Talk:Perverted-Justice/Archive 7

Old criticisms vs. new criticisms
I was wondering if anyone else thought that it would be a good idea to split the criticisms section into two sections: Criticisms before working exclusively with law enforcement and (current) criticisms. Some of the pre-law enforcement only criticisms make no logical sense when you view how the site operates today. I think differentiating between the two periods of Perverted-Justice's history will help the article's reliability. FrederickTG (talk) 06:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Except that PJ doesn't work exclusively with law enforcement. Vagr4nt 16:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Except that they do. The whole purpose of the site is working with law enforcement on every bust that they perform.  Where do you get your information from? From http://www.enforcementexpo.com/enex/justice.po - "The goal of the Perverted Justice Foundation is to assist law enforcement agencies in proactive online investigations of Internet predators" FrederickTG 01:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * A reliable source will help verify this disputed content so please provide one and then re-add, don't re-add as unsourced though. What you have given us does not state the exclusivity you claim, nobody doubts they work with law enforcement. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with Squeakbox. They clearly work with LE in some capacity. But to say they work "exclusively" with LE? That's a completely disingenuous claim. LE is not involved in their day-to-day operations, their forums, their "wanker" site, their wiki projects where they level hearsay and libel against netizens on a daily basis. Just because PJ makes such a claim doesn't make it a fact. Vagr4nt (talk) 11:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok then take out the word exclusive? FrederickTG 02:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That seems to be the best solution, no one doubts they've worked with law enforcement, just that exclusively is definately misleading. Tyciol (talk) 10:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The more I think about this, the more I don't understand what the issue is. Anyone with a basic understanding of the organization knows that they only work with law enforcement. That's all they do. They don't just post people on the mainpage anymore - the only things posted are resolved/completed cases. Sounds pretty "exclusive" to me. FrederickTG 14:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay I guess we have different definitions of what constitutes "Perverted Justice." When I say Perverted Justice, most people think of the contributors going online and chatting - their main function. The criticisms in quesion were leveled at this main part of Perverted Justice - the part where the contributors go online posing as young kids. Now, in every single one of those cases, Law Enforcement is involved. That's just a fact. PJ doesn't make "such a claim", it's emperical fact - everything posted on the mainpage has Law Enforcement involvement. My stating exclusivity was not a "completely disingenuous claim." (way to assume good faith, Vagrant - by no means was I even remotely trying to be disingenuous). The other parts of Perverted Justice - the wiki projects where they "level hearsay and libel against netizens on a daily basis" (nice job showing your bias, by the way...), the day-to-day operations (whatever that means), and the wanker site do not even apply to the criticisms in question. If the criticism was about any of those other projects, then of course law enforcement is not involved. FrederickTG (talk) 04:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's sort of an observation... but the name clearly refers to all activities the group does. It's not like the forum or wikisposure is some separate unofficial entity, they're linked to from the main site and the owners participate heavily in both of them. It doesn't really matter if it's 'mainpage' or if it's a couple clicks away. Making grand statements like 'empirical fact' definately shows a bias, that is not a term thrown around casually if you respect its use in science. Saying they are leveling hearsay is NOT showing a bias. Anything people say about others is hearsay unless it is proven, and unless you're willing to verify every claim on that site, you can't presume it has been. Any negative hearsay might be libel, I'm not technically sure of the proper definition of libel as it applies to the net, spoken conversation or prints. I'm not sure why you think PJ references would not include these other projects, that the name would only refer to their chatbaiting. The name is for the organization, the chatbaiting, I'm not sure if it has a specific name or not. It's certainly their 'main' thing (so far at least) but that doesn't mean you can only refer to that when defining what the organization is involved in. Tyciol (talk) 10:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe in your opinion the name "clearly" refers to all activities done by the group, but to the lay-person (like most people who presumably visit this article looking for information are) "Perverted-Justice" is the highly visible aspect of going online and looking for people that's featured on Dateline. You yourself can't "name" the main function of PJ - that is because it is synonymous with the term "Perverted Justice."  The Perverted Justice Foundation is apparently what engages in all the other stuff that you are describing - a completely different entity.


 * Making "grand statements" like saying something is empirical fact? Empirical means "in practice" - in practice, most people do not think of wikisposure, etc. when they hear the name Perverted Justice.  You want to know my bias?  I am a student who decided to write a paper on Perverted Justice.  I decided to try and make this article better, which I thought was encouraged on Wikipedia, but there seems to be a firmly entrenched group of editors that are more concerned with making this article into an anti-Perverted Justice statement over making it an article that the general public can utilize for roundly presented information.  I don't have a dog in this fight...  But if you want to mention bias, aren't you a feature on the wikisposure site, Tyciol?  That makes it pretty easy for me to ignore anything you have to say about the entire wikisposure wite being hearsay.  And, I never said that I only wanted to refer to the main function of Perverted Justice in the article.  If you could see past your vitrol, you would see that I am only trying to differentiate between specific criticisms of the main function of PJ. FrederickTG (talk) 01:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So in theory, were an organization to condemn and feature every person that criticized them, any criticism would then be hearsay and thus, the organization uncriticizable? My criticism preceded my featuring, so that is most certainly not reason to discount criticisms. Tyciol (talk) 11:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

On your original question, Frederick, I would say yes. The first few comments in the Criticism section obviously refer to PeeJ's methods before they started contacting law enforcement preemptively, and are thus out of date. Perhaps they even ought to be removed, but minimally it needs to be noted that they were aimed at methods no longer used. Powers T 01:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Notable sources say this organization has said they moved away from methods previously criticized, but that does not erase the previous criticisms. Certainly, note that the organization does not operate as before, but do not rewrite their history by blanking previous reporting.  Abe Froman (talk) 01:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well in the absence of sources that say "The things they used to do were bad, but they don't do them anymore," I guess the out-of-date criticisms will have to do. Powers T 03:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So would you support the creation of a new section? Or just notate each criticism as it applies? FrederickTG (talk) 20:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think an entire new section is necessary. It would be sufficient to say in the lead of the current Criticisms section that PeeJ's original methodology -- of posting chatlogs on the site shortly after they were conducted, and relying on Follow-Up to track the marks and notify their friends, family, and employers -- attracted criticism, followed by the quotations currently there.  Then the more recent criticisms can be addressed.  Powers T 01:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Except that you may have only followed this vigilante group sense it got on Dateline NBC Fred. There policy sense the inception of the group, and up until recently when they started working with the media was to NEVER contact police. They would wait for police to contact them, and if you contacted them first you would be kicked out. Only sense they started getting paid $$$ did they start working with law enforcement. The majority of LE agencies would never work with this group, only a few of them do.


 * You'll also notice alot of rookie deputies / sheriffs / rural areas doing the busts.


 * Not too sound Hollywood or anything, but I'd love to see a real big name agency like the LAPD or NYPD work with the vigilantes....but that'll never happen :) they only get the podunk agencies. The PJ crew are one trick pony's, they will be forgotten about in a couple of years.
 * Brdennis (talk) 12:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a minor point but printing online something that a person has said or published is not hearsay, a mistake that has been made a number of times here. Hearsay is solely reporting the words of a person as related by a 3rd party. The statements made on PJ's wikisposure site may be difficult (or perhaps impossible) to confirm as directly attibutable to the person they say made them but any quote they publish that is an accurate reproduction of a statement made by a person is not hearsay and if accurate cannot therefore be libellous, the critical point being substantiating that the person did make that statement. It would be unfortunate if this inaccuracy makes it into the actual article. 86.162.250.103 (talk) 10:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Perverted Justice 05-30-07.png
Image:Perverted Justice 05-30-07.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Perverted Justice 05-30-07.png
Image:Perverted Justice 05-30-07.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Harrasment
I don't think that this is too extreme a term for the activities of the group concerned. In fact, we know that this is exactly what they do, with their expose site and sting operations. It sums up PJ's activities quite well.. just look at the behaviour of XVE towards those who he suspected to be pedophiles on this very website.

In this case, stated aims may be too value laden unless attributed. GrooV (talk) 12:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Harassment is only a viewpoint of what they do - a critical viewpoint. What one person sees as harassment, another person sees as something else.  It's definately not a neutral POV term for what they do, especially since no one working for the organization has ever been charged with criminally harassing someone.  Cited examples of people calling what PJ does as harassment belong in the criticisms section if they belong anywhere at all.  FrederickTG (talk) 23:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's cited by at least two major news sources, independently of each other. It's verifiable, and we should include it. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  23:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if you were to include the sources for inspection. FrederickTG (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, they're in the article. They're the references you were removing, from the Yale Daily News, and the Dallas News. And let me address your POV argument: It is NPOV if it is an accurate neutral description of what they do, which it appears to be. Saying that they harass people isn't biased point of view. It would be a problem if we were saying "...and they are bad people for doing it", but that's not what the article is saying. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  23:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, but who says the behavior constitutes as harassing? The Yale article:  "Such information could then be used to humiliate and harass the individual and their family."  COULD be used.  Does not say that it IS being used.  The Dallas Morning News:  "Others call it a vigilante outfit that uses harassing tactics that tromp on privacy rights – including by posting online the names and addresses of innocent family members who are related to potential pedophiles."  OTHERS CALL IT - it is opinion voiced by others.  These two citations are far from concrete examples that what PJ does is harassment.  FrederickTG (talk) 00:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine, I'll add in better source for it. You also might want to note you're close to violating the 3 Revert Rule. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  00:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * For the record, there are now 10 sources for the claim, from such reliable sources as Rolling Stone magazine, ABC News, several state and city newspapers, magazines, etc. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  00:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, it's indisputable that Perverted Justice publishes the personal information of law-abiding minor-attracted individuals as well as chatroom "predators." I've restored this fact to the article. AnotherSolipsist (talk) 00:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that was intentionally being removed, rather it was being caught up in the reverts and undos. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  00:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The only issue I have with that section is that yes, they publish information on "non offenders," but then they also publish information on convicted offenders, supporters, groups, websites, etc. If one is listed, then they all need to be, in the interest of full disclosure - sounds a bit unwieldly to me.


 * The edit on harassment, on the other hand, really can't stay. It's making a concrete statement of fact where the cited articles use "cop-outs" to avoid making the unequivocal claim that PJ engages in harassment.  I guess that the wording could be changed to reflect the approach that all of the articles take, but there is plenty of that already in the criticisms section.  And don't threaten me with the 3R rule, I know I am right in removing a potentially actionable libelous claim from the article. FrederickTG (talk) 01:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Be careful. Now you're bordering on making a legal threat. I take those very seriously here. This is not a battleground. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  01:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Get over yourself, Swatjester. I made no such threat. FrederickTG (talk) 02:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * SwatJester is not the only person who made such an inference. Your last sentence sounds very much like a legal threat, which is a major violation of Wikipedia policy. If you did not intend for Wikipedians to interpret your statement as such, I suggest that you choose your words more carefully in future. At present, you simply appear to be on a mission to protect the reputation of Perverted Justice, which many people rightly consider to be unacceptable within the context of an encyclopedia. Barry Jameson (talk) 02:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Legal threat? Who would I sue?  To sue you need damages - I haven't been damaged.  The only reputation I'm out to protect is the reputation of Wikipedia.  I refuse to believe that I'm the only person who sees how that sentence, as it's worded, is inappropriate.  You even conveniently ignore my compromise suggestion.  However, you can think whatever you want about my agenda, it matters not to me.  I am assuming good faith on your part.  FrederickTG (talk) 02:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay SwatJester, leave that harassment wording in. Apparently it's an exercise in futility at this point, and I really don't care enough.  Mark my words though, it's a violation, no matter how many citations you pull out.  All of the articles make the claim, but here you state it as fact - not very encyclopedic. FrederickTG (talk) 01:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Did you even read your citations?

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/city/collin/stories/091006dnmetpervertedjustice.347ae52.html - "Others call it a vigilante outfit that uses harassing tactics that tromp on privacy rights" - as I already pointed out, the story doesn't make the claim that you are making here, it only attributes the claim of harassment to "others."

http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/20326 - "Such information could then be used to humiliate and harass the individual and their family" - as I already pointed out, the story only presents a hypothetical.

http://corrupted-justice.com/article14.html - Corrupted Justice? As a reliable source? Seriously?

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=260587&page=2 - One person, claiming to be a former PJer, who then joined the group Corrupted Justice, stating he harassed people. Hardly enough to justify the wording used.

http://www.pierretristam.com/Bobst/Archives/C062706.htm - only reference to harassment is a comment posted by volunteer of Corrupted Justice.com - hardly a reliable source, and not even a part of the story.

http://www.rickross.com/reference/perverted_justice/perverted_justice13.html - "Initially, the site was a vehicle to embarrass, expose and harass would-be pedophiles as a deterrent to others. But with 25 arrests -- the majority pending in court -- and five convictions to its credit since the beginning of this year, Perverted Justice says many law enforcement agencies are turning to the group for help in dealing with a problem they don't have the manpower to address." - The story states that "initially" the site engaged in harassing, but says nothing about what they do now.

http://www.ethicsscoreboard.com/list/dateline.html - "Prior to its "Dateline" involvement, the group did not work with law enforcement, making it a pure vigilante group that was more interested in harassing and embarrassing the adults seeking sex with minors than getting them off the information superhighway" - Again, speaks of behavior before "Dateline" (and law enforcement). Other claim of harassment is again attributed to Corrupted Justice, an unreliable source.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/15723886/to_catch_a_predator_is_nbcs_primetime_dragnet_the_new_american_witch_hunt/3 - "Despite warnings by the group, these nameless volunteers have made harassing phone calls to predators and mailed flyers to local businesses outing sex offenders." - Ambiguous at best, hardly enough in my opinion to make the sweeping statement that the group itself engages in harassment as a rule.

http://www.setexasrecord.com/arguments/198672-legally-speaking-perverted-journalism---part-one - Yet ANOTHER Corrupted Justice claim.

http://www.glidemagazine.com/Articles/51944/Buck-Down-of-The-Mutaytor.html - No reference of harassment in the article. Only reference to harassment is in the comments on the article.

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/08/nbc-datelines-c.html - only reprints what the Rolling Stone article says.

None of these citations are strong enough to support that claim. FrederickTG (talk) 02:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In your world maybe. In the real world, reality, they are perfectly strong enough, no matter how you try to spin them. Shout "NOT STRONG ENOUGH" all you want, doesn't make it so. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  03:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding me? I point out that the sources you are using are comments on stories and from Corrupted Justice, and all you can do is insult my lucidity?  Although you may think otherwise, you don't have a monopoly on this article.  FrederickTG (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent - start over) I have to say that Frederick is correct in his interpretation of this matter. That PJ engages in harrassment and being able to verify that in reliable sources is two different things. It is oft cited from WikiPolicy that we are here to document not what is true but what is verifiable. Hopefully the two are the same in all cases, but as Frederick points out, the sources (the news ones and not those with a distinct POV on the matter) always stop shy of stating categorically that PJ engages in harrassment. This may be political semantics, but we aren't here to decide that at all. While CJ is just as reliable a source as PJ with regard to self-published information, such assertions must be portrayed as such. If PJ were to accuse CJ of being run entirely by pedophiles (as an extreme, make-believe example), we would be just as wrong to include on the CJ page that it is run in such a manner, as the source of the statement is biased. I am not saying that PJ does or does not engage in harrassment; rather, I am saying that until and unless we can find at least a couple "neutral" sources that state as much (such as CNN, CBS, etc.), we cannot make that statement definitively in the article. Hence the concept of WP:NPOV. Per WP:POV, though, the CJ et al views, comments, and assertions should be included in the article in the appropriate section, but not (currently) in the lead. (But there could always be a way to include, perhaps a parenthetical, a note about it and expand on the assertions in the appropriate section as well...) VigilancePrime (talk) 04:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Of the citations left making the harassment claim, a few of them are articles where they are quoting Corrupted Justice members as stating PJ engages in harassment. Since Corrupted Justice is considered an unreliable source, are quotations in other articles attributed to them unreliable as well? (The citation I just removed pointed to a comment left by a corrupted justice member on the article - nowhere in the article itself does it mention harassment) FrederickTG (talk) 01:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit War
Barry Jameson [ contribs ] and his changes are fueling a reversion war. I have left a comment on his talk page asking him to take it to this discussion page so that a consensus can be reached. FrederickTG (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It takes multiple sides to edit war. All editors should keep that in mind. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  23:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, except the article was fine until the changes were being made. It's up to the person wanting to make changes to explain how those changes contribute and enhance the article.  These changes do neither. FrederickTG (talk) 00:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I changed the wording of the wikisposure entry under "Other Activities." This part:  "Although Perverted-Justice concentrates primarily on conducting chats while posing as minors" is redundant. Seeing that it's already under the Other Activities heading, it's not necessary to explain PJ's main focus versus the other activities they are engaged in.  Other than that, I left in the fact that the site targets non-offenders and added in other categories of individuals that the site profiles. FrederickTG (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I would like to know why "targets" is a better word than "profiles." Also, please do add a link to the adolecent claim.  I would like to see it, please.  FrederickTG (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I found at least 3 instances where the person convicted self-refer as being a pedophile:
 * http://www.wikisposure.com/AlbertRoss
 * http://www.wikisposure.com/Ad_van_den_Berg
 * http://www.wikisposure.com/Trucker
 * Also, I looked hard at the site and could find no instance where an adolescent attracted to children is profiled. By all means, if you find one please link me, but I'm going to remove the reference to it for now. FrederickTG (talk) 04:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Accusations of harassment within the opening paragraph are the worst case of POV pushing I have seen in ages, it reads like a hate article against PJ because of this. This is wikipedia, not some grotty blog. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please do not remove fully referenced statements. Barry Jameson (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You cannot promote your POV merely because you ref it. Such behaviour is unacceptable on wikipedia so do not just glibly say do not remove your POV. I appreciate you hate PJ and would recommend a blog or to start your opwn website but wikiepdia is not here for any of us to attack our favoured hated sites. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * SqueakBox, you're known to be a pro-PJ editor as well. Thing is, the word harass is reliably sourced all over the internet. Just because it's a powerful word does not make it "non neutral". Harass is a definable term, and sources like Wired, Rolling Stone, newspapers, etc. are perfectly capable of using the term correctly. It's well sourced. Stop removing it and perpetuating the edit war. The alternative is this page becomes fully protected, and nobody gets to edit. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  22:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Here- this is a court document from the default judgment against Xavier, where the court has officially found that there was harassment. It doesn't get any more neutral than a United States District Court Judge. &rArr;  SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  22:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Except that court document is the complaint filed by the plaintiff - hardly a reliable source at all. Of course the plaintiff is going to try and paint PJ in a negative light, otherwise he woudn't have a lawsuit.  Also, I'm pretty sure that the lawsuit was dismissed regardless.  FrederickTG (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

In a default judgment the complaint is admitted as true as a matter of record. And, a default judgment means that it wasn't dismissed, because judgments are final. &rArr;  SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  23:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC) Comments struck per belowmost section. &rArr;  SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  23:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Protected
I've protected the article to stop the edit warring and weasel words. When you can behave like proper editors, I'll unprotect the page again. &rArr;  SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  22:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

A Third Opinion
Hi, I'm reponding to the request for a third opinion. I think that while there is clearly reason to say that PJ has been accused of harassment by these various papers, I don't think that this can be stated as absolute truth. Most of the cited articles seem to be editorials, and this "court document" that Swatjester brought up says that the court ruled against PJ by default, not because of the merits of the case. Judging PJ to engage in harassment is clearly POV. It is always better, even in more clear cut cases than this, to let the facts speak for themselves. I also strongly object to Swatjester protecting the page, as WP:PROTECT clearly states that "Administrators should not protect or unprotect a page for [ a content dispute ] if they are in any way involved in the dispute." -Asmodeus Samael (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not involved in the dispute. I came here to add references, and my only edits have been to remove some BLP and to reinsert those edits. As for the court document, a default judgment means that the merits of the case are automatically admitted by the defendant. Therefore, as a matter of legal record, PJ has admitted to harassment. It doesn't get any more NPOV than a federal district court judgment. &rArr;  SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  23:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I would suggest he either unprotects the page or he should be desysoped. His behaviour is completely unacceptable and such admins need to have their admin powers stripped for the sake of the project if they remain unrepetant. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I will unprotect the page if you stop edit warring, inserting weasel words, and removing sourced material. If you can't agree to do so, I will not agree to unprotect the page. Threatening desysops is not a good way to make that happen. &rArr;  SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  23:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not involved in this dispute either, though I agree with SwatJester that the previous version had weasel words, and that the current version is more straightforward and neutral. While most people (including myself) applaud efforts to prevent children from being harmed by predators, it's nonetheless important that Wikipedia present the information in a neutral manner. OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

In regards to that lawsuit, there was never a JUDGEMENT issued. It would appear that some time went by and the plaintiff's lawyers asked the CLERK of the court (not a judge) to have them declared in default. Being declared in default is the first step in obtaining a default judgement, but it in itself is not a default judgement. A default judgement was never obtained in the case. Papers were filed to have the suit dismissed - here is a link to the dismissal document from PACER: http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/9301/marcellrulinggg9qv4.gif  FrederickTG (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Good find. Can't argue with that. I've removed that ref. It also looks like that means the chatmag.com website is patently incorrect, since they said it was a default judgment. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  23:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm setting the page to unprotect itself in an hour. Hopefully all of your heads will be more clear by that point, and we can stop weasel wording, edit warring, and the like. I have no problem reprotecting it after that time if you can't; despite what Squeakbox may assert, I have no dog in this fight. &rArr;  SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  23:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, I do have one question though. How come you threw a 3RR at me and not at Barry Jameson?  I may be mistaken, but I would think that would be the proper course of action if you don't have a dog in the fight. FrederickTG (talk) 23:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither one of you actually broke 3RR. I was just warning you that you were coming close. I would have warned him too, but I ended up talking to you first. Actually, before I even made edits on the topic, I first had looked through the page history to see if Barry Jameson had violated 3RR. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  23:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure that you qualify as not involved in the dispute, as you have been consistently making arguments throughout this debate, but calling for desysoping is clearly not appropriate. Based upon WP:NPOV, I still believe that there is not sufficient evidence to assert the accusations of harassment as absolute truth, as the current revision does. Most of the cited sources seem to refer to PJ's actions as potentially harassment or contrversial, but don't assert it with the strength that this article does. There is clearly more than one side to this, and the article should not give one such clear precedence over the other. Even in cases with much more evidence, Wikipedia does not usually state things so absolutely. For example, the Mike Tyson and Roman Polanski articles do not refer to them as rapists, even though they have been convicted as such. When the protection expires, I call on all those involved to exercise restraint and try to come to a compromise before making any edits with respect to this dispute. --Asmodeus Samael (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I was surprised to hear that about Polanski and Tyson. I forgot to check on Polanski's, but Tyson is categorized in Category:American Rapists, so that statement isn't entirely accurate. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  00:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a problem then, a better name for such a category would be 'Category:Americans convicted of rape' wouldn't it? Tyciol (talk) 11:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

In light of the fact that the court document is no bueno, it's probably a better idea to come up with some modifier word to harass, perhaps "widely reported to harass" or some such. &rArr;  SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  23:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Now see, all along I have been open to a compromise like that. The citations used are weakly worded and call for a modifier like that.  My only reservation is that it would be better addressed in the criticisms section (if it's not already).  It just reads awkwardly.  FrederickTG (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to clarify that, in my opinion, the opening was just fine before it was changed, and my vote would be to revert it to its original form. The harassment criticisms in the articles belong in the criticisms section.  But, knowing that Wikipedia is supposed to be about compromise and consensus, the modified version outlined by SwatJester above would work if it MUST stay. FrederickTG (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Widely reported is obviously more NPOV and in the criticism section would obviously be far better, we as wikipedia cannot endorse as the most important fact about PJ that they harass people based ont eh o-pinion of some folk. We also need to have a link to sexual predator in the opening, for NPOV. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I definately would not use the wording "widely" - that suggests widespead consensus, of which there is not. I would change it to this:  Perverted-Justice (also known as PeeJ) is an anti-pedophile organization based in Portland, Oregon, which identifies (and reported to harass) adults who have sexual conversations with other adults posing as children.  That, or (some say harass).


 * But I don't know, any way it reads like it doesn't belong there. Out of place, if you will.  FrederickTG (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It needs to be some version of "reported to" instead of "some say". The latter is a weasel word. Phrases like "Some say, Many people say," etc. are weasel words to avoid, whereas "reported to" is a verifiable fact.  &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  01:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Requested edit
Could someone get rid of the language "as well as any person who is attracted to minors or dissents from mainstream opinion on sex offenses.[11]". The reference itself is very shaky and not particularly reliable. Moreover, to claim that an organization is committed to "harass" any person "who dissents from mainstream opinion" is to cast a laughably wide net.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 23:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you denying that PJ targets non-offending paedophiles? If so, you should read Wikisposure, which targets many non-offenders. If you insist on making a dishonest edit by removing the statement, I will revert it immediately. PJ does not just target people who abuse children. Barry Jameson (talk) 00:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't do that. If you begin revert warring, the page will be protected again, and given that you announced your intentions in advance, it will be version you are reverting away from.. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  01:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I will only revert edits which are blatantly dishonest. I believe that any other Wikipedian would do the same. Barry Jameson (talk) 01:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not what our policies say. Please read WP:REVERT, WP:3RR, and WP:AGF in particular, and then peruse WP:LOP in general for anything else you may thing applies. You are not entitled to revert what you believe are dishonest edits, you are in fact only entitled to revert in certain situations, and you particularly, for the next 20 hours or so, are not entitled to revert at all (with the exception of the 3RR exempt reasons.) &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  07:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If you can hold on another 32 minutes or so, you can make the edit yourself. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  23:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikisposure
I'm not sure whether Wikisposure counts as a reliable source under WP:RS. Generally, wiki's don't qualify, due to the same reason you can't cite Wikipedia. That being said, it's one thing to cite the main page of wikisposure.com as a source for itself. However, it's a whole different thing to cite to an individual person's page on Wikisposure to refer to them as members of a class like sex offenders, or pedophiles. That's unacceptable per WP:BLP by any standard. Find a better source, or cite it to the main wikisposure page, but don't cite to the individual targets' pages on that site; it fails both WP:RS and WP:BLP. &rArr;  SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  00:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is a link to categories on the site: http://www.wikisposure.com/Special:Categories%26limit%3D500.  As you can see, there are quite a few, which was my original reservation about signaling out specific categories of groups/people the site profiles.  If you add one category in, you have to add in more.  I don't think there needs to be any specific mention of categories of those featured on the site at all in this Wikipedia article.  FrederickTG (talk) 00:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's mentions of the categories. I was referring to actual articles. If that site is using some variation of MediaWiki, then Wikisposure.com/anyname is an article, and Wikisposure.com/Category:whatever would be a category. My point is this. If there is a reference to the wikisposure article on a person that is alleged to be a pedophile or a sex offender or something like that, we CANNOT include it in the article as it would be a blatant BLP violation (not to mention irrelevant to the point of this article). That's why I'm saying anything that needs to be referenced to any part of Wikisposure MUST be referenced to a section that is NOT about a living person, or we can't use it at all. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  01:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have reinstated the link, with the above justification seeming to fit rather well. I have looked at the site, and all of the categories are attributable to to that site, and all are central categories in the PJ enemy list. GrooV (talk) 23:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Fails WP:RS, sorry. Surely you can find something on their own website (PJ.com) that cites the same thing. We can't cite to wikis, due to their non-permanent and unverifiable nature. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  03:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * While I agree that Wikisposure should not be used as a ref if at all possible, it's pertinent to note that that site is not an open wiki, because it is only edited by PJers and people they approve. Thus, what's said there can legitimately be taken as words on behalf of PJ. ~ Homologeo (talk) 04:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Are we going to have to add in sub-sections to this article now that PJ has branched out into different projects? There are marked differences in their different projects - for example, the people that PJ profiles on their main site (people convicted for chatting sexually with minors) are different than the people that PJ profiles on the Wikisposure.  Since this article is about Perverted Justice, the introduction needs to focus on what the main site of PJ does (as it does now) or delve into the different projects that PJ is now involved in, but an amalgamation of projects with no differentiation will create a confusing mess. FrederickTG (talk) 04:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikisposure definitely does not deserve its own article, but a small section or subsection on it within the PJ article would be appropriate. I see nothing wrong with specifying in the intro and elsewhere which project of theirs does what. The bulk of the article can focus on what the main PJ group and site do and did in the past, and a small part can describe its endeavors surrounding Wikisposure. ~ Homologeo (talk) 05:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of the categories are related to social links between the targeted individuals. It appears to be a tool to develop more leads... not an indication that we need a statement saying PJ targets pedophile activists from Tennessee, 12chan posters, etc, etc. John Nevard (talk) 10:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The non-response in the Criticism Section
I have deleted the general PJ FAQ non-response in the Criticism Section. There seems to be well cited rebuttals, where appropriate, on selected criticisms leveled. It hardly seems appropriate to include a (rather typical) sweeping dismissal from the group's FAQ at the end. Just about any advocacy group will say the same thing of it's critics and it is hardly encyclopedic. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not be the group's PR agent or the opponent's PR agent. 130.127.48.188 (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Good catch. I endorse this edit. ~ Homologeo (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Perhaps a simple sentence at the beginning or the end of the Criticism section saying "PJ categorically denies all criticism (citation)" if people really want it in there. But a large and sweeping denial section is unnecessary. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  03:32, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a simple sentence, all it takes to point out the motives of critics. John Nevard (talk) 09:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

PJ Wikipedia warning
Seemed to have been removed for a while there when I tested the links in plain form. It now has been restored. However, I can't see any reason that the links to the main website should be de-refered. The main page is readily available from the intercept page, with more ease than a journal or news article behind a registration barrier. An uncloaked link to the main site would just mean that the main page is presented in the way the organisation which controls it desires, just as we wouldn't circumvent registration barriers on a journal archive. John Nevard (talk) 10:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree with you on this one. Until PJ permanently removes its redirect, we should not link directly to its site. This is because Wikipedia should not direct users to attack pages. ~ Homologeo (talk) 18:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, we cannot give another organisation that much control over what we refer to. The pages should be dereferred, as there is no pressing reason to provide a natural link to that organisation. GrooV (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * They don't have any control over what we refer to. The Wikipedia warning page is a significantly lower barrier to accessing the main page content than registering and confirming an email address, or even paying for access to a journal article. Surely we shouldn't make value judgments on how people structure their websites?


 * Incidentally, at the time I tested the links before removing the dereferrer on all of them, it was not in operation. Deliberate interference with access restrictions on source websites, where they make references (even when hosted at en.wikipedia.org) no less useful, is hardly likely to make them act more cooperatively. John Nevard (talk) 09:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, following links to any number of PJ properties triggers a redirect to a "Wikipedia warning" page. There's absolutely no reason to derefer these links ever. As Perverted Justice is not a tertiary or even secondary media or research source, I have my concerns that their page should be linked to almost at all. Vagr4nt (talk) 08:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Specifics
Regarding this near-to-edit-war, what's wrong with the specificity of the statement that Barry is intent on keeping and Frederick is intent on removing? It's accurate, sourced, and adds specificity to the article. Isn't that for what we at Wikipedia strive? Accurate, Sourced, Specific information? VigilancePrime (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * One would think so. GrooV (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Where's the source for the information? Wikisposure?  All that material is PJ-generated - are we going to use PJ as the main source for the types of men they say they're going after?  The way it reads now - "adults who have online sexual conversations with adults posing as children." - that can be verified through independent sources.  FrederickTG (talk) 23:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * They're not going to say that they target non-offenders if they don't target non-offenders, as attacking people based on their feelings would not be considered ethical by any rational person. The sources were fine. Barry Jameson (talk) 01:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, yeah...so now Xavier's personal blog and some random, unreliable webpage set up by who-knows-who are reliable sources now? Once again, your sources are garbage.  FrederickTG (talk) 03:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm also not the only one who has removed that edit. FrederickTG (talk) 01:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * All that material is not PJ-generated. The editor concerned continues to reinsert a link to a website that claims to advocate for the acceptance of adult attraction to children. Obviously, this isn't going to happen, and they don't believe it will, because what they want to do is encourage pedophiles to believe their attraction to and abuse, or solictation of abuse, of children is normal. Like none of you already know this. Oh... and it's a blog, and it's in no way connected with PJ so is not a reliable source even on what they say their intentions are. John Nevard (talk) 08:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Xavier's blog is a limited use reliable source, in that it's reliable source for him making statements about himself. For anything else, it fails. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  15:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well then in this application it definately fails. FrederickTG (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Selectiveness in Reverting or Undoing Edits
All editors are urged to be selective when they revert or undo edits of others. For instance, if someone is reverting or undoing an edit he or she finds controversial, that user should only revert that specific edit, not others. Yes, this may take more time, but legitimate constructive edits should not be reverted without a good explanation. The reason I'm bringing this up is that an editor's helpful edit to restore the needed derefer template was undone without justification. Users should be mindful of anything they undo. ~ Homologeo (talk) 05:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Clarification of Wikipedia policy- Attack pages
"A Wikipedia article, page, template, category, redirect or image created for the sole purpose of disparaging its subject is an attack page."

Note that this does not say 'any website'. It does not say 'a reference'. In fact, it has nothing to do with references we make to what an organization which is the subject of an article says about anything. Even if they criticize Wikipedia, even if they criticize Wikipedia for the actions of Wikipedia editors. John Nevard (talk) 09:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Howbeit, Wikipedia cannot trick its readers with false links. We cannot say links lead to a particular page, and then have them lead somewhere else, especially to a place that is designed specifically as an attack page against Wikipedia. If there'll ever be a link that is supposed to legitimately lead to PJ's special page for Wikipedia visitors, then we can link to it. Otherwise, links are supposed to lead where they're directed. At this point in time, due PJ's own actions, this cannot happen, because all links without derefers to anywhere on PJ lead to the same page, which presents a special "notice/warning" for Wikipedia visitors. Until PJ stops redirecting all visitors form Wikipedia to this page, we cannot remove the derefers. ~ Homologeo (talk) 12:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And that's why only the main site links which are available on the intermediate page at p-j.com should be left dereferred. John Nevard (talk) 12:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Even that put aside, this is definitely an attack page, or at least a page made to slander Wikipedia. There's no corroboration of any claims made within it, and visitors are directed to it without searching for it or even wanting to go there in the first place. Thus, redirects to this page are quite inappropriate, at least for Wikipedia users. ~ Homologeo (talk) 12:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's better backed up than most of the claims made by the subjects of the Criticism of Wikipedia article. You might want to make yourself aware of a few Wikipedia policies... like "Wikipedia is not censored", for example. It helps if you want to improve the encyclopedia. John Nevard (talk) 12:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Whether the claims made by PJ have more grounding or not than other similar "criticism" campaigns, which is still to be determined, users expect links from Wikipedia to lead to their specified destinations. Since PJ sends all of Wikipedia visitors to the special warning page, derefers are most definitely needed. And, for your information, I know fully well that this project is not censored. ~ Homologeo (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any reason to use derefers in your response. We should use derefers on links which refer to specific pages on the P-J.com website other than the main page, because they are not directly accessible from the 'warning' page. This makes them significantly less useful for casual reference checking. Links to the main page of P-J.com? There's a warning. You click through. That's it. If you feel inclined to click through to where they criticize what they see as violations of Wikipedia policy, then that's fine. Expands your viewpoint. Otherwise, it's just a link where you have to do something (in this case trivial) to access the content. Nothing wrong with that, nothing in Wikipedia policy which means we should prefer messing around with derefer links that the P-J organisation is likely to see as dishonest and 'fix'. John Nevard (talk) 04:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again, links on Wikipedia should lead where they say they will, and not somewhere else - not only does this simply make sense, but I would contend that this is the general expectation among Wikipedia users. It would be dishonest to mislead users by leading them to a destination other than what is expected or referenced. This holds true for links to specific pages on PJ, as well as those to the main page. Thus, I fail to see a legitimate reason for why the main page should be an exception. The only links that should lead to the warning page should be the ones that reference it specifically. As of right now, there is no need for such links. If this need arises at some point, then there would be nothing wrong with linking to the warning page within the specific context of describing that same page. Until that happens, or until PJ removes the redirects for Wikipedia visitors, all links to PJ should be derefered. ~ Homologeo (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Some journals require you to pay money to access content so they can support publishing and solicit the highest-quality content possible. Some media organisations do likewise to defend their investment in news distribution, publishing, and commentary. In this case, a non-profit organisation defends their natural good reputation by warning of potential distortions of their actions with an invitation to read their response. Where this makes our references no less useful, it's clearly as appropriate or more so than a link which brings you to a website login rather than the content the link indicates.John Nevard (talk) 06:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh. Well, the links to the P-J.com website from the article seem to be working fine for me. I can't see any reason to clutter up the article with dereferer crap which is entirely unneccessary, rather than just for main site links. John Nevard (talk) 06:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure how they work for you, but I just tried the links from which you removed the derefer templates, and was redirected to the warning page. For this reason, I have undid two of your recent edits that removed a few templates. Please be sure that the links work properly for everyone before removing the derefers. ~ Homologeo (talk) 07:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's odd, just turned on for me again. I thought for a moment it was my habitual opening of links in new tabs that was the determinant, but that's always kept referrer headers the same for me. Doesn't seem like there's a javascript history test either. Presumably it's intermittent- I'd like to see a serious reply on why bare main site links are a bad thing. It's not like they even get caught from the Wikimedia secure server. John Nevard (talk) 07:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I personally do not know how PJ detects which visitors are from Wikipedia and which are not. However, the situation remains the same, for the majority, if not all, users that follow links found within Wikipedia that are directed to any page within PJ are redirected to the special warning page. The reasoning for why it is inappropriate for Wikipedia to have links that result in such redirects has been amply explained above. ~ Homologeo (talk) 07:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * HTAccess, I guess? Anyway, do away with them. They are now making slanderous statements about almost all of us. GrooV (talk) 17:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * But as we're so often made aware, being a pedophile who hasn't been caught is not a crime. While I'm aware that truth is no defense in British defamation law, you do have to prove that your character (and not your Wikipedia account) has been defamed. If you believe that is the case,(and I advance no opinion on it, per Legal_advice) then please take it off Wikipedia in view of our policy on WP:LEGAL threats. John Nevard (talk) 23:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Adolescent claim
There is no source for the claim the adolescent claim being put in by Barry Jameson in the intro. At no time has anyone that is a PJ contributor chatted online with an adolescent that ended up being arrested. FrederickTG (talk) 01:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Stop playing games. A 15 year old was arrested on TCAP. Also, see this. Barry Jameson (talk) 11:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Games? Are you kidding me?  Get over yourself, Barry.  Show me your instance where a PJ contributor chatted with a 15 year old and that 15 year old showed up at a TCAP house and was arrested.  Should be easy, right?  Should be all over the news, right?  You really should stop getting your information from boychat.  And what exactly am I looking at with that radar piece?  The only refrence it has to a 15-year-old is the age of the underage decoy the PJ contributor was portraying.  FrederickTG (talk) 11:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A quick reminder for all editors to remain civil. Suggesting that an editor "really should stop getting ... information from boychat" is not very constructive, and could be construed as uncivil. Please be careful with your choice of words. ~ Homologeo (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I didn't say it without any reason - a thread shows up on that boychat site that says something about PJ having a 15-year old arrested during a TCAP, and then Barry tries to insert it into this article. I can't find that accusation anywhere else on the Internet, so I figured that's where he got the info from.  I'll refrain from drawing such conclusions in the future. FrederickTG (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly what context would you consider it uncivil under? Either he is getting information from a dubious source, as the claim is patently untrue, or he is horribly misreading the article he finally referenced in the second comment under this heading. Personally, I find the assumption that he is depending on another source to be considerably more charitable. John Nevard (talk) 05:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

article protected again
Due to evident edit warring, I have protected the article for a week.

Please discuss on the article talk page here for a while and attempt to find a consensus everyone can agree with... Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no basis for the claim that PJ targets adolescents. I don't see how insisting that unsourced and untrue material be excluded from the article amounts to "pro-PJ propaganda," but seeing that it's both, it can't stay.


 * Barry Jamesn comes into this article and starts making controversial changes. While I appreciate his efforts to be bold, he at the very least should be following BRD guidelines to avoid edit warring.  I have on multiple occasions attempted to move the disagreements to the discussion page as you can see, even though technically Barry should be the one to do so, since he is insisting on the changes.  I am not the only editor who has issues with the edits he is making. FrederickTG (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * To be specific, the word "adolescent" needs to be removed from these places in the introduction section:
 * Perverted Justice Foundation, Inc., [1][2] more commonly known as Perverted-Justice (also known as PeeJ) is a California-based non-profit organization that investigates, identifies, and allegedly harasses[3] adults and adolescents [4]
 * The source says nothing about PJ investigating, identifying, or allegedly harassing adolescents. I have no idea how that source even begins to make that a viable claim.
 * and here:
 * Perverted-Justice consists of volunteers who carry out sting operations by posing as 10-15 year old minors on chat sites and waiting for adults and adolescents to approach them.
 * For the reasons I outlined above. There's no basis or source for making those claims. FrederickTG (talk) 01:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The text that keeps getting added about "non-offending pedophiles and ephebophiles, pedophile activists", whatever
Is absolutely not supported by sources. The Wikisposure website says it was "built to house [PJFI's] voluminous research regarding the identities and pursuits of those in the pedophile activist community." That just doesn't support the text. As the website is mainly about online identities of pedophile activists who have not been tracked down by name and properly background checked, WP:OR to look at whether various targets self-identify as being not having been convicted would not just be unacceptable under Wikipedia policy, but also a very poor research method. John Nevard (talk) 03:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity, how would you describe what Wikisposure does? Who, if anyone, does this online project discuss/target/etc.? ~ Homologeo (talk) 06:11, 9 February, 2008 (UTC)
 * Target whoever they don't like, supported by Wikipedia admins? That's how I would describe it. See the link in the text left by a WikiAdmin in the link provided in the first sentence. Anyone that they don't like becomes a target. No evidence. No reasoning. No questions. Just witchhunting. And Wikipedia admins supporting this harrassment.


 * (Or was that a rhetorical question?) VigilancePrime (talk) 06:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, according to the site, Wikisposure "build[s] pages profiling the websites and individuals promoting child-rape activism and RSO activism." But I do believe John Nevard is right when he says any conclusions drawn outside what the site says constitutes WP:OR.  Here is one media source that attributes an arrest to Wikisposure that I found: http://www.novatoadvance.com/articles/2007/08/02/breaking_news/news01.txt


 * That person was arrested for child pornography it would appear. FrederickTG (talk) 06:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that it can constitute WP:OR. The problem is that in the other direction, it is self-published and thus not in accordance with WP:RS. How can this be reconciled? W'sposure clearly targets people under the guise of "housing information". But to add that is original research, and to deny that is unduly self-serving self-published... There's a catch-22 here. Is there a good solution? VigilancePrime (talk) 06:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say attribute the information to PJ/Wikisposure. Something like "Perverted-Justice also operates a site that profiles individuals and organizations they identify as promoting child-rape and RSO activism" FrederickTG (talk) 07:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem with that is that we'd be using the site as its own reference, and it is clearly self-serving (it wouldn't say harrass even if it was, which is being actively debated). As I recall, I once added the phrase "...stated purpose" to clarify that it is the purpose given by the site rather than the definitive purpose. I think that was the most unbiased way to put it and wonder how that philosophy can be applied more widely. We can't state categorically that what the site says is what it does, due to the self-serving aspect (and let's face it, there's plenty of evidence that there's far more going on than the "stated purpose"), but we can quote the site in terms of it being a quote of the site. No determinations, no analysis, only direct quoting and factual, plain-English description. VigilancePrime (talk) 07:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So how do you suggest the exact wording read? FrederickTG (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem here is that Perverted Justice are being deliberately deceptive. They target individuals who publicly state their opposition towards adults having sex with children. See BLueRibbon, Jillium and Clayboy. You have no right to remove information which is properly sourced, simply because you don't like it. My wording is accurate, referenced and honest. I am aware that you and John are members of PJ, and as such, I can only assume that you are removing the information because it makes PJ sound like a hate group. Barry Jameson (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The only reason I am removing the information is because it is NOT properly sourced. Your wording may be "accurate, referenced and honest" to you, but that's your interpretation/original research.  There are also examples of people on that website that say they have no problems with adults having sex with children, along with a multitude of other expressed viewpoints.  That does not mean that it needs to go into this article.  Now if you want to start your own website somewhere else and say whatever you want, fine, but stop trying to use Wikipedia to further your own personal views.


 * I find it laughable that you think that since I'm trying to keep this article fair and neutral I must automatically be a member of PJ. I really do not have the time or the motivation to be a member of PJ, even IF I agreed with everything that they did (which I do not).  However, you are putting information into this article to make PJ sound like a hate group.  You may think that they are a hate group, but again, that is your opinion.  Others may even share that opinion with you, but this article is not a place for that opinion.  I find it unbelievable that you want to mention motivations that others may have - you have gone all over Wikipedia on a personal quest to disrupt every pedophelia-related article you can find.  Just because you have certain opinions about what does and does not constitute pedophelia does not mean you use Wikipedia as a platform to further your views.  FrederickTG (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes... and pedophile activists who have made the same claims in the past have ended up being arrested for their abuse of children. How surprising that PJ does not take the claims of others at face value. John Nevard (talk) 05:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Those who were arrested were featured on the Wikisposure main page. Is it a coincidence that only those people were arrested? The only logical inference is that those people were set up by an organisation which is allied with law enforcement; Perverted Justice.


 * Anyway, that's not the point here. It is inaccurate to refer to people as "promoting child-rape and RSO activism" when they speak out against child molestation; that is what Frederick's suggested text does. Barry Jameson (talk) 14:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "The only logical inference is that those people were set up...by Perverted Justice" ??? Wow.  Just...wow.  I don't even know where to start with that.  And, if you read what I wrote, I attributed that wording to the Wikisposure page itself.  Whether or not you agree or disagree with that statement is immaterial - it's what the page says.  FrederickTG (talk) 00:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Is Perverted-Justice.com an acceptable source for an article on Perverted-Justice.com
A good deal of this article has been contributed by members of PJ and sourced to the PJ site. Wiki policy specifically prohibits the posting of self-published sources WP:V. For example, in the article for Scientology, the members of the Church of Scientology have been prohibited from editing the article to push their POV. I don't see how this article should be any different. I don't see how Perverted Justice could be considered a neutral source. Vagr4nt (talk) 07:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Those tags are really unneeded, Vagrant. The policy states "self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable."  PJ is none of those - it's a self-published website.  Additionally, self-published material is allowable as long as "it is relevant to their notability; it is not contentious; it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; and there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it."  The article is not based primarily on such sources. The article is not predominantly resting on references to the PJ site.  In fact, one could probably go through and find other sources to most of the info that is currently being pointed to the PJ site. FrederickTG (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I submit that much of the content is self-serving and contentious. At least one link does involve claims about third parties. PJ publishes claims on their website that have not been independently verified. They can state anything about themselves on their website -- it doesn't mean that we should accept it as fact and include it in our encyclopedia. If you can find objective, secondary sources for the information the PJ links are referencing, then by all means, we should change them. Otherwise, I think the PJ links need to be scrutinized and possibly removed. Vagr4nt (talk) 20:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please point out the links that you find self-serving and contentious, and the one that has a third party claim, and we can see what can be done about them. FrederickTG (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't really have a way of independently verifying their claims about their conviction numbers. Should they really be included in our encyclopedia?
 * See below
 * Ditto.
 * See below
 * Unverifiable.
 * Source: http://www.officer.com/print/Law-Enforcement-Technology/Internet-Watchdogs/1$35694
 * So they claim.
 * Not sure what this is pointing to.
 * Who has independently verified this?
 * Not sure what this is pointing to.
 * How can we be sure?
 * Not sure what this is pointing to.
 * On this page they claim to have a 100% conviction rate. We know from well documented sources that this is patently false.
 * See below
 * Contentious.
 * Not sure what this is pointing to.
 * So they say.
 * Alternate Source: http://www.rickross.com/reference/perverted_justice/perverted_justice13.html
 * Properly documented cases suggest otherwise.
 * Not sure what this is pointing to.
 * Makes unverified claims about Colin County D.A.
 * They're not making a claim, it's their statement on their site - their opinion - and it is labeled as such.
 * See if you can find alternative, independently verifiable sources for these claims and we can work from there.
 * Vagr4nt (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, please give me some time. Also, how do others feel on this?  It seems like the PJ site has always been used in some function in sourcing for this article.  Appropriate source, or no? FrederickTG (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I might be missing something, but I can't tell what some of these are pointing to. Some clarification would help.  FrederickTG (talk) 03:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Appropriate, plain and simple. Everything they claim has the facts to back it up. Busboy (talk) 02:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If those facts are published in reliable, third party sources, then use those sources. Wikipedia is not a soap box for publishing whatever PJ feels about themselves. Vagr4nt (talk) 20:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Some is appropriate, but must be contextualized. To say "PJ actions have led to ___ convictions" referenced solely with the PJ site is inappropriate. But to say "PJ claims/asserts/lists that their actions have led to ___ convictions" would be appropriate. To say "PJ's purpose is..." based on their site may be fine in a normal setting, but because of the self-serving aspect, it should read "PJ's stated purpose is..." instead. The context makes (most) all the difference. VigilancePrime (talk) 04:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur with VigilancePrime's position on this issue. Statements such as these have to be attributed to their source. Also, it would improve the strength of the article to replace some references to PJ with secondary sources. ~ Homologeo (talk) 04:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I must disagree with you both. I say however, if you have your doubts, then why don't you visit the website, and ask them yourselves. If they were lying abut anything then surley a reliable secondary source would have picked up on it already.busboy (talk) 19:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In regards to the conviction numbers, I don't think there is a problem using PJ as a source for those numbers. Excluding those figures from the article would be excluding a germane portion of what PJ is/does.  I doubt that a better source for those figures - we can't really expect a 3rd party source will track those numbers.  There are dozens of news articles that cite PJ's conviction numbers, and there are also dozens of articles that attribute those convictions posted to PJ.  At a certain point common sense would dictate that the numbers are reliable, and the most effective and efficient way of citing those numbers is by using PJ.  FrederickTG (talk) 01:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Right. The text needs to state that the numbers are self-tracked without making it sound like "we" doubt those numbers. "Claims" is a bad choice. Perhaps, "PJ lists ### convictions from their efforts" or similar. Something that makes it clear without judging and gives those numbers as fact. It's be like a person's bio stating a blood type based on the person's comment. Sure, it could be wrong, but chances are that it isn't inaccurate and we have no reason to doubt it. Same concept. The site's purpose, though, absolutely needs to read as "...stated purpose is..." VigilancePrime (talk) 03:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much how that section reads now, if I'm not mistaken. FrederickTG (talk) 03:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * then why don't you visit the website, and ask them yourselves. That would be original research, which is not allowed. We should not publish PJ's claims as they are not a verifiable source of information. Their opinion is irrelevant. The number we should go with would be one published in a reliable news source. For example, "According to The New York Times, PJ states they are responsible for XYZ convictions..." or something similar. Vagr4nt (talk) 20:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe so, but as previously stated, if they are lying about anything pertaining to the legal inegrity of the site, they would have been nabbed long ago. Busboy (talk) 01:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * RE: The 100% Conviction rate - could you please show me a source where a PJ case has gone to trial and been found not guilty?  And yes, I do know that a case was thrown out (it's covered in the criticisms section), but that isn't the same as someone being found not guilty.  So technically, they're correct.  FrederickTG (talk) 03:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit War, part II

 * Okay Barry and Frederick, we need to talk.
 * This bit about who PJ targets and whether or not we can use attack/hate sites as references needs to come off the article page and hack it out here. We have a pretty basic problem that I will explain as best I see it and you two can figure out the solution. But at least let's stop edit-warring and reverting and re-reverting and re-re-reverting, etc...
 * The core of this is the Verifiability versus Accuracy problem. In order to be truthful, we have to add the lines. To add the lines verifiably, we have to have the references. But now we have references that are to attack/hate pages. They are removed and now the true statement is not verifiable.
 * Well, it is verifiable, but the article doesn't have the verifiability links. It's true (per the references), but we can't "prove it" through verifiability because of the links issue.
 * So the conundrum is this: Are attack/hate pages allowable, somehow (even as non-linked ref notes?), as references? If not, can we keep the information but not have the links in as sources? (I doubt the latter.) It's not an easy queation, but let's work on it here, please, instead of artificially upping out articlespace edit count by undoing each other's edits, 'k? VigilancePrime (talk) 03:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * But how is that information even verifiable as accurate? How can we link to pages that identify actual people (not just pseudonyms, but actual people)?  How can we link to just certain types of those profiled, and not other types?


 * I have no problem taking the issue to the discussion page. As you can see above, there has alraedy been extensive discussion on it.  Barry, however, likes to argue in the edit page for whatever reason, after being warned not to.  I am not the only one who sees the problem with the edit, nor have I been the only one to get rid of the edit.  But, instead of making his case here, Barry perpetrates an edit war. FrederickTG (talk) 11:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You're using the policies manipulatively to justify edits which distort the truth.


 * Wikisposure is not verifiable as a source of information about the people profiled, however it is verifiable if one is seeking to confirm the nature of the activities of PJ. One can easily verify that PJ targets non-offending paedophiles, if one visits PJ's (Wikisposure) pages targetting non-offending paedophiles. Barry Jameson (talk) 12:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That strikes me as the very definition of original research. You're using one source to establish particular people as "non-offending paedophiles" and another source to establish that such people are "targeted" by PJIF's Wikisposure project.  That's synthesis of information.  Worse, I'm not aware of any such sources that could reasonably be considered "reliable" for those claims.  Powers T 14:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (adding) Look at this way. Would it be reasonable to say that Wikisposure targets "blond paedophiles" if in fact some of the people profiled there have blond hair?  Powers T 14:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Yes, we can verify that the PJ community has posted information about people. We can not verify whether or not that information is true. I say we not link to the PJ attack pages. We aren't here to publish our findings and draw conclusions, rather, our job is simply to summarize neutral, reliable, third party sources. Vagr4nt (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a wide variety of terms that can be used to classify the people profiled by Wikisposure, and different individuals will use different terms to describe those people. The only way to get around this is to use the wording the site uses and attribute that wording as being PJ's.  That way no conclusions are being drawn and just the facts are being presented. FrederickTG (talk) 01:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You are suggesting that we should trust a source which claims that the individuals profiled are "pro-child rape activists", despite the fact that PJ also profiles people who speak out against sex with children (BLueRibbon, Clayboy and Jillium are the most obvious examples). You are suggesting that we should naively believe an organisation which specialises in deception (most famously by pretending to be children in chat rooms). Do you not see the obvious problem with using PJ as a "reliable source"? Barry Jameson (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * How disgustingly reasonable and in accord with the letter and spirit of Actual Wikipedia Policies. More proof you must be a member of PJ. John Nevard (talk) 06:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree. Ours is not to analyze or synthesize. Ours is to document through verifiable sources. Just as it was pointed out above that convistion numbers should also be sourced beyond the PJ website. Wikisposure cannot be used as a reference to show what it does (there is an inherent analysis there); instead, a site or story that makes that analysis would be necessary. Now, if information is not contentious (in this article? yeah right!) we wouldn't necessarily be as required to cite information that is commonly known to be true. But the information at issue is clearly contentious and needs to be sourced. I like the current wording better than the other two versions, BTW. Everyone just remember to remain calm, 'k? VigilancePrime (talk) 07:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC) :-)


 * I believe the consensus is against the version you are repeatedly trying to implement, Barry. FrederickTG (talk) 03:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I did want to point out and make it clear that I have absolutely no problem discussing and debating issues, making compromises and reaching a consensus. I realize that it's a must on controversial topics such as this one. I did have a problem letting the edits that Barry was trying to insert into this article stand, especially after it was pointed out to him by myself and others that the edits were seriously flawed. I dislike edit wars and trying to communicate with other editors through edit summaries, but that was the only way that Barry would engage in any type of dialogue. I welcome anyone that has a problem with any of my edits/changes/ideas to present their objections in a logically sourced manner so that they can be discussed in the talk page - after all, it's the Wikipedia way. FrederickTG (talk) 04:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

weasel words
I offered a third opinion on the dispute as to whether PJ harasses pedophiles. Since then, the language had been changed to "reportedly harasses". This is more neutral, but it is clearly a weasel word. I propose this be changed to something like "PJ investigates, identifies, and reportedly exposes adults who solicit online sexual conversations with adults posing as children. Perverted Justice's methods are controversial, and a number of critics have labelled these actions harrassment or entrapment(citations)". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asmodeus Samael (talk • contribs) 21:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I like this suggestion. It presents the controversy as its own idea and will make the section flow better (while avoiding words like reportedly, allegedly, etc.) FrederickTG (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Much better; I don't like the word "exposes"... it seems to be weasely... I can't explain it better than that (perhaps "publicizes" or similar?), but there's surely a better way to say that one part. Overall, I like it too. VigilancePrime (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see why exposes is weasely but publicizes is fine by me. --Asmodeus Samael (talk) 14:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Identify vs. Consider

 * I would like to change the word "identify" to "consider" or "believe to be" in the "target" sentence. The simple fact is that they consider people and I don't know how they come to these conclusions, but they are patently false. "Identify" seems to give a feeling of finding out something already true rather than "consider" or "believe to be" indicating that they believe it but not necessarily being true or proven. It's a minor distinction, but a significant one in this context. I would like to gain "approval" or comment on better improvements to that line, though, before changing it. VigilancePrime (talk) 06:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe use the word "describe"? FrederickTG (talk) 22:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Describe sounds good. If you don't know how PJ come to these conclusions you cannot claim mthat they are patently false but actually wikipedia is interested in reporting verifiable information and isn't interested in whether these people are perpetrators or not so describe would do it, IMO. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Better said - and Squeak thank you for bringing my attention to my poor phraseology - is that in some instances there is patent falsification, and that much is obvious. Not all, and if that was inferred it was not intentional. In point of fact, it is probably accurate more often than not. "Describe" is better; my only concern is if it is accurate... are they describing these people or are they alleging them to be? I think the latter is more accurate, but it is also a poor word choice and could ive a bias in the sentence. What I would like to see is a way to say it so that the article clearly indicates that PJ/WS consider them to be but that it is their sole determination, which is what I think the sentence is getting at originally. I'm not being as clear as I would like to be... the lucidity escapes me tonight... But "describe" is certainly heading in the right direction. VigilancePrime (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This talk page is for discussing the article, not making unverifiable claims of patent falsification. Why don't you provide a source so we can all look more closely at the issues involved? John Nevard (talk) 01:35, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 'Describe' is an even better term than 'believe to be', since we don't actually know if they are saying what they believe, or simply saying things that they want to say. Describe directly refers to the statements being made, it is a superior term. Tyciol (talk) 11:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * John: Thanks for interrupting the discussion of the article the four of us were having.
 * Fred, Ty, and Squeak: Glad we could all agree.
 *  •   VigilancePrime    •    •    •  17:33 (UTC)  11 Mar '08
 * Oh, I'm sorry, I thought you were making claims that Perverted-Justice was falsifying evidence without the slightest bit of proof. I guess you were just trolling. John Nevard (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You know what's particularly fascinating? The way you, John Nevard, intentionally mischaracterize others' statements is shockingly identical to the way Wikisposure intentionally mischaracterizes statements.


 * IF you read what I wrote, I wrote that their statements in some cases are false. That's obvious to anyone who actually reads it. There is no "evidence" there and there is no accusation of falsifying evidence. See, you basically lie about prior statements... is there any other way to see it? Perhaps you only choose your woods (very) poorly. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'll assume that you simply choose words really poorly.


 * As I said earlier, though, thank you for interrupting the discussion that we were having with the troll-like behaviours... You're not a troll, John, and that is clear. But just the same, you cannot pass up an opportunity to attack me again, huh? 'Tis alright... I can take it. Have fun with that.  •   VigilancePrime    •    •    •  03:31 (UTC)  12 Mar '08