User talk:PhoebusApolloX

Welcome!

Hello, PhoebusApolloX, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

In the meantime, what in particular is the problem with factual content of [[[Perverted-Justice.com]]? I'd rather not go through the article talk page - it's too long! I have a suggestion. If you find information that you find inaccurate, then place a {{dubious}} tag at the end of the disputed sentence. Then, in the talk page, create a new section called Disputed and note your concerns in there. I'm watching the page and will make sure noone removes the tags before they are hashed out on the talk page. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:19, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

First off, I don't want to fight any part of the current edit war going on, as if I added {{dubious}} to everything I object to, the current people watching it will just revert it back to normal (they have told me so in private taunts).

I don't have a problem with you adding dubious tags to the article, and I'm an admin. However, if you add them you must make a section called "Disputed" on the talk page and justify each disputed statement(s). Anyone who removes them will be warned, then blocked from editing for a brief while. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think that since the entire article is pretty much in dispute (even you dispute relevant facts of the article), the only thing we can agree on for now is that it's disputed. Fighting now when it's already bad lends itself to more fighting, and I want to preserve my ability to edit it in the future to update it with facts when the dispute winds down.

I agree that both sides are getting a little heated. I don't have any position on this article, so I won't be adding much info. I'm not entirely sure I agree with your organisation, however. This doesn't mean that I'm going to be terribly biased towards you. What is written should be fair and neutral. I'll make sure of it by helping to supervise it (what I seem to be doing at the moment). - Ta bu shi da yu 08:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think if we just mark the article in dispute and it will encourage Wiki authors of all sorts (pro, con, and everything inbetween) to come in and edit away, and from there it will perhaps evolve into something we don't have to argue over. That way everyone knows the content is disputed going into it, and thus can feel less inclined to fight over territory of the article and instead feel free to change it. Speaking of which, I would love it if registered Wiki users, instead of known Corrupted-Justice.com staff and proxies, were the ones making these changes... in which case, I would happily step off the entire dispute. I know that the first article was good - I didn't agree with it 100% - but it was neutral and factual and I wish it would've stayed that way. But I don't wanna repeat myself.

I don't have a problem with corrupted-justice staff editing the article. However, I do have a problem with either party making the article POV. I hope you understand that. I might note that I also don't have an issue with people removing unsourced or dubious material. If material is removed, the other party will (usually) need to rewrite it in a more satisfactory way - and provide evidence. You'll note that the article currently needs a reference section. I also might note that you may feel that the article was factual and neutral, however others do not think so. I have had similar problems with Historicity of Jesus, however I've tried to work towards some solution. This has meant that I have taken out material that one of the users would have like kept in the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Xavier has already spent all his customary reversions trying to keep the article from being distorted, and people are on my IP now for going past that to continue to keep it from becoming a mess. Look at the history, they removed paragraphs of "Pro" content and had external links providing proper citations for portions of our arrest record removed for being "redundant". I mean, it doesn't get much worse than that. Some of them even recoded the links to Perverted-Justice.com to one of Corrupted-Justice.com's anti-PJ websites, a site called the AVSO, run by a german nazi hacker. I mean, I can't contend with that kind of mess. With this last change, I think it makes the point while letting people edit as they feel free to.

A link to the diffs where that was done please. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My major problem is that citations and facts are being provided, but being removed, and the removal is being made the basis for even more removal. I mean, c'mon. It's frustrating to say the least, and I personally haven't even BEGUN to really even edit the article!

A link to the diff please, then I will try to warn whoever did that to stop. I take a dim view of this sort of thing. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of {{dubious}}, why did you call into question our conviction record/recovery of an abducted girl, when we have plenty of citations and news catalogued on our website, and when we even had external links (once, before the edit war) in the article itself citing these cases? If that's one point of the article you'd like to discuss, then we can discuss that... we have received thanks from the Department of Justice and a variety of local/state law enforcement... although our detractors would put {{dubious}} on every claim, even the claim that we are "anti-pedophile"! It's not just me who disputes the article, it's them too.

I was not aware that these were removed. Please, once the article is unlocked (in about 12 hours) put them back in again. Like I say, I'd suggest that you read Wikipedia:Cite sources, as if you put it under external links they may be taken out, whereas if you put it under the references section noone can touch them without removing the information. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think what we have now will lend itself to allowing us to get back on track and stop the edit war. For now, that's all I really care about. I won't start editing the article until we have people editing it who respect the rules of editing. I personally have made no significant changes, and Xavier's were mostly reversions (to recover vital removed material, such as material which would've given you the citations you asked for) or the ADDITION of external links (which were removed because they disputed the narrow viewpoint of those editing the article). We're both essentially giving up for now until it subsides, because fighting people who don't care to take the time to understand each of the issues, or who openly disrespect us in the first place, is not worthwhile at all.

I can understand that. I will keep a close eye on the page (I probably won't edit it unless I need to) once it's unlocked. Feel free to edit the page in ways you feel is correct. I would suggest that the best way of stopping revert wars or "winning" revert wars (though I hate that idea as it's misleading - nobody really wins revert wars) is to do the following:

Note any material taken out. Revert once.
Immediately after (or even before!) make a note on the talk page about why you are reverting back.
If it gets reverted again, see if that person has responded on the talk page. If they have specific objections, try to answer them. In other words, do a revert but change the edit in such a way that tries to address the objections. Make sure you provide a source! (I suggest reading Wikipedia:No original research).
Make sure you note what you've done on the talk page.
If it gets reverted again, go to step 3.
As soon as you get to the third revert (even if you've tried to compromise) list the article on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection as well as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Then add the article to WP:RFC under content disputes. Don't edit anything for a while. I'll more than likely be the admin who does the page protection. Depending on how well I see people cooperate, I may revert back to your change (then again, I might not).

The most important thing you must remember to do is: do not make personal attacks. Do not comment on the behaviour of the person doing the reverts. That's most likely what they want. Admins can usually tell when those editors do that. It makes it harder for us when the other party being personally attacked responds in like kind. If the other party does not respond like that, we will usually feel sympathetic to the party being attacked. That's just the way most of us are! (see Wikipedia:No personal attacks). The other thing I would suggest is that you don't add meta info that is about the article into the article. Do not refer to the dispute in the Wikipedia article inside this article. Most editors have a dim view of this as it's not encyclopedic. Also, never make edits that prove a point. Just about everyone takes a dim view of this. Anyway, I hope this small amount of coaching helps. If you follow my advise, your stay on Wikipedia will be OK. If you don't, then you may find it hard to edit the site. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, most of those things considered "proper" were done by Xavier already, and I shouldn't have to sift through a lengthy series of edits to try to rewrite the whole thing myself when I'm fighting like 5-6 people who aren't ashamed to use proxies trying to undo it. If you notice my only complaint is that the narrow POV of Corrupted-Justice.com & friends is corrupting this article (example: Corrupted-Justice.com edits out links to pro-PJ site Corrupted-Justice.net which refutes their viewpoints, declaring it irrelevant, when Corrupted-Justice.net is the only pro-PJ resource for combatting the specific criticisms of Corrupted-Justice.com). My complaint is not that they exist, or that their complaints are heard, if you notice the only removal of their name from the article was not from External Links, but from the list of popular sources of criticism. The site is run and frequented by less than 20 people, and up until their word with ABCNews.com just recently, they had no national media exposure (instead they had sparce articles in online editorials and foreign papers). I detailed my full complaints in my post left on your discussions page. Either way, I don't forsee much success, not without me spending all my time trying to keep corrections intact.

Likewise, many of the changes and references were already within the article in the first place. While I see the usefulness of a "References" section, it seems futile to me when I know most of them will be removed as well. It's taken me hours to even clarify my stance. Can you imagine how long it would take me to singlehandedly fight with these detractors over this article? If the notice is left about it being in dispute, then I can come back at a later time, once the edit war has subsided and a variety of outside opinions have been made into the piece, and clarify stances on particular issues. That's why I see that as the only solution. Do you or do you not agree? Do you think I should be required to fight, for hours on end, in reversion wars, to be heard here? Or do you think my stance is reasonable and should be respected? Remember, I am an admin of the website this piece is about, so yes I am a bit insulted that I have to take time away from working on it to settle this dispute. The solutions I've offered are the only ones I forsee actually working. Please note that 99% of what you've suggested was already tried when the original author was mediating the piece himself. Either way, I'll consider digging into it and marking each particular point but I don't think it'll be very worthwhile... until then, all I'm asking is to please respect that the neutrality and factual accuracy is in dispute, for the reasons I and Xavier already gave... over and over and over again. - PA