Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:05, 23 May 2005

• Talk:Perverted-Justice.com/Archive 1: December 2004 – January 31 2005
• Talk:Perverted-Justice.com/Archive 2: February 2005 – April 03, 2005
• Talk:Perverted-Justice.com/Archive 3: May 2005

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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages) 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages demands that we Assume good faith. · Katefan0 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 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. Misplaced Pages'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. ." · Katefan0 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 Misplaced Pages "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 Misplaced Pages:Sign your posts on talk pages.

• The article as it stands is not written in an encyclopedic way. Phrases like (from memory) "the action takes place at" are not acceptable. We're not here to praise this organization or condemn it, but simply to describe it.

• It lacks references. Everything must be sourced (or sourceable), particularly claims about the number of arrests and so on. It needs inline links and a references section. References must be reputable and credible, and can't be personal websites or blogs, so that means Modemac's link has to go, unless there's a way of bypassing the filter without offering commentary.

• All editors have to stick to Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, Misplaced Pages:No original research, Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, and Misplaced Pages:Cite sources. If everyone does that, the disputes should get cleared up pretty quickly.

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

Thanks for SlimVirgin's evaluation, which I endorse. Like all Misplaced Pages articles, this article should be an NPOV summary drawn from verifiable sources. One principle which has been proven again and again in Misplaced Pages is that editing becomes difficult when the subject of an article is also one of its editors. "Misplaced Pages 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: Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages to a page that is a call for a continued edit war;
• obtained Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 18:10, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • Your quite welcome. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:38, 18 May 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 Misplaced Pages Censored by Eide.

Phillip Eide, owner of Perverted Justice has in recent days edited out certain portions of the Misplaced Pages article regarding his site. The Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages makes a special point of criticizing Misplaced Pages 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 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 21:13, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, me too. SlimVirgin 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 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 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 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 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 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 21:58, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Lots of good information in the ABC News story here , 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 22:01, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Slim, are you talking about this photo: ? 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 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 14:20, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Lots of good information in the ABC News story here , 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

Journalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

Naming names

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Looks much better

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update

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

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

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

intro not accurate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's look at some other claims:

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

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

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

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

AVSO - Revealing responsible persons

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AVSO operates strictly under national and international laws and guidelines.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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