Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive232

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


Audit Subcommittee appointments (2012): Invitation to comment on candidates[edit]

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint at least three non-arbitrator members to the Audit Subcommittee, and is now seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates who have volunteered for this role.

Interested parties are invited to review the appointments page containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination subpages or privately via email to

Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with any other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.

The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 19 February 2012 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 29 February 2012.

For the Arbitration Committee, –xenotalk 04:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Discuss this

Requesting reappraisal of a block[edit]

User:Edgeform was blocked a while back as a result of the above SPI. I have become concerned that there are some contradictions in the behavioral evidence of socking, and that a good faith user may, perhaps, have been blocked in error. I've discussed this with HelloAnnyong, the blocking admin, and he thinks that I'm mistaken, which I might well be, but I would be more comfortable if some more eyes would take a look at this. I'm also notifying the two checkusers who have been involved in the SPI. This gets rather complicated, sorry, but please bear with me.

The case centers around the BLP of a San Diego-based neuroscientist, Vilayanur S. Ramachandran, and some of the pages about topics of his research. These topics include autism, which (in ways unrelated to the BLP subject himself) is something that sometimes attracts editing agendas. I originally raised the SPI that led to the block (the second in the archive linked above), based upon an IP edit, [4], that has a now-hidden edit summary, claiming to be an "edit by [name], aka Neurorel/Edgeform". At the time, it appeared to be a blatant admission of socking, and the checkuser data indicated that the accounts, including the IP, all geolocated to the San Diego area, with the two named accounts having a shared history of interest in editing in these topics.

I have also been editing the BLP, because my attention was drawn at my talk to content disagreements in which the two named accounts were among those involved. I don't always agree with either Neurorel or Edgeform, but I don't see them editing in bad faith. Their edits tend to have the same point of view, but not necessarily the same writing style. Other editors, who self-identify as being in the BLP subject's San Diego lab, tend to be very sensitive about what they perceive as criticisms of the BLP subject, and these concerns led to an earlier SPI, the first in the archive linked above, and also led to the request in my talk to look at the BLP in the first place.

After the block, an IP claiming to be Edgeform contacted me at my talk, based on my own history of editing in the BLP, and sought my help in overturning the block: here. The edits by the "outing" IP had been rather clumsy, whereas the IP claiming to be Edgeform was reasonably articulate. I discussed it with HA here, and we agreed then that there would have to be a request for block review, which never happened, perhaps because Edgeform gave up.

Since that time, there have repetitively been troll-ish edits from various IPs using public computers in the San Diego area, repeating the "edit by [name], aka Neurorel/Edgeform" edit summary, see: 1, 2, and 3. However, that third incident, the most recent, was different, in that only Neurorel, and not Edgeform, was named in the edit summary. Googling the supposed real life "[name]", gives two possibly related results: a professional baseball player based in San Diego, and a young boy who has autism and whose mother writes a blog about him. I doubt that either of these persons is actually doing the editing; it could be a third person who just happens to have that name also, or it could be a sarcastic use of the name by a troll. What bothers me is that there seems to be a pattern of repeatedly trying to get both Neurorel and Edgeform blocked, by making these "look at me!" edits that are really just about the edit summary, and that, with Edgeform blocked, the edit summaries have started only naming Neurorel, who is not blocked. It does not make sense to me that a single person would be behind both the Neurorel and Edgeform accounts and also be making these accusatory/boastful edit summaries. It's plausible that the IP is someone else who actually knows of genuine socking, but it is awfully strange that they would be so persistent after the person they are accusing has been limited to a single account. Behaviorally, it seems more like someone else in the San Diego area (perhaps associated with the lab?? – but not the editor who contacted me at my talk, I'm quite sure) who just wants some editors removed from editing the subject area.

I know it's complicated and ambiguous, but I'd appreciate some additional opinions. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Looking purely at their use of edit summaries the two are very similar but there are also subtle differences. Both like to use caps and finish sentences/sentence fragments will full stops, Neurorel slightly more consistently. Both prefer double speech marks for quotations. Neurorel makes a few more typos and likes the word "reorganize", whereas Edgeform never uses it. If I was forced at gunpoint to make a decision I'd say perhaps meatpuppetry or some other form of collusion similar interests and points of view rather than socking, but since the effect is the same I doubt it makes very much difference (and I'm certainly not sure enough to want to firmly contradict HelloAnnyong). EyeSerenetalk 12:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Neurorel is not currently blocked, fyi, although the template on their userpage says they are. - Burpelson AFB 20:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Let me, then, ask this: If (if!) we think it's more likely to be meatpuppetry than sockpuppetry (which makes sense to me, regardless of whether the accusing IP is acting in bad faith), then does it really make sense to block one account and leave the other account alone? I understand the rationale for socking (limit one user to a single account), but it doesn't seem to make sense for meatpuppets. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
timestamp --Tryptofish (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
And remember the principle is against abusive sockpuppetry. Unless these accounts are !voting or revert tag-teaming (which shouldn't happen anyway) there is little issue here, regardless. Rich Farmbrough, 23:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC).
Both users have been active at Roger Bingham too. I am inclined to give the benefit of the doubt here, despite the similarities in style. It would be easier if the accounts would disclose if there is a relationship. Rich Farmbrough, 23:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC).
That would certainly clear things up. I tend to agree that we should give Edgeform the benefit of the doubt and unblock. I find Tryptofish's explanation for the IP editor(s) behaviour plausible, and if we have no evidence that Edgeform and Neurorel have been tag-teaming there seems little point in keeping Edgeform blocked. Related to that I've struck some of my earlier comment, which came across rather more strongly that I'd intended. EyeSerenetalk 13:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, both of you! I have previously left notes on the talkpages of the two checkusers who took part in the SPI. Tiptoety said that he doesn't currently have anything to add, while WilliamH said that he is looking into it further, so I'd be inclined to give him time to reply here if he should choose to. As for the question of tag-teaming, my observation would be that, although the two accounts consistently tend to reflect similar perspectives about editing the pages that interest them, I really see no evidence of them actually tag-teaming, in the sense of working together at the same time to support one another's edits or talk comments. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Neither did I to be honest, which is why on reflection I struck part of my earlier post. EyeSerenetalk 12:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
timestamp --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
  • At this point, it looks to me like there will not be any more discussion. Unless someone objects, I would like to ask that an administrator unblock User:Edgeform. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
timestamp --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

RS/N recommends preventative action against encyclopaedia disruption[edit]

As a result of the following discussion, where systemic and disruptive deceit in relation to references was uncovered, WP:RS/N recommends preventative action regarding User:Legolas2186's editing and would like administrator action on the matter. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

After becoming suspicious of a source used by User:Legolas2186 in a recent GAN entry, I looked further and found some more suspicious references used by Legolas2186 to support other recent GA expansions that he has been undertaking. I have asked Legolas to respond but I have not been satisfied that the sources are not faked. Here are the cites I have a problem with:

  • Was used in Madonna: Like an Icon until I removed it:
    • Jansen, Christina (2008-01-05). "Meeting the Woman behind She-Bop". People. Time Inc. 581 (50): 21–22. ISSN 0093-7673.
  • Used in Keep It Together (Madonna song) and Oh Father:
  • Used in Saqib Saleem:
    • Deb, Anupama (2011-11-09). "Saqib Saleem: From Cricketer to Actor". Starweek Magazine. Bennett & Coleman Ltd: 19–22.

All of the above-listed cites were added by Legolas2186 as part of a drive to bring the article to GAN. If anybody here can help him by verifying one or more of the cites, please do so. Otherwise, it would appear that Legolas2186 has been fabricating references in order to create or expand articles and thereby gain credit for GA. Binksternet (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

(ec)A search of People magazine website does not show such an article, nor can I find "Christina Jansen" who is meant to be the author. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Considering that Legolas lives in India and the time now is ± 00:00, Binksternet hasn't waited to Legolas to reply him and immediately started to research in the articles he mentioned challenging offline sources (just because he can't access to them (Talk:Saqib Saleem/GA2)). I suggest Bink to wait until Legolas explanation before he starts to question the reliablility of an user (WP:AGF). Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
See also. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 19:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
This is not newly discovered today, so it doesn't matter whether it is midnight somewhere. I signaled the serious nature of the unverifiable cite at Talk:Madonna: Like an Icon/GA1 on February 7, eight days ago. Legolas did not respond even though he edited other articles during that time. On February 10, I asked him about a problematic reference at Talk:Saqib_Saleem#Major question about major source and he responded very quickly there on the talk page and also by offering to send me scans of the physical pages, but he has not yet sent me any scans. On February 10, I began looking at other articles he was involved with and found that he had used an unverifiable Becky Johnston article from June 1989 Rolling Stone so I corrected it to the same Becky Johnston in May 1989 writing for Interview under a different title. (This unverifiable source was added by Legolas in August 2011.) This appeared to be sloppy work, not necessarily bad faith, since the writer's name was correct and the quotes were correct. Yesterday and today, I looked for more recent sloppy work in articles that Legolas was involved with and I found the Paul Zollo cites that I cannot verify anywhere online. Legolas has not posted here for three days but I am not willing to wait for him to respond before I ask the community to try and help me find whether the cites listed above can be verified by other means. Binksternet (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
It does matter that is midnight, as he is sleeping right now (see his contributions, he rarely edits at this time), and it matters as I told you that is seems like you can't wait until he answers. As you said he offered you the scans, but you never asked to him send them to you, the only thing that you did was start to check all his recent work to see if his offline sources are "falsified". This sounds more like a revenge of something rather than a concerned editor. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 20:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually I asked him for the scans soon after his offer. He continued editing for two more days but he did not respond yes or no about the scans. This thread is not about whether Legolas is sleeping right now, it is about whether he has been putting sloppy citations into articles since August 2011, or possibly putting knowingly wrong citations into articles more recently to attain GA credit. The first step is a plea to others in the community to see if the cites are verifiable. As such, it does not require Legolas to respond. Binksternet (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I regret to say that I can find no evidence of that People Weekly article in databases that catalog the magazine. That issue doesn't even seem to exist. --Laser brain (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
It is not just the references listed above. [5] - in that edit a vast amount of information was added, including the sentence With SongTalk magazine, Madonna explained that "isolated by fame and shaken by the failure of my marriage, I could only reach out to the stability of my family roots, and 'Keep It Together' is for that only." supposedly sourced by one of the references listed above and page 122 of the book Madonna: Like an Icon by Lucy O'Brien. The book is viewable on 'Look inside' option on, and there is nothing of the kind on page 122. Page 131 does however say There is the sense that Madonna, isolated by fame and shaken by the failure of her marriage, is reaching back to the stability of family roots. but that is written solely by the author, and not a quote from Madonna. I find the suggestion that an editor has fabricated references and a quote from a living person to be very troubling, and would suggest this is moved to another noticeboard. (talk) 20:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. A People issue from Jaunary 2008 would one of the following:
  • Vol. 69 Issue 3 - 1/28/2008
  • Vol. 69 Issue 2 - 1/21/2008
  • Vol. 69 Issue 1 - 1/14/2008
not volume 581 issue 50 dated Jaunary 5th. A database search turned up no articles by that title or author. Major US magazines have different overseas versions, so this editor may be using the Indian version of People, if such a thing exists. But that would have a different ISSN, and the ISSN provided is for the US People. Gamaliel (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
[6] According to that book the edition was published in August 1989, several months after the alleged May 1989 publication date. From what I have been able to learn about SongTalk it was published quarterly with "Spring", "Summer", "Fall" and "Winter" names used not months. [7] There is a full transcript of the interview from the summer 1989 edition, it does not contain the quote attributed to Madonna, so neither of the references added are real even if we accept by "May 1989" what was really meant was "Summer 1989". I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the transcript as it matches the excerpt in the book I linked to, I certainly believe it more than Legolas2186 at this point. (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
The Songtalk interview is also in Zollo's book "Songwriters on songwriting" (ISBN 0306812657) so it might be worth checking there. It's not currently available at my library so I can't check it. (talk) 07:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Could administrators comment on appropriate actions and enact them? Fifelfoo (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I note that Fifelfoo closed the discussion at RSN here with the summary RS/N recommends preventative actions over sustained and deceitful encyclopaedia disruption This has been moved to WP:AN to request preventative actions. However the discussion as closed does not contain anything like a consensus for "sustained" or "systemic" "deceit", nor any mention, let alone "requests", of "administrator action on the matter". Considering that discussion of the verifiability of the disputed edits was still in progress at the close, I would suggest that this request is at best premature and at worst disruptive in itself. Cusop Dingle (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
At least two works that simply do not exist—it is deceit, and this kind of violation of good faith, encyclopaedic conduct and standards has previously been treated as block-on-sight. IP 86.186 suggests fairly clearly that such action is necessary ("this is moved to another noticeboard"). Fifelfoo (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
As I said, there is no consensus, discussion is continuing, and one user saying "moved to another noticeboard" is very far from being a consensus asking for "administrator action on the matter". If you believe that disruption justifying block-on-sight exists, bring it to AN/I under your own name, just don't claim support from a non-existent consensus. Cusop Dingle (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Bullshit. If he's falsifying sources he needs to be blocked, end of. The evidence in this thread (I have not read the RS/N thread as of yet) is enough to block him until this gets sorted out (and nobody is going to object to blocking someone who's quite blatantly making up sources). —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 22:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
If you disagree with another editor, please find a more acceptable way of saying so. Cusop Dingle (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
You are wikilawyering. While the first word in Jeske's response might be regrettable, the sentiment he's expressing is one that I, and probably others, agree with. Fifelfoo was right to bring this here. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Slow down. Let's not block anyone "until this gets sorted out". Let's sort it out first, and then decide what to do next. I don't know Legolas myself, but I see his name pop up frequently in productive or helpful places, and he's been here a long time and does a lot of writing. I'm not saying it's impossible that there is intentional falsification, but I'd be really surprised if it is; I suspect there's a less sinister explanation. One that may still need to be addressed, perhaps, but intentional falsification of references is a pretty strong thing to be assuming. I think it would have made the most sense to leave this at RS/N until we heard from him, but I guess that ship sailed already. But there should be no blocks, or threats of imminent blocks, until we hear from Legolas. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
    • If he dosen't come here and address these issues within an hour of resuming editing, I'd say that an indefinate block be issued with the unblock condition that he explain himself on the talk page before being unblocked. I agree we shouldn't move to block him before he responds, but this is serious enough to warrant an immediate response from him. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
      • If he dosen't come here and address these issues within an hour of resuming editing, I'd say that an indefinate block be issued Is this a threat? He has a life, you know, he is at work right now, and doesn't our policy state "block are preventive not puntatives? What will a block prevent, vandalism from his account? Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:46, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Yes actually, given that there's demonstration that in two sampled instances he violated WP:V through deceptive citations that appear on the surface to be good but are non-existent. Citing non-existent texts is a heinous attack on WP:V, and there is a reasonable assumption of future bad faith given the deceptive nature of the attack on V. It is conduct in the territory of copyright violation and plagiarism. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
          • I really don't see the issue Tbhotch. I didn't say "he has to drop everything including his real life and address this right now", I essentially said "he can't go back to editing the project until this is addressed". He might not have time to make any edits to Wikipedia for several days, and that's fine by me, but it wouldn't be appropriate for him to edit Wikipedia, when he does have the time to do so, until after he comes here and addresses this. As to the second piece of your comment, I would see this as a preventative block, the aim being to prevent him from adding any more sources to articles, since there appears to be a problem with his sources not existing. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
            • As for me, I think Legolas2186 should be made aware that this is the first issue he should address upon resuming editing. A block would serve, and it would be easier to administer than a half dozen admins constantly visiting his contributions page to see if he has resumed. However, the latter method would work fairly well, and with so many eyes on the issue, I seriously doubt Legolas will get away with faking another reference in the near future. Moreover, I wish that Legolas will learn from the experience and will resolve to use only true blue citations in the future. He has been a valuable editor but he needs to know that snubbing WP:V cannot continue. Binksternet (talk) 04:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
              • I strongly agree with the previous point, the outcome I'd like to see is rehabilitation and improvement. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Fabrication of material is about as serious a charge as is possible, and, if shown, should result in a community ban on the perpetrator. One of the few places I support "draconian soutions." Collect (talk) 13:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd say pause this discussion until he chimes in with his side of the story. He may have simply written the wrong magazine name (very easy to do if he was starting to look at People while citing his material from a different magazine) or done something like that. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Web search finds Christina Jansen is credited as the photographer of Lucy O'Brien in this interview (in French), that looks like it contains the types of info cited to "Meeting the woman behind She-Bop" in the Madonna: Like an Icon article (perhaps someone who reads French can check a detail or two). Lucy O'Brien is apparently the author of another book called "She-Bop" (about female rock musicians) so I wonder if some overseas edition of People Magazine had a translation of this interview, and the interviewer's name got garbled by the magazine or by Legolas. Or perhaps the French interview's credits were incorrect, or maybe there is another interview with O'Brien someplace that was actually done by Jansen. As an aside, the "Like an Icon" article looks excessively promotional IMHO, from the brief glance I took at it. I didn't make any attempt to check into how it got that way. (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to note, further incidents related to this user of adding citations to documents that do not appear to exist have been uncovered. To allow this thread to archive, the RS/N thread is being set to not archive; at least until editors there have scrubbed fallacious claims from the articles. Editors or administrators with an interest in removing falsified content would be very welcome at the RS/N thread to muck in. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Someone with that number of edits is likely to try again, a check should be made of new usernames that they haven't started up again. This will takes ages looking though and probably some of it will never be fixed, between sneaky POV pushers, copyright violators, and outright plausible fabrications like this I don't know which is worst for fixing. Dmcq (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Small prod backlog[edit]

Everything in Category:Proposed deletion as of 11 February 2012 is past the 7-day threshhold and can now be safely deleted if anyone's willing. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 23:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

What backlog? :P -FASTILY (TALK) 10:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
TPH, I assume you mean evaluated by an administrator and deleted if appropriate. PROD reviewing is not simply a matter of checking the clock and pressing the 'delete' button. Jclemens (talk) 06:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal for User:Youreallycan (ex Off2riorob)[edit]

User has agreed to take a break from the articles. Oppose was largely the consensus. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Moved from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring--В и к и T 00:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I would like to propose a topic ban for Youreallycan on all articles related to Rick Santorum/Dan Savage/Santorum and any and all articles related to the controversy over the Santorum neologism. His edits today were made with a purposeful intent to disrupt multiple pages and to violate the 3RR.[8][9][10][11] Furthermore, his self-revert is entirely disingenous as he intentionally started an edit war to disrupt the article; the self-revert doesn't excuse his behavior. Concerns about this disruptive behavior were expressed by multiple users, including Roscelese, Salvio giuliano, and Badams5115. After being asked to stop many times, the user failed to acknowledge the problem and instead decided to attack homosexuals, saying "if thats not pretty enough or promotional enough for them then excuse me. What the issue is is beyond me, they want to link it to R Santorum but they don't seem to like it referring to their lifestyle."[12] This is clear battleground behavior with a clear purpose of disruption as its goal. I ask at this time that administrators and editors alike ban this user from all related topics. Viriditas (talk) 02:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

This proposal should be moved to WP:AN... Cheers. Salvio Let's talk about it! 02:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm quite aware of that. However, I think it needs to be discussed here first, as it concerns this report. The fact of the matter is, if this were any other user, they would have been immediately indefinitely blocked. I'm curious why that has not occurred, considering that the block log of the user shows a consistent pattern of 3RR violations and edit warring. In other words, why was this user not blocked today? Viriditas (talk) 02:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Agree, and propose that the topic ban be indefinite and apply also to all topics related to LGBT, broadly construed. There is no reason to assume that the editor will ever edit in good faith in this topic area, based on his attack. He has lost all credibility. Community ban may be in order. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 02:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
The only time I have had a very negative experience with the editor in question is in regard to the biography of Charlie Crist and prominent allegations of the politician's homosexuality. Back then, the editor contributed as Off2riorob, and he was militantly anti-anything homosexual. The unreasoning discussions can be seen at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive99#Charlie_Crist, Talk:Charlie_Crist#Allegations_of_homosexuality, and Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive94#Charlie_Crist, with some angry spillover into Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive108#Vaughn_Walker. The topic is one that Off2riorob cannot address without bringing his strong feelings to bear. A topic ban would perfectly suit the problem. Binksternet (talk) 05:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Regarding Charlie Crist, I can see no evidence that Rob/YRC was "militantly anti-anything homosexual". Instead, he seems to have been (militantly or otherwise) trying to avoid Wikipedia repeating dubiously-sourced speculation about Crist's sexuality, seemingly motivated by political point-scoring. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
The sourcing was not dubious; it was newspaper articles conforming to the BLP guideline of WP:WELLKNOWN. I can assemble a collection of diffs of Rob's reactionary responses if it becomes necessary. I don't think this is the venue, however. I continue to be in favor of a topic ban for the guy. If a more appropriate venue is chosen, I will wish to comment at length. Binksternet (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Move this to the right spot please. I will hat it otherwise. Arkon (talk) 06:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

This is the wrong noticeboard - take it to ANI. TFD (talk) 06:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. I want to make sure that people are aware this is not isolated to Charlie Crist issues and not merely over-zealousness in enforcing BLP. In this discussion, YRC (then editing as Off2riorob) made, among other offensive comments, remarks attacking users on the basis of their sexual orientation, saying that "When the LGBT sector matures and accepts itself as normal they will have progressed into my world," and saying that Wikipedia should ignore sources on an actor coming out of the closet very publicly because "This is not the gay times - get over yourself." Most recently, he chose to vandalize several articles, including a BLP, apparently for the sole purpose of making LGBT people angry. It is absolutely clear that he is incapable of editing with any kind of neutrality on this subject and a topic ban is long overdue. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 01:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Is ti possible this account may be compromised and should be blocked as such?cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 517,568,225) 00:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
No. 28bytes (talk) 00:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I thought that initially when I saw him repeatedly vandalizing Rick Santorum, and asked him about it, but it seems that that's just how the user chose to express his feelings about LGBT people. Which is obviously a problem that needs to be dealt with, but not indicative of a compromised account. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 00:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I assumed what I assumed because I encountered this user a few times and s/he has no way acted like I saw now.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 517,571,635) 00:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Following WP:BLP is not "vandalism" and the POV evinced by those making such a claim is real and substantial. Using Wikiprocesses to remove those who seek to obey Wikipedia policies is abhorrent. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC) By the way, WP:CANVASS may have been violated here. Collect (talk) 00:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Can you direct us to the place in WP:BLP which states that it is okay to vandalize an article on a living person because one believes that it will make LGBT people angry, or which states that it is acceptable to attack people based on their sexual orientation? I don't seem to recall that part of the policy. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 00:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Absurd claim -- WP:BLP makes clear that certain edits must be removed. Obeying WP:BLP is not, has not been, and will not be vandalism as you appear to opine. Collect (talk) 00:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
        • I'm aware that there are BLP issues to do with this article, but how the diffs given might constitute following BLP needs some explanation. --FormerIP (talk) 00:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
        • But, Collect, he was adding a BLP issue, not removing one. SilverserenC 01:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Oh, I see, this is a knee-jerk defense of YRC rather than anything based on the evidence linked. Alternately, I'd love to hear you defend this and this as necessary to enforce BLP. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 01:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Collect. Nobody Ent 00:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support for the Rick Santorum/Dan Savage/Santorum topic area. The edits are so like vandalism that I can seriously not tell them apart. It is quite clear that there is some sort of agenda that Youreallycan is driven by here and it is certainly not beneficial to Wikipedia. Having him stay out of the topic area and go and edit other articles would be for the best. SilverserenC 01:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Rob does tend to snap - and this is about the most extreme example so far. No comment on the topic ban idea but his approach to BLP is fairly consistent in helping keep out scurrilous BS. Like him I share the concern that there is a tendency for minority(ish) groups to jump on the slightest of rumours and make as much out of it as possible (case in point being homosexuality). Not to defend his actions, of course, but there is an underlying extant issue here that also needs to be addressed. --Errant (chat!) 01:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Chugging through the edits; he's been upset about the Santorum article and related fallout for some time. And this seems to be the burnout issue - a topic break might be beneficial. I'd actually suggest the better approach might be to wait for him to come back online - Rob tends to calm down after these incidents. If people feel this is a continual issue then RFC/U is probably the better venue. On the subject of homophobia.. "meh", some of his comments seem quite rational - others seem upset, but more intended to be aimed at his percpetion of an agenda on WP rather than broadly at homosexuals. --Errant (chat!) 01:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Well put, with one caveat. Accusing people of having a so-called homosexual agenda is often coded language for something homophobic. At the very least it can be divisive, as accusing people you don't agree with on Wikipedia of promoting any sort of agenda tends to drive people away from reasoned consensus, and doing so on the basis of a personal identity matter like sexual orientation makes it all the more sensitive. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely; I wouldn't call his comments well thought out, at all! In my experience that problem is a zero sum game; whatever you say someone will hate you. I do think there is an "agenda" here - although not necessarily a concious one. I've considered raising it before (back when I still fond BLP work interesting) but, sadly, I think it is still too divisive a topic. I figure make do as best we can till sexuality isn't such a hot button and then see. But there is still a problem. --Errant (chat!) 01:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I certainly know what it's like to get too fired up and do something stupid. A topic ban is far too drastic. A block for a few days would probably be better to allow him to cool off. Also, concur with Collect regarding canvassing. Definitely agree with ErrantX above that editors are far too sensitive in these areas, as I very well know. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I would agree to a block instead if that's the consensus. But something needs to be done. I don't think we should allow vandalistic edits, even if they are being made by long-standing editors. SilverserenC 01:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I am really surprised no one blocked him for this edit war. As Silver seren above says, "The edits are so like vandalism that I can seriously not tell them apart." 28bytes (talk) 01:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk of vandalism is absurd: the appropriate word is frustration. For months, Wikipedia has been used to amplify an attack that associates Santorum's name with shit and sexual lubrication jelly that leaks out of the anus after anal sex (we also have a handy list of images). Youreallycan opposes that, and should be thanked for their efforts. Johnuniq (talk) 01:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
So it's okay for Youreallycan to vandalize a BLP because he supports your point of view on the neologism issue? Lovely. That really is a sterling example of applying policy. If only I had known that vandalism was acceptable if the user in question was really frustrated! Then maybe I'd have talked to users' therapists before reporting them to AIV for inserting images of penises into articles. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 03:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Why would it be vandalism to add an accurate statement to an article when that statement is just describing the campaign-against-living-person in plain-speak? If the statement is vandalism, what do you think of the use of Wikipedia to promote an attack on a living person? Johnuniq (talk) 04:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Some background for those who have not followed the loooong proceedings: A politician (Santorum) expressed absurd views regarding homosexuality; an LGBT activist attacked Santorum by associating his name with anal leakage; activists at Wikipedia amplified that attack by inserting mentions of it in multiple pages; a bunch of editors want to retain the essence of the attacks because it's verifiable/notable/exciting/free-speech. A very small number of editors like Youreallycan oppose the use of Wikipedia to link to attack sites (there's probably a large number of such editors, but they don't want to spend time in such a circus). The community should support editors who oppose BLP violations, even when the target is obnoxious. Johnuniq (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Should the community also support editors who insert BLP violations because they feel other editors are obnoxious? Because those are the edits we're talking about here. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 01:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
    • So we should support them no matter what they do to disrupt Wikipedia? That's a ridiculous proposition. He added a BLP violation to the article, this is not alright. SilverserenC 01:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Are you seriously arguing that it's ok to use Wikipedia to amplify an attack that associates Santorum's name with shit and sexual lubrication jelly that leaks out of the anus after anal sex, but it's not ok to put that in an article? Johnuniq (talk) 01:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
        • I'm saying that it's not okay to put that in the BLP about Santorum, that's very clearly a BLP violation. It should be kept in the separate neologism article, which is already linked in Santorum's BLP. SilverserenC 01:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
          • BLP policy applies everywhere on Wikipedia. If this is a voilation in the BLP, it is also a violation in the neologism article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
            • Indeed. There is no distinction at WP:BLP about what type of page it applies to, nor should there be. Begoontalk 01:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm with Silver and Roscelese here. YRC's behavior here was absurdly inappropriate and he knows it. If I was a sysop, I would block him in a flash for doing this on a BLP, and I'm stunned if he honestly made these edits not expecting a block or topic ban. There's no way in hell AGF can be stretched to make these edits anything other than absurd. Kevin (talk) 01:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per Collect, and per Johnuniq. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Is it just me or is the way this discussion is currently going almost a textbook example of WP:FANCLUB? The only difference is that Youreallycan wasn't blocked first. SilverserenC 01:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

No. It's just you, resorting to ad hominem attacks. AndyTheGrump (talk)
And you just made the ad hominem fallacy fallacy, which is prevalent on Wikipedia, where people are accused of ad hominem attacks when they didn't make one. In linking to the Fanclub essay, i'm saying that all of you are defending Youreallycan without refuting the BLP violations that he made, you're defending him without an argument. Stating that you're doing as such is not an ad hominem, as i'm not attacking you personally, i'm attacking your point of argument. Or your lack of one in this case. SilverserenC 01:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Nonsense. The link to the essay was an ad hominem attack. If you'd wanted to 'attack my point of argument', you could have done so. You didn't. Instead you linked to an essay which one has to assume you agreed with, instead - and do you not see the irony here? I stated that I opposed the block, on the grounds cited by Collect and Johnuniq. You imply that I should have given my own arguments. Why didn't you do so in response? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I linked to the essay as a general statement that the opposes already made with an argument were either nonsensical ones or ridiculous ones, neither of them refuting the edits made by Youreallycan at all. Thus, the arguments were being made just as a general, "I support Youreallycan", regardless of what he does. As for the arguments made...
Collect's argument still doesn't make any sense and I wish he'd clarify it, as he states that following BLP is not vandalism. But adding that sentence to the article wasn't "following BLP". The options are either that it was a BLP violation or, if not, then it had nothing to do with BLP at all. It certainly wasn't following it.
And Johnuniq's argument is that, if a user is one that opposes BLP violations, then we should ignore any of the negative, harmful things they do on Wikipedia, because we need people that oppose BLP violations. Is that an argument that you're really supporting? SilverserenC 02:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
No. That isn't Johnuniq's argument. That is your miss-characterisation of it. AS for Collect (who I frequently have disagreements with - no fanclub here), I quote: "Using Wikiprocesses to remove those who seek to obey Wikipedia policies is abhorrent". The fundamental policy - WP:BLP - has been repeatedly breached by advocates of the 'santorum neologism', who have used all sorts of excuses to spread this frothy mixture all over Wikipedia. That Rob/YRC reacted in the way he did was unfortunate, but given that the whole neologism campaign was intended from the start as a provocative personal attack, rather than as part of a reasoned debate, I somehow think that Rob's behaviour on Wikipedia is the least of our problems regarding this issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Why should the fact that there are other problems prevent us from sanctioning misbehavior as it deserves? The user vandalized a BLP and has been making personal attacks on LGBT users for months. This is behavior that would merit a block at the very least if it happened in any other topic area, and this one shouldn't be any different. Consider another fraught topic area (indeed, one so fraught that it's under ArbCom): should a user who vandalizes articles on Israeli politicians and attacks Jewish users escape sanction simply because it's a very difficult topic area to deal with? Would we say that that user was just so angry about the representation of Palestinians on Wikipedia that his behavior was justified? –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 03:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
What Rob did wasn't vandalism. It was ill-advised, certainly. As for Rob "making personal attacks on LGBT users for months", I'd ask for evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • "This is not the gay times - get over yourself."
  • "When the LGBT sector matures and accepts itself as normal they will have progressed into my world"
  • "if thats not pretty enough or promotional enough for them then excuse me. What the issue is is beyond me, they want to link it to R Santorum but they don't seem to like it referring to their lifestyle."
Evidence has already provided above and more will be provided as necessary. As for Rob's edits, they were equivalent to vandalism, as he knows perfectly well that his edits were not acceptable, which is he why he chose to self-revert after disrupting multiple articles and edit warring. He's been blocked 15 times previously for this behavior. Clearly, he's not willing to change his behavior, so I see no reason for him to continue to be allowed to edit in this topic area. Viriditas (talk) 04:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Silver; I agree with you over these edits. A major problem. Where we disagree, I think, is that rather than seeing someone needing to be sanctioned I see someone who needs a bit of a hand to avoid these sorts of meltdowns. This is not the first occurrence; it happens, he has a break, he comes back all calmed down. As I said above; a topic ban might be the solution here (we should see what Rob thinks, he is usually quite rational about these discussions), but it is worth exploring other options. --Errant (chat!) 01:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I can understand that point of view. If everyone was arguing along those lines, i'd be much more sympathetic to it. But i'm having issues with the lack of argument being made here by others in regards to Youreallycan's edits. SilverserenC 01:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't necessarily disagree with that. It's my view (admittedly from the sidelines) that this is an entrenched issue, and in one sense Rob, here, is a clashing point. Perhaps it is worth looking at mediating the wider issues as well? --Errant (chat!) 01:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Silver seren, when did Wikipedia become therapy? What sort of "hand" does he need? What he needs is a plank to the head and a block until he rethinks what he hopes to accomplish here. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 02:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I never said that I agreed with that view, just that I understand it and can sympathize with it. But, sympathize or not, I also understand that, in almost every case, trying to help someone out so they don't do this is futile. It will happen again. It always happens again. This situation right here is yet another "again" in a long line of agains. SilverserenC 02:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think this isn't really about homosexuality, nor BLP; the real focus of the dispute is between inclusionists and deletionists, a long-standing and wide-ranging dispute over editing philosophy. For example, just recently I was going back and forth with him at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Fleming_Facebook_post; though this started with a Santorum vote, we also discussed a situation where, bizarrely enough, I was claiming BLP and he was saying it didn't apply, because I wanted to keep in the part where people cited by Anders Breivik repudiated any association. The weird part is, I honestly didn't know Youreallycan was Off2riorob at that time - it's just that, well, he's the one I disagree with the most, or vice versa. (except maybe Collect...) As expressed there, he believes in "editorial control" (a phrase he used in that conversation), whereas I believe in a Wikipedia which is sort of like a Google search, just better written and more comprehensive. Now, maybe he has a right-wing or anti-gay POV that directs his "editorial control"; that's hard to prove and I won't claim to. But to me, the mere act of having "editorial control" is to abuse it. It doesn't matter if it's pro-gay, anti-gay, left-wing, right-wing - if you're taking out facts to make an article look "less unseemly", chopping down what should be a comprehensive resource into one that fits your notion of the world, well that's always a bad thing. I would value a community decision to curb deletionism and defend sourced material - beginning with a strong interpretation of WP:WELLKNOWN - much more than any specific action against Off2riorob/Youreallycan. Wnt (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1[edit]

  • Support If somebody can explain to me how is this "following BLP policy"?? Some background about his "strong feelings" regarding this topic:[13][14]. Any user who made edits like thisthis edit war would be blocked, but he didn't. Obviously, different standards are applied to him.--В и к и T 02:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Is this comment in edit summary directed at Roscelese? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwind (talkcontribs) 02:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC) (note: This is "В и к и"'s account name. Collect (talk) 12:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose - What this entire Santorum-in-Wikipedia affair has exposed is a clear and undeniable bias in how members of this project treat BLP articles of politicians. The antics surrounding this...from Cirt's original bad-faith and slanted creation of an article primarily on the non-existent word (atrocious behavior that has extended to both Commons and Wikiquote, I might add) right on down to the present day where a bunch of editors have sought to push the "frothiness" to the spotlight of every Santorum-related article possible. This kind of amateur-hour bullshit was never allowed to fly in in Obama article and related spinoff articles, in regards to all the half-baked political opposition out there from birthers to death panels to teleprompters. Anyone who steps up to preserve both the spirit and the letter of BLP policy...again, p-o-l-i-c-y...should be barnstar'ed, not shunted out of a topc area by wiki-opponents. If a few toes get stepped on in the process, so be it. Tarc (talk) 02:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Non-existent word??? Unencyclopedic maybe, but at least from a corpus linguistics standpoint, it appears to be a perfectly cromulent word. See wikt:santorum for multiple citations. (talk) 11:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Did you review the edits in question (as seen above)? They are not in any way "preserving BLP". - SudoGhost 03:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, actually, I did. A bit of frustration when dealing with agenda-driven editors is quite understandable. Tarc (talk) 06:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
He is free to feel frustrated. He is not free to take out his frustration on other editors and on readers by vandalizing articles and making personal attacks on users of other sexual orientations. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 06:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Now we're lobbing accusations of vandalism and the tired repetitions of "OMG HOMOPHOBIA" ? You're concocting misdeeds where none actually occurred in order to get an opponent topic-banned. The number of times this dance has been tapped in this project is beyond count. Tarc (talk) 06:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I see, this is a knee-jerk defense of YRC rather than anything based on the evidence linked. Alternately, I'd love to hear you defend this and this as "concocting misdeeds where none actually occurred." –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 06:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. You're the one defending the linkage of a living person to a made-up name that describes the mixture of feces and KY. All he's doing is telling you exactly what you're supporting, in the full graphic detail? Don't like it? Does it make you squeamish? Then perhaps you should reconsider the part that you unwittingly play in Savage's anti-Santorum campaign every time you support the santorum-to-Santorum linkage. Tarc (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
If you think that the majority of editors who support Wikipedia's covering a notable neologism need to be sanctioned, then put that in motion on your own, instead of derailing a process because you're still sulking about the community disagreeing with you. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 22:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Understandable, but not permitted, and exactly why blocks and topic bans exist, to prevent disruption (whether intentional or a result of frustration at other disruptive editing, the end result is the same). The edits were not vandalism, but neither were they "preserving BLP". Just so it's clear, I don't support a topic ban in any way (while I see a problem here, a topic ban is overkill imo), but that doesn't mean that this is simply an issue of someone abiding by BLP and nothing else. - SudoGhost 06:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think I need to rephrase my general statement in comments with Andy above. Based on further comments made in this discussion, i've realized that, for the most part, this isn't a "I support Youreallycan" issue, it's a "I hate Santorum (neologism)" issue. It's good to know that AN can be just like ANI on occasion. SilverserenC 03:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Why mischaracterize stuff? Wikipedia is being used to promote an attack on a politician. Some editors oppose that, and support the efforts of other editors who also oppose the abuse of Wikipedia and BLP. Anyone describing Youreallycan's edits as vandalism or BLP violations has to first explain why the misuse of Wikipedia to promote an attack is not likewise vandalism or a BLP violation. Call it a POINT violation if wanted, but the edits are perfectly defensible as implementing the consensus of the editors who have dominated the campaign-against-living-person articles. Johnuniq (talk) 03:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Please stop changing the subject. I supported Off2riorob/Youreallycan's position on the RfC. This discussion, however, is not about my support for Off2riorob/Youreallycan, it's about his disruptive behavior on Wikipedia and his attitude towards homosexuals. As a heterosexual, I feel that we have a responsibility to step forward and defend our gay brothers and sisters, and to say "never again". Enough is enough. Viriditas (talk) 04:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Enough of what? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Enough of allowing Off2riorob/Youreallycan to disrupt Wikipedia. Enough of allowing Off2riorob/Youreallycan to attack and marginalize gay people ("This is not the gay times..."When the LGBT sector matures and accepts itself as normal...they don't seem to like it referring to their lifestyle.") Enough of allowing Off2riorob/Youreallycan to violate WP:DISRUPT, WP:3RR, WP:NPA, and especially Wikipedia:Etiquette, which Off2riorob/Youreallycan violates on a daily basis. This is a behavior problem, and a topic ban solves the problem. Why are you against it? Do we need to mete out a 16th block? He hasn't changed his behavior from his last block. Viriditas (talk) 04:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
So why are we talking about topic-banning Rob on articles related to Rick Santorum/Dan Savage/Santorum etc, rather than on LGBT topics in general? If there is a wider problem , it should be addressed directly, rather than dragging this long-running 'debate' that does little for the reputation of anyone involved. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh, believe me, I think a broader topic ban or a site ban would be more than appropriate. But this is a start. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 06:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Can we please stay on-topic here? Some users feel that Wikipedia shouldn't cover the santorum neologism. If you feel that way, that is lovely for you. It's also irrelevant to this discussion unless you feel that agreeing with your position excuses all other bad behavior, in which case you should really say so explicitly. Because that's what we're talking about here - vandalizing Rick Santorum's biography, attacking LGBT users going back months on a variety of pages and topics. If you feel that anything is acceptable in the service of getting Wikipedia not to cover the neologism, there's not much I can say other than that you disappoint me. If you don't feel that way, then enough with the smokescreen of how YRC is Fighting the Good Fight and Just Has Feelings, just address the behavior at hand. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 04:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Homophobic comments such as these[15][16][17] are not okay. There are many more examples of antigay attacks by Youreallycan/Off2riorob, as have been pointed out above, and whatever good work he may do does not excuse this persistently poor attitude towards fellow contributors. Shrigley (talk) 04:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Why are you supporting a specific topic ban if you think the problem is more general? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
As has been stated in the proposal, Youreallycan's activity on the santorum substance's articles is uniquely disruptive and has no redeeming value.[18][19][20] I would actually prefer a broader topic ban on LGBT-related articles if consensus is for it, but I will first try to assume as much good faith as possible, because I have the hope that giving him the chance to contribute civilly on other articles would be a net positive for the encyclopedia. Shrigley (talk) 05:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Nothing homophobic in those 3 diffs. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
The idea that there's a homosexual conspiracy to label everybody as homosexual that he must fight against is not homophobic? Think about how that would be received if he similarly tried to deny the identity of Jews. Oh wait, he does that too. Maybe the topic ban needs to be even broader! Shrigley (talk) 05:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
You need stronger diffs and proof for your accusations. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:13, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
For gay people, it's really old and tiring to see homophobes portrayed as victims, whether because they think they're being persecuted for being Christians, defenders of BLPs, or something else. It's best not to say anything that can be construed as homophobic, because if you're even getting close to the line, you're poisoning the editing environment. Shrigley (talk) 05:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
" It's best not to say anything that can be construed as homophobic, because if you're even getting close to the line, you're poisoning the editing environment". So now Rob is on trial for saying something that might be construed as homophobic? Funnily enough, I was reading our (excellent) article on McCarthyism earlier, for entirely unrelated reasons, and somehow this seems rather apposite. The simple fact here is the santorum neologism campaign was/is an attempt to fight dirty, rather than actually confront issues, and as such, those involved are hardly in a position to play the victim card. I abhor bigotry, whether it is racism, sexism, homophobia, or any of the myriad other varieties - but objecting to Wikipedia being used as a soapbox for rather infantile personal attacks isn't homophobia - particularly when such personal attacks seem motivated more by party politics than by the actual issues involved. If Santorum is a homophobe (which, judging by the evidence, seems self-evident), then attack him directly as such - but not on Wikipedia: that isn't what it is for. This idiotic name-calling campaign seems to me to have achieved nothing other than making everyone involved look unsuited for anything but kindergarten. If you wan't to take the moral high ground, get out of the gutter... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, and he's a pedophile, too. Are you done? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I think the comment about not making comments that can be construed as homophobic is unnecessarily hypothetical. Rob made and continues to make comments that were/are homophobic. If he didn't know that they were, it would be easy to AGF if he apologized for unintentionally giving offense and then changed his behavior, but he continues to make the same comments, often verbatim, after it is pointed out to him that they are offensive. he is intentionally creating an unwelcome environment for users whose sexual orientation does not match his own. As I've already said, this has been going on for a long time and has nothing to do with the santorum neologism - it's just that O2RR/YRC's position on the santorum neologism apparently makes some users think that everything else he does is shiny and beautiful, even if it's vandalizing Rick Santorum or making personal attacks on other users. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 06:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Two questions. Firstly, how do you know what Rob's sexual orientation is? And secondly, are you suggesting that Wikipedia should treat contributors differently based on their sexual orientation? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Based on Rob's long history of offensive comments about LGBT people, I believe I can make a reasonable guess that he is not LGBT, and no, I would also support sanctions if he had repeatedly (eg.) suggested that heterosexuals were forming a conspiracy to edit articles, made derogatory references to practices he perceived as being exclusive to heterosexuals, or said that heterosexuals were immature/backward/in a different world from himself. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 06:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Ok then. I'll make a 'reasonable guess' too. You wouldn't... Why should my guess be less valid than yours? Anyway, this whole 'neologism' campaign has been based on nothing other than provocative name-calling from the start, and if people react badly to such infantilism, why should we hold them more accountable than those who decided to use Wikipedia for a soapbox in the first place? AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
If you think the behavior of other users has crossed the line, please file a report on it rather than derailing this one because you share the offending user's views. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 07:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Which of the "offending user's views" do you think I share? That Wikipedia has been abused as a soapbox? Yup, I'll plead guilty to that. As for the rest, we haven't had a trial yet, so the 'guilty' verdict seems premature. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
It does cross the line to try to censor notable subjects from Wikipedia while accusing those who support inclusion of acting in bad faith to further an agenda. AndyTheGrump, from what I have seen of your efforts elsewhere you have been strident in objecting to what you consider the introduction of identity politics into the encyclopedia. It's fine to disagree with the content, but it is not fine to accuse those who see encyclopedic value in the subject of pursuing personal agendas. Some homophobes may be gay, who cares? If a comment is hurtful to reasonable people who identify as LGBT and who aren't just eggshell skulled or taking mock offense, it doesn't matter what the sexual orientation or even the intent in the heart of hearts is of the person making the offensive comment. One mistake is excusable, but if they won't stop making homophobic comments when asked to stop, they lose that excuse. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I think in places this discussion has strayed away from making a case for WP:disruptive editing into a sort of political correctness that we really shouldn't be trying to enforce. Yes, I remember ArbCom made some unfortunate advances in that direction in the Noleander case, but still, a few hints of anti-gay sentiment are no reason to sanction an editor. To dismiss his !votes in an issue, maybe, if you don't think he's being objective in such a case, but still, we all have our opinions about things.
The real issue the OP raises here is that Off2riorob/Youreallycan does feel rather comfortable reaching for the revert button; that's not new. In this case, it's not the usual bit about deleting sourced material under an expansive notion of BLP, but rather to add a rough way of saying things. Wikipedia articles aren't censored, but the source at the end of the sentence (like Savage's original column) says "lube and fecal matter", not "shit".[21] What's odd is that for some time people were tiptoeing around the precise phrase under BLP-related justifications, and now he's going the other direction instead. I didn't follow the context and I suspect he was trying to make a WP:POINT here, perhaps in relation to the second to last edit before he started,[22] which changed the term "sodomy" introduced by Eustress a week previously[23] with suppression of what she moved to the footnote by Collect shortly thereafter.[24] In general I think it's best to follow what the source actually says, neither sugar-coating what it says nor coarsening it for shock value; in this case if anything I'm actually rather sympathetic to not detailing the whole definition word for word because it's not really about what Santorum said or did but just some columnist. From the history it looks like the edit warring was enough to get the article full-protected within a day, and one way or another, that shouldn't be a permanent state of affairs. Which means that people have to reassure themselves, one way or another, that he's not going to pull something like this again once it is unprotected. Wnt (talk) 07:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, Rob strongly opposed including the (quoted, non-slangy) definition of santorum in the article, so the absolute most charitable way to describe his recent edits would be WP:POINT (deliberately disrupting Wikipedia to make a point). Of course, we can't be so charitable, because he also stated that he did it in order to anger LGBT users. As for your other comments, can you please explain how a consistent pattern of attacks on LGBT editors going back for months is "a few hints of anti-gay sentiment"? –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 22:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
With any minority group there is some distinction between those who object to perceived "activism" that they disapprove of, and those who are simply bigoted against the group. Not always a large distinction, but one which I'd want to see better diffs for before making. To make an analogy, many Americans are annoyed with Zionism, AIPAC, aid to Israel, and the controversies that country gets us involved with, but honestly do not view this to be "anti-Semitic". Also, besides lacking proof, there's also the question of what proving him to be anti-gay would actually accomplish. Wikipedia doesn't have a policy mandating nondiscriminatory beliefs, only a general requirement that editors not be disruptive or interfere with creation of neutral articles. This evidence more directly concerns these actual policies than the motive involved. Wnt (talk) 01:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Your analogy is unsound and inaccurate. Recent Gallup polls taken in early 2012 show that the majority of Americans support Israel, in the 70% range, and that's clearly reflected by foreign policy. Your assertion that "many Americans are annoyed with Israel" isn't supported by the facts. Furthermore, your analogy is hopelessly flawed, as Jews have equality under the law and homosexuals do not. Viriditas (talk) 01:36, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Erm, we've run off topic here. "Many" <> "most", and we're talking about equality under (a nonexistent) policy, not the law of some country or other which may or may not. Wnt (talk) 06:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. I find the comments cited, going back over both accounts, to be disturbing, his mindset in editing in this topic does not seem to be conducive towards working well with others. --Jayron32 05:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose If he's really the homophobic, Jew-hating Nazi, then bring stronger diffs to prove it and site-ban him. The topic ban looks like nothing more than "this guy keeps us from bashing Santorum". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Uh, have you not looked at his edits that prompted this thread? How the hell does making those edits on Rick Santorum's article equate to "this guy keeps us from bashing Santorum"? These aren't the edits of some stalwart BLP defender, they are the edits of someone who is apparently way too emotionally invested in this area to follow even basic site policies. Kevin (talk) 06:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, please do stop complaining about how debates on this site don't go the way you want and actually look at the diffs of him vandalizing BLP material and attacking LGBT editors. Protecting a user with a long history of misbehavior is a petty and spiteful way to get back at the community for not supporting your position. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 06:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
"My position" being what? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2[edit]

  • Comment; I know I have a very different, much less restrictive view on BLP than Youreallycan, so I'm somewhat biased towards finding a reason to topic ban him, but I'd like to hear from him first. Sometimes people lose their shit, and I'd rather push for sanctions based on someone's typical behavior, not their worst few moments. However, I'll also say that screaming "BLP BLP" at the top of your lungs doesn't obviate the need to present an argument backing your position up beyond a vague wave, nor does it automatically make other people's positions BLP violations; as I've said elsewhere, BLP isn't something to bludgeon other users in an argument with, and it shouldn't be used as one. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. The suggested topic ban is one that I see as a single step in the right direction. In my opinion, the topic ban should encompass all LGBT topics and related bits. I am convinced that YRC/O2RR is unable to separate his Wikipedia work from his strong opinions against gays. Binksternet (talk) 07:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support -- this editor is manifestly unable to contribute productively in this area, with obvious and repeated violations of WP:POINT and WP:EW. Anyone not seeing a problem in the diffs presented above is implicitly enabling other editors to conduct themselves similarly, and we really don't need that. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, and not necessarily because of the "shit" edits, though those sure aren't the best behavior I've ever seen. However, what I see going on here that's most concerning is a behavior that's much more pernicious and harmful—crying BLP. Even with just a couple of quick basic searches, I was able to find tons of high quality sources covering the "santorum" neologism and controversy at length and over quite some time. So the information is not unsourced or poorly sourced, it's not some flash in the pan thing that was gone as soon as it was there, and it's not private. The only thing left is if it's being given undue weight—and if editors disagree in good faith, that's a normal NPOV discussion, not a BLP one. Using cries of "BLP! BLP!" to silence good-faith disagreement on appropriate weight is not acceptable. Considering the exceptional weight given to the BLP policy, we must apply it carefully, and never to whitewash or end discussion of well-sourced information's inclusion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose While I am not particularly familiar with the neologism here, it seems to me that this involves more than the editor's conduct, but a dispute about which lines have been drawn in the sand. Suggest an RfC/U if you are so inclined.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Are you familiar with the diffs above showing the conduct? Is that conduct okay? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • YRC's conduct is inappropriate whether it occurs in isolation or whether it is part of a larger problem that would entail sanctions on more than one user. Taking this view is actually counterproductive: if we can't agree to sanction an editor for the most blatant kind of misbehavior (pointily inserting vulgarity into BLPs because he believed it would make LGBT users angry, months of personal attacks) then what precedent are we supposed to cite in the hypothetical larger case you would like to see held? –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 22:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Edits like [25] are factual, I think. The hair splitting distinction between "shit" and "fecal matter" debated above is not something over which someone should be handed a topic ban. Even if Youreallycan is doing them as some sort of WP:POINT violation with respect to his own beliefs, I don't see the harm to Wikipedia. Whether an accurate description of that issue is WP:DUE or whether it should be couched in vagueness and euphemisms is an editorial decision normally taken by consensus. If the consensus against the description has been already established (I don't know, the talk page is to tl;dnr) then at best a 3RR 24th block is warranted for that. Articles on politics are contentious. See for example Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Shakehandsman. For the larger issues, e.g. claims of homophobic agenda, take it to ArbCom. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
    • It's a POINT violation, but it was also done for the express purpose of pissing off LGBT users, as shown in diffs elsewhere in the thread, and that shows that YRC just can't edit neutrally when LGBT issues are concerned. Also shown by the long history of homophobic diffs, of course. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 22:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
      • I have not seen the compelling evidence of a "long history of homophobic diffs" that you claim exists. Please take this case to ArbCom, or at least to a RfC/U, because this noticeboard format is unsuitable for discussing evidence like that. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Could you explain why you believe that AN is not the appropriate venue to discuss a topic ban? Unless I'm mistaken, AN often imposes topic bans. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 22:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I have just wasted an hour of my life reading the diffs in this thread. There is no homophobia represented there. They all unambiguously represent anti-activism. Would all you activists please just go away and stop trying to use this encyclopedia to push political agendas? --Anthonyhcole (talk)
    • Ah yes, it was just anti-activism when he said that LGBT people were immature and backwards. I'll remember that excuse if I ever forget myself so far as to call Jews retarded children, because of course it's just in opposition to the activism in the I/P topic area. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 22:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Diff for "LGBT people were immature and backwards"? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Paraphrase of a comment in this discussion (let me know if you can't find it and I'll hunt for the diff, argh). –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 22:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
          • This is exactly my point above about the presentation of evidence in this case. The few diffs shown are here are not compelling that he is a long-term homophobic POV pusher. Too much handwaving involved here. I'm not saying the evidence doesn't exits, but that it just hasn't been presented here. In the Muhammad images case, the evidence that got Ludwigs2 sanctioned was better presented in the Arbitration format. On AN[I], practically the same evidence resulted in no action. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
            • I see your point about an evidence-commentary format being helpful, but I'm not sure that that's a reason to ignore a long pattern of misbehavior since we are here. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 23:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
              • Your comment may leave the impression that you are assuming bad faith about the intentions of the previously uninvolved editors who are simply unaware of this "long pattern of misbehavior" you assert. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
                • Which and why? –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 23:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
                  • Your comment at 23:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC) because it uses the word "ignore". You are implying that editors here are aware of a pattern of homophobia, but are just refusing to pay attention to it. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
                    • It was in reference to your comments specifically - I got the impression that you acknowledged that YRC had a long history of on-wiki homophobia, but believed that the AN format was preventing us from dealing with it productively and thus that we should end the discussion. Is that the case? –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 00:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. Please keep this discussion open until at least late next week, as the majority of editors in the states are offline enjoying a three-day holiday weekend. Viriditas (talk) 10:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
    • That is actually an argument for closing the thread before that happens. We don't need more editors in this discussion who make wiki decisions based on their high level of involvement in USA politics. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 10:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
      • I must strongly disagree with your opinion. Most Americans are not involved in politics at all, and many non-Americans live and work in the states. Forgive me for saying this, but it sounds like you know very little about the U.S. Viriditas (talk) 10:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, with reluctance. When Off2riorob changed his username after a previous controversial episode (related to this topic, if I remember rightly), I advised him to chill out, cool down and step away from topics that get him worked up. He responded positively so it's disappointing to see the same problems recurring in the same topic area. If he's getting so agitated by a topic that he can't exercise good judgement in editing there, he really needs to refocus and do something else - I can absolutely relate to that as I've been in the same situation. So if he's not willing to voluntarily withdraw from the Savage/Santorum topic area, I'm afraid a topic ban is the last resort. Prioryman (talk) 10:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I looked at You/Rob's block log and it is no better nor no worse than many of his accusers. For example, going back to Dec-2010, both user:Binksterneta-certain-unnamed-editor and You/Rob have 3 blocks each. Where is Binksternet'sa-certain-editor-who-shall-rename-nameless-until-further-notice's topic ban proposal? Banning should only be used when lesser sanctions have been exhausted. If he was truly as disruptive as his accusers claim, why only 3 blocks in over a year? And what about his accusers? Their participation here is against policy. Per WP:CBAN:

    the community may engage in a discussion to site ban, topic ban, or place an interaction ban or editing restriction via a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute.

Involved editors should identify themselves and recuse themselves from this discussion. – Lionel (talk) 10:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
    • So I see you've switched from trying to shun me to suggesting a topic ban for me. What topic would that be, Lionelt? What topic is it that I cannot edit neutrally? I hope you spend many happy hours trying to find one. Binksternet (talk) 16:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh yeah. I forgot about the shunning. Thanks for the reminding me! I owe you. – Lionel (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Lionelt, you're not exactly the least involved user here, but this also has nothing to do with the discussion - if you think Binksternet should be topic-banned (from what topic area???) then start a new thread, rather than introducing yet more total irrelevancy into what is supposed to be a serious process. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 22:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose at this time. The problem is not blatant homophobia. The issue is playing "BLP" card as a means of winning a content dispute, when the relevant policy to cite is really NPOV. This is disruptive and must be stopped, but it is a result beyond the reach of this thread because the wrong thing has been complained about. I am concerned that there are in fact activists using Wikipedia to advance agendas, and that editors should be able to confront activism without being labeled homophobic, racist, or whatever. Two wrongs don't make it right. Jehochman Talk 10:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
    • No, but a right can help correct a wrong. If topic-banning Rob will cut down on the offensiveness and disruption we've seen in the past few days, it might not be enough, but it would create a safer editing environment for the users Rob has spent months attacking and prevent him from vandalizing more articles in this topic area. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 22:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Youreallycan claimed that anal sex "referred" to the homosexual lifestyle. However, statistically speaking, homosexuals have anal sex far less than heterosexuals, and according to some studies, gay men appear to prefer fellatio instead. To quote Tristan Taormino, "The idea that all gay men and only gay men have anal sex—one that the Religious Right would like us to believe—is simply not supported. Furthermore, there is no evidence that any single group defined by sexual orientation has a great deal more anal sex than any other group." I believe that Taormino's comments are supported by good data. Viriditas (talk) 10:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Is that your proof he is homophobic? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • No, it is proof that he's ignorant. Viriditas (talk) 11:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Viriditas, I know you're only trying to help WP here - but what you are doing is coming off strongly as activism. And not good activism either. Comments such as As a heterosexual, I feel that we have a responsibility to step forward and defend our gay brothers and sisters, and to say "never again" are not only patronising but downright worrying as to your agenda here. I'm far from unfamiliar with homophobia and from the comments of Robs you have posted I'd say he is anti-activist, no anti-gay. On the other hand your comments are exactly the form of cheer leading a lot of LGBT activists are now trying to get you all to drop - it just re-enforces the stereotype. Hope that makes sense. --Errant (chat!) 11:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • It doesn't make sense, as 1) I'm not a communist activist, and 2) I've previously complained about activists using the Santorum neologism "to harass a BLP" (see Talk:Campaign_for_"santorum"_neologism/Archive_6) As for saying "never again", if you think one has to be an activist to say that, then you are confused about what it means. I'm curious what my "worrying" agenda is supposed to be here, beyond proposing a topic ban. Please tell me what's on my agenda so I can update it. Viriditas (talk) 11:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • You missed the key part of your quote that stands at issue. I will quote a local activist here, who is better at explaining the problem you've run into; "There is a worrying growth of heterosexuals jumping on the bandwagon of gay activism, often claiming it in solidarity. Of course that's not unappreciated. But it often feels patronising, they usually miss the key issues and more than anything it makes us feel different again. These people ask "what can I do to help", and the answer is do your own thing, for yourself, and the world will grow a better place. I don't need to be defended." On to that you've added a slogan with the misfortune of being currently associated with a right wing group... which is more than a bit confusing! --Errant (chat!) 11:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid we see the world vastly differently, and you've completely misunderstood/misinterpreted my comments. It is not "associated" with a right wing group, but it may be used by one. The "slogan" has been used in almost every context, and is actually more associated with the LGBT community in the present day, particularly in terms of not being a victim. In studying countercultural movements, you run across it quite a bit. Here's one of many uses: "Pride, we remember, began as a protest, a collective "never again" heard one year after a raid on New York's Stonewall Inn bar turned into a riot of resistance, a demand for fair and equal treatment."[26] Forgive me, but I've never heard anyone complain about heterosexuals "jumping" on a gay rights bandwagon, nor could I possibly comprehend what that means. It must be a new concept that I'm not familiar with, and it sounds pretty terrible. Nobody "owns" the bandwagon of equality that is guaranteed to every human being. Anyone who thinks they do is seriously deluded. Gay rights is equal rights. Viriditas (talk) 12:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm trying to show you how patronising your comments can appear to your "gay brothers and sisters"; that you've taken this argument all the way through to equality and finished with the ever-so-cheerleader "Gay rights is equal rights" is exactly a demonstration of the issue at hand. It's sad that we have to have these discussions in such a politically charged context; one day when we have realistic equality and trust then perhaps it will be different. Till then it just re-inforces my view that I shouldn't get involved in such topics. *sad face* --Errant (chat!) 13:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid that there's no more patronizing comments on planet Earth than "I'm trying to show you..." What you still don't understand is that real human beings have gay brothers and sisters. I'm afraid you are reading my words at a different level of literalism than the ones I'm actually writing. This kind of literary disconnect is quite common on Wikipedia and is best handled, not by trying to show someone something, but by asking questions. In any case, feel free to use my talk page to continue this discussion. Viriditas (talk) 13:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 3[edit]

  • Oppose per Tarc, Jehochman above. Tom Harrison Talk 13:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Please consider addressing the criticisms of Tarc's and Jehochman's arguments, which include, but are not limited to, the fact that they're whitewashing clear evidence of vandalism and personal attacks because they support his editing position. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 22:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose this proposal. I do think that YRC should take it easy on the editing, but he has been a constructive user and a model contributor to the BLP noticeboard. Nothing in the diffs listed above proves homophobic behaviour. A topic ban is not warranted. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 12:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
    • When a user begins vandalizing BLP articles and begins (or rather, continues) attacking users based on their sexual orientation, he can no longer be said to be a constructive user or a model contributor. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 22:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose While there is some very pointy behavior linked above, it looks this is actually part of a very long, complicated dispute so I think an RFC/U (or an Arbcom case, for that matter) would be a better idea than an immediate topic ban. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Are they mutually exclusive? The behavior is obviously disruptive and, based on past evidence, seems likely to continue; why should we let it go on, creating an unsafe environment for editors and lower-quality articles for readers, because we can't do everything at once? –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 22:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support a topic ban. I'm not gay and have no dog in this fight, but anyone who says vilely homophobic things like "This is not the gay times - get over yourself" or "When the LGBT sector matures and accepts itself as normal they will have progressed into my world" is no different than a racial bigot or an anti-Semite. Imagine him saying, "This is not the Jew times - get over yourself" or "When the African-American segment matures...they will have progressed into my world." Need I add the bigoted codeword "lifestyle" he uses elsewhere, when homosexuality is biologically based and not a choice? A person making these kinds of homophobic comments is soapboxing at the very least and spreading bigotry in the veiled guise of "Hey, I'm just tellin' it like it is." No. He's not. He's spreading homophobic vitriol, and that is not a neutral position.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: A topic ban on all topics related to LGBT is appropriate and long overdue considering this editor's demonstrated inability to contribute constructively to articles in this topic area because of a deep antipathy to the subject. He has clearly acted in bad faith. I've removed many POV nationalistic, rascist, religious, and sexuality-related edits from articles, most of them vile and hateful, but I was particularly taken aback by this editor's recently thrice-added edit summary and defense, which revealed that the editor's approach to the subject was purely and strongly viceral and not amenable to rational treatment of the subject. I've rarely seen such purely visceral comments, even from fly-by IP trolls. What's most disturbing here is that this is not a newbie editor by a long shot, and that, in spite of a long history of bigotted remarks, he has still been allowed to edit in this topic area. Tenebrae makes a good point when he says he doubts that similar rascist or anti-semitic remarks would never have been tolerated. The editor is clearly abusing the project to advertise his anti-LGBT views, and clearly has no intention to stop. An indefinite topic-ban on LGBT related articles, including politics, seems the most lenient solution to the problem. Other editors have been community-banned for much less, and I would gladly vote for that if it were an option. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Generally per Johnuniq, Tarc, Jehochman, and AndyTheGrump/McCarthyism; also agree with Lionel that users who have an obvious direct involvement should be disregarded if they continue to comment here. I didn't check all the edits linked above, but the ones I saw certainly indicate edit-warring and poor taste – feces is probably more encyclopedic than shit – but not any vandalism, disruption or BLP violations. Fat&Happy (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
In other words, those who oppose Rob's vandalism shouldn't comment, only those who support it? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
It's obviously not vandalism. Nobody Ent 20:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
In your somewhat strange interpretation of the English language, what part of the phrase "[those] who have an obvious direct involvement" sounds like "those who oppose [what they believe to be] Rob's vandalism"? Fat&Happy (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
And what constitutes direct involvement? If you're going to rattle off half a dozen users whose comments you support who have been involved in this dispute for months, and then turn around and call for people whose involvement has been slight and tangential to be ignored, it's not hard to figure out that this is about ideological positions rather than prior involvement. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 22:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Can you provide diffs indicating how I've "been involved in this dispute for months"? I've no recollection of any significant involvement at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Like "half a dozen," it was slightly an exaggeration; he didn't name six users, not all have been involved in the long term, although he named nearly half a dozen and some have been involved for a long time. Sorry for not being clearer! –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 22:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Yet strangely enough, neither Andy nor any of the other three members of that half-dozen were indicated by the diffs above as being involved in YRC's edit war that purportedly triggered this complaint. Wonder who was?
It's hardly unusual for ideologues to view anyone who disagrees with them as being driven by ideology. And technically, they may be correct. My position here could, I suppose, be attributed to ideology; the ideology that opposes using Wikipedia to advance personal or group positions – political, religious, social or other. The two people I agreed with above whose edits I've followed most closely seem dedicated to the same ideology, whether the article be Barack Obama, George W. Bush, George Soros, or Sheldon Adelson (examples; no actual edits to each implied). It's the observation of neutrality over time that makes me feel their opinions are worth considering. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
YRC's edit war triggered this complaint because it was vandalism on a BLP which was intended and carried out in a disruptive fashion. But do go on complaining about me because I disagree with your interpretation of policy. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 00:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The political activism surrounding all this is getting truly tiring. Hopefully this all dies down as soon as we find out that Santorum won't be the candidate for the next US election. --Conti| 19:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Oppose on what grounds? It's great that you have Feelings about activism, but that's not really relevant to the diffs presented, which show YRC vandalizing a BLP to make a point and stick it to users whose sexual orientation differs from his own. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 22:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
      • If we are going to topic ban everyone who tries to get the "alternative" definition of the word into one of our articles, we'd have to topic ban a lot more people than just him. :) --Conti| 22:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Could you explain what you mean? I'm aware that there has been a debate as to whether to include the definition, but as far as I know, only YRC/Rob has a. inserted the text in question, b. done it after voting against including the defintion in order to make a point, or c. stated the intention in doing it to anger LGBT users. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 22:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
          • Here's two more users who inserted the definition: [27][28]. I'm pretty darn sure there are more. Either they all are BLP violations, or none of them are. --Conti| 23:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
            • I referred to the text in question and I referred to it for a reason. Do you really see no difference between a sourced quote of the actual definition and a vulgar paraphrase meant to offend? –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 23:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
              • Isn't the neologism vulgar, and meant to offend? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
                • Without conceding an answer to your question, which is not relevant, is Rob's text copiously reliably-sourced in the way the neologism is? –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 00:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
                  • I'd say it was a reliably-sourced paraphrase of an obnoxious personal attack. And yes, the fact that people have subverted Wikipedia policy in order to repeatedly add this personal attack is highly relevant. If you don't like people talking about 'fecal matter' in honest terms, don't spread it all over Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
                    • I'll say to you the same thing I said to F&H: get back to me when you've succeeded in changing all instances of "feces" in Human parasites to "shit" without being blocked. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 00:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
              • Since the "sourced quote" is a vulgar definition meant to offend, no I don't see a difference. As I said, I'm tired of this, and I'm tired of playing this game. The whole "alternative definition" thing has one goal: To attack and insult a political opponent. There are undeniably people out there that want to attack and insult that political opponent here on Wikipedia under the pretense of "neutral editing". And that's getting a tad bit annoying. --Conti| 00:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per Conti, Jehochman, Tom Harrison, Anthonyhcole et al. --JN466 20:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Would you care to respond to any of the criticism of their arguments? –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 22:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • opposeChed :  ?  21:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • You know, those making accusations of vandalism would really benefit from reading and understanding WP:VAND#NOT. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 21:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
    • This is true -- the edits are not vandalism -- they are WP:POINT (aka disruptive). Apparently that's okay, though. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict)I don't see anything in WP:NOT about a user adding vulgar unsourced language to a BLP because he thinks it will make people of other sexual orientations angry. That seems to be the definition of vandalism, actually. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 22:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
      • So... "the shit and sexual lubrication jelly that leaks out of the anus after anal sex" is unsourced, but "that frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex" is not? Really? Is there a new rule at Wikipedia that all content must be a direct quote, no more paraphrasing allowed? Fat&Happy (talk) 23:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
        • I don't know, F&H. Why don't you go to, say, Human parasites and tell me how editors there handle your complaint that you're totally just paraphrasing when you substitute "shit" for all instances of "feces"? –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 00:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - Sorry this dramha is all in my name - excuse me for that - I edit many/all topics in dispute, many thousands of edits in disputes, in defense of a WP:NPOV in regard to living people WP:BLP - I lost it on the Santorum issue, Rick Santorum has been/is basically under attack at wikipedia and has been for months, it may well be his own fault but BLP protects irrispective of that. I agree to/won't edit the related articles again - the Neologism and the R Santorum BLP, broader restrictions than that I would object to - and see no need for - I have no topic focus at all, and basically just assess and work all and any articles as they arise. - I need a break from Santorum thats for sure - in fact I am having a wikibreak from the rest of February so as to freshen up - I have only glimpsed the comments here so as not to take them personally. I hope this statement, apology, is enough to close this thread down so as users can get back to more creative situations. Youreallycan 21:54, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
    • That will certainly defuse the situation. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks! I can't speak for everyone but IMO that's very collegial and mature of you. If you take a chill break and decide for yourself when you're ready to return, I'll be on the welcome back committee. Hope this doesn't sound like unwanted advice, but knowing where the buttons are to push that make some people upset doesn't make it a good idea to push them. This "gay agenda" thing does strike a nerve for many, and you can make the exact same point without pushing that button and maybe get them to actually listen. Cheers, - Wikidemon (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
      • Unnecessary. The community soundly rejects this attempt by Viriditis and his cohorts to censure an ideological opponent. I think I can summarize the community's position on this issue: we do not ban editors just because they piss off an ideological group. Bans are based on misconduct, not unpopularity. Closing admin has my permission to use my comment in their official closing decision. – Lionel (talk) 01:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
        • The community has not soundly rejected anything, as most people are on a three-day holiday vacation. Nor has this been an attempt by myself, as I did not initiate this topic ban on this board, nor have I worked with or coordinated with anyone else to do it. And, I don't think you can accurately summarize the community's position on this or any other issue, as the discussion shows that there is broad general agreement that Youreallycan's behavior was a form of misconduct. Furthemore, I have not taken a single "popular" position in this discussion. In fact, most of the positions I take and will continue to take, remain totally unpopular, and I hope that remains the case in the near future. If you have trouble understanding that statement, then you also have trouble understanding the philosophical underpinnings of what it means to be "popular". Viriditas (talk) 01:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Mostly per Tarc. I think Yrc's edits were well meaning - to enforce BLP standards on the relevant articles, though he strayed into some WP:POINT territory, apparently out of frustration. I think he needs a breather from this particular issue, but it seems like he's going to do that anyway.VolunteerMarek 22:37, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Move to close: Youreallycan has agreed to voluntarily take a permanent break from the troublesome set of articles. Viriditas (talk) 00:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
NOT a permanent break. He can return when he deems appropriate. – Lionel (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
It's a permanent, voluntary break per his own words. Viriditas (talk) 01:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose ban, and support closure of discussion, as moot, given YRC/Rob's comment. I do, however, think that there's a lot for him to think about, as there are numerous legitimate concerns that have been raised here. I'd also like to make a suggestion: short of a topic ban, it might be a good idea for a (self-imposed, initially) editing restriction to not more than one or two edits per day to LGBT-related pages, broadly defined. That way, there would be less of a chance of things escalating to where a "lose it" situation arises. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
"less of a chance of things escalating to where a "lose it" situation"? Have you been reading the same thread that I have? There is no chance of this escalating. The community has soundly rejected the Topic Ban proposal, the premise it is based upon, and all of the arguments in Support. IOW Snow Oppose. – Lionel (talk) 01:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
The community has not soundly rejected anything. The United States is in the middle of a three-day holiday weekend, and most people are on vacation. If you can't recognize the concerns of your fellow editors and meet them in the middle, and agree that there are valid concerns that need to be addressed, then I'm afraid you've taken nothing from this discussion that would help you understand the problem. Viriditas (talk) 01:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose Obviously YRC is frustrated with the political motivations behind the general Savage campaign to trash Santorum being used on WP, as are many of us. However, that does not suggest that he be topic banned as such. Unforutunately, however, this method seems to be a familiar refrain on WP. Get opposing views blocked so you no longer have to deal with them in the future. In general, the political activism regarding this and now the Romney smear campaign being propagated on WP are extrememly distressing. Arzel (talk) 03:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose The constant extremist attempts here to smear political candidates is shameful for wikipedia, which alleges to have a "neutral point of view". The Santorum stuff reminds me of the various smears against both Palin and Obama, 3-4 years ago, whose articles I helped defend and was pilloried for it, which is why I don't edit politicians' articles anymore. Wikipedia's record on this stuff is shameful, and further damages our credibility with the reading public. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • The Obama and Palin subject areas have their own cluster of fringe-y derogatory subtopics that, like the spreadingsantorum site, are notable enough for their own article but too minor or irrelevant to even mention in the main biography. As here, you had periodic attempts on the one hand to add coverage and wikilinks to the main article, and on the other you had soapboxing and accusations that the very existence of these sub-articles was a disgrace representing everything wrong with Wikipedia. One big difference is that there, the long-term effort to add fringe stuff to discredit Obama was found largely to be the work of several editors running sock farms. It was they, not the mainstream Wikipedians, who were defacing the article and leading one strident attack after another on the regular editors. Bugs, you and a few others got into trouble there not for being on the right side of the content and sock battle but for being boisterously and hot-headedly so. We can talk about content questions all day long, but when editors deface articles to make a point and accuse each other of being here to promote their politics rather than edit articles we have a problem. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal for Youreallycan (ex Off2riorob): Motion to close[edit]

Youreallycan has agreed to voluntarily take a permanent break from the troublesome set of articles per his own words: "I agree to/won't edit the related articles again - the Neologism and the R Santorum BLP". Viriditas (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

May I ask then why the article Rick Santorum was fully protected for three days, two days to go, without any warning that I have seen nor any discussion? I'm told it was because of Rob's edits, which makes less than no sense to me - since when do we lock an article because one editor is editing in a manner that someone objects to? Is this not overkill? See this exchange. Request a return to semi-protection, and/or a coherent explanation of why the page is suddenly locked. Tvoz/talk 02:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I completely agree. I have several theories, most of which involve collusion, so I'll keep them to myself at this time. However, it is clear that the protection rationale was totally gamed to coincide with the the three-day holiday weekend in the states. Viriditas (talk) 03:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
No rationale was even given, no warning, and no explanation. Will someone lift it please? (I know this is not the proper forum for requesting unprotect, but I don't want to be accused of forum shopping.) This whole thing is very disturbing - I am not commenting here now on the edits, as I haven't looked closely at them, but I am saying that using full protection in this way is highly suspect and should be reversed immediately. Tvoz/talk 03:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Not permanent What YRC said is not relevant as the consensus here is clear: the community does not like activists misusing the encyclopedia, and there is no suggestion that YRC is under any pressure to take a break, or that any break has some kind of time constraint. Johnuniq (talk) 09:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Who said it was permanent? Please point me to the place on the article talk page where this lockdown is explained, and the editors counseled about what they need to resolve to get this back to semi-protection. I asked this question on the talk page and was told that the problem was one editor's "vulgar comments" - that is presumably YRC. If that is the reason, then why was he not blocked, with the page left alone at semi? If the consensus is that he is acting as some kind of activist, and his statement that he would take a break from these pages not enough for the community, then give him a temporary block, or topic ban him or do whatever you think is needed to that editor. Someone else then said it was "multiple editors who were edit-warring". If so, where is the warning to the editors involved? If there are other "activists misusing the encyclopedia" then they should also be warned and blocked. You don't just swoop down onto a page like this and fully protect it for three days with a cryptic edit summary and no real explanation or counseling on how to best go about getting whatever it is worked out. It's wrong, and seeing as this is the page of a presidential candidate, I would expect extra caution to be taken. There are many eyes on that article - and clearly some of them are admins, as admins have participated in some discussions there - so why the thundering silence? Tvoz/talk 09:26, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I see I misunderstood Johnuniq's "not permanent" comment about the community not liking activists misusing the encyclopedia, and thought it was in response to the related question about why the page was fully protected instead of the editor warned/blocked - I see that he was talking about whether a topic ban for YRC would be permanent, not about the page protection. Sorry for the confusion. Tvoz/talk 17:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I did not see "permanent" nor do I see any basis for any assertion that concensus was for any topic ban here. Anyone closing should note that YRC has indicated that he intends to take a "break" from the area where most of the noise has been coming from, but that is all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

When half the experienced editors and admins on a page feel you should be banned for and the other half don't, you're on notice that something has to change. That's hardly a ringing endorsement, and if you look at the way people divided into camps here accusing each other of political agendas it's all the more troubling. The noise YRC averted by backing away is that of a train wreck that would surely have gone to an RfC/U or Arbcom. That's likely not happening now, but there's no guarantee of a positive outcome if this comes up again. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject India[edit]

Hi, i have created a WikiProject Mangalore and would like to add it to this template. However it is protected and only administrators can edit it. Its maintainer is pissed off at me, because i was a bit impatient and opined that he was ignoring my request. Refer this. He reprimanded me for it and suggested that i ask elsewhere. As such, i would appreciate it if someone would do it for me. Thanks. Joyson Prabhu Holla at me! 23:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I was about to unprotect this but after checking the Wikiproject templates for United States, Germany and France I noticed they were all the same, and presumably most other country wikiprojects. Why is it necessary to fully protect these? They are only talk page headers, never in article space. In my opinion, no more than semi-protection is justified and then only if they are being heavily hit with vandalism. SpinningSpark 08:01, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
According to Jarry1250's tool, the India template has 87,432 transclusions, and I suspect that similar templates for other major country projects would have comparable numbers. These are definitely heavily used templates; the template section of WP:PP refers to protecting templates because vandalism to one might affect "hundreds of other pages" — if less than a thousand transclusions can justify protection, over 87,000 definitely should get it. Nyttend (talk) 14:06, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
So maybe semi-protection, but I feel uncomfortable with full protection. The kind of vandalism you speak of is rare from confirmed users. WP:PP also says "Therefore, they are frequently semi- or fully protected based on the degree of visibility, type of use, content, and other factors." They are on talk pages and not highly visible to our readers and do not contain material that is likely to be a BLP or other similar issue. Just looking at the history of the US template, it was unprotected September 2010 on the grounds that "Consensus at ANI seems to be that protection should not be applied, despite high level of transclusions" but subsequently semi-protected and later fully protected with no other rationale than "highly visible template" with apparently no intervening problematic edits that could have triggered this action. SpinningSpark 20:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
The context for the September 2010 protection, if I remember rightly, was that HJ Mitchell used a semiautomated process to protect all templates that had more than a certain number of transclusions, and people thought that it went too far because it protected templates that were often updated by non-admins, such as Template:NRHP date for lists/dates. I think the point was that we should apply heavily-used-template protections individually; if so, individual protections like this or like the US template would be appropriate. Nyttend (talk) 23:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I think full protection is definitely appropriate in cases like this. To see the havoc that can be caused by template hacking, see WP:ANI#An outbreak of template-hacking racist vandalism--it involved invisible clickjacking that took the user to site with anti-Semitism and possible malware. And I know this has happened before. Someone whose doing something that nefarious won't be bothered by the trivial amount of effort needed to get autoconfirmed. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Alleged accusation against an administrator[edit]

This is spillover from the angry chaos at the Santorum page. There's not a complaint from the 'victim', the comment is pretty tame by the standards of what normally winds up on this page, and so far no one has called for any admin action, including the filing party. Therefore I'm hatting this before it gets any more flamey than it is now. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

... I have several theories, most of which involve collusion, so I'll keep them to myself at this time. However, it is clear that the protection rationale was totally gamed to coincide with the the three-day holiday weekend in the states. Viriditas (talk) 7:01 pm, Today (UTC−8)

As the admin user:Salvio giuliano protected the article, and the stated rationale was theirs, I cannot see Viriditas' remark as anything other than a violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA upon Salvio. – Lionel (talk) 03:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

We should act in a way to minimize disputes and avoid personal feuds. How does this post accomplish that? How about leaving a friendly note for the user whose behavior concerns you. Perhaps they don't understand how others perceive their comments. If that doesn't work, you could go to WP:WQA for assistance. There is nothing here for any administrator to do, other than give you some advice, which will probably be similar to mine. I hope this helps. Jehochman Talk 03:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't see Salvio giuliano's name anywhere in the comment Lionel took out of context of another discussion. Lionel, could I ask you to please get out of my bedroom, and my mind? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 03:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
@Jehochman, not sure what you think a "friendly note" would accomplish here. Viriditas isn't one of our more jovial editors. (I don't think V would disagree with this.) WQA is pointless as you probably know.
@Viriditas Come on man, he quoted you, just because you didn't name names doesn't mean what you said (or insinuated) is vague. Own up or strike. Arkon (talk) 04:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Notified Salvo, please do this next time. --Rschen7754 04:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
There's no reason to notify him since no such accusation has been made. Lionel has an overactive imagination which would be put to better use on articles that could use his creative touch and flair for fiction. I would, however, appreciate it if Lionel would discuss such things with me first before pretending to be able to read my mind again in the future. Perhaps we will have another opportunity to discuss such things very soon. Viriditas (talk) 06:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
OK Viriditas. "Overactive imagination"? When you referred to "protection rationale" in response to Tvoz's remark about Rick Santorum, were you referring to this: [29]? – Lionel (talk) 06:36, 20 Febr