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.

[Peter Damian]

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.

This is a nice one http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Two...atter_pic_1.jpg as it explains the ingredients for santorum.

Two of the ingredients necessary to make santorum ... Santorum is the frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex. Batch material prior to being mixed into frothy conclusion for santorum. This particular batch material was produced using a 50/50 percent solution of two ingredients: fecal matter obtained from hound/pit-bull mix canis lupus familiaris aged three years named tony, and a creamy white moisturizing lube compound mainly composed of water, mineral oil, glycerin, and petrolatum.

Oh and here are the ingredients when mixed http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:San...rizing_lube.jpg

It's a bit like the way you mix up the two tubes of filler when you are repairing the woodworm, but I hope it doesn't get rock solid so quickly.

This post has been edited by Peter Damian: Sun 19th February 2012, 9:25pm

[Number Six]

This is a nice one http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Two...atter_pic_1.jpg as it explains the ingredients for santorum.

Two of the ingredients necessary to make santorum ... Santorum is the frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex. Batch material prior to being mixed into frothy conclusion for santorum. This particular batch material was produced using a 50/50 percent solution of two ingredients: fecal matter obtained from hound/pit-bull mix canis lupus familiaris aged three years named tony, and a creamy white moisturizing lube compound mainly composed of water, mineral oil, glycerin, and petrolatum.

Not Crisco? How disappointing.

[jd turk]

Not Crisco? How disappointing.

Eh, it's like a cooking show. Everyone has their own twist on the recipe, I suppose.

The thread has been closed now with the regular amount of idiocy, with Rob saying he'll try and take it easy for a while. One editor called it a "snow close," which is not only not accurate, but also completely ignores the issues that led to the suggestion of a topic ban.

Yeah, just ignore Rob's problems completely, and keep patting him on the back for losing his mind. That'll make things all better.