Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Robert the Bruce/Evidence

Robert the Bruce
I am uncertain whether this is a valid request or not, but I would like to request the arbitration committee to consider a temporary injunction against this user from editing any further with articles relating to sex, specifically relating to foreskin and circumcision. It is apparent that User:Robert the Bruce is holding a personal edit war on several articles with User:Robert Blair which is causing them to appear on Requests for page protection. See and  -- AllyUnion (talk) 13:20, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I second this with the further request that the injunction be extended to both users if that is within the power of the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:31, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I would argue that it is a matter of urgency that the arbitration committee address the allegation that Robert Blair is a sockpuppet of RtB. Could the ArbCom make it a top priority to assess this? If he (Blair) is a sockpuppet, or there is doubt, he should likewise be disallowed from editing. If he is not, the ArbCom should declare it and both parties should be issued with an apology. - Jakew 13:44, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * To clarify: I have no idea whether Robert Blair is or is not a sock puppet, but requested that the injunction should cover him because both Roberts appear to have been edit warring on Anti-circumcision and other circumcision-related articles. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:01, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Re: Evidence presented by Exploding Boy
These edits were discussed at length in the article's talk page. See: Psychiatric aspects and particularly This is supposed to be a work of scholarship. - Jakew 18:01, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Irrelevant. The edits are a violation of 3RR.  Exploding Boy 18:11, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Debatable, but let's assume for the sake of argument that they are. Why not just post them to the admin notice board? Why make such a huge song and dance about a single violation of the 3RR from six weeks ago? It just seems way out of proportion. - Jakew 18:26, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Some points that need to be made clear
Wally - you seem to be confused about the difference between a mediator and an arbitrator. Please start by reading Dispute resolution, Mediation and What is mediation?. Also:


 * Theresa Knott is not, and has never been, a member of the mediation committee
 * Any advice Theresa gives in this case will be in her capacity as an editor and/or admin. Not in her "official capacity as head of the mediation committee" (because she does not hold that position and never has) or as an arbitrator (because she is recused).  We accept information and opinion from any contributors we feel can give insight to a case.
 * Mediation is always voluntary. That is an vital part of the process.  If Exploding Boy refused mediation then that is his right.  It won't be held against him any more than any past refusals to participate in mediation will be held against Robert.
 * One of the many things we consider in accepting a case, is whether there is any possibility of the problem being resolved by mediation. If we don't believe there is a chance of that, then we are more likely to take a case.  That is a judgement we have to make.  If one contributor is still asking for mediation, that is not necessarily enough - especially when official mediation is not currently available anyway.

--sannse (talk) 20:18, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

copied from User talk:Sannse
Hi Sannse

What's the correct procedure for presenting evidence against evidence already presented by other parties?

In the interests of full disclosure, please would you copy this question to Robert the Bruce's RfA talk page? Thanks. - Jakew 19:49, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * From the instructions: "If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user." -- sannse (talk) 20:19, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

End of moved text

Robert the Bruce
I am uncertain whether this is a valid request or not, but I would like to request the arbitration committee to consider a temporary

injunction against this user from editing any further with articles relating to sex, specifically relating to foreskin and circumcision. It is

apparent that User:Robert the Bruce is holding a personal edit war on several articles with User:Robert Blair which is causing

them to appear on Requests for page protection. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?

title=Special:Contributions&target=Robert_the_Bruce] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?

title=Special:Contributions&target=Robert_Blair] -- AllyUnion (talk) 13:20, 30 Jan 2005

(UTC)
 * I second this with the further request that the injunction be extended to both users if that is within the power of the arbitration

committee. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:31, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I would argue that it is a matter of urgency that the arbitration committee address the allegation that Robert Blair is a sockpuppet of

RtB. Could the ArbCom make it a top priority to assess this? If he (Blair) is a sockpuppet, or there is doubt, he should likewise be

disallowed from editing. If he is not, the ArbCom should declare it and both parties should be issued with an apology. -

Jakew 13:44, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * To clarify: I have no idea whether Robert Blair is or is not a sock puppet, but requested that the injunction should cover him because

both Roberts appear to have been edit warring on Anti-circumcision and other circumcision-related articles. --[[User:Tony

Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|Talk 17:01, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Re: Evidence presented by Exploding Boy
These edits were discussed at length in the article's talk page. See:

Psychiatric aspects and particularly

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Foreskin_restoration/archive#This_is_supposed_to_be_a_work_of_scholarship This is supposed to

be a work of scholarship]. - Jakew 18:01, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Irrelevant. The edits are a violation of 3RR.  Exploding Boy 18:11, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Debatable, but let's assume for the sake of argument that they are. Why not just post them to the admin notice board? Why make such

a huge song and dance about a single violation of the 3RR from six weeks ago? It just seems way out of proportion. -

Jakew 18:26, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Response to Robert's motions
Robert states that

remanding an item for mediation does not mean, necessarily, going through the committee itself, but merely seeking out a mediator, be it     one specifically assigned by the committee or not. It is not clear that this was not possible

Certainly it is. In Robert's "mediation" with Theresa Knott, when the mediation committee was not in a shambles, Robert refused to accept any mediator except his ally User: Jakew. Theresa Knott, while she has indeed expressed an opinion about Robert, has also demonstrated an almost saintly willingness to put up with his behaviour, to the point where she accepted Jakew as a mediator. I would not accept such a mediator.

I strongly object to the characterization of Robert's so-called "invitation" to mediation. The fact is that Robert used the issue of mediation in an attempt to avoid being the subject of a RFA. Please take a good look at his comments on my user page and his "invitation" to mediation, in which he wrote:

My belief is that he has behaved atrociously and as an admin has brought the office of admin/sysop into disrepute. Through this mediation I hope to reach an understanding with Exploding Boy that he ceases to abuse the systems of Wikipedia as a means to neutralise those with whom he has a     POV disagreement. Should the mediation fail I intend to take this issue to the AC with the view of having him stripped of admin/sysop position. -     Robert the Bruce 18:04, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That Robert has the gall to characterize this a "serious attempt" at mediation is laughable. This was no invitation to mediation; this was a threat.

That Robert further has the gall to characterise my response to this diatribe as "a threat to reinitiate RfA proceedings" is further evidence of his lying. I said, and I quote from the above page:

You must be joking. This very post is grounds for me to reestablish the RFA against you. Exploding Boy 18:15, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

I stand by that statement. His post does constitute yet another part of his continued campaign to deliberately slander me by accusing me of misusing my admin status against him, a claim he makes repeatedly and yet is totally unable to back up and with good reason: his claim is completely false.

I have, as stated, repeatedly said that mediation with Robert would be pointless. Contrary to Robert's claim, however, I have also repeatedly stated why. For evidence as to why mediation would be pointless, again, see my user page and Roberts initial request. I have also pointed out that mediation is not designed to address isssues such as the ones created by Robert.

Please see What is mediation?

Mediation is the activity in which a neutral third party (the mediator) assists two or more parties (the editors in dispute) in order to     help resolve their dispute, with concrete effects, on a matter of     common interest.

The key word here is NEUTRAL. Robert's insistence, in his previous so-called mediation on rejecting all mediators except Jakew, who, significantly, continues to actively campain on Robert's behalf, destroys any possibility of neutrality.

Note also that mediators have no "actual power" over the final decision, and no power to "vote for or recommend a ban or any other punitive action."

Mediation, as has been pointed out above, is supposed to be voluntary. I quote from What is mediation? (emphasis added):

Keep in mind that mediation is an alternative to having an    arbitrator decide your case in the name of the community

Note also the section entitled "what mediation is not," from which I quoted in the original RFA:

Mediation is not Arbitration. The arbitration process at Wikipedia exists to impose binding solutions to Wikipedia disputes. This solution may be anything up to and including a ban from editing the entire Wikipedia for a period of time. This is not the goal of mediation.

This is a case involving multiple users across multiple articles and Robert the Bruce. The aim of bringing Robert to Arbitration is to create some--one would hope voluntary--positive changes in his behaviour backed up by a binding decision that provides for clear repurcussions if he does not comply. Mediation is not designed or intended for cases such as this.

I would now like to address Robert's claims about Raul. Paragraph 1) contains several factual errors and deliberate misrepresentations. Let there be no confusion: these statements are lies. First, I did comment on the initial RFA of January 14.  To state otherwise is, frankly, unusually strange.

Second, I posted a message on the talk page of Requests for Arbitration, asking what the procedure is for reinstating an RFA. Under the heading "Rejected request," I wrote:

My recent RFA against user: Robert the Bruce was rejected, I feel inappropriately. Since the rejected request, his behaviour has continued to escalate. The pages he edits are out of control. He continues to attempt to goad and bait me. He ignores repeated requests to modify his behaviour. He continues to add inflammatory and offensive subheadings to talk pages. In short, he is trolling. It is my opinion that the RFA was rejected because we have not attempted mediation. Several users and I have stated on numerous occasions that we feel mediation would be pointless. In any case, mediation is not designed to address the types of problems this user creates. I would like to reopen the RFA for reconsideration. How do I go about it. Exploding Boy 17:52, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

Raul replied that the procedure for reinstating an RFA request is to (and I quote) "Just go ahead and re-state the request." He also advised that I should "take care to address [the fact] that mediation appears to be fruitless. That Robert claims Raul responded "in short order"--suggesting that Raul was just lying in wait for an opportunity like this to come up--is another deliberate misrepresentation, as can be clearly seen from the relevant timestamps.

Contrary to Robert's claim there was no "implication that he (Raul) would support such a request." I demand evidence to support this lie.

Robert things it is "worthy of noting that the language used in the resubmitted request was exactly the same as that the primary claimant offered Arbitrator Raul not three hours before, and which Arbitrator Raul voted to hear barely thirty minutes after that." The language, in fact, is exactly the same, since I copied and pasted the text. So what? The issues are those I identified on the Talk: RFA page. Would it not have been strange and inappropriate for me to write something totally different?

I submit that this so-called "evidence" is merely grandstanding, as is the rest of the statement by Robert.

As to paragraph 2). Robert claims that "Both before and after the acceptance of the 28 January RfA, Arbitrator Raul was the administrator responsible for not only offering advice on the protection the pages in question due to the dispute (which he dispensed to Exploding Boy on 25 January [52] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Raul654#Advice)), but later protected them himself at the request of Exploding Boy and over the objections of other contributors to those pages who were not involved in his dispute with my client."  I challenge Robert to demonstrate how this is at all relevant.  A brief look at User_talk:Raul654 will instantly reveal that I never named Robert at all in my discussion with Raul.  I quote the entire exchange, under the heading "Advice":

Hi. I've been contributing to a series of articles along with 3 other users. The articles are out of control. Several of them have been protected on more than one occasion, but to no avail. RFCs and RFAs against at least one of the users, and attempts at mediation with the same user, have also gone nowhere. Repeated requests for neutrality and cooperation on the appropriate talk pages have gone unheeded. The edit histories are a mess of reverts that light up my    Watchlist every day.

In my opinion, the only solution is to remove all but the most basic, undisputable facts from the articles, lock them, and then have the users hash out any other additions on the talk pages, providing credible unbiased sources, before adding anything else to the articles. The articles would, of course, then have to be watched carefull to     ensure that the same type of crap doesn't creep back in as it always has in the past.

My question is, does this seem reasonable or feasible, and how can this be initiated given that I'm a frequent editor of the pages and involved in a dispute with one of the other editors? There are at least three articles that would need this treatment, which I suggest since every other attempt at solving these problems has failed. Any suggestions? Thanks. Exploding Boy 21:38, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

It is not uncommon in situations like this to protect the page, and then work out a compromise version on a subpage, and then copy the subpage over the article once everyone agrees to it. To intiate it, if you want, I can look at the pages in question and revert to what I deem to be the last stable version and then protect them. That would give everyone involved incentive to discuss rather than revert. &#8594;Raul654 00:05, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response here. That would be great. I've asked for the pages to be protected, and one of them (Foreskin) has been. The other two (Male circumcision and Foreskin restoration) have not, though warnings have been placed on their pages. The only thing is... I can see the subpages just becoming the same type of battleground the article pages are now.... Exploding Boy 18:36, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

As can plainly be seen, this request was to lock the pages pending a neutral rewrite. This is exactly what happened (and I note that contrary to the suggestion in Robert's motion there was ONE objection, by ONE user, namely User: Shimmin, to the locking of ONE page).

Finally, I would like to add two comments. The first is that Robert's own Advocate does not seem to think Robert is innocent in this matter. Specifcally, on Robert's talk page, Wally writes " [I don't] . believe you are an embattled victim . . . It seems to me that you have a marked agenda . . . and have on occasion . . . acted on it".

Second, simply, I object to Robert's Advocate's psuedo-legal manner, and to the fact that he has advised Robert not to speak on his own behalf.

~

Discussion on the Motion to Dismiss
In order to maintain some order of replies on this issue, I will go down the line on primary claimant’s objections to the motion to dismiss and then do the same on his objections to the request for Arbitrator Raul’s recusal, separating each for clarity.

First of all, primary claimant alleges that he takes, as evidence that mediation was not a viable option, the fact that in Robert’s mediation with Theresa knott my client “refused to accept any mediator except his ally User:Jakew”. This is a mischaracterization. As this exchange between Jakew and Theresa from her talk page illustrates, Jake made a personal offer, which both parties accepted, to mediate their dispute. This is exactly the same thing I allege could and should have been made possible before arbitration, as per my contention that the mediation committee need not be considered the only acceptable source for mediation. I think it should also be noted that Jake’s effort was successful in promoting dialogue between two amenable and rational users. I commend again her reasonability and willingness to engage in dialogue, and wish the primary claimant had been of the same mind when considering mediation.

Primary claimant also makes light of statements made by the defendant in his request for mediation (as both he and I have quoted that page, it can be accessed from my motion or his reply). I think it is commendable that, at the outset of seeking mediation, my client stated in a candid way his perspective of the dispute whilst acknowledging willingness to work to end it. Surely, it is crucial for a mediator to know both side’s opinions on the dispute before effecting a resolution. As for my client’s alleged threat to seek arbitration against the defendant’s sysop capabilities, I submit that given the defendant’s treatment of my client and hostility towards amicable resolution on this issue, it is justified that my client might try to drive home the seriousness of his desire to solve the issue short of coercive action. Naturally, it seems, my client was met by another threat from the primary claimant, but without any concomitant resolve to end the dispute.

Primary claimant makes further accusations of inability to accept an impartial mediator save Jakew later in his reply, which as per the above is demonstrably false. I also cite the request for mediation; at no point was a mediator even offered, and at no point did my client make any sort of caveat regarding the appointment of a mediator to settle the dispute. Any accusation to the contrary is wholly without merit.

Primary claimant makes repeated statements about alleged slander by the defendant against him; this is not at issue here, and not the subject for which my motion to dismiss is set to deal. What is at issue is whether it is proper for this case to be under consideration at all, given the substantive and continuing irregularities surrounding it. I believe it is not.

Primary claimant also refuses to make any substantive claims as to why mediation would have been some sort of “snipe hunt” or “fool’s errand” from the beginning. I submit that the only reason mediation would have been pointless from the outset is due to the primary claimant’s remarkable intransigence in seeking resolution under standing Wikipedia policy. This would indeed leave my defendant, not the primary claimant, as the proper figure for the submission of any requests for arbitration, and the fact that his case is being heard as a reward for being stubborn reflects poorly on the entire Wikipedian dispute resolution system.

Primary claimant also alleges that mediation is an alternative to arbitration concurrent with it. I disagree, and cite as my evidence both the Wikipedia dispute resolution guidelines, which clearly states that arbitration is a last resort. How do I know this? The section on arbitration is entitled Last resort: Arbitration. A Wikipedian administrator and system operator ought to have, I feel, at least passing familiarity with the steps of the dispute resolution process, which in alleging mediation is coequal to arbitration the primary claimant does not. Additionally, I quote the proffered section, which says, '“If you have taken all other reasonable steps to resolve the dispute, request Arbitration. Be prepared to show that you tried to resolve the dispute by other means.”' I have submitted and further resubmit that the primary claimant did not come close to taking all other reasonable steps at resolution and indeed has not proven or even offered evidence that he did – as a point of fact he himself acknowledges that he skipped the process. This makes him patently unfit to submit an RfA on this matter, which is concurrent with the ArbCom’s finding regarding the 14 January RfA.

Finally, the primary claimant attempts to allege that the purpose of this arbitration is “to create some – hopefully voluntary – positive changes in his behaviour backed up by a binding decision that provides for clear repurcussions if he does not comply.” He later goes on to allege that this is not the purpose of mediation. I would submit another quote from the Exploding Boy, which notes, ''“Mediation, as has been pointed out above, is supposed to be voluntary.” The mediation page concurs. When my client attempts to seek mediation in an attempt to resolve the dispute, primary claimant rebuffs him, seeks arbitration, and states his purpose in doing so as prompting voluntary changes in my client’s behavior? This is, for lack of a better term, an absolute travesty. Primary claimant clearly either does not understand the dispute resolution process or is operating under the aim of subverting it in order to seek action against my client. Either way, this makes him wholly unsuitable to bring this case, and it makes it necessary to seek that it be dismissed and remanded to mediation as per the 14 January RfA.

I would like to note in conclusion that the primary claimant does not dispute my argument that his 28 January RfA was, in my own words, “not substantively different” from his 14 January RfA. He further does not dispute my claim that mediation, as ordered by the ArbCom, may be executed either by the Mediation Committee or, failing that, an independent third party. He finally does not dispute that he rejected mediation. In view of this I ask that these principles be adopted unchallenged.

Wally 01:30, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I should note that I have removed the note on the inadmissability of Theresa Knott's mediation testimony since, in short, no such testimony was offered. At a late hour I confused her and User:Jwrosenzweig, the Acting Chair of the MedCom, who did offer testimony to the effect that the Mediation Committee was not operative. As it was not contested, it does not effect my rebuttal, and the appropriate section of my pleading on the motion was removed as well, as I have no reason to doubt Jwrozenzweig's impartiality on the matter. I continue to argue, for reasons stated above and elsewhere, that mediation was nevertheless a viable option, with or without the committee. Wally 20:05, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Discussion on the Raul Recusal Request
Where the request for Arbitrator Raul’s recusal is concerned, I feel it necessary to firstly clear up a point. I did not allege that primary claimant did not comment on his own 14 January RfA. I alleged that Arbitrator Raul did not. I offer an opportunity to the primary claimant to make any replies he might see fit based upon this correction.

Firstly, I would like to take a second look at the principle, not disputed, from my request that ”even the appearance of impropriety” should be enough to prompt a recusal. I believe that principle should be bourn in mind as this discussion proceeds.

Primary claimant alleges that Arbitrator Raul did not act improperly in his giving advice to him about resubmitting the RfA. I agree that the mere fact that advice was offered by an arbitrator with an obvious intent to take part in this case, when he could just as easily have offered advice and another arbitrator taken his place, is enough to cast doubt on his neutrality. As quoted by the primary claimant, Arbitrator Raul additionally addressed not only the issue of advice but process. The question, as stated by primary claimant, at the end of his question was ''“I would like to reopen the RFA for reconsideration. How do I go about it.”'' Therfore, Arbitrator Raul was not simply giving him advice as to the validity of further arbitration – he was giving instructions exactly how to go about it, knowing full well that barely two weeks before it was rejected unanimously by the ArbCom.

Further, having dispensed such advice, Arbitrator Raul, as the timestamps clearly show and as I noted in my original request, voted to hear the case thirty minutes after its resubmission and only three hours after the initial question. Dispensing as I have done with the idea that further arbitration was prima facie appropriate, I find it difficult to believe that said Arbitrator made an in-depth study of this case in that time period. Had he, that would still be a conflict-of-interest, as he was seeking information on a case not yet brought before him and thus not under his purview.

Primary claimant alleges that there is no grounding to the idea that arbitration was implicitly supported by Arbitrator Raul. I return to the citation of the Arbitration talk page, where Arbitrator Raul’s reply, instructions to ''“Just go ahead and re-state the request. Also, take care to address what you just said - that mediation appears to be fruitless,”'' clearly demonstrates that he did not feel the question was one on the table, as he advises no contemplation, further dispute resolution or other standard actions by the primary claimant. Further, the fact that Arbitrator Raul voted to hear the case after its initial rejection on the strength of ‘’“that mediation appears to be fruitless”’’ calls into serious question his personal commitment to even-handedness on that issue. He might have, at the very least, indicated to the defendant the advise he gave to the primary claimant. This he did not do.

Primary claimant further alleges both myself and my client are telling lies in the course of this case. I take this allegation very seriously, so does my client, and so should a person who is obviously very concerned about what he considers slander against himself. I challenge the primary claimant to prove the existence of any lies or immediately apologize to both myself and my client. Such accusations do not make me believe that this discussion is occuring in good faith.

Primary claimant addresses my note that the language he used in his RfA of 28 January is exactly the same as that of his question put to Arbitrator Raul earlier that day and asks why this is relevant. Firstly, I thank him for admitting this. Secondly, I say that it strikes to the very heart of this request and of my allegation that Arbitrator Raul should recuse himself. Due to the fact that the wording was exactly the same from his question to Arbitrator Raul to his RfA, this essentially means that Arbitrator Raul was able to see the request being submitted three hours before anyone else, including my client. This logically casts doubt as to whether Arbitrator Raul went into this dispute with an open and unsullied mind. Why is it relevant? Because sounding out those who will hear the case on the case being offered and waiting until favorable reactions are forthcoming puts my client at an unfair disadvantage in that he cannot be assured his arguments will have willing ears, nor can he be assured that his case is not a foregone conclusion.

Primary claimant makes reference to the Advice he previously asked of Arbitrator Raul in his administrator capacity and notes that he did not once mention my client in that conversation. This is, of course, absolutely true. However, presumably to execute that advice Arbitrator Raul visited the page in question and noted the users involved in the debate and their activities, including any and all who were disputing the Exploding Boy, which would then obviously be the persons alluded to in that request. This means that Raul had a hint of a problem and an opportunity, at the instigation of the primary claimant, to prejudge for three days before the case was submitted. As I’ve said, the fact that Raul had prior knowledge and investigation of the facts of this case calls into question his ability to be fair to my defendant, who has to work against whatever first impression Arbitrator Raul has. Additionally, as I previously stated, Arbitrator Raul ought to have recognized this conflict and recused himself when this case came for deliberation. Given the above, I challenge the primary claimant to tell me how this is NOT relevant.

Primary claimant makes reference to User:Shimmin and his denunciation of the protection of that page by noting that he is the only one objecting. But he has nothing to say as to the ‘’substance’’ of the objection, and the point still stands that Arbitrator Raul was involved with protecting these pages in an administrative capacity concurrent to considering this case in an arbitrarial one, leading to an inevitable conflict-of-interest.

Primary claimant has two final objections which I will briefly dispense with. Firstly, he says that I obviously believe that my client is not innocent, and quotes in a very selective manner from my comments to my client on his talk page. Initially, I submit that my client and I are entitled to advocate-client privilege and any comments I make to my client in any way are inadmissible to this discussion. Nonetheless, for the sake of clarity, I will quote my entire statement. Portions quoted by the primarily claimant are emboldened.

“I should also like to note why'', specifically, I am accepting this case. It is not because of ideology. I could not care less about circumcision. Nor is it a matter of personal interest; I have no such connections. Nor, likewise, is it a matter that I believe you are an embattled victim — it is clear to me that all parties involved are responsible for some of the bad blood here. I take this case, quite simply, because I believe the Wikipedia process is being abused, and that you are essentially being made an unfortunate scapegoat. It seems to me that you have a marked agenda, which is not in itself wrong, and have on occasion (though not with the extensive frequency alleged) acted on it, of which all editors are in some way guilty. However there seems to be a cavalcade of users trotting forth, noose-in-hand, in an effort to get this case through arbitration. The fact that the failure of the mediation committee — with which I've first hand experience — is a factor should not mean that you automatically are moved up to more serious proceedings. The initial dismissal followed by an acceptance also calls the legitimacy of the proceedings themselves into question. This is why I feel I must help you.”''

This also speaks to the heart of this matter. Procedurally, this case ought never have been heard, and hopeless doubt is cast on any further proceedings here due to the malfeasance that is in large part the work of the primary claimant. Primary claimant is right when he says I do not believe my client is without his share of blame. However, my client is a good editor with a good mind, a willing spirit and an obvious desire to both add productive information and to work to keep articles neutral in order to counteract a dedicated lobby with views divergent to his own. He has an agenda, which we all do, and which I say myself “is not in itself wrong, but I do not believe he is here to enforce it, which is why I represent him. I believe he is being abused and I believe there is, as I said, “a cavalcade of users trotting forth, noose-in-hand, in an effort to get this case through arbitration” – a point the primary claimant’s actions in quoting me in such an obviously-cynical way proves to me beyond any doubt. On a personal note, and strictly on my own part, I say to Exploding Boy that you, sir, should be ashamed of yourself for attempting to defame my client by misquoting me, which neither he nor I have done to you, and I respectfully demand an apology.

Primary claimant finally objects to my request to my client to direct communications regarding this case through me. This is standard practice for an advocate, and I am uncertain as to what grounds this objection is made.

I should like to conclude by again repeating that, as an arbitrarial standard, “'even the appearance of impropriety' should be enough to prompt a recusal.” I believe that doubt has been cast on Arbitrator Raul’s fairness in this matter (though not as an arbitrator in general) and that there are serious questions which do, indeed, lend the appearance of impropriety. Hence, I make my request for a recusal.

Wally 02:36, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Evidence retraction
Following several exchanges with Ashley, I can no longer agree with or support the evidence I presented earlier. I still believe in the principles but I certainly don't blame Robert for acting the way he did, "right" or "wrong". If you agee with the points I mentionned and think it should be kept, then resubmit it under your name. I have also removed the excerpt from the Ashley Y's Talk Page copied by Jakew, since it is no longer relevant (and the title was ambiguous). --jag123 04:30, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Final response
Thanks to Robert for his reply.

At this stage I have only a couple of comments: for evidence of Robert's refusal of all mediators other than Jakew, it is necessary only to look at the relevant sections of Robert and Theresa Knott's talk pages. The text of the "mediation" is available on a sub-page of Jakew's talk page (which, I'm sorry, I can't find at the moment).

Regarding the allegation that I am lying when I accuse Robert of lying (this is getting extremely convoluted), I feel I've been very explicit about any claims. I'm not going to waste anyone's time by repeating them.

Finally, regarding the claim that discussions between Robert and Wally are confidential, there's really no reasonable expectation of confidentiality when you post messages on Wikipedia talk pages. Confidentiality on Wikipedia can only be assumed when sending private emails or messages.

I think at this stage we need to allow the Arbitration Committee members to take over, since, first, if the case is dismissed, there's little point in continuing the discussion, and second, I can't see much progress being made without a decision one way or another.

For the information of all concerned, I will probably not have access to the internet for the next three days.

Exploding Boy 20:56, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * One more thing. Here I C&P a relevant quote from User: Ambi (not logged in) which she removed (because she'd posted it in the wrong place):


 * For the record, mediation is recommended before arbitration, as arbitration is generally regarded as the last step in the dispute resolution process. However, it is not mandatory, particularly when the mediation process has completely broken down, due to the loss of all of its most active members for various reasons. Whether arbitrators should recuse is another matter, but you're barking up the wrong tree by demanding that mediation must precede arbitration for a case to be accepted. If someone's refusal to participate is indeed an issue, then it may be looked at through the course of the case. 211.29.116.174 14:11, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC).

Exploding Boy 21:12, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)


 * I am satisfied to wait until the Arbitration Committee and parties specific to requests come to conclusions regarding them. Wally 21:37, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

POV pushing?
Jake claims my 5 Oct 2004 edit to Medical analysis of circumcision is "POV pushing". I added the following two sentences.
 * Neonatal circumcision is not medically necessary according to professional medical organizations in Australia, Canada, Great Britain, and the United States. In other words the potential medical benefits of neonatal circumcision do not far outweigh the medical risks and harms of the procedure.

Jake, why do you think that edit was "POV pushing"? -- DanBlackham 03:07, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * The first sentence is correct and neutral. The second is a POV interpretation that warps the definition of the word "necessary". Vaccinations are not technically necesary, but the benefits do in general outweigh the risks. - Jakew 10:09, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If the second sentence is a "POV interpretation", it is an interpretation shared by professional medical organizations worldwide. There is a broad consensus in the international medical community that there is no medical indication for neonatal circumcision. There are several ways to express that widely accepted point of view: No professional medical organization in the world says the medical benefits of neonatal circumcision outweigh the risks and harms. The most positive statements regarding medical benefits of neonatal circumcision vs. risks and harms say the medical benefits are about equal to the risks and harms. My sentence was both accurate and neutral POV and it is supported by the following quotes from the official statements of professional medical organizations:
 * Neonatal circumcision is not medically necessary.
 * There is no medical indication for neonatal circumcision.
 * The medical benefits of neonatal circumcision do not far outweigh the medical risks and harms.
 * The Royal Australasian College of Physicians. Policy Statement On Circumcision. Sep 2002.
 * "After extensive review of the literature the RACP reaffirms that there is no medical indication for routine male circumcision."
 * "The possibility that routine circumcision may contravene human rights has been raised because circumcision is performed on a minor and is without proven medical benefit."
 * "Review of the literature in relation to risks and benefits shows there is no evidence of benefit outweighing harm for circumcision as a routine procedure."


 * Canadian Paediatric Society. Neonatal Circumcision Revisited.
 * "The overall evidence of the benefits and harms of circumcision is so evenly balanced that it does not support recommending circumcision as a routine procedure for newborns."


 * American Academy of Pediatrics. Circumcision Policy Statement (RE9850).
 * "In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child."


 * College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia. Infant Male Circumcision. Jun 2004.
 * "Current understanding of the benefits, risks and potential harm of this procedure, however, no longer supports this practice for prophylactic health benefit. Routine infant male circumcision performed on a healthy infant is now considered a non-therapeutic and medically unnecessary intervention."

-- DanBlackham 00:32, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Request
I would like to request that Robert the Bruce place his evidence on the evidence page according to procedure, rather than in the form of links--many of the external--scattered throughout. I would suggest that Jakew's evidence (why did he place it at the top of the page, rather than at the bottom, as all the other users did?) does not pertain directly to this case, as it has nothing to do with Robert the Bruce.

I note Robert the Bruce's general attitude towards the evidence, the process, and basically anyone who gets in his way--if Robert can't be civil to the Arbitration Committee (who, ultimately, have the power to ban him from editing the Wikipedia he keeps saying he is so "sad" to see in such a state), then why on earth would he be civil to any member in mediation? Indeed, he wasn't very civil to Theresa Knott when they were in mediation. I also note that Robert has restored the offensive list on his user page which, while it of course bothers me in that it clearly--and let me be unambiguous: falsly--claims me to be an anti-circumcision activist, also clearly shows a lack of good faith on Robert's part.

And finally, I would like to ask the AC members if there is some kind of proposed time line. As a gesture of good faith, I've refrained from editing circumcision-related articles since January 22 (though I did make a start on rewriting Circumcision/temp on the 29th and contributed to Foreskin restoration/temp on the 31st). In fact, I've not really done any significant editing for some time now and, though I've been back online for several days, have not made any contributions at all.

The more I think about it, the more I think I'll probably not contribute to circumcision-related articles much after this; I'm a (post)grad student, and I simply don't have the time or the energy, with my actual real life responsibilities and my work, to be, frankly, wasting my time trying to create factual, neutral, and well-written articles when other users (Robert the Bruce included, but definitely not only him) clearly have no wish to do the same thing. I will continue to contribute to the wide range of other articles I've been involved with, however, and I will say this: if the group of articles in question were a student paper, and I were marking it, it would get a failing grade.

So my question to the AC members is, is there a proposed time line for dealing with this case? It's reasonable to assume that there's some kind of limit on how much time people have to present their evidence. Following the page notes, which require brevity, I've chosen not to respond to the onslaught of accusations and comments from Robert now that he's chosen to let his Advocate go. But I'd like to know if the end's in sight. This has been a stressful experience for me (as well, I'm sure, as for Robert), and I think we'd all like to get it over with.

Today marks the beginning of my tackling a particularly complex and voluminous set of readings leading to a major paper, so I'll not be online regularly again until the 21st of the month. I will, however, be checking my email from time to time, and will also check my watchlist and talk page for messages. I will continue to not contribute to circumcision-related articles until a decision has been reached. Exploding Boy 17:18, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

'''It is worthy of note that this "request" from EB received a rapid response. There are a number of issues which I have raised which have not received the courtesy of an acknowledgement let alone '''a response. What does that say about the ArbCom? Disgraceful.''' - Robert the Bruce 04:20, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I will rework the page shortly to clear up any sections where evidence is in the wrong place. The page isn't clear as to whether new sections should be made at the top or the bottom, so I don't think there is any problem in particular with where Jakew put his section (Tony did the same on adding his above fvw's for example).  All cases look at both sides of a dispute (as long as evidence is presented for both), Jakew's evidence of anti-circumcision edits are welcome.  When anyone asks the arbitration committee to look at someone's behaviour, they automatically open up their own for analysis (note that I have not yet analysed this evidence, so I am not yet saying there is wrongdoing, just that we will look into that on both sides if evidence is presented to us).  On time-scales - we don't have an exact schedule, although we have guidelines such as a delay at the beginning of a case to allow evidence to be added.  Personally, I have been concentrating on the other (slightly older) open case, but will be switching my full attention to this one over the next couple of days.  Several votes are in place, I would expect more to follow shortly and I don't think this case will last much longer.  Sorry to be vague on this - it simply depends on too many factors.  -- sannse (talk) 22:09, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh Sannse, there is one obvious item which seems to be escaping your attention. Surprise, surprise. If we remember that Exploding Boy's approach to Raul654 which later resulted in this comment from Raul:
 * In the second case, Exploding Boy stated on my talk page that there are three articles (which Robert the Bruce is known to edit) he thinks should be rewritten from the bottom up, and asked if this was a reasonable belief. I gave him generic advice, and told him that there had been similiar instances, and in those instances the pages were protected and rewritten on a temp page. Explodingboy later said he wanted to do this, and asked me to protect these pages, and I did. Although I was aware that Robert edits these pages, notice that his name never even came up. This was distinctly a content-related issue.
 * Now we note that after all that our esteemed Exploding Boy now declares that he doesn't have the time anyway. Now check the cronology of the the above and relate it to the events around the resubmission of the RfA and see how the dummy was manipulated by Exploding Boy. Idiots! Naive idiots! - Robert the Bruce 00:43, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to engage in any more back-and-forthing with you, Robert, but Jesus, it's almost as if you want the AC to find against you. What's with the name-calling and general nastiness on your user and talk pages and the various pages connected with this arbitration?  I mean, don't get me wrong, go ahead and hang yourself if you must, but I just find it exceedingly peculiar--not to mention very revealing--that even in this situation you can't behave civilly.


 * Don't bother responding; I'm only here to check progress for the next 10 days and besides, I'm tired of bickering with you. Exploding Boy 17:05, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * My dear Exploding Boy/Calton how could I not respond. You know I once wondered how it was possible for things to get so out of hand in so many ways around here and manipulative people like you get away with what you did. It was a question of "if they knew they would surely do something about it" I thought. But in the final analysis the real clowns here are the ArbCom ... they are just running on ego. The ArbCom procedure could not be simpler ... yet they can't even get that right. The left hand obviously does not know what the right hand is doing. You know EB if something is demonstrably true it can not be a personal attack ... but I hear where you are coming from ... hearing a few home truths about their personal performance is likely to enrage our ego driven ArbCom, hopefully to the point of self destruction (which is close) but better for Wikipedia if they just get their act together. Too much to ask? - Robert the Bruce 04:11, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)