Talk:Perverted-Justice/Archive 3

message: Oh dear, whatever shall I do?  I've been accused of vandalizing this article, along with everyone else who posts things that one particular person doesn't like!  :)  I certainly plead guilty to wanting to promote my own web site; however, that link was placed there especially to bypass PeeJ's own "filter" for Wikipedia, exactly as it said.  In order to allow fair editing of this article, and to avoid further accusations of self-promotion, I'll refrain from further editing for the time being. --Modemac 21:12, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Still more accusations 

message: This is what I came up with: "Perverted-Justice.com (also known as "PeeJ") is a website dedicated to catching Internet pedophiles while they attempt to meet up with underage children for sexual encounters. The website makes use of contributors who pose as young girls or boys, talk to older men who are interested in exchanging photos online, and then attempt to set up dates and times to meet. Subsequently, they place information about these men on their website for anyone to view."
It contains the same information before, except for one sentence. The sentence about the contributors being grown men and women was removed, since the earlier setence states that the contributors pose/act like boys and girls. Plus, to my understanding, there is no real way for anyone to check on ages of the contributors. Does anyone agree with this? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:13, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's a nice effort, but I think you should end the first sentence at "children". The suggestion that all paedophiles cruise the Web looking for sex is POV; some say they are not looking for sex, but merely to express their affection for children. Exchanging photos is not having sex (trust me on that one if you're having doubts ;-)) I'm not sure we need to say "Internet paedophiles" either. Clearly, if you meet people on a website, you are using the Internet and not a "public house paedophile" or a "street paedophile" or whatever else you're contrasting "Internet" with. You might put "entrapping" for "catching" too. It's rather more accurate. Is it actually illegal to talk to children? To swap photos with them? If not, in what sense are they "catching" the paedophiles? You could almost equally well put "harassing" them, because this kind of operation doesn't actually have any legal standing, does it? Grace Note 06:11, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Zscout370's idea for the Lead Article

message: Did Modemac protect this to his own version? It looks to me like he did. That would constitute a gross abuse of admin powers. There are ways to get help if you feel under attack! This is unacceptable. Grace Note 06:05, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I protected this page because the ongoing edits and bickering on the talk page made it appear that no one else was going to do so, and I want this whole affair to be done with.  This certainly was not "my own version" of the page; in fact, I had previously removed my own link and replaced it with a Google link (see here) expressly for the purpose I had stated: to bring users directly to the Perverted-Justice.com site while bypassing their Wikipedia "filter."  I freely state this as my intent, as I do not see this as NPOV.  This also was my purpose for putting the link to my page there in the first place: to add a link that served a purpose for the page (again, to bypass the filter).  I've hardly received scores and scores of web traffic on my site because of (or in spite of) this article, and I certainly did not expect lots of traffic.  I want people to see my page, certainly; there's nothing wrong with that.  I am also certainly not spamming links onto this or any other site. --Modemac 09:17, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You can count yourself lucky that no one is much interested in this page. Not only did you protect a page you yourself were involved in an editwar on, but you edited it after you had done so. If I thought there was any hope of a just outcome, I'd ask for you to face arbitration with the aim of being desysopped. I think you ought to consider asking a bureaucrat to remove your adminship yourself, and then reapplying in, say, three months. Even if you feel you were fighting POV pushers and needed to have the page protected, there are means to do that -- you could have requested it on the appropriate page or emailed another admin active at that time. It's important for editors to feel that they can have a dispute with an admin on equal terms (except of course for the admin's super revert powers) and that the admin won't simply "cheat". I am not disputing the rights or wrongs of including your link.  Grace Note 23:31, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: I just read this through quickly. A few observations:
*The page can't be protected by an admin who is involved in editing the page, and particularly not when it's his/her own link that's part of the dispute, so it should be unprotected and re-protected, if necessary, by another admin. 
*The anon poster must start signing his posts, because this page is harder to read without those signatures. You can do this by signing four tildes after your posts, like this ~~~~. See Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages.
*The article as it stands is not written in an encyclopedic way. Phrases like (from memory) "the action takes place at" are not acceptable. We're not here to praise this organization or condemn it, but simply to describe it.
*It lacks references. Everything must be sourced (or sourceable), particularly claims about the number of arrests and so on. It needs inline links and a references section. References must be reputable and credible, and can't be personal websites or blogs, so that means Modemac's link has to go, unless there's a way of bypassing the filter without offering commentary.
*All editors have to stick to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Cite sources. If everyone does that, the disputes should get cleared up pretty quickly.
I remember this dispute from months ago, so it's well worth sorting out once and for all. I agree with Katefan's suggestion that it would be helpful if people could list exactly what's in dispute so it can all be cleared up at once, if possible. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:22, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
::Thanks for SlimVirgin's evaluation, which I endorse. Like all Wikipedia articles, this article should be an NPOV summary drawn from verifiable sources. One principle which has been proven again and again in Wikipedia is that editing becomes difficult when the subject of an article is also one of its editors. "Wikipedia is not autobiography". That said, nobody knows a topic like the subject, so if there are specific errors in the article then please report them here, to this talk page. Thanks, -Willmcw 09:43, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
::PS: Regarding external links: Wikipedia is also not a links directory. However, any link that is used as a reference or that adds substantial information should be included (link spam aside). In this case, we can probably accomodate all of the links suggested by editors. -Willmcw 10:03, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
:::I also endorse Slim's evaulation. Personally, if the person who is trying to add a link to his website from here, should place his website link in his user page. If we have any thing from the said website in the article, then place the link. However, my main concern about the links is the filter issue. In my view, if PeeJ wants to build a website about their Wikipedia article, that is fine with me. But my issue with that is if someone goes to that website from out article, they are encouraging people to come in here and join the edit war. I personally do not remember what is said on the "redirect page," but I think there should be a way to by-pass that filter and just get to the main website. I was involved in a VFD (Iranian physics news) that had their forum encourage their visitors come in and start stacking up votes in their favor. That turned everything to hell in a minute. I think that is also contributing to our problems. The quicker we can get around the filter, the better. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 14:38, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC response

message: I have removed a reference to speculation about Von Erck's real name.  I have not been able to independently find this information in reliable news sources and unless someone can prove definitively that that is his name, it needs to remain deleted.
I also found this in a Phoenix New Times article from one year ago:  Although the Web site claims to be responsible for 23 arrests, exactly three cases have resulted in guilty verdicts from PJ's sting operations.  Will someone from PJ please update how many additional guilty convictions there have been in the past year? · Katefan0(scribble) 16:48, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
*211.231.187.49 added in the speculative information on XVE's real name, stating in the edit summary that it had been proven.  But this user has presented no such proof on this talk page, and until it's produced this should be reverted.  I've left a message to that effect on the user's talk page.  Thanks for reverting, Zscout. · Katefan0(scribble) 18:10, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
**Your quite welcome. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:38, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Textual points 

message: I personally would look up the Court TV documentry "Katie.com." That has information on PJ and how some of it works. I do not know where to find it, but I think that should get some type of mention. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  One more thing