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).

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)
 * (ec) This is ridiculous - it's no more a slur than calling Ryan Postlethwaite "Ryan". —  iride  scent  19:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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))
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * (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)
 * 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)
 * Thank you. That answer definitely belongs in the plus column.  Guettarda (talk) 20:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Apology may be made by cash, money order, or major credit card......I prefer small bills. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  21:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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 |undefined /  C ) 21:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Undertow - that wasn't a hypothetical. It's happened a few times.  I believe the first time was by  (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)
 * 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)

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.  Q ua ck Gu ru   21:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Risker, do you think your suggestion is an obvious BLP violation after reflection.  Q ua ck Gu ru   22:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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?  Q ua ck Gu ru   22:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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  Q ua ck Gu ru   23:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Adding unsourced and unverifiable text to a BLP is a BLP violation. If you disagree, please provide a third-party reference.  Q ua ck Gu ru   23:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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.  Q ua ck Gu ru   23:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * See BLP. Again, please provide a reliable reference.  Q ua ck Gu ru   23:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Where is your third-party reference to support your opinion about the board thing.  Q ua ck Gu ru   23:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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.   Q ua ck Gu ru   00:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)

(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)
 * Seconded. QuackGuru, please drop the stick. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Last response above. I agree with H20. Bellwether B  C  01:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)