Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Robert the Bruce

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for comment

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tony Sidaway (talk | contribs) at 08:32, 13 December 2004. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Identification

Statement of the dispute

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

see

Applicable policies

{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

See talk pages, above


Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

Other users who endorse this summary

(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)

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.

{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}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~)

Outside view

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)
  3. 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)

(sign with ~~~~)

Discussion

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)
    • 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)
      • 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)

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

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)

Proposal

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

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]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Robert_the_Bruce&oldid=8400510"