Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=0&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

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.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

This motion is of the utmost importance, because the mere fact that this case is before the committee is a fundamental violation of my client's right to due process. The initial RfA of 14 January, as presented by the primary claimant, User:Exploding Boy, is not substantively different from the present one, and that RfA was rejected unanimously in favor of mediation. The process was initiated by a request for mediation lodged by my client on 22 January (found here - [2]), to which the primary claimant's reply was to threaten to reinitiate RfA proceedings. I note here that there was no reply from anyone on the mediation committee, and note also that statements to the effect of "The mediation committee is in a shambles" were made by multiple persons involved in that organization). I submit, however, 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, nor that any serious effort to engage in such a discussion was made. In fact, I believe it was possible, but that my client was the only one who took the ArbCom’s request to do so seriously.

I further submit that there is evidence of possible bias on the part of Arbitrators involved in this case – indeed, while Arbitrator Theresa was conscientious enough to recuse herself from this case, Arbitrator Raul654 has, on several occasions, engaged in actions which have not only promoted and forwarded the primary claimant’s case, both publicly and privately, but have also indicated preconceived notions against my client. Evidence of this is offered in my request for Arbitrator Raul’s recusal; however, it shall suffice here to say that questions as to the motivations of two different involved arbitrators calls into question the very grounding upon which this case was accepted, especially given that Arbitrator Raul was the first to recommend a hearing and, therefore, set the pace for others.

Furthermore, the primary claimant has stated himself that “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.” ([3]) He says the same on his original request for arbitration and here, in his reply to Robert’s note that he had requested mediation ([4]). I note that nowhere, be it at the cited page or any other, does the primary claimant describe specifically why mediation would be ineffective. I believe that the only necessity for mediation is two users willing to converse amicably, which, it is quite true, did not here exist – Exploding Boy was unwilling to engage in such discourse. I submit, therefore, and the ArbCom agreed in its 14 January RfA rejection, that because someone thinks mediation cannot succeed does not mean it cannot or should not be attempted. As a matter of fact, the reverse is true. It remains a valid step until one user or the other rejects it. In this case, that user was the primary claimant, Exploding Boy. Therefore, it is clear to me that mediation was rejected at Exploding Boy’s impetus, not at my client’s, and as mediation would have been available had serious efforts been made, and as my client had expressed willingness to engage the primary claimant and others, it is wholly improper that Exploding Boy be allowed to bring proceedings against my client, as the dispute resolution process failed due to his unwillingness to participate in all the necessary steps.

All of these facts seriously undermine the very tenuous grounding upon which this case was accepted for arbitration after its initial rejection under circumstances substantially similar. The fact that the mediation step was skipped entirely with very little support going to my client, who seemed the only one interested in that proceeding; the fact that the head mediator involved, who gave statements about the committee to the ArbCom, had her own personal dispute with my client; the fact that another arbitrator, still actively involved in this case, did before and after this case became active provide assistance and inappropriate counsel to the primary claimants against my defense, undermining the premeses on which he voted to hear this case; and the fact that mediation failed primarily due to the reticence of the primary claimant and not my client make this case wholly unfit to be adjudicated against my client as per Wikipedian due process, which holds as common precedent that only aggrieved users who have personally exhausted all avenues may seek and submit arbitration. Hence, I move that the acceptance of the Request for Arbitration of 27 January, in line with the ArbCom’s reasoning behind its rejection of the same on 14 January, be rescinded, and these proceedings concluded pending fulfillment, completion or exhaustion of lower steps of the dispute resolution process. Wally 05:32, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wally you have got your wires crossed somehow. I am not even a member of the mediation committee, let alone the head of it. I have not given any statement to the AC about this case. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 06:14, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Theresa,

You are absolutely correct. At a late hour, when thinking of User:Jwrosenzweig I put your name instead and did not catch my own error. My sincere apologies. Wally 19:55, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wally - Mediation is temporarily not part of the dispute resolution process due to that committee's stalled status. However, if you can find a willing mediator and if your client and the other party agree to mediation, then please proceed with that route and I will propose that this case be suspended pending the outcome of mediation. It is, however, not the responsibility of the ArbCom nor in its authority to interfere in the affairs of the mediation process.

Further, if mediation were an option at the time of the RfAr, then it is clear from your own statement that the other party had refused the idea of seeking mediation. It simply does not matter who posts the RfAr at that point since mediation is not a possibility either way. Rest assured, the simple fact that the other party requested arbitration vs your client requesting it will have no significant bearing on the scope of this case. We will be looking at the behavior of both. --mav 10:10, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No. We may well reject a case for not having mediated, but we can certainly accept a case without mediation. This has always been the case. See Mav's explanation - David Gerard 20:00, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I affirm and support the above statements. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 20:01, 2005 Feb 5 (UTC)

As do I -- sannse (talk) 20:03, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And I Fred Bauder 20:39, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

And I. →Raul654 15:16, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

And I. I also caution Wally (and other AMA advocates) about being overly legalistic. If there's an issue, raise it, and if it's warranted, we'll deal with it accordingly - no need for motions and the like. Ambi 23:16, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What about, if I may ask, the fact that what was essentially the same RfA was rejected on the 14th and accepted on the 28th without a change of situation? Wally 00:00, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The situation with respect to mediation was clarified, and opinions can change over two weeks. Please also note that the above reply by mav is now shown as the clear opinion of the majority of the arbitrators on this case. -- sannse (talk) 00:14, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The situation persisting for two weeks evidently constituted sufficient reason. The case is in arbitration. Past cases have been dropped by the AC if all parties agree to drop all complaints (we basically don't want the workload), but even then the AC doesn't have to. - David Gerard 00:30, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I understand and acknowledge the consensus of the committee. Given that, may I ask that no proposed decisions be taken until Monday, to give time to compile remaining evidence? I thank the committee for its patience — this is my first case before the committee itself, and I'm learning as I go. Wally 00:49, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with this request, and encourage other arbitrators to do the same. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 00:51, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)

Fine by me - David Gerard 00:53, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And me. Ambi 00:55, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Count me in. →Raul654 15:16, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

This motion, and this request, are of critical importance because of the fact that Raul654’s impartiality suffers under grave questions which become even more serious as this case proceeds. I allege that he did engage in the following actions that call into question his impartiality on this matter:

1) After not commenting on the initial RfA of 14 January, the primary claimant, User:Exploding Boy, made the comment cited above in my evidence on the motion to dismiss, and recited below, that he did not believe mediation was possible and that that was why the 14 January RfA was rejected ([5]). Arbitrator Raul replied in short order, saying to “go ahead and restate the request”, noting the user’s opinion that mediation was not possible and with the implication that he would support such a request. I think it 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. Not only is this evidence of at least questionable devotion to the judgment of those arbitrators who initially rejected the 14 January RfA, and not only is this a contradiction of the dispute resolution guidelines (which by established custom ought to be followed if circumstances allow) but the fact that Arbitrator Raul has given advice to the primary claimant when said claimant had already initiated action against my client and was preparing to do so again calls into serious question – I dare say even complete disbelief – said Arbitrator’s ability to act on this case in an impartial manner and without preconceived notions.

2) 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 [6]), 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 ([7] see comments by User:Shimmin, highlighted in yellow at top). This latter action was less than a day after both his advice to the primary claimant to re-submit the case for arbitration and his own vote in favor of said act, which at that point ought to have signaled Arbitrator Raul to refrain from non-arbitrarial activities regarding this dispute. I submit that this is a demonstrable conflict-of-interest between Arbitrator Raul’s role as an administrator and an arbitrator and that his failure to lay the former duty on the table impairs his ability to properly execute his arbitrarial ones.

3) As a final note, I would like to specify the parameters with which I believe the issue of a recusal in a matter such as this ought to be considered: the principle that applies in common law, namely that even the appearance of impropriety should bring the judge or arbitrator involved to recuse him or herself, should likewise apply here. I site as evidence this paper, prepared by the American Arbitration Association ([8]), upon whose foundation our ArbCom is partially constructed, specifically Canons II, III and X, and very specifically Canon II Article G. I also cite Wikipedia’s own guidelines on arbitration, specifically note 2 of the section entitled “Who takes part?”, which states, ”Arbitrators will recuse themselves immediately if they believe that they have a conflict of interest.” ([9]}

As per the above, I believe Arbitrator Raul’s ability to judge this case in a fair and impartial manner given his prior statements and actions on behalf of the claimant is called into serious question, and for this reason I formally request that he recuse himself from further consideration of this case and any other that may appear between the primary claimant and my client. Wally 05:33, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

To sum up my actions in this case -

1. Explodingboy asked a question on an arbcom page about a procedural matter - namely, how to resubmit an already-rejected request. I responded, and told him to make his reasoning (about how it is difrerent from the first request) clear. This is just common sense. There's no implication to be made here, other than that I was trying to help someone who had a question about the process. Moreover, the assertion that because I gave this advice, I was somehow biased in favor of accepting the request is nonsense - I would fully have rejected the case if if I disagreed with the new reasoning. Furthermore, as has been stated previously - the arbcom is not bound to follow the dispute resolution process strictly. Mediation is strictly voluntary, and we do have the option of taking cases that have not gone through it. In point of fact, we have done so many times previously (Off the top of my head - Lir2, Lir3, 168/lothario, 168/Mav, Shorne et al, 'etc). Hence, your "by established custom" reasoning is flawed - we have already established that we can choose whether or not to require prior dispute resolution.
2. 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.
3. As to disclosing my biases - if anything, I would be biased *against* Explodingboy because I was upset during the arbcom election that he actively abstained from endorsing me. On the other hand, it was a minor incident and not likely to influence me or color my judgement.

Notice that in both of the cited instances, I never once actually stated an opinion of mine, other than when I said that the disputes the three pages cited by Exploding boy resemebled previous occasions where a temp page was used.

As a general principle - Wikipedia is not big enough to demand that we arbirators recuse ourselves from all disputes with which we have had peripheral contact - it's just not feasable. (Note - I asked 3 other arbitrators - Sannse, Grunt, and Mav - and all agree with this statement) Wikipedia is not being enough to expect that 12 of its most active users would not be involved in all possible conflicts that would require arbitration. There's a certain threshold of involvement required, which this complaint does not reach. Merely answering someone's questions does not create a prior predisposition. There is no indication here of any biased behavior on my part, and such, I will not recuse myself. →Raul654 23:14, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

My client and I respectfully disagree with this decision, but understand that it is your right. Wally 14:03, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

He seems simply to have performed an administrative function on another user's request. Most if not all arbitrators are sysops and may inadvertently involve themselves in such matters which may latter become arbitration cases. Recusal should be based on prejudice. Fred Bauder 01:32, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Not so Fred. He is altogether too defensive about the whole thing. The basis for recusal is the mere hint of impropriety. What he should have said is something like this: "While I deny any act of impropriety on my part I do clearly understand the potential for such an interpretation of the events and in order to protect both my personal integrity and that of the office of an Arbitrator on Wikipedia I hereby recuse myself from this particular case." Easy as that Fred, what else do you not understand about the terms "integrity" and being "beyond reproach"? - Robert the Bruce 10:11, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

Events which occur during mediation (or requests for mediation) are inadmissable.

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Robert the Bruce
  • Personal attack
  • Personal attack

• Talk:Foreskin restoration
  • Personal attack

• Talk:Male circumcision
  • Personal attack

• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Foreskin fetish
  • personal attack

• Foreskin fetish
  • Removed VfD notice from article currently being voted on

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Robert Brookes
  • Robert the Bruce's previous account's problems.

I've restricted my first presentation of evidence to the past fourteen days and to one facet of the defendant's editing that I think is most worrying: he seems to be systematically removing well sourced factual and relevant information from Wikipedia. I stopped when I thought I had enough to show a daily pattern. I could continue on request.

• 17:49
  • Gliding action Several removals of relevant factual information with the edit summary "Revert unexplained edits". [10]
    1. Removal of date of Warren & Bigelow paper date (1994)
    2. Removal of relevant referenced citation of Whiddon (1953) and Foley (1966).
    3. removal of relevant reporting of reservations concerning the Gliding action under phimosis (Schoeberlein (1966))

• 05:39
  • History of male circumcision. A cited online source, supporting a statement about classical era attitudes to the foreskin, is removed with the comment that the source, a post-doctoral research associate in the History Department at Yale writing in an international journal published by Johns Hopkins University Press, "merely offers a personal interpretation and given his activism in this field it should be viewed with scepticism." [11]. It is true that Hodges' anti-circumcision activism is relevant, but inappropriate to exclude the reference on those grounds. The source is a historical paper prepared to academic standards and is rich in illustrations from classical works as well as references to other primary sources. [12]

• 18:03
  • Ridged band Under the edit comment "General edit and revert", removed reference to Shen et al.(2004) and Senkul et al. (2004) [13]. Removal of Shen is defensible because the paper has not been translated into English from Chinese and only the abstract is in English. The Senkul reference, however, contained an online link to a full paper which was published in the journal Urology, the official journal of the Société Internationale d' Urolgie, published by Elsevier (description).

• 15:58
  • Gliding action Somewhat similar to the revert of 15 Jan. One notable addition to the fray is the removal of a reference to an article in the New Zealand Medical Journal which, the authors say, supports Warren and Bigelow and O'Hara and O'Hara. [14].

• 17:21
  • Medical analysis of circumcision. Under the edit comment of "We need to promote balance and accuracy, the last few edits did neither", Promoted scientific evidence to the status of fact. Changed "Two studies found that uncircumcised boys were at approximately twice the risk of developing balanitis[15][16] and one study found that uncircumcised men were at more than five times the risk[17]" to the following factual statement: "Uncircumcised boys are at approximately twice the risk of developing balanitis[18][19], though uncircumcised adults are at more than five times the risk[20]" He did, however, restore much material that had been removed by others, some of which was highly POV, much of which was factual. He is, the Arbitrators will be aware, certainly not the only culprit on the circumcision articles.[21]

• 01:43
  • Foreskin. With the edit comment "If you wish ti introduce that factor you need to deal with it comprehensively and not as an innuendo laden soundbite.", removed the bald statement " Senkul et al., however, report that excision of the foreskin produces an increase in time to ejaculation.[22]". The description of Senkull's conclusion is not innuendo-laden, it's a factual and accurate statement of Senkull's conclusion, and the reference comprises the entire text of Senkull's paper. As far as I'm aware this deletion taken along with the one I highlighted for 17 Jan finally eradicated all external links to this full text of that paper from Wikipedia, although a link to the abstract only is given on Medical analysis of circumcision.

• 16:08
  • Foreskin restoration. Under the edit comment "a tweak here and there", the statement "Warren & Bigelow argue that restoration of the gliding action is an important advantage of foreskin restoration." is removed. [23] This is a factual statement about the position of Warren and Bigelow that is easily supported by reference to Warren and Bigelow's writings. For instance their claim, "Men who have restored their prepuce describe remarkable improvement in the erogenous sensitivity of the glans and satisfactory restoration of the interaction between the prepuce and the glans, together with a discovery of the gliding action of slack skin on the shaft, which they will not have known before" can be found at The case against circumcision -John P Warren and Jim Bigelow. Jim Bigelow is the author of the book The Joy of Uncircumcising! Aptos, CA: Hourglass Book Publishing, 1992.

• 05:29
  • Medical analysis of circumcision Multiple removals of relevant material. [24]
    1. Removal of a quote from the authors of a scientific paper on a longitudinal study that qualified their conclusions. To confuse matters further, the text removed appeared in the article twice, once next to the relevant cited paper and the second time next to a citation of a completely different paper. Both instances were removed: the appropriate and the inappropriate one.
    2. Removal of paragraph containing relevant quotes by the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, the USAID office of HIV/AIDS.
    3. Removal of paragraph discussing relevant Van Howe meta-analysis and its review by O'Farrell and Egger.
    4. Removal of relevant reference to, and summary of, O'Hara and O'Hara.

• 07:14
  • Removes VfD from Foreskin fetish [25]
• 16:03
  • Picks argument with VfD poster who asks him not to remove the VfD notice [26]

• 02:48
  • Robert Brookes. Last edit by User:Robert Brookes. The block log from Mediawiki 1.4 does not extend back far enough to show when exactly he was blocked. People who were involved in [Robert Brookes RFC] may recall who blocked Robert and for how long. The developers may also be able to back this up.

• 06:39
  • Friends of Robert. First edit by User:Friends of Robert. The abusive style of edit summaries is very distinctive. This is prima facie evidence of intent to evade a Wikipedia block.

• • Rhobite recalls that the block was probably for twenty-four hours but doesn't know who imposed it. It now (11 Feb, 20:50 UTC) seems unlikely to me that there is any evidence of deliberate evasion of a block. His Friends of Robert persona apparently believed (and states in its first post on its user page 12 Sep 2004, 06:39) that "In a disgraceful one sided parody of justice he [Robert Brookes] was [permanently] banned." This would explain why he created a new persona and continues to talk about both Robert Brookes and Friends of Robert in the third person, although it is my opinion that his abrasive style and evidence from developers together strongly implicate all three as the same poster.

This set of evidence pertains to behavior directed at another editor rather than his edits.

• 05:36
  • Comment left by Robert the Bruce: [27]

In the opinion of this editor (Tony Sidaway), no one has satisfactorily explained why or how the edit made by Ashley Y [28] was POV. That it may support his point of view, if further assumptions are made, seems to be the reason why Robert objected.

The reference to "stroking and fluttering" seems to be one of the standard descriptions of the sensations to which Meissner's corpuscle is particularly sensitive ("stroking and fluttering" Dr. S Gilman, Department of Neurology, University of Michigan Medical Center, BMJ). The reference and contrast to both corpuscles, which are physiologically similar, is also common in the literature. The number of receptors that are found in the skin, phasic and that deal with touch, like Meissner's corpuscles, is extremely limited. There are also some structural similarities between the two types of phasic mechanoreceptor. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:42, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

For obvious reasons I'm restricting evidence here to a very egregious example of this.

• 19:14
  • I mistakenly refer to Dan Blackham as Dan Blacker
• 19:17
  • I correct Dan Blackham's name
• 19:42
  • Robert pretends this is an alias
• See also his follow-up: [29]
  • And it got even sillier:

• 14:59
  • Openly accuses me of concealing information. [30]

on Foreskin restoration

• [31] Robert adds word "psychiatric," removes reference to Boyle article (edit summary: "a complementary tweak").
• [32] Robert reverts (edit summary: "Sorry EB ... you need to explain your reverts").
• [33] Robert reverts again. (edit summary: "Will you breach the 3 revert rule, I wonder?" demonstrates Robert knows the rules and is attempting to goad other users into breaking them).
• [34] Robert reverts again, this time leaving the Boyle reference (edit summary: "You can state why "Psychiatric" is an inappropriate word?").
• [35] Robert reverts a fourth time, removing Boyle reference again (edit summary: "There is beyond doubt a psychiatric dimension to this ... I wonder why you wish to deny this?").

Robert has denied that this constitutes a 3RR violation ([36]), but it's clear that it is. It's also clear that Robert was well aware of the 3RR rule at the time of the violation, and also that he attempted to goad other users into violating it also. He remains unpunished for this violation.

• [37] Robert suggests I am misusing my admin privileges ("I would suggest that here is yet more evidence of admins who are involved in specific articles misusing their positions").
• [38] Robert again suggests I've misused my sysop status.
• [39] Robert (not signed in--he logs in and signs the post a little later) again accuses the other user of misuse of admin powers, and both of us of ganging up on him.
• Robert accuses yet another user of misuse of admin privileges [40] (the user in question is not an admin!).

On Male circumcision

• [41] Robert accuses me of misusing my sysop status: "[you] are thus involved both emotionally and in your capacity as a sysop in the debate" (emphasis added).
• [42] Robert refuses to respond to my request that he eplain and give evidence of my misuing my sysop status.
• [43] I repeat my request for evidence of impropriety, and also repeat my request for neutrality and cooperation.
• [44] Robert adds inflammatory subheading to talk page ("The Exploding Boy saga continues ..."), which I remove. Also request further discussion to be placed on my talk page.
• [45] Robert reverts my removal of inflammatory sub-heading. I remove it again, request Robert stop adding inflammatory sub-headings to talk pages, and note he has been asked not to do so on several occasions, as evidenced from the exchange that took place over several days, below:

[46] Robert adds inflammatory subheading to talk page, suggesting another admin and I are tag team reverting and ganging up on Robert. I remove it.

[47] Robert reverts. Another user removes the sub-heading again.

[48] Robert reverts and accuses the user of misuse of sysop privileges. I remove the subheading.

[49] Robert restores it (edit summary: "why are they so desperate to remove this?"), again suggesting the other user should be stripped of admin status ([50]). I remove the subheading once more.

[51] ...and Robert restores it, adding a slight change (edit summary: "are you threatening me...again?"). I remove it, again asking Robert to stop

On Foreskin restoration

• [52] Robert deliberately adds non-neutral statement to article ("Predictably however, Boyle, a leading anti-circumcision campaigner, suggests circumcision as the source of many emotional disorders"). I revert with explanation on talk page.
• [53] Robert reverts (edit summary: "Revert unexplained revert from Exploding Boy").

On Foreskin restoration

• [54] Robert changes "advocate against circumcision" to the less-neutral "anti-circumcision activist." This is part of an ongoing pattern of attempting to discredit any opinion that is not pro-circumcision. The other user attempts a compromise, changing it to "opponent of circumcision."
• [55] Robert reverts. The pattern is repeated on January 17.

• Request for Comment
• [56] Four users sign a proposal to permanently ban Robert and all sockpuppets; one user supports a three-day block.
• Robert's talk page, on which there is ample evidence that his behaviour is widespread and problematic.

• Foreskin
• Foreskin restoration
• Male circumcision
• Gliding action

Reading through the complaint and evidence presented, it appears to give the impression that these articles were innocuous prior to Robert's involvement. This is not the case. Arbitrators should be aware that circumcision and related subjects have been highly controversial for some time. In the normally calm environment of the medical literature, the topic is highly controversial[57]. Even in the medical literature, doctors frequently imply bias and deception[58] and all but accuse each other of incompetence[59].

A good example illustrating the controversial nature of this topic can be found at a currently active Votes for deletion page. While it is true that Robert has voted, there can be no argument that he in any way caused this controversy (disclosure: I have also voted and asked some voters to identify their interests in the page concerned, as per policy). Indeed, some voters have identified the page concerned as "spam" by anti-circumcision activists. - Jakew 03:17, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The following emails are taken from the anti-circumcision activist ("Intactivist") mailing list, INTACT-L.

"We only have until the fifth (all times GMT/UTC) to save Genital  
Integrity"

-- [60]

"For the record, I asked people on intact-l and restore-digest, last 
year to help me on Encyclopædia WikiPedia.Org.  I started all of the 
Pro-Intactivism/Genital-Integrity-articles on Encyclopædia.Org.  I 
tried to expose Circumfetishism on Encyclopædia WikiPedia.Org.  If 
anyone wants to help, please do.  I am all alone.  It is so much work.  
I have to fight the Circumcisiophiliacs alone.  An account on 
Encyclopædia WikiPedia.Org is free.  You need not just work on our 
articles; look what else I created:For the record, I asked people on intact-l 
and restore-digest, last 
year to help me on Encyclopædia WikiPedia.Org.  I started all of the 
Pro-Intactivism/Genital-Integrity-articles on Encyclopædia.Org.  I 
tried to expose Circumfetishism on Encyclopædia WikiPedia.Org.  If 
anyone wants to help, please do.  I am all alone.  It is so much work.  
I have to fight the Circumcisiophiliacs alone.  An account on 
Encyclopædia WikiPedia.Org is free.  You need not just work on our 
articles; look what else I created:"

-- [61]

"Genital Integrity and Intactivism are now the same article now.  I 
would like to thank:

1. Ŭalabio
2. Hugh7
3. Acegikmo1
4. DanBlackham
5. Rwinkel
6. User:DanP
7. Hayford Peirce 20:51, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
8. Sean Curtin
9. Dittaeva
10. User:Michael Glass
11. Modargo 06:22, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
12. ScottyBoy900Q 05:19, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
13. Jao 06:24, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
14. Radoneme"

-- [62]

"Circumfetishists want to remove the article about circumfetishism from 
WikiPedia.Org.  ¡We cannot let these perverts creep back into 
invisibility!  This is what we need to do:...Every year circumfetishists 
mutilate tens of millions of children and outright kill thousands of 
children." -- 

[63]

[64]

I note that Fred Bauder has created a vote for the ArbCom on whether Robert has identified these people. Such a clear matter seems a waste of the ArbCom's valuable time to me. I suggest that a more relevant matter for the ArbCom to investigate is whether Robert is correct, and Wiki is being targetted by anti-circumcision activists. The answer is clearly 'yes'. - Jakew 22:49, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Jake - what would be strong evidence is a pattern of bad faith edits by the people in question on Wikipedia itself - if you have such evidence, it would be useful, preferably per editor. Thanks :-) - David Gerard 23:14, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

As per request of David Gerard here and at my user talk page, I will put together a list of edits that were, according to my assessment, made in bad faith. To give me time, I ask that the ArbCom give me until 01:00 GMT, 09 Feb 2005 to do this (I'll notify you if I'm finished before then).

That's fine, I doubt we'll be through with it before then ;-) You can of course add to the list thereafter - David Gerard 20:40, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In the interest of brevity, I'm limiting myself to a handful of edits per user. Many edits have been what could be called "subtle POV pushing". Because of the controversial nature of the subject, and the fact that fairly thorough understanding of the topic is necessary, I have tried to find more obvious edits. I can continue if requested.

General

See general behaviour, surprising numbers of new users, etc at: VfD.

User:Walabio Removal of criticism of genital integrity / anti-circumcision groups:

• [65]

Inclusion of distinctly loaded headings

• [66]

User:DanP

Description of female preference for circumcised partners as fetishism

• [67]

Attempt to use misleading language

• [68]

Inexplicable removal of disputed notice (with bizarre edit summary - may have been a genuine mistake)

• [69]

Censorship:

• [70]
• [71]

Insertion of strongly biased wording:

• [72]

Editing quote of med organisation

• [73]

Characterising letters to journals as "pro-mutilation"

• [74]

User:Robert Blair

Removal of disputed notice in spite of active dispute (presumably to hide the fact that there is a dispute):

• [75]
• [76]
• [77]

Removal of criticism of genital integrity / anti-circumcision groups:

• [78]

(and others)

Censorship of criticism of anti-circumcision studies:

• [79]
• [80]

Replacing neutral wording with biased version:

• [81]
• [82]

POV pushing

• [83] (includes misleading edit summary)
• [84]
• [85] note - link is given to my corrections to Blair's edit - this better highlights why his changes were POV (and wrong)

User:DanBlackham

POV pushing

• [86]
• [87]

User:Michael Glass

Attempt to portray advocates as sexually motivated by linking to his own letter to JME

• [88]

(and others)

Attempt to "explain" findings (original research)

• [89]
• [90]

Note to AC: I am happy to help further in any way I can. However, due to personal reasons I will now be offline until 19:00 GMT 10 Feb 2005.

See: [91]

See: [92]

To follow.

See [93]

• [94] Removed relevant factual information from Penile cancer with the edit summary "Reverting to the truth - how does one get someone to deal with incidents of wikicrime?"

1. Deleted "Penile cancer is a rare form of cancer with an annual incidence of 1 in 100,000 in developed countries."
2. Deleted the reference to the statements by the American Medical Association and the Royal Australasian College of Physicians.

• [95] Removed factual relevant information by changing "developed countries" to "the United States" with the edit summary "The edits stand - where did the RACP get the "devolped countries" evidence from?". Robert's change was contrary to evidence provided on the Talk page [96] and my edit summary [97].

• 09:56

Attempt to intimidate User:AllyUnion for editing circumcision related articles [98]

• 16:31

Hostile response to User:Jfdwolff on Talk:Cervical cancer [99]

• 06:44

Hostile response to User:Jfdwolff on Talk:Cervical cancer [100]

• Jake accused me of POV pushing in Medical analysis of circumcision. The following quotes from professional medical organizations support my edit:
  • The Royal Australasian College of Physicians: "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." Policy Statement On Circumcision. Sep 2002. [101]
  • British Medical Association: "The British Association of Paediatric Surgeons advises that there is rarely a clinical indication for circumcision." The Law & Ethics of Male Circumcision - Guidance for Doctors. March 2003. [102]
  • Canadian Paediatric Society: "Recommendation: Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed." ... "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." Neonatal Circumcision Revisited. reaffirmed March 2002. [103]
  • American Academy of Pediatrics: "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. 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." Circumcision Policy Statement (RE9850). March 1999. [104]
  • College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia: "Infant male circumcision was once considered a preventive health measure and was therefore adopted extensively in Western countries. 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." Infant Male Circumcision. June 2004. [105]

• Jake accused me of POV pushing in Penile cancer. However last September and October Robert was the one pushing his pro-circumcision POV. I cited above two examples were Robert deleted factual relevant information. Edits to Penile cancer should be judged in light of the policy statements of professional medical organizations [106] and the new statement by the American Cancer Society. "Most public health researchers believe that the penile cancer risk among uncircumcised men without known risk factors living in the United States is extremely low. The current consensus of most experts is that circumcision should not be recommended as a prevention strategy for penile cancer." [107]

A developer (JeLuf) has confirmed that User:Exploding Boy and User:Calton are not accounts of the same person. -- sannse (talk) 23:06, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• I suppose expecting the proof would be too much to ask? - Robert the Bruce 18:16, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes. Private info such as IP adresses and other info that developers may use to identify sockpuppet accounts are not revealed publically. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:09, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)