Jump to content

User talk:Robert the Bruce

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jakew (talk | contribs) at 23:58, 27 January 2005 (→Request for Comment - DanP). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips to help you get started:

Good luck!

[[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]]

P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).

Mediation

Robert - would you be willing to go through the process of Mediation? I feel you constant rudeness (calling people biased, liars, questioning thier integrety etc) is adversly affecting the articles that you work on. Mediation is a process for resloving this type of problem. A neutral mediator, with no prior knowledge of the dispute, will try to resolve conflicts and come to am amicable agreement. But the process is volutary. You'd have to agree to it.

BTW this is your third username in as many months. We generally frown on sockpuppet accounts. Will you be using this account from now on? Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 05:35, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Theresa I would really appreciate it if you got off my case. - Robert the Bruce 18:14, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm sorry I wasn't trying to get on your case. I was trying to resolve our difficulties. Would you please reconsider mediation? Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 18:38, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Theresa, you are on my case and you have been from the beginning. I would like you to please get off my case. If there is someone else who would like to bring something to my attention or discuss my contribution to Wikipedia I would entertain such an interaction. But sadly given your partisan involvement thus far I do not wish to discuss this matter with you personally any more. Now please Theresa ... get ... off ... my ... case. - Robert the Bruce 03:02, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'll take it as a no then :-( Theresa Knott (The torn steak) 05:39, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"POV" on Penis

The sentence you removed about circums. being controversial is obviously not POV. Just look at how much controversy it has stirred up on Wikipeida. — David Remahl 02:44, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • You should not confuse the activity of a few on Wikipedia as a reflection of the views of the greater world out there. Dangerous mistake, in my opinion. The insertion of that sentence in the article is plain POV pushing. Try to see it in the context of the article. It does not belong. - Robert the Bruce 02:52, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That article is not the place to be debating the issue. It's about the penis itself, not circumcision. Context is always good, but your edit wasn't what I'd call constructive; you simply discredit the (otherwise unspoken) opinion of those opposed to circumcision as a small, loud group of "psycho sexually motivated" internet users. Belittling views contrary to your own is usually an ineffective way of currying favour for your views, eh? As for your "compromise," I must say you could do better; now you're blaming "anti-circumcision activists" of "stoking controversy", as if everything would be just fine if it weren't for the radical subversives. Do you really believe every person opposed to circumcision is—by default—an eristic rabble-rouser? -- Hadal 04:15, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • from Hadal's talk page:
You failed to address my issue about context. Why? Anyway I have edited the applicable passage
again so as to address your concerns. BTW please show me where you have reverted some of the 
more off the wall comment by our resident "anti circumcision activists"? - Robert the Bruce 05:29, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I said context is a good thing, but what you added wasn't context, it was judgmental POV pushing. I see you're still blaming the controversy on "anti-circumcision activists" of "stoking controversy", as if there are no valid objections to circumcision. I know of no group who would seek to deny an adult's consenting right to circumcise himself; so where does this "especially when... " part come from? -- Hadal 08:45, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • I would have thought that you would have attempted to be even handed in your involvement in this article. In some bizarre fashion it appears that you refuse to accept that if POV is allowed it must be balanced by context and qualification. If you believe that the loaded sentence is on topic and should be retained then surely you would accept that it be qualified accordingly. I don't believe it serves the article in any way. We may agree to differ on this. - Robert the Bruce 09:16, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have not reverted any "off the wall comment[s] by our resident 'anti circumcision activists'" because a); I have not seen any such edits (I don't really keep up with these sorts of articles, and I'm usually on the lookout for clear-cut vandalism) and b); because, until now, I've decided to stay out of articles involving you. Why? Because it seems to me that you're not exactly pleasant to collaborate with. There's enough strife in my offline life, so I hereby recuse myself from the article in question. Happy editing. -- Hadal 08:45, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • The term "recuse" usually relates to those who have a "conflict of interest" in the matter at hand. I accept this as the reason and remark with respect that you knew when the game was up and it was ime to get out of town (so to speak). A good rule of thumb is to declare ones position on the matter up front rather than to fein neutrality while trying to influence matters in an insidious manner. Thank you for your candour. - Robert the Bruce 09:16, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

3 revert rule

Robert, you have now violated the 3 revert guideline on Sexual intercourse. If you revert again within 24 hours of the second-last revert, the page will be locked. Pakaran. 12:12, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • My, my but aren't we officious. I note with mirth tinged with sadness that you see yourself on a crusade to "keep Wikipedia sane". The irony, the irony. Now to the 3 revert rule. It states: ' Don't revert any page more than three times within a period of 24 hours. Did I do this? Boy did you screw up. - Robert the Bruce 17:41, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • You're right - your last edit wasn't a revert. Sorry. Pakaran. 18:25, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Bensley/Boyle survey

Robert,

I agree that the O'Hara survey is biased and I believe that the bias should be mentioned in the Medical analysis of circumcision article. However, your allegations about the Bensley/Boyle survey are unfounded. What evidence do you have that would suggest the survey's participants were not female? Please provide an explanation why the sex of the participants should be questioned. There is a difference between pointing out bias and making unfounded accusations in an effort to discredit your opponents. Please respond at Talk:Medical analysis of circumcision. Acegikmo1 04:33, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • I will respond here for the record. The question must be asked of you as to why you are so desperate to have this (Bensley/Boyle) nonsense inserted into Wikipedia. Turn this around in your head and consider if I had produced a "one pager" from someone very short on content and fact (as this one is) and started trumpeting the findings around as an incontrovertible proof. I can just imagine the howls of protest from you and your anti-circumcision friends. I have stated in response on the other page that you are challenged to produce the detail of the survey. Why don't you email Bensley/Boyle? Failing that I shall continue to challenge the honesty of both the findings and the way they continue to be presented on Wikipedia. Have a good day. - Robert the Bruce 05:18, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your response, Robert. You have made some good points. I shall e-mail Boyle, requesting that he explain the methodology of recriuitment used in the survey. This seems to be the most contentious point. Is there anything else you want to know before accepting the survey? Acegikmo1 05:41, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
      • I want to read the detail of the survey. Nothing short of that will be good enough. I suggest that until you produce the detail we delete reference to it from the articles. I will do so. - Robert the Bruce 15:34, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Clitoris pic

You coments indicate that you misread the question. The poll was whether we should remove the picture and replace it with a link to an external diagram. So if you think we should keep the picture you should vote no in the poll not yes. The warning is a sperate issue that is not addressed by the poll. Cheers. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 07:12, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Foreskin

Removing your speculation is not vandalsm. Everytime I see you revert someone with "vandalsm" in the edit summary I will revert you. If you don't want me to do this, stop being rude and calling people vandals, and argue your case on the talk page instead. Theresa Knott (Not the skater) 07:40, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • I see you are on my case again Theresa. Do you have something obsessive in your nature? You see Theresa it works "everytime a coconut". Toss in a little speculation and the sky falls in as the skin freaks and their groupies go balistic. But tamper with their speculation and ... (you know how it goes from here on).  ;-) Its quite pathetic isn't it? And sadly you are right in the middle. - Robert the Bruce 09:14, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Please explain why you reverted my edits. I was copyediting and changing the paragraphs, which contained supporting links as per your request. -- thickslab 17:02, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)

  • My dear thickslab do you really have so little respect for the intelligence of others that you expect to be seen as an innocent victim in all this? Why not share with Wikipedians what lies behind your desperation to push a POV agenda in this article? This is simply not a matter of balancing viewpoints but rather that truth prevails. You are in favour of truth prevailling aren't you? - Robert the Bruce 17:10, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Deleting those paragraphs is not productive, as they are clearly relevant to the heading they are under. Furthermore, I added references to substantiate the claims in those paragraphs, as per your request. Let me know what your concerns are, and I will do my best to address them. Believe it or not, I would like to come to an agreement that we both could live with. Please be specific with your concerns about those paragraphs and I will try to propose wording that we can both live with. -- thickslab 17:54, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Thick, half-truths, innuendo, misrepresentations, spin and outright lies have no place in a Wikipedia article. By desperately attempting to maintain such it places your personal integrity in question. I would have thought that would have been obvious to all. Now perhaps the one unanswered question is why you seem so desperate to maintain this stuff in the article ... is there something about how you feel about foreskins you want to share with wikipedians? - Robert the Bruce 03:19, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Sure, Robert, I can answer that. I think foreskins are perfectly normal but that on the other hand circumcision can be a perfectly valid operation. Frankly, I find your foreskin obsession and your extremist pro-circumcision fetishism bizarre. I also think that if you didn't display such a rude, dismissive, and arrogant attitude, you'd find it a lot easier to work with people on Wikipedia. -- thickslab 03:04, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
    • Is there something that *you* want to share, Robert? -- thickslab 13:16, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
      • Sure. I believe that male circumcision is a perfectly acceptable parental decision as a result of religious, cultural or medical considerations. - Robert the Bruce 15:48, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • Do you believe that some sane and intelligent people believe otherwise? Tverbeek 20:26, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
          • Sure, but the test is to what degree. To think otherwise and respect the views of others or to indulge in foaming at the mouth activism like our anti-circ activists? Can people who are fanatics in this regard be really sane and intelligent? - Robert the Bruce 01:28, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
            • To a circumcision fetishist like Robert Brookes, nobody who has anything less than the blatantly pro-circumcision, anti-foreskin extremist views he has is insane and unintelligent. -- thickslab 03:01, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
              • This comment by Thickslab is a personal attack in many ways (and it is also libellous). It is in violation of Wikipedia's policy. Robert, I would urge you to complain. - Jakew 11:55, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
              • Yes indeed, it is a disgraceful personal attack. Did you notice the thundering silence form our sanctimonious friends? Why do you think Theresa and Tony are so quiet on this score? - Robert the Bruce 18:38, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
                • Probably for the same reason you was. I never noticed it. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:01, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
                • Robert reporting someone for personal attacks? LOL. I notice Jakew has never suggested that someone report Robert for any one of his numerous personal attacks. Ahhhhh, the smell of hypocrisy in the morning. Nathan J. Yoder 14:21, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Clitoris circumcision

Robert, please argue the case on the talk page. If you're so obviously right, surely you can persuade others of it?Dr Zen 11:04, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • All that is necessary in the main article is a reference to female circumcision (FGM) whereby it is stated that in the more invasive of the methods of FGM the clitoris is removed. It is a massively minority practice and to afford it any more space is mere POV. - Robert the Bruce 11:28, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Clearly, others disagree that that is "all that is necessary". It is not a "massively minority practice". It is extremely common, just not round your way. POV is not shorthand for "something I don't think should be there". If you think other POVs should be represented, you can put them in.Dr Zen 22:53, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • It is you who has the problem. You just reverted some guy who made a change of case edit. Sad. - Robert the Bruce 02:05, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • No. I reverted you, dude. The change of case was to your edit to the page. Revert the page once more and I'm going to ask for you to be blocked for vandalism.Dr Zen 02:06, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • I would be interested to read your motivation for that. - Robert the Bruce 02:08, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Okay, you picked up part of the other article and used that to push your POV. You're not interested in discussion or trying to form a consensus, simply pushing the view you want in the article. Fine. I'm not bothered enough to oppose you in doing that. What's the point? POV pushers will go to any end, including reregistering, to try to "win".Dr Zen 02:17, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • What do you suggest is my POV in this? - Robert the Bruce 02:20, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • You mean you don't know?Dr Zen 04:42, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I suggest you don't take a POV at all. How about that?Dr Zen 04:50, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Not quite good enough I'm afraid. You stated clearly that I "picked up part of the other article and used that to push your POV". I think its time for you to put or shut up, no? - Robert the Bruce 05:05, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've given you my suggestion. It's up to you what you do with it. Happy editing. Dr Zen 05:30, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yet another complaint about your behavior

Why are you so selfishly destructive? Are you as much of a posterior orifice in your real life? You enjoy accumulating a long list of complaints about your behavior ranging from the polite and reasoned to the exasperated? How can you possibly care enough about circumcision to act like this? alteripse 04:19, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • A question for you. Do you always react this way when you don't get your own way? - Robert the Bruce 04:37, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Foreskin

Exactly how is it non-NPOV to describe the foreskin as innervated (ie: as containing nerves)? Please explain your repeated reverts of this description. Exploding Boy 16:31, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

  • It is self evident to the point that there must be an ulterior reason for insert the word. Could you help unmask the POV being pushed there please? - Robert the Bruce 03:02, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Civility

On your entries in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Foreskin fetish, would you review them carefully?

Your first comment was:

  • It is with interest that the desperation to have this article deleted or at least edited into a vanilla version is observed. If every article that is contentuous is deleted then Wikipedia would not be worth much. One should look past the reasons for deletion offered to the agenda. It is an important article in the context of the cirumcision debate.

Here you have unnecessarily applied the characterization "desperation" to the mere process of voting. Your point on contentious pieces is a good one, but it was not necessary to imply that anyone voting for deletion is desperate to get rid of a source of controversy.

Your second comment went even further:

  • I find it interesting to note that when I mention the agenda of a small group of activists they try to hide behind the notion that they actually reflect the opinions of all Wikipedians. I say once again that one needs to consider the agenda behind the desperation to delete this specific article.

This one seems to be a very broad attack, accusing those who voted for deletion of being "a small group of activists." It's even more puzzing because the only thing that had been added after your previous entry was a hostile statement by a single user who spoke only for himself.

In my opinion your comments here seem to be calculated to create a hostile atmosphere. I'm sorry if that wasn't the intention, but you are basically launching personal attacks on fellow contributors. To avoid souring the atmosphere, please moderate your comments on VfD. --Tony Sidaway 16:17, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC) (I recently changed my username from Minority Report).

  • In your opinion? Yes you are entitled to your opinion. But please remember not to try and set standards for others that you are unable to maintain yourself. - Robert the Bruce 04:33, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what you mean. However, I would appreciate if you went back and, perhaps, overstruck the very hostile words and restated your opinion in a form that does not look like a naked personal attack on those who don't vote as you do. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway Talk ]] 14:58, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

VfD notice

Please don't remove VfD notices while voting is still in progress. --fvw* 12:30, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)

  • Yes I note that that is not allowed. I guess this exposes a flaw in the Wikipedia system in that you drop in and decide that an article does not deserve to be and add thge VfD tag and thereby force a chain of events onto those involved with the article. What breathtaking arrogance! - Robert the Bruce 14:32, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Articles may be edited in any way while going through the VfD process. Its authors are not required to do anything special because of the VfD, but it is suggested that they vote. The VfD tag is there to make all contributors aware that the page is being voted on. If you want to suggest adjustments to the process to make it less harsh against contributors, please do! I agree that it can be a problem. Out of interest, which article does this particular case concern? — David Remahl 14:42, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • David do yourself a favour and look over Fvw's contribs. There seems to be a degree of such "serial" behavour here. - Robert the Bruce 14:50, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • I've looked at Fvw's contributions. While I don't agree with all of them (you will find that I questioned one of his votes on VfD on his talk), I believe he/she is adhering to policy and doing what he/she believes is best for Wikipedia. — David Remahl 16:30, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • Ok, a question for you then. Why do you think he selected Foreskin fetish to insert VfD and not Circumcision fetish? I await your reply with interest. - Robert the Bruce 07:27, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

VfD Foreskin fetish

I note with interest that you have arbitrarily decided to add a VfD tag to this article. Would it be deliberate that Circumcision fetish avoided your attention? Consider this to be a test of your bias. - Robert the Bruce 16:03, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, I hadn't seen Circumcision fetish, not quite as high-profile for some reason. It does look pretty weak as things stand yeah, should probably be merged into genital modification; I'll have a ponder about putting it up for VfD. Note however that anybody can put articles up for deletion: There's no need to ask me to do so, you can just nominate it yourself, the procedure is at the bottom of the VfD page. Feel free to ask for help if you need any. --fvw* 16:09, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)
  • The mere fact that you need to ponder this indicates your bias. I thought it was necessary to test your integrity so that fellow Wikipedians could see that you have an agenda here. Sorry to expose you in this way. - Robert the Bruce 16:18, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
LOL Robert. Everyone here has an agenda except you eh? Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 20:36, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree it is a hoot. You have another explanation for the one eyed behaviour of our friend Fvw? - Robert the Bruce 04:36, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Protection of medical analysis of circumcision

Hi, Robert. I'm not sure exactly what you mean about my timing - I merely noticed the page in question on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, which is on my watchlist, took a look at the ongoing revert war, and protected the page. As for my interest in the subject, I have none - I was merely trying to do my part as a Wikipedia administrator. I have no POV as far as circumcision is concerned. Andre (talk) 06:59, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

  • Sorry I don't buy that. Why did you wait until the edit was made by the most extreme of editors? This is an issue which is needed to be raised at policy level at Wikipedia. This "shooting from the hip" by passing admins must be controlled. If you know nothing about the subject then stay away. The system is not working when there is a 50/50 chance of whose version gets to be protected. All one has to do to beat the system is to get a "tame" admin to protect the page after ones edit has been made. I will be raising this issue on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) as you gunslingers must be restrained. - Robert the Bruce 07:07, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    As the protection template says, "Protection is not an endorsement of the current version." As I said, I don't have a POV on circumcision. I was circumcised in the Jewish fashion as a baby and I can't imagine having any other sort of male reproductive bit - I'm not sure what the advantages or disadvantages are, and I don't have an agenda. The timing of the protection is not intended to support any particular version of the page. If you're really so worked up about this, why don't you discuss your views on the talk page, instead of accusing me of POV pushing? Andre (talk) 07:15, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • Actually the protection policy says more than that. It even gives guidelines as to which version to protect. But gunslingers never worry about the fineprint. You needed to take this particular individuals history into account. You did not. Read up on it: [1] - Robert the Bruce 07:37, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Robert, this isn't the first time I've caught you launching a personal attack on someone you disagree with. Could you please consider what your choice of words does to the atmosphere in this Wiki? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway Talk ]] 07:50, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Go away Tony. You are one step away from stalking me. - Robert the Bruce 08:11, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That's rich, coming from someone who askes for other editirs to be "supervised". If you don't like people pointing out your personal attacks, you should stop making them. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 09:15, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't see the connection. But it is worthy of note that you come out of the woodwork at this time. You also up to something? - Robert the Bruce 11:50, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Robert, you are still making personal attacks. Must every single one of your exchanges on Wikipedia result in your leveling an accusation of wrongdoing against the person you disagree with? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway Talk ]] 16:28, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Tony why areyou stalking me? - Robert the Bruce 17:19, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Please accept my apologies if you feel threatened. To explain: wikipedia talk space is a public noticeboard, your words are public. Someone who reads and responds to them is not stalking you. Please do not feel threatened; there is no reason to be. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway Talk ]] 17:30, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Tony can you provide evidence of any other person around here who is "lucky" enough to have you monitor them so closely? Back off ... please. - Robert the Bruce 03:34, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Could you explain what you mean by "monitor"? Thanks at least for moderating your language. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway Talk ]] 03:51, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Tony, you said: "... this isn't the first time I've caught you ..." this indicates an active course of action like monitoring/stalking where you are keeping an eye on me. Would you be so kind as to get off my case? - Robert the Bruce 04:23, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ah, I see why you might think that. But really it just means that it's not the first time I've been reading your comments (which show up in my watchlist since I made the entry "Civility" on this talk page) and caught you launching a personal attack on someone you disagreed with. So in the sense that I read the entries on your talk page, I suppose am "monitoring" you. But this is what the feature is for. If I had not pointed out your continued incivility, you would not have had the opportunity to reconsider and moderate your behaviour. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway Talk ]] 05:01, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Tony, I suggest that you do not rush to take the credit for my "moderating" my behaviour. Sadly as is so often the case with self appointed "problem solvers" they fail to look into the mirror to see that they are often behaving "worse" in many respects than the person that they have decided that they have a "devine right" to sort out. Think about it. - Robert the Bruce 05:15, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I certainly don't want to take full credit, and I'll gladly own up to being far from perfect. But you have to admit, you're behaving much more politely lately. Why else if not because people, myself included, have pointed out to you your lack of civility! --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway Talk ]] 05:44, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sorry Robert, that isn't how it works. I quote, Do not edit or revert a temporarily protected page except to add a protected page notice...admins should avoid favoring one version of the article over another, unless one version is vandalism. Nothing here is vandalism - just varying POVs. Policy doesn't say anything about editors who have put out calls to arms on mailing lists, as far as I know. Andre (talk) 07:50, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • I have made my point. I believe you came in shooting from the hip. I don't expect you to back down in public. My point is simple the system failled. Any system which acts like a flip of a coin, protecting an article has a 50/50 possibility of entrenching a particular version. This is not clever. Sadly, however the likelihood of a particular POV being so entrenched has better than 50/50 odds ... that is a real concern. - Robert the Bruce 08:11, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Your "shooting from the hip" metaphor is getting real tired -Lethe | Talk
  • Maybe, but you must admit the "little tin gods" line is right on the button ;-) - Robert the Bruce 05:02, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your comment

I'm hesitant to reply to your comment as it seems intended merely to invoke a response, what else could a message "Sadly your contribution has not been helpful." achieve. For my part, I have not called you a troll but stated your actions lean towards trolling behaviour, which is clearly supported by lack of respect you show for community consensus, process and wikipedians in general. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 08:23, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

  • That is exactly my point. I am asking exactly what consensus was arrived at through the poll on clitoris talk? I hear a lot about this consensus but no one seems able to define it exactly. Would you like to try? - Robert the Bruce 15:45, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • If you go to the results of the two recent polls you'll find that the consensus was that a proposal to replace photographs from the article with a link to an anatomical drawing was rejected by 8 ayes, 56 nays and no recorded absentions, and a proposal to include a disclaimer worded "This article contains photographs of human genitalia" was also rejected by 9 ayes, 25 nays and no recorded abstentions. Other questions that you might have about the consensus cannot readily be answered, because they were not asked. If you'd like answers to specific questions, why not start your own poll? If you have a new photograph to replace the existing one, why not put it to a vote?--[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway Talk ]] 16:49, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)\
      • Was the question this one?
QUESTION: Who would vote for replacing the second image on this page with this link?
anatomical drawing
If so can you please exlain your interpretation of the results? - Robert the Bruce 18:05, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I already did. Inasmuch as the poll results said anything, they said that the voters considered the picture in the article to be preferable to a link to the anatomical drawing in question. However it's also clear that a large proportion of people responding, perhaps a majority, interpreted the poll as a general "should we have a photograph of a vagina showing the location of the clitoris?" --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway Talk ]] 21:13, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Surely the poll is the basis on which there are claims of consensus having been reached have been made? It was an either or vote. The rest unfortunately which we have seen in the various articles is no more than imaginative interpretation. I support the use of a pic if there is a suitable one available. In the case of the clitoris there is not. So we find ourselves in the bizarre situation where the retention of an oblique shot of the vulva (which does not even depict the clitoris) is being defended to the death purely on the basis that "consensus" demands that the people want a pic. Sadly, confirmation that for some "any pic will do". Quite simply then what is needed is a pic of the clitoris ... not a poor shot of the vulva (a better shot of which is on the Vulva page anyway). - Robert the Bruce 00:54, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Surely the poll is the basis on which there are claims of consensus having been reached have been made? No it's based on much more than that one poll - as you would know if you ever read the replies you got rather than trying to argue ad infinitum Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 09:10, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've read various responses to the point you make here, Robert, where you have made it elsewhere. In particular Theresa has stated (and I don't doubt that she speaks for many others) that, if you provide a better photograph of a vulva with a more prominent clitoris, under GFDL, there will be no objection to your replacing the current photo. As it stands, the existing illustration at least shows the external apparatus and would enable anyone to locate all but the most elusive of clitores on a human vulva. So it's difficult to see why you continue to claim, in the light of this, that the picture is being "defended to the death." It isn't. But yes, this picture will do until a better one becomes available. Why don't you spend your energies searching for one? The one on the Vulva page is to smaller scale--if you click on it you don't get the detail that you get with the one on the Clitoris page. In that respect alone the present picture is probably better. But if you want to put it to a vote, feel free. Or be bold, just put the picture there and see how it sits with other editors. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway Talk ]] 10:04, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Thank you for that Tony. That fact remains that after all is said and done there is no pic of the clitoris on the Clitoris page. The said vulva pic does not even serve to indicate the location of the clitoris to any acceptable extent. Sadly I reach the conclsion that the defence of retaining the current pic is more around the ensuring the use of pics to display the human genitals than providing the best available information to the reader. Personally if the said pic was suitable then I too would resist attempts to remove it from the article. At the moment I see two possible reasons for it being removed from the article, one, that it does not dipict the clitoris an two that pics of human genitals are offensive to some. I support the first reason and have sympathy with the second. To expand on this, take the penis article for example, This drawing does a far better job of depicting the circumcised and un circumcised states than the current two black and white pics on the Penis page. I would suggest that it would be helpful for Wikipedians to accept (and acknowledge) that in order to ensure images on the applicable pages and avoid copyvio we are reduced to editing porn pics and placing them in the articles even if they don't even depict the subject of the article itself. Tony, this is really sad. - Robert the Bruce 02:43, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • But there is a picture of the Clitoris on the Clitoris page. The Clitoris Glans is obscured, and the urethra is obscured by the labia majora. These are the two fashions the image is subpar. Nevertheless, you are a troll, Bob. PhiloVivero 13:45, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Now this is getting interesting. How can there be a picture of the clitoris if it is obscured? - Robert the Bruce 15:25, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I don't understand why you think pornography is an unacceptable source for pictures of the genitals. I would also go so far as to state that your claim that the picture you object to "does not even serve to indicate the location of the clitoris to any acceptable extent" is manifestly false. Can you see your problem here? You cannot make those arguments unless and until you can justify the claims upon which you base them. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 13:48, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Even the most simple drawing of the vulva will provide a better indication of the location of the clitoris than this pic. The only possible redeeming feature of the pic would be if it did serve to indicate the location clearly. It does not. It should therefore be deleted. Not because it is a pic. Not because it is of the genitals. Because it serves no purpose in the article. - Robert the Bruce 15:25, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Should we start with the subject of pornography? What is it about a closeup of a vulva derived from pornography that, in your opinion, renders it unsuitable for use in an encyclopedia illustration? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 13:48, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Even the crappy black & white pic on the vulva page is better than this one. If push comes to shove use that one as a place holder until a better one turns up. I would however repeat my position that a pic/drawing of the vulva should be on the vulva page and a pic/drawing of the clitoris should be on the clitoris page. Pretty simple really. - Robert the Bruce 15:25, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
YOu have repeatedly stated that the crappy picture is better than this nice big one. You don't explain why. I agree that an even better picture would be preferable to the current one. Here's the news, Robert: nobody disagrees with you on that. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 16:45, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
As for your conclusion that the purpose of using a photograph to display the genitals is in order to use a photograph to display the genitals, this claim seems to be somewhat tautological. Yes, that is the purpose. The fact that a few, mainly American, puritans are upset is not a good argument for avoiding such illustrations, in my opinion. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 13:48, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Well the dissenters have a point. If the pic does not show the subject of the article then what possible reason could there be for including it in the article? A good question without an answer so far. - Robert the Bruce 15:25, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This is where I start being unable to understand your point. The picture shows a vulva with the clitoris labelled. It doesn't show the clitoris well. The reason the picture is shown is so that someone looking at a vulva would know where to look for the clitoris. That is the only answer required. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 16:42, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • If they want to look at a vulva they can go to the Vulva page. The first priority on the clitoris page is to have illustration/s of the clitoris. To duplicate a vulva pic (and a bad one at that) to show location is an unnecessary duplication IMO. - Robert the Bruce 04:42, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well it's actually a pretty good picture of a vulva, nice and big. It doesn't show much identifiable as clitoris, but that is not a major problem. I'd much rather look at that picture than the one on the vulva page. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 04:51, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • That's good thinking Tony. A picture on the clitoris page does not "show much identifiable as clitoris" but shows a "nice big vulva" which is nice to look at. You go figure. - Robert the Bruce 02:20, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes, it's nice to look at. This may seem a minor consideration, but in my opinion attractive illustrations are good for an encyclopedia. If we can get one that is a better illustration of the clitoris (and if necessary I'm prepared to produce one myself), all the better. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 12:36, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reverts on clitoris

Hello. We were a bit bewildered at your opposition to the additional material on Clitoris. Could you areticulate it on the talk page please? Cool Hand Luke 00:33, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Who, pray tell, is the "we"? - Robert the Bruce 20:42, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • "We" are me, Cool hand luke and Dr Zen. Now we've got that cleared up would you mind answering the question please -why did you delete the paragraph? Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 21:39, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Theresa, sadly I must decline to converse with you at the present moment. Your attitude is quite unacceptable and until such time as you have worked of your threatening attitude and its cause (through mediation) it is best I do not allow myself to be provoked by your actions. Who would you be prepared to submit to for councilling inthis regard or should I ask for someone to step forward on the Village pump? - Robert the Bruce 21:44, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Robert is it true that you are a circumcision fetishist and that you masturbate to videos of young babies getting circumcised? I've heard this and do not know whether it is true, so could you confirm this or deny it please? - Anon
      • Normally i would just remove the above remark and block the anon IP for 24 hours. However Robert has accused me of trying to cover up people's actions when I've removed personal attacks before so I'll just say this - whoever wrote the above please don't do it again. If you are not willing to say it logged in, then you shouldn't say it at all. Personal attacks are not allowed. Your comment is not funny or clever. If you make any more personal attacks against Robert I will block you for 24 hours. Note that a block againast you IP is a block against you username as well - so don't think you'll be ok once you log in. You wont. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 22:41, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) 
It is of interest to contrast the response by Theresa to 205.233.28.39. What was needed was a 
strikethrough rather than a delete so that the record can show how these people's mind works.
Theresa has now developed a pattern of behaviour where she acts as a "cleaner" for these lunatics.
Note also how persistent she is in prosecuting the failure to respond to the removal of a short
paragraph in the Clitoris article while merely goes through the motions when (supposedly)
dealing with people from this ilk. the immaturity, bias and lack of judgement to so very obvious. 
- Robert the Bruce 08:26, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Put it back in if you want. Your trouble Robert is that you lump "these people" together. The vandalism to you user page, shows the mindset one one Anon user not everyone who has ever argued with you. Note that an admin's job is a "cleaner". I always revert and block vandalism to user pages. As do most other admins. Strikethroughs are reserved for people changing thier own comments. Plus the anon deleted comments by both you and me so reverting was the only sensible solution. But if you want to you can always add the vandalsim back in yourself. This is a wiki after all. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 09:25, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Do you find Cool hand luke and Dr Zen thretening too? Will you not answer their question? (Feel free to answer on the clitoris talk page rather than here if you like) As for mediation we have a special page called Wikipedia:Requests for mediation you can submit a request there, or I can do it if you like. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 21:49, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Theresa, the history of your attempts at harassment are documented for scrutiny and posterity. For you to benefit from the process first you need to accept that you are in need of help. Are we at first base on this? - Robert the Bruce 21:55, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Well we certainly are in need of help if we are going to be able to edit the same articles. Mediation is a two person process. The mediator will try to resolve disputes by asking both parties to compromise. That's how mediation works. Are you still willing to go through mediation with me? BTW I am sorry if you feel that my insisting that you explan your deletion of good faith material is harrasment. It's just that, if you did it without any reason then it would be seen as vandalism - so it is really in your own best interest to explain why you did it. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 22:02, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) (Later) BTW you put your request in the archive rather than on the live page. I've moved it and indicated that I am happy to go through mediation. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 22:13, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Theresa can you indicate to me how many of the articles I am active in are ones that you were involved with prior to my arrival here at Wikipedia? I would like to establish what prompted your "sudden" interest in these matters? You may of course decline to respond if you feel it will compromise you. - Robert the Bruce 08:08, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I applaud both of you for agreeing to mediation. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 12:06, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, there seems to be a personallity disagreement, but could you explain it to me if only for my sake? Cool Hand Luke 22:28, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • I'm afraid it appears to be a bit deeper than a mere "personality disagreement", there is a history of near obsessional behaviour towards me. We need to keep this a safe place for all. As to the edit. I would suggest to take a quiet look at it again and note the fundamental alteration that was made from the original section to what the editor wanted it to become. Is it not perhaps that edit which should have been explained in the first place. Think about it. You are new to this article try to read yourself into it before starting to shoot from the hip. - Robert the Bruce 22:33, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • You haven't actually explained why you deleted the material instead of editing it. Please Robert - why did you delete the paragraph? Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 22:44, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, this was a large change, in accord with Wikipedia policy to "be bold." If the paragraph had stylistic or organizational problems—which I can easily imagine—perhaps a better solution is to revise them to something more appropriate. Maybe you could offer a counterproposal on the talk page? The addition does not seem to be out of scope for the article, so this material probbly has as much right as anything else to be included. Cool Hand Luke 22:54, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Help me here please. So what you are saying is that massive edits (without announcement/justification through the talk page are fine) but any revert needs to be explained in detail? - Robert the Bruce 22:59, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Yes. That's how most wikipedia articles are written. If you check articles whose contents are not disputed you will often see that they have no talk page discussion at all. People are actively encouraged to add material to articles. They do not need to discuss on the talk page first. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 23:10, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • OK. So if I make a "bold" edit to some article and get reverted can I take it to the bank that you will get onto their case in no uncertain terms? - Robert the Bruce 23:13, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Revert wars ought to be justified. To these ends, Dr. Zen expressed that the addition was perfectly factual and therefore valid. Then Theresa said yout reverts characterize vandalism, so you took Theresa to task, never really explaining your reverts. At the very least you could explain how the addition is not valid? Cool Hand Luke 23:15, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Sure Robert -if you make a good faith edit to an article, where you add factually correct and relavent material to an article, and then someone removes it and refuses to explain why they did, i will certainly call them a vandal. Deleting factually correct information is vandalism. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 23:22, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Factually correct as well now hey? What about Theresa's Law? Does this "factual" information have to have sources or do we just continue with the same old "some people think" line? - Robert the Bruce 23:41, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • Of course factually correct! You didn't dispute the factual correctness of the stuff you cut. You just cut it. If you thought the paragraph wasn't factually correct you should have said so on the talk page. The fact that you did not, despite repeated requests for you to explain your cutting of the material demonstrates that the reason behind you cutting it out must be something else. Also just because you call it "Theresa Law" doesn't actually make it mine. I have no problem with you demanding sources, but your edit was not in good faith. That is why i accused you of vandalism. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 11:45, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • I have allowed this issue (of the deleted paragraph in the Clitoris article to highlight a certain point. That is that you are not even handed in the demands you make on people here. It is interesting to contrast the aggressive confrontational style you use against me with the "motherly" protectionism towards Walabio. This of course serves to indicate for all Wikipedians that you are not mature enough to seek election to the AC let alone be given the powers of an admin. It is this inability of yours to be even handed in the most simple of situations which calls into question your suitability to serve on the AC. If that were not enough the obvious bias of your participation in various articles is well documented. So your calling me a vandal and using such a minor pretext to "deal with" me comes as no surprise and serves only to reinforce my understanding of the shortcomings which should under normal circumstances preclude you from any more than the most basic level of participation here at Wikipedia. In my opinion you need to be supervised. - Robert the Bruce 08:05, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
              • I don't think removing stuff from aticles just becasue you don't happen to like the person who wrote it is minor. We are writing an encylopedia here. Removing factual information from wikipedia is vandalism. As for the AC, I assume I won't get your vote. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 09:25, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. Although many editors are tolerant of some weasel words (heh), that addititon was an unholy mess of them. I'm glad you explained it, and encourage you to explain any repeat reverts in the future as well. Cool Hand Luke 09:53, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Request for comment

Please see

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Robert_the_Bruce Exploding Boy 21:31, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Reverts and discussions

Robert, if it would help, you are welcome to discuss your reasons for refusing to respond to requests for clarification on my talk page or email me. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 22:31, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Tony I believe we have clearly established that you are not an honest broker with regard to what you offer. [2] As such you should refrain from making such offers that only a fool would accept. - Robert the Bruce 22:48, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry to see that you're still in the habit of making false accusations against people who are trying to help you, Robert. You must by now be fully aware of the path you have chosen, and the inevitable result. Nevertheless if you change your mind my email is public but the words we exchange in email will be confidential. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 11:51, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Tony, it is has been clearly established that you are not trying to "help" me but rather that you "try to run flack for Theresa now and again". [3] You are sadly guilty of a deceit and have no credibility in my eyes or in those of anyone who have followed the communication. So therefore take your help to someone else Tony, if I need help I will seek it from some credible quarter. You focus upon me is getting close to stalking now and I ask you formally to cease and desist. - Robert the Bruce 04:55, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • It is you, Robert, who seem to be determined to misread the words of others and are thus deceiving--fortunately only deceiving yourself. I am trying to help you, but not to the extent that I will let your continued personal attacks go without a factual rebuttal where I am able to give one. I suggest that my credibility in the eyes of those who have followed this communication is substantially higher than yours. Please try to understand: your habit of turning every dialog into a personal attack is the problem. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 09:45, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Tony, I commented on Phil's page. I think you have gone a little past the point where continuing conflict with Robert serves the purposes you believe it does. I was a little surprised myself to see you telling another editor that you "run flak" for Theresa. Maybe you should help her by suggesting she step away and cool off a bit, rather than turning up the heat by battling it out with Robert, who frankly isn't looking much like responding to your approach (this is not, of course, a comment on the validity of your approach in the first place).Dr Zen 02:01, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Read my reply there. I ask you to retract your false and damaging statements. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 02:13, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"You cannot negotiate with monomaniacal fanatics"

I didn't know until I read the recent RfC that you had previously posted under the name [[User:Robert Brookes|Robert Brookes|Talk|Contributions]] and had been the subject of another RfC. So you've had some experience of how the community has tended to react to your attempt to counter what you perceive as pro-prepuce bias.

In that RfC I think you were pretty plainly confronted with the problem: that in seeking to counter perceived bias you have, in the eyes of quite a few people who have encountered you on Wikipedia, become a mirror image of your selected opponents. When you say 'you cannot negotiate with monomaniacal fanatics and no purpose is served being “nice” to them as it is interpreted as “weakness”' a quite appreciable number of people, whether fairly or unfairly, think that this description applies most of all to you. A small but growing number of people perceive you as a monomaniac, and there are few bystanders aware of the situation who seem willing to run to your defense. Do you accept that as a fair characterization of your predicament?

Maybe it's the fact of the case that pro-prepuce people have run a successful campaign against you and talked you into a corner, and maybe not. But do you recognise that you are, unless you manage to turn things around, eventually going to be severely censured because of this perception that you are the problem rather than the solution? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 11:32, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • I respond to this only in so far as the gallery may need a response. Tony where you are correct is that these "pro-prepuce people" (aka anti-circumcision activists and foreskin restorers) are indeed an entity on Wikipedia. The usual suspects, their sock puppets and a 5th Column of sympathisers are in fact on a deliberate campaign of ensuring the Wikipedia reflects their POV. Funny how little care is shown about these deliberate efforts to distort the information presented in Wikipedia to suit their agenda and POV. Funny how when the behave outrageously the is always a tame admin to act as "cleaner". Let me inform you of who the main protagonists are and see if you try to engage them in the same manner as you attempt with me? I guess if you don't it will indicate that you have singled me out for your personal attention won't it?:
¡Vigilance on Encyclopædia WikiPedia.Org!
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2004 03:22:55 +0000
 
¡Hello!

¿How Fare You?

Well my fellow Intactivists:

The circumcisiophiliacs won this round on Encyclopædia WikiPedia.Org.
The main problem is that they are more commited than we (they make it 
impossible for us to correct any of their lies and bias on præpuce and
circumcision). Now, they go after our articles (maybe I should not have
tried to expose them by writing about Circumfetishism).

Hugh Young wrote complaining about me creating articles about 
Intactivism and Genital Integrity without consulting anyone. He was
right to complain; I did create such articles without consulting. Let
me just point out to things though:

1I invited other Intactivists to join me last year to join
Encyclopædia WikiPedia.Org last year (within a month of that, I gave up
on editing Præpuce and Circumcision because I was so badly outnumbered,
that I could not do any good).
2I am the only full-time Intactivist with Michael Glass and Dan
Blackham dropping in every now and then.

Now that you are all temporarily here, I ask you to stay. If you would
just check on our articles weekly and also præpuce, circumcision, and
articles linking to them, it would truly help much. While you are at
it, you can edit and start other articles. ¡Editing and starting
articles is fun! Look at this cool article, which I started about
Laurentia.

¡E Pluribus Unum!

¡Thanks!

Ŭalabio

¡Dubya Shrub is a Saudi-Lover  --  Saudi-Mite!

¡The Bin-Bushes bend over _"*FOR*"_ the Bin-Ladens!

Addendum: I want to keep in dialog with you because I think your edits are sometimes very astute. I would not make this attempt if I thought you were a troll or a vandal. I think a few minor tweaks in your behavior might be enough to mend your problems without you having to compromise on your opinions, and with a far higher chance of your often astute observations gaining general acceptance. Are you willing to try? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 11:39, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Tony I don't want you to keep up dialog with me. Your attentions make me decidely uncomfortable. Will you stop posting to my talk page and trying to engage in personal communications anywhere? I suggest that you seek help on this or I may be forced to escalate this. - Robert the Bruce 04:59, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It is true that I have singled you out for personal attention. The reason I do this is because your behavior is perceived to be a serious problem. As your talk page is the correct place for me to raise the issue of your personal conduct, this is where I propose to continue to do so. Please don't hesitate to escalate if you think this is inappropriate behavior; as far as I am aware it is not. While I'm sure that attention focused on your behavior must be uncomfortable, I have to balance this against the problems that your continued poor conduct pose for the wiki.
Notice how you have failed to answer the question. I asked you if you agree that it is a fair characterization of your situation, that (whether fairly or unfairly) people tend to see you as a "monomaniacal fanatic", a mirror image of these "usual suspects, their sock puppets and a 5th Column of sympathisers". Can you see that this perception makes it quite likely that you will eventually suffer serious censure? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 09:56, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Another point, you say 'Funny how when the behave outrageously the is always a tame admin to act as "cleaner"' I presume that you are referring to the fact that vandalism tends to be deleted from Wikipedia. Or are you referring to something else? Standing as it is, the statement is confusing. I'm sure you have no objection to the deletion of vandalism.

Finally we have here a posting from a subscriber to INTACT-L in which he identifies two others as "intactivists". I should expect that many people posting to Wikipedia are "intactivists", you included, in opposing prepuce surgery where it is not medically necessary. The reason so many people pay so much attention to you, Robert, is that your editing style is a problem for wikipedia. Even if you were of the view that all male children should be circumcised, this would not necessarily make you a problem for Wikipedia, as long as your editing style did not lead you into serious conflict with anyone who attempted to insert material contrary to your personal views. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 10:43, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • A subscriber to INTACT-L? Where does it state that? - Robert the Bruce 15:57, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • It doesn't say that. I took the title "Vigilance on Encyclopædia WikiPedia.Org" from the quoted posting and googled on it. I found the original on the public archives of INTACT-L, stored under the account gburlin on eskimo.com. [4] --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 17:20, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Good response ... but I still get a strong whiff of ripe smegma. What else did your friend say about Wikipedia and the need for their urgent intervention? - Robert the Bruce 18:30, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • I don't understand the above. What does "a whiff of ripe smegma" mean? Who are you referring to as my "friend"?
        • And have you noticed how assiduously you avoid all discussion of your problems? You won't solve them by trying to turn conversation onto other subjects, you know. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 18:48, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • He's acusing you of being a member of the list. According to Robert, anyone who disagrees with him must be doing so because they are anti circ activists. He simply cannot comprehend that ordinary sensible people can disagree with him. It's easier to assume that the who world is part of a secret conspiracy against him. That way he doesn't have to address his own behaviour. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 12:28, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • Careful now Theresa, that sort stuff will (should) lead to a lecture from our Tony all about personal attacks and the lack of civility. Now you don't want to be pulled up on a RfC over this do you. I will leave it to Tony to sort out. He seems to have appointed himself to deal with these matters, you know. - Robert the Bruce 13:40, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • Is that true, Robert? Do you suspect me of being one of a number of people who are fanatically opposed to circumcision? Do you think I really subscribed to Wikipedia in order to push an anti-circumcision point of view? If so, perhaps this history of my earliest postings may go some way towards allaying your suspicions. I changed from the old username (Minority Report) to my real name just over two weeks ago and thus far the developers haven't got around to re-authoring my earlier postings. You can see that our paths first cross on the Clitoris item and that I moved to the Penis item after a comment by Theresa: "If this article were to get the disclaimer then the penis article would too. (look at the histiry of the penis article)" (22:14, 7 Nov 2004). Hardly what I'd call a stirring call to arms![[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 13:48, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • Tony, with respect to Theresa you should not take all that she says at face value. You see Tony I don't much care what you think and where you stand on the issue, as far as you and Theresa as admin types go it is more important to witness impartiality and even-handedness. Sadly this has been lacking. This is very disappointing and serves to reflect badly on Wikipedia. Simply put we have all the evidence we need to confirm that the boys over on the foreskin list have decided that their POV will prevail here on Wikipedia and are prepared to "fight" to protect their turf. Yet strangely very little action is taken. This is strange, very strange. - Robert the Bruce 18:41, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • I'm reasonably sure that I've shown evenhandedness here. The prepuce boys may make beligerent posts on their home turf, but from what I've seen they've been pretty amenable on Wikipedia. If one of them should prove a problem, I'll probably confront them with it. Until then... --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 12:23, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • As you can see from my first edits on Penis and Phimosis, I have a very tight, non-retractable but very healthy and clean foreskin, and accordingly I made some tweaks to the sections on Phimosis, which in my view were leaning a little too far (but not radically so) to the presumption that Phimosis in adults is necessarily pathological. [[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 13:48, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • Tony, would prefer not to discuss your penis (here or anywhere) if you don't mind, old chap. However, I do believe you should see a urologist ... pronto! - Robert the Bruce 18:41, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • At 48, with two teen kids, I think we can say that it's established that my penis is healthy. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 12:23, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • You may also note the absence of histrionics and edit warring attendant upon my edits. I'm not a disruptive editor. Even where I have made mistakes (as in my attempt at a radical refactoring of Futurama and my blunders on Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence) I have sought compromise and remained amenable to reason. A look at my edit history will also reveal that I have performed a huge amount of low-level editing on random pages--categorizing and recategorizing, mostly. So I'm not much of a candidate for a "monomaniacal fanatic" on the subject of the human prepuce. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 13:48, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • Apart the close (and unwelcome) attention I am getting from you at this stage neither you (nor your buddy's) posts are in question, it is rather how you respond to all those who edit. Sadly there is a pattern of bias evident which should in my opinion lead to you both being suspended as admin for the min of 90 days. It is clearly not good for Wikipedia to allow their admin to misuse their positions and powers to support serious POV pushing. A very regrettable situation indeed. - Robert the Bruce 18:41, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • I would welcome you bringing my conduct before the Arbitration Committee with a view to suspending my admin status. I am absolutely confident that the Arbitration Committee will find that I have never, ever abused administrator powers. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 12:23, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You want us suspended as admins? There is a simple answer to that. No. There I'm glad that's cxleared up. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 18:48, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • That's sad as I believe there is enough evidence to prove that you are doing a very poor job of it. So what's the trick then? When you get to be an admin you are "untouchable"? Certainly seems like it. - Robert the Bruce 19:01, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • And Robert, here's the twist. I am not an administrator. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 12:23, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dan Blackham, Michael Glass and Walabio

I looked at the three users in question. They are:

Now I did perform a brief inspection of these users' contributions and talk pages, but in a short time I may have missed something. Has any of these three users been involved in protracted edit warring, has any of them had a certified RfC raised against him, or been blocked or otherwise censured? What is the substance of your complaint about them? What kind of attention do you think I should pay to them, and why? Are these the "monomaniacal fanatics" you referred to earlier? If so, they seem to be eminently negotiable, if at times they can be prone to intemperate outbursts in talk. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 11:33, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Perhaps you need to take this matter up with Theresa. Ask her to fill you in with Walabio's history and how she has moved quickly to "clean-up" after him. - Robert the Bruce 18:44, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Tony Walabio made a personall attack against Robert. I removed the attack as per Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks and told him that i would block him if he ever did it again. Just the same as the anon did a couple of days ago - who I did block for 24 hours for making a personal attack. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 18:55, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • And your actions were adequate? Looked at in balance with your actions against other people would "a reasonable man" consider you to be even handed? - Robert the Bruce 18:58, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • Yes. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:14, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • Of course you would say that Theresa and no doubt the choir would agree. But sadly for you the evidence is there which indicates a different picture altogether. - Robert the Bruce 19:17, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Looking at the history of that attack and in particular Walabio's subsequent behavior, this was a proportionate and (in the event) successful reaction. Robert, you could learn from Walabio. He does not defiantly press his point when faced with censure for breaking policy. You do so, repeatedly, despite quite strong censure. You must know by now where your continued defiance is leading, yet you do not modify your behavior. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 19:23, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • That was a very quick judgement Tony. Would one fairly call that a whitewash? But then again anything else would reflect badly upon Theresa then. - Robert the Bruce 19:32, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • The sentence "they seem to be eminently negotiable, if at times they can be prone to intemperate outbursts in talk" was an oblique reference to the Walabio incident that Theresa describes. The reason why I say that Walabio responded to censure in this case and you did not in your case is because these are the facts of the case. To ignore your repeated refusal to accept that policy applies to you as well as Walabio would be a whitewash. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 20:47, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mediation

Please go to the mediation page and state which of the mediators you find acceptable. I am keen to get mediation by neutral party started. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 11:15, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

RfC

Robert, on Mediation you write, addressing Theresa Knott: This matter is not about the deletion of two lines of crap from an article but rather the latching onto any excuse to bring the "full weight of the law" down on someone with whom you have a problem. I realised immediately that this was the opportunity you were seeking to settle matters and let it ride to see (and importantly let wikipedians see) just how petty and shallow you really are.

(emphasis mine)

Are you aware of who is and who is not on the list of two users certifying and the list of four users endorsing the currently open RfC concerning your conduct? If not, I suggest that you take a look. You may be surprised at who is on those lists and who is not. To my knowledge, Theresa Knott has not used her administrator powers during your recent Clitoris squabble, nor has she initiated or supported anything that can be described as "the full weight of law." I suspect that you are tilting at windmills, my friend. Theresa is not as fixated on you as you seem to think, but it does appear that you yourself are not immune to seeing her where she is not. The only time Theresa has even edited the RfC page, it was to perform some housekeeping, to convert hard coded digits in a list into "#"s. She has not contributed material to the discussion or the complaints on that page. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 16:42, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mediation again

We really do need to select a list of suitable mediators. No mediator will step forwards until you post a list of those you find acceptable. Obviously Danny is a no go as he has resigned from the mediation committee. Please take a look at the active mediators. Which of those are acceptable to you? Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 17:13, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Robert you still need to indicated which of the mediators are acceptable. Please go through the list, toss out any that you don't like the look of then post the names of the request for mediation page. This has been dragging on for days now. I'd like to get mediation started. Cheers Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:21, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Theresa you seem unable to help yourself. The guidelines state clearly: "You will then have to agree both on a mediator to facilitate your discussions. Take your time, this choice might be essential." You are once again attempting to badger (nag) me into a hasty decision. This behaviour of yours is central to my request for mediation. We need a cooling off period for you. Perhaps I should suggest that take a break for a few days where you busy yourself in more productive pursuits rather than continuing your vindictive campaign. - Robert the Bruce 02:34, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Robert, I'd like to offer my assistance to you both in resolving this dispute. I have proposed this to Theresa Knott, who has agreed in principle. I understand that you have certain reservations about Ms Knott, but I trust that you have no complaints about myself. I'm not an official mediator, but I'm sure that much can be achieved nonetheless. What do you say? - Jakew 20:07, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, but

I thought it was due too, but User:Mbecker did work archiving the talk page. Thank you for posting those emails, incidentally. I found them quite illuminating. Cool Hand Luke 04:58, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

RfC

If you don't mind me asking, I'd appriciate your support at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mbecker. Thanks. — マイケル ₪ 04:41, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Robert's psychiatric history

I'd be very interested to know what Robert is like in real life. His behavior online indicates that he is certainly not normal, especially with the incredible amount of religious zeal he puts into inserting his POV into any and all articles related to cirucmcision. This all leads me to believe he does actually have some serious psychatric problems. I'm betting that more than likely he is experiencing a bad case of Cognitive dissonance.He so strongly hates the idea that he was wrongfully circumcised, that he must justify to himself that there's nothing wrong with it.

If you notice, the biggest zealots in extreme groups tend to actually be the opposite of what they say they are. That is, staunch homophobes are often latent homosexuals. Those religious people very strongly opposed to pornography are themselves EXTREMELY tempted by and attracted to it. In Robert's case of being a staunch pro-circumcision nutjob, he is actually deeply ashamed that he was circucmised. If you notice, he doesn't just zealously defend his POV in ALL relavent wikipedia articles, he also makes sure to be as derragtory as possible using demaning terms for foreskin and anti-circumcision people. To say foreskin is blatantly unattractive shows his obvious cultural bias and attempt to make cirucmcision actually seem GOOD, despite the majority of the world disagreing with him. His intent to associate foreskin 'fetishism' also indicates he is at least slightly homophobic, since he sees a problem with that.

Almost forgot, he's pretty much the sole crusader for pro-cirumcision propaganda and zealotry on 'interactive mediums' like usenet and webforums, not just wikipedia. Considering his penchant for being only hostile, insulting and blatantly ignoring reason, how can this kind of behavior seen as anything other than insane?

Robert, how do you justify this kind of behavior? Seriously, even if you think circumcision is a good thing, there's no logical justification for your behavior. Since everyone who is anti-circumcision or fence sitting just ignores you anyway, what, logically speaking, are you trying to accomplish? Why are you so afraid of a few more people being born with foreskin intact? Also, don't you have something better to do? Why is this so urget that you must spend so many hours a week on it? What's the worst that would come about if you didn't do it?

Robert, what is your history of psyhiatric/psychological treatment? Do you have problems with women? How old are you? What is your religious affiliation? I'd be interested to know.

Almost forgot. Robert never replies to me because he knows I won't tolerate his BS. I just cut straight through and demand his logically reasoning for his moody PMS-like (IMS) behavior. He just likes to argue in circles...

-Nathan J. Yoder 08:58, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

3 revert blocks

Thanks for letting me know about the article. I have blocked Mrfunkygenius as well as Jakew for 3 revert violations. While you came short of breaking the rule, you didn't use the talk page either - it would be much better if you tried to come to a consensus rather than overwhelming your opponents with tag-team reverts. Rhobite 01:16, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)

& Genital Integrity & Circumcision advocacy

Note:

Crossposted to both Jakew and Robert the Bruce

Either having pro/con-links in an article or having another article balance it works for me. Robert the Bruce added links against Genital Integrity to Genital Integrity. This does not bother me as long as balance exists. I added links against circumcision to Circumcision advocacy. Jakew reverted the addition. I do not care whether both articles have con-links or neither, but consistency would be nice. I shall leave you to to decide what to do amongst yourselves. If you two cannot decide what to do by the end of the weekend, I shall let a coin decide for me and take care of it myself.

Ŭalabio 03:52, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)

  • Until this post I was not aware that there was such an article as Circumcision advocacy. I am now aware, thank you, and will read myself into the discussion. Sadly I must inform you that I have absolutely no respect for you or your positions due to your history of calling for the disruption of Wikipedia so as to allow your anti-circumcision/foreskin admiration agenda to be forced into the applicable articles. I refer as follows: [5][6] My position is clear on the matter, as you and your fellow anti-circumcision activists/foreskin admirers are hell bent on forcing your propaganda into Wikipedia there is no possibility of arriving at NPOV consensus as long as your presence is tolerated here. - Robert the Bruce 16:00, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Three revert message

I figured out why that message was on your talk page. It appears that Walabio pasted the entire contents of Jakew's talk page into your talk page. I can't imagine why he did that, but I'll assume it was an honest mistake. Part of Jakew's talk page was a message from me, notifying Jakew that I had blocked him. That's why you got that message. I have never blocked you, and you can verify this by checking the block log. I did block User:Jakew and User:Mrfunkygenius. I hope this clears up your confusion. Let me know if you have any more questions. Rhobite 04:00, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

  • Working on the basis of accepting good faith I accept your explanation and regret having assumed an abuse on your part. Sincere apologies. We will have to consign this issue to another of a long list of inexplicable actions of Walabio. - Robert the Bruce 04:50, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

¡I am sorry!

I screwed up the paste of the crossposted message to both You and Jakew. I composed the message on his page and pasted it to your page. I apologize.

--

Ŭalabio 04:57, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert the Bruce. Exploding Boy 17:33, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Admin behaviour

Thanks very much for supporting me. I still feel compelled to leave, however, as there are many things I can't beat, such as slow speeds and non-admins like the nefarious DrZoidberg. I feel much better to know I'm not alone in my problems though. Cheers,--Gabriel (internal ID number: 118170) 06:48, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Rhobite administrator misusing blocking powers

Rhobite also misused his admin powers with me.This page gives his victims the chance to respond. Ollieplatt 08:42, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I assumed bad faith

One of the things I do is examine what happened over the previous week, weekly. Earlier this week, you wrote some things about Tony which to my knowledge, are not true. I never went to an admin for anything you wrote to/about me, but being the advocate I am for the powerless who cannot speak for themselves (by the way, hobbits are intact), I became indignant, and went to an admin.

Looking back, I realize that I also assumed bad faith too. I should have gone to you, and explained that Tony is a neutral party. Maybe you would have withdraw your accusation, or maybe not, but I assumed (assume makes an ASS of yoU and ME) that you would reject me statements. I assumed bad faith towards you. I apologize. Ŭalabio 01:20, 2005 Jan 15 (UTC)

  • I am happy that you are working at your therapy but you need to expand it to two other areas. One, that it is important you take responsibility for your own actions and do not seek a means to excuse your actions (i.e. he made me do it) and that the basis of your problem with some people here and the alliances you seem to have formed with others appear to be on the basis of your feelings with regard to circumcision. This is inherently unsound from both an emotional and psychological point of view (especially when the issue has a distinct psychosexual dimension to it) and as such you should have been counselled to avoid situations where circumcision is a related matter. I certainly wish you well but must admit to some resentment that you have chosen to work out your issues on Wikipedia at the expense of others. - Robert the Bruce 07:12, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this is psychosexual in nature Robert. I think it is very important that you seek help for your psychosexual emotional problems surrounding circumcision. You too seemed to have formed alliances and enemies soley on the basis of your own feelings towards circumcision. It would help greatly and you would feel a constant need to force your rabid emotionalism and disastisfaction with your own penis online with others. I look forward to the day when you stop being an irrational zealot and become someone interest in logic and science. It is at that time you wouldn't feel the need to constantly parade around the internet spending, by far, the most disporportionate amount of time online promoting circumcision. It is hard to do, coming into terms that you've lost something special, but eventually you'll overcome that cognitive dissonance and accept it. -Nathan J. Yoder 14:11, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Having known life both with a foreskin and without, I have difficulties taking your claim of "losing something special" seriously. Can you possibly be serious? An (admittedly small) net gain in sexual pleasure, significantly improved hygiene, degrees of protection against various diseases, and you characterise it as a loss? Bizarre. - Jakew 14:23, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Significantly improved hygeine? You mean you're using it as an excuse not to shower? Gross. The protection if affords is negligible. I think you're seriously trying to justify the loss of your own now and are projecting your personal experience onto everyone else. NO ONE acts the way Robert does about something unless they've got serious deep personal issues with it, meaning he regrets himself so he takes the opposite extreme. It's the same the latent homosexuals who become extreme religious anti-gay people. -Nathan J. Yoder 14:37, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

ExplodingBoy

It has given me my biggest laugh of the week so far. I almost doubled the laugh with Noel's snide comment. But this is what happens if you happen to side with an "unpopular" editor on Wikipedia -- you get the insinuations and you get the admin attention if you stray, while others do not.Dr Zen 06:39, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • This gets closer to Lord of the Flies with every passing moment. It is very sad. - Robert the Bruce 06:47, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You are right not to put up with their BS

You are right. We have to stand up to these people.

Request for Comment - DanP

I have been advised - implicitly - on my user talk page to launch a RfC against DanP. I have a number of complaints against this user, who is presently blocked due to excessive 3RR violations. Would you be able to assist with such a complaint? - Jakew 00:23, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Now play nice Jake. I'm not exactly happy about seeing you stoop to this. I never participated in RfC against Robert, despite his obvious frothing at the mouth. The "I can change, can you?" you asked me on my talk page is not entirely true now is it? Besides, our side has obvious loose cannons too. So maybe you can go trash foreskin restoration a bit more and defend more of Robert's stuff about psychotic episodes and skin-lovers? DanP 21:59, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Ok, Dan. Here's a promise for you: I will continue to work on the RfC, but I will not use it unless I become convinced that it is impossible to work with you. At the moment, I see no need to go ahead - indeed your levels of cooperation are inspiring today. - Jakew 23:58, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robert_the_Bruce&oldid=9726121"