Talk:Perverted-Justice/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

Journalism

I don't know if it's entirely germane to this article, but a newspaper recently caught Spokane mayor James E. West in a chatroom using many of the same techniques as PeeJ. They had a reporter pretend to be a 17/18-year old, got phone numbers for confirmation, set up an encounter, took photographs, then splashed the whole thing on their front page, including transcripts. The matter is now being investigated by state police. This is just for your information, as I don't see how to make an NPOV connection. -Willmcw 00:10, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Off-topic - The oldest we portray is 15. I wish they would have used more of our techniques, including a younger age. XavierVE 00:14, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Why do you wish they had used a younger age for the kid? -Willmcw 00:59, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

My opinion: If you use something that is 17/18, that is getting very close to being not a pedophile at all. In some states, being 17 is the legal age. If you use a 13 year old, you will generally get more of a police response there. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:01, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. It is my belief that he would jumped at a 14/15 year old as readily as a 17/18 year old. C'est la vie. Oh well. 67.169.194.181 01:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Just like with any website/crime/trend, there will always be copycats or people trying to use the methods PeeJ uses to find/catch/out people. If this is more things like this show up online and in the news, then we can fork the article to list PeeJ "style" copycat busts. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:19, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Naming names

I notice that names of the critics of PeeJ were added in the same edit as user:XavierVE removed the real name of the website's founder. [1] This asymetrical outing does not appear NPOV to me. If we decide that the real name of the website's founder should not be revealed, then I think that we should also delete the names of the critics as well. -Willmcw 01:16, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed them from the list. I kept the websites and organizations, but deleted the names attached to them. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:29, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Some of the organizations are nothing more than the opinion of one person (Chatmag.com being a good example of this), hence the editing. It's pretty intellectually dishonest to call yourself an "organization" when you're just one guy. Oh, for the record, the filter has been removed at this point, since the piece is finally NPOV. Obviously there are about twenty things I'd change/add to it, but so long as it is NPOV, great! 67.169.194.181 01:44, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Just so you know, I'll be continuing with the re-write; so far, I've worked only on the intro, and trying to find a structure. So if you want to make your suggestions for things to add/delete, please go ahead. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:02, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Two areas I would change. First, the overlinking of the Chatmag stuff. That's the opinion of one guy, and it's not credible. See the latest missive he wrote about the Spokane Mayor. This guy doesn't want anyone nailed in chat-rooms. Calling his personal website an "organization" is a misnomer. It's no more an organization than my personal blogger. Secondly, the external links are all screwed up and create a false impression. Because just about each negative article is linked, it appears that media is "split" on what we do. However, if you look at the total sum of articles about us (or TV reports, etc), most are positive or report on arrests and convictions. A major effort of the proxy editors is to link as much negative as possible to create a sense that PeeJ is more controversial than it really is, and mislabeled external links (such as the one to Chatmag, which is again, a personal opinion website of one guy) don't help. If you look at the version we were reverting to, we put the links in two categories, in favor of and against. That gives a new person reading it a road-map to quickly find the information they seek, be it in favor of what we do, or against.

Additionally, the external links provided in the "other" version included relevant information on stories talking about arrests, convictions and about the site in general. Those are continually removed and one Wikipedian called them "redundant." I counter that links to those stories are no more redundant than linking to Chatmag, CJ.com and AVSO, which feature content they spread around to one another. CJ.com and AVSO are virtually indistinguishable since their membership are mostly the same 10 people with different names. When sources such as the Salt Lake City Weekly piece and the KIRO piece are removed and old articles such as the Phoenix New Times are left in, it creates, again, a false impression. I also think our FAQ is a much better link than our mainpage, and should be included somewhere. Lastly on the additions front, we are far more proud of helping to locate an abducted and severely abused 14 year old than we are of the convictions. An exclusion of that occurrence when speaking about site accomplishments is without any clear-thinking rationale or merit. There could be no better end result to our endeavors possible.

Still, I restate. I really don't care what NPOV people put in the piece so long as it remains in the spirit of the 'Pedia. Where we get uppity as hell is when proxied users or non-NPOV people start editing the piece to reflect their own viewpoint. You can leave the External Links and the Chatmag stuff how it is, and we won't touch it. Believe that. XavierVE 06:56, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok Xavier, thanks. I haven't gotten round to looking at external links yet, but intend to tonight or tomorrow. I was also a little unsure about chatmag.com, and so I'm going to read through it and see how many people are involved. If it's basically just a personal website, we probably shouldn't mention it. I'm going to create a separate references section, and that will contain references to articles used as source material. And then a further reading section for interesting material not used as a source. Those two sections will replace external links. I'll also look at the other disputed version, and see what's in there. Thanks again, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:01, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

XVE, can you explain what you mean by "proxied users"? Do you mean registered users? Thanks, -Willmcw 07:08, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

People who use Proxies to mask their true IP. If you check out the history of the edits to the article, you'll see basically a war of editing by proxied users. Half of these users were our people, half were people from AVSO/CJ.com. I do not mean registered users. 67.169.194.181 09:50, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Xavier, I'ved created the References and Further reading sections, and added your FAQ to the latter. I took a look at chatmag.com and they seem, at first glance, to be a legitimate organization, giving the name and address of the publisher, and advertising for sales staff. I haven't look at the other anti-vigilante group yet. Regarding the abduction story, the only reference I could find to it in the old version of the page was to a dead link from katu.com, though I may not have looked at the right version. If you can supply a link to the story (the more credible and mainstream the source, the better), that would be helpful, then we can edit it back in. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:25, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

KATU.com no longer indexes the piece, must have happened recently. No matter, there are many other links: http://www.komo4.com/stories/33053.htm - being one. The recovery was also featured on an episode of the Montel Williams show. Ref: http://www.montelshow.com/show/past_detail_0_3_2005.htm - Rather annoyed the KATU piece is no longer indexed, it was very, very good. As for Chatmag, we've glanced more than a few times. One guy, once you get past the smoke and mirrors. Regardless, 'tis a minor point. 67.169.194.181 09:50, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

• Phillip Eide's (Xavier Von Erck's) identity was discovered via an old Yahoo profile for "AngryGermanxxx" on which he'd left his real name. The profile had been created years ago, back before he was aware of just how easy it is to collect personal info from the web (and before he knew he'd likely become a vigilante whose ID info would be sought by attorneys). He'd forgotten about it. It took many months of searching, but in searching various variations of his known screen names, that old, forgotten profile showed up with a real name listed.

Just as an aside, the story about how his name was *confirmed* is quite interesting...

After the profile was discovered, just as a means to get an initial confirmation that this was likely his profile, we created a fake hotmail account and using it and a proxy, we e-mailed Eide at his admin@pj account. In the e-mail, we simply said "Hey, were you aware that this exists? ... A friend..." and included a link to the URL of his profile.

Within 2 hours of sending the e-mail, the profile was deleted by its owner. *Bingo* - We had confirmation that it was his profile (the profile had remained there undisturbed for more than 4 years then within 2 hours of receiving the mail it dissapeared - Coincidence? I think not...), and secondarily, we had a fairly good indication that he didn't want that profile info visible, somewhat confirming that his real name was in fact showing. (Why bother to delete the profile immediately if it could be used to throw us OFF the scent with false information?)

Now that we had a potential name, we needed something a little more concrete to tie it to Xavier. So... we paid for an Intellius search. Intellius turned up his current address, the names of all the people reportedly living at that address (including a "Nicholas Wilkins" - his room-mate - Also known as Pheobus Apollo") , his birthdate (which matched a 2 year old "Happy Birthday Xavier" message posted on PJ by one of his not-so-bright lackeys) plus all his previous addresses along with all the people living at those addresses.

The *confirmed* sticker came when it was discovered that at one of his previous addresses, he resided with a number of people with the last name "Erck". (Hence his online moniker "Xavier Von Erck"). In german, "Von" translates to "from"... "Xavier from the family of Erck"). Jeffpw 17:05, 23 May 2005 (UTC) 19:05, 23 May, 2005

• • • Is there a way we can see this Intellius search? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Basically, we are trying to remain NPOV by removing the names. If we do not allow people to post Von Erck's real name in here, then we should do the same for the opposition's names. That was why I kept the websites name's up. We mainly keep Von Erck's real name off since we do not know what his real name is. Though, if the opposition does name themselves, they can do so on their own website at their own risk. We will just not list them here. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:49, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Well put. In the case of Chatmag.com, I do not see the name of the author in any obvious location, so it is apparent that they are not divulging it, as PeeJ does not divulge the identities of its participants. Anyway, I'm glad that the article is more satisfactory. Thanks to all the editors who have contributed. Cheers, -Willmcw 01:59, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

I also changed the references at the bottom to remove the comment about the filter. I thank PeeJ for removing the filter and now, let's celebrate. Champaign anyone? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Its been claimed that Mr Eide has legally changed his name to Xavier Von Erck, which appears to be substantiated by the final link in the refs. PJ-critical sites suggest the image of his drivers licence was digitally manipulated, and upon my own inspection, it certainly doesn't look unquestionable. You'd think the guy could take a better picture or scan, especially since the whole goal of posting it appears to be proving his name to people critical of his pseudonymity without any further doubt. Regardless, and to fit with conventions, it may still be appropriate to add a (born Philip John Eide) to this entry or a future entry for Xavier Von Erck. I'd make the aforementioned reference a general "numbered" ref attached to the first instance of his name, but I don't think the matter of his name has been settled for factual accuracy or the interest of people who view this entry. 68.170.210.215 01:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks much better

Wow, looking great. I have a deadline, dinner and go to bed and look at what y'all do in my absence! Big kudos to all. But I don't think we as a whole can stop being vigilant -- I just reverted an anon's addition of {{totallydisputed}} and copy and pasting an old version into the current version. We still have to watch for hit and runs with an axe to grind, and maybe try to bring them into the debate on this page instead of edit warring. · Katefan0^(scribble) 14:39, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

I will keep it on my watchlist. I still think Slim wanted to do some changes to it. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 15:59, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, there are still quite a few commented questions. But it's looking much better. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:18, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Katefan, thanks for your edits. I agree about the chatmag.com reference not being necessary, though I'd like to keep a link to them in the further-reading section if that's okay with everyone, but I'm less certain of the "anti-vigilante special operations" link, as it seems to be a personal website.

About the addition to the intro, that ABC has verified five of the convictions: that was in January, so they wouldn't have verified five out of 12, and from memory their piece didn't say they were unable to verify the others, but simply that they had verified five. It's possible (and, in fact, likely) that these were the only ones they tried to verify, because if they had found unverifiable examples, they'd probably have said so. The link to the convictions on the PeeJ website seems to indicate that they're genuine, though I haven't looked through every single one, but haven't yet found one that seems dubious. Do you have concerns about some of them? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:59, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a problem keeping chatmag in the links; haven't visited the other site so I'll stay neutral for now. That's true, I wouldn't want it to appear as if the others were "unverified." That should be cleared up. Add something like, at the time of the article, PeeJ had claimed 5 convictions and that all were verified. Personally, I don't have any serious doubts about the rest of them, mostly becuase at least some of them -- really almost half -- were verified by a reputable news outlet. But if there had been no such information available, I would've felt queasier about inclusion. As it is, though, with almost half of them being proven out, I don't have any qualms about going on PJ's claims for the rest. That reference should probably be clarified though. I'll do that in a sec. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:20, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

I've made the ABC edit in the intro invisible until we figure out how to phrase it; I'm wondering whether it's even necessary, though I haven't yet checked all the convictions to see whether every one is referenced. I'll do that now. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:24, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to making it invisible. It's enough that us editors who are working on the article are aware that the information exists in the article itself; since it's linked in the references section, that'd probably be enough. I'll leave it to your discretion, but I wouldn't mind either way. · Katefan0^(scribble) 14:41, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Update

I've re-added the child abduction case (a reference to it in the intro, and more details in the convictions section), as it seems clear that it was Von Eck who located her and may have saved her life. Detectives admitted to a local newspaper that they didn't have the knowledge or resources to find the girl via her computer, so it's an important case in the official v unofficial law enforcement debate. I also re-added the NBC/PeeJ sting in New York because it's well-referenced, and there's a video available (though I couldn't get it to load so I haven't watched it). I've removed the chatmag.com quote as I agree with Katefan that it's not necessary now that she's found a much better one, but the link to the chatmag article remains in the further reading section. I removed the AVSO anti-vigilante link as that one does seem to be a little dodgy. I've also added a few more references. Xavier, a question: do you write your name von Erck or Von Erck? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:20, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

I removed "controversial" from the first sentence, as it's true, but it's also a POV term; as it stands, the first paragraph has no POV terms in it, that I can see. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:48, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

• An anon user re-added the AVSO link; I removed it. After looking at the Website, it mostly seems to be a collection of screed-y rants with a few links to corrupted-justice.com. To me, it doesn't rise much above the level of a blog, and probably shouldn't be included. It appears that SV agrees with me, how about other folks? I've asked the anon on his userpage to come discuss the matter. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:04, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

intro not accurate

Your intro as it stands is not accurate. PJ has used minors as "contributers" in the past. Satine was 16 when she started "busting" people for PJ, and Phillip Eide knew it. There is ample evidence documenting this at www.corrupted-justice.com. Read the main page updays, and scroll down to March 3rd to read it for yourself. There are also many minors currently involved as Follow Up volunteers on the PJ site, in spite of the fact that there are many easily accessible pictures of naked men on their site. Again, read about it at Corrupted-Justice. User:81.59.16.106

Could you sign your posts please? See Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks for the information about the minors. I'll take a look at the information later, though bear in mind that we can only publish material that has already been published by a reliable source. See Wikipedia:No original research.

Also, to the anon IPs who keep reverting, your reversions constitute vandalism, and if it continues, I'll ask for the page to be protected on the NPOV version, then none of us will be able to edit it, so please stop. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:08, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Perhaps there is some way to incorporate this into the criticisms section. We mention other criticisms that corrupted-justice.com makes in the text of the article, so I don't see why this one wouldn't also at least merit a mention. It could even be something as simple as: "Corrupted-Justice.com also charges that PeeJ in the past has not properly vetted its volunteers, including possibly allowing underage contributors who have access to PeeJ's archives of pornographic photos." Rough draft. (Has PeeJ responded to this criticism?) · Katefan0^(scribble) 14:45, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • I would probably redo the part where it discusses the vigalante nature of the site. I would say "Some websites, such was Corrupted-Jusitce.com, charges that PeeJ enganges in activites that can be deemed vigilantism." I know it makes zero English grammar sense, but I hope something like that can work. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 14:54, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

A question for the anon: how does Corrupted Justice know that the first volunteer mentioned in the CJ March 3 update was born on July 16, 1985? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:12, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Corrupted-Justice did an extensive investigation into many of the contributers, including reading their online journals. The journals for Satine, the minor contributer, gave that as her birthdate. Since it is her own journal, I would think that info would have to be accepted as accurate. Perverted-Justice has been confronted with this evidence, but has chosen not to respond.

Hi, I'm the lead tech of Perverted Justice, Phoebus Apollo. I've known Xavier well over a year prior to the whole project beginning. I have a few comments to add. First off, we at PeeJ have addressed this claim multiple times and refuted it, just because there is no huge front page update with a link to these people's website doesn't mean it remains "unchallenged". The articles cited by CJ.com are dated PRIOR to the very existance of Perverted-Justice.com, there were no contributors at the time, as there was no website before July 4th, 2002 (anything dated prior to that is simply fake, or had an incorrect date to begin with). Keep in mind also that this version of PeeJ was merely a subsite on AngryGerman.com, and was not a real website of it's own, the "real" Perverted-Justice.com (the one you see today) was founded a year later in 2003, around the time we started bringing on more contributors. I also remind you that the only contributor on board when the site started that July in 2002 was Frank Fencepost, co-founder, who was the sole contributor for a long period of time. To the best of my knowledge, Satine started not long prior to this article, I believe it was done merely a month or so after she started with PeeJ. The article clearly says she was 18 at the time and also a sophmore (second year) college student. The article is critical of our early website, feel free to add it to "further reading" that seems to contain similar criticisms.

http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/09/15/perverted_justice/index_np.html

The POV by the CJ.com source in question regarding the Satine/Xavier controversy is that Xavier (and in some variations of the story, even myself) molested Satine while she was 14-15, then primped her to do his evil bidding by talking to perverts, which they claim is the origin for Perverted-Justice.com (not acknowledging that Xavier didn't know Satine when she was brought on as Satine was merely a friend of co-founder Frank Fencepost). I know Xavier personally and will attest that he never met Satine in person until the year 2004, I was present and so was Satine's boyfriend. Satine will confirm this if you decide to contact her.

I would also recommend reading Xavier's reply below. (we are roommates and do share the same IP, I have registered this username to prevent confusion) PhoebusApolloX 19:11, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

There are other self-acknowledged minors who participate or have participated in Follow Up at Perverted-Justice, including but not limited to sexually explicit chats online with "busts". Evidence of this, taken directly from the Perverted-Justice forums, can be supplied simply by contacting Corrupted-Justice, which has been collecting evidence for the ongoing FBI investigation of Perverted-Justice. User:Jeffpw

I can easily type something in an online journal and if there were not other things to contradict it, people will accept it as fact. There are no way that anyone can be certain for doing age checks, especially online. Plus, if the FBI was looking into PeeJ, we would have heard something by now. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:26, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jeff, could you please sign and date your posts. You can do this by typing four tildes after your post like this ~~~~. We need sigs and dates for clarity now and for archiving purposes later.

Regarding Satine, could you post a link please to her online journal? And do you have any links to evidence regarding the existence of an ongoing FBI investigation into PeeJ? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:31, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Plus, the FBI would not be leaking stuff to anyone about pending investigations anyways. The FBI link can be seen at http://www.chatmag.com/help/17022004_pj.html, but I cannot find anything that is from an outside source. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:37, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

http://www.tvbarn.com/archives/019047.html, a comment from an FBI spokesman, Jeff Lanza: "FBI spokesman Jeff Lanza said perverted-justice.com was, at best, “a temporary solution” to a growing problem. “A permanent solution is to put people in jail,” Lanza said. “If you just embarrass them, they can move to another city.”" Also, this is the search that I used: http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=Perverted+Justice+FBI&ei=UTF-8&fl=0&b=21. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 16:41, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Just to address this claim, the Follow Up forum is a public forum, anyone can sign up for it and post. We do not do extensive screening of the public posters there, but if you produce names of users who are indeed underage, we will talk to moderators to have those users asked to stop participating in the Follow Up forum community, as our rules clearly state we have no need for minors. I apologize that I cannot do this kind of policing personally, the forums are simply too massive for me to personally administrate. PhoebusApolloX 19:11, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Scott Murrow of CJ can give you scren shots and downloads of Satine's journal. After it was discovered and posted at CJ it was deleted by her.

Regarding the FBI investigation, I do not think there are any online links to evidence regarding this, except what has been posted at CJ. Once again, CJ admin ( admin@corrupted-justice.com )can supply you with further info. I can tell you that I gave a statement and supplied evidence to the FBI in November of last year, and I know several other people have been cooperating with them as well, for violations including unauthorized use of driver's lisence info and social security numbers. Hope I signed this right--I am new to this Jeffpw 16:46, 20 May 2005 (UTC)16:46, 20 May, 2005

• Jeff, you've got it right. Thanks so much for doing that. I haven't found any media references to an FBI investigation, but I have found a few criticisms of PJ from FBI spokespeople, one of which was in an AP article from about a year ago. · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:00, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • My Thoughts: I am going to have to side with the Feds on that one. Though PeeJ might be doing a good thing by outing folks, only 5 comfirmed convictions out of millions of reports, that might have to tell people something. Of course, if you got a conviction, it is a good thing. However, if you ballance things out, the ratio for a conviction, or even a peek at it by the police will be slim to none. Also, the Feds are right about the people who are embarased. They can just up and leave and pretty much blend into their new communities well. I think the Feds are trying to focus their efforts on tracking down the sex offenders, which we are having problems with that now. Even if you slap a bracelet on their ankle, I still think they will kill and rape again. There is no easy solution for this problem, and it will only grow worse in time. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:05, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

There aren't any "links to an FBI investigation" because there isn't an FBI investigation. Records from their "hidden" forums show that they contacted the FBI about a lie that we "hacked them" back in late October/early November. It's late May. This ia a modus operandi of Corrupted-Justice.com. They used to claim that we were going to be "sued in a class-action lawsuit"... then their hidden forums were revealed and it turned out that there are no active on-going civil cases against us. So with that lie revealed, they now claim that the FBI is going to come after us! Wow! Whatever will try to influence those who can't access their hidden areas. Quotes from a year ago saying they have qualms with our tactics came not only before convictions (which change everything) but prior to any claims of "investigation" by CJ.com.

In truth, the FBI has been aware of us for quite some time. http://www.rickross.com/reference/perverted_justice/perverted_justice18.html - The case of Carl Barcelona, which has FBI interaction.

The only "source" for the FBI claim is Corrupted-Justice.com. They're simply not reliable. For example, take the "minor" claim. They say our "lack of response" is proof that it's true. Totally false. First, they started claiming that I have had sex with all these different people when they were minors. I mocked that on my blog. Then it turned into "They use minors for sex chats!" They took this claim to the Websleuths and Officer.com message board communities. Officer.com mocked it, and Websleuths looked into it. Ref: http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20491&page=1&pp=25 - Scroll down to where "Extraaccount" posts that various minors have been used and start there. It's investigated by an NPOV member of Websleuths and found to be pretty much BS. They found that Satine was of proper age. Corrupted-Justice.com tries to use an Archive.org version of the site that later became Perverted-Justice.com that says that Satine did a bust on January 1st, 2002. The website that later became Perverted-Justice.com was created in late summer of 2002. The website Perverted-Justice.com itself was created in early summer 2003.

Let's look at some other claims:

Erika: They try to claim that Erika was sixteen when she started working for Perverted-Justice.com. Problem? Erika is currently 21. So basically, Erika has been working for Perverted-Justice.com many years before the website was ever created. Second problem, Erika is not a volunteer of Perverted-Justice.com, now, a year ago... ever. She lives in CANADA. We do not have non-US citizens doing chats in the United States. That would be stupid. Again, Corrupted-Justice.com will try anything to get people to dislike what we do, even obvious lies like this.

Geris: Geris was/is a 14 year old. Never a contributor to Perverted-Justice.com. Signed up for the forums (Over 18,000 people have... so that's not exactly unique) but has never been "vetted as a volunteer." If Geris posted in FU, that's not because we told him to or that he had to apply to. Had we known at the time that Geris was a minor, we would have removed him from that area. The case of Geris is even more interesting when you consider what CJ.com/AVSO volunteers tried to do to him! Third-party Ref: http://emptv.com/avso.php - Read that before you deal with Desertfox and AVSO. They sought to harass and attack a 14 year old.

Demetrious: Is nineteen/twenty now. Not a Perverted-Justice.com contributor. Claiming he was "submitting chats at 14" is impossible.

Crowgirl: First, is twenty, not fourteen. Second, I don't know who this person is. Never been vetted as a volunteer for PeeJ. Saying "oh, a minor has signed up for their forums" is pointless. Anyone can sign up for a forum. While we don't want minors signing up for the forums (Our website features META information that classifies the website as "mature", blocking it on filtering programs), we can't exactly use powers over time and space to stop them. No minor has EVER been used as a chat-log contributor to Perverted-Justice.com. Claims to the contrary are laughable, hence why we didn't bother responding. I have no reason to "refute" everything CJ.com claims because they never have claimed much worthy of being addressed. This claim is indicative as to their level of "research." 67.169.194.181 19:23, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

AVSO - Revealing responsible persons

The following with the header above was posted to one of the talk archives by User:D3s3rtf0x. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:44, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

I'm the Webmaster of a site called AVSO. AVSO stands for Anti Vigilante Special Operations.

I have created this organization because I have made a personal experience what Perverted-Justice is all about. All I did was stating constructive and logic criticism. I counted up aspects that were frightening about Perverted-Justice. Next thing I know is, that my personal information, my picture as well as details from my private life got plastered all over a website that has been set up by the PJ admin. ( www.corrupted-justice.net ) This site has been used to defamate, libel, slander and threaten those who dared to speak up against PJ. I in person am defamated as "Nazi" on the PJ front page. This is a disgusting insult aiming at my German heritage. PJ is a harassing machine. PJ is a group of cyber terrorists ( Russian Pravda )

One, if Von Erck is the "Angry German," why would he use a Nazi reference anways. Two, being a terrorist, or even charging someone as one, is a very load term. We should try to use the word vigilanties while in the article. Three, Pravda is a newspaper from the former Soviet Union. It is still being published today. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:12, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Pravda was the official paper of the communist party. Now it's a tabloid anyone can submit pieces to. Hopefully they get you guys to link the Pravda piece, because there's no better argument for supporting Perverted-Justice.com than that user-submitted "article." 67.169.194.181 19:39, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

AVSO is an information provider. We provide information about the "dark sides" of Perverted-Justice. Every accused criminal has a constitutional granted right to face his/her accuser. PJ is denying this right. They are cowardly hiding in the shadows of anonymity, while harassing innocent citizens, such as neighbours, employers and family members of what they call "perverts".

We are not here to judge about wether someone is a pedophile or not. We believe this MUST be left up to a court. We are here to give harassed and accused citizens the option to take legal steps against those hiding behind screen names, by exposing their names and faces.So far we have detailed information on more than 20 so called "contributors" for Perverted-Justice.

Numerous attempts have been made by hackers ( we can not evidence it but we strongly believe they have been sent from Xavier von Erck himself ) to disturb the functionality of our website and forum, in order to keep people from seeing the TRUTH.

AVSO operates strictly under national and international laws and guidelines.

I request that the link to AVSO is put back upon the main site. We are a vital information provider, and offer a vast amount of background resources. User:D3s3rtf0x

• Well, it seems that what their website mostly does is try to out people who work with PJ. So there are two questions here: One, are their methods reliable? And two, should we care? Or, to put it another way, is a Website purporting to know the identities of participants in PJ notable enough for inclusion? Obviously the reliability question is the main one. But even if they were reliable, should we care enough to include them? I'm not so sure myself, but reserve judgment so far. Still, I have questions about the reliability of their information -- they post peoples' names and photographs on their website, but don't say anything about the methods by which the information was arrived at. · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:02, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, D3s, could you sign all your posts please, by typing four tildes after them, like this ~~~~. That will produce your user name, the time, and the date, which we need for archiving purposes.

Regarding the information that was posted about you, can you supply a link to that, please, so I can better understand who you are, and how you came to be involved in this? Also, how many people are involved in AVSO? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:04, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

In case you missed it: Ref - http://emptv.com/avso.php - They have a few volunteers, mostly from CJ.com. The websites are basically interchangeable when it comes to volunteers. Secondly, DesertFox has given quotes on his forums that show that this German citizen has some creepy views regarding WW2: We had a solution to deal with those people here in Germany, 60 years back. They were dragged on their hairs to work to serve the public. Good luck we live in a civilized world now, right ? -Cough- - Desertfox from his posts on AVSO. AVSO has nothing substantively to do with Perverted-Justice.com. It's just Desertfox's little website where he posts his random rants. It's good for a laugh from time to time, as it has some hilarious tabloid-esque updates once in a while. I liked the update where "Xavier's secret sex maths revealed!" was splashed on the main page, that was hilarious. If I didn't know better, I'd consider it a joke site. 67.169.194.181 19:35, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

While I find Naziism or anything approaching it personally repugnant, that's not germane to the debate we're having here today. Let's stick to the topic at hand please before we spin off again into name-calling and finger-pointing. Thanks for signing your comments. Why don't you consider registering for an account? It makes communications much easier. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:44, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

I only mentioned it because he brought it up. Go lecture him for whining. If he's going to whine that he's been called "creepy" for his views on his own country sixty years ago, then I'll be glad to post his quotes that have caused such speculation. :) As well, I have an account. Wiki's cookie system doesn't keep me logged in consistently. 67.169.194.181 19:58, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Again, let's stick to debating the article (this applies to both sides). Devolving into this sort of thing will get us nowhere. If you have an account, please make sure you're signed in when using Wikipedia. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:02, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Desertfox has been responsible for some hacking himself, so I find any indignation over hacking a little silly. Check out what happened to Corrupted-Justice.net, an anti-CJ.com/anti-AVSO portal, which has now been down for some time. http://www.corrupted-justice.net/forum/ I'm sure they will post more information regarding these attacks in the future, if/when they get their site back up. As for "revealing responsible persons", these people have long been claiming the accuracy and reprehensibility of the staff of PeeJ, and no legal action (besides a failed HRO) has happened. Where is the alleged lawsuits and endless court action that supposedly was to happen? I'd like to see less talk if nothing is ever going to happen. PhoebusApolloX 19:57, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

• To bring this back to the matter at hand: We are debating whether the AVSO link should be included in the article. I am currently waiting to hear from anyone at AVSO about what their sourcing is for the claims they make on who PJ contributors are. · Katefan0^(scribble) 20:04, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Could we perhaps settle on whether AVSO should be linked in this article? The first time it was put in yesterday, it was disguised as a link to Corrupted-Justice.net, removing the real link to that site. I reverted that as vandalism. The link was re-added shortly afterwards, this time as a separate link. I accidentally reverted that, thinking it was re-vandalism. I reverted my own reversion when I realized my mistake. But then Xavier, and now Katefan0 have subsequently removed the link. Is there a good reason not to have the link there? Is the link to Corrupted-Justice.com sufficent for covering criticism of PeeJ? Powers 20:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The decision was not to include it. Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 23:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

If I may, where was this decision made? I don't see any consensus in this section. Powers 03:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall, you'll have to look back through the discussions. Nevertheless, it exists. Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 05:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Request

Can we convert the inline external links to Template:Ref and Template:Note? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:37, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Sure, why not. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:43, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

No, please! It means the reader has to scroll down to the end, rather than just clicking. Yuck! SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:49, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion

Could I ask that this article not be fiddled with too much? There's been an extended edit war for months, which seems finally to have died down, and it would nice to let it stabilize for a few weeks. The thing about Von Erck's name, for example: we can add it if we find a reputable, third-party source, but as impressive as the research was (as described above), it doesn't quite meet WP requirements. It would be good if we could just leave that issue. Someone else may publish it somewhere soon; then we can add it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:53, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Well in the meantime, if you get bored... http://www.perverted-justice.com/?con=arb1210 - There's an associated media article with the new conviction too. 67.169.194.181 19:50, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for that. The article can be edited, by the way; I was only asking that no one make large-scale changes or insert anything controversial, but it was just a request. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:02, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but I'd rather not edit it because as I've gone on and on about, I want the article to be NPOV. You are NPOV, not me. If I start editing it, then that gives "justification" for the anti-PeeJ people to do so. And, with that, might as well keep you busy... http://www.perverted-justice.com/?con=ryan4686 - And yes, there's a related news item covering the conviction at the bottom of the writeup. :) 67.169.194.181 22:53, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

FYI, I checked the AP news stories: they directly credit PeeJ with getting the evidence against the man. One covers the arrest and the other the guilty plea. -Willmcw 23:04, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Name

It is now common knowledge that Xavier Von Erck is the name he chooses to go by.

People come here for information, and you are censoring it. Xavier, if you are so gung-ho about keeping your real name out of this entry, then the onus is on you to prove that it is erroneous. (Posted by User:68.106.37.23 in the archives on June 8, 2005)

People come here for accurate, verifiable information. As with any positive assertion, the onus is on those who make an assertion rather than on those who deny it. It is generally impossible to prove a negative. This is standard Wikipedia practice. The ethics seem grey here because "Von Erck" and PeeJers are disclosing the private information of others. Even so, we should treat them no worse than we treat other subjects accused of unethical, unsocial, or otherwise odd behavior. Cheers, -Willmcw 05:18, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Xavier Von Erck has now been identified in the media as Phillip John Eide, the name that www.corrupted-justice.com also found months ago. Here is the link: http://www.citybeat.com/2005-06-15/cover.shtml

I would think that as he is now identified in the meida, wiki can freely update this article with the ACCURATE name for the owner of PJ. Jeffpw 15:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that, Jeff; it looks like a good enough source. Do others agree? I've added a link to the article after the name. If people feel it's not a good enough source, feel free to revert me. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:23, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

It's OK. CityBeat is Cincinnati's free tabloid, basically. I'd rather have seen it from a traditional newspaper or newsmagazine, but I have no reason to believe CityBeat would not check their sources. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:26, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Since this article has a lengthy reference to PervertedJustice, should it also be added to the "references" section? -Willmcw 19:51, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Done. Sorry, I meant to do it earlier, but got distracted. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:01, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Recent anon edits

The source used for substantiating that XVE located the missing girl is quite explicit. He did not "assist" in finding her, he found her through tracing the IP used when she was logging into her Yahoo account. The rest is just POV -- the article already treats PJ's critics; there's no need for bloggish commentary opining about whether chatting with minors for sex is or is not pedophilia. · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:28, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

See pedophilia for the definition of pedophilia. Facts are not considered "POV".

"XVE" did not solely find her. He needed the help of both Comcast and LE. 24.224.153.40 21:19, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your edits assert that PJ calls something pedophilia on its website but that those activities aren't pedophilia (an interesting debate, but it has no place in this article). Nowhere does our article assert that what PJ does is "catch pedophiles," so there's no need to insert such a phrase except to assert a POV. PJ's critics are already fairly represented in the text of the article, or do you disagree? If so that's a discussion we should have. As for XVE needing the help of Comcast, that's a logical fallacy. Comcast was a passive contributor obviously, but they wouldn't have simply traced the IP without XVE's knowing to make the request -- it would be like saying that, when placing an operator-assisted phone call, I "helped" make the phone call because it was facilitated by an operator patching two lines together; just doesn't hold water. Same with law enforcement -- he didn't need their help; they needed his -- after all, they were the ones who sought him out when they hit a brick wall. Clearly, XVE's involvement was the catalyst for the girl being found, and I think the way it's treated right now in the article -- which is properly sourced -- is appropriate. · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:37, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. Your most recent edit was: PeeJ also incorrectly refers to the supposed predators they place on their websites as "wannabe pedophiles", a term which can not be correct considering "pedophilia" refers to a paraphilia and not a crime. Do you have a source for this? It's fine to say so-and-so has criticized PJ for XYZ, but we can't just say "it can not be correct" because we are not here to pass judgment ourselves on various positions, only to summarize pertinent debates. Please cite a critical source if you can. Thanks · Katefan0^(scribble) 21:40, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

It seems this has been put back in, with two external links to definitions of Pedophile. I'm not certain that this is much better than when it was unreferenced... it smells of original research to me. I mean, yeah, I'd personally agree that the term isn't technically correct, but more for the reason that I'd call the people they target "Pedophiles" and "Molester Wannabes"... but then, I'm also in favor of the distinction between the terms Hacker and Cracker... but the general public still calls what I'd call a Cracker a Hacker. So the page on Hackers mentions the way the term is used despite the fact that some people object to its use in this manner. It sites who uses the term, in which manner, and places no value judgements on whether the usage is "correct" or not. I think that we should follow suit here... we can state that thus-and-such person thinks that the usage is wrong, or whosewhatsit organization thinks it's wrong, and would prefer another usage, but not that the term is "wrong". It's just a word, a phrase, a label for a specific thing. To say "wrong" here is, I think, quite POV. (a point of view I may agree with, but a loaded pov nevertheless). Until references are cited, and by references, I mean "An organization or notable person making this claim/accusation", I'm going to remove the sentence again. Fieari 15:22, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, thanks for doing that. Somehow an editor slipped that back in without my noticing. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:52, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Huh? POV? That's the meaning of the word, and that's that. 24 at 16:46, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

There is a clear consensus among editors active on this page that the information you keep trying to add is not proper. I am reverting the addition, again. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:48, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

See again my example wrt Hacker/Cracker. Different people can use the same word or phrase in order to mean different things. Stating that any given usage is wrong is not only POV, but original research. We don't say, ever, that a belief or statement by any group X or Y is wrong. We quote other people who say so. Wikipedia documents the beliefs and practises of organizations, but does not, in itself, using (again) original research (such as looking at dictionaries and drawing a value judgement from that) declare or condemn any beliefs or practises. Not even blatently incorrect beliefs and practises, like Racism or Human Sacrifice or, yes, even Pedophilia. Fieari 20:11, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Critism Section

I recently updated the page with the more recent convictions PeeJ has listed, but this makes the critism section a little outdated. Currently it reads:

Some critics contend that the site's methodology is flawed, citing its success rate of 13 convictions out of 650 men exposed on the website. Supporters say that PeeJ's relationship with police agencies is relatively new, and that 13 convictions in ten months is a good track record. Many law-enforcement agencies have also stated that, while they appreciate PeeJ's mission, they do not agree with some of its practices.

However, since there are now 20 convictions, this should be changed. However, I don't want to alter what could be a direct quote. So I'd like a SOURCE for the above critism, so it can be accurately and directly quoted, attributed, and dated. Also, it says here "Many law-enforcement officers". Now, below there is a specific officer named... but one doesn't make many. Can we have more names here too, or correct it to state that there is only one known to have this position? Fieari July 4, 2005 03:16 (UTC)

Maybe at the time of the quote, there were only 13 convictions. If that is the case, then the quote should stay the same. We can also note it is past critcism by having an officer/official who said that and when it was said. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 4 July 2005 03:24 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure that at the time of the quote, there were only 13. However, that brings me back to the point... where is the exact quote from? Who said it? And when? This needs to be added so as to not confuse the reader by stating that there are 20 convictions, and yet mentioning only 13 here. Fieari July 4, 2005 03:33 (UTC) Oh, while I'm at it, under Methods, there is this quote:

Scott Morrow of Corrupted-Justice.com, a website set up to challenge PeeJ, told ABC News there is currently no way to hold PeeJ accountable for mistakes. "When you're running an organization or running a group of people with the potential to do as much damage to people's lives as this does, I think there also has to be some accountability."

Which is a good quote, but it seems like a little bit of a non sequitor to me. Perhaps it should go in the crit section instead? Fieari July 4, 2005 03:35 (UTC)

Arrests

Is there anywhere that lists a current count of PJ arrests? I can't find the number anywhere, and since we're saying "30 arrests" in the introduction and giving a date, we should be able to update this information. Previously, I had the number 30 linked with an older date, and updated to July for the new convictions number... but now both numbers link to the same date, which is probably incorrect. Afterall, if they've gotten so many convictions recently, (13 up to 24!) I'll seriously bet that the arrests number has skyrocketed as well. So where is this information found? Until we have a place with an updated number, I'm removing the count. Fieari 01:05, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Original research

PeeJ also refers to their "busts" as "wannabe pedophiles", which some feel is misleading, as "pedophilia" itself is not necessarily an act and the slang adjective "wannabe" means "wishing to be" (rather, PeeJ believes their "busts" are attempting to meet the children they talk to for sex, which does not fall under pedophilia); it is also not clear that "busts" are actually aspiring to molest or contact the children they believe they are talking with. [2][3] [4] [5] [6]

24ip, I reverted your edit because it's original research. Please read Wikipedia:No original research. Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:45, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

(copied from above) There is a clear consensus among editors active on this page that the information you keep trying to add is not proper. I am reverting the addition, again. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:48, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I reverted: PeeJ also refers to their "busts" as "wannabe pedophiles", which some feel is misleading, as "pedophilia" itself is not necessarily an act and the slang adjective "wannabe" means "wishing to be" (rather, PeeJ believes their "busts" are attempting to meet the children they talk to for sex, which does not fall under pedophilia); it is also not clear that "busts" are actually aspiring to molest or contact the children they believe they are talking with. [7][8] [9] [10] [11]

Again, I don't see how a bloggish opinion about the definition of the word pedophile is relevant here. Nowhere in the article does it refer to the people PJ catches as pedophiles, and your citations are to dictionary definitions, NOT to critics of PJ's use of the word. · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:50, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'll find an organization that opposes it so I don't have to use weasel terms. 24 at 16:56, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

That'd be a step in the right direction. Thanks. · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:02, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

(copied from above) See again my example wrt Hacker/Cracker. Different people can use the same word or phrase in order to mean different things. Stating that any given usage is wrong is not only POV, but original research. We don't say, ever, that a belief or statement by any group X or Y is wrong. We quote other people who say so. Wikipedia documents the beliefs and practises of organizations, but does not, in itself, using (again) original research (such as looking at dictionaries and drawing a value judgement from that) declare or condemn any beliefs or practises. Not even blatently incorrect beliefs and practises, like Racism or Human Sacrifice or, yes, even Pedophilia. Fieari 20:11, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

That is what the word means! It does not mean child molester or whatnot, it means someone who is primarily sexually attracted to children, and nothing else. Wikipedia should note the incorrect usage of a term -- and yes, it is incorrect, it just happens that tabloids and ignorant people use pedophile to refer to a child molester; just as people often mix up blatant with flagrant and vice-versa, people often mix up pedophile and child molester -- and no matter how people use it, blatant will never mean flagrant... and I don't understand your last sentence: pedophilia is neither a practise nor a belief, and it certainly isn't "blatantly incorrect". 24 at 22:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

If you want your edit not to be original research, you have to produce a reputable published source for the "some feel" claim i.e. you have to say who exactly feels that PeeJ using the term "wannabe pedophiles" is misleading, and you have to provide a citation so we can check that the claim was published somewhere credible. Then the edit will be fine, so long as it sticks closely to what the source said and doesn't elaborate further. See Wikipedia:No original research. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:41, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Do note, the dictionaries you cite do not, in fact, state that PeeJ is incorrect. PeeJ is not mentioned in any one of those links. None of those references say that a Pedophile is NOT a molester. None of those references say that the term "Pedophile Wannabe" is INCORRECT when applied to those soliciting sex with minors over the internet. They give definitions, yes, but not one of those references gives a definition negatively... that is to say, none of them specify an anti-definition.

To put it another way, I have a citable reference that those soliciting sex with a minor over the internet are referred to as "Pedophile Wannabes". Can you cite a reference, any reference (other than yourself) asserting that this is not the case? Not that the definition of pedophile does not include those soliciting sex from minors over the internet (after all, I can cite millions of sources that fail to mention that the earth is round, but failing to mention a fact does not equal negating it) but a reference that says, "It is incorrect to use this term in this way." That's what we're looking for. Fieari 09:07, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

The "No Original Research" policy was set up because wikipedia doesn't want to show something that is not reputable, no? Think deeply about this, though: if a site made an obvious typo (please, don't quibble about the exact meaning of "obvious"; I know you know what I mean), would editors have to wait for another source to document the typo before they could make an article about it? (theoretically of course; in reality it would be pointless to create a new page for something so minor) It would be original research, technically, but it defeats the purpose of why the policy was made in the first place. I'm not actually taking sides in this argument, but I wanted to express the notion that sometimes adhering blindly to a policy isn't always the answer. --(unsigned anonymous comment)

While WP:IGNORE is official policy as well, my claim is that apart from being a typo (which if they made a typo, wouldn't be notable anyway), the site is using the word pedophile deliberately according to a common consensus meaning. The dictionary only lists positive definitions, not negative ones... in other words, words can mean more things than what the dictionary defines them as. See: Jargon. Now, you can argue that it is inappropraite to redefine a word, and that you'd prefer that everyone use pedophilia to specifically refer to the paraphanalia thingy, but that would be an argument... and original research. It may be "obvious" to you that they're wrong. But it's not obvious to everyone. You have to convince them. And in convincing them, you are using original research. Which we don't do here.

See again my example with regards to Hackers/Crackers. Just because some people would prefer there be a distinction, doesn't mean that the distinction is always used. We report how things are, not how they should be. Fieari 16:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Pedophilia category

Why is this in the pedophilia category? 24.224.153.40 23:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Because it's about the way some people are "outed" as pedophiles. Why shouldn't it be in that category? Please stop deleting it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:56, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

PJ inconclusively refers to their "busts" as pedophiles. There's no way to know if this is indeed true, however. I wanted to make note about that before, but apparently that's original research.

It is the opinion of PJ -- their POV -- that their "busts" are pedophiles, but they haven't presented any evidence for this. In my opinion, the website has nothing to do with pedophilia, but rather Internet predators. This is apparently not the case for whoever added the category. PJ deems their predators to be pedophiles, but they have no way of proving this accusation. Regardless, it is the POV of PJers that the website is about pedophilia, and Wikipedia has no point of view. 24.224.153.40 00:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

No, the men are, as a matter of fact, outed as pedophiles. Whether they ought to be outed, or whether they're pedophiles, are matters of opinion. But they are outed as such. Argue your case further here if you like, but please stop deleting it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:36, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, PeeJ itself does NOT call the men pedophiles. It calls them "wannabe perverts", because it knows that calling them pedophiles can lead to lawsuits for slander or libel. A quick look at their main page will show you this.Jeffpw 16:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[12] "This wannabe pedo tried to solicit sadlilgrrl, a 13 year old girl ... or so they thought!"

[13] "This wannabe pedo tried to solicit Catrina, a 13 year old girl ... or so they thought!"

[14] "This wannabe pedo tried to solicit jerri_lee_ann, a 14 year old girl ... or so they thought!"

The list goes on, and on, and on. Every single bust I've seen posted, in fact, uses this terminology. Fieari 17:44, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

By adding the category, aren't we asserting that PJ is about pedophilia? We're currently categorizing it as a pedophilia website, which is a matter of opinion. 24ip | lolol 03:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Are you arguing that PeeJ isn't a website that self declares itself to have to do with pedophilia? Even if they aren't about pedophiles (which is debatable, I think that it's fairly accurate to label someone who has indicated interest in having sex with a minor to be a pedophile) they label themselves as such, have attracted attention from self declared pedophiles themselves, and again, even if the label is incorrect, they raise the subject. It seems that the catagory is appropriate to me, in all respects. Fieari 07:16, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Source: Electronic Frontier Foundation

My search-fu may be weak, but I've been looking for a source on the EFF's crit of PeeJ, and haven't found one. Anyone got a link? It should definitely be sourced. I'm also curious as to WHEN this crit happened, and whether or not they still have issues against the organization. There's nothing recent on their website certainly... and the EFF have been known to doggedly persue their enemies. Fieari 18:23, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

While I'm at it, searching wiredsafety.org for perverted justice also came up with no hits. Where and when did they critisize PeeJ? If they ARE critics of the organization, wouldn't you expect them to post this on their own website, given that they mostly ARE a website? Fieari 18:30, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the group's taken an official stance, or at least I can't find a reference to it. I'll contact them. Lee Tien and Julie Posey of the EFF are both critics of PJ, but they don't represent the whole organization. :/ 24.224.153.40 23:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC) (User:24ip)

Thanks for the reference. I've expanded their complaints specifically. I've also removed the reference to wiredsaftey until such time as we have a source. While I was at it, I removed the unsourced and obviously outdated "only 13 convictions" complaint. I've felt the need to include PeeJ's responces to each complaint, since they are easily citable (PeeJ seems to publicly respond to every point of critisism ever laid against them), and because the complaints against the organization really do seem to be without merit. Fieari 03:13, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of unsourced material creeping into this article, some of it written in a way that seems to favor PeeJ. I've made the contributors section invisible until a source is supplied, and some of the writing in the methods section seemed odd or repetitive so I've tidied it. As this has been a controversial page, please supply sources for any edits that go beyond tidying the grammar. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:47, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Since Eide's name has been confirmed, I took the time to change all of the references in the article from Erck to Eide--except, of course, the two sentences that describe Erck as his pseudonym. Just makes for cleaner, less confusing reading.Jeffpw 09:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Sickened

I'm sickened they associated my name with child molestors. See [15]. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. From what I can tell, you were simply being civil after having asked for unsourced assertions to be supported. This group, whoever they are, appear to be very uninformed about how things work around here. -Willmcw 22:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Hopefully, the whole misunderstanding'll be corrected. I can hate a person or a type of person or a philosophy or whatever, but still work towards consensus and NPOV with them. I support you full heartedly, Ta bu shi da yu. Fieari 01:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

PeeJ-Opinions has edited the information Ta bu shi da yu linked, to include Xavier's own investigation into the accused editors (exonerating them) as well as a response from LinuxBeak that does the same. I think this is a case of Xavier and others reading the press release from POSC and getting a little overzealous in promoting it, without doing any fact-checking. 69.204.116.80 14:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The founder of PeeJ over-zealous? No fact checking? I'm shocked!68.47.226.42 08:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not the allegations that PeeJ got from POSC were true or not (and they've been rescinded by PeeJ), I don't think it's conducive to NPOV to have the subject of those allegations writing about them in the main article. 69.204.116.80 19:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The whole paragraph Ta bu threw in there was factually incorrect anyways. The passage in question was not authored by Perverted-Justice.com, but was a reprinted press release sent in by another group. It is a credit to us that we bothered to repudiate claims in the press release regarding the two administrators once information was brought up that the POSC information regarding them was misinterpreted by the POSC. Lastly, the printing of that press release had nothing to do with this article, being that the conflict regarding this article was taken care of months prior to the release being sent to us. Nor was any mention of this article included in the Opinions writeup. XavierVE

I just noticed this. Actually, this is not an accurate summary of events. I threatened legal action, PeeJ told me that they would only retract their information if I withdrew legal action. Not wanting to go through a complicated legal proceding (which I would have done) I said I'd retract the threat. It was only after this that they modified their obviously inaccuate information. That they published it in the first place does not make them look very good. In fact, it makes them look downright dangerous. After all, I am most certainly not a pedophile, and in fact I am very anti-pedophile. They risked making me look like one, and if you think about it could have endangered my career/life for absolutely no good reason. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Considering that I could have just left it up unedited since I was under no legal obligation to edit a PRESS RELEASE by ANOTHER ORGANIZATION nor to correct the statements of ANOTHER organization, the "telling you off" regarding your lawsuit threat had more to do with you being rude and my not wishing to appear that I was only editing something because you threw around legally silly threats. I never edit anything when threatened legally, it's part and parcel of how we operate. Silly legal threats are never to be respected. I had you send a polite request and then I edited it. If another group sends me a press release for posting claiming that you have sex with goats and sleep with pink diamonds, I am not legally responsible for their authoring. It is not "my" information.

Your attitude now, which is pure silliness, makes me regretful that I even wasted my time listening to Wikipedians who were angry at the POSC release for I was under no obligation to listen to anyone. I should just revert the press release as I'm under no moral obligation to correct the statements of unaffiliated groups. The only reason I did so was because it was the right thing to do. Attacking a third-party for being reasonable and correcting the statements of another group is itself, unreasonable. XavierVE 20:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The PJ organization needs to recognize that its reputation necessarily depends on the truthfulness of the information it provides. It is no credit to the organization that it reprints unfounded allegations without even rudimentary fact checking: in fact, it's something that will no doubt be used to raise questions about the other allegations it makes. - Nunh-huh 07:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

"Information First"

Is there a reason the "Information First" information was removed? Very few of PeeJ's "busts" are posted until after conviction these days... I think that's an important point. Fieari 18:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

That is a ridiculous lie. 700 busts, and 30-some-odd convictions, the majority of which were unrelated to the actual chat-log. Although I wouldn't object to having the "information first" program posted here, since it demonstrates the hubris behind perverted-justice thinking it is better than law enforcement on these matters. (this unsigned comment by 64.34.168.70 at 06:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC))

"These days". There was a period of a year or two (off the top of my head) when they didn't have this program in place, and as such, all those logs were posted. Things have since changed. The only logs posted now are the ones that either resulted in a conviction, the police officer in question dropped the case, the police officer specifically allowed the posting of the log, or the bust was made in Nevada, where a statute there makes soliciting an adult masquerading as a child legal even if the solicitor has no possible way of knowing he isn't dealing with a real child. Logs are also shown for those found in "Group Media Busts", as the evidence from such busts are so overwhelming that posting the logs can't hurt the criminal case.

The legal process takes some time. The fact that they're currently averaging more than one conviction per month suggests to me that they're doing something very very right. Fieari 16:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

As a note, the site has 39 total convictions, not 32. To break it down... from June 2004 to January 1st 2005 = 7 convictions. From January 1st 2005 to this very second, 32 convictions. The number 32 referenced on the site is a total of convictions for just 2005, not a total for the entire site's history. XavierVE

And now it's 40 convictions total, 33 for 2005. XavierVE

Link

I added a general link to www.corrupted-justice.com as I thought a general mention would be appropriate, but it may be redundant. I'm not sure what the policy is with that so I might be wrong and I'll check. Not trying to step on any toes. --DanielCD 18:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Some pages use a pro-con section strategy. Thought I'd mention that if anyone is interested. --DanielCD 18:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Are chat rooms the only place this organizations watches? It seems to me there are a lot of other places such people hang out. Do they watch Newsgroups or p2p material? I'd be interested to the scope more defined, as that seems to be an area where people give misinformation. Critical sites claim they simply collect "any info on anyone they don't like". What information could they be getting if they nonly operate in chat rooms? If I get confused by some of this, others prolly do as well. Just some observations. --DanielCD 19:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but the founder, Xavier Von Erck, edits from User:XavierVE, you might try asking on his talk page. · Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 03:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not in any hurry; perhaps I'll just wait until he swings by here again. Perhaps he'll offer a comment then. --DanielCD 23:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

We used to only work Chat-rooms on Yahoo and AOL, that recently changed three months ago and we're now branching out to things like Myspace.com, other social networking websites, craigslist (Yeah, Craigslist, it's crazy), blogging websites, etc. We don't work anything like Newsgroups because quite frankly, there are few actual teens that access them and we don't work p2p material because we do everything we can to avoid anything resembling child pornography. People send us tips about child pornography and we simply forward them on to the FBI or cybertipline.com. In a nutshell, we go where real kids go and we pretend to be real kids. Chat, social networking sites, "groups", you name it.

I must note, I'm rather annoyed that I don't see an update to our conviction totals in your latest edits, I posted the update last month in this discussion page. I think having accurate numbers is more important than linking a website of six people for the third time in the article. Corrupted-Justice.NET, which is a website that debunks Corrupted-Justice.com and clears up the lies of CJ.com regarding our record, has about four times the active users on it and it's linked only once (not as a general link either). XavierVE

You're right, I guess it is redundant. I didn't see the other links there as they are to individual articles. I'll take that other out and see what I can do about updating the numbers. --DanielCD 15:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Since you seem to be the active Wikipedian editing this, check out: http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_D_date14.2243c51c.html

What that article doesn't go on to say is that the 22 guys we ended up getting arrested on January 7th destroyed the previous national record of five internet predators arrested in one night. XavierVE

AVSO link

It was decided some months ago that linking to this website, which is essentially a smear campaign without a shred of documentation, is inappropriate. In the last few days an anon has begun to edit war to insert a link to the forum at this website instead. This is equally inappropriate, in my opinion. Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 05:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

If you believe the AVSO discussion forum is just a 'smear campaign,' what on earth would you call corrupted-justice.net? Yet this link is posted, unquestionably. Also, before you blindly support Von Erck, you should know that he has branded the Wikipedia community as a haven for pedophiles. See http://www.perverted-justice.com/opinions/?article=11 The ASVO link is just that, a link. No opinions or commentary regarding it is posted in the article. Since AVSO is devoted solely to discussion of perverted-justice, it's inclusion in the link section is acceptable. I do not appreciate the censorship that is going on here. Let people visit the link and form their own opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.34.168.70 (talk • contribs)

Please remember to sign your comments. You can do this by typing four tildes in a row (~~~~). Otherwise it can be difficult to sort out who's said what. Katefan0^(scribble)/mrp 06:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you think the existing links to PeeJ criticism are insufficient? What is there on AVSO that isn't covered by Corrupted-Justice.com? Also, note the numerous links to news articles that have a definite anti-PeeJ slant. Including too many anti- links and not as many pro- could be seen as violating NPOV, regardless of whether or not "opinions or commentary" regarding them are included in the article. Powers 14:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I took a look at the AVSO link that keeps getting re-added. What we have there is a set of forums. The only section of the forums relevant to Perverted-Justice.com requires registration to access (apparently so they can ban anti-AVSO posters more easily). That makes the link rather unuseful to the casual reader. As for the main AVSO site, it appears to consist primarily of links to Corrupted-Justice.com and the occassional item referring to posts in the registration-shielded section of the forums. These posts have titles such as "XAVIER ASEXUAL !" and "Xavier's secret sex maths revealed !" and "Why PeeJ sucks, again and again". While I cannot view the forums to see Xavier's secret sex maths, I'm sure articles with such eloquent titles are written with the utmost in diligence and fairness. (Also, the main AVSO site has not been updated since last April, which might explain why the link being added is to their forums.) Powers 14:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, don't mock my awesome SECRET ASEXUAL SEX MATHS WHICH ARE SECRET. Anyways, can someone check out the link to press-enterprise I posted earlier in the discussion? Methinks it is worthy of more time than this AVSO anon trolling and merits inclusion in the article. Oh and it's 41 convictions now, not to be a pest or anything :) XavierVE

Hey if you can make math as fun as that, I got a calculus class I could use some coaching in... Do you do differential equations? ::)). --DanielCD 14:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, since I'm not sure what you guys mean by "Maths", perhaps it's best to forgo the joking for now... --DanielCD 14:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Pedophilia category #2

Perverted-Justice.com appears to be concerned with pedophilia. "Help our efforts to raise awareness to the growing problem of online pedophilia..." is on their front page. Their FAQ makes many references to pedophiles, such as "...it appears our efforts are simply proving once again that pedophilia, grooming and molestation are uniquely and overwhelmingly male attempted."[16] On the basis that the website deals with pedophilia, the category:pedophilia seems appropriate. -Will Beback 01:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I see it was removed by Paroxysm, who contributed to the prior #Pedophilia category discussion under the 24.224.153.40 IP and a different username. -Will Beback 01:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It deals with Internet predators, not the sexual attraction to children. They make use of the term "pedophilia" and "pedophile" to refer to the act of preying on children or those who do it, but it seems clear they're not using it to describe actual pedophilia, i.e. pedosexuality.

it appears our efforts are simply proving once again that pedophilia, grooming and molestation are uniquely and overwhelmingly male attempted.

Here they make it clear they are referring to pedophilia as an action (and hence not referring to pedophilia at all). // paroxysm (n) 01:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

You're limiting "pedophile" to the narrow, medical usage, not the common usage. They call themselves pedophilic related. Do pedophiles get to pick and choose their associates? How has the matter changed since you brought up the same issue last summer? -Will Beback 02:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Pedophilia is being used to categorize matters relating to the sexual attraction to children; we have a seperate category for child sexual abuse issues: Category:Child sexual abuse. It's like that to prevent two very seperate issues from being mixed up.

Pedophiles don't get to choose their company, but a large majority of predators are not pedophiles (~14.8% extrafamilial [17]), and this site is clearly about predators, not pedophiles. It should be in Category:Child sexual abuse, but not Category:Pedophilia. // paroxysm (n) 02:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The website appears to focus on those who are sexually attracted to children (aka "pedophiles"). Since no actual children are involved, and nobody has sex, the Category:Child sexual abuse seems less-directly related, though probably still applicable, since they are trying to deter one mechanism of potential abuse. Your deduction that their target group is not composed of pedophiles is based on asumptions based on some long-ago study that wasn't related to this website. Since the subject says that they are engaged with pedophiles is their chief mission, and since they are described as a pedophile related group by many sources.[18] [19] [20][21], it seems appropriate to use the category:pedophilia. If we had more than one entry we could split out a category:Opposition to sex with minors, category:Anti-pedophilia activism or something like that. Cheers, -Will Beback 03:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it seems reasonable to categorize them in that category, considering your mission argument. Okay. // paroxysm (n) 18:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, the controversy never ends in this neck of the woods. OK, I didn't want to make a fuss. I just thought it to be redundant with the other cats. I'm not saying I agree or disagree, I just don't have time to take up the issue at the moment. --DanielCD 14:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Update Conviction Totals

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)

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)

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)

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

Recent blog addition

Someone (presumably, the author) has inserted a link to a blog claiming to be a critic of PJ. It has one entry that is rife with misspellings and other juvenile rantings that border on libelous. Beyond its lack of utility, Wikipedia could potentially be liable for knowingly linking to sites with libelous content, so I think this should be reverted. I've reverted it once and the anon has placed it back in, so I submit it for other editors' review. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 19:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not worried about libel so much, but I will say that the blog is entirely non-notable. Corrupted-Justice.com is notable because it's had some press interaction, some radio interviews, that sort of thing (even if they are almost completely discredited at this point), but some random blog? No relevance. Not notable. Practically the equivelent of a "fan site" (an anti-fan site?), and we remove those from other articles all the time unless there's something particularly notable about one, or its used as a reference for something. Heck, this isn't even an entire site... it's a blog entry. A single blog entry, so far as I can tell. I removed the link, and if I see it again, I'll remove it again. Fieari 20:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

That blog was not informative. I note that other entries cover denying the Holocaust and the Apollo moon landings. -Will Beback 21:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I find it ironic the fuss over the blog entry. You say it was "not informative", yet you continue to carry links that are no longer valid. The Corrupted justice site has long since been shut down and the links are not valid. How informative is that? I persoally feel that these removals are being done by members of PJ. Of course the articles on the blog are informative-- they provide information about the founder and some of its members. It offers viewpoints from PJ, so it is at least somewhat balanced. In any event, it's an opposing viewpoint, and I think that perhaps members of PJ are scared. If you're speaking of liability, PJ is making itself liable on many issues, and Wikipedia is no more liable for any outcome than it is for entries on assassinations. If you want this entry to be truly balanced, you need to show viewpoints from all sides, and not just specfically this blog. You say it has lack of "utility" and is "rife" with misspellings. There are no spelling errors. As far as "utility", again it presents an opposing viewpoint, unless of course Wikipedia wants to officially go on the record as officially supporting and condoning Perverted Justice and accepting that should PJ suffer any legal consequences. If you want Wikipedia to be a true information source, you need to accept varying viewpoints. Just a thought.

AnotherbloggerAnotherblogger 14:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The Corrupted Justice Link is still valid. -Puffalump--Puffalump 15:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It is one entry of one person's blog. Hardly encyclopedic. As for misspellings, look again -- "persue" and "pyschopath" -- found in about 30 seconds, and I only skimmed the first four paragraphs. I do note, though, that Del Harvey is now described as a lesbian rather than a "dyke." I guess that's an improvement. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 14:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, by that logic, you need to erase the Wikipedia entries of all bloggers and blogs, because they are, as you say "hardly encyclopedic". It seems as if you're perhaps defending Perverted Justice by removing any and all opposing viewpoints, and I notice the dead links still remain. I'm looking at the same entry, and this author has no spelling errors, so I have added the entries again, and will continue to do so. It bears value to this entry, and as such is valid. Oh and there is more than one entry dedicated to Perverted Justice, which you can plainly see at the bottom of the entry. Would it make you happier if the author made a whole separate section, or would it still conflict with your obvious defense of this group? Anotherblogger 15:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't support the inclusion of this blog. Neither do several other people, which means consensus is against you. You're pushing a lone barrow here, and need to stop inserting the link against consensus. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 15:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that the consensus of people are are all likely Perverted Justice insiders is nill. I will continue to add it, and add it again, and will have others do as well, so IP banning will be moot. You do not determine the validity of sources. If you want to be a truly valid site, you need to accept oppoosing viewpoints. Therefore, this particular blog will be added again and again and again from various IP blocks and users. This is not a method I like to use, but you apparently are PJ volunteers run amok.

WP:TINC. WP:AGF. Opposing viewpoints we accept. From notable, encyclopedic sources. WP:NOR. WP:RS. Do we need arbitration here? Fieari 17:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

In more specific, from WP:RS:

Personal websites as primary sources

A personal website or blog may be used only as a primary source, i.e., when we are writing about the subject or owner of the website. But even then we should proceed with great caution and should avoid relying on information from the website as a sole source. This is particularly true when the subject is controversial, or has no professional or academic standing.

Fieari 17:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Note, we're not even usig it as a source. It's just an external link. So far as I can tell, it does not have any relevant information that we don't have in the article already. Since providing additional info is the only purpose of such links, it is not useful. -Will Beback 18:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Note, you WILL use it as a source. It DOES provide additional information; specifically, home addresses and other relevant information. Don't be stupid. Sites such as Wikipedia tend to be vulnerable to DDOS and other unfortunate such incidents, when its administration makes stupid censorship moves. Make the smart choice and cease from censoring the truth. As has been stated before, the revisions will be made from various IP blocks and sources, so essentially your options are limited. The solution that will provide the least frustration for all parties is to simply allow the information to remain. It provides detailed information about a contributor, and links that work, unlike the external links on this entry.

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia doesn't work that way. It functions on consensus, and consensus on this point is against you. Sorry. Issuing ultimatums and blustering on the talk page won't help your cause. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 20:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You're so apologetic, Kate, why? If you, as a Perverted Justice staffer, feel so right, why are you sorry? It's no ultimatum nor is it blustering; it's simply statement of fact...sites such as Wikipedia tend to have bad things happen such as DDOS and the like when they don't play nice. Again, just a statement of fact. You can continue to censor, but just like Tom Arnold, it will keep coming back and coming back until you realize you can't stop it. "Sorry".

There Is No Cabal. You're just wrong. Fieari 21:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Old quotes

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)

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)

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)

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)

I support this; if I had more time I'd probably do it.  :-) Cpk1971 07:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm setting up a temporary subpage at Perverted-Justice.com/MediaRevision for work on the changes. Might be a good idea also to use this opportunity to convert to inline citation style too... Fieari 23:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

New Website

I propose a website be added after Sunday. After Sunday, because that's when the site is due to come online. It is http://www.perverted-truth.com

Just for the record, I am not the blogger referenced above, nor am I affiliated with the site...I just think it would make a good addition. No threats or meanness here..just a suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottMiller (talk • contribs)

What does this website add that corrupted-justice.com does not? I'm looking for new information and/or notability here. Fieari 23:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Fascinating -- you mean you truly aren't affiliated with the site? The website says "In the meantime, however, check out a lot of VERY interesting information here!" (complete with link to the blogger above). Not to mention almost the exact same verbiage about "To the left you see Eide's sidekick, "PJ Harvey", an admitted lesbian." Horrors! A lesbian! Hmm, and perverted-truth.com whois resolves to webhosting by "domaincobby.com," a domain reseller that advertises "domain names for immediate transfer." Funny, I guess I shouldn't be surprised by this, but michaelcrook.org ALSO resolves to webhosting by domaincobby.com. Strange. No involvement, though. Sorry, that's a no from me. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 00:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to add the additional comment that wikipedia is not the place to advertise your personal website, no matter how related the content may be to the article. Links added are for the improvement of the article, not the publicity of the website. If it doesn't help the article, there's no reason to add it. Fieari 00:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I find it interesting, Fieari, that minutes after taking away anything that opposes Perverted Justice, you post on Corrupted-Justice.net. I'm not advertising for anything. Might I add it was Kate who added the direct link to the blog. Of course I have to add the site if I'm going to request it. But no matter, that's your right, as conflicted as that is. As far as Kate's findings, I'm certain that since it's the blogger's site (NOT me, despite that Kate thinks) it would use the same hosting company. I'm not certain how odd that is...but in any event this will be another VIEWPOINT. I fail to see what the fear is of adding another viewpoint here. I mean, it'll be no less valid than any of the opinion links you already have. I don't care one way or another if it gets added, I just can see that there may be some validity to the articles on the wires about Wikipedia's lack of being partial. ScottMiller 00:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Why would you find it interesting? I have my biases, and you have yours, as does everyone else. People aren't born without biases. But we work to NPOV here, with verifiable facts. Republicans edit George W. Bush, as do democrats... every time a republican adds an edit that favors Bush, democrates rail on it until things are reduced only to what cannot be denied. Every time a democrat adds an edit that bashes Bush, republicans rail on it until things are reduced only to what cannot be denied. That's how we work to consensus here. NPOV isn't created by having only unbiased authors, because unbiased authors don't exist. If you have a problem with the article, name it... we'll hash things out. But if you have nothing to back up your complaints, if you have only insults, if you have nothing to add that's constructive... go elsewhere. Wikipedia isn't for you. See WP:NOT for a list of things Wikipedia is not. For instance, wikipedia is not a forum, and it's not a blog, and it's not your personal soapbox. Fieari 00:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

This is just Michael Crook with another URL, part of his online "Gimmick." Check the "perverted-truth" forums... four lonely posts by Michael Crook talking to himself. I guess forsaking the troops, denying the holocaust, denying the moon landing, claiming to be a nazi on Stormfront.org and uh, claiming to be a pedophile on the radio didn't get him enough attention... so now he's attacking us in a desperate need to be someone? It's kind of a compliment, since Crook usually only goes after "big" targets. I guess we've "made it."

Just an internet troll, and not one that will ever merit attention from us other than this quick missive here on Wikipedia. Check Crook's own Wikipedia bio for more information on him, his M.O. and why he's trying to attack us. As far as internet gimmicks go, Crook isn't unique or interesting, he just has more free time than most... perhaps due to his... ahem, less than "grande" looks? XavierVE 10:47, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Assumption of gender

The opening sentence claims that the organisation targets adults, while the rest of the article specifies men. Either the opening sentence needs to be clarified or, if there has been a case where the group has targeted a woman, the rest of the article needs to be generalised to avoid gender bias. GeeJo _{(t) (c)} • 17:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Their FAQ covers that... [22]

Why are there no female wannabes on this site?

A. It's not for lack of trying. As of this FAQ update (January 2005) we currently have found a grand total of one female in a regional room trying to hook up with an underage kid. That could change as of tomorrow, because we're trying! However, it appears our efforts are simply proving once again that pedophilia, grooming and molestation are uniquely and overwhelmingly male attempted. Not only have studies shown that very few females have the inclination, but our own efforts have, thus far, proved it. We do hope to get more females, if for no other reason than to shut up some of the less... oh, educated males who IM and email me, a fellow male, to call me an "unfair feminist."

Should a single female be sufficient to change all the gender related words? Furthermore, to be technical, "men" in the english language does still refer to humans in general... Fieari 18:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

In December, I did change all of the references in the opening paragraph from "men" to "adults" when I was making other changes, but I didn't go through and do the whole rest of the article. I think it'd be fine to do so, as long as it is noted somewhere that the vast majority (i.e., all but one) are indeed male. Powers 18:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Protection

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)

Laguna Beach

Per: http://www.orangecountyda.com/home/index.asp?page=8&recordid=312&returnurl=index%2Easp%3Fpage%3D8

Might be nice to see that added in here. XavierVE 01:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

FYI, the sting was covered in the L.A.-area TV news by at least two stations, KABC and KCBS. They reported 11 arrests in 13 hours. One mentioned PJ by name. -Will Beback 20:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It was thirteen men in eleven hours. Check out the DA's press release. It's been covered by just about every L.A. station as well as most of the San Diego stations at this point. XavierVE 08:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a nice accomplishment, and probably should be added to the article, but I fear the section with the Dateline busts ("Methods") is getting unwieldy. PeeJ's methods have changed a lot in the last year; I think that whole section needs a rewrite. Also, most of the criticism seems to be based on PeeJ's Followups (specifically, that they use unorthodox tactics to "harrass" the wannabes, rather than going to law enforcement). Given that law enforcement is involved much more frequently now, the "Criticism" section ought to be cleaned up accordingly.

And let me just say that that stupid Perverted Truth site that keeps getting listed here is horribly written, vindictive garbage. Even if it provided new information of interest (which it doesn't), it's so poorly done that it wouldn't deserve a link anyway. Powers 20:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

In spare moments, I've been tinkering with Perverted-Justice.com/MediaRevision... feel free to help out. I've been sketching outlines, but haven't really had time to hunker down and really write good prose and reword and fix things. Fieari 20:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

rv

Why do we have Xavier's tracking of a predator listed as a conviction by PJ? Did PJ do anything? If I save a woman from a burning car should my organization be credited with doing the work behind that?

As far as I can see from the sources, PJ isn't responsible for tracking the girl down, Xavier and the cops are. It shouldn't be here.

And we would include a link to Corrupted-Justice.net if this were an article about Corrupted-Justice.com. As it stands it's not, so we include links to critique of the article's actual subject. Supguyz 20:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Good questions. Thanks for bringing them up here rather than just removing them from the article.

First, the Oregon girl case. KATU credits Perverted-Justice.com, not Xavier, for contributing to the rescue: [23]. It appears the mother contacted PeeJ as an organization, not Xavier as an individual. Here, PeeJ Opinions says it was Xavier, Del Harvey, and Frag who worked together on the case: [24]. The case is also used as a rebuttal against certain critics who claim no real children have ever been helped by PeeJ's efforts. Those factors make this case significant and worth mention in the PeeJ article.

Second, the Corrupted-Justice.net link. Throughout the Criticism section of the article, rebuttals are provided for the presented criticisms. That's only fair. The C-J.net link serves the same purpose, especially important since C-J.com's criticisms tend to be weak and involve greatly exaggerated claims and a blatant misunderstanding of PeeJ's operations.

Powers 21:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

You're a fucking idiot, supguyz. The mother contacted the organization for help. Myself, Del, Frag and a volunteer that goes by the nom "DMO" combined to help out in that case. Harv interfaced with the law enforcement in the area to force them to take the computer for forensics, DMO used some of our technology to monitor the girl's accounts, Frag and I tracked down the owner of the poetry website in order to get the IP of the computer that logged into her poetry account. Both Del and myself were in constant contact with the mother during this time period. To say "PJ wasn't responsible" is pure idiocy, we were contacted because the mother found our bookmark on the family computer, a bookmark that was there due to our Group Media Sting with local Portland station KPTV. You moron trolls are so pathetic in your desperation to try to smear us, get a life. XavierVE 06:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Moronic or not, Xavier, don't forget WP's official Civility policies. Powers 16:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

But what if I do my best to forget them, daily? And yes, point taken. Next time I'll use prettier terms. XavierVE 17:57, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

"pseudonym"

As a note, Xavier Von Erck is not a nom de plume nor a pseudonym. It is my legal name in the state of Oregon. Either the "Eide" references can be changed by a Wikipedian today or I can do it tomorrow, though I'm loathe to edit the article in keeping with the commonly held principle of no-subject editing (though Jimmy Wales isn't too good at following that one :)). If the editing of "Phillip Eide" to Xavier Von Erck raises controversy, I'm fine with publishing evidence backing up my claim regarding my name. As an additional and not entirely unrelated note, the organization is comprised of many individuals. The way the article is written now, you really wouldn't know it as it focuses on myself heavily, to an extreme, really. I have no real suggestions on how one would correct this, but it's just something that a friend observed after viewing the article on PeeJ. XavierVE 18:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It focuses on you mostly because you're the spokesperson, and much of our information comes from you. As for the name thing, please publish the information... we really can't add it without an external source to verify it, even if it's true, and you are making the change yourself. But once published elsewhere, we can fix this. We'll have to note that one publication reports your name as Eide, but if your name actually is legally Xavier, I have no problems with using it throughout the article. Fieari 20:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The other thing is that you (von Erck/Eide) are the public, named face of the organization. Certainly I know "Frag" goes on the air a lot to talk about PJ but "Frag" is just a screen name (and one with a negative connotation of "killing" at that), with no real name or even a well established pen name (first and last) attached. Calwatch 09:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I must disagree, Del Harvey is just as commonly named and of equal importance to the organization. People coming to this article after Dateline, for example, would likely be confused as the article is written as though the organization is little more than one person, whereas four different PeeJ volunteers have appeared on the Dateline series of stings, I not among them. I simply think the article would be better served to speak of the organization more than a single person. Regardless, 'tis but a minor qualm at most. XavierVE 13:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll re-watch the dateline thing and see if we can get some useful quotes from other members. But by memory, their quotes tend to be about individual cases, and not the organization as a whole, like your quotes tend to be about. Fieari 17:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a really good point, actually. Put that way, it makes sense. I'll have to do a better job of giving other volunteers more of a stage to talk about the website when it comes to doing media. XavierVE 18:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

And... enjoy, even with photographic evidence. http://www.angrygerman.com/?archive=vbb_689752 - I believe that should suffice XavierVE 18:41, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I was about to add back in the fact that he was reported as "Eide" in one article, then remembered that the article is about PeeJ, not Xavier, and we should use the most current name. I'm adding the angrygerman blog link to the references section though, so no one can revert the name change. [User:Fieari|Fieari]] 18:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd look at the "photographic evidence" with a little scrutiny here -- as has been mentioned above, the photo is pixelated, out of focus, poorly lit, and difficult to read. I don't think anyone can look at that and rule out digital manipulation, especially since Xavier appears to be an intelligent person, both potentially capaple of using Photoshop, and understanding why a higher-quality image would be needed as conclusive proof. I believe legal name changes generally have to be made record by publication in the "public notices" section of the local newspaper, or at least thats the custom around these parts. Any chance someone from the area could investigate this? 129.22.247.117 15:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not really sure what difference it makes. Even if he is lying (for some unknown reason) and took the trouble to manipulate the photograph, what difference does it make to the article? Wikipedia uses pseudonyms all over the place, even in articles about the subject. Mark Twain, Joseph Stalin, Anne Bancroft -- all pseudonyms, used consistently. Regardless of whether the name change is official or not, "Xavier Von Erck" is the name under which everything he does is credited, so that's the name to use in this article. An article about Xavier himself, should one be created at some point, should mention his real (or birth, if the change is official) name once, and refer to him as "Von Erck" subsequently. Powers 15:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The name Phillip John Eide either was or is Xavier von Erck true and accurate name, wether it was changed or not. When legally changing a name, one is required to publically post the former name to ensure that person is legally identifable by both names. While Wikpedia does use names such as Mark Twain, or John Wayne, it does make note that the true birth names are Samuel Clemmons and Marion (in Wayne's case), therefore it is appropriate to list both names. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.162.173.26 (talk • contribs) .

I know from experience that in the last five years one does not need to publically post the former name to have a legal name change. I am speaking from experience. StareGirl 04:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The article is not about Xavier. The article is about Perverted-Justice.com. I see no reason to have to specify that he used to have another name. Eide isn't a psuedonymn. It's the name that was on his birth certificate, but has been legally changed. Again, the article isn't about the man, it's about the organization. Why do you insist on the extraneous information? Fieari 03:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC) (moved up from below)

And again, if the article WAS about Xavier, I'd agree with you. Put it in. But it's not about him. Fieari 03:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The Article is about a group founded by, and run by Eide. Giving the name of the founder and operator is not extraneous, and I would likewise include Jack Welch in an article on GE or Walt Disney in an article on Disney Company.

Fieari: Edit of Talk on Wiki is a violation of rules. Please leave talk as is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.162.173.26 (talk • contribs) .

His name is not Eide. It is legally Xavier. The article is not about him. aka is not accurate. He is not "Also known as"... read the reference at the bottom. He's never been "known as" Eide except in one article, which is not particularly notable except that it prompted him to get the name legally changed, which is only notable in an article about him specifically.

And editing your own talk isn't a violation of rules. Nor is the use of the {{unsigned}} template.

I'm also frustrated with my edits being labeled as vandalism. WP:VANDAL says: the following things are not vandalism and are therefore treated differently: ... Stubbornness. Some users cannot come to agreement with others who are willing to talk to them on an article's talk page, and repeatedly make changes opposed by everyone else. This is a matter of regret — you may wish to see our dispute resolution pages to get help. However, it is not vandalism.

If you feel it nessesary, we can go through dispute resolution. But please be nice. I'm not going to violate 3RR, and I think you may have. Fieari 03:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said, in an article called Xavier Von Erck, yes, absolutely, his birth name goes there. But articles about John Wayne's movies do not specify that his birth name was Marion Morrison. Articles about Mark Twain's books do not specify that his birth name was Samuel Langhorne Clemens (or if they do, it's because he didn't stop using that name). There is absolutely no reason to include Xavier's birth name in this article, even if he hasn't legally changed it. Powers 13:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Fieari, the name Philip Edie, which you admit is on his birth certificate, is an alias, or "also known as". Wether he legally changed his name to Xavier Von Erck, Charles Xavier or John Jacob Jinglehiemer Shmitz, the man known as Phillp Edie and the man known as Xavier Von Erck are the same person. This has been noted in several articles. As for LtPowers objection, there is no such article as "Xavier Von Erck", as all information regarding the man, his organization and everything else is here. 69.162.173.26 04:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You're missing the point. There is no man "known as" Phillip John Eide. Powers 15:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Powers, you're missing the point. Von Erck was in fact born as Phillip John Eide, and never changed his name, as he indicates on www.angrygerman.com. He's meant to "get around to it", but never has. He simply uses Xavier Von Erck, which is his mother's last name with a fictious first name, self-chosen, and has used this name for most purposes. However, he has obtained an Oregon driver's ID and presumably a Social Security card using this alias. Therefore, in correctly identifying Eide, both names are relevant, either by using both his correct, legal name and his chosen alias, rather than one or the other.66.252.250.171 23:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

But no one calls him that. In the article The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, we don't say "... starring James Stewart, John Wayne (also known as Marion Morrison), and Lee Marvin, and directed by John Ford (also known as John Feeney)." In the article The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, we don't say "Mark Twain's (also known as Samuel Langhorne Clemens) lively tale..." The reason is because birth names are 100% not relevant to a person's work. Powers 00:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It would seem, Powers, that people do call him that. No, we typically don't list psuedonyms for actors on film projects, which typically link back to the actor's page itself, which would indicate the psuedonym. In this case, Eide doesn't have a seperate wiki, and if it doesn't need to be said that he goes under an assumed name, than it doesn't need to be mentioned that he is involved at all, nor carry his picture, nor many quotes by him. He is founder, chief of, spokesperson for and sole public representitive of, Perverted Justice. The focus of the organization is to reveal the identities of peusdonyms for those it beleives have commited wrongdoing. It then becomes centrally relevant that the founder himself, uses a psuedonym.64.223.120.132 18:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sole public representative? Hello crack smoker. Go watch a To Catch a Predator episode which feature Del and Frag (not me) or any of Del or Frag's cable television news interviews. As I've noted prior on this discussion page, the entire PeeJ article has far too much focus on myself, making it appear that I'm the only volunteer when we are an organization of thousands. As for the AKA, it stands for "also known as." nobody knows me as "Edie" or any other variation you can come up with. Rock on with your anonymous IP's, kiddies. XavierVE 19:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, you are still the founder and probably the most well-known figure from the earlier days when there was more controversy and less publicity. =) Perceptions are changing (Del's appearance on The View was a great move) but they take time. Powers 00:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles stand on their own. The presence or absence of an article on Xavier himself is irrelevant to whether or not his birth name is relevant to this article. You still haven't mentioned why it's important to have his birth name listed. Powers 00:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Xavier is here to chime in, so we have a chance to ask him, is your name legally Phillip John Eide? It might clear up a few things. In the meantime, please Powers, cease vandalizing the Wiki by removing accurate, on topic information, which is not an opinion, not a POV, but a true fact. I've explained over and over why it's important, Powers, you just aren't listening. By the way, Phillip, I know what your name is, and it isn't Xavier. Thanks for the rational response.71.254.4.208 22:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The only "reason" you've given so far, that I can see, is "It then becomes centrally relevant that the founder himself, uses a psuedonym." However, you haven't made a strong case for that. Primarily, there's a BIG difference between a screen name (the only "pseudonyms" that PeeJ could possibly be considered to be "focused" on revealing) and an actual pseudonym. Second of all, we have no evidence that Xavier von Erck isn't his legal name, and we do have evidence that it is. Until you can come up with a better reason that his birth name is relevant, I'll continue to remove that pointless addition. Powers 02:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The evidence, Powers, that Philip John Eide is Xavier's real name is that he says so on www.angrygerman.com, his own web page. He says he does not refer to himself by that name, however it remains, his real legal name, his fake driver's license, notwithstanding. Powers, please cease vandalizing the wiki, the next attempt will result in an Admin report.71.254.4.208 03:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The web page in question does not mention "Philip John Eide" anywhere. In addition, it says "That sort of stupidity has led me to say fuck the paperwork and just finally finish the process of changing my name." It clearly states that he has legally changed his name. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Powers 12:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

And, by the way, even if he didn't change his name legally, to say he is "also known as" Philip Eide is misleading in the extreme. Powers 13:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

To the anonymous troll: Faking an Oregon driver's license online would be a violation of Oregon State Law. Please report me to the authorities if you truly believe I faked it (Which, if I was going to fake a driver's license, I probably would have done it two years ago when this non-issue was brought up for the first time, eh?) By all means, call the authorities! Until then, up the shut, tardy. Yes, I am so mature sometimes when dealing with mealy mouth'd goofs. XavierVE 08:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The New York Daily News has run an article on the organization and its founder. I added the information and citation to the article. Abe Froman 19:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no. The Daily News ran a column that reported on Radar Online's article. You should cite the original source rather than the Daily News. There's also the question of why this is relevant. The Daily News and Radar Online both made a big deal about it but failed to mention why. Powers ^T 13:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The Radar online article is already in "Additional Reading". The New York Daily News is the 7th largest paper in the United States, with 790,000 subscribers. It decided the previous legal identity of founding member of the internet organization "perverted-justice.com" was notable, and published the information. I can understand objections if Xavier was not "Philip Eide," but the information we have from notable sources maintains Xavier was a legal identity chosen later in life. With the sources we have, the information is correct and offers Wikipedians a complete accounting. Abe Froman 15:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

(resetting indentation) Just because some other source finds a datum notable does not mean it's notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. What does Xavier's birth name have to do with Perverted-Justice.com? Nothing. It's notable in the context of an article on Xavier, and that's the only situation in which I can image it's notable. Powers ^T 15:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The original name of the organization's founder was relevent to the New York Daily News [25], circulation 795,000. I have reinserted it into the article because the passage on the organization's founder was incomplete. Abe Froman 00:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Should we also include what he likes to eat for breakfast? His favorite TV show? I just don't see how his birth name is relevant to PeeJ! It looks awkward, odd, and out of place... ESSPECIALLY in the lead section. I could almost see putting it into the article itself where more detail is expected, but the lead is about PeeJ, not Xavier. Fieari 00:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The New York Daily News did not report on the founder's breakfast preferences. It reported the founder's former legal name. In my opinion, the single sentence under discussion is in the correct place, where the founder is discussed. Abe Froman 00:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The founder isn't discussed there, the founder is mentioned. There's a difference. Check out Microsoft... the founder is mentioned in the lead, but discussed in the "history" part of the article. There's barely more than his NAME in the lead, nothing more.

Now there's another facet of the Microsoft article I'd like to point out. It mentions everything about Bill Gate's founding of the company. But it doesn't mention facts about his personal life. It doesn't mention his birthdate or birthplace/ It doesn't mention his parents. It doesn't mention where he went to elementary school. It ONLY mentions his involvement in the company.

How is Xavier's birth name involved with the organization of Perverted-Justice?

I'd like to point out another interesting fact. All those things I mentioned that aren't in the Microsoft article? They are in the article on Bill Gates himself. His birthdate, his birthplace, his parents, his elementary school. All those things. Not in the Microsoft article, in the Bill Gates article instead.

Allow me to go back to talking about the WP:LEAD section of an article again. A perfect lead section is independant from the article. It's a summary of the article. EVERYTHING in the lead is supposed to be discussed in more detail within the article itself. Additionally, nothing in the article itself should assume that things in the lead have already been covered, and thus no longer need to be mentioned. If there's a fact in the lead, it HAS to be in the article.

The reverse is not true. Not everything in the article needs be mentioned in the lead. You've got it backwards here, suggesting something be in the lead but not in the main article.

Tell me, why is it so important to have a birth name in the LEAD SECTION of the article?

It sounds like POV pushing to me...

The importance just isn't there.

To re-iterate. Perverted-Justice.com the article should not have anything that is not related to the organization in it. Xavier is mentioned because he's the founder. Xavier's personal background is not mentioned (or should not be) because the article isn't about him. It's about the organization. If we have an article on Xavier, put the info there. Not elsewhere. Fieari 01:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The founder of the organization is mentioned within the article. The founder has had two legal names. Wikipedia routinely notes the original and changed name of people, living and dead, described within the service. Wikipedia also has articles [26] [27] devoted to original and changed names of notable people. Wikipedia already notes original and changed names, so I do not understand why special treatment is sought in this article. Abe Froman 14:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm having trouble believing you're serious. As has been pointed out multiple times, this is not an article about Xavier. You try to cite precedent, but find me one example of an article about an organization that mentions its founder's name change. If we had an article about Xavier, you'd be 100% correct, but his name change just is not relevant to the organization. In any way. That the Daily News found it relevant is not a valid justification for inclusion in our article, since the Radar article was about Xavier. Our article is not. Please try to understand that distinction. Powers ^T 21:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

"...but find me one example of an article about an organization that mentions its founder's name change." Sure. Here are four examples [28] [29] [30] [31] of Wikipedia articles that include organizational founder's original, and subsequent name or names. Briefly mentioning previous identities of organizational founders' is widely practiced on Wikipedia. I do not understand why this article needs special treatment by leaving this information out. Abe Froman 21:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I should have been more specific. I'm impressed you found that much, though. Your first two examples don't really fit as analogies, however; they list the prior names of the individuals in question because they have other public activities performed under those names, and it needs to be made clear that the two names are actually the same person. That doesn't apply to Xavier because all of his public activity has been under the name "Xavier von Erck"; there's no work attributed to Phillip Eide that needs to be connected to his work with Perverted Justice. Your second two examples are stronger, but they involve aliases -- names that people assume as alternatives to their real names. But Xavier changed his name; he doesn't use two. "Xavier von Erck" is his name; it's not an alias. Powers ^T 13:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

All of the examples are apt, given that they mention founders of organizations, along with their former names. It is doubtful Powers will find any example under his criteria acceptable because the result does not meet a predetermined goal. As shown above, Wikipedia routinely notes the name or names of organizational founders in the articles about the organization. [32] [33] [34] [35]. The 7th largest newspaper in the United States, the New York Daily News, has printed [36] both names of this particular founder. In the Wikipedia article, the old name is mentioned only once, in a single sentence. It is anchored by a news organization with a readership of 795,000. Given that this is consistent with what Wikipedia does elsewhere [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42], objection without reason to listing both names is tendentious. Abe Froman 15:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Are you honestly incapable of seeing the difference between your examples (which you've linked three times each now; linking the same examples repeatedly doesn't make them work any better) and this article, or are you just being stubborn? Powers ^T 18:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

What difference? Each example [43] [44] [45] [46] describes a founder of an organization, and also lists their changed name. This has shown the practice of listing multiple identities of founders is widespread on Wikipedia. I am hardly the one being "stubborn" when the examples prove otherwise. I did this research to show skeptical editors clearly from the organization in question that this article is treated no differently than any other on Wikipedia, and I feel this has been successful. Abe Froman 19:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Fairly major changes proposed

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)

Looks good to me, although I'm also biased. =) I fixed a few typos for you. Powers 02:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I've implemented it now. Any objections can be hashed out later, I suppose. Fieari 19:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Overall, very good work. I made a minor tweak. Cpk1971 01:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Lead section

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)

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)

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)

History/Timeline

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)

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)

Porn

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)

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)

Well, they can always refuse to accept it/open it. --DanielCD 15:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

pro-pedophile groups

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

(RI)There needs to be sources to back up the categorization, otherwise it is original research. There should be ample sources for an organization that is worth categorizing in this manner. Otherwise we wouldn't we discussing them, right? FloNight ^talk 12:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The categorization in question been removed, so it's kind of moot right now. Powers 13:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

deleted material replaced by myself

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)

Closest I can find is this, from the FAQ: [47]. Powers 19:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Crit and Praise in lead

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)

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)

Von Erck's image

At Image talk:VonErck.jpg 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)

Hm. Xavier, would you care to upload one licensed under GFDL? · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 21:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

Perverted-Truth.com

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)

A question I've had about posing as underaged

I'm not sure if this is answered on the site, as it appears to be down. But if the lady these men are soliciting sex from is 19, how are they breaking the laws that prohibit soliciting sex from a minor? --Ssj4android 23:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Most states in the US have laws against soliciting someone who is believed to be a minor. Powers 23:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The clearest answer I've seen for this question is at <http://www.perverted-justice.com/index.php?pg=faq#57>. VentrueCapital

Bust counter

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)

There is a bust counter on the righthand side of the mainpage. --DisneyFreak96 19:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Updated the conviction counter to reflect the front page of P-J.com Coradon 11:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Harassed Bruce Raisley?

What a joke. If you're going to add in that POV (That isn't a neutral statement) then add in what it's based off of. An account I gave willingly of what we had to do to keep tabs on someone who sought to have us attacked viciously and tried to get my co-administrator f'n raped. The account in Radar is a chopped up account of what has been posted for months publicly on CJ.net. It's not new information by any stretch of the imagination: http://www.corrupted-justice.net/?archive=31 - And people wonder why I keep my volunteers anonymous in most cases?

As well, Raisley was doing quite well for himself with counseling and reconciling with his wife We never ended up posting all of the information we had on Raisley, never made one phone call to anyone he knew other than his wife and never informed his boss or anyone else of the account. Some "harassment" in the face of his acts, which were numerous and many. Froman lost all his credibility with that paragraph, what a load of junk that is. As well, there is a wide-ranging rebuttal of the Radar piece that includes the entire history of email interview that was done for it. We knew it would be a slam piece, which is why we kept it limited to email, which is "of record." http://www.angrygerman.com/index.php?pg=radarmagazine XavierVE 18:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The New York Daily News is the 7th largest paper in the United States, with 795,000 subscribers. It decided the harassment of a detractor was notable. [48] The passage is correctly categorized under the "criticism" section. Abe Froman 19:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The assertion of "harassment" is the issue, the way it's written makes it sound like Wikipedia has a point of view. As well, since the counterpoint to "harassment" is "We did not harass" and "Here is the complete posting that the Radar piece was taken from", it should be reflected in the article to reflect balance. As well, the piece was not written by the Daily News and your whole reference of them is a appeal to authority, a quite noxious logical fallacy. I have no objection to the Raisley story being covered, I have objection to the lack of NPOV and the lack of balance. Since there's been a well-established documentation of the incident that predates Radar and is, at the end of the day, what Radar and thereby NY Daily based it off of, the original material should be sourced. XavierVE 22:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Divining harassment, or lack thereof, from primary sources sounds like Original Research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. The claim for harassment is supported by a Reliable Source [49], and is categorized correctly under the "Criticism" section of the article. Abe Froman 21:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The idea that a pop culture gossip magazine (Daily News didn't write the article, if you were intellectually honest you'd admit that since you yourself linked the source Radar article in "further reading") is a "reliable source" is a mighty odd statement to make. Additionally, the pop culture magazine (Aka "Original Source") that you're referencing referenced the article I'm mentioning as being the source of his information. So in essence, all that is being requested is that the original source for the Radar piece (Ergo, the Daily News summation of the Radar piece) is represented in the article for balance, since the Radar piece does not tell the entire story. The idea that "balance" in sources is "original research" is quite the misnomer. XavierVE 23:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll ignore the personal attacks and ask that XavierVE review WP:No Personal Attacks and WP:Assume Good Faith. The New York Daily News article repeats part of the Radar Magazine article, this is not in dispute. The New York Daily News did its own reporting, however. For example, the New York Daily News fact checked the Radar article, implied at the end of their article: "Yesterday an NBC News spokeswoman declined to comment on the Radar story." [50] I am not against listing Radar Magazine and the New York Daily News side-by-side as the sources. I prefer the New York Daily News because it has a larger readership ( 795,000 ) and a commensurately larger operation than Radar Magazine. Abe Froman 23:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Endgame: The Daily News article and the Radar article came out the same day. Within hours of each other. The quote "yesterday" refers to the Radar article, which notes that the Executive Producer declined comment. It is not "implied" that the Daily News fact-checked the radar article, all the News did was run a blurb about it in a multi-topic column. No original reporting, merely took the story and condensed it.

You can prefer whichever publication you wish, however there is only one original source for the story, and that's Radar, not the Daily News. You also neglected to respond to my fairness dispute when it came to sourcing the counter-point to the criticism, a counter-point that existed prior to the criticism and was used as the basis for the criticism, preferring to allege an insult that simply never occurred. Why would an editor not wish to be balanced? My, a quandry. There are regular editors of this article that are unbiased and do not have a history of violating the 3R rule. Looks like this dispute is an issue for them. XavierVE 04:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Debating whether Radar Magazine or the New York Daily News is "more" correct is moot, since both meet Reliable Sources criteria. Most readers recognize the New York Daily News, circulation 795,000, as the more well-known source. This is why the New York Daily News is used to anchor the claim. I hope the reasons for using one paper rather than the other is clearer after this explanation. Abe Froman 05:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Not really, because you're still full of it. The Daily News ran a piece talking about the Radar piece, with no original content. Like I said, a more stable Wikipedian with more of a history editing this piece would be appreciated. I'm sure after the weekend there will be an editor of balance to review our dispute and weigh in. What you are doing is "source masking", since most people would look at Radar magazine with skepticism. As well, you still have not addressed the far more important issue of balance regarding the Raisley claim which shows that you are either pretending to be obtuse or have an agenda. XavierVE 17:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* This is ridiculous. The Daily News column (it's not even an article) says: "Weirder still, Cooks reports, von Erck once tried to destroy a 'Perverted Justice' detractor by posing as a woman online and luring him into cybersex, tricking the married man into a meeting with his nonexistent lover, and then - after snapping him carrying flowers - posting embarrassing photos of him." Notice the operative phrase "Cooks reports". That makes the Daily News column a secondhand source (not a secondary source as we use it in Wikipedia; secondhand). Why use a secondhand source? Oh, because it's "the more well-known source". But all this columnist did is report on what some other publication said; there's no indication of independent verification of facts. To boot, the phrase "tried to destroy" is unsupported by the original source (RadarOnline), and completely fails to discuss the derangement of Raisley (calling him just a "detractor" is a bit understated, don't you think?). Powers ^T 15:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I talked to Rasley, according to him most of the stuff posted there is nothing but a lie. He also claims a bomb was delivered to his home and placed in his mail box. White County Sheriffs department has confirmed this. His wife or child could have been killed by the device, which went off prematurely. If it was sent by a member of perverted-justice then you guys have a murderer among your ranks. Either way your defamation has put his life in danger, I would suggest you just remove that disgusting thing and forget about the poor guy and his family. He is not a pedophile but you are determined to hurt him. Xavier you should be ashamed of yourself! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.206.250.74 (talk • contribs) .

Coming from a Wikipedia troll who tries to subvert a link to our website in the Wikipedia article, yeah, I really care about your opinion. XavierVE 18:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Please don't feed the trolls. =) Powers ^T 15:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

NOTICE Corrupted Justice was tested recently on their forum. Sadly, they have shown that anyone who dares to say anything that doesn't fit exactly with their relatively narrow views is flamed and banned. Relevant threads were saved, in case should they try hiding the evidence of this fact. CJ, YOU HAVE BEEN JUDGED, AND FOUND LACKING.

As for Mr. Raisley, a search located an archive of his podcasts. Such demented statements that were made in a number of them no doubt already have him being monitored by Law Enforcement. I would also like to see hard evidence of these threats Mr. Xavier.

– — … ° ≈ ≠ ± − × ÷ ← → · § GTS69.95.239.197 13:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

What the heck are you talking about? Powers ^T 14:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Point of link to Radar article in "Further Reading" section?

I fail to see the logic behind including a link to the Radar Online article in the "Further Reading" section of this article. The other links are to sites that deal with Perverted Justice or anti Perverted Justice operations. The Radar Online article is just that - an article, one of 1000's written about Perverted Justice. Do we start posting links to every article written on Perverted Justice? It just doesn't fit with the other links already there. I'm not going to make the edit, but I hope an admin here will consider it.

The Radar Magazine link has content within that is repeated in the main article. This is why it is listed under "further reading." Abe Froman 14:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

If you'd like to use it as a reference for something, that's different, but I'm with the anonymous poster above. It's one article out of hundreds. MANY articles have content that's repeated in the main article. Lots. In fact, we use lots of those as references. We don't stick them all under further reading, because it'd get too cluttered. Fieari 00:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The Radar Magazine article deals with the organization's past and present from an investigative perspective. It is appropriate to include it under "further reading" because it is a piece of journalism focused on the group and founder, as opposed to the numerous articles that merely repeat the group's mission. Abe Froman 00:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

There are MANY articles that deal with the group and its founder - most with a positive spin. Why should one with a negative spin be considered "Further Reading?" If we used your criteria, Abe, of "journalism focused on the group and founder," then it would become too cluttered, like Fieari said.

When someone comes on here and posts a link to Radar, then defends it aggressively, without posting a link to say... any of the 30 news articles done about us since, it reflects an agenda. The idea that an article which for the most part, attacks me and not the organization, while not adding in any of the numerous article (LA Times, San Francisco Gate, etc, etc) talking about the recent tour we did through California which netted a total of 68 arrests in two weeks... is quite laughable. As well, the rebuttal piece to the Radar attack job on me was not added in as requested, to provide the balance Wikipedian editors are supposed to uphold. Froman definitely fails the NPOV smell test. XavierVE 01:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

And now there is a link to www.justice-perverted.com. That site has NOTHING to do with Perverted Justice except being a blatant rip-off. FrederickTG 01:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the link to the Radar Article in this section because someone had vandalized the link - it no longer went to the Radar article, the link was this: *Radar Online Article on perverted-justice.com organization - that link goes to a geocities page that has a Perverted Justice member featured on the "mainpage". If that is the seriousness that people are going to take on this matter, then what is the point of it being there? FrederickTG 01:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

An anon fixed the vandalized link. Abe Froman 02:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Official Request For Comment

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)

Wikipedia routinely notes former names of organizational founders who have had name changes in the articles about their organization. [51] [52] [53] [54]. The 7th largest newspaper in the United States, the New York Daily News, has printed [55] 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 [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61]. 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)

The history of this discussion is on this talk page, here [62]. Abe Froman 21:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

I think all viewpoints are invited in a "request for comment." Abe Froman 21:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I am responding to the RfC. I am not anyone important just another Wikipedian with an opinion. I have just read the article, and the current discussion going on. First, the article seems to be about the organization Perverted-Justice, itself, and not the founder of the organization. I'm not sure how large it is, it may be primarily the founder. The fact that he has changed his name may be accurate, but I'm not sure that it is notable or newsworthy. As expressed, it seems innocent enough though. The problem I saw was that the article it cited was an intensly negative article regarding Perverted-Justice, and some of the past actions of the founder. In order to balance the article, and remain NPOV, a section on criticism that people have regarding the organization, and it's primary members may be appropriate, perhaps later towards the end of the article. I would say that the External links per Wikipedia:External Links makes this link not appropriate.

If the article merely mentioned the founders current name, and mentioned that he had changed it, I would not see a problem with that, but I am not sure why it would be applicable to the organization. If the intent is veiled criticism, in some fashion, I would prefer unveiled criticism. In the lead, it would mention the founders name (current or previous, depending on what it was when the organization was founded). Later in the article, a section critical of the actions of the organization, as well as actions that members of the organization had been involved in and criticism (backed by citations) could be found. This could include a mention that the founder of the organization had changed his name (although I'm still uncertain as to the pertinence of that fact). From purely a stylistic approach, I would not put his name change in the lead.) Atom 02:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Also replying to the RfC. My inclination is to keep the material in the article; if there were an article on von Erck (that is there is enough verifiable and notable information to support a bio page seperate from the article), I would think it is reasonable to remove it. However I tend to think a short bio of the founder of an org has a place in the article about the org, especially when the founder is so much involved in running the org. Based soley in the notability of the information, a short bio could reasonably include the former name of the founder. If there are other reasons, such as privacy or the like, I am open to discussing it, but based only on the information presented here, I tend toward keeping it in. --TeaDrinker 21:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Responding to the RfC... As a general rule, prior names of public figures should be included. It makes the most sense to me to simply say "Xavier von Erck (born Phillip John Eide)". I don't see why this fact warrants a separate sentence. If it is relevant for some reason, it should be explained in the article, but probably not in the lead. Lagringa 08:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Article still lacking balance

(reposting most of this since it was taken off track by a troll prior) The claim that I "harassed Bruce Raisley" is still in the article without balance to that POV statement. The idea that Raisley was a "detractor" is once again, not a NPOV statement. If you're going to add in that POV (That isn't a neutral statement) then add in what it's based off of. An account I gave willingly of what we had to do to keep tabs on someone who sought to have us attacked viciously and tried to get my co-administrator f'n raped. The account in Radar is a chopped up account of what has been posted for months publicly on CJ.net. It's not new information by any stretch of the imagination: http://www.corrupted-justice.net/?archive=31 - And people wonder why I keep my volunteers anonymous in most cases? Froman is still "source-masking" by using the NY Daily News when he knows that the NY Daily News simply condensed the information in the Radar article in, again, not a news article, but an "entertainment column" written by an editorialist.

The statement that I harassed Raisley accuses me of a crime without proper response to that sensationalist tripe. If this isn't looked at by a position-neutral Wikipedian we're going to have to go back to the tit-for-tat revert wars that plagued this article in 2005. That would be a shame, really. As well our response piece to the radar slam piece should also be included if the Radar write-up is included: http://www.angrygerman.com/index.php?pg=radarmagazine

There have also been a torrent of positive news articles regarding our organization but none of which have been added by anyone. Again, one negative article and you see the same ol' usual suspects running out to add it. Where's the balance with positive articles? It's simply not there. This piece has once again descended into a muddled piece of muck. XavierVE 02:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the quote entirely. I read the cited reference (which is arguable as a reliable source anyway) and there is no claim of harassment, or "destroy" anywhere in the reference. I'm not making a claim as to what did, or did not happen, but we can't say such a thing without a solid (and preferably more than one solid) citation. IF someone wants some version of it to remain, that will need to be done first. Atom 19:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yet the accusation of criminal activity still remains. XavierVE 01:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

XavierVE, please review Wikipedia's guidelines and policies regarding spam and vanity editing. --Squaresville 04:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I would, if I ever spammed or "vanity edited" anything. I don't edit the PeeJ article because I generally follow the rules around this place (though I did edit the article prior to reading up on Wiki-culture). Thanks for the rather out-of-place request though. This is a discussion page. I'm voicing a concern. XavierVE 17:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I see XavierVE's point, though. If you do a Google News search for "Perverted Justice," many articles come up, a majority of them in support of the organization. Why, then, is the Criticisms section the longest section in the piece? This piece should be more in balance to the reality of the organization - having a majority of the piece be criticisms just is not neutral.

Also, in regards to the Raisley/Radar Online/New York Daily News controversy - the Radar piece appears to be the ultimate source for the accusation, the Daily News column seems to be a column reporting on the "gossip" contained in various places on the Internet. Since the Radar article is the origin of the accusation, shouldn't that be what is referenced in the article? FrederickTG 20:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. I also again raise the protest that the statement that I harassed a site detractor is a warped statement and not position-neutral. I would like to see the original source of the information Radar used be included, as well as our counter-point piece to the Radar piece itself. The article currently alleges that I have committed a felony, which I have not nor ever have in my life. To leave that in without the public response and original sourcing of the matter is ridiculous. And the idea that the Daily News printed the information is again, absurd. It's a gossip column that featured no new information other than a bare summation of the Radar piece as just about every Wikipedian other than Froman has agreed upon that has come to the article. XavierVE 22:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The New York Daily News printed the Raisley information, and they meet WP:RS. Whether it's repeated or not is moot, since the NYDN put the information in front of 795,000 readers. I agree that the criticism section could be better structured, particularly the Scott Morrow sections (this is not an invitation to delete). But making positive and negative content proportional to positive and negative news coverage of the organization described is not a policy or guideline at all. Abe Froman 21:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right - it probably isn't a guideline. However, it IS common sense. It IS trying to better represent what the organization is. And it IS in the best interest of being neutral.

I know you are familiar with the NYDN, Abe Froman (with its 795,000 readership), but are you familiar with the column that the information was printed in? It's a collection of gossip, a "look who said what about who" sort of deal - not exactly quality journalism. It's meant more for entertainment than informative news. I do not see the integrity of sourcing a gossip column for such an accusation. FrederickTG 04:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I would completely understand if the information in the New York Daily News article was unconfirmed gossip, but the basic information repeated from the citation is not in dispute. The context of how it happened is argued. The information's location within the New York Daily News doesn't matter from an RS perspective, because the entire paper meets that test. The information's truthfulness matters. If there is a rebuttal somewhere, why isn't this added as a reference in line? Abe Froman 14:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Where does it say that if something is contained in the NYDN, it automatically fits the RS criteria? So if someone were to take out a full page ad in the paper, the information in that ad would be considered a RS since it's contained in the paper itself? That arguement makes no sense.

This is from the WP:RS page:

This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page. FrederickTG 14:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, common sense says a newspaper with 795,000 readers is a reliable source. This discussion on RS can easily be turned around, and the RS guideline against using blogs or self-published content applied against the recently added 'angrygerman' rebuttal. This rebuttal appears in a self-published blog. But common sense tells me this is not the correct interpretation of the policy. RS depends on sincere editors. Now that the 'angrygerman' rebuttal has been added, I think this discussion has gone as far as it can. The Daily News citation has stayed, and the rebuttal has been added. Balance problem solved. Abe Froman 15:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The column referenced (currently Reference #3) merely says that someone else reported on the name change. It says, and I quote (again), "Radar's John Cook reports that this driving force in question ... is a 27-year-old Oregon community college dropout and Internet vigilante who legally changed his name from Phillip John Eide to the exotic Xavier von Erck." Do you notice how virtually every statement in the Daily News column is very carefully attributed to someone else? It's obvious Grove did no fact-checking of his own, merely parroting information from another source. How anyone could consider that to be reliable boggles the mind. The information should be attributed to the original source. But then, we've been over this, haven't we, Abe? Consensus is clearly against your version. Powers ^T 15:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The balance problem was solved by the addition of the self-published 'angrygerman' rebuttal. Although self-publishing is not within the letter of RS, it is common sense to let the covered person respond. According to the New York Daily News article, "yesterday an NBC News spokeswoman declined to comment on the Radar story." This indicates some fact checking was attempted. Speculating on the intensity or paucity of this fact checking is OR and outside this discussion. Abe Froman 15:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Stated and answered. You used this argument before and it was already rebutted. The gossip column in the Daily News appeared just five hours after the Radar piece went online. So it was impossible for Grove to call Dateline to ask about anything. He's referencing Radar's note that Dateline had no comment to Radar. You're being intellectually dishonest. XavierVE 18:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I would ask that XavierVE review WP:NPA and WP:AGF. As this article concerns an existing organization and a living person, care has been taken in presenting the information fairly. This voluminous Talk page attests to this continuing effort. As for the New York Daily News article; I maintain that divining the effort the New York Daily News put into the article, speculating beyond what they wrote, is OR and unsuitable for editor consideration. Abe Froman 18:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "divining" the publication date of the GOSSIP COLUMN as being the same day as the Radar piece to explain that the NYDN is simply quoting Radar that Dateline had no comment is REALLY difficult to do. lolz. WP:OR isn't called the "Don't think" clause. You are the one divining that the NYDN did do original research, since you're assuming that they called Dateline whereas the gossip column itself mentions nothing of the gossip columnist calling Dateline. You're source-masking, why don't you explain why you are so adamant that the original source of the information (Radar) is not proper attribution rather than what is a literal gossip column? XavierVE 01:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The prohibition on Original Research applies to the content of articles, not to the decision regarding what content to include. Regardless, my argument has nothing to do with "the balance problem" and entirely to do with the absurdity in using a secondhand source over a firsthand source. Powers ^T 15:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Abe, why did you change the word back to harass in the Criticisms section regarding Raisley? NOWHERE in the NYDN and the Radar piece does it say that Xavier harassed anyone. If it's your POV that he harassed someone, it does not belong in this piece. The articles say that he tried to destroy Raisley, and that's what this piece should reflect. FrederickTG 16:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I felt 'destroy' in quotes was a repetitive and possibly sarcastic presentation of the content described, so I changed it to harass. Abe Froman 16:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I was not trying to be repetitive nor sarcastic, I was trying to contextulize a very serious accusation that someone has made against Von Erck - accusing someone of trying to "destroy" someone else is quite a serious accusation. If you felt I was being sarcastic I apologize. I hope that you would be assuming good faith, Abe, as I am doing with you. FrederickTG 19:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like input from other editors on the use of the word "harass" in the criticisms section regarding the accusation made by the Radar piece against Von Erck. [[User:Abe.Froman|Abe Froman] seems to think that the article implies harassment. I disagree. Nowhere does it say the word "harass" in the Radar piece. Abe seems unwilling to leave the wording as it is in the article, instead drawing his own conclusions that it was harassment. I know that it is just a small part of this article but I just can't see how someone can imply harassment when the article states no such thing. It does not imply harassment to me at all, so therefore I can only conclude that Abe is adding in his own POV of the article's wording. FrederickTG 21:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I came to this page via the RfC. It is not inaccurate to use the word "harass" to describe the conduct in that article. The author uses the word "destroy", which is certainly stronger than "harass". The only question I see here is the reliability of the source. Lagringa 22:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It isn't our job to characterize the behavior. We can quote a source. I must have missed it. I did a search for the words, and read the article. Can someone look at it and put an exact quote here (or the main article)? I don't think the source given is anything more than a blog. If it was in the NY times, we should quote that. Whatever we do, we should get it right. Atom 22:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The quote from the NY Daily News is: Weirder still, Cooks reports, von Erck once tried to destroy a 'Perverted Justice' detractor by posing as a woman online and luring him into cybersex, tricking the married man into a meeting with his nonexistent lover, and then - after snapping him carrying flowers - posting embarrassing photos of him.

There is nothing wrong with quoting the exact words of the source, but there is also nothing wrong with using a different word if it accurately characterizes what's said in the source. If we didn't do that, Wikipedia would just be a collection of quotes! Lagringa 02:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The original quotation from Radar is "He once set out to destroy an enemy by posing as a woman, seducing him online with graphic sex chats, posting the transcripts on the web, and threatening to release a purported video of his target masturbating—not the kind of behavior you'd expect from NBC News's golden boy." That's the source of the "destroy" wording. Since it's far from clear to me that that "destruction" was the intent, if we use that wording it has to be carefully sourced. "Harrass" has a legal connotation that we probably ought to avoid. Powers ^T 15:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly my point - the behaviour outlined in the Radar piece comes nowhere near harassment. To harass someone is to repeatedly make unwanted and unsolicited contact - Von Erck did neither by any stretch of the imagination if what the Radar piece says he did is true. It is accusing Von Erck of an illegal activity, but nowhere is it implied that he broke any laws - just attempted to "destroy" someone. While "destroy" may be a more powerful accusation, it is what the Radar piece claims. Whether or not that is true or libel, it is what the piece claims, and that should be what this article reflects. FrederickTG 01:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Blog as a source

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)

I agree the point is arguable. It is comparable to inclusion of an image, and us debating whether it is offensive or not, and whether it adds to the quality of the article or not.

You gave part of wp:ver, but not the whole context. Your quote starts with: Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

"Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so."

I suggest to you that this person is not "a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field", nor "a well-known professional journalist has produced self-published material"

Also, certainly his comments have been reported, and published by a reliable third-party. It is that third party that we should quote, and not a Blog that by wikipedia standards "In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight." Other disadvantages of the Blog is that it can be changed and altered after the fact.

We could argue back and forth all day. But -- the point is that our editorial opinion ought to be that for such a statement to be made we should find and reference a more reliable source. Using the Blog should be only as a last resort, if there was no other reference to the facts given, and these facts were key to the quality of the article. In this case, leaving the comments out entirely would (in my opinion) have little impact on the quality of the article. Hence, my editorial opinion that it should be removed until a credible source is referenced. Atom 22:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

You miss my point. 1) Maybe it is (barely)within policy to use his blog as a source. That doesn't mean that editorially, it is our best option. 2) He can change his blog, or delete it entirely if he wants, making it a bad source.

If you think what he says is relevant, and important to the quality of the article, then let's find another source, such as a magazine or newspaper he talked to and said something similar. If it isn't that important to the quality of the article, let's not put it there at all, rather than using a very weak reference.

Also, as I said, Feari quoted only part of the wp:ver section, the part that most supported his view.

I posted the first half of the paragraph he quoted, again, here it is:

"Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so."

That part was omitted in his argument. This reinforces my assertion that reliable third-party publications would be a better reference than a blog, if available.

Atom 01:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

That's easy to explain. First Wikipedia:Verifiability "It is this fact-checking process that Wikipedia is not in a position to provide, which is why the no original research and verifiability policies are so important."

And the policy of Wikipedia:No original research. It is not an editors job to "interview" you and report on it in Wikipedia. It is expressly against policy, in fact. A Blog of your comments, and us reporting the contents of the Blog is no different. Especially since the Blog can be altered or deleted.

How is it supposed to be done? We are supposed to provide sources for our cites. The cites should be from reliable and verifiable third-party sources. (not our own research or interviews) (See Citing Sources)

These sources, say a newspaper or magazine, have interviewed using a reporting following their own set of journalistic ethics and standards. The interview meets standards as required by their publisher, and is edited, and the sources for facts stated are checked and verified before they print. Their reputation is on the line with every article. After the fact, we can refer to that source and verify what was said. On a blog, none of those things happen. The contents of the Blog can dissapear or change dynamically. Blogs are unnaceptable except under the rarest of circumstances. And even in those cases, when we editors make an editorial decision, finding an alternate source other than a blog should be, and by policy, is preferred if available. If no alternate source is available, then a decision as to whether the very poor source, or the information given and its applicability to the article needs to be made. In most cases, a decision to not include the information from an unreliable source should prevail except under very exceptional circumstances. Atom 16:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Blogs are almost never a good source. Even leaving aside their reliability, if somethig is to be found only in a blog, it's probably not encyclopedic information. - brenneman ^{L} 00:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

The idea that I'm wikipedia article material is ridiculous. XavierVE 01:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Quote of FAQ taken out of context

Quote of FAQ taken out of context and outdated, requesting minor rewrite Current wikipedia article quote: ."Is it true that contributors send out pics of child porn when they are doing a bust? That's where they get their pictures!" from the Perverted-Justice.com FAQ, retrieved March 6 2006

Prefer this quote from current Perverted-Justice FAQ: [63]

"Is it true that contributors send out pics of child porn when they are doing a bust? That's where they get their pictures! A. No. Really, I don't need to say anything more, since the allegation is that insane. Child pornography, even to possess, is a severe felony. Whenever we come across any form of child pornography, we report it to the police immediately and without fail. Unfortunately, contributors have been sent child pornography in the past. Every instance of this happening has resulted in the arrest of the transmitter. The people that do that, are now sitting in jail. We do not transmit child pornography, or use child pornography in any way. We literally hate it when a contributor has child pornography tossed at them. It's absolutely the worst part of what we do.

We do use pictures of underage females and males, but they are all fully clothed, and non-sexually suggestive. The allegation that we send out "Child Porn" comes from the same people that think of everyone at PeeJ as "nazi pedophile satanists." Truly, as you probably well know, there are some insane people out there that will allege almost anything. To completely squelch such allegations, we have left two profiles intact. One was at the urging of Dateline NBC. The other was a profile used in the arrest and charging of Ron McCollough, a teacher in California. Profile used in the arrest of Ron McCollough and One of the profiles we used during a Dateline Group Media bust left intact. Do we use sexually suggestive pictures? No."

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.76.224.95 (talk • contribs) .

Hmm...

Ok, i will admit i didn't read this talk page much, but i gotta ask... should XavierVE even be allowed to edit this entry? How can the founder and spokesman really be considered to be in ANY way shape or form NPOV about his own creation??? Any criticism of PeeJ is by extension a criticism of his methodology, by any logical standards. If Jimbo Wales can't edit his own bio page, why should Xavier Von Erck (what is wrong with Phillip John Eide, by the way?) be allowed to edit something that is his brainchild? If there was a Xavier Von Erck Page it would be frowned upon for him to edit it, so what is the difference? WookMuff 21:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I typically don't edit it unless there's something absolutely ridiculous posted to it. Typically, legitimate Wikipedian editors are quick to remove trollish edits to the article so I've no need to do so myself. As for Jimbo Wales, he does edit his own biographical article. Believe me, if this article were to be edited by me on some massive scale, I'd change a few things. Your entire statement actually defends my edits, since I don't try to edit the "criticism" section in general. And believe me, if there was an "Xavier Von Erck" page that had as many inaccuracies as the PeeJ page, I would be editing the hell out of it... just as Jimbo edits out garbage on his own page.

Oh, and Xavier Von Erck is superior since it's my legitimate and real name. :) XavierVE 20:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Went and checked, I have exactly two edits since March 6th of this year. One was changing the URL back to our actual website since a troll keeps trying to redirect it to an attack site and the other was correcting some terminology regarding the suicide of Conradt Jr. Had I edited anything egregious into the article, it would have been corrected by those few legitimate Wikipedian editors that come by often. XavierVE 20:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned, Xavier has been quite good about not editing the entry. By WP:AUTO he's doing exactly what we request, which is keep it free from vandalism, and suggest things on the talk page here. Fieari 20:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Cool, just curious. "Attributed to voltaire and what not"... Also, what i meant by my question in the middle was... why change a perfectly good name to a (in my own opinion) silly, goth sounding name? 60.240.41.159 01:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC) (A Wookmuff by any other name, too lazy to log in, i will verify it later)

I've explained it a dozen times but one more won't hurt. Von Erck is the last name of the mother's side of my family. I was raised by my mother and her parents, I was never raised on my father's side, my father is an alcoholic whore of a human being. Unless you're a single-parent kid that grew up beyond struggling to make ends meet, no child-support coming in... you'll never understand the absolute unjust nature of wearing a name given by a man who never lived up to the responsibility that getting to name a kid inherently has. I have no reason to be stricken with the name my non-existent absentee father gave me, and that's why I decided when I was a teen to change it to my mother's family side of things.

If that's silly, fine by me. You wouldn't understand unless like I said, you grew up in the situation. The usage of that BS name gives credit to a person that doesn't deserve it, the usage of my real name gives credit to the family that does deserve it. Simple as that. XavierVE 10:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)