Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Robert Brookes

Indirect involvement

I added evidence, but I cannot claim to be involved in the dispute directly, knowing next to nothing about the circumcision debate; I'm simply a Wikipedian concerned about what I perceive as an inflammatory attitude coming from Robert. Perhaps I should have edited the outside view instead of adding lines of evidence in the section above? (You're welcome to comment on my actions if you think I did something wrong, Robert; that's what this page is here for.) --[[User:Ardonik|Ardonik(talk)]] 19:23, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

Well I'm in the same position really. In that I know very little about the circumcision. However I do know NPOV, I do know what it means to work towards consensus, I do know a personal attack when i see one. It is the violations of these principles that has led me to start the rfc. Let's see what the community has to say about it. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 20:20, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this debate either, but reverted the omission of a link that appeared to add significant value to the Penis article. I originally intended to initiate a RFC, but Theresa beat me to it. Then I realized that my message complaining on the user's talk page regarding replacing the reasonably NPOV description of the linked site with a very opinionated paragraph, had had the intended effect. Robert Brookes has actually settled on a description for the site that I am not offended by, and included a useful edit summary (something not true for many of his past contributions). See the diff. For this reason, I've decided to stay neutral on the RFC for the time being. — David Remahl 20:26, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, so this Request for Comments has been signed by eight people now. What next? The wikipedia article on requests for comment doesn't explain what happens next. ---thickslab 12:29, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Ideally, Robert will post a response and an outside observer will post a summary. I hope this will show Robert that he can't continue these revert wars and personal insults. If he continues to abuse Wikipedia, this issue will probably go to arbitration. Rhobite 12:49, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

He called this RFC a "Salem Trial" over at the Village Pump, so I doubt that he'll participate. I suppose he figures that all of us are either "intactivists" or their sympathizers. --Ardonik.talk() 15:56, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'm not an "intactivist," nor have I ever been involved in "intactivism." In case anyone is curious. ---thickslab 17:12, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Then how do you explain your user name...? (joke) I'd like to comment on the RfC, but I'm afraid I've made myself somewhat ineligible, (for my personal attack of calling him an odd duck). func(talk) 03:26, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

More likely he is simply trolling. Just look at his past "contributions" -- every single edit is to do with foreskin, circumcision, etc. That sort of obsessive behaviour is not usual. I expect he will disappear as soon as the case goes to arbitration. Rls 16:54, 2004 Sep 7 (UTC)

If he is trolling, a possible tactic is to stop feeding him?Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 17:57, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Since his activity involves removing entire sections from live articles and reverting obsessively, we don't have much choice but to go through the motions here. Rhobite 18:12, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Now what?

The summary has been endorsed by plenty of people, Robert is clearly not going to respond, what happens now? A warning? A temporary ban? A permanint ban? What? --Starx 14:18, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We could go the AC. I'm not sure we need to. If he were a simple vandal then he could be blocked. If OTOH he geniunely wanted to write encylopedia articles but found himself clashing with other users as he did so, then it would have to go the AC to sort it out. I think he falls in between. I believe him to be a vandal, I believe he has no interest whatsoever in writing articles for Wikipedia but is simply here to carry on a fight that has been going on in some mailing list. I think he can be banned by the community as a vandal.

I can't block him from editing myself though becasue I tried to mediate first and so came under personal attack.(My loathing of this particularly nasty piece of work may be influencing my judgement). However I would fully support any other admin who decides to block this troublemaker. What we need are the comments of some people who are not involved. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 15:43, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Theresa, when the dust has settled we can return to you own personal bias apropos this issue you supposedly sought to mediate on. I would suggest that either you consider voluntarily withdrawing from all circumcision related articles or I raise the issue in the appropriate forum to have you censured for your misuse of admin position to push and agenda and have you officially restricted from perticipation om such articles. The choice is yours. - Robert Brookes 02:48, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Do it. The appropriate forum is this one. You can defened yourself by answering this rfc on you, or you can start a rfc on me. If the community feels I am a rabid pro circumcism POV pusher I will stop editing any pages the community instructs me not to. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 08:29, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sure, Robert. Compare your comments to her with her comments to you. Compare your contributions with her contributions. Think hard. Who do you think will be censured?Alteripse 02:57, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've posted a note the mailing list so hopefully we will get some outside views soon. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 16:07, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I completely agree with the summary. I was just waiting for somebody to get around to posting the RfC so I could endorse it. I've already had to read the user's arguments all over those penile pages, and it's annoying. In case anybody thinks mediation will work, I seriously doubt it. This user reverts content for no reason, and doesn't respond except with lame excuses. Johnleemk | Talk 16:55, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, there's no use in wasting effort on mediation. Robert hasn't made any effort to come to an agreement, it's clear that mediation would be useless. Rhobite 17:02, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

I made one final plea to him on his talk page and I am awaiting for his response. Let's hope he joins us. --Ardonik.talk() 17:49, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Sections moved from the Village pump

Circumcision discussions and Robert Brookes

It should be noted that an Rfc/Robert Brookes is underway:

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. To my horror I noted that each and every circumcision related article had been hijacked by the anti-circumcision activists and filled with their POV and links. Of interest was that this demonstrable garbage had somehow been sold as NPOV and was now being protected as such by those resident wikipedians who share their peculiar interest in the foreskin. Their tenacity and commitment to this purpose has been self evident. There is no way that these articles will ever approach NPOV as long as genuine wikipedians remain ignorant as to the key issues relating to the anti-circumcision debate. The first rule, (which I don’t expect any genuine wikipedian to acknowledge now, but may reflect upon later), is that you cannot negotiate with monomaniacal fanatics and no purpose is served being “nice” to them as it is interpreted as “weakness”. Their posting tactic of “two steps forward and one step back” serves their agenda well and has no counter from among the “Hobbits” of wikipedia. I am all for NPOV. I wish for nothing more than NPOV articles and am outraged at the blatant hi-jacking of wikipedia by these fanatics. I must state that I am also outraged at the naivety of the genuine wikipedians who seem so inept in countering this obvious POV. 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 01:54, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Can you at least reply to the message I left you on your talk page? --Ardonik.talk() 01:56, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

Note that Robert has systematically removed scientific information from circumcision-related articles when a paper, digitized in full, was so much as hosted on a website against circumcision (CIRP.org). He has also made interesting edits like this one, and is currently listed on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for his insulting behavior towards other users. Virtually all his edits have been to circumcision-related articles. If you look at User talk:Robert Brookes, you will find a long message from me to him in which I kindly explained to him the problems with his behavior. He never responded.

Wikipedia is a ridiculously democratic/anarchistic place, to the extent that trolls and POV pushers are tolerated for months on end until our dispute resolution mechanisms kick into gear, and even then consequences are mild because of the way committees work (lowest common denominator). Heck, one of our most persistent vandals/trolls who has insulted dozens of users, inserted huge amounts of inaccurate information and created tons of fake identities has been unblocked because blocking him affected too many other users on AOL. To speak of the happenings on Wikipedia as a witchhunt is like equating a heated discussion in a bingo club with Stalin's Great Purges. The Salem witches weren't burned, by the way, they were hanged. See Salem witch trials for more information.--Eloquence*

Well, are they referred to as "skin freaks"? I don't know, but it doesn't seem unlikely, and he did say that it's an "unkindly" usage. -- orthogonal 04:15, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This was not a usage description. There is a big difference between "are unkindly known as ..." and "are unkindly referred to as ... by ...". How does "Christians are unkindly known as Jesus freaks" sound to you? That term gets" 22000 hits, can we add it to Christianity? "Skin freaks" in this context gets 42 Google hits, the first one being Wikipedia.

Even with proper NPOV language, this does not belong in an encyclopedia article. There's a difference between encyclopedic knowledge - e.g. "the views with regard to this fetish are shar

ply divided among the adherents of pro- and anti-circumcision views" (please don't add this without some actual evidence) - and slur words that are merely inserted to push a particular point of view. Only in a context of a long history of discrimination (e.g. homosexuality), such information may be of interest.

I find it seriously disturbing that I have to explain this to you.--Eloquence*

• Having read the history of the Foreskin fetish article would it not be fair to expect you to explain here and on the articles discussion page why you reacted the way you did to a seemingly trivial comment about "skin freaks". It would be appreciated if you would take the time to clear the air on this matter as your aggression may well have served to polarize attitudes and thus undermine the NPOV process. - Friends of Robert 23:36, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

POV and the circumcision articles

It has been noted that since Robert Brookes' banning wholesale reverts have been made to article to restore the anti-circumcision POV. What is the mechanism within Wikipedia to prevent this or at least to set up a mechanism to monitor this activity? Sadly it is also apparent that the administrative Wikipedians who were so keen to get involved in the censure of Robert Brookes either are "not neutral" or just don't care so one needs to look elsewhere for guidance towards NPOV. Perhaps as a suggestion the applicable articles be "frozen" at the point they were when Brookes was banned so as to allow for a special "talk" page to be set up to debate how the matter of control over editing of circumcision articles can be established. - Friends of Robert 08:56, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment is probably best, he may already have a page if he is a persistent POVver. Dunc_Harris|☺ 09:03, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

yep, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Robert_Brookes, and feel free to make any suitable comments. Dunc_Harris|☺ 09:04, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If you see anticircumcision activists inserting POV into pages then the best thing to do is argue the case on the relavent article talk pages. A one of the "administrative Wikipedians who were so keen to get involved in the censure of Robert Brookes" I can assure you that his rfc was started becasue of his abrasive attitude and refusal to work cooperativly with others. Not because of his POV. It is not true to say that admins here are not neutral or don't care about POV warriers from the other side of the argument. Their edits are being watched and neutralised by a number of regular wikipedians. We don't in general "freeze" pages. It's against the idea of a wiki, but all articles already have special talk pages where you can argue your points. In the efvent of POV warriors from either side of the debate refusing to come to a reasonable compromise we already have procedures in place to deal with it. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 20:42, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• • Theresa, would you be so kind as to state any possible conflict of interest in the issues relating to circumcision you may have? Thanks. - Friends of Robert 23:05, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• • • Sure! I don't have any conflict of interests. I originally went to the circumscision page because of a call for help from regular wikipedians as there was a revert wat going on. I came across Robert Brookes there and tried to talk to him about the way things are done around here. Talking, compromise, consensus. He has accused me of being a anticurmcumcsion activist but that is not true. I am English, I've never even met a man who is circumcised (to the best of my knowledge) and have no strong opinion on the matter. I am most certainly not a member of any group either for or against. After trying to reason with RB on a number of articles related to circumcision I gave up,started a rfc on him, and decided simply to work on the articles a best as i could. I took an interest in the smegma article, was someone surprised that an articles with so many edits in the history had so little information on the pag and decided to try and expand it. I've been searching the web and adding to it since. In the course of that search i've come across a large number of websites, both for and against. My personal opinion of circumcision has only formed in the past few days becasue of that web search. I simply never thought on it before. Anyway the opinion i have formed so far is that the 'debate' is a lot of fuss over nothing. Personally i wouldn't get my own son circumcised (if I had one) but I feel that all this talk of "mutilation" is OTT. I've been a wikipedian since it's first year. My interests a varied, certainly not restricted to circumcision related articles. (check my edit history). I hope this answers your question. feel free to ask me anything. Oh and i forgot to say ealier -Welcome to wikipedia!  :-) Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 23:27, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Thank you for placing that here for posterity. I noted Robert's comment about the build up of the lysozyme theme on the Smegma article. It remains of interest where you sourced your information from in this regard. What was your primary source of information? Lastly, just an innocent question to help me come to terms with what Robert alleges as to your possible agenda. Why does it appear you spent so much time reverting Robert's edits and so little from those with an obvious POV? Take truthbomber for example, he seems to have taken advantage of Robert's banning to carryout wholesale edits of certain articles. I hope you agree that it is absolutely necessary that those with administrator status are squeaky clean and totally transparent. I hope you don't see this as the type of Salem trial Robert was subjected to? Let’s hope not. I hope you will find the time to respond. - Friends of Robert 23:55, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • I can't really remember i was searching the web amd i got snippets from all over the place. As for truthbomber - which articles? I'll take a look tomorrow (I'm going to bed now) Why did i evert Robert? Because he wouldn't compromise, and he wouldn't discuss. What you've got to remember is this site works by people getting together and talking things through and coming up with a version that everyone can live with. If someone comes along and starts sticking dubious tags on without specifying what it is that is dubious on the talk page, then there is nothing that we can do to address the problem. Robert called the text "mumbo jumbo" Now how am I supposed to adress that? Dubious tags in Wikipedia have to be actionable. As for truthbomber, i did revert some of his stuff but I only did partial reverts because i was happy with some of what he wrote. Thus my edits after truthbomber don't say "reverted to last version by" they say what I actually did for example this was a partial revert #Anyway I've got to go to sleep now. I talk to you tomorrow. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 00:19, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
          • Sleep well. I do hope that you will remember to answer the question tomorrow. - Friends of Robert 16:28, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • Are you a sock puppet of User:Robert Brookes? You seem to be doing everything in your power to make yourself look like one by arguing on his behalf. In particular, "Salem trial" was his wording for what the rest of us call requests for comment. RfC is the first step in conflict resolution and as such is an important part of Wikipedia policy. Robert didn't feel the need to take seriously, but that doesn't mean that you have to denigrate it, too. --Ardonik.talk() 00:13, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
          • Robert was singled out unfairly. He was set upon by the pack. Wikipedia has nothing to be proud of in this respect considering the onslaught of anti-circumcision POV you seemingly are unable to counter. Robert was criticised for posting only to circumcision related articles there are three, four, five such others who are plugging away at pushing their anti-circumcision POV with little or no attention from wikipedians. Now that you are aware that "truthbomber" is having a field day, I will watch with great interest what gets done about it. I'm sure you will do the right thing. - Friends of Robert 16:28, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Robert wasn't banned, he was blocked for 24 hours. Please don't exaggerate in order to make your dubious case for a "vast anti-circumcision conspiracy." Rhobite 00:15, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

• How would he have known that? The poor man was set upon and savaged. This while a handfull of true believers are able to edit the articles at will. It has been mentioned before how they do it. It is the old two steps forward and one step back routine. It works like this. Major POV edit done ( - two steps forward). Along comes a tame admin and does a small timid edit ( - one step back). The cycle is repeated until the truth and NPOV are lost in the haze of POV in the articles. Game, set and match? - Friends of Robert 16:28, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• The best way to counter this is for the pro circ people to edit the articles instead of the village pump. To say that RB was set upon and savaged is nonsense. It beggers belief. Your own POV is influencing your assement of the situation.Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 08:50, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• That is nowhere near the truth unfortunately, Theresa. There is no point in promoting an edit war while you clearly have no counter nor wish to counter the known and obvious anti-circumcision POV pushers. You seem to have rules for everything here except POV pushing. What about three strikes and you are out? Give the pro-this and the anti-that three chances then ban them from those articles. And yes, BTW, give this recuse thing a second thought. To be brutally honest your time would be better spent elsewhere. I would state clearly that you are POV in this respect but I also have no doubt that the sysop/admin wallahs will stick together, as thick as thieves. - Friends of Robert 17:55, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Guys let's assume "good faith". I'm satisfied the above use is a freind of Robert Brooks but even if he is a sockpuppet of RB himself so what? He is arguing his case politely so he is welcome here as far as i'm concerned. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 00:22, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Especially given Theresa's interaction with Robert Brookes, I can only say that her patience and willingness to listen to anyone being polite -- even if that might be Brookes himself -- should be an example to us all. I'd award her a barnstar if I didn't think I'd be being presumptuous. ;) -- orthogonal 00:27, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks :-) Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 08:52, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ironically, you're demonstrating exactly the sort of all-embracing openness that prompted Robert to liken us to hobbits in the past. --Ardonik.talk() 17:59, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

True but who cares? In some ways we are a bit like hobbits. Wikipedia is open, we do embrace everyone. We welcome all sorts of people with open arms, the more diverse the better as it ultimately leads to better articles. We do believe the wikipedishire is the best place on middle earth ( sorry I meant the web) But we are not weak, we outnumber troublemakers hundreds to one. We don't need anyone to fight our battles for us. We are building the best encyclopedia the world has ever seen and no POV pusher will prevent me from accomplishing that task. And I am only one of thousands like me. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 19:21, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Good stuff Theresa. Two points though. It is because Wikipedia is becoming a "recognised resource" that it becomes a target for POV pushing by special interest groups (thereafter the laws of physics take over - "for every force there is an equal and opposite reaction"). Robert was correct in stating that the early opportunity was seized and anti-circumcision POV quickly filled the circumcision related articles. Second his point was the allegation of bias among some sysop/admin here. I believe there is some merit in this. Sadly. Surely it is simple, in that wikipedians who have strong POV about a certain subject should "recuse" themselves from involvement in those articles? Perhaps a mechanism should be put in place whereby those who stray into the no-go area of POV can be gently nuged back into line? - Friends of Robert 01:09, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We already have mechanisms in place. Please read our policies. As for biased admins you keep saying this is the case yet you haven't presented any evidence. If you truly believe admins have behaved unfairly your first step should be going to their talk page and present them with the evidence involved, so that they can explain themselves. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 08:12, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• First, you never got around to answering my question after you cried off with a headache (or whatever). I don't want to get into a knock down drag out with these people while you sysop/admin types toss the odd cheap shot into the melee. I am looking to you to police this (like you seemed to have no hestiation in climbing into Robert). Why the delay? Why no comment when Wally did a wholesale revert back to anti-circumcision POV? Why are you letting "truth bomber" and the various incarnations of Dan have a free hand? Is one to deduce that you believe that their efforts are NPOV? See this as a test of your integrity Theresa. Its not looking good right now but perhaps where there is life there is hope. - Friends of Robert 17:55, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I must say that this is one of the odder forum threads I've had the pleasure of reading. Perhaps I need to read the Village Pump more often. crazyeddie 23:40, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)