User talk:Friends of Robert

Instead of the somewhat inaccurate "anti-circumcision", might we use anti-mutilation. It, after all, is simply a religious mutilation whose medical justification changes every generation with the imaginations of those in whose interest this mutilation continues. If ever this child abuse becomes generally obvious for what it is, an interesting social rift will occur in the United States.

Independent reference sites It has been noted that there is widespread use of cirp.org as a source of reference material across most of the circumcision related groups. Cirp is anti-circumcision to the point that it only has information which supports its POV and where that is not good enough it actually inserts comments into the studies to make sure people who read the stuff are guided accordingly in how to interpret the information. Those who defend the use of POV reference site expose more about themselves than they counter the position of cirp as a reference for anti-circumcision information. To address this obvious bias a site has been set up to place normally not available studies so as to be available as references to comment in wikipedia articles. It is: http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/independentreference/ As a contribution, those articles which are from cirp and which have inserted comment will be sanitised and place there so as remove the obvious POV and bias that goes with the use of cirp.org.

Blatant bias It was Robert's view that among those with administrator status were dedicated anti-circumcision activists. These people he maintained insidiously misused their positions of trust to ensure the anti-circumcision POV was maintained in circumcision related articles. Having reviewed the history of a number of the articles it appears that this is indeed so. We ask those interested in NPOV to keep a special eye out for this.

Check your facts
Check your facts. Robert was not banned, he was blocked for 24 hours. If you ask me it was a light punishment, given his hysterical, confrontational style. He is now free to edit but he should remember that continued personal insults and revert wars will also get him blocked. As for the accusations of "anti-circumcision bias" among Wikipedians: You are totally off base. Most of us don't care much one way or the other. But activists are extremely irritating - this goes for your pal Robert as well as the anti-circumcision crew. Overall you people have had a negative affect on Wikipedia. Rhobite 00:13, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * Your style is confrontational. I would like to inform you that unlike with Robert you will not get a reply your style deserves. It remains to be seen how you deal with these so-called irritating "anti-circumcision crew". It was noted just quick you were to jump onto Robert's case but have been so careful and measured in your dealings with "truthbomber", "Michael Glass" and the various incarnations of "Dan". To deny bias is easy but to prove that beyond doubt to somewhat more difficult (I'm sure you will agree). So we shall just have to wait and see how you respond. - Friends of Robert 00:41, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * If you bothered to check my history, you'd see that I've been trying to keep Michael Glass, DanP, and Walabio in check too. But NPOV isn't good enough for activists. Rhobite 02:00, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * OK, so while they kept you occupied "truthbomber" slipped the net and dropped their POV on the various articles? ;-) You got to hand it them they are persistent, but then again they may be emboldened by the help they get from insiders? - Friends of Robert 16:11, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Rhobite said everything on this subject that needed saying. Anyone not interested in the NPOV can download MediaWiki and start their own Wikipedia.  Robert may have been right about the "agenda" of the intactivists, but his behavior towards them and others was absolutely atrocious, only making matters worse.  It will take some time to repair the damage that this silly circumcision flamewar has caused.  --Ardonik.talk 17:34, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * I submit that Robert exposed the ineptitude of the sysop/admin to reign in the excessess of the anti-circumcision activists. I suggest that you hated him because he showed up your weakness.Along the lines of this: "You saw his weakness, and he will never forgive you." - Johann Christoph Friedrich von Schiller 1775-1805. So what may I ask have you learned from this "flame war"? What steps have you taken to prevent the ongoing misuse of Wikipedia as a source of anti-circumcision propaganda? It would be nice if you were to find the time to answer this. In advance, thank you. - Friends of Robert 04:30, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * You think I hated him?

It's pretty clear now that you are trolling. It's my fault for getting suckered into this dumb little game, but you must forgive me for assuming that you had something useful to say.

Well, you know what? You win. I'll admit it: you're right about e v e r y t h i n g! I hate Robert because I'm a weak little hobbit; the sysops are totally powerless; the Skin Freaks are taking over mankind and only Robert can protect us. The Wikipedians turned him down--what fools these mortals be! Save your pity for a more worthy cause, O friends of Robert; the Wikipedia deserves to burn for its arrogance! On a serious note, Robert is going to be unblocked soon, assuming he isn't unblocked already. If he resumes his old behavior, the blocks may become longer or he may be banned outright. Just a heads up. --Ardonik.talk 05:18, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Why are you attacking me for your weakness? Of course you sysops are not powerless you are (as it may be applicable) just, one, don't have the guts to tackle the POV pushers, or two, you are (as Robert believed) sympathetic. Just a thought. Use it, don't use it ... - Friends of Robert 18:11, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * He's already unblocked. If he want's to come back and play nice, that's fine. If he comes back and makes personal attacks, he will very likely find himself blocked again. In answer to friends of robert's question. We intend to take whatever steps we feel are necessary - we always do. We have dealt with many POV pushers before and no doubt we will deal with them again in the future. We do not need outside help, and we certainly don't need people who are rude and offensive to the regular wikipedians, (as RB was). Theresa Knott  (taketh no rest) 12:49, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm sure he will be delighted to hear that. Now a question. What are you planing to do about the anti-circumcision POV pushers? Anything? Nothing? Applaud? - Friends of Robert 18:11, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Foreskin and evolution
Hello,

I don't think it's unreasonable for me to ask you to provide evidence that evolutionary processes are causing the human foreskin to shrink.

You wrote, "The coverage of the glans by the foreskin in adults is a highly variable characteristic and is seen by some to be reducing".

That the foreskin has a variable length in humans is factual.

That the average foreskin length is decresing is not.

As an analogy, the size human eyebrows is variable. Some people have large eyebrows; some people have small eyebrows.

This does not mean, however, that the average eybrow size is reducing, any more than it means that the average eyebrow size is increasing.

Similarly, the variable length of the foreskin is not evidence that the foreskin is decreasing in size due to evolutionary processes any more than it means the foreskin is increasing in size.

Consider the following alteration of the text you inserted:

"The coverage of the glans by the foreskin in adults is a highly variable characteristic and is seen by some to be increasing in accordance with the theory that as the foreskin has become essential the evolutionary process of growth has begun."

Such an claim is equally baseless and I'm sure you would agree that it does not belong in an encyclopedia.

You have made it clear that you are interested in removing anti-circumcision speculation. I don't think that the best way to do that is to insert pro-circumcision speculation.

If there are specific parts of the foreskin article that you believe need to be edited heavily to remove speculation, please let me know (preferibly on the talk:foreskin page). I believe that the Neutral point of view policy works both ways, and thus I will work with you to remove any baseless anti-circumcision claims as well.

Sincerely,

Acegikmo1 18:02, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I hear what you say but have serious doubts as to your supposed commitment to NPOV. Lets try this simpleone for example. Here is a quote from the circumcision article and I request that you review it in the same terms as you have above: "Routine infant circumcision in the United States grew out of a widespread fear that masturbation caused various diseases, a view now universally rejected by the medical community. Circumcision was thought to reduce masturbation and other sexual behavior considered undesirable. Circumcision, depending on how it is practiced, can have a significant impact on masturbation; see masturbation for a detailed discussion." - Friends of Robert 01:14, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Reply regarding NPOV efforts
Thank you for your response. Let's first work on removing the two disputed tags from the article by modifying the disputed sentences.

1) Regarding the tag you added, according to talk:foreskin, you dispute the statement that the foreskin "[reduces] friction, abrasion and loss of lubricating fluid during sexual intercourse". (On the talk page, you wrote, "Natural vaginal lubrication is more than adequate for the purpose of sexual intercourse" (regardless of circumcision status).

However, according to, a survery conducted by the Journal of the New Zealand Medical Association (a SEPARATE one from the O'Hara and O'Hara study) found that, "Women reported they were significantly more likely to have experienced vaginal dryness during intercourse with circumcised than with genitally intact men." The study also found,

"During intercourse, the skin of an intact penis slides up and down the shaft, stimulating the glans and the nerves of the inner and outer foreskin. On the outstroke, the glans is partially or completely engulfed by the foreskin with more skin remaining inside the vagina than is the case with the circumcised penis. This 'valve' mechanism is thought to retain the natural lubrication provided by the female because the bunched up skin acts to block the lubrication escaping from the vagina, which results in dryness"

The study concluded that, "reported vaginal dryness and the related clinical designation 'female arousal disorder' is but a normal female response to coitus with a man with an iatrogenically deficient penis."

This finding seems to fully support the statement you dispute while refuting your statement that "natural vaginal lubrication is more than adequate".

If you still want dispute the accuracy of the statement, please provide a new version of it that you consider acceptable so that we can remove the tag.

2) Regarding the tag I added, I dispute the phrase, "(variable foreskin coverage is) seen by some to be reducing in accordance with the theory that as the foreskin has become redundant the evolutionary process of shrinking has begun".

Neither the statement, "the foreskin has become redundant" nor the statement "the evolutionary process of shrinking has begun" are scientific theories. ("A theory is an established paradigm that explains all or many of the data we have and offers valid predictions that can be tested." See )

I don't know where you learned that some people believe the foreskin is redundant and shrinking as part of evolution. I will assume that by "redundant" you mean "nonessential" (which is certainly true of the foreskin, although it is misleading to state that is has become redundant). I will also assume that the supposition that the foreskin is shrinking due to evolution cannot be disproven, even if it is unlikely that many urologists or biologists would accept the claim. As such, I propose the following version of your sentence:

"Some advocates of circumcision propose that the foreskin is a vestigial organ and is decreasing in size as part of evolutionary processes."

If you can accept both of my above proposals (or modify them so that they are acceptable), we can remove the disputed tags from the article.

Finally, regarding your request for me to review a part of the circumcision article, I have a few suggestions for making the section more factual and less biased.

The first sentence in the paragraph is flatly false. Circumcision did gain recognition in the US medical community as a means of preventing various diseases, including masturbation (considered a disease by the medical community in the Victorian era).

However, this is not the reason routine infant circumcision became popular. Circumcision became a popular surgery because it was though to have preventative, hygienic benefits. It gained widespread acceptance largely because the social climate of the time was very concerned with personal cleanliness as a status symbol and secretions like smegma were regarded with suspicion.

It should also be noted that before circumcision became well-known among physicians, it was used to treat phimosis and cancerous lesions. Only in the late nineteenth century was it practiced widely to treat problems that were not localized to the penis.

I suggest re-wording the paragraph as such:

"Before the 1870s, circumcision in the United States was performed to treat phimosis and cancerous lesions. During the last few decades of the nineteenth century, in accord with the accepted reflex neurosis theory of the time, circumcision was used to treat diseases that were not localized to the penis, especially those that affected the nervous system. In addition, it was believed that circumcision would prevent chronic masturbation, which was then believed to cause various diseases. Social considerations helped make the procedure widespread. During the Victorian era a great emphasis was placed on cleanliness and secretions such as smegma were treated with suspicion. In the end, however, routine neonatal circumcision eventually came to be practiced on a majority of males around the turn of the century because of the hygenic and preventative benefits of the procedure, the same justification that is still used today."

I hope that this is an acceptable revision to you, and I also hope that it demonstrates that I am interested in the accuracy and fairness of the article.

Sincerely,

Acegikmo1 03:28, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The first rule you must ahere to if you want me to spend time on you is that you must not lie. So you have made a bad start. It was not "a survery conducted by the Journal of the New Zealand Medical Association" it was Bensley/Boyle's little tribute to the foreskin. Lets look at some dubious stuff then: *Where does Winkelman say this: "The tip of the foreskin is the site of the mucocutaneous boundary, which Winklemann identified as a specific erogenous zone"?  *The lubrication nonsense I have responded to elsewhere but here again then: "The lubrication angle is another pure anti-circumcision lie. Anyone who is sexually active (heterosexually) thesedays will know that. Why? Because condom use does not allow for that stinky stuff (smegma) to mix in with the females juices. If this really was a problem then don't you think that condoms would come with more lube? Do you hear much moaning about the dryness of sex when a condom is used (even in non-circumcising countries)? Vaginal sex is different to anal sex you need to understand. You need to read up on vaginal dryness issues on womens web sites and not on anti-circumcision web sites. So drop this nonsense will you." *Then there is this gem: "In ancient Greece, men competed naked in athletic contests but an exposed glans was considered obscene." Where is the substantiation of this? Where is your howl of indignation at no evidence being provided? *This line is carried on throughout the paragraph with no substantiation. Yet we hear no protest from you? Why? So lets see how you intend to retify these few examples (above) then we can move onto making some real changes around here. - Friends of Robert 07:40, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I should rephease: a study that appeared in the New Zealand Journal of Medicine.
 * A study? A survey in fact. Nothing more than a questionare filled in by 35 women.
 * All right, a survey.
 * Before I respond to your requests above, I expect you to respond to mine. Do you accept my re-worded versions of the disputed sentences?  Do you accept my revised paragraph regarding circumcision in the US?  If so, let us remove the tags and revise the text.  If not, please put forth your own proposal.
 * I would prefer to deal with this matter on a broad basis rather than selectively.
 * That's fine, but I'd like to see some progress made. Since you haven't raised any specific objections to my proposed changes, I am going to implement them.
 * As for your response to the lubrication issue:

"The lubrication angle is another pure anti-circumcision lie. Anyone who is sexually active (heterosexually) thesedays will know that."


 * What about the women in the NZMJ study who said they were "significantly more likely to have experienced vaginal dryness during intercourse with circumcised than with genitally intact men"? Were they liars?  Or were they gay?
 * It was not a study it was the concoction of raving anti-circumcision activists to achieve their own preconceived result. Like the O'Hara survey it is a piece of trash. Further bt refering to it as the "NZMJ study"you are being dishonest. It was the work of Bensley/Boyle, two well known raving anti-circumcision activists. So drop the dishonesty, OK?
 * I will from now on refer to it as "the Bensley/Boyle survey".


 * Your comments about Bensley and Boyle are ad hominem and detract from the issue at hand. Look at the text.


 * "We conducted a survey of 35 female sexual partners aged 18 to 69 years who had experienced sexual intercourse with both circumcised and genitally intact men."


 * "Participants completed a 35-item sexual awareness survey. Women reported they were significantly more likely to have experienced vaginal dryness during intercourse with circumcised than with genitally intact men"


 * Regardless of Bensley and Boyle's own positions, this is what the women reported. Are you saying that the women were lying?  If not, then you have to accept the fact that they said they were "more likely to have experienced vaginal dryness during intercourse with circumcised than with genitally intact men".

"Why? Because condom use does not allow for that stinky stuff (smegma) to mix in with the females juices. If this really was a problem then don't you think that condoms would come with more lube? Do you hear much moaning about the dryness of sex when a condom is used (even in non-circumcising countries)?"


 * Maybe you should actually read the NZMJ study again. Specifically, "On the outstroke, the glans is partially or completely engulfed by the foreskin with more skin remaining inside the vagina than is the case with the circumcised penis. This 'valve' mechanism is thought to retain the natural lubrication provided by the female because the bunched up skin acts to block the lubrication escaping from the vagina, which results in dryness."  I don't know why you're brining up smegma, or condoms.  The sutdy mentioned neither of these.  The structure and mechanics of the foreskin retain natural female lubrication during heterosexual intercourse.
 * It was not a NZMJ study it was the work of two well known anti circumcision activists. As to lubrication you should read a little more widely. But it is quite clear that given the wide variations in the male and female genital anatomy (even more enhanced after a natural birth by the female) a simplistic theory of the mechanics of intercourse for the uncircumcised penis are nothing more than a psychosexual fairy-tale.
 * Are you suggesting that variations in genital anatomy make it impossible to create a model for the mechanics of intercourse?

"Vaginal sex is different to anal sex you need to understand. You need to read up on vaginal dryness issues on womens web sites and not on anti-circumcision web sites. So drop this nonsense will you."


 * Again, see the NZMJ study. "vaginal dryness and the related clinical designation 'female arousal disorder' is but a normal female response to coitus with a man with an iatrogenically deficient penis."
 * No NZMJ study, it is no more than the Bensley/Boyle survey of 35 women. When Bensley/Boyle add that sort of rank speculation it serves only to prove that they sit on the lunatic fringe of this debate. Really sad people.
 * Their speculation was at least based on their research. Nevertheless, I agree that it is speculation.  I was merely pointing out that the survey results strong suggest a correlation between vaginal dryness/loss of lubrication and circumcision.  Do you dispute this (for a real reason, not an ad hominem one)?


 * If you're really interested in removing bias, let's bring the disputed statements above to a neutral point of view so that we can remove the tags. Please show some willingness to cooperate instead of dismissing everything you don't like.  If we're able to work together successfully on that issue, I will be happy to help you remove anti-circumcision propaganda from Wikipedia.
 * Acegikmo1 17:39, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * The sentiments sound good, but are not supported by your actions. Why the pretence that you are neutral? If you can produce evidence of your intention to be honest then you have a role to play, but sadly at this stage there is no evidence of that. Come back when you are serious.-Friends of Robert 07:32, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * There is no pretense. You're convieniently ignoring the fact that I went through the paragrph you presented above, attempting to remove anti-circumcision bias.  There's your evidence, but you never responded to it.  Acegikmo1 19:35, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(From above) Acegikmo1 19:35, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC) said: All right, a survey. That's fine, but I'd like to see some progress made. Since you haven't raised any specific objections to my proposed changes, I am going to implement them. I will from now on refer to it as "the Bensley/Boyle survey". Your comments about Bensley and Boyle are ad hominem and detract from the issue at hand. Look at the text. Regardless of Bensley and Boyle's own positions, this is what the women reported. Are you saying that the women were lying? If not, then you have to accept the fact that they said they were "more likely to have experienced vaginal dryness during intercourse with circumcised than with genitally intact men". Are you suggesting that variations in genital anatomy make it impossible to create a model for the mechanics of intercourse? Their speculation was at least based on their research. Nevertheless, I agree that it is speculation. I was merely pointing out that the survey results strong suggest a correlation between vaginal dryness/loss of lubrication and circumcision. Do you dispute this (for a real reason, not an ad hominem one)? There is no pretense. You're convieniently ignoring the fact that I went through the paragrph you presented above, attempting to remove anti-circumcision bias. There's your evidence, but you never responded to it. Acegikmo1 19:35, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

- Friends of Robert 02:25, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * OK so we have it as "the Bensley/Boyle survey". Now we are left to wonder why you tried to present it as NZMJ study in the first place. Suspicious stuff if you ask me.
 * I think it's pretty clear what I was referring to in the first place, but I'm willing to use terms you prefer.
 * Where can the detail from "the Bensley/Boyle survey" be found? Has it been published anywhere in full or has it been selectively quoted to suit their obvious agenda? Surely you don't expect anyone to take the results of this "cloak and dagger" type survey by known ravers on the lunatic fringe of the circumcision debate do you? Please get real.
 * From the link above: "Our work, which supports the hypothesis of Warren and Bigelow and the findings of O&#8217;Hara and O&#8217;Hara about the role of the male prepuce during coitus is fully reported in Denniston et al." It was published in Understanding Circumcision: A Multi-Disciplinary Approach to a Multi-Dimensional Problem.
 * Anyone with broad enough heterosexual intercourse experience with a number of different partners will understand just how ridiculous it is to try and force all the genital variation permutations into one silly little foreskin friendly theory on the mechanics of intercourse. The foreskin is more likely to be akin to a "loose sock" than any fantisized gliding roller bearing. You guys must start to get real.
 * I understand and I agree. I didn't know what you'd meant originally.  But the presence or absence of a foreskin surely has an important effect on the mechanics.
 * I put it to you that Bensley/Boyle created this cute little survey as a vehicle to support their theory and not that their theory arose from their survey. They should be challenged to place their data in the public domain so as to allow independent peer review. Fat chance of that though.
 * It would certainly be better if the details of the survey were released in the public domain. It wouldmake a critical analysis of Bensley and Boyle's methodology much easier.
 * Yes I see you have started to make some changes. Now for your next task you need to look at the Winkelman misrepresentation on the Foreskin article (see talk) and the Lysozyme lie on the Smegma aticle (where we have a cute little two-step going on).
 * I shall. Thank you.
 * I have introduced the Willianson & Willianson survey into the Foreskin article to show that contempory Midwestern society does not consider an exposed glans as obscene. I trust you will approve of my efforts to achieve a "balance".
 * Indeed I do. Acegikmo1 03:24, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Acegikmo1 said: From the link above: "Our work, which supports the hypothesis of Warren and Bigelow and the findings of O&#8217;Hara and O&#8217;Hara about the role of the male prepuce during coitus is fully reported in Denniston et al." It was published in Understanding Circumcision: A Multi-Disciplinary Approach to a Multi-Dimensional Problem.
 * and

I understand and I agree. I didn't know what you'd meant originally. But the presence or absence of a foreskin surely has an important effect on the mechanics.
 * The list of names in the first quotes reads like a "whos who" of the prime movers of the movement of foreskin admirers. Can a sane person take what this anti-circumcision cabal say seriously?
 * As to the second. It is quite clear that you have a very limited working knowledge of heterosexual intercourse. Can't help you I'm afraid. - Friends of Robert 18:27, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * You'd asked where the details of the survey could be found. I replied.  I don't think it's unreasonable to be critical of the survey.  Nor do I think that the results shouldn't be taken seriously simply because the authors oppose circumcision.  Should all the experimental results coming  from people who are known to be strongly in favor of circumcision be thrown out as well?  I don't think so.


 * I never tried to "force all the genital variation permutations into one silly little foreskin friendly theory". I merely stated that Bensley and Boyle's survey concluded that the foreskin helped retain natural vaginal lubrication.  Are you saying that the foreskin does not have an significant effect on the mechanics of sex?  No matter how much "working knowledge of heterosexual intercourse" you might have, you're not as qualified to expound on the influence (or lack thereof) of the foreskin on sexual intercourse as a group of women who have had both circumcised and uncircumcised sexual partners. Acegikmo1 23:54, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * As to the survey. You (I seem to remember) introduced it into the article. You must therefore take responsibility for the piece of garbage sitting in the middle of an encyclopedia article. You did it you fix it.
 * You just don't get it do you? Are you really so heterosexually inexperienced or are you just playing dumb? The sheer anatomical variation permutaions of vaginas, penises, and foreskins make this kind of (foreskin friendly) speculation totally ridiculous. This small group of women you refer to, who were they they? How were they recruited? How were the questions framed? Were they also (like in the case of that disgraceful piece of work) as with O'Hara recruited through an anti-circumcision newsletter? Give it a break now, it is becoming tiresome. - Friends of Robert 04:39, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

From Ridged band
I didn't just want to up and delete this from the article, so I'm sticking it here for you to toy with. I could attempt to make it NPOV, but I'll let you handle it. It's good information, just presented with bias. '''The observations of Taylor have been embraced by the pro-foreskin anti-circumcision community as the most important reason not to practice male circumcision. However, Taylor's ridged band has not been confirmed by other studies and as such must be considered to be highly speculative. ''' Have fun editing! TrevorPerry 21:07, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hello
Friends of Robert, your comments to Theresa and Acegikmo are becoming a bit rude. Please stop. I recognize you are upset with them and feel they are biasing an article, but the principles of behavior here at set forward in Wikiquette and Wikilove -- even if you feel others aren't behaving that way, you are still expected to. And frankly, I don't know what's gone on with Theresa, but in the conversation I see here between you and Ace, Ace is trying very hard to work with you and compromise, while you seem to be looking for any possible opportunity to accuse and attack him. I hope you'll change the way you interact with people here who are honestly trying to work with you -- I have faith that you can, if you are willing. Please take my advice seriously -- thank you, Jwrosenzweig 20:41, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that sage advice. Just so that I don't feel picked on or singled out for special treatment can you direct me to where you have advised/warned others in the same manner. Thank you kindly. - Friends of Robert 02:51, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I would have to check back in my contributions - I do this reasonably frequently, but not so often that I have a name close at hand. Is it important that you see some past occasion in which I warned someone?  I haven't warned Theresa or Ace because I haven't seen them being rude to you -- if I do, I promise, I'll drop them a note also.  I also promise that this has nothing to do with the circumcision argument (which I have no opinion on, no involvement with, and no desire to have either opinion or involvement) -- honestly, I didn't even know if you were for or against circumcision until I read the conversation here.  This is just me offering some thoughts -- I think too often editors here don't take the time to tell new users how they're coming across.  I know when I was first here, it took me a while to sort out what the right and wrong ways of settling disputes were.  So I try especially hard to talk to new users as a neutral third party.  But I also talk to old hands when I see them getting too rough in their arguments, and I will if I see that happen to you.  Thank you for considering my advice. Jwrosenzweig 13:56, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * P.S. -- The first thing I could find in my contributions, going backwards, was a comment in a different situation -- this is to an experienced admin I know reasonably well. The things I say atUser_talk:Mintguy are different in substance than what I said to you, but I hope it helps establish that I'm not out "after" you at all. This is just what I do.  Best wishes, Jwrosenzweig 14:00, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks once again. Seeing you have time on your hands I would request you look into the possibility of wikicrime being committed by Theresa Smegma and Dan Blackham Penile cancer. What penalty follows confirmation of the deliberate insertion of information known to be untrue? - Friends of Robert 17:29, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, Friends of Robert, that was a nice way to show you acknowledge and understand Wikiquette and Wikilove. I hope you appreciate that your chances of being seen as a legitimate contributor weaken each time you resort to that kind of childish name-calling.  You can do much better than that.  As far as deliberate insertion of information known to be untrue, the penalty would be set by the arbitration committee -- the difficulty, however, is how to establish that information was deliberately inserted while known to be false....it is easy to claim that the information was added in good faith.  If a pattern develops, however, the penalty could range from censure to restricting the right of an editor to work on certain topics here to a ban from the site.  It would have to be a fairly significant and pervasive pattern of false information addition, however, before the site ban was imposed.  Now please stop being unkind to others -- as long as you're behaving offensively, I, for one, will find it hard to take you at all seriously. Jwrosenzweig 21:26, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)"
 * What exactly is your problem? That you don't believe that Theresa and Dan are in volved in wikicrime or that you don't want to entertain the thought? I will keep to informed of how events unfold in this regard and maybe it will come to the point when your integrity will be tested when called upon to act. Will you be up to the task? - Friends of Robert 05:34, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think, sir, that I am done attempting to discuss things with you. I have no lack of confidence that my integrity will be able to withstand any case brought before the arbitrators. I am willing to allow that anyone, even this site's founder, can take actions that violate this site's policies: I don't see, however, that anyone is violating this site's policies in dealing with you. I am, though, more and more convinced that you are consistently in violation of this site's commitment to dealing with other editors with respect and good faith. I hope you will reconsider this course of action. Jwrosenzweig 23:24, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * A question. Are you really committed to achieving NPOV in the circumcision related articles? If you are rather than just seeking peace for the sake of peace then you need to look beyond the mere occurance of verbal exchanges and look through to the substance of the issue. Are you clued up enough to see and understand the nuances of the debate and to understand the agenda behind the actions? I respectably submit that you may well be found wanting in this regard which will make it very difficult for you to contribute towards achieving NPOV in the related articles. - Robert the Bruce 00:10, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Robert is his own Friends
User:Friends of Robert is obviously User:Robert_Brookes, down to his favorite rhetorical examples (e.g. the Flat Earth Society), his chronically abusive demeanor, and of course the (ironically) anal fixation on the glory of the circumcised phallus. The only difference is a tendency to refer to himself either in the third person, or in the plural. Save yourselves some typing, and address him simply as "Robert".

Ban on editing sex-related articles
1) For the duration of this arbitration proceeding, Robert the Bruce (or the same person editing under any account or IP) is prohibited from editing any articles which relate to sex (in particular those relating to foreskin and circumcision). Admins can treat any edit to these articles as a violation of 3RR and act accordingly.

See Requests_for_arbitration/Robert_the_Bruce. --mav 00:34, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)