Talk:Perverted-Justice/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Neutrality and Factual Accuracy Still Disputed, whether you remove the tag or not

We continue to dispute the neutrality of this article. Considering the fact that media pieces run 10-1 in favor of the website, it creates a false impression to remove nearly all the positive media articles while retaining all the negative articles. This false impression in external links represents the constant proxied editing of the piece by anti-PeeJ writers. Additionally, the duplicate links to Chatmag, which is nothing more than an opinion site of one man, elevates the opinion of a layman in unnatural ways. Duplicate links to (to convictions, media listing and FAQ) were removed for "redundancy." Yet negative redundancy is allowed. The re-addition of "criticism" without a re-addition of content addressing points against criticism is, once again, displaying a lack of neutrality. Additionally, the writeup of why the users of Wikipedia are being re-directed to a page disputing neutrality has been presented not as a dispute of neutrality. It is a dispute of neutrality. Terming it as anything else is dishonest. "different content at the same URL" = Dispute of Neutrality. Why are Wikipedia authors leaving this fact out in external links? Again, lack of neutrality.

We continue to dispute the factual accuracy since the statistics have not been updated. Ten convictions since June of '04, not Seven. In May, that number will be twelve convictions yet there will be no update. Why? Because there is not a writer who has stepped forward thus far who can update with neutrality and factual accuracy. As stated, our only wish is for a Wikipedian author who will protect the integrity of Wikipedia. Unfortunately, that author has not yet appeared.

We again call for a re-writing of the piece by a neutral, actual Wikipedian. The flavor of this article has been tainted by anti-PeeJ/Pro-pedophile writers who are not interested in factual accuracy or neutrality, but rather creating a false impression of controversy by over-emphasizing the few "critical" articles while calling the mass of positive articles "redundancy." There is a reason there are so many "redundant" external links touting arrests, convictions or general accomplishments and so few critical of the website.

Since Anti-PeeJ posters have been given free hand...

- Since anti-PeeJ edits have been done by non-Wikipedians without change or protection by actual Wiki users, we will go back to our near-constant reverts of this article. Issues already discussed and ruled on by actual Wikipedians (non-sourced information) has been re-added, juvenile attacks posted and spam littered throughout the piece. External links gave a mis-named link that said it would "bypass's filter" that went to just another attack page put up by the same ol' usual suspects.

- is redirecting users because of the factual inaccuracy and lack of neutrality in this article. Terming the redirection as anything else is intellectually dishonest. It has not been rewritten by actual Wiki authors nor does it appear that anyone on this website will step up to take a look themselves and fix the errors, factual inaccuracies and non-sourced information. Until someone with neutrality steps up, we will have to continue to repost the totallydisputed tag and continually revert the piece. We've given the article a couple months of sitting there, yet nobody has stepped up to maintain the integrity of this piece. A sad commentary about how this website can be overtaken by a cadre of the few.

- Thanks!

Still more accusations

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

Once again, Wikipedia integrity is failing

Modemac's admin partisanship (Check out the page he links to in order to "get around redirection"... that's NPOV?!?!? That's an NPOV-admin of Wikipedia? Are you KIDDING me? By the way, his page will soon be redirected to the same Wikipedia-dispute page we have put up) has caused us to bring in more people to edit this page back to Saaga's version of the article. Why Modemac (and anonymous editors who have not still not been curbed by all this discussion) thinks this article isn't disputed is unfathomable to me. Why he thinks the removing of links and content is a good Wiki policy is again, out of this world.

I've put enough people on editing this that at this juncture, you'll have to protect it. We're not going to put up with anonymous attacks and NPOV anymore, we've given months on end for a Wiki resolution to this article. We have called for months for an actual NPOV Wiki user to step forward and write it as they see fit. That doesn't mean someone like Modemac, a self-promoter with an obvious POV and it doesn't mean anonymous pro-pedophiles. Modemac has taken to deleting comments on the discussion page and banning IP's while reverting to a page that only fits his purposes of self-promotion. Are these the ideals that Wikipedia were founded upon?

Unless this article is cleaned up and protected, we will continue to take the task into our own hands. We don't want to, as consistently stated, but the removal of the dispute tag and the overt-deception by someone like Modemac upon Wiki users is absolutely intolerable. If this is the extent of Wikipedia's ability at "Journalism", then you guys are even ranking behind such outlets as Fox News when it comes to bias and integrity.

Feel free to complain about me to the Wikipedia admins. Right now, user (anyone we know?) violated the three-revert rule, so he is blocked for 24 hours. Deal. --Modemac 00:55, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
It is my considered opinion that all the editors working on behalf of should, at this point, be banned, not because of what they do, but because they are disrupting Wikipedia with their petty games. I will make that recommendation to the ArbCom should the issue go that far. Kelly Martin 03:29, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
Please do so, any assistance will be appreciated. Hopefully that will get someone to care about this article again, as it appears to have been abandoned by everyone except for a few anonymous IPs. Then again, I can certainly understand the lack of interest: for a group of self-proclaimed cyber-vigilantes, they certainly are a petty bunch of whiners. --Modemac 10:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Page is protected due to unending edit war

First of all, feel free to accuse me of protecting this page to promote my own web site; obviously I'm doing this just for my own selfish reason. I've already been accused of this, along with everyone else who has tried to fix the repeated reversions to this page by the person who admits (or claims) to be the admin of If you feel I'm "abusing" my admin priveleges by doing so, then please: go ahead and call arbitration on me.

But other than that, there's still the matter of this stupid, petty revert war that has been going on for months. No one seems to be interested in coming to any resolution to this issue; instead, it's repeated reverting back and forth. Wipedia arbitration is probably needed to resolve this thing, once and for all. So I'm asking for commentary before calling for it. --Modemac 02:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for making my arguments even stronger! I'm rather glad any version of the piece is protected, since nobody at Wikipedia who is a non-partisan (And you are a partisan) will step up to fix the piece. The numerous errors in the piece listed now are so many that I'd rather see it protected by someone like you, which only strengthens our claims of dispute. If you compare the two pieces, the one you protected and the version that we've been reverting, you will not see ONE erasure of criticism or ONE erasure of negative links about PeeJ. Your piece erases a myriad of proper external links and a proper updating of current conviction totals.
Like I said, thanks for making my case stronger and leave it protected, because if that piece comes off protection without it being rewritten by a proper non-partisan Wiki user, we will continue to revert it. There are only two things you can do to stop us... one, protect an invalid non-NPOV piece like you've done, or have an Wiki person rewrite it properly, with reversions of anonymous troll content.
Until either course is permanently decided upon, this piece will continually be updated and corrected.
And thank you, in turn, for stating your intent against cooperating with the Wikipedia community. --Modemac 11:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Scott Morrow and volunteers from AVSO are not the "Wikipedia community." If you weren't purposely playing obtuse, you would see that the best solution would come FROM those in Wikipedia community whom are non-partisan. We have given months to wait and see if the Wiki community would take care of itself. It has not yet, which is why we have forced the issue. Hopefully now the Wiki community takes care of this article. There is nothing I would want to see more.
  • Above by Do you have an account? If not you might like to create one. It makes communicating much easier. Also, can we all take a deep breath and reduce the rhetoric a little? It's not conducive to coming to an agreement. I'm sure we can find a middle ground. · Katefan0(scribble) 23:11, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
Hola, thanks for taking an interest. I did think twice and edit out an insult against Modemac, whose presence here has been absolutely self-serving. Regardless, I disagree that I need to 'agree' with the article. I don't need to come to an agreement since I have the simple belief that the "Wiki Community should be editing and writing this piece, not anti-PeeJ or pro-PeeJ partisans." Once the Wiki community takes care of this article, I'll be glad to have the redirection page taken down. However, until the Wiki community takes care of this piece (And not people like Modemac, who has a POV on the issue which was obvious from the page he was trying to shill) we won't just sit around while anonymous proxy trolls take potshots at what we do and edit out our record of accomplishment. The only agreement I'd like to see is "Legit wiki users editing a legit wiki piece." Until that happens, the piece will be disputed.
  • Above by Again, please consider registering for an account. And if you cannot or will not do that, at least sign your comments by using four tildes (~~~~) so I don't have to keep identifying your comments myself. To the point: I appreciate your frustrations, but that is in part why Wikipedia discourages autobiography. While it is tempting to feel territorial about something you're invested in personally, you (nor anyone) has ownership over an article. The very nature of Wikipedia means that all contributions can (and will) be "edited mercilessly." If you can't accept that, you may find this a frustrating place to spend your time. · Katefan0(scribble) 14:15, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

From RfC

Came here from RfC this morning. I've read through the talk page, but I'm still not clear about the substance of the disagreement. All I've seen, for the most part, is a bunch of whinging and hand-waving. Can someone please tell me what, precisely, is objectionable about this article, on both sides? We need a specific delineation of what both sides feel needs to be changed instead of finger-pointing that's going nowhere fast. · Katefan0(scribble) 14:43, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

The issue here has to do with folks who claim to represent the web site, continually reverting changes made by other Wikipedia users. Every reversion made back to their “preferred” version includes claims that everyone else is a troll, vandal, etc. As the edit history for this article notes: “Revision due to vandalism, removal of content and external links.” “Vandals removing content w/o additions, removing dispute tag,” “Trolls remove content, as usual” . The “vandalism” in question includes a link I posted to my own Web site, which the persons in question disagree with.
Regarding my posting of the link to my web site: this is my own Web entry on, which I admit (gladly) says some less-than-flattering things about the site. I posted the link as a way for Wikipedia users to bypass the “filter” that has in place now for anyone that visits their site from here. I don’t have a problem with their filter, they can do anything they want with their own web site. As far as I’m concerned, including the link to my own Web site is a useful addition to the article, especially because it is intended to bypass the Wikipedia filter. The folks don’t like that, and they claim that I am posting the link solely to promote my own web site. Because the link is on-topic for the article (despite their claims), and because it provides a useful third-party link to their Web site, I maintain that it is NPOV.
However, as the edit history shows, the folks have already been involved in this edit war for months. I only became recently involved with this myself, and I posted the RFC because no one else seems to be interested in this article. Much of the dispute, as you say, is whining and hand-wringing over the smallest of issues. But the major problem is simply that there are some people "parked" on this article who are removing anything they do not like. --Modemac 16:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
If you want to see the issue, compare the two articles. The one MOdemac prefers (because it links his website, which is JUST as filtered as Wikipedia) and the other one. NOT ONE piece of critical content of the website is removed in the "preferred" version. Not one change! All that is changed is how the external links are presented (defined as in favor of and critical) and the conviction record is updated to it's full extent. The version Modemac prefers (the one that links his non-NPOV writeup) is outdated and old, with a mish-mash mess of external links and old numbers all-around.
Frankly, the only problem at this point is Modemacs touting of an inferior version that doesn't contain updated facts. What it does contain though, is a link to his own website.
Is that the standard of which Wikipedia Admins are supposed to uphold? What a joke. We have called for NPOV wiki users to handle this article, not an individual like Modemac who has a POV or the other anonymous proxy using trolls. 99% of the edits of this article are between those who hate our organization and those who like our organization. That isn't what we want. We would like to see actual users with a lack of viewpoint edit the article. The only reason we have stepped in is because sadly, Wiki users have not been able to handle the systematic editing of non-Wikipedians. Again, this article was up for months upon months on end without any editing from anyone on "our side." It is only since the article was warped that we strove to keep a balance. Especially note that the version we keep reverting to doesn't remove content from criticism, or critical external links. That's called integrity.
  • Above by As I mentioned above, I hope you will consider registering for an account. It makes communicating easier. This history is interesting and I know some folks here have gotten emotionally invested in the article, but this is not very conducive to producing an article that everyone can agree on. So far, the only concrete item I've seen is whether or not Modemac's Website should be included. I have yet to look at it so I remain neutral. Is there anything else that people object to in the current text of the article? Specifics, please. And if we can back away from the finger-pointing (on both sides), we'll arrive at a consensus sooner, which is our ultimate goal. Remember that Wikipedia demands that we Assume good faith. · Katefan0(scribble) 23:16, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • A few preliminary thoughts on the Website: I find it curious that PJ's owners would feel the need to create a special intro page for visitors from Wikipedia, but I suppose it's their right to do it. However, I think this should be labeled clearly in the link to their Website off the article, so people know what they're getting when they click on the link. I would also agree that the article needs a separate link that will get people to the Webpage everyone else sees when they type in As for Modemac's page, he is perfectly entitled to create a page of criticism about But the way his link is currently titled in the article is incorrect. It is not a link to the "unfiltered" site, it's a link to his personal criticisms page, which contains at its bottom a link to the "unfiltered" site. If the link is retained, the description should be fixed. However, I personally feel that there are already links to criticisms of the Website in the article from better sources, and without proof that Modemac is somehow an expert in this type of criticism rather than something like a blog, I think that the link to Modemac's page is not necessarily warranted. This may be the only way to provide an actual link from the article to the "real" page; if so, before retaining it, I'd want to see the commentary erased. · Katefan0(scribble) 23:51, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks, that's the main gripe. Glad someone took a look at it. Other issues are merely a matter of updating and eliminating non-sourced information. Compare the two pieces. One has old information, the other has newer information. One throws out a non-sourced guess at the identity of the owner of PeeJ, the other doesn't. One updates the links so they are clearer, along with new articles about the website, the other doesn't. The criticisms section between the two has not been substantially changed between the two versions because it's not my place to change information in the criticisms section. However, the current piece has erased an updating of "accomplishments" and other areas outside of criticisms, leaving up old information. The change in external links and updating of current totals of convictions/wording of accomplishments are improvements to those areas. The main reason it was being reverted from the updated "dispute" version is because people wanted to shill Modemac's site, not because of a substantive change in the criticism areas.
      • Adding this page to my watchlist for the second time. If yall need anything, just let me know. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:08, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Zscout370's idea for the Lead Article

This is what I came up with: " (also known as "PeeJ") is a website dedicated to catching Internet pedophiles while they attempt to meet up with underage children for sexual encounters. The website makes use of contributors who pose as young girls or boys, talk to older men who are interested in exchanging photos online, and then attempt to set up dates and times to meet. Subsequently, they place information about these men on their website for anyone to view."

It contains the same information before, except for one sentence. The sentence about the contributors being grown men and women was removed, since the earlier setence states that the contributors pose/act like boys and girls. Plus, to my understanding, there is no real way for anyone to check on ages of the contributors. Does anyone agree with this? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:13, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's a nice effort, but I think you should end the first sentence at "children". The suggestion that all paedophiles cruise the Web looking for sex is POV; some say they are not looking for sex, but merely to express their affection for children. Exchanging photos is not having sex (trust me on that one if you're having doubts ;-)) I'm not sure we need to say "Internet paedophiles" either. Clearly, if you meet people on a website, you are using the Internet and not a "public house paedophile" or a "street paedophile" or whatever else you're contrasting "Internet" with. You might put "entrapping" for "catching" too. It's rather more accurate. Is it actually illegal to talk to children? To swap photos with them? If not, in what sense are they "catching" the paedophiles? You could almost equally well put "harassing" them, because this kind of operation doesn't actually have any legal standing, does it? Grace Note 06:11, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I think it might be a bit too long, and contains some questionable wording. In this case, it's probably best to keep it simple. I also think, given the controversial nature of what the site does, that it would only be fair to at least touch on the criticism in the opening paragraph. Wikipedia's policies encourage criticisms to be sprinkled through an article at appropriate places, rather than sticking every criticism in a section by itself. I would suggest: " (nicknamed "PeeJ") is a website that coordinates volunteers who try to catch pedophiles by posing as underage children in Internet chat rooms. Chat logs between volunteers and chatroom participants are then posted on their Web site. [One line of criticism]." · Katefan0(scribble) 14:22, May 18, 2005 (UTC)


Did Modemac protect this to his own version? It looks to me like he did. That would constitute a gross abuse of admin powers. There are ways to get help if you feel under attack! This is unacceptable. Grace Note 06:05, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I protected this page because the ongoing edits and bickering on the talk page made it appear that no one else was going to do so, and I want this whole affair to be done with. This certainly was not "my own version" of the page; in fact, I had previously removed my own link and replaced it with a Google link (see here) expressly for the purpose I had stated: to bring users directly to the site while bypassing their Wikipedia "filter." I freely state this as my intent, as I do not see this as NPOV. This also was my purpose for putting the link to my page there in the first place: to add a link that served a purpose for the page (again, to bypass the filter). I've hardly received scores and scores of web traffic on my site because of (or in spite of) this article, and I certainly did not expect lots of traffic. I want people to see my page, certainly; there's nothing wrong with that. I am also certainly not spamming links onto this or any other site. --Modemac 09:17, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

RfC response

I just read this through quickly. A few observations:

  • The page can't be protected by an admin who is involved in editing the page, and particularly not when it's his/her own link that's part of the dispute, so it should be unprotected and re-protected, if necessary, by another admin.
  • The anon poster must start signing his posts, because this page is harder to read without those signatures. You can do this by signing four tildes after your posts, like this ~~~~. See Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages.
  • The article as it stands is not written in an encyclopedic way. Phrases like (from memory) "the action takes place at" are not acceptable. We're not here to praise this organization or condemn it, but simply to describe it.
  • It lacks references. Everything must be sourced (or sourceable), particularly claims about the number of arrests and so on. It needs inline links and a references section. References must be reputable and credible, and can't be personal websites or blogs, so that means Modemac's link has to go, unless there's a way of bypassing the filter without offering commentary.

I remember this dispute from months ago, so it's well worth sorting out once and for all. I agree with Katefan's suggestion that it would be helpful if people could list exactly what's in dispute so it can all be cleared up at once, if possible. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:22, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for SlimVirgin's evaluation, which I endorse. Like all Wikipedia articles, this article should be an NPOV summary drawn from verifiable sources. One principle which has been proven again and again in Wikipedia is that editing becomes difficult when the subject of an article is also one of its editors. "Wikipedia is not autobiography". That said, nobody knows a topic like the subject, so if there are specific errors in the article then please report them here, to this talk page. Thanks, -Willmcw 09:43, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
PS: Regarding external links: Wikipedia is also not a links directory. However, any link that is used as a reference or that adds substantial information should be included (link spam aside). In this case, we can probably accomodate all of the links suggested by editors. -Willmcw 10:03, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
I also endorse Slim's evaulation. Personally, if the person who is trying to add a link to his website from here, should place his website link in his user page. If we have any thing from the said website in the article, then place the link. However, my main concern about the links is the filter issue. In my view, if PeeJ wants to build a website about their Wikipedia article, that is fine with me. But my issue with that is if someone goes to that website from out article, they are encouraging people to come in here and join the edit war. I personally do not remember what is said on the "redirect page," but I think there should be a way to by-pass that filter and just get to the main website. I was involved in a VFD (Iranian physics news) that had their forum encourage their visitors come in and start stacking up votes in their favor. That turned everything to hell in a minute. I think that is also contributing to our problems. The quicker we can get around the filter, the better. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 14:38, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

My comments

The main problem I see here is the avowed commitment to perpetuate an edit war by the operators of the website. I think I would be much more sympathetic to the operators of if they:

  • discontinued edit-warring;
  • discontinued their call for an edit war;
  • discontinued redirecting browsers from Wikipedia to a page that is a call for a continued edit war;
  • obtained Wikipedia accounts to participate in discussion and editing of the article and related articles;
  • actually participated in discussion on the appropriate Talk: pages;
  • refrained from inflammatory edit comments when editing; and
  • signed their discussion comments as per Wikipedia practice.

It is my opinion that any editor who declares the intent to perpetuate an edit war should be banned until such time as they retract that declaration. Such an editor is "being a dick" and, as such, is breaking the social contract upon which Wikipedia is based. An agreement by the editors working on behalf of to comply with the above steps would do a great deal to restoring my good faith in their willingness to work toward an article that is appropriate for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Kelly Martin 15:55, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • I've looked back through some of the recent edits by anon users that appear to be associated with the site. Some of them have been in good faith (such as changing seven convictions to twelve... although that still needs to be sourced), and some of them have not. As I said above, some of this is almost inherent when people who are the subject of articles get involved in editing them. No one person has ownership over an article. But I tend to think that a lot of the petty edit warring can be solved by adequate sourcing, and of course more neutral eyes on additions, both by people at WJ and those who are not. Having said that, and it appears that for the moment the Modemac link issue has been solved, let's start tackling the text of the article. Those who represent PJ, at this point you'll need to source some of the claims in this article or risk having the text removed. There's also a fair bit of unencyclopedic information, as SlimVirgin noted, that should be cleaned up. · Katefan0(scribble) 16:24, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Textual points

I have removed a reference to speculation about Von Erck's real name. I have not been able to independently find this information in reliable news sources and unless someone can prove definitively that that is his name, it needs to remain deleted.

I also found this in a Phoenix New Times article from one year ago: Although the Web site claims to be responsible for 23 arrests, exactly three cases have resulted in guilty verdicts from PJ's sting operations. Will someone from PJ please update how many additional guilty convictions there have been in the past year? · Katefan0(scribble) 16:48, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

  • added in the speculative information on XVE's real name, stating in the edit summary that it had been proven. But this user has presented no such proof on this talk page, and until it's produced this should be reverted. I've left a message to that effect on the user's talk page. Thanks for reverting, Zscout. · Katefan0(scribble) 18:10, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Article of Interest

I have no clue what POV this website has, but this is something I think we should look at:

"Update 23 December 2004 Wikipedia Censored by Eide.

Phillip Eide, owner of Perverted Justice has in recent days edited out certain portions of the Wikipedia article regarding his site. The Wikipedia is a user-edited encyclopedia, with a "neutral point of view" stance regarding posts. Eide has over the past few days deleted mention of this article, and other information contrary to Perverted Justice. Repeated messages to Eide by several editors of the Wikipedia to maintain the "NPOV" have been disregarded.

In another posting his statement regarding anyone questioning Perverted Justice: "Some critics have expressed concern or opposition in regard to, with the administration of the web sites illustrating that most critics are outside the United States, and labeling them as defenders of pedophiles."

This censorship of opposing viewpoints is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia, and only furthers the belief that Perverted Justice is not to be regarded as a serious deterrent to online predators. This also raises the question as to whether any of the chat logs on Perverted Justice can be trusted as authentic. Censoring Wikipedia demonstrates that Eide is capable of editing chat logs. "

Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:08, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

    • That particular site is an avowed PJ critic. Most probably, that is where the speculation about his name is coming from, but that still doesn't show definitive proof, unless the people who run that website would care to share exactly how they figured it out. · Katefan0(scribble) 18:12, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
      • I know there are other website that talk about his name, but all of them seem to have the POV that they have PJ. If Google searches are not helping, I can try to launch an email or two and see if that bears fruit. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:18, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
        • I did find the mention of the real name, but I am still looking to see in what context it has been used (and who used it anyways). Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:22, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
          • From the above site: "Claim #4 - "PJ is not about protecting children but is all about entertaining Xavier himself the alter ego of Phillip Eide." The personal attacks on website administrator Xavier Von Erck are perhaps most inane. The allegation that the website is nothing more than a source of entertainment for administration doesn't mesh with the history of the site. While the rant goes on and on about finding people, I did not see anywhere it either confirms or denies the real name of Von Erck. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 18:27, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
I saw another site (can't recall where directly) that claimed Eide was also a pseudonym. In short, it seems like nobody really knows. I'd be very surprised if the people who say it's been proven can actually show that proof. · Katefan0(scribble) 19:34, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
But if I was doing the same thing Von Erck was doing, I probably would not want my real name to be out too. There will be many people probably hunting for him, so the lesser the extent the real name is released, the better. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
I certainly understand the desire for a pseudonym under the circumstances. However, the "filter page" that links from Wikipedia makes a special point of criticizing Wikipedia editors for hiding behind screen names. Somehow I don't see the difference. Anyway, that's neither here nor there. -Willmcw 20:12, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
I agree. Though this is something I will debate with Willmcw on his talk page, but we are in two different industries. We try to provide information on knowledge, they are busting pedophiles. Big difference there. I still want to bypass that filter, though. Zach Harden 20:16, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
We shouldn't withhold Eide's name if we can find a source we agree is trustworthy. We're not in the business of protecting or attacking this group; we should simply describe what's being said about them by sources we regard as credible. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:38, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with SlimVirgin on this. If it can be verified satisfactorily, it should be included. Though I have my doubts about whether it's possible to be satisfied in terms of sourcing. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:13, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, me too. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:21, May 18, 2005 (UTC)


I'm doing a bit of a rewrite of this page to try to get rid of some of the unsourced claims, make the language more neutral, and order the information differently. If I'm going to be longer than a few minutes, I'll put the inuse tag on the page, to avoid edit conflicts. There seems little doubt about the name Phillip Eide, though I haven't found a source yet that's reliable according to WP standards. There are also photographs of him available. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:32, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

There are screenshots online we can use on here, claim them fair use. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:34, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Can we trust them i.e. are they definitely him? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:39, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
I am going to do a Google search later. Now, I am off for pizza. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:43, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Get back here at once! Priorities, please! ;-)
Some questions for the website owner(s) if they're around (or anyone else who knows). The article doesn't give much concrete information about PeeJ. Who are the adults who pose as minors? How many are there? How are they recruited? Are they paid anything? Do they only chat, or do they also do follow-up research? How are they checked out (e.g. to check they're not pedophiles themselves or have convictions for violence, for example)? What steps are involved in the move from chatroom encounter to posting of names and addresses?
The old version of the article mentioned 700 busts, 24 arrests, six convictions, and seven convictions. What are the real figures, and do you know of reliable sources for these, as well as the exact timeframe within which they've occurred?
What does the following mean? "The forums are where the real action takes place. Once an exchange between a presumed sexual predator and a faux child is posted, thousands of interested parties use every means at their disposal to fully identify and expose the chat predator."
Any clarification would be appreciated. SlimVirgin (talk) 21:08, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • I have access to Lexis-Nexis, so I'll dig up some references. Here's one from Jan. 22 05, fairly recent, article in the Roanoke Times & World News:

Von Erck said he got the idea for PeeJ as he chatted on the Internet and witnessed adult males vying for the attention of underage girls in chat rooms. He says his group has 31 trained contributors who pose as girls with screen names like "sara_so_bored," waiting in chat rooms for an adult male to proposition them.

Von Erck claims this has led to 30 arrests and six convictions since the group began working with police in 2004. He says that up to 75 percent of police contacts by PeeJ are well-received.


But PeeJ's actions are not condoned by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, the leading child safety advocacy group in the nation.

"It's really not the safest, most effective way to combat this problem. It really needs to be left up to law enforcement," said Tina Schwartz, director of communication for NCMEC. "From what I've seen in some of these other cases with Perverted Justice, they embarrass the people, but I don't know that complete justice is ever served." Katefan0.

Thank you, Katefan, that's very helpful! I'm work some of it into the rewrite. Do you have a full citation for the Roanoke Times article i.e. headline, byline?
Another question for PeeJ. What does this mean? "The organization established their "Information First" police program in December 2003, which now covers 98 million Americans across the nation. Information First agreements are with specific police who would like the chat-logs delivered to law enforcement before anyone else for possible policework." SlimVirgin (talk) 21:36, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • SV: This should be revised: When contact is made, the participants make an attempt to contact law enforcement for every chat log they participate in. In the interview with the Roanoke paper, XEV said Von Erck said that when a contributor makes a "bust," as he calls it, it is up to that contributor to decide whether to contact police in the suspect's area. Two things: They define a "bust" as catching someone in a chat; and volunteers decide whether to contact police or not. Here's the full citation: Roanoke Times & World News January 22, 2005 HEADLINE: ONLINE GROUP INVOLVED IN MAN'S ARREST; BYLINE: Lindsey Nair · Katefan0(scribble) 21:51, May 18, 2005 (UTC) are not active partners with

Passin' through

I came by to read this article and the talk page because of the reference on Slashdot. I'm now stopping only long enough to give my thoughts, as a longtime Wikipedian with no dog in this fight. I'm reading the version as of 20:40, 9 Jan 2005, immediately after an edit by EvilSaltine. My impression is that the article (in this version, at least) is definitely slanted in favor of Some observations:

  • In "Controversy", the "Pros" section is all Pros. The "Cons" section has one Con graf, then a graf that's Con with a one-sentence Pro rebuttal at the end, then a graf with one Con sentence and a lengthy Pro rebuttal, then a graf with one sentence each way. Suggestion: Either have all Pros in one section and all Cons in another, with no rebuttals allowed, or, if you want the back-and-forth argument, organize by issue instead of by alignment.
  • Supporters who are cited "point out" this or "make clear" that. This choice of words implies that what they say is true. Wikipedia hasn't investigated these claims and should merely report them, not endorse them. Supporters and opponents alike should be said to "claim" this, "argue" that, "allege" the other thing, etc.
  • Say, did you know that an abducted girl was recovered because of the site? It's a fact worth mentioning. It's not a fact worth mentioning three different times. Mention it once, preferably with a link to a disinterested media website where I can read more details. (Is it undisputed that her recovery was because of the site? I'd think that, without violating her privacy, it should be possible to include a sentence explaining what the mechanism was.)
  • An earlier version had a link to a chatmag article critical of the site. Why was that deleted?
  • Trying to stabilize one particular version of the article and carve it in stone isn't the wiki way. I suggest that everyone who wants to edit the article should register a user account. There seems to have been a lot of energy wasted in bickering about who wrote what. Anons should be warned that edits by anonymous IP's will be coldly received and are more likely to be reverted. That isn't completely in keeping with a purist, fundamentalist view of the wiki way, but it's much less of a heresy than is permanent page protection.

OK, unsolicited advice mode off; I'm going back to the relative serenity of reverting vandals on George W. Bush. Good luck, all. JamesMLane 22:37, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs NPOVing. - Evil saltine 07:04, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Response from Scott Morrow

As usual, XavierVE should check his facts before running around shouting "liar". That fact that he is so quick to make assumptions and incorrect accusations is precisely the reason why the article is so slanted (as noted also by JamesMLane) and has been since XavierVE became involved in editing it. It is also precicely why many consider his organization to be a dangerous one. His investigative prowess is being displayed in his assigning blame for the edits of the article to the wrong person. This is typical of XavierVE's work.

"Jeffery Woloson" is no longer a volunteer with, and has not been since November of last year. If he were making edits to the article, he would have been doing it of his own accord. Unfortunately, XavierVE's detective skills are somewhat lacking, and he is again blaming the wrong person. Jeff Woloson/Trex is not making the edits XavieVE is complaining about. Having also examined the IPs in question, I would strongly suggest that XavierVE re-check his facts. The user Trex upon which XavierVE is so quick to heap blame uses a static IP - The edits in question are NOT being done by Trex. A number of the IPs quoted by XavierVE above belong to another outspoken critic of PJ, one who has no ties to at all. In addition, assuming an edit via a proxy should automatically be attributed to me, or a member of our organization is patently childish.

I had originally intended to add a juvenile response to the end of my post with some unfounded defamatory accusations and a few names of PJ contributors and the owner tossed in for good measure, but then I remembered, I'm an adult, and adults don't generally do that sort of thing.

Scott Morrow 00:06, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

All I have to say is, how typical of the guys at Corrupted-Justice. For those of you who are wondering who these guys are who are bashing Perverted-Justice. You might should ask yourself what their motives may be in attacking a group that combats pedophiles? The first thing that came to my mind when I first heard of them, perhaps they're pedophiles? If you think that, you're right. They just have a bad taste in their mouth. (this was from an anonymous user).

Quotes from my discussion with Shimeru...

Unfortunately, Morrow has a few of his precious "facts" wrong as usual.

This edition is not unbalanced due to anything I'VE done. All I did was edit the pro- section and the links and add a commonly used "accomplishments" area. Unfortunately, I've had to revert because of your vandals, Scotty, but otherwise I haven't touched to Con section other than to not list Cyberangels three times and to combine "Peter Carr" with "" The reason I'm reverting now is because they keep trying to remove proper links. Funny enough, the link they seem so intent on removing is to, an organization critical of Yet, it's not members doing it, the people doing it just happen to be using proxies! Oh and Trex, an volunteer from Amsterdam. Morrow claims this person is no longer a volunteer, which is incorrect. The person still frequently appears on their boards. Since doesn't have an official "volunteer list", anytime one of their people goes rogue (Such as the founder who advertised for baby diapers, or the "psychological expert" who fancied writing erotica about high school females), Morrow claims they "no longer volunteer."

My edits were viewed by Shimeru, who I believe is the original author of this piece. After some confusion about what he was annoyed about, I left the cons alone and focused on the pros. He said, and I quote:

Given that there were several other people also reverting your changes on the same grounds, you might want to ask yourself whether your version was really as unbiased as you thought. On the other hand, I have no objection to your additions, now that you're not also deleting relevant (if negative) information. I'm reasonably satisfied with the page as it now stands... maybe we just needed to communicate sooner. Well, no harm done

This is from his talk page:

I know Morrow isn't that smart (He's never recovered from his brain tumor, sadly), but claiming that an article is "biased" due to my edits when I took the proper steps to have them reviewed is pure falsehood. I might even suggest he is "lying" when he states such.

Now if someone wants to edit the CONS section to take out any positive verbiage, go ahead and do it. Or perhaps ADDING to the links section, again, go nuts. But deleting proper external links and elements from the pro- section without reason or rationale isn't appropriate.

Additionally to answer the other question, the recovery of the female IS linked from the version we have been restoring... oddly enough, the "other" version has them removed. Goofy.

This is the anonymous person who commented before, I didn't leave my name because I haven't registered on Wikipedia and don't feel like I need to be involved in this conflict to air my opinion. It is also my understanding that has privately harassed advocates of so the less information left about me the better. I would like to add some more comments though please, and I have not (and will not) be involved in the constant edits to this Wiki article, so this is just my observation for those reading to consider.

First, some observations for JamesMLane who made a comment earlier. If there are fairly worded criticisms to add to the "Pro" section, then I could understand revision. However, the "Pro" section has been edited constantly to remove "Pro" comments, and the list of accomplishments by should've remained unedited (unless someone can present a valid reason for removing them). These ARE being changed by anonymous edits. Likewise, and this is probably just because you aren't familiar with the websites involved, is a resource directly addressing the criticisms of as it pertains to It is an entirely relevant source of opinion and should cease being removed from the list of External related links.

Second, to Mr. Morrow. The article has been edited over and over by proxies to things explicitely favorable to the's POV. For instance, why would the links disappear every time someone edits the post? Likewise, there are people who are editing the "History" section to read a speculated name of Xavier Von Erck, this is entirely a point of view pushed by as no one has ever verified or claimed outside their circles his real legal title. I think it's unfair to have your cronies re-edit this article over and over again to add a name that is not factually substantiated and tieing it to Xavier Von Erck, who, by all accounts, is anonymous.

Third, for the author. Please step in and rectify these problems. is attempting to organize to negatively paint this organization which has many credits to it's name, and it's doing so in a way that is offensively trying to exploit the Wiki process (trying to get the only pro-PJ revisioner banned so they can domineer the content of the article). That and Scott Morrow has attempted to alter all of the criticisms towards it's own sources, to promote it's own sites, it's own narrow POV on, not only overshadows outstanding valid criticisms, but it abuses the open-ended nature of the Wiki. This is not the entry in Wikipedia for "" and their POV should not be the one pushed here. I read Wiki from medlab every time I get an opportunity to, and being familiar with this situation, it is ridiculous.

Please inspect this edited comparison for an example of bias on the part of people. Notice erasure of several paragraphs of content and the addition of a "real name" to the anonymous psuedonym "Xavier Von Erck", as if it were a statement of fact (this is an explicitely point of view, as are others reflected in the edits).

My complaints, specifically, to help illustrate the problem:

Editing in the supposed "real name" of Xavier Von Erck with no particular proof, as he is an anonymous individual.

This paragraph being removed: "The website states that it is proud to be the only resource on the internet that shows parents the exact reality of what occurs in chat-rooms across the United States. Site supporters argue and believe that the uncensored information educates parents quickly to the dangers of the internet for their children. Additionally, the website is quick to point out that it uses Meta Tag technology to block the website on every effective piece of internet filtration software known to exist. Considering the hundreds of media pieces about the organization and efforts dedicated to fight online chat solicitation, site supporters tout that tens of millions of American families now have a better understanding of internet dangers."

If this paragraph is disagreed with, it can be revised to be reworded, but instead was deleted altogether. The information on Meta Tags is important, as well as the site's supporter's comments, and should've never been deleted. Unfortunately this was all deleted by an Amsterdam IP ( member Trex lives in Amsterdam).

The revision of the number of busts in history: "800" is more accurate than "700".

Removal of external links, such as:

The Steve Tupper arrest link. (someone has been in contact with and is aiding) The Cincinatti Post link regarding Robert Andrews, arrested. (someone has been in contact with and is aiding) Removal of the link (counterpoints to the criticisms that have been added, and thus, should be valid for counterpoint) Removal of the Dateline NBC link (Dateline isn't a relevant link???) Removal of the Benjamin Brown arrest link. (again, another person has aided gets arrested, and the link to the media story is censored).

All these removal of external links are being goaded on by user Scott Morrow and his staff. The removal of the external links especially illustrates this as content non-complimentary to Morrow's own negative viewpoint of is being censored. If you want to add NPOV commentary to the page, fine. However that this is happening while Morrow denies all knowledge of it being him, at the same time, attempting to get XavierVE banned for correcting it, is absurd and against the way of the Wiki. There, hopefully I've made my case. Thanks for listening.

"The revision of the number of busts in history: "800" is more accurate than "700"." Is there a source for this? I couldn't find one for either number. If a source can't be found, I would favor leaving it as "a very large number of "busts."". - Evil saltine 03:28, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I went and asked a site admin about this, Pheobus Apollo, so for the record this is what he told me: The current website has 592 busts in it's database, and there have been three phases of major bust loss. In August 2003 they got a policy to verify all phone numbers, so all busts older than August 2003 were in the site's early phase where they didn't have the manpower/resources to verify every phone number. Around July of this year they finally decided those old busts had run their course (August 2003 to July 2004 is quite some time), and culled everything older than August 2003, he said this lost about 180 busts. Likewise, a site scandal with the co-founder Tattooed Indian Guy (aparently he was abusive to another volunteer) caused him to be removed from the site, and Apollo said that they also flushed his materials which were about 60 busts. Apollo also said when they moved from the oldest version of the site to the domain name database, that there was a loss of about 100 very old busts which were never properly re-archived. He told me the official number is the number you will find in the site, 592 (there is a little counter on the front page which is automatically updated), but adding all those numbers up, you can get considerably more counting these old files no longer on the site (possibly over 900). That's all I know, maybe "a very large number of 'busts'" is suitable enough :))


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


Veracity of accusations

Argument: Pro

Supporters of the site argue that viewers are given the opportunity to read chat logs of the online encounters with the men and decide for themselves on their intents. Also, the site mentions whether each alleged potential victimizer was contacted by phone or seen at the location agreed upon, largely confirming their true intentions. This removes the idea that someone will be able to "fake" being another person, as the phone number is one of the many means of identifying the actual participant in the chat-log. Additionally, the site allows men with information posted about them the "right of reply" in defense of or apologetic admission of their wrongdoings, and it will also occasionally — though very seldom — remove information on certain men after they show positive, compelling reasons for such removal, such as receiving psychological counseling. Additionally, the organization has won a thanks from the Department of Justice in the Ryan Hogan federal case and from other police around the country, most notably a effusive letter from the Port Huron Police Chief in Michigan.

The administrators of the website state that they:

  • Do not initiate the online contact with the men,
  • Do not accept tips from Internet users, to eliminate the chance that someone use the site for vengeful purposes, and
  • Make an attempt to contact law enforcement on every chat-log they do.
  • Established their "Information First" police program in December of 2003, which now covers 98 million Americans across the nation. Information First agreements are with specific police who would like the chat-logs delivered to law enforcement before anyone else for possible policework.
  • Have been credited with assisting in obtaining six convictions since June of 2004, and was able to locate an abducted girl in September of 2004.
  • Are active partners with ChildSeek Network, Counter Pedophilia Investigative Unit and
Argument: Con

At the heart of the protest of is a right to privacy issue — the fact that displays photos and lists names, addresses, telephone numbers, instant messenger usernames, email addresses, schools, and workplaces of the men that have been accused by the group of trying to seduce or lure teenagers through the Internet, while keeping its own contributors anonymous. Critics of the site believe that the opportunity for someone to be innocently accused of being an Internet predator is large, especially since an individual could use a computer, online account, or any of the items listed above not actually belonging to him or her.


Argument: Pro

The only legal record of action against was an attempt at a harassment restraining order against two of the site's contributors in Minnesota by the mother of a man named Thomas Cison who asked a female to model thongs for him. The judge found that because the alleged harassment originated from out of state, the Minnesota court did not have the power to enforce, not to mention that in his opinion there was no harassment, he threw the Harassment Restraining Order out, rejecting all claims. Additionally, Jonathan Zittrain, of Harvard Law School, has claimed in interviews with the Boston Globe and Court TV that the site is completely legal.

The judge found that because the alleged harassment originated from out of state, the Minnesota court did not have the power to enforce, not to mention that in his opinion there was no harassment, he threw the Harassment Restraining Order out, rejecting all claims.

The words of this statement up to the word "enforce" are true, but the words after that word "enforce" are a boldfaced lie. The judge said Cison's definately had a case but should take it to the federal level, not the state, because Philip Eide (von Erck) and Beef The Troll and Red Baroness (Jim and Tobi Schwietzer) lived out of state. He did not dismiss the harasment issue, because the Cison's received, among other threats, a death threat. They have the proof from a taped recording of the message recieved in their home on May 5, 2004.

Argument: Con

Some legal scholars raise questions of entrapment or illegal activity on the part of's contributors. Critics often cite the lack of training in proper procedures of evidence could result in true predators being allowed to escape prosecution as a result of being contacted by the group before real law enforcement is involved.

Many law enforcement agencies have also stated that, while they appreciate the mission of the web site, they do not agree with some of its vigilante practices.


Argument: Pro

Supporters state that large-scale operations working with police are relatively new and claim that six convictions in seven months is a very good track record to have.

The website states that it is proud to be the only resource on the internet that shows parents the exact reality of what occurs in chat-rooms across the United States. Site supporters argue and believe that the uncensored information educates parents quickly to the dangers of the internet for their children.

Considering the hundreds of media pieces about the organization and efforts dedicated to fight online chat solicitation, site supporters tout that tens of millions of American families now have a better understanding of internet dangers.

Argument: Con

Some critics contend that the site's methodology is flawed, citing its low success rate — six convictions versus over a large number of "busts."

It is now common knowledge that Xavier Von Erck is a pseudonym for Mr. Phillip J. Eide.

People come here for information, and you are censoring it. Mr. Eide, 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.

It's also common knowledge that Steve Poirier is Ombudsman, right?

People who think they know everything amuse me.

The articl was created by me, Antonio, using the wikipedia guidelines of neutrality. In other words, while I like the idea of the site,whether I am for it or against it and it's methods, should be irrevelant.

The only thing that should be revelant to articles is facts. Instead of going to a revert war, why not just make peace and stay with the facts in both articles?

I want to thank Mr. Von Erck for stating I spoke to him before making the article. This is true, as I asked for permission and inquired about how he'd like an article about here.

Was the corruptedjustice article written by a neutral wikipedian, or by a member of that organization? We need to investigate. Im sure that, if taken to court, both sides would have their valid points against each other, but wikipedia is not a court, here, we merely, and should always, merely stick to facts.

Thank you and God bless you!

Sincerely yours, "Antonio Diplomatic w*ore Martin"

I'd personally love to see the article redone by either you or Shimeru or a combination. However, I think the viability of having a non-protected article up about the website is nil with the obsessiveness of the pro-pedophiles. This is an insightful article from ABC news highlighting the flaws and ineptitude of It should be included in this Wikipedia entry. Amusingly enough, is now asserting that ABC News has a pro-pedophile agenda.

Pete Carr of Chatmag here. Within the Wikipedia article, the name of Johnathan Zittrain, a leading authority and law professor at Harvard, was mentioned. "On the legal front, Jonathan Zittrain, of Harvard Law School, has claimed in interviews with the Boston Globe and Court TV that the site is completely legal."

Earlier today, I emailed Dr. Zittrain, requesting a clarification of his status reference Perverted Justice. He states that he is in no way connected to the site, and his remarks were posted on the Boston Globe, in an article concerning Perverted Justice. Text of the article is attached, and can be verified through the Boston Globe. The owner of Perverted Justice leads viewers of the Wikipedia site and his site to believe Dr. Zittrain has endorsed his group as a legal entity. This is patently false. Please examine the Boston Globe article for further clarification.


"But the vigilante group may not be liable as long as the information posted is correct, said Jonathan Zittrain, assistant professor of law at Harvard Law School and a director of its Berkman Center for Internet and Society.

Otherwise, if they are posting true and legitimate online conversations involving adults soliciting alleged underage children for sex, Zittrain said "no immediate cause of action jumps to mind."

But "entrapment only really has meaning in the context of a criminal charge brought against somebody," Zittrain said. Entrapment laws are meant to check the excesses of government power. But if groups exposing people are doing so on their own and not as an arm of any governmental agency, he said, entrapment issues don't tend to apply.

Such sites, he said, are part of a transformation that the Internet is bringing about "that blurs the line between casual conversation and official statement. And at its extreme, it has everyone speaking like lawyers - if they're smart."

End of Boston Globe Article.

I've also passed this information on to ABC. Nowhere in Dr. Zittrain's remarks do I see any endorsement of Perverted Justice. His remark, "not as an arm of any governmental agency" goes against the stated purpose of Perverted Justice, to be an arm of law enforcement, and therefore subject to the same governing statutes law enforcement must obey, including entrapment laws.

It's sad that this has become a shouting match between opposing entities, with mud slinging on both sides. It's time that end, let the legal system deal with the validity of Perverted Justice, and delete this entire article. It now has the distinction in my mind of being a prime example of what a Wiki article should not be. ENDS (unsigned)

This page reads like a commercial

The page looks like a commercial for the organizaton, in my view. It definitely needs some balancing, and whoever's calling people "pro-paedophile" for saying that should probably be asked to stop editing it for awhile, because perhaps those strong feelings are causing him or her not to see the article's flaws. It doesn't do the organization any good to have the article look like this, because it's not well-written and is obviously biased, so it's likely to make readers suspicious, both of Perverted Justice and of Wikipedia. Just my opinion. SlimVirgin 22:01, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

If Peter Carr could read well, he would see that nobody said Howard endorsed the site, but only that what the site does is legal.

Nice try, Pete.

As for the piece being a "commercial" for the organization, point out anything in the pro- or external links area that is incorrect factually, with sources. Since the "con" and "pro" areas are the same size, one has to wonder how it would appear unbalanced. There are links to anti- and pro- information, and once it's off protection, the piece should of course go in there. PeeJ has not accused of being pro-pedophile, but have pointed out inaccuracies and lies by a Jeff Woloson, a man who has gone on record defending those who seek relations with twelve year olds.

I've said all along that the article should be rewritten by either the original author or Shimeru. However, watching people put on proxies and edit it to remove information is simply wrong, and not in the spirit of anything Wikipedia has ever done. It's sad that people have to come and hide their identities and true reasons for editing the piece. I have not done so. I could have put on a proxy and edited it a thousand times, hell, I could have put on a proxy and removed the cons section entirely. Look over the history of the piece. Morrow's people have slapped on proxies to try to do damage to the article.

Further thoughts...

I see the article's protected now. I'd hoped it wouldn't come to that.

I am not, incidentally, the original author of the article, just so that's clear. I'm also not affiliated in any way with PJ, nor with any of its critics. I just came across the article, did some cleanup work, and added it to my watchlist, as I do with most of the articles I change significantly.

The quote attributed to me above is true. I don't feel that version of the article was the ebst possible article, but I was reasonably happy with it in terms of NPOV. It's always possible to do more.

Evil Saltine's proposed changes to the Pro/Con section above, for instance, strike me as very well designed. He's separated the pros and cons more clearly and structured them according to individual points of contention.

As far as the rest of the article... I think what we're striving for with NPOV is akin to journalistic style. What that means, in regards to some of the points of argument, is:

  • "Xavier's" real name: This is relevant to the site and should be a part of the article — if it can be confirmed by a reliable source. There should be a citation for this source. If it cannot be confirmed, then it is speculation. Speculation should not be a part of the article in most cases. If there is substantial circumstantial evidence (with citations), then it may be reported — but in this case it must be presented as speculation. In any case, "Xavier" should be noted as a pseudonym.
  • Links: Some of these are relevant; others are redundant. This section should probably be trimmed somewhat. For instance, on the currently-protected version, there are four separate links to — one to the site, and three to subpages from the site. This is excessive. I would eliminate the "Guide" and "FAQ" links, and move the "convictions by month" one to the "pro" section as a citation. I'm of two minds about listing; it's relevant, as a critical site, but the wording of the link seems unnecessarily antagonistic. Better to list the site title and a brief note stating that it's a site critical of PJ, I think. On the other hand, that brings up, which has a lot to do with, but might be out of place in this article; a site designed to discredit a site designed to discredit PJ is getting a bit removed from PJ itself. The various news links, at least, are fine, especially since many of them are also sources.
  • Number of "busts": The 700 number was mine, drawn from one of the news articles (I believe the Phoenix New Times one). We should probably cite the "official" count ("approximately 600" would do; I don't think we want to be updating for every new one), but we should also mention that a relatively large number of additional "busts" (over 200, apparently; this is not an insignificant number) were made but have since been disavowed by PJ.
  • General language: "Claims" or "states" is better than "makes clear," yes. "Alleged" or a synonym should probably show up a lot; presumption of innocence applies unless and until a "bust" has been found guilty in a court of law. Also, while not directly related to the article, I'd be careful about calling people "pro-pedophile" — that's a potential libel case, right there.
  • Under Accomplishments: "the largest anti-pedophilia website online": This needs a source citation.
  • Jonathan Zittrain: Should probably be expanded upon, in accordance with Mr. Carr's citation above. "Entrapment issues don't tend to apply" and "no immediate cause of action jumps to mind" isn't the same as "the site is completely legal."
  • Harassment order: It seems the key factor here was lack of jurisdiction. Once again, a citation (perhaps to that PDF a previous poster mentioned) would be best.

So basically, what it boils down to is... sticking to citable sources and trying to keep opinion out of it. Shimeru 22:41, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

"If Peter Carr could read well, he would see that nobody said Howard endorsed the site, but only that what the site does is legal."

It's Jonathan Zittrain, of Harvard. Who's Howard? To reprint the full text of the email, I would first have to obtain permission from Dr. Zittrain, which I will obtain asap. Chatmag

Jonathan Zittrain: Should probably be expanded upon, in accordance with Mr. Carr's citation above. "Entrapment issues don't tend to apply" and "no immediate cause of action jumps to mind" isn't the same as "the site is completely legal."

Watch the CourtTV documentary where Zittrain comments more: by Al Roker productions. It's aired multiple times and will continue to do so.

As for calling people "pro-pedophile" being libel, the ultimate defense against libel is truth. Since the site in question "", was co-founded by an admitted member of NAMBLA, a man who has stated that he "uses child porn" and is a "child porn addict", the tag certainly fits.

My statements about the article needing to be protected stand, there is no way the anti-PJ'ers will let ACTUAL Wikipedia authors and impartial observers to edit the article. They will continue to grab proxies, they will continue to undermine NPOV. I was aware of this article before it was even posted (and there were many things I thought weren't right when I saw it after it was immediately posted, yet I edited nothing), yet didn't come in on the piece until it was brought to my attention that there was a concerted effort to screw with it underway. It is my sincere hope that actual Wiki- people and not the defenders of pedophiles write the article. I don't care what ACTUAL Wiki people write so long as it's not screwed with by organized pedophile-enablers.

Let's talk about improving the article

I'm going to be honest and say I haven't read large parts of this discussion. It appears to be a debate which has little to do with the content of the article. Now that this article is protected and listed in a few lists of "problem articles", it's going to get some attention from regulars here, and our intent will be to improve the article - not to fight around with people. For this reason it would be best to limit the pro/con debates in this talk page. If you have a suggestion on how to improve the article, please make it.

All involved need to read a few policies, please: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view says that we should present all points of view in a neutral manner - this means no deleting information simply because it presents the subject in a bad light. Try to stay away from loaded terms, including pedophile. If you want an external link taken down, please bring it up here. Another policy is Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. It isn't a soapbox, a vehicle for advocacy or self-promotion - whether you're for or against P-J, please don't use this site to further your POV.

I don't think pro/con lists work too well, it turns into an arms race where each side owns their respective section. I would try to integrate the pro/con points into a coherent section. But if people feel it will work here, that's fine. Also, try not to use equals signs to separate comments in discussions, it breaks the table of contents on this talk page. And I realize I'm not setting the best example, but try to keep your comments brief and to the point, it really helps discussion. This article isn't going to be protected forever, so feel free to discuss what needs to change. Rhobite 20:29, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Some input, comments

Hi, I'm Phoebus Apollo, co-admin. I was pointed to this article by a medical lab student who commented earlier, and would appreciate throwing in my two cents worth to this conversation. I also use the same IP as Xavier as we are roommates (in case anyone wonders about that). Some observations I'd like to make:

1. Legality: While Jonathan Zittrain's comments on the CourtTV episode made it perfectly clear, I would like to reiterate that since no one has even speculatively presented a law that MAY be breaking, that it should be unfair to say anything other than that the site is "entirely legal". I am fine with NPOV wording such as "Site supporters claim the site is entirely legal, while detractors speculate --- short list of main speculations ---", however I would appreciate it if someone impartial would locate an exact quote from Zittrain from the CourtTV broadcast to suppliment any such comment, as he is an authority and has stated on tv that the site is legal. I think it's fair that the legality of our site - which is not been put into question, as no one has claimed we have broken any actual laws - not be made to appear speculative to a point of total uncertainty, as the legality of my site is not uncertain in the least.

2. Harassment Restraining Order: The point of view of the advocates is that the Harassment Restraining Order against two of our contributors was only rejected because of jurisdictional reasons, as if otherwise we would've been slapped hard with legal action and we merely dodged the bullet. This is completely bogus and I have citations from the judge's decision contradicting this claim, suggesting the judge ruled it out for a variety of reasons, such as deeming a harassment restraining order as an inappropriate act to solve this dispute, and clearly stating that even if jurisdiction wasn't an issue the court still would've denied the petition.

I summarize all of the opinions of the court which they listed as "several important issues" behind why they denied the action, direct from a copy of the verdict letter sent to our contributors, the respondants in this case:

  • Reason #1: Jurisdiction (this is the reason no one disputes).
  • Reason #2: The Defendants were not Xavier Von Erck, the owner of, and even if the court decided to rule to have content removed or censored from the site, it would not be possible unless Xavier Von Erck was the defendant.
  • Reason #3: The court did not believe Minnesota harassment legislature was made to address legal issues regarding the internet, and felt that a harassment restraining order was not the format in which to decide the important issues involved. The facts before the court did not support a harassment restraining order style of action.
  • Reason #4: Direct citation (my italics): "Finally, even had we not been compelled by jurisidictional concerns to deny the petition, we still would have found that an Harassment Restraining Order was not appropriate in this situation, because the defendant's actions probably do not qualify as harassment for purposes of Minn. Stat. § 609.748, subd. 1. It contemplates physical acts directed at a person, such as telephone calls, name-calling, unwanted visits, stalking and the like. We have reviewed the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing, and it is clear that the defendants did not themselves commit the harassing acts -- the telephone calls -- directed at the petitioners. Rather, any harassment that petitioners may have suffered was the result of action taken by other people who saw the website or the news story and responded by harassing petitioners." The judge speculates that the act might have "led to" harassment, but that the harassment is not on the part of the contributors (and thus not on the part of This means that the individual callers or individual people online who "harassed" them are each legally responsible for their own acts. If it was any other way, then all media outlets and internet websites would be subject to the whimsy of their most hysterical reader's actions.

Finally, the official court order read:

"ORDER: Based on evidenced presented at the hearing there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the respondents has engaged in harassment. Therefore, no two-year restraining order shall be issued, and the petition is dismissed."

Reason #4 explicitely stated that even if jurisdiction was NOT an issue this judge would have deemed the action inappropriate. Likewise, if the contributors are not liable for the harassment caused by other people's phone calls, then we can also reasonably conclude my website is likewise not liable for said harassment, just as we can likewise reasonably conclude the newspapers are not liable for said harassment. The people liable are the individuals involved, particularly the people making the calls (if the calls are "harassment", a single call cannot be by definition, 60 calls a day is not "harassment" if the 60 callers are all individuals which they likely all are, so please keep this in mind). I believe this argument is clear and therefore we should NOT consider this harassment restraining order to be denied on a "jurisdiction only" basis. Likewise, I'd like to add, nowhere does the judge suggest taking the action to a "federal" level, the direct implication from the court is that the appropriate action here is civil litigation in the defendant's homestates, not a "federal restraining order" which likewise (if you look it up) is grossly inappropriate for this situation. Simply put, internet disputes mainly don't get settled via restraining order.

3. Links: If wiki readers want to balance the "pro" and "con" links, I believe they should, but I believe an article edited by Morrow and his crew will revert too many to "con", especially too many to their own very specific "con" pieces, making all objection to my website a part of his very narrow series of complaints. By letting that outshine the negative viewpoints of our other detractors, it is limiting what "con" really is. I don't mind revising "pros" and adding "cons", I just want Wiki readers, not staff, making these decisions.

Lastly, if is listed as a "con" source, then immediately becomes a relevant "pro" source - the argument isn't relevant is absurd, as it's sole purpose of existance is to address the criticisms that has made towards You won't find many direct criticisms of addressed on, so it is unfair to link to that and say "good enough" while ignoring the very valid counterpoints provides. It would not be neutral to allow staff to inject their criticisms without the most prevalent website offering critical counterpoint to those criticisms not also being listed. I believe is a necessary and valid resource to link to, only if is linked to. If does not force itself into this article, then I do not believe is a relevant link, and only under those conditions would I find it appropriate to remove the link.

I also feel that a link to the FAQ and a link to the Guide are not redundant, however additional links beyond that may be, at Wiki reader's discretion of course.

4. Number of "busts": There are 592 officially on the website. "Approximately 600 (as of January 2005)" would be appropriate language. There were more in the past as I told my friend above, he did a good job describing it, since they won't be found on the site anymore they aren't really official nor exact figures.

5. Citation for "the largest anti-pedophile website online": This citation comes from our forum user base of 16,000. Even if a fraction of those users are actually active today, this easily puts us as the largest anti-pedophile resource online. I am making this claim and I would appreciate discussion regarding it. At the very least, a NPOV wording such as "the site claims to be the largest anti-pedophile website online" is appropriate, however I do believe that no comparable resource could be found with regards to user base, keeping in mind that even a small fraction of those 16,000 users puts us well above any other online organization that is dedicated to anti-pedophilia.

For any further questions regarding this Wiki article and PeeJ, I invite all Wiki readers to IM me at the following usernames:

AIM: PhoebusApolloX Yahoo: phoebus_apollo1 MSN:

Thanks for your time.

I'm not sure how I did that, but can someone please fix this. I'm not familiar yet with reverts. My apologies to Phoebus, it was unintentional.

I had attempted to post an update.

The issues being discussed here should be moved to a court of law, and not use Wikipedia as such. I had hoped for a reasoned discussion amongst gentlemen, apparently that will not happen. As I stated before, this article should be deleted. Chatmag

Please be careful with how you edit next time. - Phoebus

More input & comment

1) I agree completely with the comment made above that this article, as currently written, appears to be nothing more than an advertisement for the PJ site. Statements in the "Cons" section are supposed to represent the actual "cons" of the site, yet for virtually every "con" listed, statements such as "however, site supporters believe..." have been appended to counter what is being stated in the "con". The cons listed should show the negative aspects that critics cite, without the site owner's or supporter's caveats to those criticisms.

2) is one of the primary critics of Perverted-Justice. Our only reason for existence is to publicize the negative aspects of PJ. We are direct critics of PJ, acknowledged to be so in a considerable number of newspaper articles and other media. As our mandate is directly related to PJ (we would not exist were it not for PJ's existence), there is no question that should be included in both the "links", and the list of critics in the "Cons" section. As for corrupted-justice.NET - They have stated numerous times on their own site that they have no relation to PJ. This has been reiterated in Pheobus Apollo's statement above. They have made it abundantly clear that they are separate entities with no direct relationship to PJ beyond existing to criticize a site which DOES have a direct link with PJ. If the article in question were ABOUT, it would be reasonable for .net to have representation. The article is not about - It is about, therefore, any references to should be removed.

3) Unless PJ supporters can provide externally verifiable proof that any of their critics are "pedophiles" or "pro-pedophile", making such statements are simply libelous and childish attempts to discredit their opposition. Asserting that a blog posting or usenet message is proof of ANYTHING is preposterous unless it can be independently proven that any such posting was actually made by the person being accused and if so proven, the circumstances surrounding the posting. Contrary to PJ's methods, guilt of anything is not assumed on the basis of claims made by those with an agenda to discredit and should therefore not be allowed in either the article or this discussion. While some may personally believe that Xavier Von Erck and Phoebus Apollo are "closet-pedophiles", making such a statement with no more proof than messages posted publicly on the Internet would, in most circles, be considered libel and should not be tolerated here either in the article or this dicussion.

4) The "exact figures" for the number of "busts" made by the site should include the exact number of 181 busts which were removed from the site due to not having been phone verified, and the exact number of 62 removed because they were conducted by "Tattooed Indian Guy" who was removed from the site and had all evidence of his existance subsequently removed. If the article is to present facts, the fact is that PJ has conducted 243 busts in addition to the number they display on the site. Not including these additional "busts" simply because they may cast doubt on the site's integrity is not in of itself a reason to hide the fact that 243 more people than the number stated by PJ have been affected by PJ. Regardless of the number stated on the site, these 243 "busts" occurred, and should be included.

5) Stating that PJ is "anti-pedophile" is an inacurate misnomer, as the vast majority of the almost 900 "busts" were never convicted in a court of law, and in the eyes of the legal system, very few if any of them are true "pedophiles". That PJ has made such accusations against these people does not necessarily make it true. Unless verifiable proof is shown that PJ only targets actual pedophiles, any reference to this term should be dropped.

--Scott Morrow 18:07, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

External links and people slagging out it about their own websites

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

I have amalgamated the three links, kept separately but on one line, which is probably a good compromise. I understand that interested parties will lead a revert war re delete of the anti-anti group's mentioning by my preceding editor ( or or whatever) but I would appreciate if this amalgamation would survive any editwarring over that unrelated matter. Apart from this I have no vierws on whether that anti-anti group should be mentined or not, I simply believe that anyone involved in the actual sites should really not write here. Refdoc 13:04, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


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

Not part of disputed!

Note: this has nothing to do with the disputed text above! - Ta bu shi da yu 00:48, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To Wikipedia Readers: Perverted Just is a producer of sexual content both in text and in nude images of men. This social experiment has created a culture that is addictive to the volunteers. Whether there is danger for the adult volunteers or not; there exist real danger that the lack of adult verification allows for children to join the PJ site. The members have admitted chasing the younger ones out. Our investigation into Perverted Just found that the significant players use false names and ip ghosting to hide their real ids. Phillip Eide name may even be just another fake name.

The website operators store the nudes images as trophies for the inner circle. The more bust or so called conviction allow one to move further up the line of command or privilege. Very tribal culture. The hate mongering has led to the Perverted Justice community to send hate mail and phone calls to child advocacy groups like Team Amber Alert and any other that has a voice to tell the truth. They are what they fight. This have allowed for so called pretend child role players to solicit sexual content and overtures from Adults. The assumption is how do the so called fake/faux child know the adult they are soliciting are not children.

Previous statements from us to declare the facts in regard to PJ and the sites they invade to act our their voyeurism to simulated sex with a child and an adult have all been deleted. The real credibility of the Wikepedia Community is at stake here. If this is infact a real community to have dialogue pro con or nutral then one would think this page would exist for a while longer than the past entries. For those who are adults and pay via credit card you can view any legal content you please.

PJ was created not to attack pedophiles but to show that sensible adults can be encouraged to doe things and participate in activities that they might not otherwise do. So whose research project is this and how much is being made here?

Phillip is not a real leader but a coward that has found a way to be the voyeur he is. The real reason is should this site continue to advertise the process PJ has catalysed considering that children are at risk. IF this continues children will be harmed and because of the help this site continues to provide Phillip Eide and his followers.

PJ is not about protecting children but is all about entertaining Xavier himself the alter ego of Phillip Eide. A series of articles are planned to further expose Phillip Eide and his cult. First and foremost will be to identify how he has accomplished his so called success and list his benefactor that provide him unchallenged media outlet. The tide has turned it seems. PJ will not have the media support of the past now that his project has been mapped.

Perverted Justice is a porn site that remains unprotected by adult verification and the site operators pretend to be a public service to get rid of pedophiles. I need I am prepared to provide the links to their site of the aforementioned nude images taken of their so called bust that they then keep as trophies. Or you can download quadsucker.exe a free web downloader and look for yourself. As the members work their way up the chain of command, the more access they have to the site contents. The culture there has a don’t ask don’t tell if your are a member who is under age. Providing a opposing side on your site does little good if they delete it. If this is a forum of real intellectual dialogue or even just cyber entertainment with any rules one should be heard on the opposing side.

PJ's effort to train an army to infiltrate the web to get rid of bad guys is as ineffective as what our government did in Latin Americas in the 60's and 70's. The so called good guys became the drug cartels of the 80 and 90. What will PJ members become in ten years? All ready there activities are interfering with real efforts by law enforcement and their attacks of real organization with hate calls and hate email is a well known tactic. I have norton and MS protecting our terminals. Therefore they have had little impact.

They are being served notices as we speak to further cease and decist. What more can anyone do. The public and or buyers beware. As for the kids on PJ sites, PJ should worry what the parents will do when the find out. In some states that is a crime to expose children to such sexual content. And children have not any right to consent. His argument that the child violated their site rules is not enough to protect him from the law or the parents rights to a civil remedy. Adult verification is free and their site would have source of revenue. As their members put their money where their mouth is well the site will have to survive or not. This will slow down the danger of children getting into the world of PJ.

I wont’t bother you again. This is my last attempt posing any dialogue pro or con. It is your site and I support free speech. I encourage dialogue. This forum is unique and has great merrits.

Jim and Tonia. Team Amber Alert Founders.

Article Disputed

The moment this article was unlocked, this again became a problem. As such, we at advise all readers - and have added a notice into the article itself - that the content of the article as a whole is in dispute by the subject of the article,

If this notice is removed, we will contact Wikipedia and demand a more permanent resolution. It is relevant to the article that the article's subject does not agree with it's content.

Likewise, let me again express discontent toward the way this article has been treated by staff, or their friends (Chatmag & Team Amber Alert - who are not the official Amber Alert organization, which is, who we ardently support).

Our reasons for this stance are clear:

1) There have been additions to the Con viewpoints to this article that demand lengthy refutation, which is impossible when the Pro section is constantly hacked apart and shortened. There were added citations in the past which were removed by dissenters, and now content is being put into dispute by the same dissenters, and further being removed or changed based on a lack of such citations which were there in for a reason in the first place. If the Cons of the article demand lengthy refutation, it is very biased to shorten the Pro section to a point where lengthy refutation is impossible. The previous Pro section provided many citations and links refuting or providing counterpoints to the very terse Con claims, and staff have been constantly removing this material as "redundant" or "irrelevant". This lends itself to the perpetual environment that any Con claim can be made while Pro claims to counter them will be removed.

Given the nature of wikipedia and the long list of proxies and help that staff have enlisted, I sincerely doubt that an unlocked article can ever be permanently adjusted to refute these claims, so I see no reason to continue trying.

2) The website provides it's own documentation towards the convictions and recovery of an abducted girl. You can easily find citations here: or in the website's news updates, or forums. Such citations were provided for in the past in this article, and have been removed to demean our work.

We cannot sit around week after week and continue to answer friends of on issues of disputed content. Again, many of our "irrelevant" external links that have been removed were relevant arrest/conviction citations and our record with police, and I do not foresee that given the nature of the edits being made that there will be any way to continually leave this article unbiased, as those will be removed over and over.

This contributes to the reason we have declared the entire article in dispute. Please note the original, unedited article was fine, and it was from a third-party who was not coached in any way, unlike the later revisions by, who have all been from personal friends of the website who have posted on their forums and been in contact with their organization.

3) The "Con" to has never been merely is one of many organizations who have criticized (some still do, some changed their opinions), and of all of those professional organizations which do criticize us, has the fewest members with the least amount of expertise in this field (making their criticisms half-baked and largely irrelevant). Many common criticisms of will be ignored in the article now, so that one net-savvy group of users at can rewrite the critical history of the website to their conspiracy-laden objections ( even claims we have forged government documents and openly libel administration & volunteers in an effort to harass them offline). Obviously this kind of editing does no Wiki reader any good.

For these reasons, I see no cause to pretend this article is unbiased or continue trying to revert it, and my friend Xavier agrees. Be it removing relevant material to reply to criticisms (like or adding material biased towards the very narrow POV (such as an piece where a staff member of posed as a former "volunteer", or Chatmag articles which were written by friends of those busted by there is no reason to pretend, at all, that this article is unbiased in any way.

So long as our "Article In Dispute" notices at the top of this article remain intact, we feel we have said what needs to be said about the content of the article. Obviously we cannot prevent an unlocked Wikipedia article from being vandalized without aid from the Wikipedia community, who I have invited to contact me personally to help settle these issues, but none have yet responded. I request that all content of the article be left alone by the greatest number of people as possible, however I forsee that my wishes will be ignored as they were before by the few individuals of and their proxies.

Speaking of which, if anyone reading has personal questions about this dispute or in general, I invite them to speak to me anytime.

AIM: PhoebusApolloX Yahoo: phoebus_apollo1 MSN:

I will be more than happy to provide details about citations, refutations and the website in general to anyone who asks. Keep in mind that the person who put our conviction record and recovery of an abducted child "in dispute" never asked any of the website administration about it, and only added the "in dispute" notation after the links to relevant external articles justifying the conviction track record were removed entirely from the article by staff. A truly unbiased NPOV editor would simply reword the phrase to "and the website claims to have contributed to seven convictions and the recovery of an abducted girl", Wiki readers know that removal of information is not a good NPOV policy.

Thanks again. A reminder to our malicious editors, I will report all changes to this message and to the "In Dispute" advisory to the proper channels.

- Phoebus Apollo Lead Tech,

Sorry, but that's just not the way that Wikipedia works. We don't put notices up like that on our articles. I have removed it. Please don't put it back. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:26, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Oh really now? So you want to censor that the status of this article is in dispute? I'm putting the notice back up now and will report you for vandalism if you remove my notice one more time. You need to go read Wikipedia guidelines before talking about how Wikipedia does or does not work. Guidelines clearly say that if mediation, advocacy, and finding a neutral third party does not successfully resolve the situation, that parties should offer propositions to end the dispute. My party's proposition is that the notification that this article's content is in dispute remains, as the article's content clearly IS in open dispute, as is quite obvious by looking at the editing history. If that cannot be abided by, I will follow Wiki guidelines and request the aid of the Arbitration Committee to settle this issue once and for all, and that complaint will involve you if you edit my work once more. Do not remove my additions to this article again, or I will enter you as a vandal and notify the Arbitration Committe. Likewise, I object to the removal of the content you have placed in dispute, as NPOV wording is the easiest resolution, and more in tune with Wiki-philosophy, which you sorely need to read up on. Please note: The notice that this article is in dispute is hopefully a temporary thing, given that the article IS currently in dispute, and I feel it is an important interim measure to continue moving this article towards accuracy. With it intact, it will let Wiki readers know to research and revise the content therein. This, I believe, is very much the Wiki-way.- Phoebus Apollo
Alright, be advised that since my suggestion for helping improve this article in a fair and unbiased way was ignored, that I'll have to be taking this issue up with the Arbitration Committee members. Obviously "creating a temporary solution so the article can be edited fairly and freely for all parties" is not a good enough solution for you people. Pathetic. - Phoebus Apollo
Go ahead. I doubt they'll block me for editing the page. In fact, you may find out very quickly just how much they dislike you pushing your POV into this article. Note though, I'm an administrator on this site and I don't really have much stake in this article. I will however rollback your changes. If they happen too much the editors will either be blocked or this page will be locked. You have been warned. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:35, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, what POV have I "pushed" into the article by editing in an advisory regarding the status of this article as "in dispute"? Absolutely none. I fail to see your point, and I do not believe your intervention is wanted. You can continue this conversation in my user talk page if you feel the inclination, although judging from your attitude, you are not here for dialogue (like the kind I have provided consistently in this thread). You are not interested in NPOV, as your only proposed change to this article is one that neglects NPOV entirely, so save me the sermon. - Phoebus Apollo
There are tags you can use. {{npov}}, {{accuarcy}} and {{totallydisputed}}. That's pretty much it! You seem new: I'd suggest you get to know how this site works from us "old-timers" who've earned our stripes. There are a few good people to talk to: User:Jayjg, User:Rhobite, User:Raul654, User:Ambi or anyone on WP:AN. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:27, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I would've used tags had I known there were some for this specific situation. If you knew of a form-proper etiquette for making the revision I sought to make, instead of editing it out, you could have changed it to add the proper tag. I have been reading Wiki for years, and whether you are an old-timer or not, I don't believe that edits without cause are good ones. For instance, citations for our arrest/conviction record were in the article originally, but the moment they were taken out, you put the claim into dispute with threat of removal. I proposed a solution, to use NPOV wording, and readers can figure out for themselves if the claim is right or not (easier than arguing), and I have yet to see that solution tried out. I don't believe it's improper to suggest solutions to making this article more fair to all parties, yet I feel because of you and your friends attempting to undermine even my minor editing, that ideas and solutions are not wanted at Wikipedia. If that's the case, please say so. Also keep in mind that these edits are the only ones I personally have done, edits in the past were by my roommate who shares my IP address. You can distinguish us because I do not post as his username, nor do I make edits while logged in as him, I merely make them from this IP on it's own. I will try one of the tags, now that I have been informed that is considered more proper to use those instead of writing out that it is disputed like I did before, although you could've saved us both time by simply doing it when you edited my intial change out in the first place, or suggesting it when you made that edit. All in all, I feel like I'm being made unwelcome for wanting to see a better article in place, so after I add one of those tags there, I'm just going to take a break and let users argue amongst themselves towards what they feel needs to be changed. Obviously my input is not wanted. Either way, I suggest you all take a look at both sides of the story before becoming too judgemental of users - Phoebus Apollo
There are two issues here: the first is that you tried to force us to keep something we would not normally keep, and then you got upset when we removed it. You might have read Wikipedia for many years, but if you want to contribute you should perhaps realise that there are, like many organisations, certain norms and behaviours that are expected of editors. One is that metacontent is seperated from the main page content, and is in the discussion page. Therefore, your warning was not appropriate. I have since added an NPOV tag. Peace, I wasn't removing it to attack you, and my warning about locking the page or blocking was to show just where I stood on matters like this. It's nothing personal. I also suggested that you talk to more experienced contributors to help get a feel for editing the site. I might note that you started with a controversial article (which I don't have a problem with), but you will be opposed by others and material you might not like but which is perfectly valid for this article will more than likely be incorporated. That is the wiki way.
Addressing this complaint, the only reason I attempted to put up the notice again is because you did not offer cause or valid basis for removing it... you just kinda jumped in and sided against the possibility that anything is really "wrong" here, and then threatened me with banning (you should look into both sides of the dispute before jumping in like that, as that's extremely unfair to me). After you explained yourself and offered an appropriate solution, you can clearly see I did respect it, so don't confuse my frankness with bias, I have no problem with you, just with the way you introduced yourself into this article. The only content I personally have attempted to change was the addition of a npov/accuracy notice, which is now up in what I believe to be (and I hope you agree) an acceptable form. People are going to disagree in editing an article like this, I'm not an idiot and I know that, but you must remember that some of those people who disagree are the friends of, and it must be remembered that their users have been editing this article with proxies to undo changes that not we - but an unbiased third party author - originally added. It's not fair to me (especially considering the concerted effort of to interfere with the course of this article) to be censored so someone else can have the right to speak uncontested. I am requesting that you back me up on leaving the {{totallydisputed}} tag, as a proper resolution for this part of the conflict over this article. That means standing by my side in not letting it be edited or removed again. - PhoebusApollo
The second issue is that you would not be having the issue of being confused with another person who posts from your IP address if you created an account! It's very easy to do. Just go to the create a username, add your username and password, then type it in again: you now have a user account! You don't even have to validate who you are via email. Why don't you do that? Then our confusion will be dealt with. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:05, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks again for the advice, I have done so. - PhoebusApollo

Is this Odd? Or is it just me?

I'm somewhat amazed that the Talk page for this article is, what, ten times larger than the article itself? Does this really happen that often around here? Weaponofmassinstruction 08:10, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It depends on how controversial the article is. This is nothing. At one point Jihad was about 6 times the size of the main article. Then we started archiving, and it didn't go down by much at all. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:07, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Both the Neutrality and Accuracy of this article are in dispute (the subjects of this piece) formally disputes both the accuracy and neutrality of this article. This is a temporary dispute, and is the easiest way that we see to settle this dispute for now. Why people are fighting me over it, I have no idea, but keep in mind that most people doing so are siding with the invaders who have a clear agenda against the well-being of my website. Once Wiki readers have edited the article, added to it and changed it in a way where we feel we can drop the neutrality/accuracy dispute, we will remove the dispute notice. It's the only reasonable resolution given the heated dispute this article has brought about, and I think that's a fair response to this situation. Anything else will simply cause another reversion war. I don't ask for something perfect, just something fair - neutral and accurate - until then, I can't in good faith endorse the article here about us. Please note that it was fine the way it originally was, and we did NOT write the original article.

To edit my notice again is disrespectful of me and the subject of this article, just as it would be to you if I changed a dispute you placed on it. I know some of you don't CARE if you disrespect or me, but I believe I am in the right for insisting upon this resolution, and will back it up as I see fit. Modification of the npov/accuracy tag will only leave me to believe that certain parties ( will not let the issue go, and will continue editing this article.

I believe this is reasonable for all of us (pro- or anti- PeeJ), and I request the Wiki users who read/care to please back me up on this.

To Woohookitty: You asked me to change the article if I dispute it's accuracy. The problem is, this has been tried in conjunction with a mediator, in conjunction with an advocate, and it was unsuccessful - it turned into a reversion war that you see here. So I leave the notice up only as a possible solution to pass until the edit war has subsided.

I did not agree 100% with the original article written, but it was factual and neutral, so I had no problem with it, and neither did Xavier Von Erck. Until it returns to a state similar to that, I don't see why the dispute over this article should be covered-up. That just misleads Wiki readers to think we endorse it.

I remind all people reading that I personally have made no significant modifications to this article, and that the only addition I have added was the npov/accuracy dispute. I would also like to remind them that there WERE no problems until staff, led by Scott Morrow, began vandalizing this piece. It was NOT written by or anyone affiliated with us, but insteady by a third party, regular Wikipedia user, who has probably given up entirely trying to make this article normal again. So don't blame me for a problem I'm simply trying to help solve.

- PhoebusApollo


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

Dubious bugbear

On the PJ website (for Wikipedians), it states "Lastly, to sum it up succinctly, please visit this link. You will notice a weird edit where a wiki user takes out our record of accomplishment calling it "dubious." However, if this user were bright enough to check out the external links on previous versions or on the version we linked, he would notice a citation in external links directing users to a article talking about the recovery of the abducted girl which is considered "dubious" by someone who is obviously either illiterate, or who isn't bringing a neutral POV to the article."

The "dubious" tag is for uncited claims. At the time it was uncited, I had not realised that people had removed the material. I sent a message to one of the site admins, and we had a discussion. I find it a little unfair that we don't see the context of this message. If the admins would like to put back the evidence of this happening, this would be great. I'll personally see to it that noone removes the links, due to spam. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:43, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Material removed until it can be tightened up

"Some critics have expressed concern or opposition in regard to, with the administration of the web sites illustrating that most critics are outside the United States, and labeling them as defenders of pedophiles. They shrug off most concerns regarding the site by stating that they would rather be defending American children from would-be pedophiles than doing nothing at all, along with pointing at their long track record of success with law enforcement and the recovery of an abducted girl in September of 2004."

Just passing through.

I've watched this article with some interest. I took the liberty of editing that line about "Philip J. Eide" being Xavier von Erck to reflect the fact that no unbiased source has confirmed it. I also added a similar disclaimer to the AVSO link. Hopefully Mr. von Erck and Mr. Morrow find that to be more acceptable.

  • Good idea. I will try to write my own version of the article on Notepad and try to see if it can come out NPOV. Zscout370 20:11, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)