Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Avraham (talk | contribs) at 17:16, 28 February 2012 (→Semi-protection: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hello, Tftobin, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Garycompugeek (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

References

Please use high quality references per WP:MEDRS such as review articles or major textbooks. Thanks and welcome to Misplaced Pages.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey Tom as I stated on the talk page I think we need a section on the social and cultural aspect of the controversy. This is a good ref to address this http://www.cmaj.ca/site/earlyreleases/6dec11_the-studies-that-launched-a-thousand-snips.xhtml and http://www.plusnews.org/report.aspx?reportid=88790 but not a good one to deal with the medical aspects of HIV prevention as they are not review articles. Feel free to start such a section at the end of the article...Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

This ref Darby, R (2011 Oct). "Not a surgical vaccine: there is no case for boosting infant male circumcision to combat heterosexual transmission of HIV in Australia". Australian and New Zealand journal of public health. 35 (5): 459–65. PMID 21973253. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) simply states that the Africa data is not applicable to Australian and NewZealand which we already mention by "and whether it is of benefit in developed countries and among men who have sex with men is undetermined". It however does not really support "However, the methodology used to determine these results is increasingly being called into question by doctors."Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed Doc James reverted your revision because they were not review articles. WP:MEDRS allows primary source, though it prefers secondary sources when they are available. His personal opinion is that 'they don't belong in a controversial topic'. I take the opposite stance and believe that many quality primary sources should be presented so we can understand the controversy. I encourage you to post in the Talk page to discuss this so we can form consensus about the use of primary sources. 174.28.171.127 (talk) 15:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

There is already a clear consensus surrounding primary sources and the opinion is that they should rarely be used, especially when good secondary sources exist.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, there is a specialized medical book, (G.C. Denniston et al. Genital Autonomy. Springer Science+Business Media; 2010. p. 61-66), that should have the information your news article referenced. A little perseverance and we can raise the quality of these sources substantially. Gsonnenf (talk) 16:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

good to see you back. Chevara (talk) 03:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Original research

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to circumcision, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Jakew (talk) 15:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Jayjg 23:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012

Your recent editing history at Circumcision shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Jayjg 23:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I find the recent message from MiszaBot II regarding a possible COI extremely confusing. MiszaBot II states, "A COI is certainly possible, though there's nothing obviously connecting this editor to the article subject." There are 6 articles co-authored by a[REDACTED] editor of circumcision, and listed by Microsoft Academic Search. This is no case of mistaken identity with someone's dad, as RaghuVAchary states. It's out there, plain and simple. The subject of his or her co-authorship is circumcision. He or she is world famous, for co-authoring these articles. He or she is a longstanding[REDACTED] editor. With wikipedia's loathing of outing others, am I really supposed to do as advised, and go to the person's talk page, and say, "Do you have something to disclose? Are you the John Q. Public listed by Microsoft Academic Search as the co-author in the following articles?" Then what do I do, if he or she denies? It really is true, and very easily verifiable, by outside sources. Do you really want me to non-confrontationally confront the person, as was suggested? I will not hesitate to do it, if that is the only way forward, but the message is mixed, and not clear. It also doesn't seem in line with[REDACTED] etiquette. It also doesn't seem very practical. If he or she denies, but is not telling the truth, where does that leave any of us? It leaves us with an editor with an obvious conflict of interest, who is clinging to power, with[REDACTED] refusing to explore the evidence, or remove them. Is this really the way[REDACTED] does business? Aren't there better processes and procedures than this? Tftobin (talk) 02:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I just have a few questions. 1) Which recent message from MiszaBot II? 2) How do you know that the articles listed by Microsoft Academic Search were co-authored by someone who's been editing the circumcision article? 3) Which articles?

If "John Q. Public" is indeed listed as a coauthor, it likely means that a single person was not co-authoring the paper under a pseudonym, but that the main author used the Misplaced Pages article as a basis for the articles and is crediting the author(s) of the Misplaced Pages article for their contributions. Banaticus (talk) 15:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I was using John Q. Public instead of the wikpedia editor's real world name. When you go to the User:editor_name page, it lists his or her full name.  ::That is the same full name as is listed in Microsoft Academic Search.

Nobody used any[REDACTED] article to come up with the papers, as near as I know. Regardless, it didn't repeat the coincidence 6 times.

If you want to find out without me outing anyone, go to http://academic.research.microsoft.com/ and search for "Hospital Discharge Data Underestimate Circumcision Rates" or "MEDICAID COVERAGE OF NEWBORN CIRCUMCISION: A HEALTH PARITY RIGHT OF THE POOR", "FINE-TOUCH PRESSURE THRESHOLDS IN THE ADULT PENIS", "Errors in meta-analysis by Van Howe", "CASE NUMBER AND THE FINANCIAL IMPACT OF CIRCUMCISION IN REDUCING PROSTATE CANCER".

OK, it appears one has been removed. We're down to 5, from 6 before.

I swear to God I got a gmail telling me to look on Talk:Tftobin which had a message from MiszaBot II. I can find no trace of it, either in my gmail inbox, or trash folder, though I can find others with Talk:Tftobin in them, and would not have deleted it. He or she was suggesting that I go to the editor's talk page, and non-confrontationally ask them if they have a conflict of interest. It was not presented as text, per se, it was presented like when you see differences. The mail also had a difference with RaghuVAchary in it. Spooky.

Thanks for taking this seriously. I truly appreciate it. Tftobin (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The real sticking point here, is not they have authored the articles. It is not that the editor has a POV. It is that they profess neutrality on the subject, but an independent account would show that better than 99% of the editor's choices in practice, are all in favor of circumcision. Under these circumstances, the editor becomes a roadblock, and neutrality becomes unattainable. They have total, absolute veto power over everyone else. I'm not talking about talk:circumcision, where there is some at least talk of compromise from time to time. Doc James is a real medical doctor, and he's being disputed. The real proof relies on an independent tally of the editor's editing history, by a neutral, uninterested party. Tftobin (talk) 17:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Let me look into those magazine articles, I'll get back to you tomorrow. Feel free to post the User:Whoever you're talking about -- unless a Google search pulls up the author name on a user account, I'm probably not very likely to find it on my own. You said "It is not that the editor has a POV... 99% of the editor's choices... are... in favor of circumcision... the editor becomes a roadblock, and neutrality is unattainable." So, you are saying that they're POV editing, right? I just wanted to clarify what your stance is. Banaticus (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Tftobin, is your complaint here about a COI or NPOV? They are different things. If it is a COI complaint, are you saying that writing about a topic off Misplaced Pages means that one has a COI regarding that topic on Misplaced Pages? If the latter, are you suggesting that everyone who edits the article be "audited" for "choices" that are consistently "in favor of circumcision", or do you think that some similar audit should be applied to anyone whose "choices" might all be "against circumcision"? Jayjg 19:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Banaticus, I am saying their edits are all from one POV. If you pull up any of the aforementioned articles, there won't be any identification mystery.

Jayjg, I don't feel comfortable talking with you. As you know, I have referred to you as hostile, bordering on harassive, dangerously close to stalking, and have a WP::Wikiquette assistance open about your responses. Cutting peoples' posts outside of wikipedia, and using them on the talk page is not cool. Making newbies feel attacked and insinuating that they are sent there to disrupt by outside organizations is also not cool. Tftobin (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You don't have to respond to me, of course; I will exit this discussion. By the way, "harassive" is not a word. Jayjg 00:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I asked User:Jakew at User talk:Jakew#Article author? if he's the author of those articles. I also asked User:Garycompugeek which website he's talking about when he mentions Jakew's website at User talk:Garycompugeek#User:Jakew.27s website?. I think you must be mistaken about MiszaBot -- the original, second and third versions of that bot don't do anything other than archive material. You may have meant User:COIBot? Also, on an unrelated note, did you feel that Garycompugeek's statement earlier wasn't relevant to this discussion? Thanks! Banaticus (talk) 00:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Banaticus. I took out Garycompugeek's statement, because I didn't want it to muddy the waters. This is the same reason I didn't mention the web site Garycompugeek referenced. People post stuff on my talk page all the time. The above is one example. I don't solicit it, I don't care for it, and I delete it, because I don't want it associated with me. Garycompugeek and I are not conspiring. I am acting solely on my own. If you can tell I deleted an entry from Garycompugeek, you can see all the other space junk I keep removing.

I have no idea where the message came from, which said that I should approach the editor non-confrontationally on his talk page, and that "A COI is certainly possible, though there's nothing obviously connecting this editor to the article subject." I think the message I got from Miszabot II might have been a WP:COIN entry which was subsequently deleted. I have no idea. I am guessing. I had a WP:COIN in at the time. I got this back from Voceditnore. "Obviously he has a particular point of view, as do you. But that doesn't equate to a conflict of interest on either side." When every change to the article is one-sided, I respectfully disagree. I am not playing games, nor am I trying to get my own way, putting my POV over someone else's POV. I simply see a condition where the flow of information is being blocked, by someone who will swear that they are not blocking it. From Garycompugeek's entry, you can see that it has been going on for years. It's a chokehold. It's also a less than level playing field, when they have veto power over every single word which goes into the article. If you want the name of the web site, it is circs.org. http://www.circs.org/index.php/Reviews/Rates/Global contains the name. Thanks, Banaticus! Tftobin (talk) 03:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm posting here because you've mentioned part of my advice to you on the COI noticeboard and my user name. However, this is the message you were quoting at the top of this section, and the subject of your request for help from an administrator:

"A COI is certainly possible, though there's nothing obviously connecting this editor to the article subject. My suggestion would be to bring up the matter with the editor on their user talk page. Nobody has communicated with the editor aside from a welcome template left back in October. I do see that the editor uses edit summaries, which is usually a sign that they are communicative, so it might be worth asking them if they have a connection and to express concerns about the removal of content. Just try not to be confrontational either way, I don't see much actual disruption and we try to respect people's privacy if they want to remain anonymous."

It was on the COI noticeboard at the same time your enquiry was there. But note it was an answer to an enquiry about a completely different article and a completely different editor. It was not posted by you, nor was the response (by User:Atama) addressed to you. It's not deleted. It has now been archived by MiszaBot. You can find it here. Once again, I have no views on the article you are in dispute about. My advice to you was, and remains, that this is not a conflict of interest situation.

Incidentally, the editor you have expressed concerns about is completely open about their authorship of articles on the subject, and their real name, as you clearly can see from their user page. The WP article lists the website he administers (with his real-life name) under external links in the section very clearly marked "Pro-circumcision". It also lists sites that are "Anti-circumcision" in equal numbers. None of his articles appear to be cited as actual references for the WP article.

I understand your frustration with what you feel is an unresolved and lengthy content dispute, but you have now been taking this same dispute (from a variety of different angles) to several noticeboards which are not for that purpose, e.g. the COI noticeboard, the Reliable Sources noticeboard , Wikiquette , etc., and often times that will prove counter-productive. Your best bet is to continue the discussions on the talk page of Circumcision where there is an open Request for Comment and editors are working towards consensus, although obviously not yet achieving it. Voceditenore (talk) 13:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Voceditenore. I realize I have been all over the place. I don't understand how these pieces of[REDACTED] work yet. I apologized in the Reliable Sources noticeboard. The Wikiquette is a separate set of incidences not directly involving the editor in question. I thanked you for your entry in WP:COIN, because it was obvious you weren't going to do anything about it, and felt I was unjustified. I can't get blood from a stone. Might as well be polite. Putting all that aside, it doesn't matter if the editor acknowledges that they wrote those articles, or has a web site. What matters is the editing history. If someone with no interest and no point of view were to go through and tally, close to 100% of the editor's edits support one side. How does anyone else have any power to change that? Especially when all of the authorship issues have been brought up, and brushed aside with the editor in question swearing neutrality. Nobody follows up, and single person rule continues. This entrenchment has been brought up multiple times before, which brings everyone to the current level of frustration. The editor is ignoring a secondary reference put forth by therewillbefact. It is true, there are anti-circumcision entries on the outside web site. Every one has a disclaimer discounting its value, as is also done in the editor's articles. The stronger statements of other medical papers are simply not there. No word from the doctors in Denmark about dysfunction rates, or from the Swedish Paediatric Society saying "We consider it to be an assault on these boys". This is not acutal neutrality, it is the appearance of neutrality. Sort of like the Swiss declaring themselves neutral in WW2, then laundering all the Nazi gold from fillings. The whole issue is neither here nor there, since it is outside the scope of wikipedia. While everyone has a POV, not everyone has veto power over everything which goes into the article. This is a total constriction of the flow of information. Endless battling on the talk:circumcision page is not going to budge this one-sided control. You can see the level of frustration on both camps doing nothing but rising. What would it take to get an uninterested audit of editing? What would it take to create a level playing field? The editor simply admitting authorship, and then going back to autocratic control is not working, for many people. It didn't work in 2009, and it's not working now. Thank you for clearing up the Misza Bot II mystery. Now, the only thing curious is, why did email come to me with that information? I think you can understand why I was confused. Thanks. Tftobin (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. You have a basic misunderstanding about the COI noticeboard and how it works. I gave you my opinion and some advice as an experienced and uninvolved editor as to whether what you were talking about constituted a COI, but I'm not an adminstrator and can't "do" anything beyond giving you advice. Administrators watch the board and will generally intervene if something requires administrator action, e.g. temporarily locking down an article if there is persistent edit-warring, blocking a user who is repeatedly spamming, committing BLP violations, edit-warring, making egregious personal attacks on other editors, etc., but not for the kinds of problems you perceive. Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard will also have experienced univolved editors who may give an opinion on whether the end product, i.e. the article itself, is reasonably neutral with high quality references, but will not examine every edit that went into it, and again is not a basis for administrative action. Since you seem to focus on one particular user whom you see as the problem, possibly the closest thing to what you're looking for is filing a Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct, the last step before an Arbitration request. However, I know of no process on Misplaced Pages which will "audit" every single edit by a particular user in a disputed article, not even an Arbitration Committee case. In those cases the parties to the dispute and others provide the evidence and the Arbitration Committee weighs it up. Anyhow, that's about all the advice I can give you on the subject and I really don't have any further input to give you.

As for the email, I have no idea. Possibly another user emailed you the notice because they thought you'd be interested, or you may have some preference checked that says you want to be emailed if there are changes in the pages you are watching? (Although, I don't know if there is a feature like that). Voceditenore (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your insights, and your clarifications, from the bottom of my heart, Voceditenore Tftobin (talk) 21:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Tftobin, they view thoughtful opponents of circumcision as the enemy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.177.170.151 (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Please stop. You are helping no one. You are also irritating the hell out of me. Tftobin (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Please stop on your own. If you don't, I will make you stop. Your writing on my page is not welcome. Tftobin (talk) 01:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Tom, you can ask an administrator to "semi-protect" your talk page, if you wish. That means that only logged-in editors with more than a handful of edits can comment. Jakew (talk) 09:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your kindness, Jakew Tftobin (talk) 17:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Would you like me to semi-protect your page for a month or so until the IP harassment backs off? -- Avi (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)