Independent reference sites It has been noted that there is widespread use of cirp.org as a source of reference material across most of the circumcision related groups. Cirp is anti-circumcision to the point that it only has information which supports its POV and where that is not good enough it actually inserts comments into the studies to make sure people who read the stuff are guided accordingly in how to interpret the information. Those who defend the use of POV reference site expose more about themselves than they counter the position of cirp as a reference for anti-circumcision information. To address this obvious bias a site has been set up to place normally not available studies so as to be available as references to comment in wikipedia articles. It is: http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/independentreference/ As a contribution, those articles which are from cirp and which have inserted comment will be sanitised and place there so as remove the obvious POV and bias that goes with the use of cirp.org.
Blatant bias It was Robert's view that among those with administrator status were dedicated anti-circumcision activists. These people he maintained insidiously misused their positions of trust to ensure the anti-circumcision POV was maintained in circumcision related articles. Having reviewed the history of a number of the articles it appears that this is indeed so. We ask those interested in NPOV to keep a special eye out for this.
Check your facts
Check your facts. Robert was not banned, he was blocked for 24 hours. If you ask me it was a light punishment, given his hysterical, confrontational style. He is now free to edit but he should remember that continued personal insults and revert wars will also get him blocked. As for the accusations of "anti-circumcision bias" among Wikipedians: You are totally off base. Most of us don't care much one way or the other. But activists are extremely irritating - this goes for your pal Robert as well as the anti-circumcision crew. Overall you people have had a negative affect on Wikipedia. Rhobite 00:13, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
- Your style is confrontational. I would like to inform you that unlike with Robert you will not get a reply your style deserves. It remains to be seen how you deal with these so-called irritating "anti-circumcision crew". It was noted just quick you were to jump onto Robert's case but have been so careful and measured in your dealings with "truthbomber", "Michael Glass" and the various incarnations of "Dan". To deny bias is easy but to prove that beyond doubt to somewhat more difficult (I'm sure you will agree). So we shall just have to wait and see how you respond. - Friends of Robert 00:41, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- If you bothered to check my history, you'd see that I've been trying to keep Michael Glass, DanP, and Walabio in check too. But NPOV isn't good enough for activists. Rhobite 02:00, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
- OK, so while they kept you occupied "truthbomber" slipped the net and dropped their POV on the various articles? ;-) You got to hand it them they are persistent, but then again they may be emboldened by the help they get from insiders? - Friends of Robert 16:11, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Rhobite said everything on this subject that needed saying. Anyone not interested in the NPOV can download MediaWiki and start their own Wikipedia. Robert may have been right about the "agenda" of the intactivists, but his behavior towards them and others was absolutely atrocious, only making matters worse. It will take some time to repair the damage that this silly circumcision flamewar has caused. --Ardonik.talk() 17:34, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
- I submit that Robert exposed the ineptitude of the sysop/admin to reign in the excessess of the anti-circumcision activists. I suggest that you hated him because he showed up your weakness.Along the lines of this: "You saw his weakness, and he will never forgive you." - Johann Christoph Friedrich von Schiller 1775-1805. So what may I ask have you learned from this "flame war"? What steps have you taken to prevent the ongoing misuse of Wikipedia as a source of anti-circumcision propaganda? It would be nice if you were to find the time to answer this. In advance, thank you. - Friends of Robert 04:30, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- You think I hated him?
It's pretty clear now that you are trolling. It's my fault for getting suckered into this dumb little game, but you must forgive me for assuming that you had something useful to say.
Well, you know what? You win. I'll admit it: you're right about e v e r y t h i n g! I hate Robert because I'm a weak little hobbit; the sysops are totally powerless; the Skin Freaks are taking over mankind and only Robert can protect us. The Wikipedians turned him down--what fools these mortals be! Save your pity for a more worthy cause, O friends of Robert; the Wikipedia deserves to burn for its arrogance!
On a serious note, Robert is going to be unblocked soon, assuming he isn't unblocked already. If he resumes his old behavior, the blocks may become longer or he may be banned outright. Just a heads up. --05:04, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
- You think I hated him?
- I submit that Robert exposed the ineptitude of the sysop/admin to reign in the excessess of the anti-circumcision activists. I suggest that you hated him because he showed up your weakness.Along the lines of this: "You saw his weakness, and he will never forgive you." - Johann Christoph Friedrich von Schiller 1775-1805. So what may I ask have you learned from this "flame war"? What steps have you taken to prevent the ongoing misuse of Wikipedia as a source of anti-circumcision propaganda? It would be nice if you were to find the time to answer this. In advance, thank you. - Friends of Robert 04:30, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- If you bothered to check my history, you'd see that I've been trying to keep Michael Glass, DanP, and Walabio in check too. But NPOV isn't good enough for activists. Rhobite 02:00, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)