Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Voice of Britain

For additional comments, see User_talk:Voice_of_Britain
User_talk:Voice_of_Britain has additional information. Dfpc 01:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Disregard, he moved it to what is now Requests for comment/Voice of Britain Dfpc 19:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Attention SamDavidson: "Hit list" removed
Re: Requests for comment/Voice of Britain ''SamDavidson 01:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC) I see that he keeps a "hit list" [1] and I am on it and I find that offensive and intimidating. SamDavidson 01:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)'' He's removed the so-called "hit list" from the current version of his user and talk pages. Dfpc 19:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well that is a sign in his favour then. He also removed the mfd from his user page which he shouldnt have done, SqueakBox 19:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * He's re-added the list before, I hope it stays down this time. -Will Beback · † · 23:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Child sexual abuse prima facie harmful? That is in disupte
Herostratus: You said:  We don't need a weatherman to know that child sexual abuse is prima facie harmful and that a blizzard of cites to the contrary is basically sophisticated trolling.  Child sexual abuse is misusing children for sexual purposes. It is by far harmful most of the time, but not 100% of the time. In other words, it is not harmful on its face. Research that shows contrary views should be welcome here. "A blizzard of cites" is grounds to find a blizzard of cites that rebut the originals. On other issues, such as Galileo and the Sun being the center of the Universe, the fringe idea turned out to be the correct one. I'd be utterly shocked if 500 years from now people said child sexual abuse was mostly harmless, but if the research is there it shouldn't be ignored or swept under the rug, it should be rebutted. Good point about undue weight though. Balancing NPOV and undue weight on this issue will be very tricky and may not be possible. We may have to pick which of the two is more important. Dfpc 21:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I welcome mainstream research as a foundation for how to weight the article. Any accusation of improper handling in this area is faulty and none has been supported by evidence at this point in time. Voice of Britain 21:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Voice of Britian blocked
I have blocked VoB for a 3RR violation for 1 week. As such the user will not be able to participate here. ( H ) 04:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Does this mean administrative actions, if any, will be deferred until after he is able to rejoin the discussion and rebut anything posted in the next week? It only seems fair.  Dfpc 04:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

If you need to you can transclude his talk page onto the discussion and use tags to create a section for him to talk on. But 3RR is 3RR. In short, no this block should not delay any action that this RFC calls for. ( H ) 04:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)