User:Robert the Bruce

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Status of anti-circumcision onslaught on Wikipedia

Email evidence


Full Timers(The title comes from a Walabio email)

  1. Walabio
  2. Dan Blackham
  3. Michael Glass
  4. DanP
  5. Truthbomber


Current and/or Recent Editors

  1. Robert Blair - (207.69.13*.*)
  2. Revasser
  3. Ashley Y
  4. Mrfunkygenius
  5. Nathan J. Yoder
  6. Asbestos


Others (some of whom may claim neutrality)

  1. Exploding Boy
  2. Thickslab
  3. Ralesk




Please be aware that I do not wish anybody (other than myself) to edit this page. If anyone wishes to comment on the content let them do so here: [1] . While I have no expectation that where others may edit against my wishes sysops will take any action I must assume good faith and expect reverts with the appropriate blocking of those who do so.

This is an overflow page from the ArbCom matter


[edit] Statement by affected party (continued)

There are a number of issues which need to be placed in the public domain with regard to this ArbCom matter.

[edit] The Robert Blair Issue

The first of which is the allegation of User: Robert Blair being a sock puppet of mine. The ArbCom supposedly undertook to look into this. There has been a thunderous silence on the matter. What exactly is the problem? No devs around to spend two minutes at the behest of the ArbCom? This silence must be interpreted as either rank incompetence or a deliberate attempt to conceal the truth. While I support the former I feel I should explain the possible interpretation of the latter.

Exploding Boy (the main complainant in this matter) has alleged that I had created “yet another sock puppet” and when challenged to put up or shut up has been reduced to making fictitious allegations with regard to first User: Dr Zen and now User: Robert Blair being sock puppets of mine. This latter allegation has been appended to the RfA as an allegation against me. Now it is obvious that should the ArbCom announce that Robert Blair is indeed not Robert-the-Bruce then they would have to strike it from the record and instruct EB to retract it with apologies all round with the resultant diminishing of the case and the destruction of the credibility of the complainant. It is doubtful that the ArbCom will have the courage to do so (as if they had they would have done so already).

In terms of the Temporary Injunction issued by ArbCom “Robert the Bruce (or the same person editing under any account or IP)” is banned from editing certain articles. Now our friend Robert Blair has been prolific in editing these very articles and has received no censure whatsoever. This one assumes is because ArbCom are aware that Robert Blair is not me and have chosen to remain silent on the issue (as per the latter option above) for fear of proving EB to be a liar and by so doing diminishing his case. All in all in this regard the conduct of ArbCom must be considered disgraceful and worthy of community censure for bringing Wikipedia into disrepute. (Perhaps once the dust settles on this kangaroo court case a Vote of No Confidence should be held over the performance of the members of the ArbCom as a result of their handling of this particular matter.)

It is noted that Robert Blair has gone on to be blocked for a 3RR violation. One would have thought it was now finally time to bring this all to an end?

Note: When the dev finally gets around to checking the IP’s maybe it can be established whether Exploding Boy and Calton are one and the same? Just a thought given all this paranoia about sock puppets.

[edit] The issue of sex-related articles

I posted the following objection to the use of the words “sex-related” in the Temporary injunction:

Objection

Sadly it indicates how little the judges understand of the issues around the circumcision debate. Where do they get sex from? While for some circumcision, the act of circumcision and the lack of circumcision may well have psycho-sexual connotations, however, for me there are none. Is it so strange to those who deem themselves qualified to stand in judgement of others that there are people who merely believe that male circumcision is a perfectly acceptable parental decision as a result of religious, cultural or medical considerations? I therefore request that the wording be changed accordingly to read circumcision related articles. - Robert the Bruce 16:33, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I believe that to have been an eminently reasonable request but to date have not received the courtesy of a response from the ArbCom or any individual ArbCom member. This deliberate insertion of the words “sex-related” are thus interpreted as a cynical attempt to present my editing motivation as being sexually motivated. Normally one would have expected a correcting edit with an apology, but here I must be mere content to place my protest once more on the record and in the public domain.

[edit] Mediation issues

EB has repeatedly claimed (in defence of his refusal to enter into mediation) that I had previously refused all mediation unless the [User: JakeW] was the mediator. I quote: “Robert refused to accept any mediator except his ally User: Jakew.” Now this is demonstrably untrue. See requests for mediation. What is so very very sad about this is that two members of ArbCom knew this allegation to be false as they were party to the discussion. Sannse was asked by me to mediate but refused supposedly because of other active cases and Theresa Knott herself would have known that as well being party to the mediation request and to that specific discussion. Both of these two ArbCom members have been active in this arbitration and would (under normal circumstances) be unable to deny any knowledge of the allegation. But we are where we are and dealing with this particular ArbCom so we need to accept that anything goes. Of course this is scandalous behaviour by these two members who incidentally quickly jumped on Advocate Wally to correct an inaccuracy. This is a very breach of honesty and integrity by these two members and they should receive the highest censure for their disgraceful conduct. Why did they fail to correct the complainant’s allegation? Obvious. It would have further demolished his case.

The Theresa Knott mediation deserves some mention. There is an undertone claiming that the said mediation failed. I am not aware of that. As far as I was concerned it was on and active and being conducted via email through mediator JakeW until Theresa disappeared from Wikipedia between 9-30 January 2005. In my opinion it would be more accurate to describe the mediation attempt as having been and abandoned by Theresa Knott and not failed (with all the innuendo of intransigence on my part) as is the current undertone. The undertone would be that as the mediation with Theresa Knott supposedly failed the prospect of mediation with anyone else would be doomed to the same fate. I would expect the ArbCom to investigate this matter as well.

[edit] Personal attacks - Sean Barrett – Questionable conduct

Sean Barrett is an ArbCom member who uses the handle “➥the Epopt”. I was not aware of this when this exchange took place on the list wikiEN-L.

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-January/018824.html

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-January/018827.html

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-January/018830.html

What is entirely unacceptable is that he launched the personal attack on me one day after having signed up as accepting the RfA against me. Surely that given the case he should have bit his lip? Or does his action indicate a greater and more serious problem within the structure of ArbCom where certain of the members consider themselves to be untouchable (or in true Orwellian fashion, more equal than others)?

In the evidence being led by the “usual suspects” there are numerous references to supposed “personal attacks” by me. For those who read them I would suggest that they be benchmarked against what I see as personal attacks against me by three ArbCom members (which of course could never be).

Barrett

Gerard

Knott

One would obviously conclude that the examples that have been dredged up as so-called evidence are merely a desperate attempt to legitimise the effort to silence a person with a POV other than that which they share. Who do they think they are kidding? And in addition yes who do these ArbCom members think they are kidding?

This comment needs to be read in the context of:

No personal attacks

and

Evidence presented by Fvw

[edit] The Meissner corpuscle article

Well, well, well what happened there then? See Meissner's corpuscle.

This was cited as evidence of my supposed misconduct by one who goes by the name of Tony Sidaway. It is important to note that subsequently User: jag123 has retracted his evidence on the matter [2].

Credit must be given where it is due and jag123 must receive it for having the honesty to reverse his position once he became fully acquainted with the facts. Two facts emerge from this: one, that my warning about the insidious introduction of anti-circumcision/foreskin admirer propaganda into Wikipedia is in fact happening and it is not me “jumping at shadows” as some may choose to believe, and two, that given what jag123 now states how should we interpret the actions and opinions of our Tony Sidaway?

[edit] Four users sign a proposal to permanently ban Robert

I would like to share this gem which supposedly provides “Evidence of community support and problems with other users”.

Who were these four users? Explosive Boy and our Tony Sidaway for starters and two others: User talk:Njyoder and User: thickslab. The latter come straight off the foreskin fetish list on Livejournal called “Uncut Penises and Admirers” (and yes I can prove it). So I suppose one needs to take criticism from whence it comes. I am honoured to be criticised by these four bright beauties.

Members of foreskin fetish list: http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=uncut

[edit] My list of “everyone” on Wikipedia with whom I supposedly fight

I was maintaining a list of those who are active in promoting foreskin appreciation on Wikipedia. This was temporarily removed on the advice of Advocate Wally. It is now back and it needs to be stated that the reason it was placed there was to answer the encouraged untruth that I am at war with the whole of Wikipedia. I know and understand this circumcision debate, and I know and understand the cast of characters who call themselves anything from a foreskin admirer to a genital integrity advocate (I kid you not). This grasp of what “floats their boats” has been has been demonstrated through the Meissner corpuscle article. The list needs to be there because it answers that specific criticism. I genuinely believe that I should resist any future attempt to censure the truth in this regard.

Comment: I believe it is important for those who edit to accept that they have a personal POV and from that basis they can work (sometimes against their own instincts) towards producing an NPOV article. What IMO Wikipedia does not need is people like Exploding Box who claim they are neutral on the issue when the record shows the contrary. What is currently bizarre to behold is how EB has hoodwinked Raul654 into allowing him to redefine the content of two of the circumcision related articles.

[edit] What is the Fvw connection?

So in this re-submitted RfA who are the complainants? We have the usual EB/Tony Sidaway tag-team … and one other, Frank v Waveren. Why has Robert the Bruce got right up our Fvw’s nose? Surely it has got to be more than the mere fact that RtB opposed his election as an administrator with the following comment: The evidence of the childish exchange between Fvw and the vandal Mr Avenger indicates that Fvw does not display the maturity required of a sysop on Wikipedia. It is important that adminship on Wikipedia is not treated like a "club" but rather proffered on people who have the necessary skills and maturity to be up to the task. - Robert the Bruce 05:03, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)’”? … and that I would support an RfC against him for misuse of admin powers through the "user page vandalism" block on JakeW. Perhaps the ArbCom should approach Fvw and ask him to explain his interest in this arbitration? Sure to be illuminating.

[edit] Rebuttal of Tony Sidaway's crap

Below please find a itemized rebuttal of the crap Tony Sidaway produced as supposedly constituting the removal of "relevant information".

I quote:

[edit] 15 Jan

  • 17:49
    • Gliding action Several removals of relevant factual information with the edit summary "Revert unexplained edits". [3]
      1. Removal of date of Warren & Bigelow paper date (1994)
      2. Removal of relevant referenced citation of Whiddon (1953) and Foley (1966).
      3. removal of relevant reporting of reservations concerning the Gliding action under phimosis (Schoeberlein (1966))

Let us work through what our Tony see as relevant information. What did I insert/delete/replace:

  1. Inserted "hypothesized" to describe the so-called gliding action.
  2. Replaced "Genital integrity" with "anti-circumcision" on at least three occasions.
  3. Removed reference to Foley as it offers a one line, unsubstantiated personal opinion.
  4. Removed reference to the letter of Whiddon as it provides onlu an unsubstantiated personal opinion.
  5. Removed date of Bigelow paper as deemed irrelvant.
  6. I challenge any person to produce a connection between what Schöberlein reported and the so-called "gliding action".

Tony Sidaway scores zero with these allegations.

I quote:

[edit] 16 Jan

  • 05:39
    • History of male circumcision. A cited online source, supporting a statement about classical era attitudes to the foreskin, is removed with the comment that the source, a post-doctoral research associate in the History Department at Yale writing in an international journal published by Johns Hopkins University Press, "merely offers a personal interpretation and given his activism in this field it should be viewed with scepticism." [4]. It is true that Hodges' anti-circumcision activism is relevant, but inappropriate to exclude the reference on those grounds. The source is a historical paper prepared to academic standards and is rich in illustrations from classical works as well as references to other primary sources. [5]

Out of 150 articles examined, only 6 were cited elsewhere. The Bulletin of the History of Medicine is not a peer-review journal, and only accepts material that is not available elsewhere. Although the author may be a fine academic, his opinion is not "fact" merely because of publication, nor does the "journal" it was published in have the same reputation as the New England Journal of Medicine, for instance. Hodges is a well know anti-circumcision activist and his opinion on the matter must be viewed with the same caution as that of David Irving with respect to the Holocaust.

Nice try Tony but sadly another zero.

I quote:

[edit] 17 Jan

  • 18:03
    • Ridged band Under the edit comment "General edit and revert", removed reference to Shen et al.(2004) and Senkul et al. (2004) [6]. Removal of Shen is defensible because the paper has not been translated into English from Chinese and only the abstract is in English. The Senkul reference, however, contained an online link to a full paper which was published in the journal Urology, the official journal of the Société Internationale d' Urolgie, published by Elsevier (description).

Neither Shenkul's nor Shen's findings support Taylor's speculation. This is merely another attempt by anti-circumcision activists to attempt to seek acceptance and respectability through association. Shen's findings were of people circumcised for medical reasons and therefore the results do not make it clear whether the results were as a result of the circumcision or as a result of the pre-condition. Maybe worth a mention somewhere but certainly not to lend credence to Taylor's wild-eyed speculation. It is hard to see where Senkul's findings support the rantings of Taylor. Is it possible for a sane person to claim that the following conclusion supports an anti-circumcision position: "Adult circumcision does not adversely affect sexual function. The increase in the ejaculatory latency time can be considered an advantage rather than a complication."? You go figure.

Sorry Tony you draw another blank here.

I quote:

[edit] 18 Jan

  • 15:58
    • Gliding action Somewhat similar to the revert of 15 Jan. One notable addition to the fray is the removal of a reference to an article in the New Zealand Medical Journal which, the authors say, supports Warren and Bigelow and O'Hara and O'Hara. [7].

The text removed was not an article, but a letter. Publication in a journal, especially as a letter does not imply academic consensus. In other words, this is two peoples opinions. The study from these authors (who surprise, surprise just happen to be leading anti-circumcision activists) was in fact, a survey, which asked for opinions from female and male gay partners. Was the number of uncircumcised or circumcised partners the same? This is not stated. The participants were also self-selected, which is not a random sampling. Therefore, from an academic perspective, listing this article as support of a previous one is weak. As such, the value of removing a mention of this study in the article is dependent on POV (and we know your POV now don't we Tony).

In fact as a result of some earlier discussion it was decided that until the full text of the Bensley/Boyle survey was made available it was not possible to cite selectively for inclusion in Wikipedia. Of course it goes without saying that no full text version has been forthcoming. Surprise, surprise.

Your view of what is relevant or factual (either or both) must surely by now be embarrassing to you? Another blank, I'm afraid.

I quote:

[edit] 20 Jan

  • 17:21
    • Medical analysis of circumcision. Under the edit comment of "We need to promote balance and accuracy, the last few edits did neither", Promoted scientific evidence to the status of fact. Changed "Two studies found that uncircumcised boys were at approximately twice the risk of developing balanitis[8][9] and one study found that uncircumcised men were at more than five times the risk[10]" to the following factual statement: "Uncircumcised boys are at approximately twice the risk of developing balanitis[11][12], though uncircumcised adults are at more than five times the risk[13]" He did, however, restore much material that had been removed by others, some of which was highly POV, much of which was factual. He is, the Arbitrators will be aware, certainly not the only culprit on the circumcision articles.[14]

So what is it to be Tony dear? Did I delete stuff or reinsert stuff, was it a blanket revert or a selective revert? Boy are you making a prat of yourself.

Another big fat zero for our Tony I'm afraid.

I quote:

[edit] 21 Jan

  • 01:43
    • Foreskin. With the edit comment "If you wish ti introduce that factor you need to deal with it comprehensively and not as an innuendo laden soundbite.", removed the bald statement " Senkul et al., however, report that excision of the foreskin produces an increase in time to ejaculation.[15]". The description of Senkull's conclusion is not innuendo-laden, it's a factual and accurate statement of Senkull's conclusion, and the reference comprises the entire text of Senkull's paper. As far as I'm aware this deletion taken along with the one I highlighted for 17 Jan finally eradicated all external links to this full text of that paper from Wikipedia, although a link to the abstract only is given on Medical analysis of circumcision.

The "facts" being presented in this paper were subsequently argued in the following volume of Urology (UROLOGY 64 (6) 1267-67, 1267-68, 1268-68). The authors of this paper do not advance other possible reasons for increase in ejaculation latency, such as greater virility felt by the men (since circumcision is a step to manhood, to loosely paraphrase). Failure to do so leaves much for the readers to assume (ie: innuendo) Apart from the letters to the author published in the journal, this article was not cited. Therefore, contesting reverts that deal with mention of this article cannot be viewed as "removing facts", since the community itself does not necessarily agree with the results. It must be remembered that Senkuls conclusion was: "Adult circumcision does not adversely affect sexual function. The increase in the ejaculatory latency time can be considered an advantage rather than a complication." It is hard to see how anti-circumcision activists can claim the findings support their cause even when it is well known that they have reached the point of desperation where they are prepared to say anything, use anything and do anything in order to promote their cause. Pathetic.

Sorry Tony but your support of what is tantamount to a wikicrime must surely have consequences even from this ArbCom.

I quote:

[edit] 25 Jan

  • 16:08
    • Foreskin restoration. Under the edit comment "a tweak here and there", the statement "Warren & Bigelow argue that restoration of the gliding action is an important advantage of foreskin restoration." is removed. [16] This is a factual statement about the position of Warren and Bigelow that is easily supported by reference to Warren and Bigelow's writings. For instance their claim, "Men who have restored their prepuce describe remarkable improvement in the erogenous sensitivity of the glans and satisfactory restoration of the interaction between the prepuce and the glans, together with a discovery of the gliding action of slack skin on the shaft, which they will not have known before" can be found at The case against circumcision -John P Warren and Jim Bigelow. Jim Bigelow is the author of the book The Joy of Uncircumcising! Aptos, CA: Hourglass Book Publishing, 1992.

Unfortunately, the article at question here is hardly an article or a study, but more along the lines of an editorial. Furthermore, the goal of the British Society for Sexual Medicine is concerned mainly with "promoting research and exchange of knowledge of erectile dysfunction and other aspects of sexual function and dysfunction". Could we expect an article which describes advantages of circumcision to appear here?

Tony dear, all that the comment amounts to is the personal opinion of these two particular anti-circumcision activists. Did they provide a source and is this research documented? Of course not ... all we get is personal opinion which in turn is presented as factual and relevant by the likes of you. I quote from the version of the article beofre your buddy rolled it back to a more foreskin friendly version: "However, some men have reported a qualitative improvement in sensitivity of the glans, but it has been suggested that the perceived increase in glans sensitivity is psychological, the result of the placebo effect, with actual glans sensitivity being unaffected." Tony you can't seriously be wanting to insert this psycho sexual nonsense into Wikipedia, are you? Tony it is really you and your buddies who present a POV threat to Wikipedia content than I. How long do you really think it will take before they see through your game?

I quote:

[edit] 28 Jan

  • 05:29
    • Medical analysis of circumcision Multiple removals of relevant material. [17]
      1. Removal of a quote from the authors of a scientific paper on a longitudinal study that qualified their conclusions. To confuse matters further, the text removed appeared in the article twice, once next to the relevant cited paper and the second time next to a citation of a completely different paper. Both instances were removed: the appropriate and the inappropriate one.
      2. Removal of paragraph containing relevant quotes by the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, the USAID office of HIV/AIDS.
      3. Removal of paragraph discussing relevant Van Howe meta-analysis and its review by O'Farrell and Egger.
      4. Removal of relevant reference to, and summary of, O'Hara and O'Hara.

Removal of the material (19) was an explanation of how the paper could be wrong, since at face value, it reports lower problems with circumcised males. The same issues can be brought up with the information I'm accused of reverting but for some reason, those are considered undisputable facts and not subject to interpretation (!!!).

Further I have a problem of pasting large chunks of text right out of studies so as to make a POV point. I am quite prepared to standby my revert in this case and state clearly that your opposition is based on POV rather than my removal of relevant information. For example foreskin admirers are desperate to include the O'Hara crap everywhere they can. You, I know and most informed people know that the O'Hara's recruited the participants in their survey from an anti-circumcision mailing list. Now my dear Tony do you really expect anyone to take those skewed results seriously? It has been repeatedly stated in talk pages that as the survey was planned to arrive at a predetermined result it belongs in the garbage can.

Tony still on a big fat zero.

I quote:

[edit] Evidence pertaining to general bad etiquette

[edit] 27 Nov

  • 07:14
  • 16:03
    • Picks argument with VfD poster who asks him not to remove the VfD notice [19]

My, my Tony how your buddy Fvw will be ever so thankful for your standing up for him in this manner. Ever spared a thought as to why he was so desperate to have the article deleted? Do you think it touched a nerve?  ;-)

I quote:

Evidence pertaining to possible deliberate evasion of username blocks

[edit] 11 Sep

  • 02:48
    • Robert Brookes. Last edit by User:Robert Brookes. The block log from Mediawiki 1.4 does not extend back far enough to show when exactly he was blocked. People who were involved in [Robert Brookes RFC] may recall who blocked Robert and for how long. The developers may also be able to back this up.

[edit] 12 Sep

Was there ever a block? I can't seem to find it anywhere that Robert was informed that he was blocked for any reason. Can you produce it Tony? How does one evade an IP block by merely changing user name? BTW what chance is there that a dev will be able to dig up some dirt for you? I mean if it takes 6 days to establish that Blair is not Brookes how long would this one take? By the way Tony, any idea why ArbCom were keeping that little fact under their hats? This is beginning to smell around here don't you think? Oh yes ... why is it do you think that they failed to ask the devs to establish whether exploding Boy and Calton are one and the same ... I mean with all this paranoia about sock puppets one would have thought they would have been interested. They were not, why do you think that would be Tony? - Robert the Bruce 13:34, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I quote:

[edit] Evidence pertaining to harassment

This set of evidence pertains to behavior directed at another editor rather than his edits.

[edit] 19 Jan

  • 05:36
    • Comment left by Robert the Bruce: [20]

In the opinion of this editor (Tony Sidaway), no one has satisfactorily explained why or how the edit made by Ashley Y [21] was POV. That it may support his point of view, if further assumptions are made, seems to be the reason why Robert objected.

The reference to "stroking and fluttering" seems to be one of the standard descriptions of the sensations to which Meissner's corpuscle is particularly sensitive ("stroking and fluttering" Dr. S Gilman, Department of Neurology, University of Michigan Medical Center, BMJ). The reference and contrast to both corpuscles, which are physiologically similar, is also common in the literature. The number of receptors that are found in the skin, phasic and that deal with touch, like Meissner's corpuscles, is extremely limited. There are also some structural similarities between the two types of phasic mechanoreceptor. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:42, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tony I don't even need to respond to this nonsense. It you think that is harrassment then you need to pull your head out. In any event events have overtaken you and your fellow POV pusher Ashely Y. I would recommend that one reads the exchange on Ashley Y's talk page which led to jag123 withdrawing his evidence. He could see the POV in Ashely Y's edits ... why can't you?

[edit] Summary of Rebuttal

As can be clearly seen Tony Sidaway has attempted without acceptable cause to blacken my name through this series of unsubstantiated allegations. His behaviour like that of Exploding Boy and Fvw is despicable and must surely result in serious consequences. I could have gone into greater detail in the rebuttal but am satisfied that I have provided enough to expose the malicious intent of Tony Sidaway. I will of course provide more detail as may be required. It would be in the interests of Wikipedia if ArbCom were to investigate a history of alledged harrassment and stalking both of me (here on Wikipedia) and of other on the internet. This person is clearly a problem user.

In summary then: Tony says he can provide more information upon request. So can I. Considering that most of the evidence above has been disputed by me, it's fair to say I can dispute any other evidence he brings forward. It appears that the main trend here is to display reverts made by myself of uncontestable and undisputed facts. As I believe I've shown, this is entirely open to interpretation. While it can be said that quoting something from a letter (or anything for that matter) is a fact, in the sense that it is true that the author has said it, but this does not mean that it is true, valid, accepted by the community, scientific or that it is a "neutral argument" that should be inserted into an article. I do not feel I crossed the line by reverting this type of information. While it is alledged I may have broken the three revert rule, if the sort of information I was reverting were sources that are unknown, uncited, editorials, personal letters or publications in journals with questionable "orientation" or reputation, then it can't be argued that I was doing Wikipedia a service. Sadly, quoting just any publication in a journal, in terms of "referencing" value, is only slightly better than quoting from someone's homepage. Obviously, this does not apply to every journal, but the criteria for stating something as a fact should be more than just that information appearing in a stack of papers bound together.

[edit] Rebuttal of evidence from Fvw

This section should be read in conjunction with Personal attacks

The Wikipedia definition of personal attacks is subjective. As stated earlier, I, too, have been attacked many times. If I filed an RfAr every time I was victim of an attack, the ArbCom would be backlogged until 2025. Unfortunately for me, I appear to be outnumbered in the circumcision debate. There have been cries for rally posted on the mailing lists to gather at Wikipedia and support or vote, such as this:

[22]

and this:

[23].

In practical terms, this means my views are underrepresented and as such, it is not surprising that such amount of evidence can be compiled against me. This should not imply in any way, shape or form that other activists have clean hands. While this may seem irrelevant, it is actually very important. What if I filed an RfAr against User X and had truckloads of support from people who share my view. Theoretically, it would not be difficult for "us" to amass tons of evidence that discredits User X, either by highlighting personal attacks or showing how User X reverts "factual information". If I were in that position, I would be no more right/wrong than I am now. Unless the committee is willing to rule on whether or not every single piece of information was, in reality, factual and neutral, should its inclusion or reversal be a ground for showing bad faith? I do not believe so. In this case, without considering the history behind every change, it is also impossible for the committee to decide whether or not I, or the other parties, undertook the appropriate steps prior to making a change. In other words, did I consistently refuse to discuss or explain my changes before reverting? Did the other parties consistently discuss or explain their changes before I reverted them? Will the committee investigate every single instance? How is it fair that I be singled out because it the majority of those with a specific POV are just that, a majority. It would be wrong of the committee to ignore that the same actions I am being accused of have been committed by my opponents. Unfortunately for me, and luckily for them, the responsibility or "wrongness" is diluted across a greater number of individuals. I fail to see how having accounts created by people solely to argue/agree against/with someone is of any benefit to Wikipedia. Until the number of users arguing circumcision is equal on both sides, I will constantly (and unfairly) be singled out as a problem user, simply because more people say so.

[edit] Rebuttal of evidence of (anti-circumcision activist) Dan Blackham

Penile Cancer. Using the same source I corrected the wording to that of what was contained in the abstract, being "one in 600". I would like ArbCom to provide evidence that the statistic 2.2 in 100,000 appears in that abstract. As the the deleted paragraph, the first link is dead and the second states, "... circumcision is not justified on these grounds alone." Now let the ArbCom try to fugure out why the last four words are important and why the anti-circumcision activists chose to use more selective wording.

The second relates to our anti-circumcision activist demanding that his choice of words be inserted into the article. The sheer arrogance of the man! So what he is essentially claiming and ArbCom is supporting is that his spin on the wording is more "relevant" to the article than the original wording. This is quite shocking. For the record the original wording is added because if the ArbCom can't figure it out certainly those in the community will be able to:

The American Cancer Society estimates that in 2005 in the United States about 1,470 new cases of penile cancer will be diagnosed and an estimated 270 men will die of penile cancer. Penile cancer occurs in about 1 man in 100,000 in the United States.
Penile cancer is very rare in North America and Europe. It accounts for about 0.2% of cancers in men and 0.1% of cancer deaths in men in the United States. However, penile cancer is much more common in some parts of Africa and South America, where it accounts for up to 10% of cancers in men.

As to the supposed rebuttal of JakeW Dan Blackham included is it not obvious that this whole issue is more a content and POV issue than anything else? That the obsession with getting rid of Robert the Bruce is merely a manifestation of the anti-circumcision paranoia about losing their stranglehold upon the content of circumcision related articles on Wikipedia? But there again there are none so blind that will not see. Sad, really sad.

[edit] Comments on the proposed decision

See for the ArbCom stuff

It is necessary to comment on the strange operation of the ArbCom decision making process. Sadly there is no chance of this dysfunctional structure even going through the motions of due process. So it is all rather academic.

First the ArbCom. It is said that after the recusal and those away 5 votes would be a majority. That means the votes of 5 out of the following:

  1. Mark, aka Delirium -- delirium at rufus.d2g.com
  2. Fred Bauder -- fredbaud at ctelco.net
  3. Sean Barrett, aka The Epopt -- sean at epoptic.org
  4. Mark, aka Raul654 -- mapellegrini at comcast.net
  5. Sannse - sannse at tiscali.co.uk
  6. Ben, aka Neutrality
  7. David Gerard - dgerard at gmail.com
  8. Steven Melenchuk, aka Grunt -- crazyr2 at shaw.ca

Now there is a small problem. The following members should be found ineligible to take part in this proceeding:

  1. Mark aka Raul654 - for unethical behaviour and failure to recuse himself.
  2. Sannse - for rank dishonesty with regard to evidence presented.
  3. Sean Barrett - for making a personal attack on the affected party after arbitration had commenced.
  4. David Gerard - for having made a personal attack on the affected party prior to the commencement of proceedings.
  5. Steven Melenchuk - for exhibiting bias during the set up of the process and thereafter repeatedly failing to explain his actions.

This together with the recused member who in any event should be found ineligible for the same demonstrable dishonesty as displayed by Sannse:

Theresa Knott

In addition to this we have the issue of Fred Bauder's offhand attitude towards the presentation of evidence:

Would Fred Bauder mind correcting the description? - Jakew 01:03, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Might in the morning. Fred Bauder 02:38, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

He never did. One wonders whether Fed Bauder has done anything to contribute to this process?

Summary - The ArbCom as it is currently constituted is unfit to hear this matter.

(of course that will not stop them)

[edit] What ArbCom should have found with regard to Exploding Boy

  1. That Exploding Boy failed to comply with the previous ruling of ArbCom with regard to attempting mediation.
  2. That Exploding Boy successfully manipulated ArbCom member Raul654 so as to sponsor his second submission of a RfA and thereby circumvent both a ArbCom ruling and the Wikipedia "Dispute Resolution Process".
  3. That Exploding Boy made a false allegation that Robert Blair is a sock puppet of Robert the Bruce. This being the second such false allegation, the first being that Dr Zen was a sock puppet of Robert the Bruce.
  4. That Exploding Boy lied when he alleged that Robert the Bruce would only accept mediation if JakeW was the mediator.
  5. That Exploding Boy's claim that he and an undisclosed "we" believe mediation with Robert the Bruce would be "pointless" is a personal opinion which is not sufficient to override the instructions of ArbCom nor to excuse him from not exhausting all possibilities before embarking on the last resort process of Arbitration.
  6. That Exploding Boy has failed to prove his allegation (from the first RfA) that Robert the Bruce "is a frequent vandal and troll". (see wikipedia definitions)
  7. That Exploding Boy's allegation that Robert the Bruce has multiple Sock Puppets has been proven to be untrue with regard to Dr Zen and Robert Blair and with regard to usernames Robert Brookes, Friends of Robert and Robert the Bruce it is found this was a case of username change and that all posts were sequential with no overlap or in anyway falling under the definition of sock puppet abuse.
  8. It is found that Exploding Boy has a POV position with regard to this subject despite his repeated denial in this regard.

[edit] What ArbCom should rule with regard to Exploding Boy

An honest and objective ArbCom would probably rule as follows with regard to Exploding Boy:

That Exploding Boy has used unethical practice and dishonesty in an attempt to bring Robert the Bruce before the ArbCom. As a Sysop his behaviour has brought both the office of Sysop and Wikipedia into disrepute. The ruling therefore is that this case is rejected and that Exploding Boy ceases to be a Sysop with immediate effect and will remain ineligible for re-election to the office for a period of not less than one year.

(it is clear that the ArbCom has neither the competence nor the integrity nor the moral courage to make such a ruling - this is sad for Wikipedia)

(more to follow)

[edit] So who and what am I up against here then?

The who: Apart from assorted foreskin admirers (and others with an equally peculiar interest in the foreskin – see list above) and a largely dysfunctional ArbCom we have a cute little troika comprising EB, his buddy Tony Sidaway and the proud “vandal slapping” Fvw.

The what: Its a different and rabid POV. The frothing at the mouth kind (see personal attack on me by one Nathan J Yoder (from the foreskin fetish list) on my user talk page. It fascinates me that people can start to bang their heads against the wall over a simple belief that male circumcision is a perfectly acceptable parental decision as a result of religious, cultural or medical considerations. Quite bizarre, but it is here and its happening right here on Wikipedia.

[edit] How does one handle content conflict

I was asked (in the light of my criticism of ArbCom) how I would handle fundamental POV based content conflict. Two points, first, not the way either sysops or the ArbCom currently do it. Second, to do so one needs to understand the basis of the "debate" (which in the case of circumcision debate almost everyone seems at pains to deny both knowledge and interest in the matter). It is surely selfevident that those who cannot recognise the nuances of this particular debate will be less effective in "policing" affected articles and should rather stay away.

At the root of any edit war is the need by some to either insert specific information or ensure the exclusion of specific information. It is a content conflict. No amount of discussion will change an ideological position.

It is peculiar that when a person inserts rabid POV they are not required to explain the edit yet when the POV/bias is removed there is a clamour for an explanation. It should be obvious that controversial edits will lead to a flurry of activity. While 3 allowed reverts per day is way too many (IMO) it is necessary only because there is no mechanism to control the random insertion of propaganda. It is a case of cause and effect, you allow the initial POV edits then you must expect the flurry of reverts that will follow. Admins do not look to the detail and neither the context nor the history all they appear to focus upon is how many reverts were there and was anyone rude to another. This narrow focus is no solution at all and often appears to serve to escalate and intensify activity.

I will add more to this shortly

[more to follow]

Thanks to those who gave advice over IRC. Feel free to use the email the_robert_brookes at yahoo.com ... abuse also welcome.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/o/b/User%7ERobert_the_Bruce_1119.html"