Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Risker

Edit count for Risker

User:Risker

    run at Thu May 8 04:01:07 2008 GMT

Category talk:         3
Help talk:             2
Image:                 18
Mainspace              2577
MediaWiki talk:        1
Talk:                  658
Template talk:         1
User talk:             1382
User:                  243
Wikipedia talk:        449
Wikipedia:             810
avg edits per page     4.02
earliest               05:02, 27 December 2005
number of unique pages 1527
total                  6144

2005/12  1
2006/1   5
2006/2   18
2006/3   49
2006/4   15
2006/5   9
2006/6   13
2006/7   4
2006/8   10
2006/9   146
2006/10  127
2006/11  136
2006/12  93
2007/1   36
2007/2   77
2007/3   539
2007/4   417
2007/5   311
2007/6   139
2007/7   131
2007/8   181
2007/9   79
2007/10  76
2007/11  217
2007/12  591
2008/1   429
2008/2   539
2008/3   726
2008/4   846
2008/5   184

(green denotes edits with an edit summary (even an automatic one), red denotes
edits without an edit summary)

                    Mainspace
540 James Blunt
136 Kim Kardashian
121 Kannada literature
113 Jacques Plante
72  Essjay controversy
49  Kannada literature in the Vijayanagara Empire
45  Prince's Palace of Monaco
42  Bezhin Meadow
42  You're Beautiful
38  Hockey Hall of Fame
32  Richard Gere
31  James Blunt: Return to Kosovo
29  All the Lost Souls
29  List of Old Harrovians
27  1973 (song)

                      Talk:
299 Essjay controversy
51  James Blunt
27  Richard Gere
16  Kannada literature in the Vijayanagara Empire
15  Kim Kardashian
14  Buckingham Palace
13  Kannada literature
11  Carolyn Doran
10  Back to Bedlam
9   Friedman (unit)
8   Kalisha Buckhanon
8   Criticism of Wikipedia
7   You're Beautiful
6   Wikimedia Foundation
6   Michael J. Devlin

         Category talk:
3 Candidates for speedy deletion

      Help talk:
2 Starting a new page

                  Image:
3 Allthelostsouls.jpg
2 1973 single.jpg
2 Risker moon.jpg
2 Bruce Johnson giving inaugural speech.jpg

                        User:
109 Risker
70  Risker/sandbox
15  Risker/Tango Blocks
11  Giano/A fool's guide to writing a featured article
8   Risker/deletions
5   Risker/sandbox2
3   Risker/preston
2   Academy Leader
2   Bellwether BC/Sandbox/Someone Dies, Someone Lives

     User talk:
190 Risker
138 Giano II
29  Newyorkbrad
26  Doc glasgow
24  Carcharoth
20  QuackGuru
20  Bellwether BC
20  Jimbo Wales
17  Lawrence Cohen
17  SandyGeorgia
16  Maxim
15  Geogre
14  MrWhich
14  Risker/Archive 1
13  Erachima

                      Wikipedia:
72 Requests for arbitration/Tango/Evidence/by Risker
60 Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
52 Requests for arbitration/IRC/Workshop
29 Administrators' noticeboard
26 Requests for arbitration
18 Miscellany for deletion/User:C.m.jones/Essjay
18 Administrator intervention against vandalism
15 Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard
14 No personal attacks
12 Village pump (policy)
11 Articles for deletion/Bob Kinnear
11 Requests for page protection
10 Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement
10 Requests for adminship/Risker
9  Articles for deletion/Renfield's syndrome

                       Wikipedia talk:
98 No personal attacks
52 Private correspondence
51 Attack sites
41 Requests for arbitration/IRC/Proposed decision
28 Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Proposed decision
24 Requests for arbitration/Durova/Proposed decision
12 Biographies of living persons
10 Requests for adminship
9  Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Giano II
8  Requests for comment/Tango
7  Threats of violence
7  Requests for arbitration
6  WikiProject Cheshire
5  Requests for arbitration/IRC/Workshop
4  Requests for arbitration/IRC

If there were any problems, please email Interiot or post at User talk:Interiot
.
Based directly on these URLs: [1], [2]

The edit count was retrieved from this link at 04:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC).

Discussion

Concerning Guettarda's oppose

Shortening someone's username by using only the first part is not uncommon, nor is it twisting. Also, where did she repeat the slur (really, slur?) during this RFA? Lara ❤Love 19:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) This is ridiculous - it's no more a slur than calling Ryan Postlethwaite "Ryan". — iridescent 19:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Lara (oh, sorry, Laralove). Where did Risker say "Quack" in this RfA? I see the undertow doing it, but not risker. - Keep. (I mean, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
It's ok to shorten someone's username, regardless of what it makes? So when someone shortened my username to 'Tard, that wasn't meant as an insult? And that, of course, is less problematic than calling someone with a name like Quack Guru "Quack". Add to that the tone, and I can't imagine a more obvious insult...sort-like if someone called themselves "Anti-Racist" and you made "Racist" the nickname from it. Come on, that argument is just incredibly silly. Guettarda (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That said Guettarda, where did Risker say "Quack" in this RfA? The diff (from Quack Guru) is one thing, probably meant in passing. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not in, during. I'm not saying that using insulting variants of people's usernames is reason to oppose in and of itself. I'm saying that bad behaviour like that during a period of time when you are supposed to be on your best behaviour shows very bad judgement or a lack of self control. Both of these make for troublesome admins. When you take that in the context of all the comments about a penchant for drama, I can't see how I could do anything but oppose. Guettarda (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)And yes, of course "quack" is a slur - otherwise people wouldn't get sued for using the term. (That is a statement of fact, and should not be construed as a legal threat - I am not saying that Risker's calling QG a quack was defamatory, just that it has been ruled to be defamatory, even defamation per se, iirc). Guettarda (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Woah! Time out, everyone. I did call QuackGuru "Quack" on my talk page when he popped up there last night (direct quote: "Oh hello, Quack. Long time no see..."), for the first time in about a year. I'd called him that (or alternately QG) when we were editing Essjay controversy last spring, and did not know until he posted here that he took offense; I'm pretty sure I wasn't the only one who used that abbreviation then, but I am happy to stop now that he has made it clear he doesn't like it. I don't consider him "a quack" (in fact, if I remember correctly, he's not particularly supportive of many alternative therapies). Now...could we all go back and try to practice the last sentence of my response to Question 3? Thanks. Risker (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That answer definitely belongs in the plus column. Guettarda (talk) 20:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And thank you, Guettarda, for being willing to clarify your reasoning in a civil manner. Much appreciated. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No one is going to use the variant 'tard' when referring to you, Guettarda, just as no one is going to run my name through an algorithm in order to find an offensive 'slur' as well. If named myself User:VaginaMonologues, I'd anticipate being called 'Vagina,' just as QC, Quack, Guru, or whatever it is should have anticipated. I guess I owe a giant apology to Jimbo, Lara, Slim, Ryan, East, Cobra, Jeffrey, SWAT, Mailer, and Scribe. I'll get right on that after I finish my washing hair ;) the_undertow ^talk 21:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apology may be made by cash, money order, or major credit card......I prefer small bills. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 21:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's it! Our friendship is over. east.718 at 21:16, May 8, 2008

*Clears throat* Excuse me, but where is my apology? :D Tiptoety ^talk 21:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've belabored this point enough with WP:SARCASM at the expense of the opposition. I urge people to move o now. You don't have to agree with any of this, but an explanation was given, and that should be good enough for everyone. You may call me Wis. Seriously, I prefer it. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 21:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undertow - that wasn't a hypothetical. It's happened a few times. I believe the first time was by BigDaddy777 (talk · contribs) (though it may have been even earlier, there was this charming guy from Stormfront that I tangled with some time back in 2004. I wasn't familiar with the word "tard"...I could tell from the tone it was an insult, but I wasn't sure what he was talking about. Guettarda (talk) 21:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The good old days back when the world was young. I'm getting all teary-eyed and nostalgic... :) Guettarda (talk) 21:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:QuackGuru further questions in support of Oppose

I would like to question this suggestion made at a BLP noticeboard. The suggestion is to add something to an article that is unverfied by a third-party source. I consider it a BLP violation. QuackGuru 21:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I do not wish to engage in debating this single edit from 11 months ago, but will instead provide this link to the entire archived discussion, which readers may find helpful. Risker (talk) 22:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Risker, do you think your suggestion is an obvious BLP violation after reflection. QuackGuru 22:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not then think it was a BLP violation, and I do not now. Further, the discussion was taking place under the watchful eyes of many editors and administrators with extensive experience in interpreting the BLP policy, as it was happening on the BLP Noticeboard. I believe that had it been a BLP violation, one of them would have told me so, either in the thread or on my talk page, and could well have deleted the post. None of those things happened, so I am reassured of my interpretation. Risker (talk) 22:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is a BLP violation and no third-party references have been provided. Adding negative criticism without any references is a clear BLP violation. Agreed? QuackGuru 22:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to an archived discussion. There is plenty of evidence that it is a clear BLP violation. Talk:Stephen_Barrett/Archive_10#Wikipedia:Reliable_sources.2FNoticeboard QuackGuru 23:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what your point is, QuackGuru. In order for that section of WP:BLP to apply, it must be negative criticism. It may surprise you, but *I* do not hold any board certifications either. If by some miracle I became notable tomorrow, and Wikipedians wrote an article about me, they would not violate BLP by adding a sentence stating that I am not board certified. In fact, they could even say I am not a physician if they like (since not being a doctor is not a negative criticism, as far as I know), and they would not violate BLP. Whether or not these are notable facts about me, or they are even verifiable facts, is a different question. I do not see this as a BLP issue. I think, as well, that this should be the end of this line of conversation, and I will not respond further. It's clear that we will not come to an agreement on whether or not that sentence is a BLP violation; if the situation were to happen again today, I would likely have taken it to the BLP noticeboard for discussion. Risker (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adding unsourced and unverifiable text to a BLP is a BLP violation. If you disagree, please provide a third-party reference. QuackGuru 23:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After reading comments like this and this, it is evident that the old Risker is back or has never left. I was giving her an opportunity to change my mind to support but she continues to wikilawyer. A BLP violation is a BLP violation. This is simple. Read policy. See WP:BLP. QuackGuru 23:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please point out the specific portion of BLP that mentioning the FACT that one is not board certified violates. It's not an insult, a slur, or anything remotely resembling that. Don't point to WP:BLP, identify what PORTION of that policy you think it violates. Answer: it doesn't, except in your mind. Bellwether ^B _C 23:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:BLP#Sources. Again, please provide a reliable reference. QuackGuru 23:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please point out--in specific detail--how including the fact that he's not board certified would lead to "libel claims", which is the point of the RS subsection. It's not inflammatory, it's true, and there's no way it could be perceived as libel, in any way. Bellwether ^B _C 23:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where is your third-party reference to support your opinion about the board thing. QuackGuru 23:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Source: Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients

Publication Date: 01-FEB-06

Any more questions? It's an incontrovertible fact, as the court documents themselves showed. You're simply being contentious, and opposing someone you don't like, simply because you don't like them. I know you like Barrett. That doesn't change the FACT that he's not board certified, nor does it change the FACT that pointing this out isn't a BLP violation in any way, shape or form. Consider this my last post to you. Ever. I don't deal well with people like you. Bellwether ^B _C 00:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That source fails WP:RS. If you disagree and think this information will improve the article then feel free to add it to the Stephen Barrett article and we can continue the discussion there. The board thing has no relevancy to Barrett's career and has been misused by Barrett's critics such as alternative medicine supporters. The reference provided is from an alternative medicine website. Barrett has criticized alternative medicine. That is not a third-party ref. QuackGuru 00:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe that any source presented (including the original court documents) you could consider non-reliable. You have a vested interest in propping up Barrett. I get it now. Good bye. Bellwether ^B _C 01:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)I am concerned that this is rapidly becoming a circular argument concerning events that occurred nearly a year ago. This discussion is unlikely to have any impact on the outcome of those events, as much as the thoughts and opinions of someone a year ago can change over time. I'm not sure what the point of this particular argument is, but I'm not sure if it will achieve anything or have any realistic conclusion.Gazimoff ^Write _Read 00:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. QuackGuru, please drop the stick. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last response above. I agree with H20. Bellwether ^B _C 01:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]