Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Robert the Bruce

Comment from Robert the Bruce

Note to readers: It should be noted that I have used this page to respond to comment by some on the project page and elsewhere. As with Salem one just goes through the motions of defending oneself when the decision has been long planned, but even that right is not protected here as it is noted that the title of some of these responses have been edited to state that they are attacks on the individuals concerned. I choose to let that stand (as I have done with the numerous personal attacks that have been directed against me on Wikipedia) as this serves to assist me in explaining the behaviour of these people. - Robert the Bruce 03:14, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And I note with considerable interest and amusement that Robert "the Bruce" is here attempting to use the identical "defense" he employed unsuccessfully as Robert "Brookes" during the RFC against him a short time--only four months!-- ago. I quote:

    The Salem trials were never this good. I came to wikipedia as a 
    result of a rallying cry, I came across (from an anti-circumcision list) 
    to prevent the deletion of the genital integrity article . . . The first 
    rule . . . is that you cannot negotiate with monomaniacal fanatics and no 
    purpose is served being “nice” to them as it is interpreted 
    as “weakness” . . . So have your Salem trial. Burn your “witch” then. But 
    after the smoke has cleared two facts will still remain. The monomaniacal 
    anti-circumcision fanatics will still be here pushing their POV and the 
    wikipedians will still be too gutless to stand up to prevent it.

    Robert Brookes 01:47, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC) [1]

Since joining Wikipedia, Robert has now (under various names) been the subject of two Requests for Comment, two Requests for Arbitration, and at least one attempted mediation, and from what I can tell he's only been here for around six months!

Exploding Boy 18:41, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

• And as long as you can cultivate a flunky in the ArbCom to do your dirty work for you then you will no doubt keep the ArbCom ticking over. Perhaps they will get tired of your nonsense soon and bust your ass  ;-) - Robert the Bruce 14:15, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

David Gerard

On the basis of the following David Gerard needs to exercise some integrity and recuse himself from these proceedings (he voted for the temporary injunction) faliing which a little peer pressure is needed to give him a nudge:

http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-September/015581.html

Salient comment:

Nah. But we do need a way to deal with these people. Robert

Brookes is to anti-circumcision as Mr-Natural-Health is to alternative medicine. He's a strident POV-pusher on a crusade, given to personal abusiveness, with no intention of stopping until his mission is accomplished.

(We need a name for this phenomenon. "Abusive crusader"?)

I see our options as follows:

1. Do little or nothing while he wreaks havoc as per MNH. That's

not havoc with the articles, but with the contributors. Remember that one of MNH's most damaging effects was scaring other editors off having ANYTHING to do with alternative-medicine-related articles.

2. Deal with this variety of problem child a little faster than MNH.

The arbcom came to a suitable decision the second time (the first one having proven inadequate because a second was needed, but it was early days for the arbcom) with MNH; one can hope this style of abusive editor can be dealt with quicker in future.

3. Come up with a hithertho-unknown method of reforming this sort

of user. This would presumably exclude anything that was tried with MNH and failed, for the idealists reading this.

I *strongly* suggest option 2. But I could of course be wrong.

So. What will it be?

[The above written by Robert the Bruce 04:15, 1 Feb 2005]

Robert, I know that you probably cannot answer this. If it needs an answer your advocate will provide it. Above you seem to be asking David Gerard to recuse himself because he has an opinion about how you should be dealt with. That isn't a valid reason to ask an Arbitrator to recuse himself, as far as I'm aware of. I'm pretty sure all of the Arbitration Committee has a pretty clear idea of what you've been up to and what they want to do about it. That is their job. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:48, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrators recuse themselves when they are personally involved with the case and they feel that this involvement might affect their judgement. David is not personally involved and has no reason to recuse himself. It is up to the arbitrators to decide if they should recuse themselves or not. People who are up before the AC dont get to dictate to arbitrators what they can and cannot do. If you don't like that Robert, then that's too bad . Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 23:33, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure you're right about Wiki's procedures, Theresa, but isn't it reasonable to model practices on a well-established judicial system? Look at what happened here when a judge made remarks to the press about his opinions about a party in a dispute. I'm not saying that David should recuse himself, and I'm not saying that he shouldn't. I just think calm reflection on the facts and issues involved here - and where people see Wikipedia going - would do no harm. - Jakew 23:41, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually, he seems to be asking David to recuse himself because he *had* an opinion on how Robert BROOKES should be dealt with, an opinion, by the way, shared by a large number of people: see [[2]]. Exploding Boy 17:46, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Wow! I didn't spot that datestamp! Back in September? Wow, that would have been a very sensible move in my opinion. As it turns out Robert has probably been around long enough to scare away as many good editors as MNH ever did. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:25, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Grunt

The following (from Grun't talk page) was about to be lost due to archiving. I need to insert it here for the record:

---

ArbCom - Robert the Bruce

Hi Grunt. I'm watching this page with interest, and would like to comment. Unfortunately, the discussion page seems to redirect to the old discussion page at present. I would imagine that we should have a new discussion page for comments on the current RfA. Please could you fix? - Jakew 16:43, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry. Fixed. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 20:50, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)

Hi Grunt, Your contribution history seems to be truncated and so I am unable to view the history. I notice that you invited Jaijg to lead evidence in my AC matter. Why? And who else did you inform/invite and why? This is in the interests of transparency you understand. Please post reply into the appropriate place on the AC pages. Thank you. - Robert the Bruce 04:54, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I invited Jayjg to lead evidence in the arbcom case because he was one of the individuals bringing up the case or at least indicating support for the position listed thereof. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 04:55, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)

• Can you provide me with the when and where as I have no recall that he ever did. Are there any others whom you invited? Thanks. - Robert the Bruce 05:19, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  Exploding Boy and Tony Sidaway were also notified due to their case-related comments here (note that Jwrosenzweig's comment is merely a statement about the status of mediation and not related directly to the case). -- Grunt 🇪🇺 15:03, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)

  • And why may I ask was JakeW not informed? He to is and has been central to "case related" comment. I ask you in the light of the irregualrities around the acceptance and launch of this AC matter that you consider witdrawing from the procedings. - Robert the Bruce 16:36, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

    If by JakeW you mean Jwrosenzweig, then he was not informed because he is not a party to the dispute. Otherwise, said JakeW was not involved in the initial statement of complaint and was therefore not named to be notified that the case was opening. I do not feel the need to refrain from participation in this case as per Jwrosenzweig's comment that the mediation committee is not ready to accept cases (which was the reason the original request was rejected - mediation was to be attempted). -- Grunt 🇪🇺 00:07, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

    • Robert probably means me, Grunt. I objected to the original RfC, and possibly the RfA, though my memory isn't clear on that. - Jakew 00:11, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

      Your name does appear on the old RfAr, but only to mention that a mediation attempt was in progress. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 00:13, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

      • Thanks for clearing that up. For the record, I don't think you should have informed me, but I would have appreciated it. - Jakew 00:19, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To clarify, I gave support for some of Tony Sidaway's comments. Regarding the case as a whole, I haven't been involved in the on-going shenanigans, though I note that this is a battle between activists on both sides. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:57, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To clarify further: while there are various edit wars going on involving activists of one hue or another, from which much of the behavior leading to this arbitration case arose, this is not true of those submitting evidence in this arbitration case. I am not a pro- or anti-circumcision activist, and none of the other users submitting evidence to date are activists either as far as I am aware. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:03, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

Please note that this discussion is still at User talk:Grunt/archive5. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 02:56, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)

Please note that there has been no direct response to me on the issues of my cocern. - Robert the Bruce 03:14, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Which issues, please? Exploding Boy 17:48, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

• Grunt. I am still waiting for a response to the issues that I raised. You are not trying to avoid them are you? - Robert the Bruce 14:24, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  I do not see what I have yet to address. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:02, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

Jwrosenzweig

James Rosenzweig stated:

"As mediation seems to be at the crux of this, I'd just like to note that, as a member of the MC and apparently its future Chair (unless someone decides they want the job), we don't have our act together right now and are unlikely to in the next several weeks. While certainly mediation can occur outside of the MC, I think it's fair to say that right now Wikipedia doesn't have a fully functioning formal mediation process, though it certainly should by this time next month. I don't know if that impacts your decision, but thought you'd want to be aware, at least. Jwrosenzweig 22:35, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)"

• Yes James mediation is the crux of this and the two main issues here are that Exploding Boy refuses to submit to mediation and that even if he had the MC is in a shambles so we would be forced to seek an independent mediator. So what exactly are you bringing to the attention of the AC? That Wikipedia's dispute resolution process is in disarray so they should just skip the process and arrange the hanging for dawn tomorrow? I would expect you (and the remnants of the MC) to make some effort (at least) to deal with the most urgent of cases, no? My suggestion is that EB be instructed to submit to mediation and that it is up to you when (the MC act gets together) that it can proceed. Next month is fine as long as a restraining order is placed on EB in the interim. - Robert the Bruce 02:48, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• It has come to my notice that this was not in fact inserted by James himself, but inserted by some ArbCom member in a pathetic attempt to excuse the complainants refusal to enter into mediation. It must be remembered and noted that the complainant repeatedly refused to enter mediation and this refusal had nothing to do with the MC being in disarray. - Robert the Bruce 14:27, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

James' comments were moved from the main page by mav. See the history pages. -- sannse (talk) 23:34, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg

Jay stated:

"Although I haven't interacted much with Robert, my experience was exactly what Tony describes. Jayjg (talk) 03:08, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)"

and

"In fairness I suppose I should add that there is indeed an organized anti-circumcision activism going on on Wikipedia; however, Robert paints almost all Wikipedians he disagrees with as being part of that group, when in fact they constitute only a small number of individuals. Jayjg (talk) 04:49, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)"

• You are correct Jay in that there is a well orchestrated attempt by anti-circumcision activists to force their POV in related article on Wikipedia. On my user page I list those who are most active. So is it not obvious that the debate I get involved in will be with such people? I am being very precise and specific about who the characters are around here (that is why I have listed them) and it is not all Wikipedians I disagree with. I understand the nuances of the circumcision debate and as such are far better placed and qualified to identify one when I encounter one than others. As the call has gone out on anti-circumcision lists to rally around the cause on Wikipedia is there any reason why one should not expect zealots to pop-up here from time to time (although they are encouraged to make a few unrelated edits before they "stumble" across the circumcision related articles by chance). Let me give you an example. We have the person who claims not to care enough to get involved yet finds the time to post personal attacks against me at every opportunity. This guy who does not care enough just happens to be the co-moderator of a foreskin fetish forum on the web. I could go on. Then the other who is soooo neutral that he states on an uncut fetish forum: "Idiots. I guess if a dried up piece of leather is the only cock you've experienced, you don't know what you're missing. And damn, does he ever have a nice cock! He's got a nice puckery tip to his foreskin." So what do you suggest I do Jay? Out them? May I suggest to you though that you cease to help expand the myth that I paint all those I disagree with (as you stated "all Wikipedians") as anti-circumcision zealots. I don't, I know the characters and i can prove it. Much obliged. - Robert the Bruce 03:19, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your offensive little "list" on your user page is, frankly, a lie. I note my name's on it, and while I've not said so before I'll state right now that I'm not an anti-circumcision activist. However I suggest that the evidence is unambiguous: you're some kind of anti-anti-circumcision activist-activist. As such you are clearly and demonstrably unable to maintain a neutral viewpoint in articles you edit. That kind of crap doesn't belong here. Exploding Boy 16:25, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Robert the Bruce's attack on Tony Sidaway

Tony stated:

"I agree that this case has become, if not more urgent, at least more of a problem. Robert the Bruce's recent intervention on Meissner's corpuscle is a case in point. This isn't a case of someone who reacts angrily or edit wars (although he does do this) but someone who continually attempts to portray almost everyone with whom he disagrees as an apologist for some kind of anti-circumcision activism--which he seems to see everywhere on wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:00, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)"

• Sadly in their desperation to build a case this sort of nonsense gets trotted out. The issue started with Ashley Y inserting the POV comparison between the two types. Thereafter it was a little like pulling wisdom teeth with all the associated hissing and spitting but it only took 11 days to get to a reasonably NPOV article. Of course we were going to see toys being thrown out of cots ... after all it is a circumcision related article. As a result Ashley Y and Dan Blackham slunk off seething and Sidaway stayed on in a face saving effort ... but the eventual winner was Wikipedia.

• Elsewhere Sidaway has made other equally hilarious allegations which will be responded to in due course in the correct forum.

- Robert the Bruce 09:20, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• • While Ashley Y's edit could have been considered off-topic, it's a very big stretch to consider it POV. The debate was settled, but no thanks to your efforts. Your contributions were limited to accusing me (and everyone else) of being an activist. In fact, more than half of your posts mentionned hidden agendas or bias being demonstrated by everyone else. Let us not forget that you were the one who purposely removed the link to genitals from the list of examples. The only POV edits to that article, so far, have been yours. Quite frankly, your reply above is insulting and infuriating. You make it seem as if you were the only reasonable person and only concerned with preserving the integrity of Wikipedia, and the rest of us were a bunch of babies about it. Nothing could be further from the truth; it's more like the opposite. Of all the ways you could have replied to Tony's post, I think you picked the one that is the most inflammatory and hypocritical. I noticed the same trend in your posts on Talk:Meissner's corpuscle. Perhaps if you stopped doing that, you wouldn't be here. --jag123 10:06, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• • I concur with jag123's characterisation of the situation. In particular, I note that jag123 has not taken any particular side in the circumcision debate. Unfortunately Robert the Bruce has shown a tendency to characterise any objection to his pro-circumcision slanting of articles as "anti-circumcision POV", and this is exactly what happened in Meissner's corpuscle. —Ashley Y 10:59, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)

As one of the original people to object to Ashley's change to Meissner's corpuscle, it did appear to be aimed at elevating part of the foreskin over other things. This dispute over the article's content did probably go too far, but I disagree that the complaint was unfounded. And unless and until you want to file an RfA against myself, I think you must accept that the change was simply disputed. And let's be fair, User:Ashley Y's own user page declares his anti-circumcision activism (albeit phrased as support for genital integrity; the two are the same), so that accusation at least appears grounded in reality. - Jakew 13:21, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jake, to which of Ashley Y's edits on Meissner's corpuscle are you referring? I see three edits, none of which even mentions the foreskin.

• 09:19, 17 Jan 2005 Ashley Y (contrast with Pacinian corpuscles) in which he changes the text:
  • They particularly respond to quick touch or fluttering sensations. to
  • They particularly respond to light touch or fluttering sensations. By comparison, Pacinian corpuscles respond only to deep pressure.
• 22:42, 17 Jan 2005 Ashley Y (rv, mention stroking (see talk)) in which he reverts and edits producing
  • They particularly respond to light touch, stroking and fluttering sensations. By comparison, Pacinian corpuscles respond only to deep pressure.
• 23:00, 17 Jan 2005 Ashley Y (pressure too) in which he changes the text
  • By comparison, Pacinian corpuscles respond to higher-frequency vibrations. to
  • By comparison, Pacinian corpuscles respond to higher-frequency vibrations and gross pressure changes.

Where was the emphasis on the foreskin? How can these factual, well supported statements about Meissner's corpuscle and the Pacinian corpuscle be said to appear to be aimed at elevating part of the foreskin over other things? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:59, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tony, this goes well beyond commenting on Robert the Bruce, but is involved with the finer points of Meissner corpuscles and the circumcision debate. I'd be glad to discuss it with you, however: your talk page or mine? - Jakew 15:06, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you say the complaint is unfounded, then I would hope whatever edit is obviously POV. Robert effectively painted me as an activist (which I believe is part of the original complaint against him) for supporting the edit, but now we have to debate for a few days to see how Meissner's corpuscle relates to circumcision, and in light of those discussions, hope that we can realise how or why Ashley's original edit was POV? At the same time though, I am considered unreasonable for supporting the addition, because it's *obviously* not NPOV? What gives? --jag123 15:30, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you can really object to discussing an edit, however long it takes. That is how Wiki is designed to be used, after all. It's one of those edits that is, to be wildly creative, "semi-POV", and as such is worthy of discussion and change while not being purely NPOV or purely POV. - Jakew 23:09, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wiki is not designed for personal abuse.

Ashley Y's edit did not merit the following personal attack: It may have escaped you but this article is about the Meissner corpuscles ... unless of course there is some agenda behind trying to insert this off-topic sentence into this article. Is there? - Robert the Bruce 05:03, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC) In another comment, Robert actually suggested that the opinion of anti-circumcision activists should be inserted into the article. As far as I can tell, he provided no reason to suppose that the reader, which one might presume to be someone interested in Meissner's corpuscle, would care about what some circumcision activist might think about anything. The important fact is that the two types of corpuscle, while having superficial similarities, are embedded in different part of the skin and respond to different kinds of transient stimulus. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:24, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jake, the reasons being stated by Robert for reverting the edit was that it was POV. You concur with this, saying that it did "appear to elevate...etc". If you had convinced me why the edit was POV, I wouldn't have objected to you or Robert reverting Ashley Y's edit. You could not do it on the article's talk page and you don't seem to be able to do it here. If you or Robert wants to continually use POV as an excuse for your reverts, then please prove/show/explain it. This isn't about how a Wiki works, what I can or can't object to, the semantics of Meissner's corpuscle or how it relates to circumcision. Robert claims he was defending the neutrality of the article against an army of anti-circumcision activists. If that's the case, it should be Robert's burden to prove how or why the edits were POV. (Just showing the user's historical contributions does not prove anything.) If he can't or won't do this, then I have no reason to assume that Robert was acting in good faith. In other words, I'd be leaning towards believing that Robert was trolling and/or creating trouble, which is practically the basic complaint in this RfA. --jag123 00:24, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

Am I missing something? I look at the page history and I only see three edits by Ashley Y, and none mention or imply foreskin.

1. added "By comparison, Pacinian corpuscles respond only to deep pressure." and the word light
2. Reverted your changes + mention stroking
3. added "and gross pressure changes."

Is there another one that I can't see or something? Please don't tell me it's the word "stroking"... Someone's personal beliefs are really not relevant until they start creeping into articles. I believe in evolution but I have absolutely no problems listing some points/arguments that Creationists use to support their theory. Whether or not I agree with them is irrelevant, that's still what they believe/use, and regurgitating those points is not difficult. Obviously, not everyone wants/can do that, but unless it's blatant, I think it's a lot more fair to give user's the benefit of the doubt, to believe that they are acting in good faith. --jag123 15:02, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

Ok, there seems to be some confusion here, so I will attempt to explain the relevance.

The foreskin allegedly contains a ridged band, which is rich in Meissner's corpuscles. It is speculated by some that this ridged band is in some way sexual in function, an idea that anti-circumcision activists have leaped upon with delight (see Google search). Despite the lack of empirical evidence for this idea, activists have talked up the idea of this ridged band until you could be forgiven for thinking that it provides mind-blowing sensations and all but lights your cigarette for you after intercourse. Jag123, you've seen the insertions of "stroking" and so on - this is all a subtle way of reinforcing the idea to someone who comes from one of the more directly circumcision-related articles.

One of the current activities of the anti-circumcision activists is to push the idea that this ridged band is the male clitoris. They must feel rather inconvenienced by the facts, but nevertheless, they are trying. To this end, they have a vested interest in downplaying the Pacinian corpuscles, in which the glans penis is rich (among others), and talking up Meissner corpuscles, in which the foreskin is rich. Of course, the truly rich sensations that make life worth living come not from one sensory cell, but from all of them working together. That's why it's important to resist efforts to say how marvellous the Meissner's corpuscle is, and to emphasise it's place in the entire family of receptors.

I hope that this explanation helps you to understand the subtle connections here, and explains why these edits can be interpreted (justly, in my view) as POV pushing. - Jakew 03:47, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jake, where in Meissner's corpuscle has any editor ever referred to the Ridged band? I feel that here you are moving beyond editing for NPOV and into the realm of campaigning against anti-circumcision activists when you say "it's important to resist efforts to say how marvellous the Meissner's corpuscle is, and to emphasise it's place in the entire family of receptors." You seem to be reading statements in Ashley Y's edits that are simply not present. The current edit (which we all seem to be happy with) still contrasts Meissner's corpuscles with the Pacinian corpuscules, stating that the former are particularly sensitive to "fluttering and stroking sensations and vibrations" and the latter detect "feelings of pressure (from a poke, for instance)". Neither edit says in any way that Meissner's corpuscles are marvelous, neither edit seems to make an indefensible or distorted claim about either corpuscle. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:28, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tony, that is what "subtle" means. They don't need to refer to the ridged band. Look at how this subtle propaganda began to be inserted. On Jan 17, the first mention of Pacinian corpuscles was made, along with the first mention of stroking sensations, both by Ashley Y (several edits). Not coincidentally, at 09:26 on Jan 17, stroking was introduced by the same author (with admitted anti-circumcision activist connections) [3]. As you will see from the talk page, both "stroking" and the comparison with Pacinian corpuscles are still disputed. - Jakew 13:36, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I was misled by Robert's description of the current state of the article as "a reasonably NPOV article." I'm afraid I'm not going to be able to give in on any substantial objection you may have to the content. The similarities in structure and operation to the Pacinian corpuscles are factual. The sensitivity to stroking is factual. These are not the concoctions of anti-circumcision activists, even if it was an anti-circumcision activist who inserted them, they're in the textbooks and they're taught in anatomy and histology. I often get the feeling that Robert is making the mistake of editing the editor and not the content; this is the first time that I have noticed you doing the same thing. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:47, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Update

Moved to evidence page (here).

Jag123 seems to have a more jaundiced view than I of Ashley. I've been researching this piece for weeks so I know the reference to fluttering and stroking sensations is to be found in a multitude of on-line text sources, it seems to be the standard description of the modality of the Meissner corpuscle. The above only shows that, not being a fellow biology student, Ashley is forced to rely upon those texts, which Jag123 is of course at liberty to refute since he has the wherewithal to do so. The suggestion that Ashley's use of the word "stroking" is driven by anything other than the presence of the word "stroking" in this multitude of texts is, I think, not supportable. And that Robert's intervention on Meissner's corpuscle was unreasonable is, I think, self-evident. Jag123's endorsement of the same unreasoned conclusion is not supported by the facts. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:18, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Adding: I'd also like you to consider that, even if someone were to be found to be engaged in POV pushing (and it does happen quite a lot) this would not excuse Robert's bullying, personal attacks, and overly wide accusations of POV pushing. And that Robert seems to do this as a smokescreen for his own almost relentless POV pushing is not lost on this spectator. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:30, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The question is not whether you agree with Jag123, Tony, it is whether you feel Jag123 is reasonable. If you feel that Jag123 is reasonable (whether incorrect or not), then you must also agree that, in this instance, Robert is also reasonable.

To your second comment, I think that it is important to go through each piece of evidence and establish whether it has merit. Perhaps he has acted inappropriately, or perhaps he hasn't. Once invalid evidence can be thrown out, we will know what valid evidence there is - if any - against him. - Jakew 14:16, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have already said (and you can see the difference in our approaches if you look at our talk pages) that I don't think Jag123's recent behavior towards Ashley Y is either reasonable or defensible. All that Ashley Y has done on the web page is to make some good edits and refrain from being drawn into Robert's little rantfests. Excellent behavior, and if he's an anti-circumcision activist then I recommend his attitude to others. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:06, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You recommend the attitude of ignoring criticism on talk pages and reintroducing controversial and POV changes to an article, just to support a private (declared) agenda? And you think that objecting to this attitude is unreasonable and indefensible? How unusual. - Jakew 17:11, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My agenda is no more than the truth. I do not doubt the same of you, so please extend to me the same courtesy. I do doubt it of Robert the Bruce, indeed I sometimes wonder if he really believes his edits. —Ashley Y 07:10, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)

I recommend no such thing. Ashley Y introduced nothing that is not in many textbooks on anatomy. He was correct to ignore unreasonable objections and his refusal to respond to Robert's provocations was admirable. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:58, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Tony. I would like to point out that this edit was made inappropriately hastily and without reading the latest Talk page. Not that it is not a bad change to make, but I did ignore the process. However, I found Jag123's subsequent behaviour sufficiently obnoxious that I did not feel inclined to revert it myself. —Ashley Y 07:10, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)

Robert the Bruce's attack on Jag123

I refer to Jag123's comments (above) and his edits in Meissner's corpuscle.

I quote my final comment to him:

"I almost took you at face value ... untill I went to the Pacinian corpuscle article and found no mention of the Meissner corpuscles there. Why would one imagine that to be the case? After having made such a song and dance about how supposedly important the connection between the two is one would have thought that you would have ensured that it was highlighted in that article as well, no? Don't expect to be taken seriously again. - Robert the Bruce 05:55, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)"

My first reply directly to Jag123 was in support of JakeW but specifically added the context with respect to the circumcision debate. He took it personally. And clearly aligned himself with the "full time" anti-circumcision activist Dan Blackham and Ashley Y. It was after the sworn denial on a stack of Bibles routine from Jag123 that I went to the Pacinian corpuscle article to see whether this "joined from the hip at birth" relationship between the Meissner and Pacinians was mentioned there. Sadly I found it was not. This clearly destroyed their argument completely and I expressed my disappointment in the quoted comment above. Jag123 saw fit to reply with a personal attack. I ignored it ... and none of our (oh so sensitive to personal attack) friends seemed to bat an eyelid. Of course Jag123 is sore, so is everyone who gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar. That really is not my problem. Sorry Jag 123 but you need to take responsibility for your own actions. - Robert the Bruce 14:04, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Robert, I stated on the talk page of the article several times (which you conveniently left out) was that I never implied a "joined from the hip at birth" relation, only you did (and keep doing). I still fail to see how this helps prove your case in any way. I have to edit all kinds of articles to counter what you incorrectly infer from statements I make? Your statements that I will never be taken seriously again, that I'm taking it personally, that I'm clearly aligning myself with full-time activists, that I'm sore are all meant to evoke a negative reaction. I suppose it could be an extended series of coincidences (Are you winning the lottery every week too?), but it really looks like you are trying to piss me off. You're obviously not acting civil, so why should I? I'm not going to start splitting hairs about what is or is not a personal attack. If I wanted this kind of crap, I'd go edit something volatile. However, you made inappropriate changes to an article dealing with an anatomical structure (none of the facts were/are debated), accuse me of all kinds of hidden agendas and picking sides, and now you whine about me making personal attacks? Reap what you sow. Maybe if I derived as much satisfaction as you in pissing off others, I would spend more time crafting my replies, but that's not the case, so you'll have to live with their bluntness. If you still can't get over it, then file a complaint. --jag123 15:15, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Robert the Bruce's attack on Ashley Y

It is important to establish Ashley Y's anti-circumcision credentials so as to understand his input in this matter. From his User page (as the second most important issue in his life):

Genital integrity: I support this. Infant genital mutilation is a bizarre cultural practice that just happens to be a (hopefully fading) norm for boys in the United States.

And just in case one thought that he was enitrely rational on the subject of circumcision - (From Talk:Medical analysis of circumcision):

"Just to extend the logic of the mutilationists... I bet you could find medical benefits to having all your nails surgically extracted. You'd never have to deal with that nasty-smelling gunk that collects underneath them ever again. And then you could have your lips surgically removed so there was only just enough to cover your mouth when closed. There's no actual evidence that you need them, right? Or that they are specifically sexually sensitive when it comes to kissing. And it would make your teeth easier to brush. Of course, the anti-lipectomy activists might disagree, but they're probably all paraphiliac lip-fetishists anyway... —Ashley Y 06:17, 2005 Jan 16 (UTC)"

A look over his list of contributions leaves one in no doubt that he is one of the anti-circumcision activists/foreskin admirers on Wikipedia and therefore would equally be no doubt that his edit on Meissner corpuscles was intentional anti-circumcision POV.

- Robert the Bruce 17:01, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'll stand by my comments on your mutilationism (on a talk page), I think they point out the ridiculousness of many of your pro-circumcision arguments. Why aren't you pushing for infant oral lip removal anyway? The arguments are at least as good. Or are you an anti-lipectomy activist/lip admirer?

In the mean time, I'm trying to correct the blatant pro-circumcision bias that you insist on inserting in all your edits. I am not a "foreskin admirer" anymore than I am an "admirer" of any particular body part. Nor am I part of any organised campaign. There just happen to be a fair number of people on Wikipedia who wish to make sure the arguments against circumcision are heard. —Ashley Y 04:29, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

So would you say that you are active in trying to push the arguments against circumcision, Ashley? - Jakew 13:36, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am active in trying to get the truth represented, whatever that truth is. The arguments for circumcision are already well represented, even over-represented, I'm only trying to complete the story. —Ashley Y 03:23, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that, unlike you, I am not a single issue editor, as my talk page and edit history show. It seems to me that circumcision is not only the first, but the only issue in your life. —Ashley Y 04:36, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

Some comments from User:Jakew

I am watching this case with interest, as I feel that although User:Robert the Bruce has his faults (in which he is not alone), Wikipedia benefits greatly from his contributions.

I'd like to make some comments on this RfA:

Complainant suggests that RtB "may also be User:Robert Blair. I find this scarcely credible. The two could not be more different in their perspectives nor their edits. Why would RtB create an alias for the sole purpose of arguing with it? Secondly, he would need to have a private supersonic jet to achieve this, as the IP addresses seem to be in different continents. But the ArbCom will find this for themselves.

Complainant refuses mediation. Isn't this highly irregular? Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution clearly states that arbitration is a last resort. My suggestion would be that the arbitrators nominate a mediator and require both parties to at least attempt mediation for a reasonable period of time as a first step towards resolving this problem. - Jakew 22:33, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Complainant's reply

I haven't forgotton about this--I don't have regular access to the internet, in particular on weekends. But I'd like to respond to Jakew:

I feel, and I'm not alone in this, that the problems caused by RtB far outweigh the benefit of his contributions: he steadfastly refuses to discuss edits; he reverts constantly and without discussion; every page he contributes to is mired in controversy; he has problems with many users; he insists that all who disagree with him are rabid anti-circumcision activists; he accuses others of non-neutrality while steadfastly remaining non-neutral himself; he falsly accuses admins of using their sysop powers against him... I could carry on.

As to why RtB would create a sockpuppet solely for the purpose of arguing with it, who knows? So much of his behaviour is troll-like, why shouldn't he resort that that troll-like trick as well?

I've refused mediation with Robert for several very good reasons. I've enumerated them many times, but I'll add a new one: his own request for mediation with me is motivated not by a sincere desire to improve relations between us and improve the quality of Wikipedia articles, but to avoid this RFA and to continue his campaign to goad me into using my sysop privileges against him. Just look at his comments on my talk page and, indeed, in his very request for mediation. In this case, yes, RFA is a last resort; nothing else--discussion, RFC, his mediation with Theresa Knott, even having three of the articles protected--has worked.

Exploding Boy 22:48, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

I concur. Compiling evidence for the current arbitration case, for the first time I actually examined Robert the Bruce's (Talk|Contributions) recent edits. What I found was profoundly shocking--and completely new to me. Through his edits, every day, it seems that he's actually hemorrhaging well sourced, relevant information from wikipedia [4]. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:44, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

User:Jakew's reply

We obviously disagree on the matter of the value of RtB's contributions, and I do not want to fill this talk page with my opinions - others will doubtless want to comment too - so if you like I will go into detail on your user talk page. Nor will I argue with you over your sockpuppet allegations, though I hope you will have the decency to apologise when (and I do mean when) you are proven incorrect.

As far as I can tell, Robert requested mediation on the 22nd of January. At that time, I believe the A.C. had denied your request, so it appears that this attempt was made in good faith (in any rate, this should be assumed. Wikipedia:Assume good faith). I may be wrong about these dates; if I am I apologise. As far as goading goes, I see a lot of animosity between the pair of you, including on my own User talk:Jakew page. Perhaps mediation might help to reduce the ill will. I have to say, it looks to me as though you are so desperate to get rid of RtB that you simply don't want to try mediation, for fear that it might work. That is of course just my opinion. - Jakew 23:26, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jake, what progress has been made with the mediation between Robert and Theresa? -- DanBlackham 23:54, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Less than I hoped. I must accept part (only part, mind you) of the responsibility for this: the last emails I have are dated 4 Jan '05 (TK), and 2 Jan '05 (RtB). I have, I confess, had both of these in my "to do" list since that time. At that point, both parties had expressed willingness to find a solution and appreciation for my toning down some animosity between them. The difficulty I face lies in helping the parties find that solution. - Jakew 00:03, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Jake, we disagree about the value of Robert's edits, but it's worth noting that you (an avowed anti-circumcisionist, if that's a word -- added: sorry, I meant circumcisionist, obviously) and he share many of the same opinions on the matter. In fact, there was a time when I considered you to be pretty bad in terms of the non-neutrality of your edits and the force with which you promoted your point of view, but you seem to have leveled off and are now at least willing to discuss issues on the relevant talk pages.

To clarify, Robert's first mention of mediation came when I initially listed him for RFA. This was a clear attempt to spare himself the RFA, as he framed it in terms of the "proper procedure" not having been followed. His request for mediation came right after this successful attempt, despite my repeated statements that mediation would be fruitless. I don't think that we need to assume good faith at all.

As far as goading goes, Robert is on some sort of weird campaign to try to get me to do what he's falsly accused me of all over the Wikipedia: use my sysop privileges against him (by blocking, most likely). This is evident in many, many of his edits, including the edit summaries on his 3RR violation of Foreskin restoration (I believe it was), for which I did not block him, though he deserved it, having demonstrated that he was fully aware of what he was doing.

Thanks for your opinion, but honestly, there are many times when I believe the two of you are in cahoots, or at least that you're taking advantage of his rampages. It just seems too nice: you share the same views, and you get to, in effect, ride the bull in the china shop, remaining for the most part unsullied yourself. And to be quite honest I'm amazed Theresa Knott agreed to you as mediator. It says much about Robert that you were the only mediator he'd accept, and much about Theresa that she agreed to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Yes, I'd love it if RtB just went away. I realized a long time ago that that's not going to happen. What I'm after is a significant positive change in the way he edits and approaches other users, a willingness to discuss--rationally, and without flinging accusatons, belittling other users, or melodramatic tut-tutting about the shameful state of things, and a significant lessening of the non-neutrality in his edits. It's fine to ensure that things are not one-sided, but RtB goes far in the other direction. Exploding Boy 16:46, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

To Tony Sidaway:

Having been heavily involved with these articles, Tony, I would take issue with some of your evidence. The edit of 17th Jan was right to remove these, as argued in the talk pages, because we had already linked to a full discussion of these issues in Medical analysis of circumcision. It would be redundant to repeat it, and a selective quotation to support one point of view does the article's neutrality no good at all. 20th Jan - it is hard to see what is the problem here. 21 Jan was the same situation as 17 Jan, and was justified IMHO. Also, much of 28 Jan could be argued as much needed trimming down (pun unintended) of the article (it is currently 54KB long). - Jakew 01:19, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

While I accept that I'm not as close the coalface as you have been, I find no online reference to Senkul's paper in Medical analysis of circumcision duplicating the one that was removed from Ridged band on 17 January. Nor was there any such reference on that article at the time Robert removed the reference from Ridged band. Nor was there any such reference on that article at the time he removed the reference from Foreskin. Indeed it appears that Robert may well have completely expunged all references to that paper from Wikipedia. And nobody viewing the history of Medical analysis of circumcision could ever expect that any reference it contains might last the whole day--it's a bloodier battleground than George W. Bush! Your reference to "a selective quotation to support one point of view" isn't really relevant to the point here. The editor had introduced the reference specifically to demonstrate that the conjecture of Taylor et al [5] appeared to have some support. This kind of localized reference is especially important given the continual edit warring that you all are putting the circumcision pages through. Do bear in mind that some people will read these pages looking for factual information. They, and I, may be upset when it is removed from articles by people who falsely imply that it is available in another article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:48, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't know whether it was there at the time. It can vary from second to second with these articles. :-( From Medical analysis of circumcision (current version, 20:23, 28 Jan 2005 Michael Glass m (Balanitis)):

Senkul in a study from Turkey 
reported delayed ejaculation after circumcision as did
Shenin China. Senkul said that 
delayed ejaculation may in fact be seen as a benefit.

It is not appropriate to only include papers supporting Taylor's hypothesis, and leave out those that oppose it. Hence, a full description of the evidence, for and against, is essential. Why duplicate effort? Isn't it better to write one really thorough discussion and then direct readers to it? - Jakew 02:02, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In that case, you should add references to papers that oppose it, not remove references to papers that support it. —Ashley Y 11:04, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)

By doing so, I would in effect create two articles dealing with the exact same subject. That's pointless duplication. Now, you haven't answered my question: isn't it better to write one really good discussion and then direct readers to it? (Jake, did you write this? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:45, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC))

I agree. Thanks for adding the deleted reference to the main article. However in this particular instance I think it's appropriate for the person writing about a particular concept (in this case, correct me if I'm wrong, the idea that loss of the ridged band is linked to loss of sexual response) to show that there is some clinical evidence to support it. This is all that was claimed in the text. Had the text claimed more than that I would have agreed with its removal. It is absolutely not necessary to go into the absolute proof of every concept raised in every single article. A concept can be discussed as a possibility, and adding evidence supporting it shows that it isn't just some wild idea, but something worthy of investigation (even if it turns out to be wrong). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:45, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The direct link to the full text of Senkul's paper, which was removed from both Foreskin (21 Jan 01:43) and Ridged band (17 Jan 18:03) is not given on Medical analysis of circumcision. Only the medline link to the abstract is linked. The abstract is only a prose summary written by the author; it is no substitute for the paper. I also concur with Ashley Y that one should not remove quality references in the pursuit of balance. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:56, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You are correct. I noticed your objection on the evidence page in this respect, and have corrected Medical analysis of circumcision accordingly, to point to full text. I have to say, Tony, these objections really belong on the article's talk page. I think you're wasting the arbitrators' time with such minor issues that can easily and more properly be discussed there. - Jakew 12:49, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

By themselves they would not be a big deal. What concerns me is that Robert seems to be systematically removing relevant factual information.

Since the instances I have found suggest that this he is doing this on a daily basis, it obviously would not be appropriate for me to devote my entire time editing Wikipedia to the circumcision pages (which I would have to do in order to rectify Robert's daily removals). In common with almost everyone who has encountered Robert, I have found interacting with him extremely distasteful because of his constant insults and insinuations, and I'm actually not very interested in circumcision, pro or con. For those who are, however, they should not have to deal with this activity, which in my opoinion is as close to vandalism as makes no difference, and it would also be better if Robert were to refrain from his personal attacks.

In producing evidence for the arbitrators, I weighed up the kind of evidence that I thought most people would prepare, and decided that because most people would probably focus on his objectionable behavior, there would probably be a deficit of evidence in this particular area--his habit of removing relevant factual information. So this is the area I have concentrated on. This in no way means that I may not at some point present evidence on his misconduct towards the person of other editors, as well as their edits. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:57, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Vote is transparent

Robert, the vote is transparent. Look here: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert the Bruce/Proposed decision --jag123 16:28, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you fopr indicating that. Now have you any idea what they are waiting for? I am waiting for a response to my statement over procedure. - Robert the Bruce 16:40, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The normal dispute resolution process being mediation? If so, I think it's been addressed. --jag123 16:46, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As mediation seems to be at the crux of this, I'd just like to note that, as a member of the MC and apparently its future Chair (unless someone decides they want the job), we don't have our act together right now and are unlikely to in the next several weeks. While certainly mediation can occur outside of the MC, I think it's fair to say that right now Wikipedia doesn't have a fully functioning formal mediation process, though it certainly should by this time next month. I don't know if that impacts your decision, but thought you'd want to be aware, at least. Jwrosenzweig 22:35, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To answer the question of what we are waiting for - the delay is to give you (and others) a full opportunity to present evidence. -- sannse (talk) 16:10, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sannse,

May I ask that there be conclusions reached on my preliminary motion and request before the issue itself is decided, so that I might be able to prepare in the most complete way possible?

Wally 02:44, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I can't answer for the rest of the committee without discussion, but I would expect that there will be a delay of a day or so to allow you to consider our response before we start work on the decision. Note that decisions can change until the case is closed - we don't stop looking at new evidence while voting -- sannse (talk) 23:34, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Response to falsehoods in Robert's response

Robert wrote:

    Having failed at the first attempt and to avoid mediation EB went in 
    search of a "sympathetic" AC member. He found one in Raul654. 

I did not go in search of a sympathetic AC member. This is an outright lie. I simply posted on the appropriate talk page.

Robert wrote:

    This pre-planned joint effort to defeat the Wikipedia dispute resolution 
    process succeeded in that it sucked in other AC members to accept the 
    matter without even waiting for the affected party to state his case.

This is another outright lie. There was nothing pre-planned about anything. I posted on a talk page. An AC member responded. This is normal procedure.

Robert wrote:

    This issue of the refusal to submit to mediation is an important issue 
    which Raul654 and EB wished to have swept under the carpet. 

Another lie.

Robert wrote:

    The onus is now on Raul and EB to present their evidence why mediation 
    should be dispensed with. 

I have given my reasons repeatedly.

Robert wrote:

    In this regard I suggest that this travesty be temporarily suspended (the 
    pages protected) until this matter is cleared up. 

Which pages, Robert? Three of the articles you edit frequently have been protected at my request.

Exploding Boy 17:04, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

List of articles to which Robert the Bruce contributes which are currently protected from editing

In evidence, Exploding Boy lists articles protected at present. It is unclear why he chose to do so. Gliding action was protected at my own request, because of an edit war involving User:Robert Blair. Male circumcision was protected at Exploding Boy's request (Jan 27), and there seems to be some doubt as to the legitimacy of this request (see here), as deleted by User:AllyUnion. Foreskin restoration and Foreskin were also protected at Exploding Boy's request (also Jan 27, see here).

In the interests of full disclosure, Exploding Boy ought to make these facts known on the evidence page. I am trying to give E.B. the benefit of the doubt here, but it appears based on this evidence as though he requested the protection of these pages for the sole purpose of creating "evidence" against Robert the Bruce. - Jakew 13:19, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Get off it, Jakew, and stop making false accusations. I don't know why you're so interested in campaigning on Robert's behalf-, except of course that you and he share a point of view on circumcision, and his edits--which you yourself have said are "not always neutral"--help you push your POV. Exploding Boy 17:56, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being overly suspicious, EB, but I can't help but notice that your RfA was filed a mere 18 minutes before your request for page protection. Is that a coincidence? I don't know. But they look related to me.

As for sticking up for Robert, well please accept my apologies. I forgot that the anti-circ campaigners and others are free to roam around Wiki, doing whatever they can to silence their critics, while those actually in favour of making this a credible NPOV encyclopaedia are not permitted. Would you like me to draft an RfA against myself for you, for having the nerve to speak up against this sickening attempt to stop one of the few people who keep Wiki's circumcision-related articles from being yet another anti-circumcision website? - Jakew 20:07, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No matter what third parties not involved in the articles protected did or did not do, they would not have been able to get the pages in question protected if there hadn't been an edit war on each and every one of them. The pages listed on the evidence page are as follows:

• Foreskin
• Foreskin restoration
• Male circumcision
• Gliding action

Which of these pages was in your opinion not protected legitimately? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:09, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't claim that they were not deserving of protection, but then again if they are then they deserved to have been protected months ago. Let's put this in perspective, though, Tony. Please provide a list of articles that you edit regularly that are protected. Don't actually bother doing so - the request alone makes the point I feel. - Jakew 21:36, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Of all the articles that I have edited extensively, I can't think of one that has been protected. Of the two thousand or so that I have edited at all, to my knowledge the only ones that have been protected are George W. Bush, 2003 invasion of Iraq and Clitoris. Since I never edit war, none of them has been protected because of any action of mine. Can Robert say the same? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:09, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

they deserved to have been protected months ago.

Well perhaps it was the case that each was the subject of an edit war "months ago". Certainly that is the case now. This kind of behavior should not happen on Wikipedia. Full stop. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:16, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Maybe you are being overly suspicious, or maybe you're trying to help your friend, or ally, or just someone who agrees with you. I don't know. But I requested protection on the pages in question because they are a mess, and because nothing has been making them better. Between Robert and you and a few other contributors god forbid anyone should add anything or try to neutralize some of the outright crap that's on those pages--both pro- and anti-circumcision stuff.

The "anti-circ campaigners"--your words--are not free to "roam around Wiki, doing whatever they can to silence their critics," any more than Robert (or you) is free to do the same. I've objected to the inclusion of obviously non-neutral claims from both sides.

You can't honestly believe that Robert does anything to contribute to the neutrality of the articles he edits. If anything, he makes the situation worse by swinging the articles completely the other way, which makes other people try to swing back and on, and on, and on until we're left with the situation we have now: the articles need to be locked and rewritten from scratch.

I'm not suggesting Robert's the only problem editor on those pages either, just the worst. DanP's not exactly neutral, and neither are you, but at least both of you are willing (usually) to engage in discussion and even--wonder of wonders!--to concede to the neutralizing of extreme statements from time to time.

By the way, I asked for at least one of those pages to be protected some time ago; it was, but guess what? It made absolutely no difference; as soon as it was unprotected the same old crap started again. Guess why.

Exploding Boy 22:23, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

EB, protecting the pages then didn't do any good, and I doubt that it will do any good now. You watch - as soon as the articles concerned are unprotected, our old anti-circumcision activist friends will be editing away happily, pushing their POV. This has little or nothing to do with Robert - take a look at Medical analysis of circumcision or Genital integrity (link to history given). The problem, EB, is that highly controversial articles like these are bound to attract attention from people who care about them, and in Wiki's environment in which anyone can edit an article, anyone will. The only way to fix this situation is to keep the pages protected, and have a privileged user make edits formerly agreed upon by unanimous vote in the talk page. Nothing else will work. - Jakew 22:46, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I fully agree with you, and will fully support your efforts to create exactly such a policty. On the other hand, I heartily disagree that the anti-circumcisionists are wholly responsible for the problem. The problem is the deliberate pushing of points of view on both sides of the equation, coupled with the deliberate misrepresentation by both sides of information and sources used in the articles. That, and the fact that some editors (Robert being one of them) refuse to work towards neutrality. By the way, you aren't the first user who's suggested a policy like the one you outline above. User: Adam Carr has suggested similar policies as well; in fact, he's restricted himself to editing one small group of articles in protest of the fact that such a policy hasn't been implemented. I'll support you all teh way on this, but you'll probably find that it won't go anywhere. Exploding Boy 22:56, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Moved from project page

Original Statement by Affected party

Procedural This is the second attempt by Exploding Boy to institute a RfA against me. The first one failed. The fact that he has moved to start a second RfA has only been possible due to a serious instance of dereliction of duty by the AC in that at the conclusion of the the first attempt EB should have been instructed to enter mediation. This is exactly what the AC should now do.

Having failed at the first attempt and to avoid mediation EB went in search of a "sympathetic" AC member. He found one in Raul654 (see communications between the two as evidence) who suggested that EB resubmit the request which was accepted by Raul654 with obscene haste. On this basis I believe that Raul654 should recuse himself from this matter (and quite honestly should face the sternest censure for this scandalous behaviour).

This pre-planned joint effort to defeat the Wikipedia dispute resolution process succeeded in that it sucked in other AC members to accept the matter without even waiting for the affected party to state his case. This too is irregular by any standard. Those AC members who have committed this breach of common procedure should likewise politely recuse themselves from this matter.

This issue of the refusal to submit to mediation is an important issue which Raul654 and EB wished to have swept under the carpet. As I have stated this whole issue could have been averted have the AC acted in a proper manner at the time of the first RfA. The onus is now on Raul and EB to present their evidence why mediation should be dispensed with. In this regard I suggest that this travesty be temporarily suspended (the pages protected) until this matter is cleared up. The AC must take into account the manner in which EB spurned my attempts to enter into mediation with him.

I would go further to suggest that unless EB and Raul654 are able to provided persuasive evidence as to why they wish to deviate from the Wikipedia dispute resolution process they should receive the appropriate sanction for attempting to subvert Wikipdeia process and wasting the time of the AC.

- Robert the Bruce 02:30, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please be informed that an advocate from the AMA has agreed to represent me in this matter. His advice at the moment is that I should refrain from direct coomunication to Wikipedia and direct all correspondence through him. I will comply. He will no doubt introduce himself in due course. - Robert the Bruce 04:29, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Additional Comment

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)

Two further points:

1. I assume that this applies to the articles themselves and not the talk pages. Like so much around here it is not clear. I will work on that basis until I hear to the contrary.
2. Why has there been no response to the procedural issues I raised? Why was the vote not transparent?

Just a few questions. - Robert the Bruce 16:23, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

1. Yes, you can talk on talk pages in a normal manner; injunctions against using talk pages would be mentioned in the injunction (e.g. the current LaRouche case). 2. Temporary injunctions are to keep the peace while things are sorted out - David Gerard 01:16, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

When we say articles, we mean that. If we thought it was necessary to limit edits to talk pages, we would have mentioned those as well. Do however consider templates displayed in these articles to count though since that content forms part of the article. --mav

Moved from main case page by sannse (talk) 23:48, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC):

Introduction and Preliminary Motions and Requests

Good evening,

My name is Wally, advocate for the AMA, and I am here to serve as representation for the defendant in this case. I'd like to, preliminarily, thank the ArbCom for hearing whatever comments I might make.

Before I offer evidence, I would like to make the following preliminary motions and requests, immediate consideration of which is, I feel, absolutely critical to the just resolution of this dispute.

• Motion for the immediate revocation of acceptance of the Request for Arbitration submitted by Exploding Boy on 27 January as per the terms of the declined RfA of 11 January. Evidence here: Evidence for the Motion to Dismiss

• Request that Arbitrator Raul654 recuse himself from any further proceedings involving this case. Evidence here: Evidence for the Request for Arbitrator Raul to Recuse Himself

My statements on this matter may be found on the evidence pages linked. I request further that these two issues be resolved before any further consideration is paid by the ArbCom to this case. Wally 05:13, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Important note: I would like to thank Advocate Wally for his time and efforts with regard to representing me before the ArbCom. Throughout it was clear that he was working in the best interests of Wikipedia and believed that there was a real prospect of justice being served through the arbitration process. I have decided to dispense with the services of the AMA and finalise this matter in my own words and in my own style. Again thanks to Wally and the AMA for assisting me in this regard. - Robert the Bruce 09:41, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Before getting on the substance of the allegations I initially and then with Advocate Wally attempted to address procedural issues. Advocate Wally spent time and energy to present argument on two motions (the quality of which were commendable). Both were turned down.

The first was a Motion to Dismiss which was based on the facts that the complainant had repeatedly refused mediation after the failure of his first attempt at seeking arbitration. That the ArbCom have used the current dysfunctional state of the MC as the basis to reject this motion is disingenuous. The complainant had repeatedly refused mediation not on the basis that the MC was in disarray but rather because he claimed that “Several users and I have stated on numerous occasions that we feel mediation would be pointless.” I note here that no clarity was sought from the ArbCom on this gem of a generality. So as to avoid the nuisance of having to attempt mediation the complainant made an approach to ArbCom member to assist him with sorting out the technicality of mediation being a component of the Dispute Resolution process. Having received the “green light” from the “insider” he loaded his second attempt at arbitration. Miraculously like manna from heaven a post from User: Jwrosenzweig dated a day before the Request for Arbitration was loaded contained support for the anti-mediation position by stating that the MC was in disarray (who posted this and why?). The ArbCom has not sought detailed reasons from the complainant (and his sponsor Raul654) as to why he refused mediation. The crux of this issue is not whether the MC is in disarray but rather why the complainant seeks to circumvent the Dispute Resolution process by refusing mediation. The explanation of this rejection of the motion to dismiss has been poor and indicates that the issue has been prejudged and therefore was not given serious consideration. I hereby challenge the ArbCom to make public their deliberations on this aspect together with the voting record of members. I intend to appeal this ruling.

The second motion related to the request for Raul654 to recuse himself. Raul654 refused. I request that the ArbCom place in the public domain the evidence on this matter that they deliberated over. In addition I request that the vote by the ArbCom as to whether or not each member supported Raul654’s refusal to recuse himself be place on the record. If the ArbCom did not discuss this matter it is considered important to place it on the record why not. It is sadly clear that failing to comment on this issue as a body the ArbCom has compromised its integrity and the members shown a lamentable lack of moral courage to censure one of their own. This is such a clear cut example of when a person should recuse himself the current ArbCom ruling will obviously be appealed.

In the interests of space saving and to avoid the vandalisation of the text I am placing further information on my User page which recent precedent has shown cannot be edited by outsiders against the wishes of the page owner. See User:Robert the Bruce - Robert the Bruce 09:41, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted that I am working on the assumption that this case remains in "pre-trial" mode in so far as I have not yet attempted any serious rebuttal of the poison evidence of EB and his supporters, Tony Sidaway and Fvw. In fact the evidence is so despeartely poor and contrived that it beggars belief. I will add to my statements from time to time but it must not be miscontrued (however tempting that might be) that I have fully addressed the rebuttal aspect. Currently I await ArbComs's response to my motions which include the detail as requested. Once received we can proceed from there if necessary under a specific agreed timetable. - Robert the Bruce 14:07, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have received word of Robert's request that I stand down and do so. Wally 19:08, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Notes by affected party

I wish to place the following on the record:

1. My request to ArbCom as to their position on Raul654 recusal issue remains unanswered.
2. The submissions with respect to dismissal on the basis of no attempt to seek mediation not only remains substantially unanswered but we see ArbCom members falling all over each other to support this cynical attempt to bypass the dispute resolution process.
3. I see a list of "Proposed principles" being compiled and am not sure who they apply to. Certainly (see my user page) they apply to a number of POV warriors engaged in the struggle to force their propaganda into Wikipedia. What is this circus that is unfolding here?
4. Under the "Proposed findings of fact" the following is listed: "Removal of references by Robert the Bruce". So? I have explained to an adequate extent my edits in the rebuttal to Tony Sidaway. I stand my edits and have explained them, Tony Sidaway has merely listed stuff and claim it relevant but has not explained why. Now let me assist ArbCom here ... the burden of proof lies with Sidaway and his buddies to prove the relevancy of the material. Simple concept really. BTW what is a POV matter doing before ArbCom?
5. I request that under the "Proposed findings of fact" the fact that Exploding Boy falsely accused me of creating "yet another sock puppet" and that his allegations that User: Dr Zen and User: Robert Blair were patently false.
6. In addition that Exploding Boy's repeated allegation that I would only accept mediation through User: JakeW has been found to be false should be a finding. Appended to this statement should be the fact that at least two members of ArbCom knew this to be false yet remained silent. In this regard then it is expected that ArbCom demand that EB publicly retracts this and the sock puppet allegations with apologies all round and the disciplinary action to be taken against EB and the two members of the ArbCom be specified.
7. I still await ArbCom member User: Grunt to explain why in setting up this ArbCom case he notified all those most likely to produce negative comment (to the extent that the User: Jwrosenzweig statement was imported to support the complainants case).
8. The seemingly simple matter of the identity of Robert Blair remains unanswered. Surely it is a simple matter to place on the record that it has been found that Robert Blair is not a sock puppet of Robert the Bruce? What is ArbCom afraid of? That by so doing they will expose their man Expolding Boy as a liar?
9. I would expect that my rebuttals be worked through and as a result I expect findings to be placed on the record like for example: "It was found that the allegations made by Tony Sidaway that relevant information was removed from articles has found to be incorrect and unfounded and therefore the allegations have been struct from the list of complaints and as a consequence ArbCom places the following restriction upon Tony Sidaway's Wikipedia activities as follows ...".

- Robert the Bruce 02:53, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Further notes by affected party

It is really sad for Wikipedia to note just how desperate the ArbCom are to stitch up this case. An additional three so-called findings of fact (being: "Removal of references by Robert the Bruce", "Derogatory labelling of points of view" and "Removal of blocks of information") have been added.

1. "Removal of references by Robert the Bruce". I am quite prepared to debate the relevance (and desireability) of placing propaganda (Hodges and Bensley/Boyle) into Wikipedia articles (which ArbCom seem in this case to defend). The crap from Whiddon and Foley is mere personal opinion which has no sources or substantiation for the statements made (and refers to "intromission" and not the hypothetical and so-called "gliding action"). One would think this little detail would not have escaped theeagle eyes of our esteemed ArbCom? Is anyone on the ArbCom willing (or able) to look in depth at these content issues are are they not going to let a few inconvenient facts get in the way of a "good hanging"?
2. "Derogatory labeling of points of view". This is a funny one. Yes I am sure the neo-nazi organisations also prefer to be called by other names. The adoption of "Genital Integrity" is merely a propaganda move to present a movement (with very dubious motivations) in a more positive light. I look forward to the explanation by ArbCom how a term in everyday use (and far more widely than their preferred self anointed title) should not be used? Pathetic.
3. "Removal of blocks of information". This is getting boring. I have stated that I oppose the insertion of large blocks of quotations directly out of sources available as a link. I further oppose this practice when it is obvious that the intention of the "article stuffing" is to either push POV or mask the essential facts of that particular aspect. I am quite prepared to debate/answer for each and every one of my actions in this regard ... but are the anti-circumcision activists? Is ArbCom even going to test that? I doubt it.

- Robert the Bruce 04:17, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

End of moved text. sannse (talk) 23:48, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Moved from main case page by sannse (talk) 11:12, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC):

Certainly the question must be asked why Sannse decided to kick so much text off the project page? Surely if the issue was the amount of content she (and presumably ArbCom) should have posed me the following question: "Robert the Statement by the Affected Party is now way over the 500 word guideline. We would like to move the excess over to the talk page. Would you like to select around 500 words to remain on the project page and move the remainder with a link to the talk page?" That little common courtesy seems to be beyond this ArbCom. Really sad for Wikipedia. Please be informed that I will do precisely that over the next day or so. I will select what 500 words represent my response to the allegations and not Sannse, thank you very much! - Robert the Bruce 06:58, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

End of moved text sannse (talk) 11:12, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Some replies...

(reponse by Robert the Bruce inserted after each point)

• The decision to recuse or not is a personal one. However, if other members of the committee were unhappy with this decision they would have made that clear, to Raul and more widely if necessary. None of us expressed any such concerns.

That none of the other ArbCom members expressed any concern indicates a far greater problem than hitherto suspected. It is one thing for Raul to fail to exhibit the required integrity and another for the remaining committee members to fail to put it to the vote. This failure to act brings the whole of Wikipedia into disrepute.

• The matter of mediation has been answered. You have had a clear response from the committee on this matter.

It hasn't been satisfactority answered. In fact it is nothing more than a sick joke. Fact one, the ArbCom reject a RfA and sends parties back to mediation. Fact two, Exploding Boy rejects mediation. Fact three, Exploding Boy finds a flunky on the ArbCom to support a second RfA and thus circumvention of the dispute resolution policy. Fact four, ArbCom falls for the ploy hook, line and sinker. Pathetic!

• Principles, by their nature, apply to all Wikipedians. They are a concise statement of the policies and conventions that relate to the case - a summary of the general rules of Wikipedia that will guide the findings of fact and remedies below them. The findings of fact and remedies, on the other hand, relate to specific users.

Well there is the rub then. Why does our esteemed ArbCom not just deal with the specific allegations? Why do they feel the need to state the obvious? What about the the errors and admissions and dare I say it the deliberate acts of others that come to light during this process? Are they going to be dealt with or just swept away under the carpet like the Robert Balair issue?

• The evidence you present will be considered by those voting. It would be better placed on the evidence page, but I for one am reading your user page as well as the evidence page.

Do you think I am crazy? Do you honestly think this ArbCom thing is a vehicle for justice? Give me a break will you.

• The application of NPOV is something we are able to consider. This is not regarded as a content ruling, but as a consideration of one of our primary policies. (See also past cases)

NPOV and consensus are two concepts that are bandied about quite freely around here. I am not sure most of the people who use them know what the hell they mean. So i am got going to fall for the smoke and mirrors routine. It is quite clear you don't know what the hell you are doing. It is quite obvious and sad to any outsider.

• Any suggested findings of fact can be added to your evidence or to the decision talk page. They will be considered.

There is no evidence that they will be. Deal with the raul and athe lies of Exploding Boy then maybe ... just maybe your committee may gain a little credibility.

• Who refused mediation and when is irrelevant to this case. As has already been explained, mediation is always voluntary and can be refused without penalty - except that the arbitration committee may choose to refuse a case where mediation has not been tried (but is not obligated to refuse such a case). You might have noticed that Fred has removed links presented as evidence against you that related to mediation. The same applies to both you and others.

That is nonsense. It just suits you to take this position as it protects Exploding Boy from being rejected (as he should be) for a seconf time. Why the moral cowardice?

• Grunt notified all those named as parties in this case, this is proper procedure.

With the obvious exception of ... You Sannse you must really start to respect people's intelligence. Are you used to dealing only with morons?

• This has been answered by the developers here. The committee is fully aware of this reply.

... and the ArbCom is frozen in indecision about what to do about it. Boy I glad I don't have to reply on these people in a crisis.

• We will make all findings we find appropriate. We will not be likely to micro-analyse in our ruling however, we are generally looking for the broader outline that explains the problems and seeks solutions. Don't expect rulings on each individual piece of evidence on both sides.

And you will also sweep any inconvenient facts under the carpet. And yes of course you will be unable to explain any decision in any detail as you can't (based on the facts available). So on with the Salem trial. On with "the beating of Simon" then ... what is the delay? (apologies to Lord of the Flies).

Please also see your talk page re. moving of text to this page -- sannse (talk) 11:42, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have responded to you accordingly - Robert the Bruce 14:17, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)