Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Robert Brookes

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, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~.
 * (Robert Brookes | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute
''Robert Brookes is engaging in edit wars, refusing to work towards consensus, reverting without proper cause (i.e reverting spelling corrections) calling users who disagrees with him names, and generally making a number of articles very unpleasant places to edit.


 * Evidence of disputed behavior (provide diffs and links):
 * Removing large amounts of information on Foreskin without explanation
 * Reverting an edit intended as a compromise between two POV's without explanation
 * removing factual information from Ridged band with the edit summary Fleshing out for the sake of it is unnecessary
 * Reverts to the circumcision article with such antagonistic summaries as "deleting the propoganda" and "do wake up"
 * Requests evidence and then subsequently dismisses it as unsatisfactory. See Talk:Circumcision.
 * Makes change, which is reverted, then tries to make change again and slip it in by stealth, pretending it is a new "small tweak."


 * Applicable policies:
 * Talk page
 * No personal attacks
 * Negotiating NPOV
 * Always explain your reverts
 * Three revert rule
 * Wikiquette


 * Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute (provide diffs and links):


 * User talk:Robert Brookes #POV edits
 * Talk:Foreskin
 * Talk:Circumcision~Protection


 * Users certifying the basis for this dispute (sign with ~ ):
 * Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 17:36, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * [[User:Ardonik|Ardonik(talk)]] 19:02, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * thickslab 14:47, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)


 * Other users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * Dittaeva 20:59, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Eloquence* 00:26, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Rls 16:30, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)
 * Michael Glass 23:14, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Rhobite 01:21, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Starx 01:40, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * &#364;alabio 03:41, 2004 Sep 9 (UTC)
 * Johnleemk | Talk 16:53, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Func 17:22, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Mike H 19:17, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * jredmond 17:25, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Nathan J. Yoder 05:17, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * David Gerard 18:20, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Dieter Simon 00:27, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Kyz 22:24, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Nobi 14:30, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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

The Salem trials were never this good. I came to wikipedia as a result of a rallying cry, I came across (from an anti-circumcision list) to prevent the deletion of the genital integrity article. To my horror I noted that each and every circumcision related article had been hijacked by the anti-circumcision activists and filled with their POV and links. Of interest was that this demonstrable garbage had somehow been sold as NPOV and was now being protected as such by those resident wikipedians who share their peculiar interest in the foreskin. Their tenacity and commitment to this purpose has been self evident. There is no way that these articles will ever approach NPOV as long as genuine wikipedians remain ignorant as to the key issues relating to the anti-circumcision debate. The first rule, (which I don&#8217;t expect any genuine wikipedian to acknowledge now, but may reflect upon later), is that you cannot negotiate with monomaniacal fanatics and no purpose is served being &#8220;nice&#8221; to them as it is interpreted as &#8220;weakness&#8221;. Their posting tactic of &#8220;two steps forward and one step back&#8221; serves their agenda well and has no counter from among the &#8220;Hobbits&#8221; of wikipedia. I am all for NPOV. I wish for nothing more than NPOV articles and am outraged at the blatant hi-jacking of wikipedia by these fanatics. I must state that I am also outraged at the naivety of the genuine wikipedians who seem so inept in countering this obvious POV. So have your Salem trial. Burn your &#8220;witch&#8221; then. But after the smoke has cleared two facts will still remain. The monomaniacal anti-circumcision fanatics will still be here pushing their POV and the wikipedians will still be too gutless to stand up to prevent it.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) - Robert Brookes 01:47, 11 Sep 2004 (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.

Robert Brookes appears to regard his stance on circumcision as holy law, and all other viewpoints as lies that do not belong in Wikipedia. This is in clear violation of Neutral point of view and other policies. In addition, Robert's caustic and combatative attitude towards anything he percieves as opposition to his "revision" of articles relating to circumcision is also troublesome, and appears to have caused unnecessary conflict. Civility, cooperation, and neutrality are the glues that bind Wikipedia together, but Robert appears to have no use for any of these.


 * Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * Slowking Man 05:51, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * Nathan J. Yoder 05:17, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * David Gerard 18:20, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Kyz 22:24, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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

IMO Roberte Brooks is a vandal and should be blocked from editing as one. He is not in the least bit interested in writing articles and is only here to fight with people. He seems to enjoy insulting everyone who tries to reason with him, in fact that is all he appears to be here for. I don't believe we need take this to the AC because I think it's pretty simple. He's a vandal and should be blocked. Thoughts anyone? Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 15:53, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd out and out call him a vandal. But as he refuses to participate in the rfc and continues to be abusive in his edits and comments, I think blocking is the only option. Maybe a 48hr temporary block will calm him down a bit? --Starx 16:25, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm one of those longsuffering guys, I suppose. I think he could be valuable if he could come to grips with Wikipedia policies. He needs to be educated in how things are done here, and needs to realize that if he does not want to abide by Wikipedia policies, his only recourse is to leave (if it's that important to him, he can fork). If he refuses to participate in this discussion, I agree a temporary block with explanation that his uncooperativeness is not allowed at Wikipedia is a good next step. Jdavidb 17:02, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Not sure if this belongs, but I hasten to add that there are counterparts to Robert taking the other position; I presume all appropriate actions are being/will be taken with them? Jdavidb 17:02, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * None of them have been as rudely assertive as Robert Brookes, although Michael Glass and DanP are what I'd consider problem users. I don't know if RFC is necessary. Rhobite 17:13, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * There are counterparts, who? I haven't seen one person support Robert's behavior. What do you call someone who stands strongly by their position despite everyone calling them crazy? Nathan J. Yoder 01:42, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(I agree. I hope this will serve as a test case for handling some of the abusive editors on the other side of this circumcision issue.) Robert makes (seemingly paranoid) accusations of others regarding their POV, apparently believing that anyone who attempts to introduce neutrality is actually "working for the other side". There seems a complete lack of objectivity on his part, which I believe leads to his abusive behavior. func(talk) 17:21, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * It's a sad commentary on what happens when flame warriors on both sides of a controversy see adhering to the neutral point of view as a sign of weakness. Neither side realizes that its POV is unwelcome here.  At least people are aware of it now, and it's being dealt with bit by bit.  --Ardonik.talk 20:47, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)


 * If standing up to abuse makes a person a problem user it sounds very like a 'blame the victim' approach. I'm happy to work with anyone, and that includes Robert, but if I think I have been treated unfairly I'll respond. One of the facts about circumcision is that people hold passionately to diametrically opposing viewpoints. We can view this as a challenge to the NPOV ideals of Wikipedia, but if we are sensible we'll work together to ensure that the insights of all parties are incorporated into the articles. Michael Glass 02:46, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * No, the fact is that a few people hold passionately to diametricaly opposing viewpoints, while the vast majority of us look on dumbfounded while you wreck article after article. The true challenge of NPOV ideals here is whether Wikipedia can withstand a sustained attack from opposing extremists. Rhobite 03:03, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * It is good that you now have to confront this issue. Unfortunately wikipedia has allowed itself to become a propaganda mouthpiece for anti-circumcision propaganda. One has to understand the key issues of the debate to appreciate the insidious hand of these fanatics in the choice of words and the continuing demand to the links from their sites to be maintained. The genuine wikipedians are now being exposed to this reality. That the focus of attention is currently focussed on one Robert Brookes is no problem if the entire hullabaloo serves to make wikipedians aware of what the true motives of these people really are. The anti-circumcision activists are to circumcision issues as aidsmyth.org is to mainstream AIDS and what the anti-vaccination mob is immunisation. Robert Brookes has come and Robert Brookes will go but the monomaniacs will stay and continue to pus their POV. On the evidence as it now stands the well meaning but horribly naïve wikipedians (like the Hobbits) will not be able to withstand the onslaught. Sad.- Robert Brookes 01:45, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * The point is that you've been nothing but rude and confrontational since you got here. Since I got here, you've deleted changes I've made wholesale without letting me know what it was you didn't like about them. You've refused to answer questions I've asked you about what it was you didn't like. You've told me that I need to justify changes without justifying any of yours. You've called me names. This is not about an "agenda," it's about the fact that you haven't displayed the ability to act like an adult. -- thickslab 14:13, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Exactly and that is why I started this rfc. If i see anyone else being as abrasive or unreasonable I'd start one on them too. Robert you seem to be blaiming everything on "anti-circumcision activists" but the person who is responsible for your own behaviour is you. Until you aknowledge the fact that you are being uncivil, you will never be able to comply with our policies of collaborative editing. Now I know that collaborative editing and NPOV are not for everyone. If that's the case with you then you really should leave. If you want to stay and work with people then you must agree to change your behaviour. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 14:38, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please, apologize, change your ways, and move on. This RfC is about the old Robert Brookes. Let's see a new Robert Brookes help us make these articles better than ever before. --Ardonik.talk 02:24, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC) Let's turn this into a productive conversation. I'm pleased that you do not deny your "in your face"-ness; can't you agree that it's (1) against policy, and (2) off-putting? Why not drop it, and return to being a Wikipedian of good standing? --Ardonik.talk 03:16, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, there was clearly an "agenda" (though not as nefarious as you seem to imply) &mdash; the evidence is in the e-mail at Votes for deletion/Genital Integrity. The anti-circumcision POV is slowly but surely being dealt with; in particular, the Violence article seems to be back to a neutral point of view (happy days!)  But you have yet to address your caustic attitude, not only to the self-styled intactivists (which was never justified in the first place), but also to outsiders like me who had no "vested interest" either way about circumsision.  Do you have to be abrasive, disruptive, and insulting in order to keep "the insidious hand of these fanatics" at bay?  Why is civility not an option for you?  You have seen the policy &mdash; it's linked above &mdash; meanness is clearly not appreciated or wanted here.  Why not make amends and return to good standing so that you can continue to help us write this fascinating encyclopedia?
 * Forgive me if I question the way you deal with issues here. Why is it that you deal with blatant POV "slowly but surely" while rushing out the Salem style trial for an other who is "in your face"? Do you not see the need for an even handed approach here? I would like you to give this some thought. - Robert Brookes 02:40, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I would also describe the way I'm dealing with your vituperance as "slowly but surely"; after all, rational discussion takes more time than blocking IPs. The other participants in the circumcision flame wars aren't immune to RfCs/witch trials either &mdash; it's just that your abuse is being addressed first.  I don't feel that I am treating any of the parties in this conflict differently.  I have tried reasoning with Walabio and DanP, and I have tried reasoning with you; so far, only my attempts to reason with you have yielded no fruit.  And I'm not the only one who has experienced this &mdash; there are a dozen or so endorsements above.

User:Robert Brookes appears to be to anti-circumcision what Mr-Natural-Health was to alternative medicine. It would be really good if we could learn from that experience and deal with the problem effectively a bit more quickly than it was dealt with that time around. We also need a concise and self-explanatory term for this variety of problem user, if we're going to keep getting them. "Abusive crusader"? - David Gerard 18:20, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Monomaniac? Rls 23:17, 2004 Sep 11 (UTC)

Protector of Hobbits
Robert Brookes' comments reveal some interesting things about him.

He says:


 * "I came to wikipedia as a result of a rallying cry, I came across (from an anti-circumcision list) to prevent the deletion of the genital integrity article."

It appears that he monitors the activities of anti-circumcision lists. This hardly makes him a disinterested observer. Indeed the venom of his hatred for people who do not share his point of view is quite obvious. He refers to:


 * demonstrable garbage
 * peculiar interest in the foreskin
 * monomaniacal fanatics
 * no purpose is served being "nice" to them it is interpreted as "weakness"

Critics of Robert might well wonder if he was describing himself!

His description of "genuine wikipedians" is hardly flattering. He describes them as naive "Hobbits" who are too gutless to stand up to the anti-circumcision fanatics.

Now I happen to believe that this is demonstrable nonsense. I happen to believe that Wikipedia is quite big enough to look after itself, and doesn't need Robert as a protector of the Hobbits against those wicked anti-circumcision people. I also believe that people with different points of view can work together. We don't need a jihad against people with strong opinions, whether pro or anti-circumcision. What we need to realise is that people with all sorts of views on this subject can work together to create articles that really will advance people's understanding of the issues.Michael Glass 13:07, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * That's worth printing out and framing, in my opinion. --Ardonik.talk 15:28, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree, it is kind of funny how Robert's 'colorful language' used against inactivists most accurately describes himself. Any normal person in his shoes would be totally humiliated and have their ego crushed by now.  It's just astounding how Robert can keep coming back, he perfectly fits the psychological term cognitive dissonance.  In all my years of being on the internet, there is only one person I've met capable of competing with Robert's level of cognitive dissonance. Nathan J. Yoder 01:42, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * You yourself fall squarely into the "inactivist" camp, and most likely came to the Wikipedia as a result of Ualabio's "call to arms" in the VfD for Genital Integrity that started this circumcision shouting match in the first place. Are you gloating?  It is Robert himself who aptly demonstrated how little insults accomplish.  Be unlike him, and don't insult him back.  --Ardonik.talk 03:14, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually, I just found this page a few days ago when I was bored and searching for random stuff. I don't know anyone here and certainly am not on some sort of extreme anti-circ mailing list.  I know what he's referring to when he talks about inactivist zealots, I've had to (very frustratingly) deal with them too, however none of that excuses any of his extreme behavior, propagandizing, stereotyping and general stubborness.  As far as gloating is concerned, I just find this situation very amusing. I had no idea this kind of drama went on at Wikipedia.  Wrt "insults," those are more statements of fact.  It's obvious that Robert is stubbornly adhering to his pro-circ view; twisting and distorting his logic everytime he comes across evidence against his view to relieve his "dissonance."  I know someone else like that online, and the basic identifying characteristics are that they not only make ridiculous exaggerations of the opposition (i.e. comparisons to flat earth society), but they also refuse to concede even the smallest point.  If I were in an article I wouldn't "insult," but this is an RFC not an article. I don't even plan on editing any of the circumcision and related articles. Nathan J. Yoder 00:03, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Alright, fair enough. I apologize for my mischaracterization of you.  However, insults are still inappropriate, even in an RfC.  --Ardonik.talk 00:41, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)