This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 8 |
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)
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)
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
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'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)
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
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
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
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)
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 )
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
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)
Can we convert the inline external links to Template:Ref and Template:Note? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:37, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 recently updated the page with the more recent convictions PeeJ has listed, but this makes the critism section a little outdated. Currently it reads:
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Why is this in the pedophilia category? 24.224.153.40 23:38, 30 August 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)
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)
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)
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)
I'm sickened they associated my name with child molestors. See [15]. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
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))
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
//
paroxysm
(n)
01:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
//
paroxysm
(n)
02:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
//
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)
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)
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)
Anotherblogger Anotherblogger 14:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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) .
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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) .
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.
– — … ° ≈ ≠ ± − × ÷ ← → · § GTS 69.95.239.197 13:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
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.
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)
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.
With regards to being on the lead or not,
Comments from those not previously in the debate, please? Fieari 20:20, 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)
(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)
XavierVE, please review Wikipedia's guidelines and policies regarding spam and vanity editing. -- Squaresville 04:46, 25 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)
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 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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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) .
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)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 8 |
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)
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)
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
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'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)
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
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
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
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)
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 )
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
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)
Can we convert the inline external links to Template:Ref and Template:Note? - Ta bu shi da yu 04:37, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 recently updated the page with the more recent convictions PeeJ has listed, but this makes the critism section a little outdated. Currently it reads:
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Why is this in the pedophilia category? 24.224.153.40 23:38, 30 August 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)
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)
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)
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)
I'm sickened they associated my name with child molestors. See [15]. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
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))
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
//
paroxysm
(n)
01:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
//
paroxysm
(n)
02:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
//
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)
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)
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)
Anotherblogger Anotherblogger 14:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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) .
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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) .
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.
– — … ° ≈ ≠ ± − × ÷ ← → · § GTS 69.95.239.197 13:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
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.
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)
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.
With regards to being on the lead or not,
Comments from those not previously in the debate, please? Fieari 20:20, 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)
(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)
XavierVE, please review Wikipedia's guidelines and policies regarding spam and vanity editing. -- Squaresville 04:46, 25 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)
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 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:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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) .
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)