TOCleft}} 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  May Need Some More Work 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: New request

message: . 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  p2p reference and "Steve" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The history of this article