User talk:Robert Brookes

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:


 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type &#126;&#126;&#126; (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Follow the Simplified Ruleset
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Personal attacks
Hi,

I stumbled onto the edit war in Circumcision and I just wanted to remind you of a few things. First, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for activism. This goes for both you and the anti-circumcision activists. Your goal should be NPOV, not thwarting their edits in any way possible. Deleting references is a no-no, for example. If there is a non-registration source it would be preferred, but it's fine to link to an article with registration required if that's the only available source.

Second, please don't engage in personal attacks. It's against the rules and all it does is further entrench you and your opponent. I understand that it can be frustrating but personal attacks are not constructive and are prohibited. Examples: "Don't be so pompous," "shrill defenders of the prepuce."

Thank you. Rhobite 22:20, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

Robert, Personal attacks are not acceptable on Wikipedia, e.g. "You must be braindead". See Wikiquette for more details. Thanks. Rls 22:05, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Circumcision etc.
Hi Robert,

I'd like to elaborate a bit on the circumcision issue. It is clear to me that this is a very important topic to you and you feel like you are defending yourself against "freaks" who like to use Wikipedia as a vehicle to spread propaganda against circumcision.

I'll freely admit that I'm opposed to routine neonatal circumcision, although I have of course no objections should someone choose to have the procedure done on their own accord. I am, however, not an anti-circumcision advocate; that is, I do not actively evangelize about this issue.

There are also clearly some strong evangelists for the pro and counter side who have been trying to have their point of view represented and the other one deleted. If you look at the history of Talk:Circumcision and Talk:Medical analysis of circumcision, you'll find that I've spent a lot of time talking to even anonymous users in order to find fair solutions and include points of view which are valid. In some of the edits I've made of your revisions, I've left some of your changes intact (no pun intended), and I found some of your edits to be useful.

However, let me describe two cases where I think your changes have not been useful:

Slapping "totally disputed" on pages. This keeps getting reverted by multiple people, and for good reasons. These tags are, by policy, intended to be used in cases where there is an active dispute over the contents of a page. Objections in Wikipedia always have to be actionable, otherwise they are merely opinion. I am genuinely interested in what of the "history" article, for example, you find non-neutral and messy, and would certainly like to see it improved. But unless you are willing to take the time to explain what you want to see improved, please do not mark articles as such.

Removing references and, in some instances, useful information. Really, if you take a few steps back, you will have to admit that you exaggerated your case against using CIRP as a reference. It is completely acceptable for a scientific archive to add commentary, and for an archive on a subject like that, it is almost inevitable for that commentary to be one-sided. Honestly, if an equivalent pro-circumcision archive existed, would you have removed the links?

I've actually scoured the web and found no really informative pro-circumcision site. The closest is probably CIRCLIST, which is a mailing list archive, but it's not a scientific archive - you'll find everything from huge penis photos to women looking for surgeons to perform a clitoridotomy. Some of the stuff in there may be useful, but it is mostly opinion and hard to wade through.

CIRP has quite a few very relevant papers. However, I understand that you don't consider it neutral to have a link to a page which essentially (though not very loudly) opposes circumcision can be perceived as POV. So I would suggest that such links be categorically put at the end of articles, with a disclaimer explaining what CIRP is. That could be created at Template:CIRP Disclaimer, then you can include it wherever you want using.

Now, regarding the foreskin fetish article, I think you really know that what you're doing there is POV and are deliberately trying to push people's buttons. If I added the text "People who believe in Jesus Christ are unkindly referred to as 'Jesus Freaks'" to the article about Christianity, would you consider that neutral? I certainly would not. Yet "Jesus Freaks" gets 100 times as many hits on Google as "skin freaks" does. What is the point of including an insult in what is supposed to be a neutral encyclopedia article? This really only reinforces the barriers of communication.

I will assume good faith on your part and I hope that you are genuinely interested in improving Wikipedia. I can also accept that you currently view the circumcision articles as not neutral. Here's my suggestion to you: I think scientific opinion currently favors a beneficial link between circumcision and HIV prevention. If you want to productively and usefully improve the circ. articles, I think you should dig for scientific information on that. If that can get the other side to dig up some good rebuttals, so much the better for Wikipedia. You see, I'm interested in getting solid, hard facts into these articles, whether they are beneficial to my position or not. Nonsense like the "skin freaks" thing is just a waste of everyone's time, yours included.

To me, what it comes down to is this. The reason the pro-circumcision camp doesn't look so good in our articles is that they have fairly weak arguments. I have an open mind, I am not a "skin freak" and certainly willing to be proven wrong on that. But please, please give us hard facts and solid data with good sources, and let's attribute all sources properly if they are not clearly neutral. A project like Wikipedia can only work if people pursue essentially the same goal, that is, a neutral encyclopedia. Otherwise it will be in a constant state of war which nobody benefits from.--Eloquence*

Link to cirp.org
Hi. I was the one who reverted your omission of the link to a cirp.org study on Penis. Wikipedia should leave it up to the reader to form an opinion regarding externally linked sites. The view presented on Wikipedia should be neutral. The warning message you replaced my description with is not NPOV. Mine was NPOV, and if you dispute that you must tell me how it can be made better. I can tell you what is wrong with your message:


 * "Deception alert" is a negatively-charged expression (obviously)
 * Questioning their motivation is fine, but unilaterally stating that they aim to mislead people is not.
 * "Treat information with caution" is something that always should be done. I think we can trust the readers to know basic source evaluation themselves.
 * Calling the information propaganda and calling them a mouth-piece (without stating which organisation they're acting as a mouth-piece for) is not ok.

I have reverted your change, and expect you to reply to this message before changing the link message.

&mdash; David Remahl 07:02, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I find it amusing how there is a clamour to defend the use of cirp.org as a source on the issue of circumcision. This is like using virusmyth.org as the definitive source on HIV/AIDS. Laughable. - Robert Brookes 16:35, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for responding so nicely to my request to stay NPOV in the link description. Your change was actually useful, and I hope that your involvement will continue to be as constructive as it was in this case. &mdash; David Remahl 20:29, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Maybe Robert knows he is wrong and biased but gets a kick out of making contravercial edits. I would ;) 209.197.155.68 01:24, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

POV edits
Hi just a quick note to explain how we do things around here. There are many issues that have people with strong opinions on both sides of an argument. Revert wars where one sides deletes the other opinion and vice vesa acheive nothing. NPOV solves this problem by including both sides of the argument. That way the reader get's to make thier own mind up.

E.g. Dr Cleverdick says "blah blah blah" in his research paper [here]. However Prof Smartarse argues that Cleverdick's research is flawed because "blah blah blah".

This way both sides get their POV in, but the article uitself remains neutral. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 10:16, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I can see why others despair of trying to reason with you. --[[User:Ardonik|Ardonik(talk)]] 17:49, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * It is interesting that someone who is pushing an agenda tries to use (or rather misues the system) to suit their purpose. I am not sure that every off the wall theory needs to be included in every article to be NPOV. Lunatic fringe stuff should not be included, period! Thuis applies to your desperate need to force the inclusion of propoaganda. - Robert Brookes 16:35, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Robert, if you take issue with something I've added, please edit that rather than reverting all the changes in the article. Some of the changes I made to Foreskin involved corrected spellings ("suculas," for examples) and moving sentences and paragraphs around so that items are group more logically. Please do not revert the whole thing. If I've added something that is POV, let's discuss that rather than throwing out the baby with the bathwater. ---thickslab 16:56, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * I have no opinion one way or the other re circumscision, and am certainly not pushing an agenda. I am simply an admin here who is trying to prevent POV pushing. Compromise is how we do things here. Articles must be neutral. NPOV is not negotiable. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 16:59, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Who Me? Heh heh, you are not preventing POV pushing you are POV pushing. Your integrity is being questioned. Anyone who knows anything about the anti-circumcision position will notice the dead give away signs in your edits immediately. - Robert Brookes 17:07, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Her, propaganda? I have never seen anyone on this Wikipedia revert articles as frequently as you; many others on the village pump are starting to notice this as well.  Talk is being made of sending you straight to the Arbitration Committee, but other more level-headed folks would simply like to see you on RFC.  Must you always assume the worst about the motivations of others?  --[[User:Ardonik|Ardonik(talk)]] 17:01, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Is that a threat? I know the monomanical anti-circumcision activists. They are as rabid as the virusmyth crowd. Why do you not insist that they motivate their edits before dropping them in to the article? Do you have a conflict of interest that should be decalred? - Robert Brookes 17:07, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately for your argument, I am not a monomanical anti-circumcision activist. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 17:20, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Robert, looking at many of my edits, most of them are wording changes, spelling corrections, or moving of sentences. How is changing "suculas" to "sulcus" or standardizing on "foreskin" vs. "prepuce" POV? Why should I have to justify correcting the spelling of "sulcus" or moving sentences into a more logical order? I never claimed that my changes were ONLY spelling corrections, but if you're going to take issue with what I've added, please don't revert the other changes.  ---thickslab 17:12, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * As I said elsewhere. Correct the spelling and do the formatting in one edit (and do not try to slip in the propaganda under the guise of that action). Thereafter motivate your content edits on a case by case basis. - Robert Brookes 17:18, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * OK, so tell me which points I added that you think are not NPOV and can re-do the edits without adding the changes that you disagree wth. ---thickslab 17:22, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Conflict of interest? Quite frankly, Robert, I could care less about the subject of circumcision, either pro or con; what I do care about is the Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy and how you seem to want it subverted.  (Now is your cue to tell me to buzz off because I'm not emotionally invested, right?)  You are confrontational and your remarks are inflammatory; you're being perceived, rightly or wrongly, as biting the hand of anyone who dares to reach out to you.  Mine included now, I guess.  --[[User:Ardonik|Ardonik(talk)]] 17:19, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * I can not for the life of me see how you can claim that I am subverting NPOV. You are able to provide a detailed body of evidence in this regard? BTW can you indicate where you have communicated like this to those who insist upon using wikipedia as a vehicle for their anti-circumcision propaganda? I need to believe you are being even handed here. - Robert Brookes 17:35, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * "Anti-circumcision propoganda?" Anyway, your contributions speak for themselves.  I was actually going to do start digging up diffs as you requested, but on second thought, it would probably be a waste of my time; you'd just deny them, contest my interpretation of them, and ask for more suitable  evidence.  The burden is always on others to prove you wrong, and never on you.  No self-reflection, no "I guess I am a bit confrontational," no "tell me how might I come to an agreement," no "I'm sorry if I'm coming off as harsh."
 * Please make your case at Requests for comment/Robert Brookes. --[[User:Ardonik|Ardonik(talk)]] 19:05, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

RfC
Robert, please join us on Requests for comment/Robert Brookes. There is a section on the page where you are afforded the opportunity to defend yourself and refute unjust accusations. I want to believe that you are not a troll, and that you are truly interested in expanding and improving this wonderful encyclopedia. But by flaunting procedures that were established by the community specifically to avoid conflict, you are demonstrating to others an unwillingness to compromise. Your future edits will not be looked upon in a favorable light if you cannot show good faith in resolving this dispute. Furthermore, RfC is just a few short steps away from the Arbitration committee, which can block you from editing the Wikipedia altogether.

Look, I know how the self-described "intactivists" can behave (see my current discussion with Ualabio and DanP in Talk:Violence, where I feel that they are attempting to inject their POV), and I know the frustration you must feel with their group mentality and unwillingness to acknowledge the validity of opposing viewpoints. But I also understand their frustration with you, and I have told them as much--your vituperance and rudeness only serve to harden them and encourage them to redouble their efforts. I want all the POV material, pro- or anti-circumcision, removed or limited in scope to the few articles in which a description of the conflict is both relevant and can be treated even-handedly. But to do that, I will need both your help and their help, since I am an outsider to the debate. We can resolve this conflict and make these articles better for everyone involved, but we have to work together. Step one will be clearing your name on RfC.

Please, if you disagree with my words, at least consider them. You can write a message on my talk page if you want to continue this discussion by other means. --Ardonik.talk 02:30, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Whoa, there!
I'm on your side when it comes to circ, I think. Or, at least, I stand against some of the rabid anti-circ people. But I do so because I want to build a good encyclopedia by consensus.

When you make a change and someone backs it out, don't go back and make the same change and call it "a small tweak." That's an attempt to hide what you're doing. That should never be done.

If the change you want to make is unequivocally right (i.e., you are NPOV-ing something and somebody keeps messing it up), defend and revert up to three times a day, and say what you are doing in the edit summary. If it keeps happening post on the talk page.

But when you are submitting a change that you know has been controversial in the past, don't try to hide it as "a small tweak," like you just suddenly had this great idea for a small tweak to the article. That's dishonest. Go to the talk page and discuss it. Seek consensus. If someone is genuinely wrecking NPOV, seek help. (I'm available to help you watch articles, if necessary.) Trying to slip stuff past people who disagree with your changes is contrary to the spirit of an open encyclopedia. Besides that, it never works, because they always come back. Jdavidb 16:29, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ah, I see you are editing again, so I know you have logged in and had the chance to see your messages. Your two most recent edits look fine to me, although I understand the whole business of having a disclaimer for CIRP is a bit iffy to some people. Since you are editing, you should go participate in the Request for Comments. If you intend to make edits in the future that will be NPOV, then just go there and state so. Otherwise people may force you off Wikipedia, and if you intend to continue to make positive contributions, that would be a shame. But what choice would they have, if you don't address the very real NPOV concerns that have been expressed? Without you saying, "I'm not going to do that again; I'll seek consensus on the talk page in the future, and help from abritrators when that is not possible," how do they know whether your future edits are going to be peaceful or not?

BTW, the Request for Comments lists several relevant policies. One of them is that you should always explain reverts. I didn't know that myself. From here on out I highly encourage you to always explain your reverts. I've seen you assert that you didn't need to do so. Well, that's not the Wikipedia rules, so if you want to stay, you pretty much have to.

If you don't like the rules, everything in Wikipedia is Copyrights available for you to take and go make your own encyclopedia, if you'd rather.

Personal attacks
Personal attacks are not allowed on Wikipedia. Please be aware that continued personal attacks on your part can lead to your being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Snowspinner 20:04, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

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)