Talk:Perverted-Justice/Archive 4

message: Not to be a pushy guy, but it's 46 convictions now. Please update. Oh, and random shillery, watch Dateline 3 on Friday. It's good watchin'! :) XavierVE 03:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it's no longer 2005, I reworded that a bit.  (I forgot to log in when I did it, though).  Cpk1971 04:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I used to update the conviction count everytime I caught it, but these days, you're getting convictions so fast that sometimes I just despair.  Maybe we should request a bot to update the conviction totals automatically... would save some work. Fieari 16:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I went ahead and requested it here: Wikipedia:Bot_requests Fieari 16:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update Conviction Totals 

message: I'm wondering if people have any opinions on dealing with older quotes which may no longer apply.  For instance, in the lead, the quote stating "...but I don't know if justice is ever served..." seems horribly out of date, since in the past year so many convictions have occured, meaning that their criticism doesn't seem to apply any more.  If anything, it almost seems to be mocking the person who made the quote, as if they didn't know what they were talking about... even though the quote is old enough that at the time, it was a relevant concern.  I think it should be put in this light, but I'm not sure how to go about doing this.  Thoughts? Fieari 20:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good idea.  Probably the entire section should be integrated with more recent media than what is there currently. Cpk1971 00:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to see a new media section as well.  This group seems to be more media focused than when this entry was written. StareGirl 00:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lets see... we need to discuss the Group Media Busts in detail, possibly going into the dateline thing... I seem to remember the first Dateline broadcast won some sort of prestigious award for investigative reporting?  Anyone got a source on that?  Then we can go into positive/negative reviews of it, and also PJ's responce to these reviews (since, yeah, they really do seem media focused quite a bit). These reviews could be organized by old and new... then we could remove all the old references from the other parts of the article.  That sound like a good plan? Fieari 18:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I support this; if I had more time I'd probably do it.  :-) Cpk1971 07:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old quotes 

message: Now that the revert wars have cooled off, I am going to remove semi protection for this article unless problems occur again. Calwatch 03:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection

message: Well, I've done some work at Perverted-Justice.com/MediaRevision and made some fairly major changes, including reworking the criticism section to emphasize that most claims against the organization are old, rebutted, or simply discredited.  I almost moved the media busts to their own "Media" section, and changed ALL the references to inline-citations using the Wikipedia:Footnotes system.
I believe these changes are NPOV and valid, but before I make them live, I'd like some other editors to look them over first and see if they agree, since I am amittably biased in favor of the organization.  Don't want any of that bias to slip into the article... just the facts, ma'am.  Just the facts. I believe the facts speak for themselves. Fieari 21:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me, although I'm also biased.  =)  I fixed a few typos for you.  Powers 02:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've implemented it now.  Any objections can be hashed out later, I suppose. Fieari 19:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Overall, very good work.  I made a minor tweak.  Cpk1971 01:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fairly major changes proposed 

message: I think some revisions might be useful for the lead section.  The first sentence says that the organization is primarily for publisizing their busts, but that no longer seems to be the case.  They're more interested in helping police prosecute these days.  What would be the best way of wording this, do you think? Fieari 20:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not entirely inaccurate.  The busts still go up on the website, and just because they've been convicted doesn't mean that PeeJ is done with them.  I believe Follow-up still keeps track of them after they've been released from prison (if they went in the first place).  Powers 00:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true, but it seems like that isn't quite the main focus.  They say they're working just as much as they did in the early days (when a bust or two would be posted every day), but you don't see that anymore because of "Information First"... which suggests a shift of focus to me.  We definitely need to keep all the follow up information in the main article, I'm just thinking about the lead. Fieari 03:49, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section 

message: What would be the best place to find something like a timeline/history for the organization?  With all the changes, events, milestones, etc they've made, a "History" section could be useful, I think. Fieari 20:17, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's probably enough information by now to write a book. I wouldn't be surprised if a book on this shows up sometime in the next few years. But as for the history section, would it repeat a lot of information already in the article? A timeline might be best. --DanielCD 16:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History/Timeline 

message: :As to the reports on child pornography, the site's operators state that when they or their volunteers are sent child pornography, they "immediately report it to the police and without fail."
When they receive this child pornography, are they aware that this is what the other person is sending, or are they unaware of what they are receiving? I think it is important to note whether it was received knowingly or not. I'm assuming they are totally unaware the image being send is child porn. Am I right/wrong? --DanielCD 15:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what difference it makes.  The porn gets sent one way or another.  They don't solicit it; sometimes the mark doesn't even announce he's sending a picture.  Whether they know they're about to receive kiddie porn or not, there's not much they can do about it -- except report it to the police.  Powers 15:11, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they can always refuse to accept it/open it. --DanielCD 15:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can they?  There are a variety of ways for the mark to send the images, depending in part on what chat service they're using, and I don't know which of them have the ability to reject the picture.  Anyway, I think that's moot.  If they know they're getting child porn, they have to accept the picture in order to send it to the authorities (and to verify that it's actually child porn).  If they don't, then they have to look at it before they know it's child porn.  Powers 16:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But accepting the picture knowingly is illegal. That's what I'm asking. If it's received in any way knowingly, that's illegal. This is an important point, and is in no way moot. --DanielCD 16:34, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, here are the facts we know.  1) Accepting the picture knowingly is illegal.  2) Illegal things get you arrested.  3) PeeJ volunteers are in close contact with both police and legal advice.  4) PeeJ volunteers have never been arrested.  These facts lead to the conclusion that they never accept such pictures knowingly.  In general, child porn probably isn't marked as such in the file name, and usually, when sending files, it only gives a file name, if that.  In AIM, if you've direct connected, which is innocent enough and there's plenty of reasons to do so, there isn't even a prompt for the other person to send you images. Fieari 18:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I thought that was the case, I just wanted someone to second it, as the article doesn't state it outright. I'll leave it open as to whether or not anything needs to be said or clarified in the article. I just think that if I have a question, others might as well. I'm not totally familiar with the laws, but from what I've read, they seem to be pretty picky even about small things regarding KP. --DanielCD 18:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, there's receiving something you know is child porn, and then there's receiving something you have reason to believe might be child porn.  In the latter case, I really don't see how inspecting the contents and then immediately referring it to the authorities (if it turns out to be child porn) would get one arrested.  But then, I'm not a legal expert.  =)  In any case, rare is the mark that would say, "Hey, here's some pictures of naked kids, have a look."  I doubt contributors ever have good reason to expect the file they're receiving to be child porn, unless the mark has already sent some.  Powers 18:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

text: While you guys definitely reasoned it out, I'll give details regarding our policy on KP. If the perp tells us ahead of time it's child porn, we don't open it. If the perp doesn't (and the vast majority don't state so) then it would then likely be opened. Oh, as a side note, check out the media regarding our recent sting in Ohio. 18 more for the big board :) XavierVE 09:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Porn

message: CJ.com is not a pro-pedophile group. Good God, I can't believe that shit was even there. CJ.net's smear section doesn't demonstrate that CJ is pro-pedophilia at all. It shows that one of the founders was sexually abused and developed paraphilic infantilism, then makes fun of him for it. It shows that PJ Buster comes from Canada where the age-of-consent is only 14!! It shows dodger gets angry when people litter and end up breaking his arm. What a joke. TrueMirror 00:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Granted.  It wasn't clear to me what claim you meant when you said it was unsubstantiated.  I agree calling CJ.com a "pro-pedophile organization" is misleading at best.   Powers 01:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering that the website was founded by a man, Matthew Carpenter aka Real Activist aka Diaprboi, who graphically talked of performing oral on a child on usenet prior to the existence of CJ.com or Perverted-Justice.com, the assertion that he simply suffers from "infantilism" is the joke itself. Considering that Carpenter is a self-admitted member of NAMBLA additionally takes a giant potshot at the "infantilism" joke. Calling the site a "civil rights organization" is a huge misnomer considering that civil rights organizations actually fight for an individual's, oh, civil rights against government oppression, rather than attempting to aid the criminal defense of individuals charged with CHILD SOLICITATION. Yeesh. XavierVE 03:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a note, I don't think wikipedia should be calling a group "pro-pedophile" either, since it's not technically NPOV, whether one agrees that the org is pro-pedophile or not. XavierVE 04:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, a group could certainly be described as "pro-pedophile" if that's what they advocate.  I don't think it'd be unreasonable to describe NAMBLA that way, for example.  But CJ.com is best described as an anti-PeeJ organization.  =)  Powers 12:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The categorization in question been removed, so it's kind of moot right now.  Powers 13:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wanted to correct the misperception by XavierVE (maybe and other users) that WP editors make the decision about which group is pro or ant-pedophilia. Following WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:V will keep this from being pov-pushing OR. FloNight talk 14:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Considering that PJ targets men who are into post-pubescent teenaged youth, the term "pedophile" doesn't even apply except in the subjective minds of those perpetrating the entrapment. --Rookiee Revolyob 09:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If I may quote from our own Pedophilia article: "In contrast to the generally accepted medical definition, the term pedophile is also sometimes used to denote significantly older adults who are sexually attracted to adolescents below the local age of consent[1], as well as those who have sexually abused a child."  Powers T 12:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: pro-pedophile groups

message: :Perverted-Justice.com claims that all objections to the organization are often based on ignorance, concerns about vigilantism or stem from objections to age of consent laws.
Could someone check and see if this is exactly what the website says? If this is correct, we might say "...claims on their website that..." so people won't be able to complain about a source and remove it. --DanielCD 05:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Closest I can find is this, from the FAQ: . Powers 19:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bah, the internal page links on the FAQ are all messed up.  I mean to link to the question "What about critics of the website?".  Powers 19:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not overly concerned, but someone removed it and I put it back. Previous to that, someone had removed the "ignorance" part and I replaced that. They also added the vigilantiism part. I might be splitting hairs, but I think the mention of ignorance is important. I just would like to back it up with a citation if the sentence is saying they actually are saying it and so nitpickers won't be able to come by and jerk that part out. When ppl only read the hype and don't look at the site, I think they get a very distorted picture, hence I think the ignorance part should remain. But may need to change the sentence if it's me saying it and not them. I'll give that faq a careful read. --DanielCD 23:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "lack of coherent criticism" is the best thing there. I changed it a bit. If someone wants to integrate the citation with the format of the other citations, please do. As it is, the citation links straight to the FAQ page. --DanielCD 23:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  I also got the link to go to the right spot on the page.  Those links in the FAQ really are messed up... sheesh. Fieari 08:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It still doesn't work for me; it goes to "What other work does PeeJ do?".  I suspect both questions have the same anchor number.  Powers 13:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: deleted material replaced by myself

message: I've been a bit uncomfortable with the "PeeJ has been critisized and praised" bit in the lead paragraph for a little while now, because it doesn't get at the heart of the controversy at all, doesn't call attention to the fact that the criticism can no longer reasonably be said to apply to the modern organization... in fact, if we were to mention the reason for their opposition in the lead, it'd almost be slander against them.  Furthermore, it does injustice to the reader, implying that PeeJ isn't as notable as it is by suggesting that the only two other organizations to even notice them has been in the form of one note from the NCMEC and one note from one single police chief— which clearly isn't true.
I'd be in favor of replacing this sentence either with something along the lines of noting repeated thanks, outdated critics and CJ.com... or just cutting it from the lead altogether.  The article can go into the details of praise and scorn, but does the lead really need to focus on that?  Fieari 08:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one has replied, I'll assume there are no objections and cut the statement from the lead.  If you disagree, would you please state why here first? Fieari 01:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crit and Praise in lead 

message: At  I am disputing that the use of Xavier Von Erck's image in this article falls within fair use, in case anyone would care to discuss it there. Angr (talk • contribs) 21:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm.  Xavier, would you care to upload one licensed under GFDL? · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 21:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? Sorry, no idea what this is about. Nor do I even care to have my image in the piece, the piece is about the organization which is far more than one person. So... not sure what the point of this is, but I'm not going to aid my pic used in this article since I never thought it all that appropriate anyways. XavierVE 04:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Von Erck's image 

message: OK, someone added a link to Perverted-Truth.com.  This at least has the virtue of not being AVSO, so I was going to leave it alone.  But then I actually went to the site.  The links to information on PeeJ contributors all result in 404 errors.  So does "What Motivates Them" and "Methods They Use".  The Forums contain precisely four posts.  Total.  The remaining information on the "site" is vague hand-waving about the "illegal" and "immoral" methods PeeJ uses.  It's like they're still combating the PeeJ of 2003 instead of what PeeJ is today.  There's no content there; the entire site is maybe a few thousand words.  I removed it as pointless.  Powers 03:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perverted-Truth.com 

message: With regards to updating the numbers, I note that there is no longer an easy to find "Bust Counter" on the main page.  Does the bust counter (as opposed to the conviction counter) still exist on the site that we can reference it, or should we just cut out the number of busts from our article when updating the conviction count? Fieari 22:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a bust counter on the righthand side of the mainpage.  --DisneyFreak96 19:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Err, I only see a Conviction Counter.  Are you sure we're looking at the same page here? Fieari 18:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right.  They may have taken it down because most busts aren't posted anymore until convicted.  The current number is 787 BTW. I figured that out by going to the rating page and grabbing the one with the lowest rating.DisneyFreak96 06:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Updated the conviction counter to reflect the front page of P-J.com Coradon 11:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bust counter 

message: I'm starting a mediation process with a Request for Comment, looking for input from those who have no pre-formulated opinion on the issue.
The debate is over the inclusion of the fact that the founder of Perverted-Justice.com used to have a different name, but he got it changed.  An additional issue for argument is whether this fact should be listed in the lead of the article.
*On the one side of the issue, the argument goes that the information is irelevant to the organization itself, and while it should be included in an article about Xavier himself, should not be included in the article about the organization.
*On the other side of the issue, the argument goes that the fact was notable enough for a newspaper to report on (in an article about Xavier), and so should be included in our article.
With regards to being on the lead or not,
*On the one side, the argument is that the fact isn't about the organization, and thus isn't needed in the lead section.
*On the other side, the argument is that we discuss the founder in the lead, so the founder's name change should be in the lead.
Comments from those not previously in the debate, please? Fieari 20:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia routinely notes former names of organizational founders who have had name changes in the articles about their organization.     .  The 7th largest newspaper in the United States, the New York Daily News, has printed  both names of this particular founder.  In this Wikipedia article, the old name is mentioned once, in a single sentence.  Mentioning the existence of additional legal identities is consistent with what Wikipedia does elsewhere      .  Given the practices on other Wikipedia pages regarding former legal identity disclosure, and the fact that both names have already been published in well-known outlets, I do not know why this organization insists on special censorship.  Abe Froman 21:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The history of this discussion is on this talk page, here .  Abe Froman 21:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This section is for people not previously involved in the debate.  I would ask you to remove your comments from this section, please (and this response with them, if you don't mind).  Powers T 21:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think all viewpoints are invited in a "request for comment."  Abe Froman 21:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official Request For Comment 

message: The blog keeps getting removed as a source based on the principle that "blogs aren't an acceptable source".  WP:VER disagress though.  Quote the relevant passage:
:Self-published and dubious sources in articles about themselves
:Material from self-published sources, and other published sources of dubious reliability, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves, so long as:
:*It is relevant to the person's or organization's notability;
:*It is not contentious;
:*It is not unduly self-serving;
:*It does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
:*There is no reasonable doubt about who wrote it.
I would argue that the blog in question meets all the above criteria, and may be included as a source. Fieari 21:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  The section you quote explains why blogs are not suitable for most purposes, but the section Fieari quoted is framed as an exception to that rule -- namely that blogs are suitable when they're used to reference the blog author's own words.  It's not even Xavier's words about something else -- it's a direct quotation by him.  It's impossible for him to have been misquoted, and thus it's a perfectly valid source for a quotation from him.  Powers T 22:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Out of all my time viewing Wikipedia and Wikipedians regarding this article, I think the most interesting fact of all is that a blog entry, written by me, quoting my own motivation... is not as good a source as a reporter chewing up and regurgitating the same quotation given to them? Has anyone at Wikipedia ever been interviewed by a reporter? Pro- or con-, reporters always mangle what you say. The idea that an interview with a reporter is more "valid a source" regarding an individual's quotations than said individual writing his own quotation himself is... just odd. Not that I care if that quotation remains in the article, I don't find it especially noteworthy when it comes to discussing our organization. I just find the argument to be very odd and illogical. XavierVE 08:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Haha, yeah, you've never really dealt with the media. I'm not attacking you, it's just clear from lines like "Their reputation is on the line with every article" that you don't have much experience with print journalism. May you continue to live in the bliss of never having to deal with the media on a large-scale basis. As well, the argument that "contents on a blog can change dynamically" is spurious as most online news websites often remove access, hide or archive news pieces. You don't need to defend the policy to me, my friend, I'm just amused by the policy that my writing my own words, unedited, on my blog is not as reliable as a reporter quoting me over the phone. Anyone who has dealt with the media on a large-scale would be amused by that policy as it doesn't matter if a story is for or against you, reporters will always mangle your quotes. Hence my earlier comment. I don't care if the quote entered into the article remains or not, I really don't... I'm just amused by Wikipedia's policy. It's utterly illogical and ignorant of how print journalism works. XavierVE 16:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: My only apprehension in allowing one cited quote from Xavier Von Erck's blog is where does it end?  If that one is allowed, then we would have people adding in other quotes from his blog.  If one is posted, then it would surely be fair to post the response on his blog to the Radar Online accusations, would it not?  The article is about Perverted Justice, not one person's quotations.  Frankly, there are a few things in this article that belong in an article about Xavier Von Erck, not Perverted Justice.  Perverted Justice is a lot more than one man and his actions.  Sure, Xavier started Perverted Justice, but I would be so bold to predict that if Xavier quit Perverted Justice tomorrow, the organization would still go on. FrederickTG 18:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made this argument a few months ago when they were debating having my picture in there. FAR, FAR, FAR too much focus on me as it unbalances the article to seem like it's just the efforts of one guy. We're an organization of thousands and I'm not even the most public 'face' to the website. I share equal administrative power with two other people. Nobody cared about these facts when I brought them up then. The Radar Piece, at the end of the day, isn't even about the organization. It's an attack on me and my personality, not the organization nor what we do. XavierVE 20:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You still have that air of being "in charge", X.  Like the C2As and whatnot -- they come from your keyboard, if not in actuality, then certainly by perception.  (PeeJ Opinions, too, to some extent; I know they're unsigned, but in many cases they match your writing style.)  Also, as the founder, your motives and methods are relevant to the history of the organization, even if you did quit tomorrow.  =)  Powers T 02:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Three of us run different aspects of the operation, with a myriad of group team leaders. I handle the more mundane aspects that you see day to day, the big projects that we're known for (Datelines, etc) are handled by others. By over-focusing on my role in the article, it makes the organization appear to be far smaller than it is. It gives the impression that the organization runs by my opinion alone, which is patently incorrect, I like anyone else there, can be overruled by consensus. Not to mention that some of the criticisms (Radar, etc) have more to do with my actions outside of Perverted-Justice rather than anything Perverted-Justice does. There's a distinct difference between my outside pursuits and the organization itself. The Wikipedia article at this point is not representative of that difference. Though not the largest flaw (misrepresentation of negative vs. positive media coverage and quotes) it's still a flaw.  XavierVE 21:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: That, I'll agree with.  But I still say it's perfectly reliable for the purpose in question.  =)  Powers T 02:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, on further consideration, that I'll agree with.  Fieari's points at the start of this thread are (mostly) correct.  However  A) This article is not about Von Erck, and 2) The quote is aguably self serving.  This is an interesting one. - brenneman {L} 02:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wonder if it's time to create an article on Xavier.  Del Harvey has one, and making one for Xavier would allow us to remove some of the clutter from this article (hopefully without protest from certain editors).  Powers T 00:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea that I'm wikipedia article material is ridiculous. XavierVE 01:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it?  It could be argued you meet the last two requirements at WP:BIO.  I'm not saying it's a slam-dunk but it's not patently ridiculous either.  Powers T 14:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: A wikipedia article would require that he was notable.  I agree with him that he doesn;t fit the Wikipedia definition of "notable".  I've seen several cases of where a CEO of a company, or company founder has had a Wikipedia article, only to have it removed for not being notable.  Also, of rock bands that are locally popular, but not notable.   On second thought, removing all Xavier stuff and putting it into another article, and then having that article get deleted does have some attraction!   Atom 12:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia articles on organizations typically include information about the founder.  I do not see why this article is any different.  Abe Froman 15:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blog as a source