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


 * (User:Get-back-world-respect | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute
This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct.

Get-back-world-respect decided to add two links to several different pages discussing pedophilia and child sexual abuse. Others decided that the links were not applicable to all of the pages they were added to and deleted them. Get-back-world-respect has continued to keep adding these links, despite the arguments of others why these links are appropriate on some pages and inappropriate in others.
 * Description:

Slander of Other Users
Get-back-world-respect has written the following comments:


 * "After what users like Zanthalon and Moon_light_shadow wrote I am quite sure you are right in that they engage in crimes. Please do not allow them to succeed by leaving wikipedia as Lucky did. The pictures may be disgusting, they may however be helpful for healthy people to understand the danger of self-proclaimed "childlovers". Get-back-world-respect 11:22, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)" (retrieved from User_talk:Geogre)

I would think that under Wikipedia guidelines, comments such as this, which amount to slander, are wholly unacceptable. --Zanthalon, 04:02, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * They are wholly unacceptable indeed, and that is not solely under Wikipedia guidelines. --Moonlight shadow 19:40, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Intolerant of other user comments
Get-back-world-resepct deletes any comments to his talk page regarding this with disparaging comments to the authors:


 * Anti-pedophilia spam

Get-back-world-respect, please refrain from adding same propaganda links to articles just to enforce your position. Please remember that the goal is to write encyclopedia articles and these links do not actually help it (they aren't the best informational resources). Paranoid 21:41, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Get-back-world-respect"


 * Here is the response from the page history: 20:08, 10 Jul 2004 Get-back-world-respect m (deleting disgusting comment)


 * Pedophilia

Your persistent addition of links to the pedophilia and childlover pages that are not accepted by others who have been maintaining these pages for longer than you have is not appreciated. The links you are adding belong on the child sexual abuse page and are there. Please desist from your one-person campaign of putting these links where others do not support them. --Zanthalon 22:13, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Get-back-world-respect"


 * Here is the response from the page history: 18:16, 11 Jul 2004 Get-back-world-respect m (Pedophilia - deleting comments of a "childlover")

Further talk comments asking Get-back-world-respect to observe Wikiquette were also deleted with disparaging comments.

Unwilling to reason rationally with others
In the talk on the affected pages, Get-back-world-respect insists on his own POV, rather than striving for a NPOV. Please see Talk:Child_sexual_abuse and Talk:Childlover.


 * Applicable policies:
 * No personal attacks
 * Civility
 * NPOV
 * Revert wars considered harmful
 * Talk page


 * Users certifying the basis for this dispute (sign with ~ ):
 * Zanthalon 14:32, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Moonlight shadow 15:17, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC): I still hope that we can resolve the dispute about the links on Talk:Child_sexual_abuse.
 * Sam [Spade] 16:07, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Hey, Sam, you know you dont need to make your talk sig an external link... -SV
 * Stevertigo 06:37, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Paranoid 20:30, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Other users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * V V   19:53, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC) I've had similar experiences on two articles, where GBWR simply reverted my work repeatedly over quibbles, and is wholly dismissive in Talk.  I was disappointed as I thought he was a better editor than this.


 * 1) GBWR seems to be an intelligent, and sincere person, who chooses to forget that others here are also intelligent and sincere.* Hence, GBWR seems to either dismiss, misread, or obfuscate any points one tries to make, shifting the topic to something else; in my case talking about "personal attacks" which were really one smartypants comments about GBWR's apparent inability to focus. I think my first theory* is more correct, and that GBWR simply needs to make a small adjustment in their attitude/trajectory toward his fellowikians. -Stevertigo 15:46, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I have found GBWR's perspective on things difficult (quite difficult) at times, but he is being called out for some straight and basically moderate edits. It is inappropriate to cite the pedophilia-related articles and then pile on with general complaints. If the basis of the complaint is a fallacy, everything that follows is fallacious. -- Cecropia | Talk 23:56, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Addendum
Sam Spade was not involved in any of the article disputes at all. He only placed two comments on my talk page, one of them with an empty link, complaining that I had deleted a comment although I had replied to it at an article talk page where it was duplicated. Other users have conflicts with this user as well, cf. Requests_for_arbitration

Stevertigo repeatedly used inappropriate language and attacked me personally obtuse pain in the butt,, , , ,  and labelled his request for comment on me as "approved" although he never made any attempt to resolve the conflict with me on my talk page, not to speak of a second user joining his concerns.
 * This is false; if one looks at the history for GBWR, he chose to delete my comments from the talk page, twice not responding to them directly at all. This started when I commented "with great respect for your unnecessarily long and polemic username", which he characterised as a "personal attack." Its not - anybody whos had to type in "Get-back-world-respect" knows that its not a "personal attack". So, User:GBWR (shortcut). -Stevertigo 14:01, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

User:Paranoid uses unacceptable language like "bullshit" in ignorance of Wikipedia's rule No personal attacks.


 * So fucking what? I am not fucking ignorant of that fucking rule. I just don't give a shit, you retard. On a more serious note, "bullshit" is a perfectly valid descriptive term for your delusional belief that Wikipedia articles are here to help pedophiles to reform. Paranoid 18:06, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Let us be more succinct. Wikipedia articles are here to inform. NPOV is one of Jimbo's "non-negotiable" principles for Wikipedia. This does not mean that the purpose of Childlover is to help pedophiles to reform; it also means the purpose of the article is not to allow "Childlove" to be manipulated and portrayed in the manner desired by its proponents, without argument, correction, or perspective. A truly NPOV article would go a lot further than GBWR has gone in balancing and analyzing the term "Childlover." -- Cecropia | Talk 19:07, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Outside view
Though I have posted on Talk:Childlover, I am not party to this dispute.

This action about User:Get-back-world-respect is without merit on several grounds.
 * This is an article dispute, not a user dispute. GBWR has attempted to answer thoroughly and generally respectfully issues brought up on the Talk pages of these articles.
 * The other editors on these projects appear to believe that they "own" the articles and are arbiters of what is appropriate. The tone of Childlover especially is an uncritical recitation of what proponents of the term believe it should describe, therefore the article is inherently POV.
 * 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.
 * By removing any reference to treatment options for pedophiles, the other editors of these articles are asserting, in effect, that practitioners of pedophilia (or "childlove"), classified as a Sexual and Gender Indentity Disorder (DSM IV-TR 302.2), and not incidentally, a criminal offense in most countries, are entitled to both to manipulate their description and specify that the condition is not a disorder. It is one thing to assert in these articles that "childlovers" do not view themselves as deviating from a broad moral standard; to expunge material critical of this view is POV, to put it mildly.
 * Compare the articles at alcoholism and addiction, both of which are issues which many think should not have a criminal component, or even a moral component, but both list negative effects of these behaviors and mention (in addiction) of 12-step programs.

Resoltion of the current dispute I propose:
 * This dispute should be dropped from the user dispute area and moved to article disputes.
 * 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; and
 * If any of the parties to this dispute request it, I or another admin can Protect one or more of the articles from editing, and work out the differences on the respective Talk and or /Temp pages. -- Cecropia | Talk 01:51, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with Cecropia. This seems an inappropriate escalation of a pretty civil discussion. Rmhermen 02:17, Jul 14, 2004 (UTC)

Those who endorse this evaluation


 * 1) I'll second that. I haven't had much time for wikipedia lately, but I just ran into this, and it seems pretty clearly to be an article dispute.   I just wanted to back Cecropia on this issue. Rei 18:03, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) older &ne; wiser 13:28, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutrality 23:46, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) I dislike GBWR as much as the next person, but in this case, I couldn't agree with Cecropia more. Ambi 13:26, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Response
All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.

I tried to discuss both with Zanthalon and User:VeryVerily but with neither of them could consensus be reached. I never personally attack anyone because it says more about the person who does it than anyone else. Having a disagreement is nothing forbidden, and searching for consensus by discussion is how a neutral point of view can be reached. It may also be noted that I requested comments on the articles Anti-American sentiment and Project for the New American Century disputed with User:VeryVerily and asked for protection, which was granted as apparently no consensus could be achieved. I considered User:VeryVerily's edits grossly partisan, he only started discussing after repeatedly reverting unexplained, and he has a history of conflicts because of such things. Regarding Zanthalon, I also discussed and requested comments on "Childlover", the proper way rather than rushing to request comments on user conduct. In my eyes calling links to organizations that try to help pedophiles or victimized children to find psychological help "anti-pedophilia spam" is unacceptable. The same comment was added to an article talk page, so I see no offense in deleting it from my own talk page. My reply at the talk page was neutral even though I regard the actions of that user disgusting as summarized at my talk page history, which will hardly ever be read by anyone. The term "childlover" is defended by Zanthalon, so why does he see it as an offense? I admit that some articles related to pedophilia and child sexual abuse are a scandal in my eyes. As BCorr wrote at Talk:"Childlover", the entire article seems like a page promoting "childlovers" rather than an NPOV article on a subject. I would also like to note that the reverting started when I changed a sentence that was clearly partisan: There is no scientific evidence that consensual sexual activity causes harm to minors, nor of a plausible mechanism to explain how harm could be caused. and the links to the organizations that help victimized children and pedophiles searching for therapy were deleted at "childlover", pedophilia (help for pedophiles unwelcome?), and child sexual abuse. Meanwhile the articles link to partisan
 * Pedosexual Resources Directory "Contains a broad collection of scientific texts on the subject. The site takes a pro pedophile viewpoint, but uses a rationale approach." (and without mentioning is written by a non-scientific guy who openly defends sex with children)
 * Alice Day. April 25th is called 'Alice Day' by many girl lovers.
 * BoyChat. A popular and long-standing community of boylovers.
 * BoyLover.net. A busy international online boylove community.
 * GirlChat. A popular and long-standing community of girllovers.
 * Scholary resources (another site defending "childlove")

I do not think that the links I added can root out the problem, but at least they show what a big majority of the population is concerned about as well.

There are millions of journal articles in the world's libraries, but the community of "childlovers" even got a singled out article for an entry here. Pedophiles say that it supports their point that "non-violent" "consensual" sex with children is nothing wrong, so this is the one journal article that needs an extra article rather than that it be treated in the appropriate topic's article. How to name an article about a journal article? Just use the first author's name, as if he had never written any other article: Rind et al.. If that is not sick enough try North American Man-Boy Love Association, an article about an organization of pedophiles that read NAMBLA believes that young people have a right to choose their sexual partners. Tell me, how many young people are members of NAMBLA and fighting for their right? When I changed that sentence, admittedly in a provocative way, it was reverted with the obvious explanation that on its website "NAMBLA calls for the empowerment of youth in all areas."

As you may know, and as our lovely link collections illustrate, pedophiles are highly active on the internet. But rather than allowing them to redefine their paraphilia into "childlove", twist encyclopedia articles into "sex with children is nothing wrong as long as you do not use physical force" and advertise their campaigns we should inform that there is help:

Stop it now A campaign to prevent Child Sexual Abuse by calling on potential abusers to seek help.

I will personally more or less stop abusing wikipedia for the next two weeks as I do not have much time. But I will take a look here if there are any replies. Get-back-world-respect 23:37, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No changes in behaviour - reverts of good edits
Sadly, GBWR still believes it's ok to revert changes that introduces facts he doesn't like. :( I made a large and well-researched [edit] and he found nothing better than revert it. Too sad that he doesn't want to work together with others.

And he continues to sneak in redundant links to sites fighting child sexual abuse. There are already six of them and it's not enough for him. Wikipedia is not a link repository, but GBWR seems bent on including every link he finds as long as it support his personal position. :(

= Pedophilia articles on Wikipedia = Yesterday I went to Berlin's meeting of wikipedians and spoke with the head of the German wikipedia organization, Kurt Jansson. He said that the problems with the articles related to pedophilia and abuse were well known for quite some time and probably started with a posting in a forum for pedophiles about wikipedia as a great opportunity to spread the message that sex with adults is helpful for children. He already mentioned it in an interview with a newspaper in order to increase awareness of the problem. In the German pages the most notorious abuser is de:Benutzer:Mondlichtschatten, his english version - or at least one of them - is user:Moon_light_shadow. Here user:Zanthalon seems to play the main role. Checking their contribution lists tells easily which articles need a complete rewrite: List of self-identified pederasts and pedophiles, Childlove movement, pedophilia, Child sexuality, Child pornography, Child sexual abuse, Capturing the Friedmans, Rind et al.. I put the german articles on the list of articles that lack neutrality and need more care - the latter was immediately reverted by guess who. Please help taking care of the trouble. Get-back-world-respect 12:39, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A history of trolling
While at www.strategypage.com the other day, I found several amusing posts about a user named Get-back-world-respect.


 * We are in the process of deleting EVERY POST you have written. Apparently, you think you have a right to post on this website - YOU DONT- AND ALL OF YOUR POSTS - PAST, PRESENT and FUTURE ARE BEING REMOVED. YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO POST HERE.


 * We have read all of your posts, you fit our Rules of use classification of TROLL by the consensus of the SysOps Collective, and are not permitted to post here


 * SysOps - is there anything unclear about this?

Get-back-world-respect is nothing more than an internet troll who comes here to agitate. He has a history in wikipedia of doing this, as well of a history outside of Wikipedia of doing this. TDC 17:08, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * As you seem to prefer places in the internet where views different from yours are censored I would like to invite you to leave here and go there. Get-back-world-respect 13:41, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * TDC, User dispute RFCs are intended to deal with a particular act, not be a kitchen sink, so your side complaint is irrelevant, whether or not true. -- Cecropia | Talk 15:15, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)