Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dabljuh

In order to remain listed at 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 with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: {insert UTC timestamp with }), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).


 * (Dabljuh | talk | contributions)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute
''This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.''

Description
''{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.}''

made his first contribution to articles relating to circumcision on November the 13th, 2005. From the beginning, he demonstrated a strong anti-circumcision POV (to which he is entitled), and complained that the article did not endorse it.

From the beginning, Dabljuh's behaviour towards others was antagonistic, uncivil, and focused on picking fights rather than improving the article. He has made personal attacks against those who disagree with him. He has shown little interest in consensus, but instead he has first tried to rewrite the article to reflect his POV, then when this was rejected by several editors, he maintained his own version as a fork.

Such conduct is not productive nor appropriate for a collaborative working environment.

Evidence of disputed behavior
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

WP:CIV

 * 04:55, December 16, 2005: "You may fool the regular fucktard here that easily. I want arguments. ... I want real arguments why circumcision is good, other than "I have studies that..." I want a priori, theoretical, rational arguments why circumcision would be medicinally beneficial, as well as why it would preferrably be done on infants rather than consenting adults. No weaseling around, I demand the answers, now!"
 * 15:16, December 16, 2005: "Since you continously fail to provide any argument pro (infant) circumcision, I make you an ultimatum: Argue with me, convince me, or I will add both a disputed and an npov flag to the article's header."
 * 05:01, January 9, 2006: "Screw prudes"

WP:NPA

 * 02:13, January 7, 2006: Describes user as a 'lunatic' (note - also demonstrates assumption of bad faith)
 * 07:32, January 12, 2006: In response to (requested) criticism: "I'm not going to let me being filibustered by fringe view POV pushers."
 * 21:33, January 8, 2006: (likens other editors to former Iraqi Minister of Information Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf
 * 02:09, January 11, 2006: "You have to be aware that you yourself may well be biased. On your user page, you describe yourself as jewish. ... Jakew is not jewish, but I have already attempted to explain to him where his incredible bias, that borders on lunacy, comes from."
 * 02:47, January 11, 2006: (likens editor to Adolf Hitler) (See also what provoked this)
 * 09:35, January 11, 2006: "Didn't mean you. I was referring to the Jakew, Jayjg, Benami bunch mentioned in . You're certainly all sane otherwise"
 * 19:25, January 12, 2006: "Jake, seriously, stop worrying and take a wikibreak, you know why. This here is just distracting you from your real life problems"
 * 00:49, January 11, 2006: (playground diagnoses)

WP:CON

 * Instead of trying to come to consensus with other editors, engages in massive rewrites, which are reverted by 3 different editors. Despite being discouraged from doing so, forges ahead with plan to completely rewrite article via a fork that matches his own view at Circumcision/Dabljuhs version, misidentifying consensus version at various times as "Jakew's version".

WP:VAND

 * This page

Questionable contribs

 * Proposes lobotomizing so-called "Circumcision advocates"
 * 01:57, January 9, 2006: "I also ommitted the annoying "uncircumcised vs intact" part, because really, I couldn't give a shit." (arguably not the right attitude)
 * "WP:NOR. Not that I am particularly fond of that policy as it is too often used to prevent unpopular information from entering the Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia. Everyone can edit and that policy necessarily compromises the integrity of the information in the "encyclopedia". It is by its very nature a place of public debate, an open forum, with the goal of collecting and structuring information in an easily accessible form. The policies of wikipedia however do not reflect this nature of the project, but attempt to force it into being an encyclopedia rather than a place for debate and truth finding." (emph. added. this is a fundamental problem)
 * (pretends to have been converted in his POV) See continuing discussion
 * Proposal to replace NPOV text with a picture of former Iraqi Information Minister Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf and the text "This is just in: There is no NPOV issue at all! Not within 200 miles of this article!".
 * 02:58, December 17, 2005: "As a side note, just stating the obvious and concluding the not so obvious (which is what every good argument does) doesn't count as Original Research." (demonstrates misunderstanding)

Miscellaneous
Interestingly, for 6 months edited only related to his pet project Cheating in Counter-Strike. Since that time he's been obsessed with circumcision-related articles...edits to such articles comprising well in excess of 95% of his subsequent edits. First contribution on the subject is incivil, unproductive and overtly trollish. Circumcision-related edits have overwhelmingly dominated subsequent contributions (and the "Cheating in Counter-Strike" project all but abandoned).

Applicable policies
{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * WP:CIV
 * WP:NPA
 * WP:CON
 * WP:VAND

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * 1) Four editors advise against rewrite in Talk:Circumcision and Talk:Circumcision. Further commentary at Talk:Circumcision.
 * 2) "Dabljuh, do you honestly believe that this confrontational and combative attitude serves your arguments? Please review WP:CIV"
 * 3) (in response to demands for debate) "Interesting though this may be, I honestly can't see what relevance it has to Wikipedia's article, Dabljuh. Can I suggest moving discussion elsewhere?"
 * 4) (in response to the Iraqi personal attack): "You're not being helpful, Dabljuh." and "More than just being unhelpful, comparing those who disagree with him with former Iraqi Minister of Information Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf would seem to be a personal attack."
 * 5) "But there already was a longstanding consensus. Then you showed up, and decided it wasn't good enough for you alone. And your edits certainly didn't improve anything; on the contrary, how could they, when they were filled with unsourced POV? There's nothing wrong with you having an extremely strong anti-circumcision POV, and one could even say that your lengthy debates against it on various pages weren't terrible, but you cannot write articles that mirror that POV. If you're not willing to work with other editors in a collegial way (which is the Wikipedia paradigm), and respect Wikipedia policy (e.g. WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CIVIL, WP:3RR) how can you possibly hope to get anywhere here?"
 * 6) "Really, Dabljuh, I don't see how this discussion is going to reach any meaningful results if you adopt stances you don't really have. ... Your behavior here, as well as your comments about the Wikipedia editing process, strongly suggest that you're not at all interested in consensus - just getting your POV across."
 * 7) "Your allegation that a member's Jewishness is proof of an inability to write an NPOV article is, frankly, disgusting. (Oh, and you really should look up that word "bias," since I don't think it means what you think it means.)"

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~ )
 * 1) Dabljuh 19:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Benami 21:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Jakew 22:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Tom e rtalk 06:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Nandesuka 22:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Jayjg (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~ )
 * Robert McClenon 15:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 16:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC) this summary looks accurate to me.
 * TheDoctor10 (talk|email) - Rich coming from me, I know, but Dabljuh seems to be in the wrong. 18:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Viriditas | Talk 22:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Solver 17:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC) I have been watching the edits for some time, and confirm the summary as accurate
 * (ESkog)(Talk) 04:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Gwyllgi 15:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 16:24, 6 June 2006 (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. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.'' Thats right, baby!

Alright, to avoid any confusion for the casual reader: This is a content dispute over the content of circumcision. I have from the very beginning tried to point out that the article didn't even remotely satisfy WP:NPOV. And I was a real dick about it. And I still am, with absolutely no intention to stop.

Sometimes, it is necessary to be a dick, to make sure the other side understands that you will not back down to bullying, to displays of power and groupthink in numbers, and that the only way they will get out of it without experiencing an assload of pain, is to arrange a consensus. Read the different edits that are supposed to show how a consensus was tried to be arranged with me - laughable. It has been pointed out that this would not even satisfy the requirements for this user conduct RFC.

Before this, I have submitted an RFC on Talk:circumcision to get outside help and ideas. I even have taken an "advocate" (I had mistaken that for a mediator) to sort things out. I have frequently requested input, feedback, and repeatedly showed that I was more than just ready for a consensus.

This preamble is just to sort out any confusions a casual (and lazy) reader may get when not really diving into the issue himself. Dabljuh 16:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, as I have already committed an RFC on Talk:Circumcision, there's not much to say here. Instead, I use the chance and make this RFC on the user conduct of Jakew and Jayjg.

Given the bizarre bias the original article had, my SLIGHT irritability towards incorrigible POV pushers, admitted filibustering and bad faith acting bullies, can be safely discarded. Remember, NPOV is a policy, and violating it warrants abuse.

I have evidently and very hard tried to achieve a consensus. For what felt like a month, I have debated with Jakew so he may convince me of the medical viability of circumcision. He has utterly failed - The more I learned about the practice, the more arguments I had against it. He on the other hand, no matter how ridiculous I made his arguments look when pointed out with just a basic amount of common sense, did not even move an inch in his original position. It was him who stopped the debate.

Check out some of the "Personal Attacks". These two are my favourite:

likens other editors to former Iraqi Minister of Information Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf

(likens editor to Adolf Hitler)

And of course the "vandalisms" (My preliminary comment about the creation of this RFC), reproduced here for your enjoyment! And of course check out my USER PAGE, which is also generally tought of as awesome as offensive!

As this is an RFC, I will dish out some comments.


 * Jayjg, Told you, you should have retired your administrator post. POV pushing can occasionally be tolerated with users that don't do it excessively, but it is simply not tolerable when admins do it. Especially not when they start abusing admin powers for the purpose of POV warring. You are simply NOT admin material, and for the sake of wikipedia, you should retire.


 * Jakew, For your own sake, I suggest that you remove yourself from the internet for a couple months. For chrissake, you've registered at "justmommies.com" and "iampregnant.com" to further your obsession with telling everyone how totally awesome circumcision is. Can't you just, I don't know, disconnect yourself from the internet for a couple months, and become a functional, sane human being again? You are without a doubt one of the most brilliant people I've ever met, but at the same time, also one of the most ridiculously and evidently insane. It's just sad, really.

UPDATE:
 * Scientific proof that Jakew is a total flake, or: The dumbest rv in the history of Wikipedia 00:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Observe:

The circumcision article, before I started working on it

The circumcision article that I made (with some help).

Of course, the soon-to-be-banned POV-pushing vandals will by now already have reverted my page update, (or at least removed every trace of information that does not convey the idea that circumcision is better than sex with two lesbians while being a lesbian yourself)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):


 * 1) Dabljuh 00:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) ZimZum 12:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Alienus 18:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

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. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

{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 by McClenon
I think that Dabljuh's "defense" is one of the most troubling responses I have read on an RfC. He wrote: ''Given the bizarre bias the original article had, my SLIGHT irritability towards incorrigible POV pushers, admitted filibustering and bad faith acting bullies, can be safely discarded. Remember, NPOV is a policy, and violating it warrants abuse.'' Yes, NPOV is a policy. So is civility. Violations of NPOV DO NOT warrant abuse. Also, I do not see "slight irritability" but blatant incivility. I have not researched the content dispute that provoked this, and I am not ready to comment on whether there was filibustering or bad faith by those with whom Dabljuh disagreed. I am ready to comment on whether Dabljuh is a POV pusher. I am not ready to comment on whether he is incorrigible; it is Wikipedia policy that anyone can learn. No matter how biased Dabljuh thinks the article was, he is expected to be civil. Until now, he has not been civil.

{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 ~ ):
 * 1) Robert McClenon 15:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Essentially, you're saying, that I'm a dick. That is so right on, baby Dabljuh 16:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 16:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Totally agree.  But in response to Dabljuh, you were abusive even before you started editing anything.  That says to me that you weren't standing up to alleged NPOV violators for the good of Wikipedia: you were violating Civility because you didn't like them, which is how you ended up making a lot of personal attacks.  I think a lot of good came out of the actual editing that took place, in the end, but the flame war really didn't help anything.  Next time, be Wp:bold and improve the article first; at least then people can see you're trying to help.  Mangojuice 21:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) OnceBitten 16:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Given the response here, it seems unlikely that this RfC will accomplish anything. (ESkog)(Talk) 04:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) The Land 13:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Agree that unfortunately this RfC will unlikely resolve the attitude of the editor. Gwyllgi 15:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by IZAK

 * "Amicus curiae": Concern about anti-Judaism ramifications of User:Dabljuh's disputed behavior.

While I have not gone head to head with User:Dabljuh over his views concerning circumcision in general (and I am not quite sure why he wishes to be so strident about a rite that is practiced in many cultures), as an active member of WikiProject Judaism I should point out that Dabljuh's self-appointed "crusade" against circumcision has serious anti-Judaism ramifications because the rite of Brit milah (Hebrew: ברית מילה literally: "covenant [of] circumcision") is the ancient and universal religious ceremony within Judaism welcoming infant Jewish boys into a covenant between God and the Children of Israel through ritual circumcision performed by a mohel ("circumcisor") in the presence of family and friends, followed by a celebratory meal (seudat mitzvah). Similarly, according to Jewish law, Brit milah, in the form of adult male circumcision, is one of the three main non-negotiable requirements for any non-Jewish man who is accepted for conversion to Judaism. (The other two are acceptance of the 613 Commandments and immersion in a Mikvah). Judaism can never accept a demeaning or disrespectful view of circumcision (such as displayed by User:Dabljuh), especially those that aim to stop it altogether. Therefore, in the spirit of an "amicus curiae" it is submitted that Dabljuh's behavior and tactics regarding the subject of circumcicion (as cited above) also pose a clear and present danger to one of Judaism's bedrock mitzvahs ("commandments"). IZAK 05:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * IZAK 05:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Response by Dabljuh to IZAK
Comment by Dabljuh: So what you are trying to explain is that my POV, and thus the POV of all medical organizations, the POV of the entire genital integrity movement, of sweden, denmark, holland's governments etc, would in fact be anti-Judaistic, meaning, goes contrary to the interests of judaism. You do not attest me anti-semitic motivations however.

I would like to point out that I am in no way opposed to adult circumcision for religious or whatever else reasons. I don't think it is healthy or anyhow else beneficial, but if someone thinks his God wants his foreskin so bad (or any other useful body part) then go ahead and chop it off.

So if I understand you correctly, you cannot support my POV because you feel that would be contrary to jewish interests, but you do not actually seem to be commenting on my user conduct. I am sorry but in the name of Wikipedia, I cannot support this notion, as Wikipedia is dedicated to a policy of NPOV and has to present facts in an objective and neutral manner, and not in a way that specifically makes Jews happy. Do you think the Abu Ghraib article should be written in a way to specifically make Americans happy? Dabljuh 15:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Dabljuh: Here are my responses, I hope you will try to understand them. IZAK 08:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) You say above: "thus the POV of all medical organizations, the POV of the entire genital integrity movement, of sweden, denmark, holland's governments etc, would in fact be anti-Judaistic". Well, yes, you thus see that I am correct, that they are indeed all "anti-Judaistic" if what they seek is to abolish all forms of circumcision including Judaism's Brit milah.
 * 2) I am glad that you are "in no way opposed to adult circumcision for religious or whatever else reasons...if someone thinks his God wants his foreskin so bad (or any other useful body part) then go ahead and chop it off." However, the problem with this last statement of yours is that the Torah (Hebrew Bible) requires that every healthy Jewish male infant be circumcised at eight days old. See Genesis 17:12 "'Throughout all generations, every male shall be circumcised when he is eight days old...'" and Leviticus 12:3 "On the eighth day, [the child's] foreskin shall be circumcised".
 * 3) A basic reason for circumcision is that as any Jewish male needs to be in a state of circumcision soon after being born, and it's just that an infant cannot do it on his own, so the father and the mohel ("circumcisor") do it as the parental legal guardian and "custodian" of the baby boy.
 * 4) You then say that "Wikipedia is dedicated to a policy of NPOV and has to present facts in an objective and neutral manner, and not in a way that specifically makes Jews happy." You seem to think that your "application" of the NPOV policy is here to supress important views that you do not accept. Since when is it "NPOV" to trash Judaism? This has nothing to do with "making Jews happy" (how silly!) because Jews have always managed to be happy in the face of all the attempts to either wipe them out or stop them practicing their religion. So forget that one.
 * 5) Your comparison, that the "Abu Ghraib article should be written in a way to specifically make Americans happy" is very bad logic. Are you saying that the SPECIFIC Biblical Divine commandment to circumcise is the equivalent of prisoner abuses in Iraq? The one is a fullfilment of religious obligations whereas Abu Ghraib was a crime. How is observing God's commandments the equivalent of a "crime"?
 * 6) Just because doctors in Holland or wherever wake up one day and decide to make up some new law doesn't make it morally right! Doctors or governments do not decide what is morally right or wrong, that is the job of theologians and philosophers.
 * 7) By the same token you could say what right do surgeons have to remove cancerous tissue in surgery if it will deform the body? A very poor argument you will admit.
 * 8) To Judaism, the foreskin is a type of "spiritual cancer" (symbolically speaking) that MUST be removed for both the SPIRITUAL and eventual PHYSICAL medical health of the boy, and many studies have proven this as well, but that is another discussion.

Comments on Izak's points

 * 1) Genesis 17:12-15 provides for the circumcision of sons and also slaves, but does not provide for any exception on the grounds of health. My understanding is that the circumcision of slaves was quietly dropped when slavery was abolished and the other exception was introduced as a life-saving provision for sick infants. It would therefore appear that the command to circumcise has itself been trimmed to suit the times.
 * 2) There is a difference between criticising circumcision and being anti-Semitic or anti-Islamic. Many traditional and religious practices are open to criticism, including the traditional Hindu practice of burning the widow on her husband's funeral pyre, the Catholic ban on birth control and the fundamentalist Protestant insistance on a literal interpretation of one of the creation stories. In a free society, such criticism is to be expected, and the fact that some people make such criticisms does not automatically make them anti-Hindu, anti-Catholic, anti-Protestant or anti-Jewish.
 * 3) Anti-Semitism is to be abhorred. However, this important issue should not be confused with an opposition to circumcision.
 * 4) Intemperate language is also to be rejected. However, the use of intemperate language should be addressed as intemperate language, except where it is also anti-Semitic.
 * 5) Izak asks  'How is observing God's commandments the equivalent of a "crime"?' I suggest that the massacre of the people of Jericho in Joshua chapter 6 would fit the description of an act of genocide. I would further suggest that some people might object to the selling of one's daughter into slavery as per Exodus 21:7, that others might also object to the compulsory execution of witches, as in Exodus 22:18. In fact, our ideas of right and wrong are often quite at variance with those that are set down in the Bible.

Therefore it is better to exercise some care in responding to criticsim of circumcision, and even the use of some intemperate language. Something can be both anti-circumcision and expressed in an intemperate way without necessarily being anti-Semitic. However, when something does cross that line, then it deserves criticism. Michael Glass 13:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * While I agree with your caution, a thorough examination of User:Dabljuh's edits gives good cause for the concern IZAK has expressed. Tom e rtalk 20:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I deliberately did not use the words "Anti-Semitism" at any time! I did say that the consequences of what User:Dabljuh was fighting for is clearly headed in a direction that would willy-nilly oppose one of JUDAISM's most fundamental commandments (Brit milah - "Jewish circumcision"), and at least User:Dabljuh was astute enough to recognize that and realized that what I was saying would mean that his views would result in an "anti-Judaistic" POV (as he says: "anti-Judaistic, meaning, goes contrary to the interests of judaism", and I also agree with his understanding of my critique: "You do not attest me anti-semitic motivations however"). I also was not focusing on his methodolgy as much as on where it could lead to (which he also realized, and seemed to disagree with quite ably, and which I understand but cannot accept from the perspective of Judaism's requirements.) Read his words above carefully, please. Secondly, and very unfortunately, User:Michael Glass has rather perverse and misinformed impressions and "interpretations" of Judaism's Torah and Tanakh as per his comments above. This is not the time and place to get into a wide debate about "trashing the Bible" to suit modern-day politically-correct-type notions, trends, or fads, so it's probabaly wisest to simply ignore his crass comments as they are not really related to the specific concerns regarding the slippery slope that opens up when attacking the rite of male circumcision in general with its unavoidable negative impact upon one of Judaism's holiest and most sacred commandments, Brit milah. IZAK 05:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * IZAK's comments (above) accuse me of making "perverse", "misinformed" "interpretations" of the Torah, of "trashing the Bible to suit modern-day politically correct type notions, trends or fads" and making "crass" commente that are best ignored. I therefore ask:
 * If any comment I made is perverse and misinformed, please be specific. Otherwise this criticism should be dismissed as a meaningless smear.
 * If I made any error of fact, please be specific. Otherwise, please do not use insulting terms or intemperate language.
 * Does the command in Genesis 17 include a command to circumcise slaves or does it not?
 * Is opposition to slavery and selling one's daughter into slavery to be dismissed as a "modern-day politically correct notion"?
 * Is the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which abolished slavery in 1865, a modern-day fad?
 * Is a critical discussion of circumcision off limits simply because it is sacred to Judaism?
 * I believe that all topics should be open to discussion, including ones that raise sensitive questions to religion. I also believe that it is important to distinguish between being anti-circumcision and being anti-Jewish or anti-Semitic. Michael Glass 09:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Gentlemen, it seems that this discussion, while clearly important to many, is straying from the topic of this RfC. May I request that it is taken to the talk page instead? Jakew 10:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * (Michael: No-one is opposing a "critical discussion of circumcision ... simply because it is sacred to Judaism," and on Wikipedia, all agree that "all topics should be open to discussion, including ones that raise sensitive questions to religion." But the points I have raised above regarding the fact that a RIGID anti-circumcision attitude MUST invariably pose a highly dangerous and mortal threat to Brit milah -- and Brit milah is a part of the Torah and classical Judaism -- making it an essential element in understanding why ultimately Jews and Judaism as a whole MUST oppose and even fight-off any efforts to completely eradicate and ban circumcision from the face of the Earth. The following are your highly tendentious words, with a skewed view of what the Tanakh is truthfully about, that millions of people who take the Bible seriously will definitely find offensive: "I suggest that the massacre of the people of Jericho in Joshua chapter 6 would fit the description of an act of genocide. I would further suggest that some people might object to the selling of one's daughter into slavery as per Exodus 21:7, that others might also object to the compulsory execution of witches, as in Exodus 22:18. In fact, our ideas of right and wrong are often quite at variance with those that are set down in the Bible." Are these the words of a "Bible lover"? Obviously not! So it would then be correct to just attribute it to ignorance about what these passages mean and how they should be studied and interpreted, because no Torah scholar worth his salt who is familar with classical Judaic Torah study would ever say such foolish things. Your other examples and arguments are just tangents and "smokescreens" that are just not to the point.) Subsequently, please note: I fully agree with User:Jakew that it is pointless to let the discussion stray from the the topic of this RfC. I have said what needs to be said and I think it does not need further "defense" on my part as my presentation is crystal clear and very self-evident. So I will hold my peace for now unless someone is so desperate to debate, they should please contact me on my user talk page. Thank you very much. IZAK 07:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Further comments from me will be on your user talk page. Michael Glass 20:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The reality of non-therapeutic circumcision is that it cuts off a normal, healthy part of a child's genitals without a medical indication. The NPOV consensus of the international medical community as expressed in the policy statements of professional medical organizations is that the medical benefits of neonatal circumcision do not outweigh the risks and harms. In other words, circumcision of a healthy boy is medically unnecessary. Any attempt to hide the fact that elective, non-therapeutic circumcision cuts off a normal, healthy part of a male's penis without a medical indication is an unacceptable attempt to push a pro-circumcision POV. -- DanBlackham 09:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not NPOV - it's a POV, but certainly, the conclusions of the medical organisations should be expressed in the article, as indeed they are. But again, this is off-topic for this user conduct RfC, and really belongs on Talk:Circumcision. Jakew 12:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * In my opinion it is necessary for people to be familiar with the policy statements of the professional medical organizations in order for them to judge who is editing with a NPOV and who is pushing an agenda. The official policy statements of the professional medical organizations are not just another POV.  They are the most neutral POV of any source available.  They represent the consensus of the medical communities in Australia, Canada, Great Britain, and the United States.  The official policy statements of the medical organizations should be emphasized more in the article than other points of view.  All of the professional medical organizations say that the medical benefits of infant circumcision do not outweigh the risks and harms.  In other words they all say there is no medical indication for infant circumcision. -- DanBlackham 11:17, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

If you have any doubt that DanBlackham's judgment is correct about this issue, check WP:NPOVUW. Dabljuh 11:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Presumably you are not referring to this: "The prevailing Wikipedia understanding is that the neutral point of view is not a point of view at all; according to our understanding, when one writes neutrally, one is very careful not to state (or imply or insinuate or subtly massage the reader into believing) that any particular view at all is correct." Jakew 11:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Quite obviously, User:DanBlackham's POV couldn't give a darn what Judaism has to say about the subject of circumcision (maybe he knows nothing about it, so we may have to give him the benefit of the doubt for a while), so who cares what he says. It takes two to tango (meaning, we can agree that some doctors may have some views about some things -- it's their right -- but they have no right to negate and deny the long-standing teachings and practices of an established religion to practice its own commandments.) Or shall we just notch it up to just another example of doctors' arrogance and ignorance when it comes to morality, religion, and philosophy? Another sad example of doctors attempting to "play god" and fool a whole bunch of people in the process. Hitler had his doctors too you know, like Dr. Josef Mengele, but that did not make him correct, did it? IZAK 12:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Outside view by Alienus
The situation with Dabljuh, while interesting in itself, is indicative of a deeper problem with the circumcision articles. Put aside for a moment whether you're happy with Dab's tone and instead focus on the content. What he's saying, and has said all along, is a simple, incontrovertible fact: these articles are deeply biased because of the hostile actions of a small group of like-minded editors, including Jayjg, Jakew and Nandesuka.

It goes deeper than a mere content dispute because the behavior of this trio and their occasional allies has been entirely intolerable, to the point where "unacceptable" responses by others are not only to be expected, but to some extent ameliorated by context and provocation. They are guilty of everything they accuse Dab of, and then some, but they're less obvious about it. Worse, Dab's motives are fundamentally good, while theirs are in opposition to everything Wikipedia strives to be. They are professional POV pushers, and Dab's big failing is that he's only an amateur POV neutralizer.

The way I see it, this RFC is an abuse of process; an attempt to railroad yet another user who made the mistake of pointing out the insane levels of bias in these articles. They did it with Robert Blair, they're trying it with Dab, and it turns out that I'm next. The basic methodology used by this group is to appear to stick to the rules while being as offensive as possible despite maintaining a thin veneer of propriety. In other words, they screw you, but they do it politely.

For example, they consistently revert anything that conflicts with their plain-as-day agenda, but carefully take turns to game the system by avoiding 3RR and leave erroneous but reasonable-seeming edit comments. In Talk, they maintain an endless tag-team debate against any such changes and, instead of working to constructively arrive at a reasonable compromise, they abuse WP:OR and WP:RS by holding all text they disagree with to arbitrarily and increasingly high standards while the bar is lowered for their own work.

The rationale is two-fold: 1) a shallow examination of the matter does not reveal how dirty they are and 2) such behavior is guaranteed to get others to respond in ways that can be subsequently labeled as uncivil or as not assuming good faith. Of course, there is no good faith on their part and the civility is a sham, but they hope that other admins are lazy, stupid and generally incompetent. They have a history of seeking out such people and using them to their advantage. In short, they're counting on your deficiencies.

As others have said, this should be an RFC about Jayjg, Jakew, Nandesuka and anyone who willingly aids them, including William M. Connelly. This little POV-pushing club needs to be broken once and for all, not only because of its effect on the circumcision article, but because of the negative example it sets for other controversial areas. To put it plainly, if we let this group get away with hijacking this set of articles to their agenda, then their techniques will spread and compromise the integrity of Wikipedia as a whole.

I urge you not to be distracted from the deeper issue, but instead to learn all about what's really going on here so that you can make the right decision and not just blame the victims.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * Alienus 18:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I object to being called an "amateur pov neutralizer". I am the fucking GOD of POV neutralizing. The thing with these RFCs is, that they essentially don't work. To get a real idea of what has happened (and is still happening), someone would have to go undercover and try to neutralize POV themselves as a test to see what happens. Thanks to Jayjg's ability to detect smurfs however, this can be quite difficult (why is that guy still an admin, for chrissake?) Remember, I am the fucking pro here. So what I did was, rather than to actually pay attention to their hilarious accusations, I've tried to display balls and some humor at the same time, because that's the only thing saving someone in my situation. From the Foreskin-Butchers' perspective, the RFC has been, at large, a great failure so I'd say my strategy has worked out fine, and is more than anything a testament to their dishonesty and their acts of bad faith. So, I win. Would an amateur POV neutralizer win against a group of professional POV pushers with super-admin-powers? I think not. Would an amateur POV neutralizer get a POV-neutralized rewrite to stay? I think not. I demand you correct it and give me my proper title: "Bad Ass Overlord of POV Neutralizing" Dabljuh 14:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, I consider it a compliment to call you an amateur POV neutralizer, whereas the professionalism of the POV pushers is hardly a virtue. Also, a dedicated amateur often does a better job than a plodding pro.  Consider the motto of the second-biggest car rental company: "We try harder". Alienus 14:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.