Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Robert the Bruce

message: James Rosenzweig stated:
"As mediation seems to be at the crux of this, I'd just like to note that, as a member of the MC and apparently its future Chair (unless someone decides they want the job), we don't have our act together right now and are unlikely to in the next several weeks. While certainly mediation can occur outside of the MC, I think it's fair to say that right now Wikipedia doesn't have a fully functioning formal mediation process, though it certainly should by this time next month. I don't know if that impacts your decision, but thought you'd want to be aware, at least. Jwrosenzweig 22:35, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: James' comments were moved from the main page by mav.  See the history pages.  -- sannse (talk) 23:34, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Jwrosenzweig|Jwrosenzweig]]

message: I refer to Jag123's comments (above) and his edits in Meissner's corpuscle.
I quote my final comment to him:
"I almost took you at face value ... untill I went to the Pacinian corpuscle article and found no mention of the Meissner corpuscles there. Why would one imagine that to be the case? After having made such a song and dance about how supposedly important the connection between the two is one would have thought that you would have ensured that it was highlighted in that article as well, no? Don't expect to be taken seriously again. - Robert the Bruce 05:55, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Robert the Bruce|Robert the Bruce]]'s attack on [[User:Jag123|Jag123]]

message: I haven't forgotton about this--I don't have regular access to the internet, in particular on weekends.  But I'd like to respond to Jakew: 
I feel, and I'm not alone in this, that the problems caused by RtB far outweigh the benefit of his contributions: he steadfastly refuses to discuss edits; he reverts constantly and without discussion; every page he contributes to is mired in controversy; he has problems with many users; he insists that all who disagree with him are rabid anti-circumcision activists; he accuses others of non-neutrality while steadfastly remaining non-neutral himself; he falsly accuses admins of using their sysop powers against him...  I could carry on.  
As to why RtB would create a sockpuppet solely for the purpose of arguing with it, who knows?  So much of his behaviour is troll-like, why shouldn't he resort that that troll-like trick as well?
I've refused mediation with Robert for several very good reasons.  I've enumerated them many times, but I'll add a new one: his own request for mediation with me is motivated not by a sincere desire to improve relations between us and improve the quality of Wikipedia articles, but to avoid this RFA and to continue his campaign to goad me into using my sysop privileges against him.  Just look at his comments on my talk page and, indeed, in his very request for mediation.  In this case, yes, RFA is a last resort; nothing else--discussion, RFC, his mediation with Theresa Knott, even having three of the articles protected--has worked.
Exploding Boy 22:48, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
: I concur.  Compiling evidence for the current arbitration case, for the first time I actually examined Robert the Bruce's (Talk|[) Contributions]) recent edits.  What I found was profoundly shocking--and completely new to me.  Through his edits, every day, it seems that he's actually hemorrhaging well sourced, relevant information from wikipedia . --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:44, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Complainant's reply

message: Procedural
This is the second attempt by Exploding Boy to institute a RfA against me. The first one failed. The fact that he has moved to start a second RfA has only been possible due to a serious instance of dereliction of duty by the AC in that at the conclusion of the the first attempt EB should have been instructed to enter mediation. This is exactly what the AC should now do.
Having failed at the first attempt and to avoid mediation EB went in search of a "sympathetic" AC member. He found one in Raul654 (see communications between the two as evidence) who suggested that EB resubmit the request which was accepted by Raul654 with obscene haste. On this basis I believe that Raul654 should recuse himself from this matter (and quite honestly should face the sternest censure for this scandalous behaviour).
This pre-planned joint effort to defeat the Wikipedia dispute resolution process succeeded in that it sucked in other AC members to accept the matter without even waiting for the affected party to state his case. This too is irregular by any standard. Those AC members who have committed this breach of common procedure should likewise politely recuse themselves from this matter.  
This issue of the refusal to submit to mediation is an important issue which Raul654 and EB wished to have swept under the carpet. As I have stated this whole issue could have been averted have the AC acted in a proper manner at the time of the first RfA. The onus is now on Raul and EB to present their evidence why mediation should be dispensed with. In this regard I suggest that this travesty be temporarily suspended (the pages protected) until this matter is cleared up. The AC must take into account the manner in which EB spurned my attempts to enter into mediation with him. 
I would go further to suggest that unless EB and Raul654 are able to provided persuasive evidence as to why they wish to deviate from the Wikipedia dispute resolution process they should receive the appropriate sanction for attempting to subvert Wikipdeia process and wasting the time of the AC.
- Robert the Bruce 02:30, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Original Statement by Affected party

message: Objection
Sadly it indicates how little the judges understand of the issues around the circumcision debate. Where do they get sex from? While for some circumcision, the act of circumcision and the lack of circumcision may well have psycho-sexual connotations, however, for me there are none. Is it so strange to those who deem themselves qualified to stand in judgement of others that there are people who merely believe that male circumcision is a perfectly acceptable parental decision as a result of religious, cultural or medical considerations? I therefore request that the wording be changed accordingly to read circumcision related articles. - Robert the Bruce 16:33, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 1. Yes, you can talk on talk pages in a normal manner; injunctions against using talk pages would be mentioned in the injunction (e.g. the current LaRouche case). 2. Temporary injunctions are to keep the peace while things are sorted out - David Gerard 01:16, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: When we say articles, we mean that. If we thought it was necessary to limit edits to talk pages, we would have mentioned those as well. Do however consider templates displayed in these articles to count though since that content forms part of the article. --mav
Moved from main case page by sannse (talk) 23:48, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional Comment

message: : Good evening,
: My name is Wally, advocate for the AMA, and I am here to serve as representation for the defendant in this case. I'd like to, preliminarily, thank the ArbCom for hearing whatever comments I might make. 
: Before I offer evidence, I would like to make the following preliminary motions and requests, immediate consideration of which is, I feel, absolutely critical to the just resolution of this dispute.
:* Motion for the immediate revocation of acceptance of the Request for Arbitration submitted by Exploding Boy on 27 January as per the terms of the declined RfA of 11 January.  Evidence here: Evidence for the Motion to Dismiss
:* Request that Arbitrator Raul654 recuse himself from any further proceedings involving this case. Evidence here: Evidence for the Request for Arbitrator Raul to Recuse Himself
My statements on this matter may be found on the evidence pages linked. I request further that these two issues be resolved before any further consideration is paid by the ArbCom to this case. Wally 05:13, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have received word of Robert's request that I stand down and do so. Wally 19:08, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction and Preliminary Motions and Requests

message: I wish to place the following on the record:
# My request to ArbCom as to their position on Raul654 recusal issue remains unanswered.
# The submissions with respect to dismissal on the basis of no attempt to seek mediation not only remains substantially unanswered but we see ArbCom members falling all over each other to support this cynical attempt to bypass the dispute resolution process.
# I see a list of "Proposed principles" being compiled and am not sure who they apply to. Certainly (see my user page) they apply to a number of POV warriors engaged in the struggle to force their propaganda into Wikipedia. What is this circus that is unfolding here? 
# Under the "Proposed findings of fact" the following is listed: "Removal of references by Robert the Bruce". So? I have explained to an adequate extent my edits in the rebuttal to Tony Sidaway. I stand my edits and have explained them, Tony Sidaway has merely listed stuff and claim it relevant but has not explained why. Now let me assist ArbCom here ... the burden of proof lies with Sidaway and his buddies to prove the relevancy of the material. Simple concept really. BTW what is a POV matter doing before ArbCom?
# I request that under the "Proposed findings of fact" the fact that Exploding Boy falsely accused me of creating "yet another sock puppet" and that his allegations that User: Dr Zen and User: Robert Blair were patently false. 
# In addition that Exploding Boy's repeated allegation that I would only accept mediation through User: JakeW has been found to be false should be a finding. Appended to this statement should be the fact that at least two members of ArbCom knew this to be false yet remained silent. In this regard then it is expected that ArbCom demand that EB publicly retracts this and the sock puppet allegations with apologies all round and the disciplinary action to be taken against EB and the two members of the ArbCom be specified.
# I still await ArbCom member User: Grunt to explain why in setting up this ArbCom case he notified all those most likely to produce negative comment (to the extent that the User: Jwrosenzweig statement was imported to support the complainants case).
# The seemingly simple matter of the identity of Robert Blair remains unanswered. Surely it is a simple matter to place on the record that it has been found that Robert Blair is not a sock puppet of Robert the Bruce? What is ArbCom afraid of? That by so doing they will expose their man Expolding Boy as a liar?
# I would expect that my rebuttals be worked through and as a result I expect findings to be placed on the record like for example: "It was found that the allegations made by Tony Sidaway that relevant information was removed from articles has found to be incorrect and unfounded and therefore the allegations have been struct from the list of complaints and as a consequence ArbCom places the following restriction upon Tony Sidaway's Wikipedia activities as follows ...".
- Robert the Bruce 02:53, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes by affected party