Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert Blair/Evidence

Evidence page for User:Robert Blair

Evidence supplied by User:Alteripse

• Removal of valid information and replacement by unsubstantiated blatant POV: [1]
• Removal of valid information with dishonest edit description [2]
• Replacement of NIH PMID medical article links with links to anticircumcision pages [3]

I worked hard on making phimosis a neutral and accurate article. I resent having to waste time trying to preserve it against the circumcision warriors of all persuasions. Robert Blair does not write articles, he just degrades and inserts pov links in other peoples's work. Get him out of here. alteripse 20:01, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Evidence supplied by User:Jakew

This isn't an exhaustive list, folks, but here are some recent edits that I found easily. Many post-date warning by Grunt to read WP:NPOV (23:48, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)):

• removed valid and accurate info: Balanitis: [4] [5] [6], Phimosis: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phimosis&diff=prev&oldid=10573089] [7], Glans penis: [8] [9] [10].
• non-neutral edits - there is an overlap with removing info. (some links to grumbling by myself or others): [11] [12] [13] [14] [15].

Additional older edits (taken from an RfC I began drafting a while ago):

• Examples of misleading edit summaries (revert links are to diffs between page and the version reverted to - an empty diff shows a pure revert):

1. Partial revert to old version (compare with previous version). Described as "add additional information from O'Hara"
2. Partial revert to old version (compare with previous version). Described as "add totallly disputed tag. Sorry about the omission."

• Example of removal of a "TotallyDisputed" tag while the dispute was in progress:

1. [16]
2. [17] (Blair argues that the dispute is not genuine)
3. [18] (Blair was blocked at the time for a 3RR violation, so did not log in)

(added to section, ----)

And recycled from the RtB case: Removal of disputed notice in spite of active dispute (presumably to hide the fact that there is a dispute):

• [19]
• [20]
• [21]

Removal of criticism of genital integrity / anti-circumcision groups:

• [22]

(and others)

Censorship of criticism of anti-circumcision studies:

• [23]
• [24]

Replacing neutral wording with biased version:

• [25]
• [26]

POV pushing

• [27] (includes misleading edit summary)
• [28]
• [29] note - link is given to my corrections to Blair's edit - this better highlights why his changes were POV (and wrong)

- Jakew 18:41, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This covers multiple issues raised in the complaint:

Balanitis, 00:50, 27 Feb 2005 (diff). Blair removes relevant, referenced information, and adds nothing. He misleadingly describes his edit as "RV to improved more accurate version and to restore deleted information" (see my complaint on article talk page for details). Blair previously justified deletion of one of the links, on the flimsy grounds that (in his opinion) it was "filled with medical myths" (see talk page, section "Emedicine"). He ignored the further discussion on that page (at least at time of writing), which explained why his reason was not sufficient to censor content, and reverted anyway. - Jakew 19:11, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Evidence supplied by Jfdwolff

At the risk of becoming a target of personal attacks, I must agree with Alteripse and Jakew that Robert Blair has been an utter nuisance. I ran into him on cervical cancer, which Brim and I greatly expanded and NPOVed after it had been infested with reciprocal POV edits. While Jakew and the banned Robert the Bruce are not innocent in the matter, Robert Blair has been by far the most difficult one I've had to deal with.

I will quote just one example: here Robert removes a perfectly sourced and NPOV-phrased piece of information on the negative statistical correllation between circumcision and cervical cancer. This is typical of his editing behaviour. He also repeatedly inserted external links to the CIRP website. On this site, some medical journal articles have been reproduced; it is however far from clear whether copyright permission was obtained for this purpose (e.g. The Lancet, which has a subscription fee). Wikipedia should not be in the business of endorsing copyright violations.

I have not even bothered to address Blair's roughshod madness on phimosis, balanitis, hypospadias and what not. If Wikipedia wants to be a reliable resource on medical subjects, POV-pushing madmen should be banned. JFW | T@lk 20:06, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I retract my statements on Jakew. Any seemingly POV editing from him was just restoring NPOV after a Robert Blair rampage. JFW | T@lk 07:49, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Robert Blair

Several months ago, I became aware that circumcision related articles on Wikipedia were in a serious state of disarray. I started to repair the damage that had been done by POV warriors, especially the now banned "Robert the Bruce". That work has largely been successful, and in fact, it has been substantially concluded - with little of substance left to do.

I have been assisted in bringing the documents back to NPOV by Jakew and others for which I am grateful.

The charge by Alteripse that I do not write articles is false. I have written the "Bioethics of neonatal circumcision" article, and I have contributed whole sections what were missing to other articles.

The charge that I put in links to the CIRP website is true. The CIRP is recognised as the best provider of source documents relating to circumcision on the Internet. In fact, it is so good that it is being imitated by the www.circs.org website. The links to the CIRP contribute to the strength of the Wikipedia artcles. I also link to www.circs.org, PubMed, the BMJ, and other sources when apppropriate.

I do not intend to offer a detailed defence against these false charges because essentially my work at Wikipedia is done. I have other work to do, and I cannot waste time on this.

Robert Blair 13:46, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Evidence presented by DanBlackham

Most of the things that Jakew provided evidence of Robert Blair doing Jakew also did in the same articles during the same timeframe. For example:

17 Jan 2005

• [30] Jakew deleted the discussion of studies by O'Hara and Bensley from Medical analysis of circumcision

• [31] Jakew deleted the discussion of studies Shen, Senkul, O'Hara and Bensley from the same article