Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Robert the Bruce

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Identification[edit]

Statement of the dispute[edit]

Robert the Bruce has, since his appearance on Wikipedia in October, been running amuck on several pages, including Foreskin, Foreskin restoration, and Male circumcision.

He reverts frequently, and refuses to discuss his edits. He seems to have it in for a few particular users, whose edits he reverts on sight. His responses to requests for clarification and discussion are invariably arrogant and unhelpful. He formerly was on Wikipedia as User:Robert Brookes and User:Friends of Robert. He stopped using his User:Robert Brookes alias when that alias was suspended for several days for many of the same abuses he continues under his different names today. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Robert_Brookes


Evidence of disputed behavior[edit]

see

Applicable policies[edit]

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. Avoid bias. Articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing differing views on a subject fairly and sympathetically.
  2. Respect other contributors.
  3. Wikipedia:Civility
  4. Wikipedia:Wikiquette
  5. Three revert rule

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute[edit]

See talk pages, above

  • This is not good enough. The policy states: "In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with 4 tildes." As this has not been complied with this RfC should have been deleted after 48 hours. - Robert the Bruce 17:42, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Rhobite 23:19, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
  2. fvw* 13:22, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)
  3. [[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ]] 01:02, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  4. DanBlackham 10:21, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  5. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 10:00, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  6. Nathan J. Yoder 13:35, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  7. Ashley Pomeroy 17:44, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  8. Peter Farago 02:10, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Outside view[edit]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries}

  1. This is absurd. Robert has behaved completely very reasonably. Indeed, Exploding Boy's comments are better applied to himself. This is nothing but an attempt at character assassination. - Jakew 00:13, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. On the point of evidence, I don't see any examples of Robert breaking the three-revert rule in recent weeks. Although I admit that this may be due to my own failings in searching through the proferred evidence, I have to say that the recommended practise is to present pointers to diffs rather than just a pointer to a history list. If this is going to be presented in evidence, could one of the certifiers please save us time by taking the trouble to post diffs to at least three specific instances of [[User:Robert the Bruce|Robert the Bruce] reverting the same article in a twenty-four hour period? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 10:55, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    I had removed this because I thought it was based on misremembering the charges. On reviewing the edit history I now see that the "three revert rule" accusation was present at the time I made this comment, but was later removed. I apologise to Robert for removing my comment, which I believed to have been made in error. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 14:10, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
For evidence of violation of the 3RR, see Foreskin Restoration History. The edit summaries reveal that Robert was well aware of the rule even as he was taunting others into trying to contravene it (and indeed contravening it himself). Rather than do it myself (since I edit the page as well) I requested another admin to temp block him for this violation; this admin has thus far declined, presumably because the admin doesn't want to get involved. Regardless of the outcome of this RFC I'd still like to see Robert temporarily blocked for knowingly and deliberately violating the 3RR. Exploding Boy 19:32, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)
Thank you.
I don't know whether there is a consensus on whether this kind of edit is a revert. It has much the same effect. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 02:26, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  1. On Robert's problematic behavior, I'd say that it is best characterized as the "Pee Wee Herman" syndrome, so called because of Pee Wee's catch-phrase "I know you are, but what am I?" When confronted with a problem, his first resort always seems to be to assume that a conflict over his conduct is someone else's problem (mediation), and that he is the arbiter of the neutral point of view. This has degenerated into naked accusations that those who object to his conduct are all "The usual suspects, their sock puppets and a 5th Column of sympathisers...on a deliberate campaign of ensuring the Wikipedia reflects their POV." (discussion on his user talk page). This accusation can be traced back to an account he apparently no longer uses, Robert Brookes from which he launched the most extraordinary tirade: "you cannot negotiate with monomaniacal fanatics and no purpose is served being “nice” to them as it is interpreted as “weakness”."(11 Sep). --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 15:16, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't quite understand this, Robert has been suspended before and repeatedly chastized for his bad behavior and has not changed a bit. He obviously has no interest in NPOV (massive hypocritical double standards) and civil use of Wikipedia. If it weren't for the fact that he actually believed what he said, he'd be the prime example of a troll. What good is suspending him again going to do? Just ban him and all of his sock puppets permanently as his presence contributes nothing positive. That's also another noteworty thing, that Robert, thinking he was banned, created a new account to EVADE that perceived ban. Really, I think that strikes me as showing him as a very mature adult.

He is OBSESSED with making this article fit his fetishist views. There also seems to be a hint of homophobia with him as he tries to associate this with homosexuals for no apparent reason. I would venture to guess that Jakew is actually a sock puppet of his or a buddy, they should probably check the ips of the people logging in. I'd say if they show the same ip, that alone is enough to warrant banning. Jakew, in any case, should be banned along with him as he is very much like Robert himself and even made the obviously ludicrous claim that Robert has been nothing but civil. I have no idea where that Dr Zen guy came from, but he appears to have a history of controversy too.

My point is this, it's obvious that he's not NPOV and incredibly rude so why even waste time playing semantic games with him trying to prove what's already been proven? Do we have to wait until the point where Robert says "ooops, sorry, I was being a POV pusher"? You're obviously not going to get him to concede ANYTHING. It's like trying to justify banning a neo-nazi altering a Judiasm article, just ban him already.

-Nathan J. Yoder 14:03, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(sign with ~~~~)

Discussion[edit]

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Jwrosenzweig asked Friends of Robert to be more civil with other editors. Robert responded by questioning Jwrosenzweig's integrity. (see User_talk:Friends_of_Robert#Hello) -- DanBlackham 10:41, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Note: Dan Blackham was confirmed as a full time Intactivist involved in pushing anti-circumcision POV in articles on Wikipedia. See: Why no action against targetting by anti-circumcision activists? Any comment made by this person should be seen in the context of the agenda to force their POV into articles on Wikipedia. - Robert the Bruce 12:12, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • I can accept that Dan Blackham may well be a "full-time" POV activist. If he is, Wikipedia's existing mechanisms will ensure that any posts he makes pushing a point of view will not stand long. Other editors can query his edits and decisions are made by consensus which can be enforced by sanctions. Now I've already asked you for evidence that Dan is doing so. You didn't reply. Here is a list of his contributions. One thing that is notably absent is a propensity for edit warring. There have been no RfCs because of his behavior. Nobody except you and perhaps one other user seem to have any major problems with his edits. I don't see any (though I admit I could have missed) failed attempts by third parties to reconcile perceived unreasonable behavior on his part. It's not where you're coming from that is the problem, Robert. It's the manner in which you interact with other editors on Wikipedia that is the problem. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 18:21, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Tony, This incarnation of Dan is quite civil I agree, he is also as dedicated as suicide bomber to push his POV. If you look at the make up of the "cell" which is focussing on Wikipedia you will see a good mix of personalities. You have the good Dan and the naughty Dan etc etc ... it is really very well done. This point is simple any compromise reached which does not echo their POV loud and clear is merely a tactical compromise. I have a good amount of knowledge about these people and I am colaborating in writing a book about them and their "cause". Facinating stuff. If you know who they are, what they are and what their intentions are it makes it all much easier to understand. - Robert the Bruce 18:55, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Phrases such as "He is also as dedicated as a suicide bomber to push his POV" don't write themselves; it takes dedication and skill to come up with that kind of bon mot. This sentence alone convinces me that Robert is only interested in starting and prolonging an intellectual fight. He knows full well that this is an inflammatory metaphor, and it is included for no other reason than to annoy people. Perhaps he enjoys the cut and thrust of heated debate. Whether this is the case or not, there seems no point whatsoever in arguing with the man; he likes it. -Ashley Pomeroy 18:04, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • It sounds as if you may be accusing DanBlackham of having sock puppets, as you have. I'd be interested in any evidence you could produce to support this, and I'm sure I'm not the only one, because tracking sock puppets is important to Wikipedia. I hope you are beginning to understand that your strong belief that these people are trying to subvert Wikipedia does not really explain your own problems interacting with just about everybody. Here Michael Glass comments on your problem attitude in the earlier RfC. I endorse his words fully. They're well chosen and, alas, still apply to your overall attitude to difference of opinion on Wikipedia. His description of "genuine wikipedians" is hardly flattering. He describes them as naive "Hobbits" who are too gutless to stand up to the anti-circumcision fanatics. We are not hobbits, Robert. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 19:14, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Oh Tony that is Michael Glass. One of the named "full-time Intactivists" who are working so hard to push the foreskin POV. Mind you he has been a little scarce around here lately. You don't think there is a sock puppet at large do you? - Robert the Bruce 19:42, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • If there is a sock puppet, feel free to identify it and document your evidence. Yes, the quote came from Michael Glass. Does that matter? Does he have any certified RfCs against him? Has he behaved poorly --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 02:24, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • There are obviously mechnisms available to those with access to the IP addresses which will allow such an investigation. My question is why you and others make no attempt to pursue this? Wikipedians deserve to be told you and others operate with only one eye open. - Robert the Bruce 01:55, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • I believe the answer to your question is that administrators and other editors have no more access to IP numbers of posters than you do. Often sock puppets are easily identified by their posting style--as was the case with the sock puppetry that has been attributed to you. If you have evidence of the same or similar quality as the evidence that has been presented in the case of your own sock puppetry, it would be a simple matter for you to pop it onto your user page where you could easily refer to it in future. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 03:33, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • This is insane. Robert has been here in three incarnations. In none of them have I ever seen any ability to compromise or work with others. On the occasions where I've asked him what I can do to make my edits more acceptable to him, I have never received an answer. He is rude, insulting, and disruptive. The fact that we are going through an RFC **AGAIN** despite the fact that simply made a new sockpuppet and came back last time is proof of how willing people here are to bend over backwards to accomodate vandals. He is incapable of understanding that it is his rude and childish behaviour that is at issue, not his viewpoint. He should be permanently banned. If he isn't, he'll just come back again and we'll be going through this forever. This is making Wikipedia look like a joke. --thickslab 17:33, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
      • I would caution you as to civility. The way you are going you will have Tony on your case. - Robert the Bruce 18:55, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • If you consider my observations as to your behaviour to be uncivil, then perhaps that is a reflection on your behaviour rather than my characterization of it. --thickslab 23:15, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
          • And that lets you off the hook then? What a strange illogical train of thought. It is further interesting that none of those claiming they are working towards maintaining Wikipedia rules and policies are quiet on this behaviour of yours. Would you offer a reason why you think this is so? - Robert the Bruce 02:44, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway and Dan Blacker/Blackham - what is the connection?[edit]

Tony, Dan does not use the Blacker alias around here. Where do you know that from? Would you like to come clean on you knowledge of this particular individual? - Robert the Bruce 19:42, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

    • Incorrigible. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 20:12, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • That response is just not good enough Tony. This Dan person has many an alaias one of which Is "Dan Blacker". How did you make the connection between "Dan Blackham" and "Dan Blacker"? This is something Wikipedians have a right to know. - Robert the Bruce 01:45, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Robert, if you're claiming that User:DanBlackham uses aliases and one of these is Dan Blacker, let me be the first to say this is news to me. You wouldn't by any chance be trolling again, would you? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 02:55, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • My dear Tony, it was you who referred to him as Dan Blacker and then changed it to Dan Blackham. It indicates a level of knowledge far beyond what you seem willing to admit. You are not hiding something are you Tony? I think Wikipedians would be as mad as snakes if they found out you were being less than honest in this regard. What would happen to an admin who was found to have being deliberately lying? It would be a Wikicrime would it not? - Robert the Bruce 14:59, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • You constantly make personal attacks and claims of wrong doing. Yet you never post any evidence. Evern if Tony did write blacker then change it to blackham - and i don't know if he did as you didn't post the link - what does this prove? We have an owen blacker here on wikipedia. Blacker is a very commin name. Also please read the replies that people post. Tony has already told you that he is not an admin. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 18:54, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • The name Dan Blackham is unfamiliar to me; it was a name in an email Robert reproduced, and the owner happens to have a Wikipedia account and appears to be one of Robert's selected enemies. I typed the name from memory as "Blacker" once and then corrected it. That is all I know. The rest, you'll have to ask Robert about; I am assuming that this is one of Robert's little jokes--to pretend that Blacker is a pseudonym. You'll notice that he also made something out of the fact that I mentioned INTACT-L. Robert evidently believed that I must know more than I was saying, I think. Actually all I had done was type the title of an email into Google to verify the text and ascertain its origin--which was INTACT-L, according to public archives that I found. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 19:46, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Proposal[edit]

Robert the Bruce is currently undergoing the preliminary stages of mediation with Theresa Knott, who is not a certifying party to this dispute. In my opinion the evidence shows that he has not mended his ways since the last RfC three months ago. He shows absolutely no sign of compromise in the face of clear censure for repeatedly breaking policy. Accordingly, I propose that we adjourn this RfC to give Robert and Theresa a chance to lend their full energy to the mediation effort. Further, if the mediation should fail through a refusal on Robert's part to engage in an honest attempt at reconciliation, I recommend that the certifying parties should restart this RfC as a Request for Arbitration. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 20:12, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, it's not at that point, Tony. By all means, let's allow Theresa to mediate with Robert and then return to this. What end would arbitration serve? Robert does bow to community pressure. He's naughty but he does have his fire fed by those willing to chuck logs onto it. Everyone has a responsibility in a dispute not to raise the temperature. There are in any case substantive issues involved that you have shown an equal unwillingness to really take in. In particular, that your insistence that because there was a vote on one issue that means there is consensus on related issues is far too strong and that Robert is clever enough to pick his fights on grounds where it is plausible that he is right -- I do wonder whether you consider the merits of his arguments (leaving his style of presenting them to one side) when you take issue with him. I mean this only in the hope of ratcheting down the tension a little, if possible. Dr Zen 01:53, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm very surprised by your claim. Could you give an example of Robert bowing to community pressure?

Please explain which vote you are referring to here: "your insistence that because there was a vote on one issue that means there is consensus on related issues." I am aware of no such vote. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 02:19, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

{Reformatting for ease of reply --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]])


1. Robert has not deleted the clitoris picture recently

2. and he has bowed to some extent over the edit he very much abhors.

3. He also showed some willingness to compromise over an earlier edit when he and I disagreed, which was to the same section.

4. On the question of the vote, I refer you to User_talk:Robert_the_Bruce#Your comment. You and others describe the "consensus" as something that those votes revealed ("Other questions that you might have about the consensus cannot readily be answered, because they were not asked.").

5. This was in response to Robert's questioning another editor's assertion that Robert did not respect consensus.

6. There is, as Robert has repeatedly pointed out, and as you are well aware, no consensus that there should be any picture rather than none.

7. We voted on the copyvio photo, not the current one.

8. I do not feel, anyway, that votes represent "consensus" necessarily. I'm not a member of the qualified majority school of thought (although I accept that I rather hypocritically added my voice to creating one!).

9. Although I disagree with Robert on many issues, I do agree that Theresa et al have formed a consensus on this particular issue, or really on any issue, and I do agree with him that she has not shown a particularly great willingness to try to accommodate all views (I accept of course the difficulty in doing so on a contentious issue). I think the vote should be understood as something of a last resort, not as part of consensus-forming (especially since the outcome of the vote was entirely predictable), and I think that appeals to it should be framed as what they are -- the imposition of a majority view on a minority.

This is all I have to say on this matter. I have given my opinion because I have been involved in editing the Clitoris page, and I'm happy to clarify what I meant but I won't bicker over our opposing views on this subject.Dr Zen 02:47, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)



I'll take your points in turn:

1. I'm not aware that Robert ever deleted the picture. This has not been an issue as far as I am aware.

So he has respected the consensus

Nobody but you has suggested that he deleted any pictures. Recall that my conclusion was not that he hadn't "respected the consensus" but that "He shows absolutely no sign of compromise in the face of clear censure for repeatedly breaking policy."

2. Far from bowing, Robert's most recent statement on the matter is that he proposes that the paragraph should be deleted "say within 48 hours" if not improved. Well I suppose by his standards that counts as "bowing." But we shouldn't have to drag him to this point every single time.

Consensus forming means in my books sometimes means dragging people to acceptance of a point of view, not trying to enforce the will of the majority as expressed in votes. The ideal I would be aiming for is "everyone walks away content". If we differ on this score, then I'm content to differ.

No, you're confusing bringing people to acceptance of a point of view with asking them to respect policy. The substance of the relevant part of the complaint on this occasion is that Robert repeatedly deleted a paragraph without adequate explanation of his edits. It isn't that Robert disagrees--that's fine and being adults we don't expect to agree with one another all the time. It's that he does not respect policy. He is not a good editor to work with.

3. Good. I'm pleased to hear that he is capable of some movement.

You said he showed "absolutely no sign of compromise". This is precisely what I mean by politely attacking him. Not being willing to compromise is sin number one here.

Until you gave me your word that Robert had compromised, I had seen no sign that he had ever done so. Indeed he has made it plain that he thinks his chosen enemies regard negotiation as a sign of weakness.

4. My comment was in respect of votes that went 9/25 and 8/56, no recorded abstentions in either. Your mileage may vary, but I'll happily defend those figures as a rough consensus.

I define consensus as "general agreement" not "a qualified majority". Besides, as we have discussed, I believe you may have read something unwarranted into the votes. They are not necessarily descriptive of an underlying consensus. For instance, I voted for the picture but I would not vote for the current one. I share Robert's belief that the notion that any picture is better than none is deleterious to Wikipedia and far from representing the general view is abusive of it.

I agree with you on this point. However my perception of the current photograph is that it is passable. I have to use my judgement in determining whether many others would feel the same way. I'm positive that they would. Now the problem with your expression of your point of view (and in this you are borrowing Robert's clothes) is that you project your own dissatisfaction onto others and conclude, falsely, that they are reasoning that "any picture is better than none." I suggest that you abandon this habit of making false accusations.

5. Well, the fact that Robert doesn't respect consensus has brought him two certified RfCs and one block in three months. And before you accuse the Theresa "gang" of being responsible for this, check the certifiers of those RfCs.

I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt, Tony, and I strongly believe in the good-faith policy. I see some problems with Robert but I see problems with Theresa too. No action against Theresa could ever succeed though, while action against Robert might well be slanted in just the way you slant it here. I think Wikipedia can and should accommodate both.

Having seen Robert's behavior in editing, in discussion, in response to RfCs, and in mediation, I have slowly become familiar with his reasoning as expressed on Wikipedia. He is of the opinion that Wikipedia needs to be protected from extremists, and he is not willing to negotiate with those whom he labels as extremists, and those who don't go along with him he labels as "5th columnists." This opinion cannot be accommodated on Wikipedia. All Robert need do is respond positively to mediation. You falsely accuse me of "slanting" action against Robert. I remind you that I am but a third party commenting on an ongoing RfC to which I am not party. I moved that the certifiers should adjourn the action and that, only if mediation fails through the fault of Robert, the action should be revived by the certifiers as a RfA. Robert's continued defiance after being blocked probably easily merits RfA.

6. Robert is not arguing that there should be no picture on the page, so this point is moot.

Robert is arguing that there should be no picture rather than the current one.

The current picture is adequate but not ideal, in my opinion. I have no problem with the idea that a better one should be obtained. I am surprised, I'm sorry I find it very difficult to accept, that you would seriously suggest removing a picture showing the vulva, the clitoral hood and the location of the clitoris, from an article about the clitoris. But see my response to point 9 before you respond to this.

7. Replacing the current picture with a copyright violation is not an option.

No one has suggested it is. You are mischaracterising what I said. I said I voted for the copyvio (before it was known to be a copyvio), not that I believe it should be replaced. I discussed with I think it was Theresa the grounds for believing it to be a copyvio and I accepted her point. I believe it was right to remove the photo but I also believe there is no consensus for the current one and that Anthony is quite within his rights to remove it, and that those reverting him need to give a stronger case for keeping it, without making appeal to a "consensus" that I think is not necessarily there.

Having reread the poll discussion and votes again, I see no reason to repoll. If you want to establish that the consensus has changed substantially since the last poll because the photograph has changed, feel free to call a poll with that purpose.

8. We'll have to agree to disagree on that. It was apparent to me that most people voting were of the opinion that an article about the clitoris should have a photographic representation of the clitoris, but I could have been mistaken.

"A" photographic representation, not "any" photo! I voted for the photo, as I've said, and I do not agree with those who think it's dirty, as I said at the time, but I did not, and would not, vote for any photo whatsoever, any more than I would on any subject.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say '"A" photographic representation, not "any" photo! Clearly this is not just any photo, so your point is not clear to me.

9. This choice of phrase, "Theresa et al", is close to your earlier remarks about "gangs" and the like. Needless to say I regard it as unhelpful. We're all individuals. On your claim that Theresa "has not shown a particularly great willingness to try to accommodate all views", well I notice that your own response to Robert's objections is simply to say you're waiting for him to supply a better one. It seems to me that your position on this and Theresa's are identical.

I use "Theresa et al" purely in its Latin sense, Tony, to mean other parties who claim to have formed a consensus. I don't care for your browbeating me over that particular issue. My position is, as it happens, broadly the same as Theresa's. But the point is, Tony, that Wikipedia is not about shouting your corner but on working for everyone else's.

So it is. The trouble is that you seem to be claiming that this is not what we're trying to do. You're assuming bad faith, which ironically is what you're accusing others of doing. Please try to accept that your position on the photograph may appear unusual, not to mention almost incredible, to others. I'll try to work with you if you'll try to work with me. As for Robert, the same applies. The opposite to the idea that the article would be better off with no picture instead of the current picture is not, as you seem to think, that *any* picture would be better than none. Please try to accept that some peoplem probably most, think that the current picture serves a useful encyclopedic purpose in the article. Try to persuade them otherwise.

But none of this really answers the problems about which this RfC is actually about: Robert's failure to respect policy. Whether he or you agree or disagree on the subject of the photograph is neither here nor there. Whether Theresa is wrong to assume a consensus is neither here nor there. We can have civilised disagreements until the cows come home. Whether policy has been subjected to gross breach, that is the subject of this RfC.

You have asserted that he agrees with you about the photograph. Fine. You have asserted that Robert never removed the photograph. Bully for him, nobody except you has implied that he did. You have asserted that Robert showed some willingness to compromise with you. Good. All the other times that he has blatantly flouted policy, those are the reasons why he has been through two certified RfCs and a blocking.

Smegma POV edit[edit]

Robert again inserted the phrase "foul-smelling" into the smegma article. [1] This phrase has been discussed at length on the Talk page. [2] [3] (by Dan Blackham)

  • One needs to try to understand the motivations behind a POV which attempts to present stale bodily excrement as not stinking. "Foul smelling" is a kindly term in the context. Now why would anyone object to that? Think about it. - Robert the Bruce 01:51, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • It doesn't matter whether or not "foul-smelling" is a kindly term. It is innately POV, and thus inappropriate for a factual characterization in a Wikipedia article. Visit Wikipedia:Neutral point of view for more information on the NPOV policy and how to implement it. If you think this is an exception on Wikipedia, you should look at the articles on Feces, Flatulence and Body odor. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 03:14, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • This is interesting and deserves further discussion. To state that something stinks, or otherwise, is foul-smelling or otherwise when factual cannot be POV. My question remain who and why is the use of foul-smelling in relation to this particular bodily excrement found objectionable? - Robert the Bruce 03:31, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Perception of smells varies vastly. Whether a given smell is fair, foul or indifferent, is a matter of opinion. Perhaps you'd like to take up your question with the editors of Feces, who no doubt have more experience on this kind of writing than I. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 03:36, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Tony, you are ducking the issue again here. What is it about an accumulation of nectrotic debris under the human foreskin which some people are so desperate to prevent being refered to as foul-smelling? - Robert the Bruce 03:52, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • The fact that a signficant number of people disagree with the characterisation of it as "foul" is prima facie evidence that it is POV. You're arguing in bad faith. Again. Or should I say "Still"? Tverbeek 01:17, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Sorry? A significant number? Probably more people think the earth is flat! Is it POV to state that it's round? Dr Zen 01:52, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • Not a good example. The roundness of the earth is factual, it can be tested and has been known for millennia. That many people find the smell of smegma unpleasant is also factual. That some people don't is also (though perhaps somewhat astonishing) factual. That smegma has an unpleasant smell is therefore not a fact but an opinion, albeit a very common one. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 02:04, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • Did you know that the Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia had until quite recently a fatwa declaring that anyone who thought the world was round should be punished? (It was mentioned in House of Bush, House of Saud, if you're interested.) Even "facts" can be contested, Tony.Dr Zen 05:23, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
            • Interesting, but belief isn't the same as fact.
              • Indeed it is to the believer.Dr Zen 05:48, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • The strained comparison of a minority opinion you disagree with to Flat-Earthers is a trademark ® Robert "the Bruce" Brookes; unless you're a certified graduate of Robert's School of Debate or one of his sock puppets, you need permission to use it. :) But seriously, I find it nearly unbelievable that anyone not only eats anchovies willingly, but actually enjoys doing so. And yet they do. Their fondness for them may be misguided, perverse, and even morally wrong... but it is an opinion, one they are entitled to have represented fairly on Wikipedia. Suggestion: instead of using a term like "foul" that judges it, get out the thesaurus and dictionary, and find a term or two that describes it. Something like "pungent" might still be subject to accusations of POV bias, but at least it would be defensible... as "foul" is clearly not, and a demonstration of turgidly NPOV-dismissive editing. Tverbeek 02:54, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • It's not that I don't take your point (and I do admit to deserving chastisement for the flat-earth thing). But I think it is okay to describe odours as "foul" if there is no dispute that they are. I do not share your opinion that foul is anything more than descriptive. No one has sourced anyone's claiming that they do not believe old smegma is foul. Anyone who did like the smell would most likely agree that it was foul but they liked it anyway. The anchovy thing is a bit of a sidetrack, dude, because to be fair, we both know people eat anchovies, and yet I'm not aware of anyone who keeps smegma to perfume their house. In any case, I think it's about as exceptionable as saying that grass is green. I don't see grass as green, but I have no problem with my minority view being overwhelmed by the very much more common view. And yes, Mr Sidaway, I truly am ready to go to the mat to argue that grass's being green is as objective as old smegma's being foul. I think the reaction to its foulness is what is subjective, not the foulness in itself.Dr Zen 05:23, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • In the real world no sane person will contest that rotting bodily excrement stinks. One needs therefore to look beyond the semantic play. One needs to consider what the agenda is behind this hilarious attempt to "sanitize" the stink of rotting smegma as purely a "pungent odour". Fascinating. - Robert the Bruce 03:32, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
          • I have actually met a number of sane, normal people who found the smell of rotting manure very pleasant; apparently it reminded one chap of his country upbringing. The NPOV guide at WP:NPOV states "Wikipedia is devoted to stating facts and only facts. Where we might want to state opinions, we convert that opinion into a fact by attributing the opinion to someone." So obviously the thing to do is to say "an odor that many people find unpleasant" or as someone suggested earlier: "a pungent odor." Since you and I are both agreed that shit and smegma are horrible smells, the difference of opinion here can't be reduced to "sanitizing", but the fact that I'm working to the Wikipedia playbook. On talk pages and in real life, I'll happily say smegma has a foul smell, but that statement is not neutral so it isn't to Wikipedia standards. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 03:42, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well I see grass as red, so no argument there. I'm not going to get into theological quibbles at that level of distinction. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 05:34, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It's not a theological quibble. It's a reasoned argument in three parts: first, that "facts" in the sense we are using are agreements about objective realities not objective realities themselves; second, that where something is broadly enough agreed, it is not POV to state it in objective terms as a fact; third, foul is an objective measure of smell just as green is of colour. So, grass is green, our view of it notwithstanding, and old smegma is foul.Dr Zen 05:48, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'll go along with most of the above except that use of the word "foul" as an adjective is objective or in any way neutral. It is a loaded word. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 22:51, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
We'll have to agree to differ. Dr Zen 23:05, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Robert, it's clear from an examination of Feces and Flatulence that the unacceptability of that phrase is due to the NPOV policy. And now since you pose the direct question of why people don't like being called "foul-smelling", I will answer directly. People object to your insults because they don't like being called offensive names. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 04:01, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Tony, how you extract the wording from another article to illustrate supposed NPOV as applicable to this article is as bizarre as it is laughable. Every human knows the smell of feces but a significant number don't know much about smegma. The only cause of humans (females and uncircumcised males) to stink from this cause is a lack of personal hygiene. Saying that it doesn't stink is a deliberate deception being sold to further a rather dubious agenda. - Robert the Bruce 04:15, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • You've lost me there. What bearing does the alleged ignorance of "a significant number" of people have on the question of whether using loaded words like "foul-smelling" is against the NPOV policy? You will go round in circles on this until:
    • you read the NPOV policy
    • you understand how the NPOV policy is implemented on Wikipedia.
  • Since I'm beginning to suspect you may be trolling on this, I'll leave it there so as not to encourage trolling behavior. [4] Feel free to raise the matter on the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) page if you have further questions. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 04:31, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Tag-team" reverting[edit]

This comment was originally attached to my reversion analysis and discussion of the Three revert rule in the "Outside view" section. I have moved it here because it is a discussion point.

  • For the purpose of this Salem Trial I can assure you that the "gang" could put together some self styled "consensus" to confirm that definition. While we are about it what about "tag-team" reverting? When one of the "gang" comes along to effect the third revert and thus prevent a fellow with the same POV from breaching the rules? Does this also "have much the same effect"? - Robert the Bruce 04:06, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've made some inquiries on the general consensus.

Apparently it is accepted. The suggestion raised hardly a ripple on the administrator's notice board --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 10:09, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On your idea about "tag-team" reverting, the policy has this to say:

"This policy applies to each person. Use of sockpuppets (multiple accounts) is not a legitimate way to avoid this limit, and the 3RR specifically does not apply to groups. If the edit really needs reverting that much, somebody else will probably do it—and that will serve the vital purpose of showing that the community at large is in agreement over which of two competing versions is correct. If you like, chat with other Wikipedians whom you respect, and ask them if they could take a look. If you and the person you've asked to help have both needed to revert three times, then it is probably time to ask for the page to be protected and to start looking into dispute resolution."

So yes, it's perfectly in order for a third party to come along and revert the third time. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 04:43, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Yes indeed I didn't dispute that it is allowed. I was questioning whether such POV behaviour as witnessed from Theresa Knott and her tag team mate Exploding Boy was ethical for a admin/sysops? I clearly don't believe it is as it was not vandalism which was being reverted but they were involved in efforts to force into the article their POV. What is equally disgraceful is that they then go on to press for an advantage through pursuing a RfC. This is the ultimate in an example of abuse of admin position. Both should be suspended. - Robert the Bruce 17:49, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • It takes two to tango Robert. You were reverting both of us. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 08:52, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes it does take two to tango. One could equally say that you and your tag-team partner were reverting me, yes? - Robert the Bruce 16:44, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • EB was not my tag team partner. We were two wikipedians who happened to agree on a point at that moment in time. Just like Jakew agreed with you. Were you two a "tag team"? The point about the 3RR is that it doesn't apply to groups. That's the end of it. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:45, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Robert, could you please support your claim that Theresa and Exploding Boy were engaging in a POV war rather than the normal difference of opinion over emphasis that is to be expected in editing? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 11:38, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Dear sweet Tony. Would you like to think through how a difference of opinion differs from two different POV's? - Robert the Bruce 16:44, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • That's an easy one. Look at the squabble on Clitoris over whether or not to have the current photograph. That isn't a POV dispute, but undeniably it is a dispute about the appropriate content for the Clitoris article. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 16:53, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Robert's comment on Three revert rule[edit]

Note: Tony Sidaway insists on deleting a comment he made here which I believe should stand on the record. It can be found at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Robert the Bruce#Outside_view - Robert the Bruce 12:06, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC) (note that Robert's statement is inaccurate; the piece was restored some days ago; I have changed the link accordingly) --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 17:47, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • I continue to find it hilarious that this claim of a 3RR breach continues. This RfC was supposed to be about some who reverts often and refuses to discuss these reverts. Tony, is this what this RfC is all about ... or do you think there is another agenda here? - Robert the Bruce 17:52, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Theresa's comments[edit]

Since it's clear that Robert has no intention of going through mediation with me, i've decided to endorse this rfc despite saying that i wouldn't on ther talk page. The fact that Robert has chosen not to address the points made on this rfc and instead engaging in his typical tactics of trying to imply that that person who said them is biased etc does not fill me with confidence that the rfc will achieve the desired outcome. I am unwilling to go to Arbitration at this moment in time, as the old committee is unlikely to move quickly and the new one has been voted in yet. But i will be preparing an evidence page User:Theresa knott/Evidence against Robert the Bruce that I intend to present to the AC when the election is over. Anyone is welcome to add evidence to that page. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 10:07, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • Bully for you Theresa. I noted just how desperate you were getting to sate your bloddlust. Now you have your chance. Have fun. Those observing this circus are learning a lot about the "real" Theresa and I dear say many will not like what they are seeing. Sad, really sad. - Robert the Bruce 12:06, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • Robert, have you ever contemplated the possibility that the widespread perception of you as an argumentative trouble-maker, longtime troll and tireless POV warrior may have something to do with your actions rather than the activities of a cabal of "fifth columnists"? This is not a rhetorical question or a disguised insult. I'd like your comment on this. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 08:09, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Proposal: implement "Remove personal attacks"[edit]

One longstanding feature of Roberts interaction with others is his use of personal insult. I suggest that this is a suitable case for implementation of the guideline Wikipedia: Remove personal attacks. When responding to a substantive point that Robert has made, delete those parts of his comment that are solely or mainly personal attacks, and only respond to the part of the comment that is worthy of attention. This should have the effect of substantially reducing the "heat-inducing" effect of Robert's posting style. Users should consider the possibility of removing in their entirety comments by Robert that are nothing but personal attack. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 23:37, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Poll on proposal to wrap up this RFC[edit]

Robert has thus far declined to respond directly to this RFC. Instead, he has chosen to argue directly with certain users on this project's talk page and on other talk pages. He has also refused to participate in mediation with user: Theresa Knott.

Both of these may be taken as evidence that Robert does not see or acknowledge his own behaviour as problematic, even as he continues to castigate other users and accuse them of impropriety.

On the other hand, while Robert is without doubt a shit disturber, and one who seems to take pleasure in provoking other users, he seems to be at least a good writer, and we need editors who can write well. I think Robert could be a very good contributor.

To that end, I propose a 5-day suspension from editing (block) for the above behaviour and in particular for Robert's knowing violation of the 3RR, to be reduced to 3 days if he demonstrates a willingness to cooperate with other users by agreeing to mediation with Theresa. Exploding Boy 17:53, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Please note change: Since Robert and Theresa currently seem to be in unofficial mediation, I'm changing the poll. There are now two options: (A) to support blocking Robert for 3 days, and (B) to not support the proposal.

(As a further note please be aware that Robert the Bruce had approached Sannse to mediate who turned it down due to other commitments. See It was Theresa herself who stated: "Thanks Sannse. Jakew has offered to informally worth with Robert and myself. Hopefully Robert will agree to that and we can resolve the issues without involving the MC. I will keep you infomed." The comments in this regard by EB are therefore a deliberate attempt to misrepresent my position re mediation. I believe this disgraceful behaviour deserves censure. I will be watching to see how even handed our resident sysops are in this regard.) - Robert the Bruce 18:04, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Calm yourself, Robert. My comments are no such thing. Having reviewed the talk page here I learned that you had refused mediation. I was unaware of your agreement to enter unofficial mediation, and only learned of it after posting this poll (through my own investigation, it should be noted), at which time I personally made the necessary changes. If you review the edit history you'll see that the change was almost immediate, and as any rational person will agree, my mentioning your apparent refusal -- based on information on this project's talk page -- to enter mediation does not constitute a "deliberate attempt to misrepresent your position re mediation," as you put it. Honestly, if you spent half the energy you use screeching about how other people are treating you unfairly on trying to work with them instead, you wouldn't be having this problem. And now, back to the poll. Exploding Boy 18:53, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Why is the proposal a 3 day ban? What good does anyone think that is going to do? All it means is a 3 day vacation from Robert's bad behavior after which he'll get right back to it gain. -Nathan J. Yoder 08:31, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Njoyder, the proposal for a three day ban is pathetic and stupid. It's the same penalty that was imposed on Robert the Bruce back when he called himself Robert Brookes. He'll create another sockpuppet and be back again. The problem is that the people who run Wikipedia, while well-meaning, are deathly afraid of banning anyone. Robert will never leave, and he'll never be dealt with appropriately. Nobody who is in a position of power on Wikipedia has enough common sense to realize that the appropriate course of action is to ban him completely, not talk with him endlessly. When it comes to an article that has the least bit of controversy to it, or any article that's not about a programming language or video game cahracter, Wikipedia is complete and utter joke. --thickslab 05:11, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
Feel free to come up with your own suggestion. I, for one, am getting rather tired of this entire thing. As far as I can tell there has been nearly no movement towards a resolution at all thus far. Exploding Boy 20:55, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
I thought my suggestion was obvious. Ban Robert and his sockpuppets, and place an immediate and permanent ban whenever a new version of him pops up. Anyone who consistently and over such a long time displays a total lack of common courtesy should not be editing Wikpedia. But no, trolls on Wikipedia are coddled and pussy-footed around. The minute Robert's new sockpuppet appeared after the first RFC, he should have been immediately and permanently banned. --thickslab 21:09, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
I have to applaud your guts, and I agree entirely with your point of view. Judging by Robert's past record and his recent contributions to the RfC for 'MBecker', who appears to have broken a trivial rule on the page about clitorii, this chap is a clever, persistently malicious intellectual self-gratifier. There are six billion people in the world; if one of them is denied the right to mess with the collective sum of human knowledge, I do have a problem with that. We should ban more people, more often, for longer, and publicise these bans. -Ashley Pomeroy 00:33, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Guts? Hardly. What could anyone do -- Start an RFC? Then I'd just do what Robert did, ignore it and start up a sock puppet. Then when another RFC starts up again I'd let it fizzle out and keep on going. I'll get a friend who sides with me to start information "mediation" and let that fizzle too. And if it goes to a request for arbitration, I'll act all nice and sweet. -- thickslab 13:25, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

I note that he has recently created yet another sock puppet. At any rate, it seems that people are losing interest in this whole thing, which is unfortunate. How does this RFC get resolved in such circumstances? Exploding Boy 17:23, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)

  • Time to put up. Who be that sockpuppet then? ... or is this just another attempt to malign? - Robert the Bruce 23:43, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Note: Exploding Boy ... it is time to put up. This is the second call._Robert the Bruce 17:05, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Please choose one of the three two options below, and sign with #~~~~:

Poll:

A. I support the proposal to block Robert the Bruce's account for 3 days for the reasons identified in this RfC.

  1. Exploding Boy 17:34, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
  2. Ashley Pomeroy 18:22, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


B. I do not support the proposal.


C. Permanently ban Robert and any other accounts he creates.

  1. Nathan J. Yoder 12:00, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. thickslab 13:25, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Latest intervention on Meissner's corpuscle convinced me he's beyond hope and becoming actively disruptive by exporting his obsessions to subjects well outside the subject of urology. Enough is enough Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:50, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Roberts ongoing shennanigans on Foreskin restoration, foreskin, male circumcision and other articles, as well as his comments on my talk page and his other inappropriate behaviour have led me to change my vote. Exploding Boy 18:23, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)


 D. Strongly censure Exploding Boy for this uncivil and frankly unsavoury behaviour. 
 #Dr Zen 06:56, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Robert, if you are as concerned that the dispute resolution process be followed as you seem to be on your arbitration page then you shouldn't you start by issuing an RFC against Exploding boy rather than attempting to add this poll option? -- thickslab 05:12, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Notice[edit]

This RfC appears to have fizzled, probably due to the holidays. All interested parties are directed to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert the Bruce. Exploding Boy 21:39, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Robert_the_Bruce&oldid=972679586"