Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Robert the Bruce

message: This will fix nothing. He'll just come back under another name. He needs to be banned. -Anon
Only the AC can ban someone, and they wont do that unless we try everything first. He's agreed mediation with me - perhaps that will solve everything ( I don't really think it will, but you've gotta try) Theresa Knott  (The snott rake) 22:20, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The case of Mr Anon 

message: On the project page Tony Sidaway made and post and then hastily withdrew it. Not only did he refuse the reasonable request to edit it out by strikethrough but has aggressively been reverting to effectly achieve a delete. Of course he has not stated who or what caused him to remove the piece. The piece in question (see below) has some merit with regard to this RfC:
::::::: This was restored some days ago and is now at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Robert the Bruce#Outside_view
  ::*Note: This is a good point Tony. It should stay. If you wish to retract it rather use the 
 strikethrough facility than a delete. - Robert the Bruce 04:20, 11 Dec
 2004 (UTC)
:: I restored it recently with the explanation: 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. Be careful about your choice for wording, Robert.  Your use of the term "who or what" false suggests that I might have bowed to pressure to remove the piece.  Remember civility.  Your use of the term "aggressively" for my own decision on what to do with my own words is also loaded.  I explained in my original removal edit comment that I believed it to be a "brainfart".  It would not have been reasonable in my opinion to keep, even struck through, a comment that amounted to a false accusation. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:55, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: *Tony, take a deep breath. Your so-called "brainfart" stays. I need it as evidence. - Robert the Bruce 16:48, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: *Note: This is a good point Tony. It should stay. If you wish to retract it rather use the strikethrough facility than a delete. - Robert the Bruce 04:20, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Tony's Brainfart

message: In my opinion the best sources of unbiased information for anyone who is not familiar with the issue of male circumcision are the official policy statements by professional medical organizations.
*American Academy of Pediatrics. Circumcision Policy Statement (RE9850). March 1999.
*American Medical Association. Report 10 of the Council on Scientific Affairs (I-99), Neonatal Circumcision. Dec 1999.
*British Medical Association. The Law & Ethics of Male Circumcision - Guidance for Doctors. March 2003.
*Canadian Paediatric Society. Neonatal Circumcision Revisited. 1996 (reaffirmed March 2002)
*The Royal Australasian College of Physicians. Policy Statement On Circumcision. Sep 2002.
I welcome anyone who is concerned about POV crusaders to compare my edits with these official policy statements vs. Robert's edits with these official policy statements. -- DanBlackham 07:53, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "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."
DanBlackham 07:45, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: I didn't post the references to convince Robert of anything.  I posted them so that people who are not familiar with the issue of non-therapeutic circumcision could become familiar with the policy statements of professional medical organizations in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States.  When they are familiar with those policy statements I think most people will recognize that much of Robert's agenda regarding non-therapeutic circumcision is not shared by the international medical community.  For example the professional medical organizations unanimously say that there is no medical indication for neonatal circumcision. -- DanBlackham 09:39, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Policy statements by professional medical organizations

message: Robert posted the following personal attack on DanP's user page:
:Should the positions of the anti-circumcision activists be given equal time in Wikipedia articles? No, they should be given the same amount of time the Flat Earth Society recieves in articles on geography.
:While there are no doubt a number of genuine "nice" people who support the cause there are a significant number who are psycho-sexually motivated and these are the ones that are found to be so vocal on the Internet.
:Anti-circumcision activist Hammond's own survey found that the majority of foreskin restorers were either substance abusers or had mental conditions. (They said it themselves).[]
In my opinion the most disruptive aspect of Robert's behavior is the way he tries to bully or intimidate anyone who does not agree with his personal agenda. -- DanBlackham 09:41, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Personal attacks continue