Okay, so I get an email dump worth of information. After sifting through, I will go through it and then let others make what they will. Stars before numbers will contain information that I cannot verify as 100%. This information was posted on Wiki before and removed after discuss - claims that the two users could not be connected was made but the addition of the birthdays on both pages should make it more certain that there is a relaitonship.

1. User:Ssbohio has a birthday on April 10 according to his user page. He lives in Ohio.

2. Livejournal user Ssbohio has a birthday on April 10 according to his user page. He lives in Ohio. The Livejournal has a name that I will not post publicly.

3. Both users obsess over Justin Berry, a known pedophilia/pederasty related case.

4. His edits consist of adding LGBT tags to NAMBLA's page.

5. He had a Wiki relationship with Haiduc who also sought to add pederasty and LGBT tags to as many pages as possible.

* 6. This page suggests that there was stolen email evidence connecting Ssbohio with the pederasty/pedophile editing group. It is claimed to be hacked info but could be falsified.

* 7. A Google Group that I cannot access has a member with initials SSB and lives in Ohio, and the first name matched to the Livejournal name. That member claims to be a member of NAMBLA.

8. There is an email connected to the google user but I will not post it public nor the user's name (and I can't directly access the group so it should be moot).



By the way, ArbCom refused to act on the matter, so I am probably screwing myself for posting it publicly (ala, giving them another reason to keep me banned). But yeah, the guy raised a lot of red flags and someone should take honest action regarding him.

Sounds like an editor who would be perfectly welcome to edit on Wikipedia!

This is an important topic and instructive of how Wikipedia works, and why is it in the Wikipedia annex?

The article on Justin Berry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Berry could have begun ‘Justin Berry is a leading campaigner for child safety on the Internet, who has made many efforts to toughen up the laws against the producers and purchasers of child pornography. He was a victim of child molestation as a teenager”.

In fact, the article begins “Justin Berry (born July 24, 1986) is an American who beginning at age 13, operated pornographic websites featuring himself and other teen males”.

I’ll leave it to others to work out why the article begins in this way. I don’t know if it has anything to do with the concerted covert action by the supporters of pederasty and their enablers to downplay the effects of child pornography on the Internet, and to vilify and pile obloquy upon those who have tried to operate against it. Who can say?

It doesn't bother me to "out" Ssbohio, because he is a real slime.
And because he's all over the web. Using the same name.

His real name is Steve Brack, and yes, he lives in Dayton, Ohio.

His Twitter account
His Facebook account
His YouTube account
Even a phone number

And I saved the best for last:
His Flickr account

Mr. Brack is unquestionably gay, and extremely fond of very young men.
Mr. Brack is unquestionably an apologist for pedophilia.

I will give you some examples of his on-wiki activities:
here, here, here, here, here. And there are many many more.

He's been doing this for MORE THAN FOUR YEARS.

Arbcom has been told--REPEATEDLY--about Mr. Brack's activities on WP.
They have done NOTHING. They are allowing a pedophile to openly POV
Wikipedia articles.

As a side note, he is one of the many Commons users that argued for a lack of age verification requirement.

I really don't like those people at all.

The flickr account is instant delete fodder. Several images cannot possibly have been taken by the uploader. A couple are commercial, and one is embedded on a commercial site. What lies in the private stash only flickr would be able to see.

But its not the worst that there is for that you need to take a look at the favs of the favers:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ssbohio/4207129205/favorites/

No shit. One of the favers, johnnysuede02115, is a nasty freak. Same for bamtj1993.

If anyone wants to contact Flickr and point out this stuff, feel free. They may or may not care.

Sure is a lot of gay porn on Flickr. And not all of it is marked adult-only. Ho hum, yuck, etc.

Flickr won't tolerate mixing photos of kids in with porn like that. Yep this lot is gay themed because that was the portal into it, but you get the same with the girls too.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/57148684@N05/favorites/

I wondered what would ArbCom do if a user has normal edits on Wikipedia, but it turned out to be practicing illegal actions or supporting illegal behavior on other sites...

For example, suppose User:Example has normal edits about UK roads, train stations, etc. Then on other sites and forums claims to be doing one of these things:

- Download lolicon manga from torrents
- Smoke marijuana and use bongs
- Have been prisoned for some months due to attempted grand theft

What should ArbCom do, and would their remedy be actually effective in protecting the site?

I'm pretty sure I've been blocked for complaining about the editing access for two of those three people alluded to above.

;/

You feel safe in assuming that's not an autobigraphical hypothetical on Text's part?

Mention this, too. (NSFW!!)

And blocked indef. Good result

Meh. It seems that SqueakBox tried to get Arbcom off their asses about Brack more than two years ago.

If you have to embarrass them into doing something this simple, they really are as pathetic as Horse
says they are......there is simply no reasonable excuse for this. Especially after VigilancePrime, and
Daniel Lièvre, and AnotherSolipsist, and Roman Czyborra, and Tyciol (who keeps trying), and SocJan,
and davidwr, and Haiduc, and JayW, and Marlais, and The Relativist, on and on and on.

Anyone can report that to flickr simply press the "Report Abuse" button at the bottom of the page. Select the top category "I see a photo ..." account will be restricted within a few hours.

For the other stuff you select "Other concerns" and report that the account is sexualizing kids by putting them in the same fav list as Adult porn, or that the account is adult themed and the account photos are of kids gathered from the web. Sometimes you'll see accounts that are MySpace style self photos in bathroom mirrors etc, those can be reported too, as obviously two different people's bathroom mirror photos aren't all from the same photographer, note also whether there is any other uploading of wenb content in the report, especially if any is adult themed.

Y! has a zero tolerance predatory accounts.

A good result which is limited by the fact that they are only blocked on en.wiki and, as we know from past experience, there is little effort made to prevent their return with a new account.

Why does ArbCom need to be shamed into taking action by threads such as these? They were informed about the problem yet did nothing. If Ssbohio doesn't get globally blocked shortly, they are leaving themselves wide open for more bad publicity. A couple of articles by Fox News can be shrugged off but at some point people will start to pay attention and the members of ArbCom will be in a very awkward and public position when it spreads to the wider media.

- Has been editing Wikipedia while a banned user.

Well the two I reported to flickr are gone.

That can certainly go in the list as well, but being banned from a website isn't an offense and isn't breaking the law.

What should the ArbCom do if, for example, a situation like this happens?

User1 and User2 turn out to be V. Vikernes and G. Glitter in real life, who have finished paying their debt with society after committing very serious offenses, and are editing on pages about the styles of music they're familiar with. They're prolific and knowledgeable, they add content every day, are friendly with other users and abide by all the rules. But nobody knew who the accounts belonged to before ArbCom discovered them in some way.

- Would the ArbCom, in banning the accounts, be protecting the encyclopedia and really helping to avoid potential exploitation/bad influence on minors? What if they come back with new accounts to edit pages about music again? Would then ArbCom declare that scorched earth be made on those pages to keep their edits away?
- What if G and V donated a large sum of money to the Foundation? Would the ArbCom show 100% moral integrity, ignore the fact that they donated (and possibly going against Jimbo's will since there's money involved), and ban them, or would they accept the compromise and keep them around?

Can't guess too much about what ArbCom would do, but I'll post some of what I think they should do.

I think the deciding factor should be whether or not the two could be a danger to others or not. Were they violent offenses? More significantly, are they registered sex offenders? If there is solid evidence that is the case, then yes, I see good reason to ban them. It wouldn't stop them from coming back under different accounts, but they would then need to keep their heads down and avoid too much contact with other editors. As far as their edits, the revert-on-site actions seem unnecessary unless the topic area is of some concern.

As for whether or not donations would play a factor for arbcom's decision, I don't see good evidence that would be the case. Whether or not you believe they are ethical, I have noted numerous leaks of arbcom-related info in the past, so it seems likely that we would have direct evidence if this has been a past factor in the decision-making process.