User talk:Erikvcl

Hello, Erikvcl! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Polly (Parrot) 22:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Circumcision. Please comment on the content and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Jakew (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't attack anyone. The editors are clearly not doing their job and I commented on it. I will not rephrase my comments as they are already quite civil and accurate. You run a pro-circ website. This is fact. This is not an attack. Your edits show bias and don't bring into account all the research. This is fact. Nothing I have said is an attack. That being said, I think you should read Wikipedia's policy on bias. Erikvcl (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"This is ethics which, apparently, isn't something Jakew is familiar with..." is a personal attack. Don't do it again. Jakew (talk) 16:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still maintain this is not a personal attack since it is based in fact. It is a conflict of interest to support a cause and maintain the very article about that cause. This is an ethics violation. I will remove this "attack" as you call it. Now, can we please begin to address the valid concerns I've brought up? Erikvcl (talk) 16:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you've brought up any valid concerns, but thank you for removing the attack. Jakew (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me? Now I KNOW that you are biased. What about the US Navy study? And the ethical concerns? Erikvcl (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The US Navy study is a primary source, so it's largely irrelevant. Wikipedia is a tertiary source; that is, it's based on secondary sources (principally literature reviews in medical articles), and since the publication of the RCTs, secondary sources have understandably focused on them. I'm afraid I can't even tell what the "ethical concerns" you mention actually are, let alone identify your source for them. Jakew (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made my ethical concerns very clear. Would you support FGM if there were medical "benefits"? There is no "source" for ethics. Ethics and morality are part of the basis for human civilization. Murder is wrong. FGM is wrong. Why is this not relevant for Wikipedia? Certainly if we had some pro-FGM contributions to Wikipedia, they'd be reverted. Why isn't it the same here with the male form? Erikvcl (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have misunderstood the purpose of a Wikipedia talk page. They are not intended to be used for arguing about whether the subject is right or wrong; they're for discussion about the article. Our role is to take what reliable sources have said about a subject and present that in a manner that conforms to our neutral point of view policies. Jakew (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have brought up valid points about the article. The article is neither neutral nor uses reliable sources. Erikvcl (talk) 17:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Erik, thank you for your concern regarding the circumcision article. There are many editors who share your concerns that the ethics section of the article is under weighted violating wp:undue. Even so, there are a few long term editors who do not share this view and attempt to stop additions by means of attrition. A great deal of new editors such as yourself give up after a few tussles and the minority long term editors dictate the article. We encourage you to stick around for a while and voice your opinion as we build consensus towards fixing undue NPOV issues on various topics. Gsonnenf (talk) 04:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your words of encouragement. I will do my best to help out with this article within the parameters set out by Wikipedia and the other editors. Erikvcl (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the hate speech from the anon, that helps nothing and you don't want to be associated with it. Circumcision is a turbulent subject Erik. There are pros and cons and each side firmly believes they are in the right. It's difficult to ride the center and maintain neutrality but regardless of our personal point of view we must strive to play by the rules and policies established in wikipedia. I agree with Gsonnenf and hope you stick around to help us make it more neutral. Garycompugeek (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are there pros and cons to pedophelia? Are pros and cons to FGM? Are there pros and cons to rape? Some subjects are really about ethics and morals and not about science and research. Sure, we want the science and research, but science is separate from morality -- as it should be. I understand that we should try to be neutral, but that doesn't mean we accept dubious or tainted research just because it is endorsed by a so-called "reliable" source. The world is full of folks with malicious intent: Wikipedia should strive for accuracy and truth.

I appreciate your concern for me, Garycompugeek regarding the "hate speech". To be honest, I appreciate the insight from those who have tried to challenge the status quo and who give insight into the internal culture of Wikipedia's editors and their oft-misguided dogmatism. Erikvcl (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...but you inadvertantly removed my response to jake - if you get an edit conflict on a talk page please make sure in future that you're not deleting people's comments. No biggie Egg Centric 14:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. I don't remember removing anything. I got the conflict notice and simply re-added my response. I will try to be more careful in the future. Erikvcl (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have an alliance between admins who believe that circumcision should be inflicted on all men until the end of time, and one severely disturbed young man with classic symptoms of childhood sexual abuse. You'll note how many symptoms said individual manifests http://www.aaets.org/article120.htm Mankind 202.105.233.40 (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree. Shocking that higher-level Wiki bureaucrats/stewards aren't bothered by the conflict of interest, the "circumsexual" self identity, or the pro-circ bias that exists on his own talk page! I haven't tried the higher levels of Wikipedia's heirarchy... yet. Erikvcl (talk) 17:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at Talk:Circumcision, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This applies to your user talk: page as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Pursuant to the above warning, I've blocked you for 72 hours for posting additional personal attacks and personal information about an editor at WP:AN/I. --Laser brain (talk) 06:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen any vandalism on this page. You don't have to worry about me, admins!

There is dispute resolution going on at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Circumcision and it may be more fruitful to bring up your arguments there. Rip-Saw (talk) 06:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Erikvcl (talk) 13:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jakew (talk) 07:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard (which I have now suppressed from the edit history), do you appreciate how utterly unacceptable edits like that are? Do you intend to make any further edits like that? --John (talk) 09:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took a quick look at the matter you have been involved in and considered blocking you indefinitely. I decided not to, so long as you never repeat this behaviour. If you ever do, your editing privileges will be permanently removed. Please do not make this necessary; I partly held off on blocking you because I think you may have valid points to make, once you learn to make them in an acceptable way. It is particularly important when editing in a contentious area like this one that you avoid commenting on the motives or attributes of other editors or living people in general. Instead you need to talk about reliable sources and the edits you wish to make to articles using these sources and our policies to guide you. Many may consider this too lenient; please do not embarrass me or yourself by repeating what you did. Finally, if you ever need any help or advice please do not hesitate to contact me on my talk page. --John (talk) 10:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your leniency. Myself and others have tried making edits based on sources. Alas, these are all rejected for straw man reasons. The statements I made about Morris were based on his own website. Can you please explain to me why these are a violation of Wikipedia policy? Thanks! Erikvcl (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me. Several Wikipedia policies (WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:NOT, WP:BLP) prohibits you from drawing your own conclusions and inferences based on what you've read - or think you've read - and posting it here on Wikipedia as fact. If, for instance, you are quoting a New York Times article stating that a certain person is a pedophile, that might pass policy muster. Deciding based on a glance at a fellow's website that he must be one is never acceptable.

Beyond that, "clean hands" is a must. There's an irony inherent in your allegation that others are using straw man arguments, when your response at ANI indicated that not being a MD, having links to forums of which you disapprove and "not [being] respected in the medical community" (and you would know this how?) are valid grounds to declare someone a pedophile.

"It is odd that you would defend him." It is odd that you believe this to be a battleground. We are not "defending" any one person, but instead upholding Wikipedia policies governing what - and how - we can post, and the alleged character and involvements of an article's subject are completely irrelevant. If you can't wrap your head around that this is a neutral encyclopedia, not an advocacy forum - your own side of things included - then this is not the place for you. Ravenswing 18:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not here for advocacy. I am here to correct the POV of the Circumcision article. With the exception of 3-4 people EVERY editor to pass through this article declares that it is NOT WP:NPOV. I have NEVER made drastic changes to the article in question, I have used the talk page when appropriate and I do not seek to deviate from NPOV.

That being said, I think it is easy to get caught up in procedures and policies and rules and forget what we are doing here. Character matters. I am sick and tired of this Wikipedia attitude that "only edits matter". This is hogwash. Everyone edits from some motivation: for accuracy, for advocacy, for personal recognition, etc. Sometimes people are really really bad people. Answer honestly: would you allow a convicted child molester to edit the Wikipedia article on pedophelia? If the answer is yes, then I will leave Wikipedia immediately and never come back because that would be absurd.

Let me explain myself regarding my recent BLP violation. A circumfetishist, by definition, is someone who is sexually aroused by circumcisions being performed, talking about it, etc. By its very definition, this intersects with pedophelia when we're talking about children being circumcised. It is a fact and not conjecture that circlist is a circumfetishist discussion board. It is a fact and not conjecture that the Gilgal society is a circumfetishist organization. It is a fact and not conjecture that the head of circlist & the Gilgal society was recently arrested and convicted of possessing child pornography. Although I didn't cite sources since we were not in an encyclopedic entry, there are many in the medical community who call Morris a quack. I can provide references to this, if needed.

The bottom line is that I am not drawing my own conclusions. These are facts and they are verifiable. Poke around Morris's website. If you're not disturbed, I'll be surprised. There's an image of a boy with a cell phone clamped around his foreskin dangling there. If that's not a combination of child abuse and child sexualization, I don't know what is.

As I said before, character matters. We should not be calling circumfetishists reliable sources. You state that character is irrelevant. I say that Wikipedia won't be neutral if we do ignore character because character reveals biases and personal biases will bias the article. Erikvcl (talk) 02:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think I should save you some trouble right off the start. In answer of your question as to whether I would allow a convicted child molester to edit the article on pedophilia? Yes, absolutely. Since you state that such an answer would cause you to leave Wikipedia forever, if that remains your intent, of course you needn't waste any more time on my response.

If you're still reading, then allow me to explain: of course edits are all that matters. We can operate in no other fashion. It is not our job to make judgments concerning "character," which have no place in a neutral encyclopedia in any event. Whose judgments would you have us follow? Those of fundamentalist Islamists, for instance, who believe that the uncircumcised are infidels, and that women would have no place editing Wikipedia at all?

As such, let's revisit your hypothetical convicted child molester. As long as his edits are neutral and factual, we have no grounds for denying him access. Why should we? On grounds of morality? Sleep with a 16 year old in California, Florida, New York, Texas, Virginia ... you're a child molester and can be convicted for it. Do it in my state, and it's perfectly legal. That ex-felon did not have to pass any security checks, answer any tests or provide bonafides in order to register as a Wikipedia editor ... and neither did you. In point of fact, we know nothing about you. You have submitted no facts, no proofs. We have not delved into your life to see if there is anything from which we could construe bias. Such would be a violation of our policies.

So, sorry. The bottom line is that there is nothing about so-called "circumfetishism" which, by Wikipedia policies, debars its alleged proponents from qualifying as reliable sources. If this is unacceptable to you, so be it ... but as long as you continue to edit here, you will be expected to do so according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, regardless of your private opinion of other editors or of certain subjects. Ravenswing 03:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know that you are under no obligation to have this conversation with me and I appreciate your time. I will only post this last comment and then I'll drop the subject so as not to bother you further. With regards to WP:COI, I am confused as the policy and practice seem to deviate. In the policy, it is stated "Editors who disguise their COIs are often exposed, creating a perception that they, and perhaps their employer, are trying to distort Wikipedia." (Emphasis mine). When I exposed a COI, it was called a "personal attack". How would this be done in a better way? Also, Wikipedia:AVOIDCOI states that editors with COI should limit their edits and/or edit with care. I have not seen this followed. I very much do need to consider if Wikipedia is the right place for me to be as I believe that COI & poor personal or unethical character traits will always result in bias. In the hypothetical example I gave, there is no valid reason for a pedophile to edit the pedophelia article other than to impart bias. I have to consider if it is worth my time to battle editors with bias/COI. Unfortunately, I do not share Wikipedia's idealistic assumption that editors are usually honest and that those with COI/bias can edit in a NPOV way. I make it a point in my life to sever associations with bad, unethical, or immoral people and it makes me uneasy that those types of people are tolerated at Wikipedia. That being said, your explanations have provided a clearer understanding of the motivations behind Wikipedia's policies and rules. Erikvcl (talk) 04:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one problem that you have is a fundamental misunderstanding of what WP:COI means. It does not, as you seem to believe, refer to being a partisan of one side or another. No one claims - for instance - that I have a conflict of interest in editing the Boston Bruins article, even though I am a native Bostonian and a partisan of the team, and have nearly twice as many edits in the article as any other active Wikipedian. WP:COI's examples are narrowly construed: being a paid employee of an article's subject, being involved in a legal case concerning the subject, self-promotion, editing your own article, citing your own publications as a source.

So, what we have is your presumption that someone who merely feels strongly about certain aspects of a subject cannot avoid "bias" when editing an article. Does that not, then, apply to you? You've made it clear that there is a faction in this that you despise; you consider them unethical, immoral, and unfit to edit Wikipedia. Your talk page, and your postings, make it clear that you are strongly anti-circumcision. This is just as much of a bias, and a strong one. How can you then, by your own lights, fail to impart your prejudices and biases into related articles?

When all is said and done, I rather doubt that Wikipedia is any more full of idealists than any other walk of life. No one expects you, or me, or anyone to believe anything of other editors. All we are expected to do is act in good faith, and presume that others are doing so, absent concrete proof to the contrary. You are not required to love editors you feel are immoral; you are required to act with civility towards them. Ravenswing 11:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I endorse everything Ravenswing has said above. It might be interesting for you to edit extensively in some areas that you do not hold a strong view on so you get more of a feeling for how we work. Sources, neutrality and compromise are what you need to internalise if you do wish to help our project. I hope you do. --John (talk) 13:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've enjoyed your brave efforts to bring some neutrality to the circumcision wikipedia page. We've walked the same path, and shared the same feeling of smashing our heads against a wall. Still, I believe some progress has been made, from you being there. Thanks for the energy you spent. I hope you come back. Your lack of patience is one of the things I enjoyed the most. Some of my patience comes from battling some of teh same people outside of wikipedia for better than 10 years. It was very hard to learn to be polite enough to exist in wiki space, after hitting with a brick outside. Some editors can't survive outside of the legalistic support that wikipedia provides, and their spiderwalking of the rules...obeying the letter of the law, while subverting the intent. They get called on it in the outside world, every time, and not just by me. I will miss your company. I wish you the best. Tftobin (talk) 12:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nandi Siegfried is a South African Cochrane Collaboration Using reviews to inform health care decisions in poor countries

Male circumcision for prevention of heterosexual acquisition of HIV in men

Nandi Siegfried1,*, Martie Muller2, Jonathan J Deeks3, Jimmy Volmink4 Editorial Group: Cochrane HIV/AIDS Group

Published Online: 7 OCT 2009

Nandi Siegfried is a South African public health specialist and has been an active member of the Cochrane Collaboration since 1998. She served as co-director of the South African Cochrane Centre until March 2004. Nandi is the Deputy Co-ordinating Editor of the Cochrane HIV/AIDS Review Group (CRG) and in partnership with the CRG established the successful African HIV/AIDS Mentoring Programme which aims to increase the number of HIV/AIDS reviews relevant to the African region. Presentations: Using reviews to inform health care decisions in poor countries: achievements and challenges

Martie Muller, Statistician and associated member of the SA Cochrane Centre, Medical Research Council, Cape Town and senior scientist at the Institute for Maritime Technology, Simon’s Town. Areas of interest: biostatistics, meta-analysis, diagnostic test accuracy, functional data analysis, spatio-temporal modeling.

Jimmy Volmink is the Head of the Department of Primary Care at the University of Cape Town, South Africa. He previously worked as the Director of Research and Analysis at the Global Health Council in Washington DC, USA and as the director of the South African Cochrane Centre located in Cape Town, South Africa. He serves on committees and advisory boards of various international organizations, including the Cochrane Collaboration and the World Health Organization. He is an editor of the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group and has authored numerous journal articles and book chapters.

Jon Deeks is Professor of Biostatistics, Director of the Birmingham Clinical Trials Unit, and leads the Biostatistics, Evidence Synthesis and Test Evaluation Research Group in the School of Health and Population Sciences, where he also holds a position of Joint Research Lead.

In the case of circumcision trials it was not possible to blind personnel delivering the intervention or the participants. It is possible, however, to blind the assessors, and we therefore only rated the blinding of assessors as adequate, inadequate, or unclear. Participants and study personnel could not be blinded to the allocated interventions (circumcision or not). It is unclear whether this lack of blinding could influence the outcome (HIV status) via, for example, sexual risk behaviour or differentiated treatment by study personnel.

Attrition was high in all three trials. We rated the risk of bias due to incomplete outcome reporting as moderate in all three trials, as acceptable statistical survival analysis techniques were used to estimate HIV event distribution over time by accumulating for staggered enrolment and incomplete discrete follow-up.

Other potential threats to validity

All three trials were stopped early due to data-dependent processes (formal-stopping rules), and this may have introduced a risk of bias to the studies.

Feedback from Elizabeth Royle, 8 May 2009

Summary

In the What's New section the authors make the following statement: "Update of previous review of observational studies; now contains data from three large RCTs. Evidence conclusive and no further updates required."

I appreciate that this review may provide very clear results, but would question the validity of the assertion that no further updates are required. My understanding is that large effect sizes tended to ameliorate over time as more trials are performed and incorporated into meta-analyses. This may be due to an initial publication bias of trials with positive results followed by publication of those with less clear or negative results over time. At any rate, in this case, whether the effect size is reduced through the updating process or becomes even more significant, I do believe that the review authors have an obligation to perform updates on a regular basis in order to ensure that their review incorporates all the available data, and continues to provide the best evidential basis for future healthcare policies in this area. Fearless 190.200.132.100 (talk) 00:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• thanks Erikvcl (talk) 20:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,
the wub (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)[reply]