Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Robert the Bruce

Identification

• (Robert the Bruce | talk | contributions)

Statement of the dispute

Robert the Bruce has, since his appearance on Wikipedia in October, been running amuck on several pages, including Foreskin, Foreskin restoration, and Male circumcision.

He reverts frequently, and refuses to discuss his edits. He seems to have it in for a few particular users, whose edits he reverts on sight. His responses to requests for clarification and discussion are invariably arrogant and unhelpful. He formerly was on Wikipedia as User:Robert Brookes and User:Friends of Robert. He stopped using his User:Robert Brookes alias when that alias was suspended for several days for many of the same abuses he continues under his different names today. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Robert_Brookes

Evidence of disputed behavior

see

• talk: Foreskin restoration in which various requests for discussion are refused,
• Foreskin restoration edit history for edit summaries intended to provoke controversy and violation of 3 revert rule
• User talk:Robert the Bruce for other users' attempts to discuss things with him, including an invitation to mediation by a current admin (which was refused)
• Talk:Clitoris
• Genital modification and mutilation edit history
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Robert_Brookes - previous examples of his poor behavior
• User:Friends of Robert, User Talk:Friends of Robert - Previous sockpuppets

Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

1. Avoid bias. Articles should be written from a neutral point of view, representing differing views on a subject fairly and sympathetically.
2. Respect other contributors.
3. Wikipedia:Civility
4. Wikipedia:Wikiquette
5. Three revert rule

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

See talk pages, above

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

• Exploding Boy 21:30, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
• thickslab 02:30, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

1. Rhobite 23:19, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
2. fvw* 13:22, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)
3. [[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁᑐ]] 01:02, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
4. DanBlackham 10:21, 10 Dec 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.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~)

Outside view

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.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries}

1. This is absurd. Robert has behaved completely very reasonably. Indeed, Exploding Boy's comments are better applied to himself. This is nothing but an attempt at character assassination. - Jakew 00:13, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
2. On the point of evidence, I don't see any examples of Robert breaking the three-revert rule in recent weeks. Although I admit that this may be due to my own failings in searching through the proferred evidence, I have to say that the recommended practise is to present pointers to diffs rather than just a pointer to a history list. If this is going to be presented in evidence, could one of the certifiers please save us time by taking the trouble to post diffs to at least three specific instances of [[User:Robert the Bruce|Robert the Bruce] reverting the same article in a twenty-four hour period? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 10:55, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

   I had removed this because I thought it was based on misremembering the charges. On reviewing the edit history I now see that the "three revert rule" accusation was present at the time I made this comment, but was later removed. I apologise to Robert for removing my comment, which I believed to have been made in error. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 14:10, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

3. On Robert's problematic behavior, I'd say that it is best characterized as the "Pee Wee Herman" syndrome, so called because of Pee Wee's catch-phrase "I know you are, but what am I?" When confronted with a problem, his first resort always seems to be to assume that a conflict over his conduct is someone else's problem (mediation), and that he is the arbiter of the neutral point of view. This has degenerated into naked accusations that those who object to his conduct are all "The usual suspects, their sock puppets and a 5th Column of sympathisers...on a deliberate campaign of ensuring the Wikipedia reflects their POV." (discussion on his user talk page). This accusation can be traced back to an account he apparently no longer uses, Robert Brookes from which he launched the most extraordinary tirade: "you cannot negotiate with monomaniacal fanatics and no purpose is served being “nice” to them as it is interpreted as “weakness”."(11 Sep). --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 15:16, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Note: Tony Sidaway insists on deleting a comment he made here which I believe should stand on the record. It can be found at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Robert_the_Bruce#Tony.27s_Brainfart - Robert the Bruce 12:06, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(sign with ~~~~)

Discussion

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

Jwrosenzweig asked Friends of Robert to be more civil with other editors. Robert responded by questioning Jwrosenzweig's integrity. (see User_talk:Friends_of_Robert#Hello) -- DanBlackham 10:41, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Note: Dan Blackham was confirmed as a full time Intactivist involved in pushing anti-circumcision POV in articles on Wikipedia. See: Why no action against targetting by anti-circumcision activists? Any comment made by this person should be seen in the context of the agenda to force their POV into articles on Wikipedia. - Robert the Bruce 12:12, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • I can accept that Dan Blackham may well be a "full-time" POV activist. If he is, Wikipedia's existing mechanisms will ensure that any posts he makes pushing a point of view will not stand long. Other editors can query his edits and decisions are made by consensus which can be enforced by sanctions. Now I've already asked you for evidence that Dan is doing so. You didn't reply. Here is a list of his contributions. One thing that is notably absent is a propensity for edit warring. There have been no RfCs because of his behavior. Nobody except you and perhaps one other user seem to have any major problems with his edits. I don't see any (though I admit I could have missed) failed attempts by third parties to reconcile perceived unreasonable behavior on his part. It's not where you're coming from that is the problem, Robert. It's the manner in which you interact with other editors on Wikipedia that is the problem. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 18:21, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Tony, This incarnation of Dan is quite civil I agree, he is also as dedicated as suicide bomber to push his POV. If you look at the make up of the "cell" which is focussing on Wikipedia you will see a good mix of personalities. You have the good Dan and the naughty Dan etc etc ... it is really very well done. This point is simple any compromise reached which does not echo their POV loud and clear is merely a tactical compromise. I have a good amount of knowledge about these people and I am colaborating in writing a book about them and their "cause". Facinating stuff. If you know who they are, what they are and what their intentions are it makes it all much easier to understand. - Robert the Bruce 18:55, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • It sounds as if you may be accusing DanBlackham of having sock puppets, as you have. I'd be interested in any evidence you could produce to support this, and I'm sure I'm not the only one, because tracking sock puppets is important to Wikipedia. I hope you are beginning to understand that your strong belief that these people are trying to subvert Wikipedia does not really explain your own problems interacting with just about everybody. Here Michael Glass comments on your problem attitude in the earlier RfC. I endorse his words fully. They're well chosen and, alas, still apply to your overall attitude to difference of opinion on Wikipedia. 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. We are not hobbits, Robert. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 19:14, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oh Tony that is Michael Glass. One of the named "full-time Intactivists" who are working so hard to push the foreskin POV. Mind you he has been a little scarce around here lately. You don't think there is a sock puppet at large do you? - Robert the Bruce 19:42, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • This is insane. Robert has been here in three incarnations. In none of them have I ever seen any ability to compromise or work with others. On the occasions where I've asked him what I can do to make my edits more acceptable to him, I have never received an answer. He is rude, insulting, and disruptive. The fact that we are going through an RFC **AGAIN** despite the fact that simply made a new sockpuppet and came back last time is proof of how willing people here are to bend over backwards to accomodate vandals. He is incapable of understanding that it is his rude and childish behaviour that is at issue, not his viewpoint. He should be permanently banned. If he isn't, he'll just come back again and we'll be going through this forever. This is making Wikipedia look like a joke. --thickslab 17:33, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)
    • I would caution you as to civility. The way you are going you will have Tony on your case. - Robert the Bruce 18:55, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway and Dan Blacker/Blackham - what is the connection?

Tony, Dan does not use the Blacker alias around here. Where do you know that from? Would you like to come clean on you knowledge of this particular individual? - Robert the Bruce 19:42, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)