Talk:Perverted-Justice/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 8

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 Perverted-Justice.com (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 Perverted-Justice.com 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 Perverted-Justice.com's filter" that went to just another attack page put up by the same ol' usual suspects.

- Perverted-Justice.com 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 67.169.194.181 (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 perverted-justice.com 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 perverted-justice.com. 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 67.169.194.181. 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 67.169.194.181. 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 Perverted-Justice.com 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 Perverted-Justice.com, 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 Perverted-Justice.com 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 Perverted-Justice.com 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 Perverted-Justice.com 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 67.169.194.181. 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 www.perverted-justice.com. As for Modemac's page, he is perfectly entitled to create a page of criticism about www.perverted-justice.com. 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" PJ.com 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: "Perverted-Justice.com (also known as "PeeJ") is a website dedicated to catching Internet pedophiles while they attempt to meet up with underage children for sexual encounters. The website makes use of contributors who pose as young girls or boys, talk to older men who are interested in exchanging photos online, and then attempt to set up dates and times to meet. Subsequently, they place information about these men on their website for anyone to view."

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

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: "Perverted-Justice.com (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)
      • I like Kate's idea better. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 14:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
        • It's fine but we should say "entrap" not "catch". Grace Note 23:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
          • Maybe Kate wanted to use that word, since entrapment is a crime. Maybe we could use the word "entice." Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Protection

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 Perverted-Justice.com site while bypassing their Wikipedia "filter." I freely state this as my intent, as I do not see this as NPOV. This also was my purpose for putting the link to my page there in the first place: to add a link that served a purpose for the page (again, to bypass the filter). I've hardly received scores and scores of web traffic on my site because of (or in spite of) this article, and I certainly did not expect lots of traffic. I want people to see my page, certainly; there's nothing wrong with that. I am also certainly not spamming links onto this or any other site. --Modemac 09:17, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
You can count yourself lucky that no one is much interested in this page. Not only did you protect a page you yourself were involved in an editwar on, but you edited it after you had done so. If I thought there was any hope of a just outcome, I'd ask for you to face arbitration with the aim of being desysopped. I think you ought to consider asking a bureaucrat to remove your adminship yourself, and then reapplying in, say, three months. Even if you feel you were fighting POV pushers and needed to have the page protected, there are means to do that -- you could have requested it on the appropriate page or emailed another admin active at that time. It's important for editors to feel that they can have a dispute with an admin on equal terms (except of course for the admin's super revert powers) and that the admin won't simply "cheat". I am not disputing the rights or wrongs of including your link. Grace Note 23:31, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

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 perverted-justice.com website. I think I would be much more sympathetic to the operators of perverted-justice.com 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 perverted-justice.com 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)

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

Article of Interest

I have no clue what POV this website has, but this is something I think we should look at: http://www.chatmag.com/news/pjnewsupdates.html

"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 Perverted-Justice.com, with the administration of the web sites illustrating that most critics are outside the United States, and labeling them as defenders of pedophiles."

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 http://www.perverted-justice.com/opinions/, 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)

Rewrite

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."
The forums are probbaly where the first reporting takes place. Once the contact was made between the would be predator and the volunteer posing as the child, the chatlogs/whatever else is posted here. Those who do read the forums will now have the chance to do research to try and find out who this predator is. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:03, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
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) 22:00, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Sources for Rewrite/Answers

Adding some sources for your re-write, if you wish to use them, great. Very glad to see actual NPOV Wikipedians taking over! The issue of the filter will easily be solved by the inclusion of NPOV writers.

Sources for convictions (from the PeeJ site) http://www.perverted-justice.com/?con=full (copy and paste) - Obviously those are not news articles, but writeups on the PeeJ site itself. Some contain links to news articles, however. Putting "The website claims a dozen convictions" or "over ten convictions" would be accurate, perhaps even with the external link. Might not be a good idea to say a specific number, since the counter has been updating pretty quickly over the last few months.

Sources for news (Some cover convictions, others cover arrests, some cover the site in general) http://www.perverted-justice.com/?press=full (copy and paste) - Contains a listing of positive articles. I believe all the negative articles are already linked via the piece. Some of the article links no longer work, as news websites often "archive" content, but I believe all are easily found via Google if anyone is interested.

Information First is the website's program for signing up detectives and jurisdictions. The 98 million number is old, probably comes from late 2004. The number is generated by the amount of populance that is covered by Information First agreements. Basically Information First is our database of which contacts have stipulated receiving logs and information of individuals in their area. The other question related to the forums, where "Followup" takes place. Identification of the male in the chat-log along with a notification of his community, family, friends, whomever. Followup is controversial to the anti-PeeJ cause and probably should be marked as so.

Who are the adults who pose as minors? - Volunteers trained and picked from other volunteer positions via the forums. The process takes six months to a year of evaluation doing other tasks. Out of over 18,000 people who have signed up for the forums, there have been only 30-35 people selected to do full-scale contributorship at the top level of the website.

Are they paid anything?

No. The only funds the website generates comes from the Cafepress store, which garners about a buck a sale. Usually the income from that is approximately 30-100 dollars a month, depending on the month, with an average amount of 50 dollars. Administrators nor volunteers are paid, and donations from private individuals are not asked for.

Do they only chat, or do they also do follow-up research?

Depends on the contributor. Some do FU research, some don't.

How are they checked out (e.g. to check they're not pedophiles themselves or have convictions for violence, for example)?

Criminal background checks prior to promotion. Crimes of violence, blackmail, fraud or sex-related are automatic disqualifiers. Petty crimes are not taken into account.

What steps are involved in the move from chatroom encounter to posting of names and addresses?

Initial contact from the predator. Agreement (vague or specific) to meet for sexual activity. Phone Verification Contacting either Information First detective/department or cold-calling. (Website change in June of 2004) If police interest, usually not posted until after sentencing. If no police interest, file goes to main-page. From there, research is done.

It is interesting to note that half of the convictions the website has accrued have come after posting to the main page, as LE have quite often worked the case for the first time after the logs were posted.

Glad to see NPOV attention given to this article. Thanks! ---- 13:56, May 18, 2005 67.169.194.181


  • Above by 67.169.194.181, who saved after an edit conflict. I reverted to the last version to avoid the enormous duplication of material, then added back in his comments. Mine will come next. · Katefan0(scribble) 21:58, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Lots of good information in the ABC News story here [1], including a photograph of von Erck, which I'd like to use, claiming fair use, if no one objects. Also, if I'm editing, I'll have the inuse tag up, but if someone else wants to get in to do an edit, feel free to email me using the link on my user page, and I'll stop. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:01, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Slim, are you talking about this photo: [2]? If so, I do not mind we if use it. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:08, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Sources for convictions (from the PeeJ site) http://www.perverted-justice.com/?con=full (copy and paste) - Obviously those are not news articles, but writeups on the PeeJ site itself. Some contain links to news articles, however. Putting "The website claims a dozen convictions" or "over ten convictions" would be accurate, perhaps even with the external link. Might not be a good idea to say a specific number, since the counter has been updating pretty quickly over the last few months. I am not sure this is a good enough bar to pass, to simply say "alleged" and attribute the arrest information to PJ. Surely someone on the Website can point to some more substantial proof. · Katefan0(scribble) 22:12, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
We can point you to the departments themselves, and the locales. Not every arrest and conviction is covered by the media, in fact, the majority of arrests are definitely not covered. We do not solicit media attention, we only do media when approached. If you wish to contact the departments/detectives who did the actual work, feel free. They're certainly more reliable than print media :) -----
The burden is not on me to prove the information that your organization claims. The burden of proof for inclusion in this article is on you. However, the ABC story SV has found says they have verified five of the convictions, so that information should be added in somewhere. · Katefan0(scribble) 14:20, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Lots of good information in the ABC News story here [3], including a photograph of von Erck, which I'd like to use, claiming fair use, if no one objects. Also, if I'm editing, I'll have the inuse tag up, but if someone else wants to get in to do an edit, feel free to email me using the link on my user page, and I'll stop. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:01, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Some questions for Xavier

Thanks for all these answers, Xavier. It's much appreciated. A couple more queries below. I found some newspaper articles on the convictions, by the way, so that's more solid now. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:33, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
If you really want to solidify them, stop relying on (sometimes shoddy) newspaper reporting and contact the departments themselves. Our record of convictions isn't a debatable point, hence my sarcasm. I do appreciate your diligence, still, overrelying on what is occasionally bad reporting isn't always the best practice. If I were to wager, I'd say you've done more research on this than what most print reporters do. XavierVE 06:36, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I'd be inclined to trust a neutral newspaper report about whether or not the convictions have been verified rather than PJ itself. Of course most news articles just take your word for it. But there are some that have doublechecked, and those are perfectly legitimate sources. Much more so than simply referring to your website. No offense, I don't mean to accuse you of inflating your numbers, I'm just saying some sources are more reasonably unbiased than others. Again, the burden of proof is not on us, it's on you if you want it included in the article. ABC News' verification of five of the arrests is enough for me so I'm not going to press the point, I mention this only to reiterate the point that claims need to be sourced by those who wish them left included in an article. · Katefan0(scribble) 14:37, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
The problem is that we've already proved it. If someone would want to double-check our totals, they're free to contact the departments themselves. That's always far better than just regurgitating what a reporter with an "angle" says. Moot point, though. 67.169.194.181 23:18, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Adding some sources for your re-write, if you wish to use them, great. Very glad to see actual NPOV Wikipedians taking over! The issue of the filter will easily be solved by the inclusion of NPOV writers.

Sources for convictions (from the PeeJ site) http://www.perverted-justice.com/?con=full (copy and paste) - Obviously those are not news articles, but writeups on the PeeJ site itself. Some contain links to news articles, however. Putting "The website claims a dozen convictions" or "over ten convictions" would be accurate, perhaps even with the external link. Might not be a good idea to say a specific number, since the counter has been updating pretty quickly over the last few months. 67.169.194.181

Is there information available about the nature of the offenses and who was convicted, and where? Also, could you please start signing your posts? You should type four tildes after your posts; so that we have your ID (whether name or IP address), date, and time of your post. It makes the discussion much easier to follow. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:22, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Information is listed in the conviction writeups themselves, I do believe each mentions what the offenses were that resulted in conviction. Nature of the offenses are all related to solicitation of a minor, although one or two have been hit with additional charges after computer confiscation. (XavierVE 22:56, 18 May 2005 (UTC))
Okay, got it, thanks. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:33, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Sources for news (Some cover convictions, others cover arrests, some cover the site in general) http://www.perverted-justice.com/?press=full (copy and paste) - Contains a listing of positive articles. I believe all the negative articles are already linked via the piece. Some of the article links no longer work, as news websites often "archive" content, but I believe all are easily found via Google if anyone is interested.

Information First is the website's program for signing up detectives and jurisdictions.

"Signing up in what sense? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:22, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

In the sense that they give us their contact details and a description of the area they have jurisdiction, whether they wish to arrest travelers or only local folk and any specific instructions on how they want chat-logs to be done. As in, what type of kid is to be played or what age paradigms they wish to see. (XavierVE 22:56, 18 May 2005 (UTC))
Thanks. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:33, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

The 98 million number is old, probably comes from late 2004. The number is generated by the amount of populance that is covered by Information First agreements. Basically Information First is our database of which contacts have stipulated receiving logs and information of individuals in their area. The other question related to the forums, where "Followup" takes place. Identification of the male in the chat-log along with a notification of his community, family, friends, whomever. Followup is controversial to the anti-PeeJ cause and probably should be marked as so.

Sorry, I don't understand any of the above. What is "follow up"?
Followup is identification of the individual who had the chat, digging up all the details about the person, and then contacting those the person knows offline. (XavierVE 22:56, 18 May 2005 (UTC))
Okay, so who does that. Let's say a volunteer chats to an adult man, who gives his telephone number in the hope of arranging a meeting. What then? Does the volunteer phone the number, find out who it belongs to, and so on. Or do the police? Or are others involved? I'm trying to get a sense of what the volunteers themselves are responsible for here. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:33, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
The man is called by a second person called a "phone verifier." The Phone Verifier is an adult who sounds underage. They are different from Contributors, it's a site position people can volunteer to via the PeeJ forums. This is done before the website goes to police or is posted publicly. XavierVE 06:36, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Who are the adults who pose as minors? - Volunteers trained and picked from other volunteer positions via the forums.

What are the forums? You mean the chatrooms? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:22, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Forums are message boards. Users visit the PeeJ website and sign-up accounts. Volunteers are organized in the forums and usually filter to specific tasks. It's a massive area of operation for us. The "mainpage" is what you see when you visit the index of perverted-justice.com. The forums are visited via a tab off the "main page." (XavierVE 22:56, 18 May 2005 (UTC))
Okay, so you're not picking up volunteers in chatrooms: they're coming to your website and signing up to be volunteers via your message boards. And then you contact them, put them through a process that involves a criminal-record check, and then evaluate them for six to 12 months. Have I got that right? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:33, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Pretty much, except you have the order backwards. They volunteer on the forums in other positions for typically, six months to a year, then ran through checks.

The process takes six months to a year of evaluation doing other tasks.

What other tasks? And who evaluates them? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:22, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Current contributors and administrators evaluate. Other tasks include Followup, Phone verification, Content creation, Doing writeups on internet-abducted children, Human shields work... there are many areas of volunteerism that are open to newcomers to the website, and people are evaluated based on their work as a member of the forums, which can include work in all those areas. (XavierVE 22:56, 18 May 2005 (UTC))
Okay, so someone could be doing follow-up research during the evaluation period? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:33, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Yep. FU is what forum members make of it. We don't make it an official "site position", although we do evaluate people if they are good at it. XavierVE 06:36, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Out of over 18,000 people who have signed up for the forums, there have been only 30-35 people selected to do full-scale contributorship at the top level of the website.

Xavier, if this is you, could I ask you to use language that is easily understood by any reader (including me!) who doesn't know anything about your website? What is "signed up for the forums," "full scale contributership," and "the top level of the website"? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:22, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
I figured anyone who used the internet extensively would know what a forum/message board is. Top level of the website is full-scale contributorship, IE, people trained and authorized to go into the chat-rooms on our behalf. I figured you had read our FAQ, since it covers everything about how the operation runs in clear language. (XavierVE 22:56, 18 May 2005 (UTC))
I know what a message board is, but the way you write doesn't always make clear whose forums you're talking about, and I want to make sure that any rewrite is completely accurate, so please bear with me. We also need to use language in the article that any reader will understand. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:33, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
The forums I'm speaking about are the PeeJ forums. Wouldn't make sense to be referring to anything else. XavierVE 06:36, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Are they paid anything?

No. The only funds the website generates comes from the Cafepress store, which garners about a buck a sale.

What is the Cafepress store? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:22, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Cafepress is an online merchant storefront that handles t-shirts, caps, mugs, etc. We have an account with them and have a few designs for people to purchase. We make about a buck a purchase. (XavierVE 22:56, 18 May 2005 (UTC))

Usually the income from that is approximately 30-100 dollars a month, depending on the month, with an average amount of 50 dollars. Administrators nor volunteers are paid, and donations from private individuals are not asked for.

So what do volunteers, including you, do professionally? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:22, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Volunteers have a litany of other occupations. Some are teachers, two are retired detectives, some own companies, some work garbage-can little jobs. (XavierVE 22:56, 18 May 2005 (UTC))
Has anything been published about what you do professionally? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:33, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
I think I've been published as working tech support before, unsure. Most articles are about the organization, not myself. I am but a small cog in the overall organization. The reason you see my name so much is twofold, one, I do most, but not all of the media we do. Secondly, those wishing to attack the website have a hard time doing so on it's record, so they try to hit the head of the organization. Simple as that :) XavierVE 06:36, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Do they only chat, or do they also do follow-up research?

Depends on the contributor. Some do FU research, some don't.

And what does the follow-up research consist of? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:22, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Depends on how much information is garnered from the chat. Use of public information databases, online histories of individuals and reverse tracing of phone numbers. Depends. (XavierVE 22:56, 18 May 2005 (UTC))

How are they checked out (e.g. to check they're not pedophiles themselves or have convictions for violence, for example)?

Criminal background checks prior to promotion. Crimes of violence, blackmail, fraud or sex-related are automatic disqualifiers. Petty crimes are not taken into account.

What steps are involved in the move from chatroom encounter to posting of names and addresses?

Initial contact from the predator. Agreement (vague or specific) to meet for sexual activity. Phone Verification Contacting either Information First detective/department or cold-calling.

What does "phone verification contacting either Information First detective/dept or cold-calling" mean exactly? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:22, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
When Kate re-edited my answers, it kind of screwed up the formatting of that section, which had line breaks originally. Phone verification is done by an underage-sounding adult male or female during the chat. The person conducting the chat does not make the phone call, it is made by a second person who sounds very young.
Information First has nothing to do with that. Information First is our program to sign up police for casework. Cold-calling is a term you use when there is no Information First contact, it means calling LE that may or may not have heard of us who do have not yet signed up for the Information First agreement. Basically, it's soliciting police to arrest the unposted predator. (XavierVE 22:56, 18 May 2005 (UTC))

(Website change in June of 2004) If police interest, usually not posted until after sentencing. If no police interest, file goes to main-page. From there, research is done.

What is the main page? Do you mean the website? So the research is done after posting? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:22, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
In most cases, full research is done after posting. (XavierVE 22:56, 18 May 2005 (UTC))

It is interesting to note that half of the convictions the website has accrued have come after posting to the main page, as LE have quite often worked the case for the first time after the logs were posted.

Glad to see NPOV attention given to this article. Thanks! ----

Thanks for all this information, Xavier, and I'm sorry if some of my question seem a bit dumb, but I'm trying to make sure there are no unclear areas. There is still one for me: what exactly is the process between chatroom encounter and the posting of personal details on your website? I know the details will vary from case to case, but I'm trying to get an idea of the minimum verification procedure you go through, who carries it out, and who makes the decision to post the information. Maybe this is posted somewhere on your website but I haven't found it, so any clarification would be appreciated. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:33, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Image

I've put von Erck's image on the page. If anyone disagrees with this either on editorial or copyright grounds, feel free to take it down. I took it from the ABC News website but don't know who owns the copyright. If they own it, we can ask them for permission; if Xavier owns it, we can either use it with permission or claim fair use. I've claimed fair use until we know more. The copyright issues aside, does anyone have a view as to whether it's inappropriate in an editorial sense? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:42, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

I do not think so. I can try to get a shot of the logo, or a screen shot of their website. But I do not know how the copyrights go as far as screenshots. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:46, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
That's a good idea, Zach. I think we'd be safe claiming fair use for a screenshot. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:49, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
I don't care if you use my picture (which I do own, it's just a copy taken off my personal site), though I don't really see the point. Same with the screenshot. Go nuts. (XavierVE 22:55, 18 May 2005 (UTC))
I added the screenshot image. XavierVE, the screen shot image was placed at Wikimedia Commons, so it can be used at other Wikipedia versions. From the last time I checked, there was a Spanish version of this article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:09, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

One more thing

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Perverted-Justice/Archive_3&oldid=1034078905"