Talk:Perverted-Justice/Archive 2

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)
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 came by to read this article and the talk page because of the reference on Slashdot.  I'm now stopping only long enough to give my thoughts, as a longtime Wikipedian with no dog in this fight.  I'm reading the version as of 20:40, 9 Jan 2005, immediately after an edit by EvilSaltine.  My impression is that the article (in this version, at least) is definitely slanted in favor of Perverted-Justice.com.  Some observations:
* In "Controversy", the "Pros" section is all Pros.  The "Cons" section has one Con graf, then a graf that's Con with a one-sentence Pro rebuttal at the end, then a graf with one Con sentence and a lengthy Pro rebuttal, then a graf with one sentence each way.  Suggestion: Either have all Pros in one section and all Cons in another, with no rebuttals allowed, or, if you want the back-and-forth argument, organize by issue instead of by alignment.
* Supporters who are cited "point out" this or "make clear" that.  This choice of words implies that what they say is true.  Wikipedia hasn't investigated these claims and should merely report them, not endorse them.  Supporters and opponents alike should be said to "claim" this, "argue" that, "allege" the other thing, etc.
* Say, did you know that an abducted girl was recovered because of the site?  It's a fact worth mentioning.  It's not a fact worth mentioning three different times.  Mention it once, preferably with a link to a disinterested media website where I can read more details.  (Is it undisputed that her recovery was because of the site?  I'd think that, without violating her privacy, it should be possible to include a sentence explaining what the mechanism was.)
* An earlier version had a link to a chatmag article critical of the site.  Why was that deleted?
* Trying to stabilize one particular version of the article and carve it in stone isn't the wiki way.  I suggest that everyone who wants to edit the article should register a user account.  There seems to have been a lot of energy wasted in bickering about who wrote what.  Anons should be warned that edits by anonymous IP's will be coldly received and are more likely to be reverted.  That isn't completely in keeping with a purist, fundamentalist view of the wiki way, but it's much less of a heresy than is permanent page protection.
OK, unsolicited advice mode off; I'm going back to the relative serenity of reverting vandals on George W. Bush.  Good luck, all.  JamesMLane 22:37, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the article needs NPOVing. - Evil saltine 07:04, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Passin' through

message: As usual, XavierVE should check his facts before running around shouting "liar". That fact that he is so quick to make assumptions and incorrect accusations is precisely the reason why the article is so slanted (as noted also by JamesMLane) and has been since XavierVE became involved in editing it. It is also precicely why many consider his organization to be a dangerous one. His investigative prowess is being displayed in his assigning blame for the edits of the article to the wrong person. This is typical of XavierVE's work.
"Jeffery Woloson" is no longer a volunteer with Corrupted-Justice.com, and has not been since November of last year. If he were making edits to the article, he would have been doing it of his own accord. Unfortunately, XavierVE's detective skills are somewhat lacking, and he is again blaming the wrong person. Jeff Woloson/Trex is not making the edits XavieVE is complaining about. Having also examined the IPs in question, I would strongly suggest that XavierVE re-check his facts. The user Trex upon which XavierVE is so quick to heap blame uses a static IP -  81.59.40.170. The edits in question are NOT being done by Trex. A number of the IPs quoted by XavierVE above belong to another outspoken critic of PJ, one who has no ties to Corrupted-Justice.com at all. In addition, assuming an edit via a proxy should automatically be attributed to me, or a member of our organization is patently childish. 
I had originally intended to add a juvenile response to the end of my post with some unfounded defamatory accusations and a few names of PJ contributors and the owner tossed in for good measure, but then I remembered, I'm an adult, and adults don't generally do that sort of thing. 
Scott Morrow 00:06, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response from [[Scott Morrow]]

message: working on this.. feel free to edit - Evil saltine 03:21, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal

message: 1) I agree completely with the comment made above that this article, as currently written, appears to be nothing more than an advertisement for the PJ site.  Statements in the "Cons" section are supposed to represent the actual "cons" of the site, yet for virtually every "con" listed, statements such as "however, site supporters believe..." have been appended to counter what is being stated in the "con". The cons listed should show the negative aspects that critics cite, without the site owner's or supporter's caveats to those criticisms. 
2) Corrupted-Justice.com is one of the primary critics of Perverted-Justice. Our only reason for existence is to publicize the negative aspects of PJ. We are direct critics of PJ, acknowledged to be so in a considerable number of newspaper articles and other media. As our mandate is directly related to PJ (we would not exist were it not for PJ's existence), there is no question that Corrupted-Justice.com should be included in both the "links", and the list of critics in the "Cons" section. As for corrupted-justice.NET - They have stated numerous times on their own site that they have no relation to PJ. This has been reiterated in Pheobus Apollo's statement above. They have made it abundantly clear that they are separate entities with no direct relationship to PJ beyond existing to criticize a site which DOES have a direct link with PJ. If the article in question were ABOUT Corrupted-Justice.com, it would be reasonable for .net to have representation. The article is not about Corrupted-Justice.com - It is about perverted-justice.com, therefore, any references to cj.net should be removed.
3) Unless PJ supporters can provide externally verifiable proof that any of their critics are "pedophiles" or "pro-pedophile", making such statements are simply libelous and childish attempts to discredit their opposition. Asserting that a blog posting or usenet message is proof of ANYTHING is preposterous unless it can be independently proven that any such posting was actually made by the person being accused and if so proven, the circumstances surrounding the posting. Contrary to PJ's methods, guilt of anything is not assumed on the basis of claims made by those with an agenda to discredit and should therefore not be allowed in either the article or this discussion. While some may personally believe that Xavier Von Erck and Phoebus Apollo are "closet-pedophiles", making such a statement with no more proof than messages posted publicly on the Internet would, in most circles, be considered libel and should not be tolerated here either in the article or this dicussion.
4) The "exact figures" for the number of "busts" made by the site should include the exact number of 181 busts which were removed from the site due to not having been phone verified, and the exact number of 62 removed because they were conducted by "Tattooed Indian Guy" who was removed from the site and had all evidence of his existance subsequently removed. If the article is to present facts, the fact is that PJ has conducted 243 busts in addition to the number they display on the site. Not including these additional "busts" simply because they may cast doubt on the site's integrity is not in of itself a reason to hide the fact that 243 more people than the number stated by PJ have been affected by PJ. Regardless of the number stated on the site, these 243 "busts" occurred, and should be included.
5) Stating that PJ is "anti-pedophile" is an inacurate misnomer, as the vast majority of the almost 900 "busts" were never convicted in a court of law, and in the eyes of the legal system, very few if any of them are true "pedophiles". That PJ has made such accusations against these people does not necessarily make it true. Unless verifiable proof is shown that PJ only targets actual pedophiles, any reference to this term should be dropped.
--Scott Morrow 18:07, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More input & comment 

message: I have no clue about the whole thing and no interest in it either apart from thinking that this article has gone seriously out of hand. I also believe that no one should write about him/her/themselves. This includes IMHO both PJ and CJ proponents. Further I believe that three internal links to one site are clearly far too much. Refdoc 19:30, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links and people slagging out it about their own websites 

message: "Have been credited with assisting in obtaining seven convictions since June of 2004, and was able to locate an abducted girl in September of 2004." - source for this please. If one can't be provided in 3 weeks, I will remove the material. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:52, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed 

message: Note: this has nothing to do with the disputed text above! - Ta bu shi da yu 00:48, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not part of disputed! 

message: I'm somewhat amazed that the Talk page for this article is, what, ten times larger than the article itself? Does this really happen that often around here? Weaponofmassinstruction 08:10, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on how controversial the article is. This is nothing. At one point Jihad was about 6 times the size of the main article. Then we started archiving, and it didn't go down by much at all. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:07, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this Odd? Or is it just me? 

message: I'm protecting this until we can rationally discuss why the totallydisputed tag should be removed. Clearly, this article is in dispute. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:47, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: On the PJ website (for Wikipedians), it states "Lastly, to sum it up succinctly, please visit this link. You will notice a weird edit where a wiki user takes out our record of accomplishment calling it "dubious." However, if this user were bright enough to check out the external links on previous versions or on the version we linked, he would notice a citation in external links directing users to a KATU.com article talking about the recovery of the abducted girl which is considered "dubious" by someone who is obviously either illiterate, or who isn't bringing a neutral POV to the article."
The "dubious" tag is for uncited claims. At the time it was uncited, I had not realised that people had removed the material. I sent a message to one of the site admins, and we had a discussion. I find it a little unfair that we don't see the context of this message. If the admins would like to put back the evidence of this happening, this would be great. I'll personally see to it that noone removes the links, due to spam. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:43, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious bugbear 

message: "Some critics have expressed concern or opposition in regard to Perverted-Justice.com, with the administration of the web sites illustrating that most critics are outside the United States, and labeling them as defenders of pedophiles. They shrug off most concerns regarding the site by stating that they would rather be defending American children from would-be pedophiles than doing nothing at all, along with pointing at their long track record of success with law enforcement and the recovery of an abducted girl in September of 2004."
* Which critics? - Ta bu shi da yu 07:53, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Material removed until it can be tightened up 

message: I've watched this article with some interest.  I took the liberty of editing that line about "Philip J. Eide" being Xavier von Erck to reflect the fact that no unbiased source has confirmed it.  I also added a similar disclaimer to the AVSO link.  Hopefully Mr. von Erck and Mr. Morrow find that to be more acceptable.
*Good idea.  I will try to write my own version of the article on Notepad and try to see if it can come out NPOV. Zscout370 20:11, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just passing through.