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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: GBWS Response

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Concerns about the Childlovers Article