Case Opened on 18:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Case Closed on 19:28, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this request. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators will be working on a proposed decision at /Proposed decision.

Involved parties

Statement by Alteripse

User:Robert Blair

Since arrival here, this user has repeatedly

refused to follow POV rules and made it clear he he has no intention of doing so
refused to explain, justify or discuss edits on Talk pages
removed valid and accurate information from articles
described his edits dishonestly

The most recent set of examples of all 4 offenses are at the Phimosis article in the last 2 days, but when I looked at his user page he has been doing so since arrival and has ignored all explanations, appeals, and protests. He resembles Robert Bruce in editing style and obsession except his removals of valid material are more egregious and I haven't seen the personal attacks. I can see why people thought they were the same, and we need to deal with him the same way. I am requesting an immediate injunction against editing all circumcision and medical and genitalia related articles. Thank you for prompt action on the injunction. alteripse 13:25, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I do not go out of my way to engage in this sort of conflict & haven't done it before, but here is an evidence page Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/User:Robert Blair evidence. I would rather write articles than waste my time with these idiots so please forgive my lack of familiarity with this procedure.alteripse 19:48, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Statement by Jakew

Evidence supplied by User:Jakew

This isn't an exhaustive list, folks, but here are some recent edits that I found easily. Many post-date warning by Grunt to read WP:NPOV (23:48, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)):

[see /Evidence]

- Jakew 18:41, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Statement by User:Robert Blair

I am completely innocent of the charges that have improperly brought against me.

Robert Blair 03:00, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(moved here by Morwen - Talk 13:57, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC), had been properly added to the evidence page)

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (5/0/0/0)

~~I'd like to see some diffs before I cast an official vote. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 16:33, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)~~ I remember looking through some of this during Robert the Bruce's case. Accept and open ASAP. -- Grun t 🇪🇺 17:44, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)
~~Please set up an evidence page.~~ Accept as soon as possible! Neutrality^talk 16:38, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
Accept - I just went through the history of Phimosis and Robert's user talk page, and that was enough to convince me we need to take this one and that an injunction is needed ASAP. But yes, diffs please soonest possible! - David Gerard 16:42, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Accept ➥the Epopt 20:13, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Accept. Nohat 05:51, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Temporary injunction

1) For the duration of this case, User:Robert Blair is banned from editing articles relating to medicine, circumcision or genitalia or any edits (addition, deletion or reversion) dealing with such matters in other articles. He may continue to comment on talk pages in an appropriate manner.

Passed 7 to 0 at 19:02, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Principles

Neutral point-of-view

1) Wikipedia's neutral point-of-view (NPOV) policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding any subject on which there is division of opinion.

Passed 7-1.

Abstain:

Advocacy and propaganda

2) Wikipedia is not a soapbox for advocacy or propaganda.

Passed 8-0.

Citing sources

3) It is highly desirable that editors cite the sources of the information in their edits. This is especially important on controversial articles.

Passed 8-0.

Do not remove references from articles

4) Removal of references from articles is generally considered inappropriate.

Passed 8-0.

Removal of relevant information

5) It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view. Wikipedia's NPOV policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view.

Passed 8-0.

Arbitration rulings

6) Arbitration rulings are binding on editors; violations will be regarded seriously.

Passed 8-0.

Findings of Fact

Previous warning for non-NPOV editing

1) Robert Blair has previously been warned by the Arbitration Committee to improve his editing habits such that they are in line with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. [1]

Passed 8-0.

Removal of referenced material

2) Robert Blair has previously removed referenced material and their associated references from articles ([2], [3]) even after the above warning ([4]).

Passed 8-0.

Apparent POV-pushing

3) Robert Blair's apparent intention in making the above edits has been to advocate an anti-circumcision point of view in the articles in question.

Passed 8-0.

Remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Ban on editing disputed articles

1) For a period of one year, Robert Blair is banned from editing articles relating to medicine, circumcision or genitalia. He also may not make any other edits (addition, deletion or reversion) related to such matters in any articles. He may, however, continue to comment on talk pages in an appropriate manner.

Passed 8-0.

Enforcement

Enforcement of editing ban

1) When enforcing the ban on Robert Blair editing articles relating to medicine, circumcision or genitalia or making any other edits (addition, deletion or reversion) related to such matters in any articles, administrators may use their own judgement in deciding what constitutes a violation of such. Such edits should be reverted and a block of up to 24 hours imposed.

Passed 7-0.