Topic ban for "Youreallycan Options

[Peter Damian]

I really don't quite follow what's going on here
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...x_Off2riorob.29

Who are the goodies and who are the baddies? The subject of the proposed ban is against LGBT so that makes him very bad. On the other hand he opposes BLP violations, which makes him a saint (see below)

I did find to my interest that there is a whole category of Santorum images on Commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category...-related_images

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)

[carbuncle]

Youreallycan/Off2Riorob means well, but has little melt-downs from time to time. About as comfortable with LGBT topics as, say, Ottava is with naked children. Overall, does a lot for BLP issues, but would probably be happier if he just avoided a couple of areas.

Oh and a lot of the Santorum images were uploaded by Cirt.

I suspect all of the images in that category were uploaded by Cirt, but I haven't checked.