User talk:TheDarkSideHasTacos

I am deeply sorry

I did not see that you had some personal information on one of the sites to which I linked, and so was inadvertently guilty of potentially outing your identity. I have since removed the links, and deleted and suppressed the intervening revisions. Once again, please accept my most abject apology. -- Avi (talk) 18:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

It's 100% fine, Avi. I understand and I'm sure you didn't mean to do any harm. However, if someone tracks me down and tries to kill me or something because of it, I may be a tiny bit peeved. lol. But seriously, it's fine. Also, may I discuss some of the circumcision information on my page here so I don't have to keep going back to the circumcision page? I have some questions about what information would be needed for some things (other than the MGM thing). (TheDarkSideHasTacos (talk) 18:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC))

Sure, you may. I will say that Jakew actually has the best information about what is needed, as he has been editing the article longer than most anyone, but I can try to help if I can. -- Avi (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Well for starters since you mentioned him, something about Jakew that bothers me is the fact that he is a member of circumcision fetish groups, primarily circlist and the gilgal society. I've seen his posts on there (I'm not sure if I can provide those posts on wikipedia without breaking rules but he has been a member for over 5 years there) and they show support for non-medical and non-religious circumcision. Circlist and Gilgal society are online groups which exchange circumcision stories and videos for purposes of pornography. This would lead me to believe that he has at least some conflict of interest and I think Wikipedia has a rule about conflict of interest regarding editors. (TheDarkSideHasTacos (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC))

Yes, we do. The pertinent policy are found at WP:COI, and the nutshell version is "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." I will admit, in my 5 years of editing the circumcision article, I know Jakew has made his point-of-view clear, but I have not seen that interfere with his editing the article in accordance with the policies. Having a point of view is fine; it is letting that point of view cause you to ignore wiki policies and guidelines that creates the conflict of interest. For the record, the allegation of Jake having a CoI has been brought up, and dismissed, about two years ago—please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 35#Circumcision. In my experience, Jakew brings and maintains reliable and verifiable sources for each section he edits, and does not let the article get skewed in either direction. Then again, that my be bias on my part, as we tend to agree more often than we disagree. In these types of extremely contentious articles, the way I think they are best handled is to make sure any statement is properly sourced. Personally, I find a good method of trying to keep an article neutral, is to try and craft what you feel should be in the article (properly sourced) as if you held the opposite point-of-view. This helps us keep our points-of-view in check and the article neutral. I understand it is a frustrating principle, having been on both sides at times, but it protects the project from turning into a total political free-for-all. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 18:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

But Jakew has also written published reports which support non-theraputic and non-religious circumcision. In 2009, he wrote a pro-circumcision article in the American Journal of Public Health with Daniel Halperin and Thomas E. Wiswell. Wiswell's contributions to pro-circumcision articles have been discredited. Both Halperin and Wiswell are members of Circlist. So Jakew is publishing reports outside of Wikipedia with people who openly belong to circumcision fetish groups. Wiswell is also cited as sources in the circumcision article. So Jakew has a relationship, both professional and personal, with someone he is using to cite information with. That sounds like a conflict of interest to me. (TheDarkSideHasTacos (talk) 18:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC))

Actually, the fact that Jake has been published in peer-reviewed journals tends to enhance his bona-fides, not the opposite. Regardless, as long as you, he, and anyone edit in accordance with wiki's guidelines, it does not really matter what you or he does outside. I linked WP:COI above. The conflict comes when outside interests supersede wikipedia guidelines; there is no evidence of this with Jake, and it has been investigated. If having a point-of-view means having a conflict of interest, only lobotomized idiots could edit wikipedia (which might explain a lot . As an aside, do you view yourself as a member of a foreskin fetish group? If not, why do you call Jake a member of a circumcision fetish group? Do you think that is a fundamental difference? -- Avi (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a foreskin fetish and I don't watch pornography. I'm not a member of a pro-foreskin sex fetish group. If I had a foreskin fetish, I would try to discourage men from being circumcised, which I don't (I only oppose child circumcision because it is not consentual and dangerous). Circlist and Gilgal are online groups dedicated to circumcision pornography and fetishism. They exist for the purpose of promoting non-medical and non-religious circumcision and trading circumcision pornography, videos, and erotica. I call him a member of a circumcision fetish group because he is. Those are what those groups are dedicated to and Jakew is openly a member of them, as are people like Halperin and Wiswell. Letting someone with a circumcision fetish run a circumcision article is a serious conflict of interest because they derive sexual pleasure from seeing people circumcised. If you're Jewish, I'm really surprised you're not disgusted by Gilgal and Circlist. They take videos of Brit Milahs and trade them to each other for sexual purposes, which I think is extremely disrepectful to Judaism. So he is going to promote circumcision at all costs and he has ties to men who share and support circumcision fetishes, whose work he uses as source support on Wikipedia. (TheDarkSideHasTacos (talk) 20:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC))

I'm getting really sick and tired of you lying about me, DarkSide. Stop it. Jakew (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not lying. I can show your posts from pro-circumcision weblistings. I wouldn't make an allegation I couldn't back up. Do I think I just randomly pulled Circlist and Gilgal out the air? You're a known member. (TheDarkSideHasTacos (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC))

I'd guess that you pulled the above misinformation from a certain (highly unreliable) website, since you're making almost exactly the same claims that it makes. That's no excuse for making such statements about living people. Stop it. Jakew (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually no, you've written and corresponded with several people I know and they've showed me your writings, likes, and advice on circumcision. I have the emails and posts from you if you would like me to post them here. What reason would I have to come on here and accuse you of such things unless I had viable evidence to support my views? I don't know you. I don't hate you. So why else would I believe you have a conflict of interest regarding the fact that you are a member of circlist? Are you denying you're a member of circlist? (TheDarkSideHasTacos (talk) 21:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC))

Allegations against other editors

Darkside, making accusations along the lines that Jake "trades circumcision pornography, videos, and erotica" is a a rather gross personal attack which is forbidden here. The fact that it is unsubstantiated actually makes it libelous. You are welcome to contribute to the project, but I am duty-bound to warn you that continued allegations of that kind are violations of wikipedia policies (most notably Wikipedia:No personal attacks) and continued violations have been met, in the past, with measures taken to protect the project that may even include loss of editing privileges. I hope that you can continue to have a reasoned debate and discussion without resorting to edits that violate wikipedia policy. Thank you for understanding. -- Avi (talk) 23:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I never claimed he traded circumcision pornography because I don't have proof he does. I stated the groups he belonged to did (which they openly admit they do). (TheDarkSideHasTacos (talk) 00:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC))

You have proof of his membership? You know for a fact that CIRP members do not trade pornography? Does it matter? Everyone is better off focusing on content and not editors. It is clear you believe that he has a conflict of interest. It is also clear that you are in the vast minority as every time it is brought up, unassociated project members have confirmed Jakew's adherence to policy and guideline. I can't find the link off the top of my head, but unless I am misremembering, it has been considered harassment to continue to make unsubstantiated allegations against other editors and engage in ad hominem attacks in lieu of content debate. If you really believe that Jake has a conflict of interest, you can bring it up again at the CoI notice board, but I will note that was tried, and failed, to years ago, as CoI is determined by ones editing actions on wiki, not by one's personal opinions. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 00:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, yes, I do have proof of his membership and I had proof of everything I've accused him and the websites of. I can even give member names (but I'm not sure if that's against the rules of Wikipedia). Circlist holds the view that "intactivists" have psychological disorders. As Jakew is a member of a website that promotes circumcision and believes anyone who is against circumcision in any way has psychological problems, how do I know that he would be neutral? Jakew cites at least 6 known circlist members/supporters as sources for circumcision information on the Wikipedia page. So he is citing pro-circumcision people, at least two which he has had contact with, from those groups. (TheDarkSideHasTacos (talk) 00:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC))

All the sources in the article that I know of are quoted from peer-reviewed journals. The fact that they may be members of one group or another is irrelevant. The article quotes R.S. Van Howe, who is a member of CIRP, IIRC, would that disqualify him? -- Avi (talk) 00:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who is a member of a circumfetish group or a group promoting circumcision just for the reason they like circumcision shouldn't be allowed as a source. It's not neutral. The groups are dedicated to promoting circumcision. How do I know that Jakew is not using Wikipedia as a way to promote circumcision? He has had a working relationship with at least two people who have been cited for the circumcision page on Wikipedia. (TheDarkSideHasTacos (talk) 00:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC))

Also, I looked over part of the Jakew COI article and it says you reverted part of the page. In fact, you defended him repeatedly. So, as far as I see, both of you take up for one another whenever someone tries to go against you. (TheDarkSideHasTacos (talk) 00:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC))

I told you very early on I tend to agree with him more than I disagree with him, it is not as if I hid that. Secondly, yes, I tend to believe he is continually mischaracterized and unfairly attacked by genitial integritists, and as per http://meatballwiki.org/wiki/DefendEachOther, I feel obligated to defend him from what I continue to perceive as unfair attacks aimed at trying to "wear him out" from editing. Rememeber, you have yet to show where he added material that was counter to wikipedia policies and guidelines (which include WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, etc.). Can you suggest anything that enhances the project's articles within the bounds of its rules, the rules you agreed to abide by when you registered an account? If so, please do! Collaboration makes the project grow. However, if all any editor does is attack other editors, call them names, and attempt to edit articles in contravention to local policies and guidelines, that editor is doing harm, not good, I am afraid. You seem to be knowledgeable about the topic and I am sure you can contribute in a fashion that adheres to our rules. -- Avi (talk) 02:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I have to go to bed for the night. I might be back tomorrow or something but right now I don't have the energy to type or read. (TheDarkSideHasTacos (talk) 02:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC))

No problem; good night -- Avi (talk) 02:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2011

This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Circumcision, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Um I stopped talking on that page already? (TheDarkSideHasTacos (talk) 01:58, 18 August 2011 (UTC))