Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Robert the Bruce

The case of Mr Anon

This will fix nothing. He'll just come back under another name. He needs to be banned. -Anon

Only the AC can ban someone, and they wont do that unless we try everything first. He's agreed mediation with me - perhaps that will solve everything ( I don't really think it will, but you've gotta try) Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 22:20, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I would ignore anonymous types if I were you Theresa. Secondly as we are about to enter into mediation to address your attitude problem I would suggest it would be helpful to avoid taking part in the feeding frenzy that is bound to develop. - Robert the Bruce 22:29, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Theresa isn't this the anon who vandalised the project page on two occasions? And here you are chatting away with him like old friends. For the record would mind awfully posting a summary of the action you have taken and are planning against him? Much obliged. Oh yes ... and if you have done nothing ... would you mind ever so much explaining why not? - Robert the Bruce 12:01, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't know - it might be. I blocked the anon for 24 hours for vandalising you talk page. If he does it again I'll block again. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:42, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Oh I see. Different rules for different people then? Surely you could be expected to be even handed? I would have thought so. - Robert the Bruce 19:45, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • You want me to block you for 24 hours every time you make a personal attack? Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:56, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • I have just had Thickslab make a personal attack against me. What have you done about that? No sorry Thersa the evidence is that your judgement is lacking and you should not have the power to selectively block people at all, at any time, for any reason. As I stated after witnessing the fiasco your were involved in on the Clitoris page you need to be supervised. - Robert the Bruce 20:14, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • What personal attack? Please provide a link and detail exactly and specifically what I wrote that was a personal attack. - thickslab 23:11, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
          • That is a personal attack against me. Should i block you? Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 20:46, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • Feel free to misuse your sysop powers as you see fit. You should be suspended for threatening to use your admin powers during a personal exchange. Shocking. - Robert the Bruce 16:48, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • • The statement above was not intended as a threat. If I was going to block you for personally attacking me I wouldn't have threatened first, I would have just done it. (The reason i didn't is because I don't feel it approriate for me to block you becasue of what you said to me.) I was just pointing out that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you want thickslab blocked then you should be blocked too. The anon and walabio were different as their statements were very clear vandalism and out and out personal attacks. In those cases it was very clear that it was approprate for me to warn them that they would be blocked (and in the case of the anon actually block). If you want me suspended - you'll have to take it up with the AC Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 11:55, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
                • Yea, yea, yea. The record shows that you have been less than evenhanded in your treatment of different individuals around here. The record further shows that you have been particularily soft on those who are closest to your POV. Sadly it is true that your manner is consistently threatening. Your behaviour falls far short of what can be reasonably expected from a sysop/admin. - Robert the Bruce 03:47, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
                  • • Yeah whatever Robert. I've never blocked a procirc activist. I have blocked anticirc activists so according to you I must be procirc. Where the truth of the matter is - I am neither. I am pro civility, I am pro cooperation and compromise, I am pro wikipedia. Perhaps it's becasue you are not these things that you percieve me as being unfair? Perhaps if you listened to what people are saying to you, and stopped trying to fight everyone and start working with people then you wouldn't see everyone as out to get you, and you wouldn't find all the regular wikipedians, including many admins, critisizing you? Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 11:09, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
                      • Theresa I am a big boy so I you won't find me running to teacher with the equivalent of "Teacher, teacher, Robert pulled my hair." You are exhibiting a vindictive streak which should not be tolerated especially from a sysop who revels in confrontation. You are not pro cooperation and compromise ... it would be more accurate to say that you have no obvious personal convictions and just blow in the wind of "popular/public opinion". - Robert the Bruce 11:39, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Exploding Boy & Theresa Knott ... Robert describes them as a "tag team"

There is no need for Theresa to, as you put it, "recuse herself." First, as can be seen from the project page, Theresa has chosen not to comment on this Request. Second, this is a talk page only. And third, it's obvious from her post above that she's hoping that none of this will be necessary, and that successful mediation will solve the problems you clearly have with a large number of users. Exploding Boy 22:33, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

But just to make things absolutely clear - as I hope that mediation will work, then I don't see any need, at the moment, to sign the rfc - which is why I didn't do so already, as EB explained. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 22:48, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Theresa, some honesty please. Have you had any off-site communication with any of your "allies" with regard to this matter? - Robert the Bruce 22:51, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Nope - you pissed EB off enough all by yourself to get him to start the rfc. I haven't spoken to him or anyone else offsite. He's a big boy (I don't know that for a fact mind you) I'm sure he's quite capable of going through your edit history to find the evidence he needs all by himself. He also needs to get someone else to certify the rfc, and I'm sure he can manage to do that by himself too. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 23:29, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • My dear Theresa nobody got up our EB's nose at all he has been spoilling for a fight for some time now, why even tried to involve Dan Blackham (the full-time Intactivist) in setting up a RfC for JakeW [1]. I would suggest that here is yet more evidence of admins who are involved in specific articles misusing their positions. Unforgivable behaviour. Shocking in fact. - Robert the Bruce 19:57, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • • Anyone can start a rfc. It is not a misuse of admin powers to start a rfc. You should try actually responding to the rfc instead of accusing everyone who finds you behaviour a problem biased. Btw have you looked at the list of mediators yet? I'm keen to get mediation started. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 20:04, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • Yes anyone can start an RfC but why should an admin single out two particular individual for this attention to the exclusion of others? Why did you not advise him not to embark on such a vindictive course of action? Is this another example of your lack of judgement in such situations? There are a lot of questions which you need to answer. - Robert the Bruce 20:09, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Theresa had nothing to do with my starting this RfC, and I didn't consult her about it. I "singled" you out because of exactly the type of behaviour you're exhibiting here. And for the record, Dan Blackman's edits are frequently non-neutral as well, but unlike you he's willing to discuss his edits, and others' reversions, and reach a compromise. Exploding Boy 17:16, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

• Yes it is noted that you first targetted JakeW and then myself. Unless you have evidence that you have attempted to institute RfC's against the anti-circumcison vandals and POV warriors I afraid your bias has been proven. You therefore should not be trusted with the powers of a sysop/admin. - Robert the Bruce 03:51, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• • • • • • RFCs are oart of our dispute resolution policy. They are intended as a way of getting the community to comment. They are not vindictive. The idea is that you are able to read how people feel about you and use that as a learning experience. The other dispute resolution proceedures are mediation and arbitration. If RFCs and mediation fail then Arbitration is the only avenue left.So please Robert -take on board what people are saying here, learn to cooperate instead of war with people. Wikipedia will be a better place for it. If you cannot do that. Then please leave Wikipedia. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 20:57, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • Spare me the sanctimonious officious "RC policeman" routine Theresa. It is clear you have no means of persuasion other than mere threats. Just now Wikipedia will be turned in an animal farm run by little piggy bureaucrats. Perish the thought. - Robert the Bruce 16:48, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • • RC? what do you mean by that? Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 11:57, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Good lord. Aren't we getting a bit paranoid here? Exploding Boy 22:53, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
  • Dont try and deny it, you know you're in the cabal ;-) Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 23:29, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • The first rule of the cabal is... Don't talk about the cabal. Exploding Boy 23:36, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Robert, your continued insistence on suheading this section with a title that falsly implies impropriety on the part of me and Theresa violates Wikipedia policies, is further evidence of your general unwillingness to cooperate with other users, and serves only to strengthen the case against you. Exploding Boy 17:46, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

• On the contrary dear boy, Tony has established that it is quite acceptable for "groups" to indulge in tag-team reverting. There is nothing, however, to stop me from expressing my opinion that in this case and in this context given your POV pushing that the behaviour is disgraceful. The fact that having failed to ensure that your POV remains in the article you now resort to (mis)use the processes of Wikipedia to sage your bitterness. In a further bizarre twist Theresa has now accepted that the disputed word "psychiatric" is now appropriate for use in the article. An exmple of NPOV being the victor and you being left out in the cold (and all bitter and twisted)? - Robert the Bruce 18:15, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your sarcasm is noted, and your argument is fallacious in that Theresa and I do not in any way constitute a "tag team." Furthermore, your (false and misguided) suppositions about our contributions to the Foreskin restoration article have no place here. Theresa and I have never acted as a "tag team," I have never pushed what you call POV (I assume you mean non-NPOV), and Theresa's views on the word "psychiatric" have nothing to do with me or my views. Exploding Boy 18:46, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Tony's Brainfart

On the project page Tony Sidaway made and post and then hastily withdrew it. Not only did he refuse the reasonable request to edit it out by strikethrough but has aggressively been reverting to effectly achieve a delete. Of course he has not stated who or what caused him to remove the piece. The piece in question (see below) has some merit with regard to this RfC:

This was restored some days ago and is now at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Robert the Bruce#Outside_view

 ::*Note: This is a good point Tony. It should stay. If you wish to retract it rather use the 
strikethrough facility than a delete. - Robert the Bruce 04:20, 11 Dec
2004 (UTC)

I restored it recently with the explanation: I had removed this because I thought it was based on misremembering the charges. On reviewing the edit history I now see that the "three revert rule" accusation was present at the time I made this comment, but was later removed. I apologise to Robert for removing my comment, which I believed to have been made in error. Be careful about your choice for wording, Robert. Your use of the term "who or what" false suggests that I might have bowed to pressure to remove the piece. Remember civility. Your use of the term "aggressively" for my own decision on what to do with my own words is also loaded. I explained in my original removal edit comment that I believed it to be a "brainfart". It would not have been reasonable in my opinion to keep, even struck through, a comment that amounted to a false accusation. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 01:55, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Tony, take a deep breath. Your so-called "brainfart" stays. I need it as evidence. - Robert the Bruce 16:48, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Note: This is a good point Tony. It should stay. If you wish to retract it rather use the strikethrough facility than a delete. - Robert the Bruce 04:20, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I expect he removed the comment because you did break the three revert rule. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:54, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Would you like to review this statement of yours and either confirm your allegation or witdraw it with a suitable apology? - Robert the Bruce 03:53, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • ??? I've presented the evidence above. You reverted 5 times on the 8th. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 06:30, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • You can define "revert" precisely or are you using a loose definition here? - Robert the Bruce 00:45, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I don't know what definition Theresa is using. If in the course of an edit the whole, or substantively the whole, of a previous significant contribution was removed, this could be described as a revert. I haven't looked closely at the alleged reverts so I don't know whether this description applies to them. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 01:45, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • We don't have precise definitions because if we did people like you would try to game the system. You comment in the edit summary, makes it perfectly clear that you were fully aware of what you are doing. You are very lucky that you were not blocked for 24 hours. You are unlikely to be so lucky in the future. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 09:07, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • People like me? You are so kind Theresa. I maintain that you followed your buddy EB with a tag-team style revert so as to ensure your POV won the duel. Yet you have the temerity to lecture me? Sheeez. - Robert the Bruce 16:48, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Maintain what you like Robert. The rule is you don't revert more than three times in 24 hours. You broke the rule. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 11:59, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • I suggest to go to the policy and refresh your yourself. Until such time as the policy is amended Tony's initial comment here and elsewhere remain valid. Now I intend to ensure that you answer as to why this 3RR technicality has warranted this run around while the actions of your buddies Walabio and "anon" have been whitewashed? It is either evidence of clear bias or confirmation targetted vindictiveness. Either way you should not be entrusted with the powers of a sysop/admin. - Robert the Bruce 03:42, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • I'm not the final arbiter on interpretation of policy, Robert. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 11:16, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • I know the policy. You reverted more than 3 times in 24 hours, and you knew you were doing it. I blocked the Anon for 24 hours for vandalising your user page. This is exactly what our vandalism policy says i should do. As for Walabio - i don't know what you are referring to. You'd have to be specific. If you think I deserve my admin powers revoking - start a rfc on me or take it to the AC. This rfc against you is because you are a problem user. We deal with problem users through our dispute resolution mechanism. If you don't like having people point out when you break our rules- there is an easy answer to that. Stop breaking them. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 11:19, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • Theresa do you really think the objective observer is blind to your obvious bias and the subsequent (mis)use of your admin powers? Is it not convenient to pass on the indiscretions of those close to your POV while making a massive song and dance about the odd individual? I would like you to go back and review your actions re Walabio and then instead of feining amnesia be honest about how you failed to behave in an evenhanded manner. My opinion is that you should enter into a self imposed suspension of admin status for 30 days while you find someone to assist you to understand the basics of what constitutes "abuse of autority", "abuse of office" etc. You (and a number of your "gang") just don't seem to get it that it is unethical to use your admin powers to press your POV in articles in which you are directly involved. It is disgraceful behaviour and should not be tolerated by the Wikipedia community. - Robert the Bruce 11:33, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • • When have I Used my admin powers to press my POV in an article? Has I actually done that it would have been abuse. But i never did any such thing and you are a barefaced liar. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 11:46, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • Now I wonder how our Tony (or some other admin) is going to react to that? Lets wait and see. - Robert the Bruce 11:54, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • I'm not an admin, as I've told you before. Theresa was very uncivil to call you a liar. The thing is that you yourself have never, ever been civil, but you expect others to be censured when they stoop to your level. There is some kind of assymmetry there, Robert. Now having made an accusation, back it up or withdraw it. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 17:49, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • Not good enough I'm afraid Tony. Like with the case of that Phil person you excuse them for having done what they did. By saying such as "they stoop to your level" it is no less an attack than you claim I make against others. It confirms the worst fears that these gangs of renegade wikipedians are attempting to rewite the policy where it is OK to attack designated targets while setting a higher standard of behaviour for others than they are prepared to maintain themselves. It is quite disgraceful. - Robert the Bruce 04:58, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • Which Phil person? Be more specific. In what way is an observation of your propensity to use insult, which is severely deprecated, "an attack"? I think you should step back once or twice and examine your interactions with others. Or just look at your various talk pages, littered with complaints from various parties. You are not being attacked, Robert, we're discussing your egregious bad behavior. If you don't like that, you should stop doing it. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 05:15, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
              • • I agree it was uncivil to call Robert a liar, and I would like to apologise for doing so.Robert i am sorry I called you a liar. What I should have said was that accusing me of abusing my admin powers to press my POV is a bareface lie. Please back up your accusations with evidence or withdraw them with an apology. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:09, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
                  • Sorry Theresa but I have difficulty in accepting that that is a genuine from the heart apology. The record shows your pattern of behaviour towards me. You must cease to harassment of me and either begin to display evenhanded behavior or find somebody else to fight with on Wikipedia. Your one eyed/bias approach is not good for wikipedia. - Robert the Bruce 04:58, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why no action against targetting by anti-circumcision activists?

Perhaps one would need to establish why those who have openly (in another forum) issued a call to arms to push their POV in Wikipedia and also to engage in a revert war? Theresa would be the obvious person to explain her lack of activity in this regard as she has pushed herself into the forefront in the debate and seems to be running "protection" for one of the more off the wall members.

Here follows three mails from anti-circumcision actyivist lists:

A call for help (and the identification of the full-time intactivists):

¡Vigilance on Encyclopædia WikiPedia.Org!
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 03:22:55 +0000
 
¡Hello!

¿How Fare You?

Well my fellow Intactivists:

The circumcisiophiliacs won this round on Encyclopædia WikiPedia.Org.
The main problem is that they are more commited than we (they make it 
impossible for us to correct any of their lies and bias on præpuce and
circumcision). Now, they go after our articles (maybe I should not have
tried to expose them by writing about Circumfetishism).

Hugh Young wrote complaining about me creating articles about 
Intactivism and Genital Integrity without consulting anyone. He was
right to complain; I did create such articles without consulting. Let
me just point out to things though:

1I invited other Intactivists to join me last year to join
Encyclopædia WikiPedia.Org last year (within a month of that, I gave up
on editing Præpuce and Circumcision because I was so badly outnumbered,
that I could not do any good).
2I am the only full-time Intactivist with Michael Glass and Dan
Blackham dropping in every now and then.

Now that you are all temporarily here, I ask you to stay. If you would
just check on our articles weekly and also præpuce, circumcision, and
articles linking to them, it would truly help much. While you are at
it, you can edit and start other articles. ¡Editing and starting
articles is fun! Look at this cool article, which I started about
Laurentia.

¡E Pluribus Unum!

¡Thanks!

Ŭalabio

¡Dubya Shrub is a Saudi-Lover  --  Saudi-Mite!

¡The Bin-Bushes bend over _"*FOR*"_ the Bin-Ladens!  

The call to arms for an editwar:

¡Circumcisiophiliacs attack Daivid Peter Reimer!
Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 00:35:45 +0000

¡Hello!

¿How Fare You?

The circumcisiosexuals desecrate the article about David Peter Reimer.
Some of us share the fate of David Peter Reimer, and the any one of 
the rest of us could have shared his fate.  I do not care what those
perverts do among themselves, but I hate the way those pædophiles go
after children, and I refuse to let them vandalize David Peter Reimer.
If it were not for those perverts he and his brother Brian might be
alive today and the family Reimer would be much more happy.

If the want total editwar, ¡we will give then total editwar!

The article is here:

HTTP://WikiPedia.Org/wiki/David_Peter_Reimer

This is its history:

HTTP://WikiPedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=David_Reimer&action=history

This is the page for discussing changes to the article:

HTTP://WikiPedia.Org/wiki/Talk:David_Reimer

¡Hurry!  ¡Create an account, login, and help!

Intactivistically,
Ŭalabio


¡Dubya Shrub is a Saudi-Lover  --  Saudi-Mite!

¡The Bin-Bushes bend over _"*FOR*"_ the Bin-Ladens!

DanP's call for help:

Need some help on Wikipedia
Subject: Need some help on Wikipedia
Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 15:27:55 -0700 (PDT)

Dear group,

I have been battling the pro-circumcision folks on
Wikipedia again, hoping to list "circumciser" as a
valid article entry.  I have tried to keep the article
as factual as possible and related to world cultures.

If you are active on Wikipedia, please go to that
article and give me a hand.  So far, the pro-MGM side
has been voting to delete, and I could use some
assistance.

Thanks,

Dan

Policy statements by professional medical organizations

In my opinion the best sources of unbiased information for anyone who is not familiar with the issue of male circumcision are the official policy statements by professional medical organizations.

• American Academy of Pediatrics. Circumcision Policy Statement (RE9850). March 1999.
• American Medical Association. Report 10 of the Council on Scientific Affairs (I-99), Neonatal Circumcision. Dec 1999.
• British Medical Association. The Law & Ethics of Male Circumcision - Guidance for Doctors. March 2003.
• Canadian Paediatric Society. Neonatal Circumcision Revisited. 1996 (reaffirmed March 2002)
• The Royal Australasian College of Physicians. Policy Statement On Circumcision. Sep 2002.

I welcome anyone who is concerned about POV crusaders to compare my edits with these official policy statements vs. Robert's edits with these official policy statements. -- DanBlackham 07:53, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Hi Dan, Why are you posting that stuff here? Are you trying to justify you and your buddies on the foreskin admirers list targetting of Wikipedia with yopur POV? BTW ... how do you think our Tony figured you out through your cover of one "Dan Blacker"? Is there something wikipedians should know? - Robert the Bruce 16:48, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • The thundering silence indicates more than words can ever express. - Robert the Bruce 11:32, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I posted the references because I think it is important for people to become familiar with the statements of the professional medical organizations so that they can make an informed decision about who is pushing an extreme POV and who is not. All of these medical organizations say there is no medical indication for neonatal circumcision.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia summarizes the current state of medical opinion as follows:

"Infant male circumcision was once considered a preventive health measure and was therefore adopted extensively in Western countries. Current understanding of the benefits, risks and potential harm of this procedure, however, no longer supports this practice for prophylactic health benefit. Routine infant male circumcision performed on a healthy infant is now considered a non-therapeutic and medically unnecessary intervention."

DanBlackham 07:45, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why are you trying to reason with him? At this point I think it's important to ignore Robert completely since he doesn't respond to reason.

Nathan J. Yoder 08:42, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I didn't post the references to convince Robert of anything. I posted them so that people who are not familiar with the issue of non-therapeutic circumcision could become familiar with the policy statements of professional medical organizations in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. When they are familiar with those policy statements I think most people will recognize that much of Robert's agenda regarding non-therapeutic circumcision is not shared by the international medical community. For example the professional medical organizations unanimously say that there is no medical indication for neonatal circumcision. -- DanBlackham 09:39, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Notice

This RfC appears to have fizzled, probably due to the holidays. All interested parties are directed to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert the Bruce. Exploding Boy 21:40, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks continue

Robert posted the following personal attack on DanP's user page:

Should the positions of the anti-circumcision activists be given equal time in Wikipedia articles? No, they should be given the same amount of time the Flat Earth Society recieves in articles on geography.

While there are no doubt a number of genuine "nice" people who support the cause there are a significant number who are psycho-sexually motivated and these are the ones that are found to be so vocal on the Internet.

Anti-circumcision activist Hammond's own survey found that the majority of foreskin restorers were either substance abusers or had mental conditions. (They said it themselves).[[7]]

In my opinion the most disruptive aspect of Robert's behavior is the way he tries to bully or intimidate anyone who does not agree with his personal agenda. -- DanBlackham 09:41, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)