Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Get-back-world-respect

GBWS Response

I would state that the term 'anti-pedophile spam', which Get-back-world-respect has attributed to me was not, in fact, made by me at all. It was made by another editor.

I do not believe that I have been unreasonable at all throughout this process. GBWR came in and made a number of edits and additions to articles without making any attempt to discuss them. Only when pushed to do so did he attempt to explain his actions and this in a very cursory and dismissive fashion. I would also mention that I am not the only one who has been in favor of reverting his changes. Other editors have done precisely the same.

It has been my impression throughout that GBWS has had very little interest in improving the quality of articles or in discussing them with others, whilst having a very big interest in pushing his own POV. Rather than engaging in dialogue, asking questions and making a genuine attempt to understand what the purpose of some entries was, he has made assumptions and tried to impose his own interpretation of things. --Zanthalon 02:29, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Claims of "very little interest in improving the quality of articles or in discussing them with others, whilst having a very big interest in pushing his own" personal opinio are exactly the ones I hold against Zanthalon, check the article talk pages and histories for confirmation. Get-back-world-respect 06:40, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Concerns about the Childlovers Article

While I understand the concerns of Get-back-world-respect regarding the issues of the prevention of child sexual abuse, treatment of offenders and recovery for victims, I still do not think that this article is the place to put links to the organizations he is supporting. Several leading pedophilia experts, including Dr. Fred Berlin of the National Institute for the Study, Prevention and Treatment of Sexual Trauma at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, and Dr. John Bradford, a psychiatrist specializing in pedophilia at the University of Ottawa have concluded that most exclusive type pedophiles, ie, those whose primary sexual attraction is to children do not abuse. Their data shows that the majority of sexual abuse is perpetrated by so-called situational offenders, people whose primary attraction is not to children, but who turn to children for sexual purposes due to adverse factors in their lives or an inability to attract sexual partners within their primary attraction group. --Zanthalon 02:29, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The statement I called disgusting was headlined "Anti-pedophilia spam" by Paranoid. As Zanthalon's statement clearly shows, we have an article content dispute, not anything worth a "request for comment on a user". Just because Zanthalon wants to make believe that pedophiles do not need treatment as stopitnow.org claims does not mean he should delete links regarded important by a majority of the society - even though perhaps not of those who visit pedophilia-related articles at wikipedia. Get-back-world-respect 06:28, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

First, adding same external links to 6 different articles is a form of spam, warranted or not. Second, these links are, to a very large extent, anti-pedophilia. Ergo my comment. We had a minor dispute about content, but as we failed to resolve it informally, and as you tried to push your POV at the same time in other places (attempt to delete Rind et al., changed "boylover" to "pedophile" in the List of self-identified pederasts and pedophiles), this turned into a request for comment on user behaviour. Not to forget your "do not contact me any further at my talk page" remark at User_talk:Paranoid. Paranoid 20:46, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What you call "pushing POV" is what is supposed to be done at wikipedia in cases of disagreements: Discussing at talk pages, request comments on the article, and in cases of articles that seem to lack validity as articles listing for a deletion vote where others can vote about it. Rather than getting to the issue itself you start a request for comment on a user, which should only be done if the other possibilities do not work at all and a user grossly misbehaves. My request not to post comments at my talk page that should be placed at the article talk pages and that have offensive titles like "anti-pedophilia spam" is nothing wrong. I did not revert at all pages where I found neutrality was lacking in the selection of external links, and I insist that links to pages that inform about possibilities for treatment of pedophiles or that inform abused children are nothing wrong, and there are by far more partisan pages linked to from wikipedia, e.g. the plethora of links to "boyloving" pedophile communities. Get-back-world-respect 22:00, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Too many different articles?

Nearly all pedophilies are childlovers. Should we really have different articles for them? The discussion is split up and there are many redundancies. There is also the danger that one article becomes the anti-article of the other, although Wikipedia should in the first place contain certain knowlegde rather than the POVs of two sides.

Check out [[1]]. We have articles for fag, gay, homosexuality, queer, faggot (slang), etc. Childlover and pedophile are sufficiently different concepts to warrant separate articles. Of course, some content may need to be moved, duplicated, reedited, removed, branched into yet more articles, etc., but these are technical issues. Paranoid 20:46, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Nearly all people would say that the term "childlover" for pedophiles is an offense to every mother or father who loves his or her child without being sexually attracted to it. Make it a redirect to pedophilia. Get-back-world-respect 22:00, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

GBWR, you think you are better than me because I am a mere lowly pedophile? You sure speak like you have some kind of inalienable right to define what is and what is not "offensive." I find the labelling of everyone involved in pedophile relationships as "victims" offensive, and I also take issue with being called a "perpetrator," a "monster," a "baby fucker," a "tree jumper," a "nonce," a "pervert" and just about everything else you fine upstanding heterosexuals care to throw at me. You do not take issue with the self-labelling process of those who were sexually abused by non-pedophiles (they call themselves "survivors," like D. J. West says, "apparently without apology to the 'survivors' of the Nazi Hollocaust."). Why do you take issue then with our own terminology? Where are you crusading against the "offensive to mothers and fathers" terminology of others, hmmm? You think you good enough to edit these sections, GBWR? You sure do show a lot of bias and prejudice. I call pedophilia "child love" because that is exactly what it is, pal.

I do not say anyone is better than anyone else, I only say that it is a scandal if what is considered a crime gets defended in erncyclopedia articles while the commonly held position that pedophiles need psychological treatment is banned. I never call anyone "monster" or "baby fucker" nor do the organizations I linked to. I do call children seduced by pedophiles victims because that is what they are. If you do not like it you are free to disagree, but you are not free to censor links to organizations that share my view. I do not think wikipedia is the right place to discuss sexual orientations, so I neither want to know if you are a pedophile nor will any reasonable person here tell you whether your assumption about "fine upstanding heterosexuals" is correct. Note that there is no article about male survivors, not even the organization. But the euphemist term "boylover" has a grossly partisan article, the discussion of which is not at the right place here. If you had read the articles of two "childlovers" who tell their story at stopitnow.org you knew that some pedophiles give in that their paraphilia can be a great danger for them and others. Get-back-world-respect 17:40, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Furthermore, wikipedia would be better served if it had more users whose only two contributions are two comments about my edits related to pedophelia, user:Madeline. Please sign next time, and refrain from calling me "pal" again. Get-back-world-respect 17:39, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The fact that some childlovers are ephebophilies is only a minor problem, because ephebophilia is less controversial, most problems are already covered by pedophilia.

I am also not sure whether we need an extra article Rind et al.. First child sexual abuse should cover the results of sexology about pedophilia and the place of Rind et al. within it. --Moonlight shadow 20:11, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This has been already discussed at Talk:Rind et al., AFAIR. A separate article is needed because the story of the research and the ensuing controversy is interesting enough by itself, not just the findings related to child abuse. Paranoid 20:46, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The fact that there already was discussion does not mean it has to end. There is still discussion, also note that now the article itself shows that the title is inappropriate since there is a second study Rind et al. mentioned. As nearly all the comments here show, there are disagreements about articles, which should not be made "conflict about user conduct". Get-back-world-respect 22:00, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

outside view

I find your objections to be based on article content, not mine. My complaint was primarilly regarding GBWR's use of his talk page, deleting messages with an unfriendly edit summary. In fact, his edit summary could have been interpreted as a personal attack. His message on my talk page suggesting I might be a racist (complete non-sequitor, apparently he felt I was anti-gay as well) certainly could have been interpreted as a personal attack. I was also disturbed by his revert wars over his link spam. There are only so many pages that need the same external links. I happen to agree w him that pedophilia could use the link, but the way he behaved was not supportive of that position. That said I don't think this is a particularly important case, and needn't go any further than perhaps a poll regarding placement of the links, or maybe mediation between him and some other participant, if they deemed it necessary. I certainly don't see anything in this whole dynamic necessitating arbitration, sanctions, or really any other official action beyond what has already occurred. Protect the page if you think it needs it, I don't think it does.

What I want GBWR to understand is that he needs to obey

Wikipedia:Civility

Wikipedia:talk page

Wikipedia:no personal attacks etc...

That’s why I signed on, not to persecute him. Sam [Spade] 02:03, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I never personally attack anyone. When you had written "I tried editing some sexuality project pages, and found the pro-gay POV bias rather upsetting." I just asked you the rhetorical question, are you anti-gay, i.e. a racist? As I explained, the deleted message was replied to elsewhere. Sorry that you got two of the messages I wrote in the worst mood wikipedia ever made me have. If you had really looked into the subject rather than just giving your opinion to a conflict you obviously had not followed it would have been appreciated. Get-back-world-respect 17:46, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Anti-gay does not = racist, for one thing. Race and sexuality are unrelated, AFAIK. For another I only told you that little story to let you know I sympathize w your concerns and POV's. It is true that certain subjects tend to attract those related to them. Theres not alot of non-gay editors editing gay articles. So I understand your concerns that people on these kid-sex articles might be perverts. Understanding your concern doesn't mean I justify your actions of calling other editors "childlovers" and "child lover defender" or whatever it was you called me. Adding the anti-gay racist thing and It's pretty clear we have a personal attack pattern going here. Anyways, as I said, I'm not against you. I'm simply making you aware of behaviours you need to change. Getting you to admit error (which you have not done) will be the 1st step. Sam [Spade] 18:08, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Read racism. As there is only human race restricting the term to those who feel superior to other human races is nonsensical. As I regard the term "childlover" as completely arbitrary, ridiculous, and offensive in the way pedophiles use it I do not see why I should not use it in quotation marks to address those who defend the term. At least I do not use that ridiculous term in encyclopedia articles as others do. Get-back-world-respect 18:29, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am afraid you may have a language or cognitive barrier which is causing distress. Have you read the racism article? From your abnormal opinions regarding it I assume you have not? This is why I stopped corresponding w you in the past; you seem to simultaneously misunderstand what I am saying while expressing bizarre and confusing sentiments. My comments stand, and I am not interested in discussing this further. Sam [Spade] 19:05, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What is anti-gay if not "distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference ... which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life."? It may not be exactly based on descent or ethnic origin, but the analogy is obvious. I appreciate that you no further involve yourself in disputes where you do not seem to be willing to help. Get-back-world-respect 19:24, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

# The complainants against GBWR should understand that they do not have the power or right to unilaterally specify what is appropriate or inappropriate in a controversial article;

The fact that, at last count, there were six complainants about GBWR's behaviour, five certifying this particular dispute, invalidates the assertion that they are unilaterally attempting to specify anything. If anybody is acting in a unilateralist fashion, it is GBWR, who has thus far managed to garner very little support for his edits. The links he added to some pages were objected to by not one, but three other editors, all of whom agreed that the links were appropriate on some pages but not on others.

This is very much an issue about a particular user's behaviour. I do not agree that this is a content debate. In the last two days, there has been considerable discussion about the content of these articles, and I think that everyone who has been involved in the editing of these articles has been responsive to the comments.

What we have objected to here is the unilateralist behaviour of GBWR. To recap, he has:

added the same links to six different articles with no discussion. The links were not removed from all of the articles, nor were they consistently removed by the same editor.

made disparaging comments of other editors and deleted all critical comments from his Talk page.

I would add that his own user page admits that he finds this whole thing to be a silly enterprise anyway. Furthremore, his comments in various Talk pages show an extreme bias. I doubt both his ability and desire to work towards the creation of a well-balanced page on the basis of his comments. I would be perfectly willing to work with GBWR if he showed a bit of courtesy in his dealing with others and demonstrated a true desire to reach consensus.

While GBWR accuses me of unilaterally overruling his edits, I am only doing so because I have the feeling that my actions are supported by the other parties that have been instrumental in editing this article. On the other hand, it appears to me that his edits do not have the support of those other editors.

I agree that the links that GBWR has proposed do have a place in Wikipedia. I do not, however, share his opinion that they should be liberally added to any page that he finds to be offensive.

User:Zanthalon has shown some effort to address some of my issues raised on the Talk Page of Childlover, but has summarily reverted, a number of times, edits that GBWR has made that an outside observer might well view as reasonable and/or balancing. Zanthalon, who seems to have edited only on pedophilic-related articles in his two months at Wikipedia, also seems to be in careless disregard of the "three-revert" rule in Wikipedia policy. He also is using RFC inappropriately in charging a user with misconduct for exercising his editing rights. I would want to see any indication that the complainants have attempted to compromise or to improve, rather than delete his edits. Then bringing GBWR's attempts at editing to RFC for sanction amounts to censorship.

I do not think that I am unreasonable at all. You and others have raised valid issues and they are being dealt with. I would point out the difference of your approach to that of GBWR. You have cited sections that you have problems with and stated the reasons for the objections in Talk. I have made changes and you have commented on those changes. GBWR's approach has been much different. He has made changes with no discussion whatsoever. When pressed, he has given a dismissive answer, and when people have not agreed with him, he has accused them of being uncooperative.

I would point out that you accuse me of violating the 'three-revert' rule. I will admit that when this all began, I was ignorant of that rule. Yes, I violated it and I apologize. I would only point out that it takes two to tango. If I did it, GBWR also did, since I was not the only one reverting some of his edits. If you will blame me, then you should not hold GBWR blameless.

We have repeatedly asked GBWR to enter into a dialogue about these articles. His statements, however, do not amount to dialogue. They amount to a statement of his opinions. Nothing else. How are we supposed to reach a consensus and find agreement on controversial issues with somebody who already has his mind made up?

--Zanthalon 03:10, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This is my sentiment as well. When the main argument for any change amounts to basically "every parent would be disgusted by that link/paragraph/term/whatever, this is sick and so we should remove it", this is clearly POV and is against the goal of writing a quality encyclopedia article. GBWR acts within his own purposes for the text - promotion of his views. The links he inserted are of limited usefulness - we don't add links to reeducation sites at gay, I don't see why we should have them at Ephebophilia. GBWR clearly does not care about objectivity of the articles, which is again and again shown by his selective inclusion of facts and removal of everything (including factual info) he doesn't like. For example, GBWR advocates removal of Rind et al., because he doesn't like its findings. At the same time he removes the text from epehebophilia that says it's not mentioned in DSM-IV (which is the fact, this document by American Psychiatric Association does not include epehebophilia), justifying it with a link to an online dictionary compiled by a Ph.D. This is not objective. Paranoid 06:02, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Of the six users who signed the complaint, three are not involved at all in the alleged neutrality issue about what Zanthalon, Moon_light_shadow, and Paranoid defend as "childlove". Sam has even more or less disassociated from your efforts. All four users who had not been involved personally in the conflits wrote that they do not see at all why this should be a complaint about user conduct. Among them is even one user who tends to disagree with me about everything else than pedophelia, and although we have a history of some disagreements we never let it escalate as you are trying to do. user:VeryVerily, user:Stevertigo and user:Zanthalon all excessively reverted, user:VeryVerily even has a mediation running for things like that. As the talk pages and histories clearly show, I did explain my edits. I never made disparaging comments of other editors. Do not mix that up with supporting an opinion like "childlover" is a euphemist term or asking why your sole interest in wikipedia are pedophelia related articles. On the contrary, some of you attack me, user:Stevertigo with grossly inappropriate language as I documented, and user:Madeline only came into existence to make completely false allegations that "she" were called "baby fucker" or so. Certainly not at wikipedia. I am free to keep my talk page as empty as I like, many users do that. I did reply to comments at talk pages, although often others preferred to revert rather than discuss. What you call "my personal opinion" are positions held by the overwhelming majority of the population, which is why sex with children is a crime in most cases.

While homosexuality is no chronophilia and not seen as anything dangerous in most English-speaking countries I would not object to links to organizations that have a different view. As long as they are not called "gas-the-gays.com" or so and as long as gay-communities were not censored either. Ephebophilia is a chronophilia, all countries have legal restrictions to sex with children, including post-pubescent ones, which can mean ten year olds. Those who want to ban views critical of sex with children clearly do not care about objectivity of the articles. I do not advocate removal of the content of Rind et al., and your suggestion why I advocate the removal of the article as it is deliberately twists what I explained. The findings and the Senate story may be reported, but a journal article should not be singled out, and it should especially not be covered under its first authors name as if that one had not written anything else. Saying "epehebophilia is not mentioned in DSM-IV" is inaccurate as DSM has a section for not otherwhise specified sexual paraphilia. Chronophilia is seen as a paraphilia by sexologists. Get-back-world-respect 18:01, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My issues with GBWR came from another topic, and were based more in the problem of GBWR dismissively calling my comments "personal." But after reading the article in question, it does not appear to me that GBWR did much but to advocate a more neutral POV, and that Zanthiums (perhaps) proponent-like balance for the article needed exactly the kind of criticism that GBWR offered. (Sidenote: I dont care about the toestepping reverts that may have happened on the page itself - reversion is a bad way to go all around, because its dismissive and provoking; one doesnt have to be right at all, to be justified in being upset with a blanket revert.) While were on the subject, the article controversy seems entirely semantic, and semantic arguments between people who have no understanding of degrees can be rather pointless. I dont think that either GBWR or Zanthium are unaware of the degrees, but are (or were - this squabble may be over) a bit partisan in their attitude toward each others positions. To call the article a "movement" is a bit of an oxymoron, but the name is at least better now than it was. In fact, my biggest issue is not the material, but the title itself, which is really just a proponents propagandism. But then I would file anti-Americanism under "nationalist propagandisms" and "American exceptionalism" under "ethnic national mythos," and just have them redirect. But thats just me. The term "childlover" is a strange mixture of terms; "child" which by definition is pre-"sexual", and "lover" which implies an "advanced sexuality"; to say that sexuality has degrees is fine, and that these naturally dont conform with the arbitrary line of law, but I agree with GBWR in terms of how the article should be developed, provided that theres a balance, which overall there seems to be. Bcorr does good work in balancing things out. What's missing are mentions of real evidence from cases in support and in contradiction to the proposed view. -Stevertigo 15:00, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)