Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Ryan kirkpatrick

Comments on outside view by E. Ripley
While it is obvious that him messing around in his userspace is preferable to his edits to articlespace, I fear that his edits since to his userspace only show that he simply does not get what the problem is. Firstly there is this, where a petrol bomb was thrown at a house in the well-known terrorism hotspot of Watford, England! Obviously the source does not describe it as a terrorist incident, and neither would anyone who actually understands what petrol bomb almost always refers to. Secondly there is this, where a policeman said "I can confirm he was a dissatisfied claimant; this is not a terrorist incident" which speaks for itself without need for further commentary from me. I have left a note on his talk page trying to be as clear as possible about his future editing, hopefully that might get through where all others have failed. O Fenian (talk) 17:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I agree -- he clearly simply doesn't understand. But so far no amount of explaining seems to help.  What I was trying to get at with my comment is that, short of simply banning him, perhaps hoping that he constrains himself to messing around in his talk page, without actually affecting any live articles, is the best we can do under the circumstances.  It's not ideal, but at least it's not disruptive to the rest of the project. &mdash; e. ripley\talk 17:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. I suppose my point was that if it is not possible to get through to Ryan that an incident described by the police as "not a terrorist incident" does not belong on the list, then I do not see much hope in anyone getting through to him about the other problems with his editing (see his talk page) which are not the subject of this request for comment. O Fenian (talk) 15:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Question
I believe this will be open for a minimum of 30 days, is that correct? Since Ryan shows no sign of responding to this request for comment with a reply or changing his editing, do I have to wait until it is closed before proposing a topic ban on him? I ask because he is now adding incidents to various other years in the "terrorist incident" series, and I do not see much changing in the next week or so. O Fenian (talk) 21:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

By way of example this edit with this source. The source doesn't describe it as terrorism, it says police do not know anything about the motive and speculate about her saying "Perhaps this was an emotionally disturbed person", and crucially "We have largely ruled out this being a terrorist attack". This is backed up by the two related sources on the right hand side of the window (I know I am expecting a miracle for him to look at those for further research), the first saying "police investigators said the woman did not appear to have been a political terrorist and seemed to have simply been intent on suicide" and the second saying she was mentally ill following her son throwing himself in front of a train aged 18, and that she only wanted to kill herself.

Do I really have to wait for this to be closed before further action can be taken to stop this nonsense? O Fenian (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No - after a reasonable period of time has been given to the user to respond to concerns (which was given by this point), you should escalate rather than waiting for a full 30 days. I appreciate that my comment here is somewhat too late now, but it is a note for the future in any case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Related discussion on ANI
Please see Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. O Fenian (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)