Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Blackworm

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct

Please consider waiting until Blackworm has posted a response before commenting or endorsing.(Struck out in response to this edit. 22:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)) Blackworm has responded, 23:50, 9 November 2008.

(The current date and time is: 04:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC).)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Summary

The purpose of this RfC is to discuss ongoing problems related to Blackworm's behaviour at the Circumcision article and related articles.

Blackworm is an intelligent and dedicated editor with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy. He puts considerable effort into removing what he sees as bias from Wikipedia articles. However, numerous times Blackworm has said or implied things about other editors such that one could reasonably expect those editors to find the comments unwelcome. While these comments by Blackworm may be seen by some as being mild and may not necessarily be in clear violation of any policy or guideline, they have been sufficiently frequent as to cause significant problems at the Circumcision article and related articles, including contributing to another editor's leaving Wikipedia for nearly three months. Blackworm has continued to write such comments after being repeatedly asked to stop.

Evidence

On the positive side

On the positive side, Blackworm has made good-faith attempts to correct his own errors and get along with other editors. (This is not an exhaustive list, as the purpose of this RfC is to address problems. See also many positive contributions in Blackworm's contribs.)

Remarks about editors

Blackworm has said or implied things about other editors which are non-NPOV, are unnecessary for discussion of article content, and can reasonably be expected to be unwelcome.

  • "I am confident in my opposition of your recent bid for Bureaucratship, as this latest edit and faulty assessment of editors' positions is another egregious example of poor judgment of consensus on your part." 21:48, 23 October 2008
  • "And according to Google there's over 800 occurances of "amputated a limb," but don't you think it would be a bit disingenuous to list a handful here?" 19:35, 27 September 2008
  • "Indeed, but some people would apparently prefer if you remained ignorant of this information. " 22:24, 25 September 2008 (And edit summary "Silly to attempt to suppress this information.")
  • "Obviously many such studies are cited in an attempt to show that circumcision increases sexual pleasure, which of course is disingenuous to the alert reader (but it works for the masses, so it's in Wikipedia)." 19:50, 21 September 2008
  • "IZAK seems to contribute nothing to this but original research and incoherent, unsourced arguments, combined with misrepresenting the views of those opposing him." 18:33, 9 September 2008
  • "Also, please don't engage in WP:OR, then turn around and cry "OR" when people seem to have stronger arguments. It is disingenuous." 22:35, 5 September 2008 (Also re edit summary: "Not impressed with your mischaracterization of my position.")
  • "Jakew, Avi, Nandesuka, and Jayjg worked as a team for years, unopposed, skewing this article into a POV mess..." 18:00, 5 September 2008 (With edit summary "Avi is resisting policy, not enforcing it." )
  • "It seems as if it's more important to you to implicitly claim the word circumcision as really only meaning male circumcision than it is for you to allow the universal English language reader to instantly understand what forms of circumcision this article discusses." 03:47, 5 September 2008
  • "Those who vehemently support male circumcision and have a disregard for encyclopedic, scientific, non-ambiguous language wish to present female circumcision as something that isn't "circumcision,"" 21:18, 4 September 2008
  • "It's more incivil and damaging to play loose with events and discussions of what consensus was reached in a discussion, than to point out ..." ("...these falsehoods" later refactored by Blackworm to "ambiguity")21:13, 4 September 2008
  • "The motivation is again your silence on the irrelevant attacks and misinterpretations of policy made by your supporters, while insisting that their support equals a WP:CONSENSUS. That smacks of dishonesty, Jake. I do prefer to attribute it to weakness, however." 06:15, 24 August 2008
  • "I believe that flies in the face of policy, and indicates a desire to skip discussion and consensus and proceed immediately his desired article state." 20:52, 5 August 2008
  • "Are you being flippant, or are you genuinely confused? If the former, please advise me so I can stop good-faith attempts to communicate with you." 19:30, 5 August 2008

Editor temporarily left Wikipedia

Jakew essentially stopped editing Wikipedia for nearly 3 months, in part due to Blackworm's behaviour. From July 1 to September 20, 2008, Jakew, normally a frequent editor, did not edit Wikipedia except for 3 posts to User talk:Blackworm discussing why he wasn't editing. Eight days after Jakew left, whether or not he was aware that Jakew had left, Blackworm posted sarcastic barnstars on Jakew's talk page.

  • Jakew said to Blackworm: "Why am I not editing? The answer is that I find the editing environment too unpleasant, and in part (though not entirely) that's due to you." 18:42, 23 August 2008
  • Sarcastic barnstars: 04:12, 9 July 2008 with edit summary " I agree, Jakew needs more wiki-love. Mass barnstars on Jakew!!"
  • Admission that the barnstars were sarcastic: "The barnstars in general were sarcastic, exaggerated, and born of disgust for Jayjg's and Coppertwig's outpouring of "wikilove" and apparent solidarity without substance in the form of multiple barnstars each." 06:15, 24 August 2008

Edit summaries

Blackworm has said or implied critical things about other editors in edit summaries, and has continued after having been asked not to do this.

Symmetry

Blackworm has criticiized other editors for doing things while doing, or threatening to do, essentially the same things himself that he is accusing others of doing.

  • (with links to edit counts of several editors) "Also, these tools may assist the reader ... What percentage of Jakew's top 25 articles are circumcision related? Apparently you don't hold that against him. What percentage of Avi and Jayjg's top 25 articles are related to Judaism? Should I implicitly question whether this affects your neutrality with regard to circumcision, or assert that you make "all" your edits "from a decidedly pro-circumcision POV?" I don't believe those kinds of claims are productive." 22:18, 8 October 2008
  • (Explaining the above diff) "If you'll read it again, you may notice it was an attempt to show Jayjg that poking into someone's edits and attempting to frame them as POV pushers based on which articles they mostly edit is not a viable way to resolve disputes." 06:39, 13 October 2008 , with edit summary "Do you e-mail each other to decide who will attack me next, Avi?"
  • (Also apparently explaining the same diff) "Well, that an unwelcome remark follows an unwelcome remark should not be surprising. If an editor makes an implicit accusation of POV pushing, they should be prepared to have their incivility condemned, and their own neutrality assessed." 16:14, 15 October 2008
  • (Also apparently explaining the same diff) ":I think generally accusations of POV pushing are not acceptable, as policy and guideline state. That said, those repeatedly making the accusations do not heed these policies, or believe that their experience gives them license to ignore the policies; therefore, in this last instance I attempted a symmetric approach, stated hypothetically, as an attempt to illustrate the inappropriateness of the accusations in a manner that may resonate with these editors." 17:23, 15 October 2008
  • "Ok, I'll just keep reverting to my preferred edit, and I'll adopt your and Avi's extremely detached tone about it. Thanks for showing me the way, Coppertwig." 21:47, 5 October 2008
  • "How about if I revert you, then tell you to relax?" 04:25, 28 September 2008
  • "If others agree with Jakew's logic, I am going to start importing statements such as the following, from labiaplasty, into the female circumcision article:" 20:16, 22 September 2008 (with edit summary "Gander/goose." )
  • "Ultimately, I'll stick to content until you force me otherwise and derail constructive discussion with your predictable accusations about editors' motives." 18:31, 5 September 2008

Accusations of POV-pushing

There have been accusations of POV-pushing or bias directed at Blackworm, and also such accusations by Blackworm against others.

Accusations by Blackworm of POV-pushing (or similar things) by others:

  • "You are the one appearing to push an agenda by attempting to ban language used in reliable sources based on nothing more than your fiat. ... I am trying to build an encyclopedia, what are you trying to do? " 07:09, 28 September 2008 (Edit summary: "Nonsense, Avi")
  • "...I see you as nothing but a provider of misinformation in regard to this issue. But then advocacy and misinformation often go hand in hand." 17:58, 30 July 2008
  • "your diatribe above is otherwise bursting with non-neutral POV" 19:12, 26 July 2008

Accusations by others, directed at Blackworm, of POV-pushing (or similar things):

  • IZAK said to Blackworm, "...it is important to note that to tar and feather, issue insults, and throw into the figurative garbage the historical facts you don't like and that do not conform to your obviously personal POV is itself not a way to deal with disagreements. You are violating WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND and being a Wikipedia:POV warrior as you seek to crush simple debate and discussion ..." 07:22, 10 September 2008
  • Coren said to Blackworm: "The fact that you disagree with the title does not mean that it is not neutral; that tag is reserved for when there is a genuine problem with the neutrality of the title and not simply because some people would prefer it to represent a specific POV." 22:48, 5 August 2008

Blackworm has continued to make likely-unwelcome remarks about other editors after the attempts to resolve the situation listed below.

Previous attempts to resolve the situation

  • Discussion between Coppertwig and Blackworm, 15–17 October, 2008
  • Discussion between Avi and Blackworm, 12–14 October 2008
  • Discussion between Coppertwig and Blackworm, 26 September – 6 October, 2008
  • Discussion between Avi and Blackworm, 5 September 2008
  • Discussion between Jakew and Blackworm, 23 August – 7 September, 2008

Applicable policies and guidelines

  1. Civility policy
  2. No personal attacks policy
  3. Civility discussion
  4. Assume good faith
  5. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. Coppertwig (talk) 00:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC) Note also this criticism yesterday of another user in which it seems to me that Blackworm fails to assume good faith and seems about to violate proposed remedy C3 talks of actions which, if done, would violate C3(14:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)). See also an AN thread from January. Coppertwig(talk) 23:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Well put. I would also add WP:AGF to applicable policies. Jakew (talk) 12:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agreed, and while Coppertwig seems to have used recent diffs, I can bring a number of older diffs that can demonstrate problematic edits of Blackworm, such as:
    -- Avi (talk) 01:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jayjg (talk) 03:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

  1. edg ☺ ☭ 03:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

These proposed remedies are for the purpose of clarifying and adding detail to existing policies as applied to editor behaviour at Circumcision and related articles. While these proposals are designed primarily to address problems caused by Blackworm's behaviour,(edited 00:16, 7 November 2008) in order to maintain a level playing field it is proposed that they apply to all editors of Circumcision and related articles who are aware of this RfC.

  • C1. Comment on content: It would be best if all editors of Circumcision and related articles would refrain from making pejorative assertions or implications about other editors and just discuss article content.
  • C2. Because edit summaries can't easily be deleted or edited, editors should be especially careful when writing edit summaries not to include remarks that might be interpreted as sarcastic or as making unwelcome assertions or implications about other editors.
  • C3. No excuse: Inappropriate behaviour doesn't become appropriate when used in response to inappropriate behaviour of others. If another editor does something inappropriate, appropriate responses include ignoring it, discussing it with the editor, and other steps described in dispute resolution. Imitating the inappropriate behaviour or doing other inappropriate behaviour in response is not appropriate and may be a POINT violation.
  • C4. If someone has a conflict of interest (COI), it's best if they declare it themselves. If someone feels the need to declare that another editor has a COI, they should do it as diplomatically as possible, in neutral terms; they should not do it in the middle of a thread which is concerned with an article content discussion; and they should not repeat the declaration unnecessarily. The only reason for repeating the declaration would be if there are new editors in the discussion. If it's only one new editor, they can be informed on their user talk page. Rather than re-stating the declaration, giving a diff of the previous declaration without additional comment or innuendo is preferable.
  • C5. An editor is not considered to have a COI in connection with Circumcision and related articles merely because the editor is circumcised or is not circumcised; has personal beliefs and values about circumcision; belongs to a religion which requires circumcision or does not belong to such a religion; spends a lot of time editing circumcision-related articles; or spends a lot of time editing articles related to a religion which requires circumcision.
  • C6 If an editor does not have a COI, then unwelcome remarks about the editor's personal qualities, alleged personal bias etc. are inappropriate.
  • C7. Accusations of POV-pushing: If an editor believes that an article is biassed and that the article does not conform to NPOV and tries to change the article to something which in the editor's opinion conforms better to NPOV, or if there is no clear evidence otherwise that would be convincing to a typical outside observer, then others should not refer to the editor using "POV-pusher" or similar terms. Assume good faith.(striking out; superceded by C7.1 23:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC))
  • C7.1. Accusations of POV-pushing: If an editor believes that an article is biassed and that the article does not conform to NPOV and tries to change the article to something which in the editor's opinion conforms better to NPOV, or if there is no clear evidence otherwise that would be convincing to a typical outside observer, then others should not refer to the editor using "POV-pusher" or similar terms. When the issue is points of view which differ between editors, editors should assume good faith, or at least formulate their comments as if they do.(striking out; back to C7. 01:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC))

Editors who endorse the above remedies. (If you endorse only some, please indicate along with your signature and any comment which ones you endorse. You may indicate "C1–C7" or just sign to indicate endorsing all of the above proposed remedies C1–C7.)

  1. C1–C7. Coppertwig (talk) 00:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    C1–C6; C7.1. Coppertwig (talk) 00:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    C1–C7. Coppertwig (talk) 01:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    C1–C7; BW1, BW4. Coppertwig (talk) 01:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    C1–C7; BW1, BW2. Not endorsing BW3 or BW4 because they seem off-topic for this RfC. I plan to explain further on the talk page. Coppertwig (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. C1–C7. Complying in good faith with the above recommendations and generally cooperating with other editors might make Blackworm a valuable contributor. Short of that, I can imagine a topic ban being needed, which would be unfortunate since Blackworm appears to be an intelligent and thoughtful editor with a distinct and useful perspective. / edg ☺ ☭ 10:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. C1–C7. per Edgarde and Coppertwig -- Avi (talk) 18:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

I believe Coppertwig is unfairly focussing on my conduct, and presenting a very one-sided view of the climate in circumcision and related articles. I argue that an unacceptable climate, apparently based in distrust and a lack of the assumption of good faith in anyone having a differing view of what comprises the neutral point of view from that of Jayjg, Avraham, and Jakew, took hold in these articles before my arrival. I document that here (diff). I am not the first nor presumably the last target.

I think any casual observer would agree that some of my comments above are incivil, and some are personal attacks. Many of them are in response to personal attacks and incivility from Jayjg, Avraham, and Jakew, however, as I believe the surrounding discussions show. If that is "no excuse" for me, I insist that it is "no excuse" for anyone. I think Coppertwig's proposed remedies are well intended, and I support them to the extent they are required of all editors, especially Jayjg, Avraham, and Jakew, who in the 18 months I've edited circumcision and related articles have consistently displayed the same patterns of incivility and personal attacks directed at any editors opposing their edits. This pattern takes many varied forms, both overt, and subtly through flat dismissals of editors' arguments without substance, a refusal to answer good-faith questions or to clarify apparent contradictions in editorial judgment, and a denial of a lack of consensus on some edits they desire, despite recent discussions showing clear evidence to the contrary. In the specific case I just linked to, when this evidence ws presented, Avraham's response was not to correct the incorrect appraisal of the dispute that targetted me personally, but to deny that the opposing editors really opposed the edit (see [[1]] and [[2]])! I sometimes liken this climate to an Orwellian dystopia, and I believe the comparison is apt.

Avraham and Jayjg, administrators both, are especially quick to invoke the personal beliefs of editors in content disputes, as an apparent means of swaying debate on content:

Avraham (14:38, 4 September 2008): "Yes, Blackworm, we know that you and I disagree on this issue, as we disagree on whether or not circumcision, as a whole, should be permitted or forbidden." [3]

Jayjg (06:32, 2 July 2008): "The fact that anti-circumcision editors dislike the word only confirms that fact. Please abide by the consensus, which included you, before you found some like-minded allies." [4]

The latter further seems an unfounded accusation that I enlisted or somehow otherwise canvassed other editors.

I could point to other examples, but anyone who has been around circumcision for any length of time knows that these more experienced editors taught me through their actions and comments that this behaviour was acceptable -- and I'd really just rather get back to the content. If, now, we are to accept Coppertwig's assertions that focussing on editors isn't acceptable, then it isn't acceptable from anyone. After this unsavoury exposition of the hostile climate around circumcision, hopefully we can get to the task of resolving the actual content issues at the basis of this hostility. I repeat my offers to Jayjg, Avraham, and Jakew that we follow proper dispute resolution on the major issues of the framing of the topic of male and female circumcision, and the acceptable terminology to be used in circumcision articles. On these issues, their position is not a consensus despite their apparent refusal to admit so in the face of several editors opposing their edits.

Ultimately I'd like to get back to the task of writing an encyclopedia, and properly reflecting reliable sources on the topic of male and female circumcision, without the strong non-neutral stance Wikipedia now takes in favour of male circumcision and in opposition to female circumcision. Jakew openly expresses the view that anti-circumcision activism is deceptive on his user page, and is praised specifically for opposing editors critical of circumcision (see his barnstars), and I believe this systemic bias, that of administrators and others looking the other way because it's viewed as a "good cause," pervades Wikipedia and prevents the neutral point of view from taking hold.

I hope we will all actually adopt the proposals Coppertwig makes above, and get on with resolving the major WP:NPOV content disputes through civil discussion, or, if needed, mediation and arbitration, rather than the continuation of the long-standing climate of incivility and distrust aimed at editors disagreeing with Jayjg, Avraham, and Jakew, three editors unanimous on all edits, the first two having also received similar warnings about conduct from Coppertwig, despite being administrators. (See User_talk:Avraham/Archive_33#Comment, User_talk:Jayjg/Archive_27#Circumcision, User_talk:Jayjg/Archive_27#Comment_on_deletion.) These editors have in no way ever apologized, stepped back, struck out remarks when requested, or indicated any desire to compromise or to correct past inappropriate conduct. Will this change? After endorsing the basis for this dispute (but not, apparently, the remedies which require the assumption of good faith), Jayjg made this edit:

  • Jayjg (00:53, 31 October 2008) (in deleting my notification that Jayjg deleted a disputed comment: Edit summary: "see WP:POINT. Focus on improving article content, not other editors, or pursuing absurd and petty vendettas."[5] (The previous edit praised Coppertwig for good faith after Coppertwig restored the comment in toto.[6])

...including contributing to another editor's leaving Wikipedia for nearly three months.

The above is no doubt referring to Jakew. I do not agree that an editor getting frustrated and temporarily or permanently leaving Wikipedia is necessarily considered by the Wikipedia community to be a "problem," as I believe the following more extreme example, also taken from the time right before I arrived, perhaps illustrates:

  • User:12.210.255.192 (23:39, 26 March 2007): "Oh that's absolutely assinine Jakew and you [well] know it. For [goodness] sake when are you going to stop keeping this article biased and give it up? You are why i stopped editing, you are [very] pathetic."[7] (Avraham deleted the comment by the anonymous editor.)

Blackworm has continued to write such comments after being repeatedly asked to stop.

I have also repeatedly asked other the editors involved to stop writing such comments. I have more proposed remedies for your consideration:

BW1. Editors should not lower the quality of the editing environment by questioning other editors' motivations in Article Talk. If questions about motives are asked, one forum might be User Talk. If an editors asks another to cease questioning motives, the next step might be dispute resolution, but not continuing the questioning.

Right away, there is a problem with this proposed solution, because as I view it, Jakew makes apparent open admission of being specifically and especially critical of the propagation of anti-circumcision views on his user page:

  • Jakew: "In 2003, I became aware of the deceptive activities of many activist groups opposed to neonatal circumcision.[...] I am neither in favour of or against neonatal circumcision, but am opposed to misleading information."

That seems to be a statement attacking opponents of neonatal circumcision, as well as inciting a lack of good faith in contributors who edit circumcision pages in such a way that correct non-neutral material that is biased in favour of male circumcision, or in their view fails to properly summarize and integrate views that are more critical of circumcision. One wonders whether the following statement would be viewed positively or negatively by the other editors endorsing the basis for this dispute, and on what policy grounds:

  • In 2007, I became aware of the deceptive activities of an activist group promoting neonatal circumcision.

Again, it seems the only way for me to help these editors frame issues neutrally is to point out the absurdity of the argument or the clear offensiveness of the statement viewed from another point of view -- and this often is inappropriately (if ironically) interpreted by these editors as personal attacks. I propose:

BW2 Editors should discourage failures to WP:AGF by avoiding statements casting doubt on the sincerity of editors based on editors' points of view on controversial topics. (Adoption of this clause would seem to require Jakew to refactor his user page to remove comments about "deceptive activities of many activist groups opposed to neonatal circumcision.") (struck out, see this comment.)

BW3. Editors should not assert that another editor's comments "tell" the reader something, nor that the editor "sees" anything, without being explicit about what it is the reader should presumably also hear or see. A preferred response is to express what the editor is "told" or has "seen," and perhaps also to ask the other editor if they agree that what is "told" or "seen" is indeed the case.

Re: the above, it seems to me that statements akin to "this tells me something about you" or "i see what you are now" are prone to be viewed as incivil taunting. Editors shouldn't be bullied into changing their comments by the implication that their comments condemn them, without being clear about how, specifically, their comments condemn them -- and that, in a civil manner. I believe Avi's comments above ("The exchange [...] is also telling") fail this clause.

BW4. All editors' opinions on the neutrality of organization of articles and article content are valid and should be weighted by the strength of their arguments and their use of reliable sources to support their arguments. Editors should not assert without evidence from reliable sources that their own such assertions carry more weight than another editor's.

This seems required by this exchange:

  • Blackworm, addressing Jayjg (21:26, 8 October 2008): "Also, as we have failed to seek, establish or agree upon a process for determining the neutrality of terms, your arguments regarding the neutrality or non-neutrality of various terms seem to be arbitrary and based on assertion. Avi/Jakew/you reject all my assertions in that area, and those of all other editors, even the ones supported by reliable sources,[8] thus I do not see why I should recognize your similar assertions unsupported by any reliable sources. Perhaps you could explain precisely why your assertions are to be taken as fact (and why our editing decisions must be based on them), and why my assertions regarding neutrality are to be dismissed."[9]
  • Jayjg, addressing Blackworm (21:33, 8 October 2008): "As for why my assertions should be taken as fact? Well, if you insist on discussing individuals, it's because of my greater experience here. You have edited a total of 250 distinct Wikipedia pages, a significant percentage of which are circumcision-related, and all from a decidedly anti-circumcision point of view. By contrast, I have edited almost 12,000 different pages, from all areas of Wikipedia, helped write Wikipedia's policies, and have adjudicated over 100 Arbitration Committee cases."[10]

How can any editor, disputing an edit in good faith, accept such a brazen dismissal? Note also, this contradictory view:

  • Jayjg (01:02, 26 September 2008): "Yes, but that's just an assertion, not an argument, so it carries no weight." [11]

So yes, let's get to the content, and not intimidating or eliminating those opposed to one's edits. I support BW1 to BW4. I support C1 to C7.


Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Blackworm (talk) 23:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Garycompugeek

I feel like someone should say something on Blackworm's behalf. I have been editing circumcision for about nine months now and would like to think I have a good measure of the regular editors who currently watch/edit the page. Blackworm's talk page, if read in its entirety, is a lesson in frustration. I see a concerned editor who has been valiantly trying combat WP:NPOV issues and systematic bias with the cards stacked against him. Blackworm may be a bit harsh and/or sarcastic sometimes but in general he is one of the fairest editors I have come across. I have seen him work with other editors who have cross and/or opposing views but still hang in there and help that editor with questions of formatting, policy, etc... Circumcision and related articles are very controversial and contentious. To say that there are opposing view points would be quite an understatement.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Garycompugeek (talk) 20:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{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:

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Blackworm&oldid=1062627071"