Talk:Scott Ritter

Someone is clearly and consistently trying to remove any mentions of Scott Ritter and paedophilia, {{Template:RBLPV}}. I recommend all User:Hjahangiry changes are reversed. This appears to have happened a few times in the last month. This time, however, all mentions have been completely removed.

Special:Contributions/72.49.64.94 Special:Contributions/152.86.241.175 Silent424Break (talk) 03:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Cosigned. Article was vandalized by someone with a clear bias in favor of Ritter. --Anonymouseditor2k19 (talk) 03:49, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

:I'm unable to undo edits due to the page being semi-protected. My account is very new - doesn't meet the time requirement. Feel free (anyone) to edit or make the undo change at your volition.

:- Silent424Break (talk) 04:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Until the 9 August long standing first sentence of the lead has been

William Scott Ritter Jr. (born July 15, 1961) is an American author, former United States Marine Corps intelligence officer, former United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) weapons inspector and convicted child sex offender.

On that date an editor changed the sentence to read [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scott_Ritter&diff=next&oldid=1239344099]

William Scott Ritter Jr. (born July 15, 1961) is a convicted American child sex offender. Ritter is a former United States Marine Corps intelligence officer, former United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) weapons inspector, author, and commentator.

The editor claims "this intro was approved on the talkpage, and approved by several senior Wikipedia editors". I have not been able to locate the discussion in which this approval occurred. Any suggestions? If there was no consensus for the change, the long-standing content should remain in place. Burrobert (talk) 13:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

:: Please see discussion above, under sub-section title: "convicted child sex offender" should not be the last career accomplishment listed in his first line.Luganchanka (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

::: I don't think so. That was a couple of IP's having a chat. The only "senior editor" involved in the discussion was My very best wishes, who made their comment a week after you changed the first sentence. My very best wishes's comment wasn't that the first sentence should be changed. It was that "[convicted child sex offender] needs to be included to the lead". Burrobert (talk) 14:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

::: I'm afraid I don't share your view on this, either of the intro for Ritter, or the talk page discussion. However, that is the joy of wikipedia, decisions are reached by consensus, so it's for other editors to express their view here, on the subject.Luganchanka (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

:::: I have raised the issue at the BLP noticeboard. While we wait for other editors to provide feedback, I have placed a POV tag on the lead, for the above reasons. Burrobert (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

:Putting it in the first sentence is excessive. I suppose we could consider having it later in the lead section -- via consensus. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:41, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

:: Yes, afaict no one has argued against having it in the lead. As mentioned above, the long standing first sentence did mention it, along with the other main aspects of Ritter's life. Burrobert (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

::: So then you have a list of his career accomplishments, and .... is a convicted child sex offender at the end, giving that the least priority. As other editors have pointed out, Scott Ritter is mostly known for being a convicted child sex offender, therefore that is how his article should begin.Luganchanka (talk) 17:19, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

::::I disagree that he is mostly known for his crimes, even if they are an important part of his recent notability without his role as a UNSCOM weapons inspector, we wouldn't have an article for him.

::::The conviction should be in the lead, perhaps the first sentence, but not the first descriptor, let alone the sole one. Skynxnex (talk) 17:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

::::I agree with Skynxnex. Compare to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Fogle. Mabate23 (talk) 17:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

• Note that in the thread at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography/2024_archive#RfC:_"convicted_felon"_/_"convicted_sex_offender"_in_the_lead_sentence there seems to be widespread agreement that the phrase should not be used at all in the first sentence of people who aren't notable solely for their crimes. Even if that wasn't the case, the first version of the lede is much better because it is more informative to readers. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 18:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

::: As the guidance states, this is clearly 'case by case'. Whatever his former role as a UNSCOM weapons inspector, clearly Ritter is now mostly known for being a convicted child sex offender, and his article here should reflect that. I accept that there are nuances here, and it is generally an unpleasant topic, because of the unpleasant nature of what Ritter has done. However there is surely no way that a Wikipedia article on a convicted child sex offender can promote him for all his past 'accomplishments', before adding on, at the end, that he is a convicted child sex offender....Luganchanka (talk) 18:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

::::{{tq|...clearly Ritter is now mostly known for being a convicted child sex offender...}} Is this clear? It would take a lot more evidence than one editor's bare assertion to justify the total exclusion of Ritter's other roles from the first sentence. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 19:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

::::No, Luganchanka, that is false. Ritter is notable for being a UN weapons inspector and his contentious dissent during the lead-up to the Iraq War. Convictions for online chat room misbehavior with an adult undercover police officer that targeted him are not notable events that would themselves warrant a biography on Wikipedia. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I also agree with Burrobert, Nomoskedasticity, Skynxnex and Mabate23, that the descriptor of convicted sex offender should not be the first sentence. Yes, it should be in the lead somewhere, but not the primary description in the first sentence. In the section "Arrests and conviction for sex offenses", there are only 220 words in that section out of 3825 total words in the article. That section is only 5.75% of the article, while 94.25% of the article is about other stuff. If he was mostly known for being a convicted sex offender, then that would be reflected in the body of the article, and it's not. So it's undue to make that the primary description in the lead sentence. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:41, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the original version at the top of this post works best. Yeah, he has some amount of notability as a child sex offender and it should be included at the end of the first sentence, but not enough to merit it being the very first occupation. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 19:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

::: In this case I will take the consensus of the senior editors here. However, it should surely be a self-standing sentence and not tacked on like it's another one of his career accomplishments - so not .... 'and convicted child sex offender.' but 'Ritter is a convicted child sex offender'.Luganchanka (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

::::I applaud your choice of accepting the actual consensus, rather than sticking to what seemed more like a personal view on the topic. 177.8.84.105 (talk) 13:37, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|Scott Ritter|answered=yes}}

I am requesting to change the first sentence to the following. This is in response to the talk section [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scott_Ritter#First_sentence First sentence]. I believe that there is consensus in the talk section among multiple editors to improve the first sentence of the article.

William Scott Ritter Jr. (born July 15, 1961) is a former United States Marine Corps intelligence officer, former United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) weapons inspector, author, and commentator.{{cite news|title=Scott Ritter's Private War|url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1998/11/09/scott-ritters-private-war|work=The New Yorker|date=November 1, 1998|access-date=August 18, 2024}}{{cite news |last=Bai |first=Matt |author-link=Matt Bai|title=Scott Ritter's Other War |work=The New York Times Magazine |editor-last=Lovell |editor-first=Joel |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/magazine/scott-ritter.html?auth=login-smartlock |date=February 22, 2012 |access-date=June 21, 2019}} In separate sting operations in 2001 and 2009, Ritter was arrested and later convicted for sexual offenses involving minors.{{Cite news|title=Scott Ritter paroled in online sex case|url=http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Scott-Ritter-paroled-in-online-sex-case-5936227.php|work=Times Union|last=Karlin|first=Rick|date=December 4, 2014|access-date=8 August 2024}}{{cite news|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13057436|title=Ex-UN inspector Scott Ritter sex sting trial begins|publisher=BBC News|date=April 12, 2011|access-date=June 21, 2019}}{{cite news|title=Ex-UN inspector Scott Ritter guilty in sex chat case|url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-13089135|publisher=BBC News|date=15 April 2011|access-date=9 August 2024}} Mabate23 (talk) 00:05, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

:I have disabled the edit request for two reasons. First, the brief discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Scott Ritter should be given a day or two (see the "taken a stab" diff by {{u|Tamzin}}). Second, an edit request should be for an agreed edit. There should be someone here who can edit a semi-protected article. Johnuniq (talk) 06:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

:The current version of the introduction looks good to me. What do you mean by “an edit request should be for an agreed edit”? I just submitted this request because I wasn’t sure who was responsible for making the edit. Mabate23 (talk) 09:16, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

::The first step would be to make a proposal (as you did) and ask for opinions. If there is no opposition (or if consensus supports the proposal), an edit request could be made. However, the article is only semi-protected and there should be no need for an edit request as lots of people watching here would be able to do it. Johnuniq (talk) 02:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

This basically speaks for itself. If anybody has any issue with these edits—not calling Ritter “a child sex offender” in the lede and making a separate section with the sting operation. Please revert what you want to and state a reason here. Thanks.Lardlegwarmers (talk) 04:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

:Please see the above section entitled "First sentence" - there was consensus found to include this in the lead. I'm reverting partially because of this and partially because you added a section which duplicated content from later in the body. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 10:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

::But he is not a {{tq|convicted child sex offender}}, if you define that status (as the linked article does) as {{tq|a form of child abuse in which an adult or older adolescent uses a child for sexual stimulation.}} Major Ritter never used a child for sexual stimulation. It was an adult police officer pretending to be a child. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Since there has been no response to my comment last week, I'm starting a new topic at BLP Noticeboard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Scott_Ritter_Biography_-_Noncompliance_with_MOS_and_BLP_Guidelines The current phrasing and placement of the information is clearly inconsistent with this site's policies on balance and neutrality. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 19:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

::Was this dealt with appropriately per the BLP standards? Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography#MOS:CONVICTEDFELON. It is pretty deprecating to label a person as "a convicted child sex offender", especially when it's not relevant to the reasons for his notability. This should be changed to "Ritter was convicted of xyz criminal offenses for illegal communications with undercover police officers posing as minors." Lardlegwarmers (talk) 01:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

:::I agree with Lardlegwarmers that this lede is being manipulated by persons with a hidden agenda. The lede is in total violation of the rules regarding articles about living persons. The existing manipulative lede is more than that: it's insulting to the Wikipedia readers who are forced to wade through this nonsense in order to find some grains of truth.Henrilebec (talk) 06:57, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi, @Luganchanka, there was a BLPN topic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Scott_Ritter_Biography_-_Noncompliance_with_MOS_and_BLP_Guidelines about how to handle the legal issues in the lead and it seems clear that the label “convicted …” is against MOS and its placement near the top gives it undue weight. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

:Respectfully, BLP guidelines take precedence over article talk page consensus. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 23:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

There is some discussion here of what Ritter is "most known for". So I did a newspapers.com search for his name.

The majority of pages that reference him, some 9327 newspaper pages, are from 1998, prior to his first arrest (and as a sample, the first 10 results that the site puts up are all about that Scott Ritter and Iraq.) in 2001, there was 398. In 2002, there was a surge to 2000 pages, but checking the first 10 results there are 9 about his stance in Iraq; the tenth is another person by the same name. In the years 2009-2011, there's roughly 300 pages per year... doing a check of the top 10 results from that period, only 4 of the 10 are about that Scott Ritter, and they are all regarding the arrest. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 02:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

:I assume those articles are about how a famous former UN weapons inspector was arrested, right? If he had never had a notable career and just was some guy who got arrested, surely we would not be here talking about him. There are probably tens of thousands of people who get convicted of the same charges and nobody is interested in their bios. Being notable primarily for having gotten arrested would be for somebody like Albert Fish. Lardlegwarmers (talk) 04:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

::All four of those put some form of his prior notability (Iran war weapons inspector, UN weapons inspector, war critic) in the headline; only one also put his name in the headline. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

An editor has [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scott_Ritter&diff=prev&oldid=1269040051 tried to reinsert] a claim about what Ritter believed about the individual he was charged with. This claim is not supported by the sources being used, and is a matter subject to our restrictions on biographies of living persons. Please note that "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy" is an exception to our limits on reverting. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

• 'for his online behavior toward someone he thought was a 15-year-old girl but who was in fact a police officer'.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/beltway-confidential/2211287/to-catch-a-former-un-weapons-inspector-ritter-charged-in-internet-kiddie-sex-sting/

Luganchanka (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

:Opinion column (check the URL), so not usable. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

: "A former chief U.N. weapons inspector is accused of contacting a cop he thought was a 15-year-old girl in an Internet chat room, engaging in a sexual conversation and showing himself masturbating on a Web camera."

https://eu.recordonline.com/story/news/2010/01/14/ex-un-weapons-inspector-caught/51740271007/

Luganchanka (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

:Note the "Accused of" in that. That's not a statement that he did it, it's a statement that someone said he did it. We don't treat accusations as facts. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

:: While I am assuming WP: assume good faith, this still looks like WP: edit warring, so it is for other editors to take this forward. I've rolled the article back to the last version as approved by multiple senior wikipedia editors.Luganchanka (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

:::You may wish to look at the discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Scott_Ritter_Biography_-_Noncompliance_with_MOS_and_BLP_Guidelines, previously pointed to above. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

: This is in arbitration now, so let's go from there.Luganchanka (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1740067319}}

{{disdis|Manuductive|spi=Lardlegwarmers}}

How should Ritter's sexual offences be described in the lead section?

• 1. {{tq|he is a convicted child sex offender}} (or variants)
• 2. {{tq|In 2011, Ritter was convicted of several criminal offenses after engaging in sexually explicit online activity with a police officer posing as a 15 year-old girl}} (or some variation thereof).

Where in the lead should this sentence be placed?

• A. In the first few sentences of the lead
• B. At the end of the lead
• C. Omitted from the lead entirely

Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• 2B I think this is mos reasonable position. It's prominent enough that it's not worthy of being excluded from the lead entirely, but at the same time it's not worth mentioning in the very first opening sentences. Providing clarity that Ritter's offenses were not with an actual child was the consensus of a major viewpoint expressed the BLPN discussion and I think is the most reasonable position. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

::That was not the consenus of the BLPN discussion, that discussion remains lacking in consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• 2B Provides the necessary context and does not give it undue prominence. Burrobert (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• 2B, per my comments at WP:BLPN#Scott Ritter Biography - Noncompliance with MOS and BLP Guidelines. It gives key context and level/severity of offense (2 rather than 1) and due weight vs the more "notability-related" aspects of the subject (2 rather than 1 and B rather than A). Strong oppose C given this aspect is given a whole top-level section of the article and WP:LEDE is designed to summarize the main content of the whole article rather than just focus on notability. DMacks (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• 2B is better but it still looks like someone trying to excuse Ritter's actions/play them down. If we're intending to give key context then we have to mention 2001. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• {{sbb}} 2B per both previous responses in this RfC, and the seemingly numerous discussions around this topic already both here and on other noticeboards. 2 is the most reasonable option per MOS:CONVICTEDFELON, and the location, B, is best because it is not a primary claim to his notability, and as such shouldn't be mentioned at the very start of the lede. Though I will note, the way it currently appears in the article should be changed to where there is no paragraph break between the sentence to be inserted and the rest of the lede.
  Additionally I don't think there should be anything else discussed in the lede besides the sentence inserted; additional context can be discussed in the body of the article, as the lede is meant to summarize the article, and not purely provide content not found in the body. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 20:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• 2B as it would comply with MOS:CRIMINAL as well as what appears to be the consensus forming on BLPN. I agree with the reasoning in SmittenGalaxy's vote above. – notwally (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• :I support the shorter version of #2 suggested by JFHJr below [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scott_Ritter&diff=prev&oldid=1270099256]. – notwally (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::Thank you for considering it. If there's a more succinct way to present body contents in the lede, I'm open to endorsing a better proffer. Body contents are wide open within WP:DUE. But for any lede, less is better. JFHJr (㊟) 22:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• 2B - It was originally suggested by the BLPN thread OP. I made it as short and accurate as possible. It doesn't belong in the first paragraph of the lede. JFHJr (㊟) 03:48, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• 2B as per Wikipedia:CONVICTEDFELON and Wikipedia:CRIMINAL. I agree with Galaxy's arguments. It isn't the root of his notability, and the lead is only meant to be summarized. All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 16:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• :And yes, I was summoned by Yapperbot All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 16:29, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• 2B {{sbb}} per arguments of SmittenGalaxy, Galaxy All Tomorrows and others {{TQ|it is not a primary claim to his notability, and as such shouldn't be mentioned at the very start of the lede}}. Except in the most extreme instances, we don't write articles about people who are offenders (sex offenders or other kinds), we write articles about notable individuals who (sometimes) commit offences. Pincrete (talk) 14:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• :did you mean to say my name twice {{ping|Pincrete|p=}} SmittenGalaxy | talk! 18:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::No. Careless copy-pastingPincrete (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• 2B sounds good to me, as does DMacks' suggestion in the discussion section. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 14:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• 2B, assuming the legal issues have equal importance to the subject's life as the other elements in the lead. If not, then C. Manuductive (talk) 10:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• 2B per most of the above. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
• 1B. 2B is not bad, but it was not just a single incident in 2011, as the text implies. There were multiple incidents over a period of 10 years. My very best wishes (talk) 01:13, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
• :{{u|My very best wishes}}, do you know if there were any other convictions or only the one conviction? – notwally (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Apparently, he was convicted only one time, although on several counts. In 2001, he only received a warning [https://web.archive.org/web/20120113031324/https://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article/?AID=/20110414/NEWS/110419856/-1/NEWSMAP]. I mostly read about him in [https://www.kyivpost.com/post/26936 such context]. My very best wishes (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

::::I think Kyiv Post is not reliable for Ritter’s US legal issues given that he is apparently supporting the Kremlin Manuductive (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::Yes, sure, and he was also investigated by the FBI [https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/21/technology/us-fbi-russia-election-disinformation.html]: This month, F.B.I. agents searched the homes of two prominent figures with connections to Russian state media: Scott Ritter, a former United Nations weapons inspector and critic of American foreign policy, and Dimitri K. Simes, an adviser to former President Donald J. Trump’s first presidential campaign in 2016.". But the FBI ride apparently did not result in anything. My very best wishes (talk) 02:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

• 2B because it doesn't make sense to include it twice and it can be fleshed out better in the second paragraph. It should remain in the short description though. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
• :In no way does it belong in the short description, for the same reasons it isn't in the first sentence. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:34, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::The main reason for not including it in the first sentence is that we can't give enough context without blowing due weight out... There is no expectation of context or explanation in the short description. "American weapons inspector and writer (born 1961)" is inferior to "American weapons inspector, writer, and convicted sex offender" because that removes the ambiguity without including the year which is preferable. The subject is notable for threee things which means that there should be three things in the short. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::There is expectation of weight, as per WP:Short description, BLP concerns still apply. The main goal is to disambiguate. Subject's notability is built around his work, his criminality was only covered in that context and would not have received much attention without it, and it is unneeded to include it to separate him from some other Scott Ritter of a similar job. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::What legitimate BLP concerns still apply? If the point is that it is unneeded to "separate him from some other Scott Ritter of a similar job" then why do we have DOB in it? I'm getting most of what you're saying, but besides for the unexplained BLP concern all of that applies to more than what you removed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::I agree with Nat Gertler that the criminal conviction is not why the article subject is notable. – notwally (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Noting for closer that Horse Eye's Back already voted for 2B above to avoid having their opinion counted twice (although at this point the discussion is pretty much WP:SNOW). – notwally (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::No I didn't, I offered comment above but there is no vote in there. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::That's not how it looks to me, and I doubt it would look that way to any closer, who could easily not even notice that the same person was voting twice. In any case, I am not interested in your asinine wikilawyering. You should have simply left your vote under your prior comment or struck the prior comment. Creating more difficulties for closers is not helpful to the project. – notwally (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::There no bold and no vote at all, I say that one of the three options is better than the others but that I still have reservations about it... Thats not a vote and it shouldn't create any difficulties for the closer, its a short enough discussion. It should be obvious that I have now made a vote having had my reservations assuaged. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:17, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::This is a request for comment. You can wikilawyer all you want about the word "vote". You left a comment expressing your opinion and favoring 2B. Then you went and left another comment doing the same thing. So you left two comments supporting the same position. That is not appropriate, and no amount of wikilawyering is going to change that. Try taking some accountability and actually fixing the issues you create. – notwally (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::Favoring and supporting aren't the same thing in this context. I am sorry that my edit confused you, but I highly doubt it would have confused a closer into making the wrong close on this RfC. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::"Favoring and supporting aren't the same thing" is nonsense wikilawyering. Try actually taking accountability and actually fixing the issues you create. – notwally (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::::They aren't, that isn't wikilawyering... For example My very best wishes favors both 1B and 2B but only formally supported 2B. The general way that you indicate formal support to a closer is through bold text and/or unambigous statements... That first comment has neither. I have apologized for confusing you, what more would you like? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:01, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Please discuss here rather than in the responses section. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

:Pinging previous discussion participants {{Ping|Burrobert}}, {{Ping|Nomoskedasticity}} {{Ping|Skynxnex}}, {{Ping|Mabate23}}, {{Ping|Hatman31}} {{Ping|Lardlegwarmers}}, {{Ping|Ser!}}, {{Ping|Luganchanka}}, {{Ping|notwally}}, {{Ping|Horse Eye's Back}}, {{Ping|NatGertler}}, {{Ping|JFHJr}}, {{Ping|Springee}}, {{Ping|DMacks}}. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

:: Apologies for pinging Burrobert after they had already voted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• I feel there is a real issue with stating that Ritter was 'engaging in sexually explicit online activity with a police officer posing as a 15-year-old girl', as this makes it sound like some sort of role play, and effectively downplays what Ritter was convicted of. In 2001 Ritter was charged in New York with trying to set up a meeting with an undercover police officer posing as a 16-year-old girl. In 2011 he was then convicted of engaging in sexual activity with what he thought was a 15-year-old girl online, Ritter masturbated and ejaculated on camera, all the time believing he was chatting with a 15-year-old. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-13089135 Luganchanka (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• :Inserting unsourced claims about what he "believed", despite the sources not only not saying that but specifically citing the subject as saying it was not the case, is such a severe WP:BLP matter that it should be removed from this discussion, even beyond it being kept from the article. If you would like a site to document your assumptions, having your own blog is sitll a viable practice (although not as popular as it once was.) Indeed, the very source you link to here says something very akin to the statement you're arguing against ("had a sexually graphic online chat in 2009 with an undercover police officer posing as a 15-year-old girl named Emily.") and specifically sites the denial ("Ritter's lawyer said his client did not think he was speaking with a minor.") -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• :I think readers will reasonably understand that "posing" in a context like this does not refer to roleplay but instead where one party was playing a part in an attempt to trick the other party. Would you say the wording Pranknet or Undercover (2019 TV series) or Prostitution in the Maldives or Konon Molody or Eddie Sayers or probably the majority of our 7000+ article which use the phrase "posing as" are problems as well since readers might get confused and think this refers to some sort of role-play? Nil Einne (talk) 04:51, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• Whatever Ritter's lawyer said, and I remind you Nat Gertler that you yourself previously spoke out against including statements of opinion, rather than facts, Scott Ritter was convicted of a sexual offence against a minor. He wasn't convicted of having sex chat with a police officer, he was convicted of having a sexually explicit chat with a minor. And it wasn't his first conviction, because Scott Ritter has a track record of sexual offences against minors. We need to stick to facts here, and call things as they are, and Scott Ritter is what he is. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna45049386

As for your opinions on the merits of blog / blogging etc, that is really neither here nor there, we are here on Wikipedia, and we must stick to the principles of Wikipedia, which is sticking to verified, substantiated facts. It is a fact that Scott Ritter is a multiple sex offender, with all the offences relating to children.

Luganchanka (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• May I draw attention to the definitive account of Ritter's online behavior, and conviction - https://casetext.com/case/ritter-v-tuttle

{{tq|"Unfazed by "Emily's" age, Ritter asked "Emily," "you want to see it finish?" Ritter then turned on the webcam and ejaculated in front of the camera for "Emily." Detective Venneman then notified Ritter of his undercover status and the undercover operation and directed Ritter to call the police station."}}

Luganchanka (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

:* {{tq|The public internet search yielded news articles reporting that, in April 2011, Ritter communicated online in a chat room with an undercover police officer posing as a 14-year-old female and arranged to meet the "girl" at a local business in Albany. Ritter arrived at the designated location and was questioned by the authorities; however, he was released without any charges being filed. Two months later, Ritter was again caught in the same kind of sex sting after he tried to lure what he thought was a 16-year-old female to a fast food restaurant. Ritter was subsequently charged, but the Albany District Attorney placed the case on hold.}}

https://casetext.com/case/ritter-v-tuttle

Luganchanka (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

:That magistrate's opinion is a court document, which is problematic to use in this article under WP:BLPPRIMARY. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

:: If that is indeed the case, and it is far from convincing that it is, then it is our job as good Wikipedia editors to find secondary sources which reference Ritter's sexual offences, and not whitewash them.Luganchanka (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

:::We have sufficient secondary sources. If they don't say the thing that you want to say, then we go with what the sources say anyway, within the limits of our policies and guidelines. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes editors trying to WP:RGW by trying to include details of crimes that they feel secondary sources have for whatever reason decided not worth covering is IMO a key reason for the BLPPRIMARY requirement. Nil Einne (talk) 04:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

:: It is important to note, and for Wikipedia to note, that Ritter has a string of sexual offence convictions involving children, and going back to 2001 -

::{{tq|This is not the first time Ritter has been in such trouble. According to reports, Ritter was charged in a June 2001 Internet sex sting in New York, but that case was dismissed.

He had been charged with attempted child endangerment after using an online chat room to meet another cop he thought was a 16-year-old girl at a Burger King restaurant.}}

::Luganchanka (talk) 06:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

:::We cover that in the article. Not everything gets in the intro. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Exactly what NatGertler said. This is not a request for comment on body content, just lede content. Step back and ask yourself whether this career-ending scandal belongs in front of the lede. If you said yes, you fall afoul of overwhelming consensus by editors acquainted with the intricacies of WP:BLP and WP:MOS. Luganchanka's apparently not-so-deep familiarity with policies or even the topical scope of discussion make it difficult to have a productive RfC. If someone is interested in inserting primary sources at this stage of engagement, there's a WP:CIR problem. I hope it's soon resolved individually, and this is best shown by dropping the stick. Just stopping. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 22:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Theres nothing wrong with having a different opinion, disagreeing with a consensus isn't the same thing as falling afoul of it. There also is not yet a consensus here so you're going off half cocked. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::Seems to be a pretty clear consensus forming if it is not there already. – notwally (talk) 22:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::That seems to miss the point entirely. Consensus or not saying yes doesn't fall afoul of consensus. That would be some sort of weird thought crime standard, you are more than welcome to challenge or disagree with consensus, that isn't the same thing as editing against consensus. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::And that seems to miss the point that multiple other editors have repeatedly disagreed with Luganchanka in multiple discussions, and at a certain point, they need to WP:DROPTHESTICK. – notwally (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I did not challenge that point, I support it... There was a discussion of Luganchanka's conduct a little while ago which ended before I could suggest expanding the topic ban under discussion to American politics broadly construed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::Thanks for your feedback. I appreciate that you see NO consensus until it's perhaps closed. But I don't ignore how the discussion is faring. Maybe you can notify me once I'm fully-cocked. I don't intend to invest much more time in this RfC. JFHJr (㊟) 23:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Conviction ≠ arrest ≠ dismissed charge. 2601:340:8200:800:C4E4:AD79:95E2:252B (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• How about "In 2011, Ritter was convicted of criminal offenses after for engaging in sexually explicit online communications with a police officer posing as a minor." JFHJr (㊟) 22:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• :I would suggest "arising from his engaging" rather than "after engaging"; this is causation, not merely correlation. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::How about just "for engaging" instead? Less buried verbs. Short, succinct. And it unambiguously states causation. JFHJr (㊟) 23:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• :::Shorter: "In 2011, Ritter was convicted of criminal offenses for having sexually explicit online communications with a police officer posing as a minor."? JFHJr (㊟) 00:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::::@Hemiauchenia, @NatGertler, @Notwally, @SmittenGalaxy, @All Tomorrows No Yesterdays, @DMacks, @Burrobert, @Nil Einne, @Horse Eye's Back: What do you think of the text immediately above, to appear at or near the end of the last paragraph of the lede? My idea is to make it short and accurate and reflect the body prose, without excessive verbiage. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 17:57, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Seems reasonable (but I have not been and do not plan to follow this level of editorial work closely). For this option, it would be clearer "In 2011, Ritter was convicted of criminal offenses for having sexually explicit online communications with a police officer who was posing as a minor." (otherwise ambiguous whether it was officer or Ritter was doing the posing). DMacks (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::::::Tha's fine be me. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• :::::::I think the prior suggestion "after engaging in" was preferable and probably technically more correct. I don't think anyone is going to be confused and think the prior wording does not imply causation. But I also don't really care either way and support using whichever everyone else prefers. I think the "who was" addition is helpful. – notwally (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Sounds fine, as long as whatever is chosen to insert is close enough to the consensus on the original sentence. I'm not excessively picky about the details on what exactly it says. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 21:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::: The wording from the RfC or something close to it is fine with me. Burrobert (talk) 06:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Maunuductive attempted to make some sort of pointy close which I have reverted[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scott_Ritter&diff=prev&oldid=1284273421]. The reverted close text reads: "There is no need to continue this discussion as no new, valid arguments have been made in quite some time. The consensus is for 2B. The consensus language entails that the criminal issues in this person's bio are not notable in and of themselves and per Wikipedia:BLPCRIMINAL no labels (e.g., "offender"), templates, categories, infobox data, etc. should be inserted suggesting otherwise." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

{{disdis|Manuductive|spi=Lardlegwarmers}}

Suggest removal of legal information from the infobox, as it gives undue emphasis to sensitive details without context. This approach is consistent with other biographical infoboxes, like those of Mike Tyson, Wesley Snipes, and Paris Hilton, which mention convictions in the body of the article instead. Manuductive (talk) 11:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

:The people above are notable mostly for other things, not as sex offenders. But Scott Ritter is mostly known for two things: (a) as a former WMD inspector who became a Putin's apologist and promoted misinformation, and (b) indeed a convicted sex offender. Therefore, no, this should stay in the infobox. My very best wishes (talk) 01:20, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

::Being notable for a crime occurs when the crime itself has some kind of historical importance, like in the case of John Wilkes Booth or Al Capone. Ritter's legal issues, on the other hand, are statistically not very unusual (there are more than 10,000 sexual crime convictions per year in the U.S.) and therefore not notable at all, except as they pertain to an already otherwise notable person. Ritter's notability comes from his bold and controversial dissent 23 years ago challenging Dick Cheney's lies about Saddam having WMD at a time when most Americans were supportive of a very dumb and catastrophic war. Also, WP:BLP recommends we do not label people as "sex offenders", but that we describe the legal issues neutrally so as to be respectful, sensitive to the living person, and give the reader context. Apparently we have a nearly unanimous consensus here in support of the policy, so please respect that in your talk page comments as well. Manuductive (talk) 10:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes, the conviction had no historical significance. It only had huge significance for the subject of this page and his biography. No, we do not have a consensus to remove it from the infobox. The RfC was about the exact phrasing in the lead, which is something different. My very best wishes (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes, I was referring to the consensus that we aren’t going to violate BLP regarding “labeling a living person as a convicted etc.” but rather describe the legal issues themselves.

::::And that’s right, the legal issues warrant inclusion in the article, but not the sidebar because they are not the reason for his notability. The convictions are only notable because he was an already notable person when he was convicted, just like Mike Tyson’s et al. Manuductive (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::Same would be the case even for Jeffrey Epstein: he was notable before being accused and convicted. My very best wishes (talk) 03:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::That is a different case. There appears to have been a lot of discussion about it on the talk page, as you can see in the archive, and seems to be a case of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that doesn't override our policies on BLPs or MOS guidelines. Arguments like this are simply just a case of WP:OTHERCONTENT that don't justify inclusion. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 15:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

::::::No, Epstein is mostly notable for his legal issues/conduct. Epstein was only marginally notable for being a financier. But then when his conduct came out, that is when he really became famous. Which stands to reason, since his criminal conduct was almost unprecedented. Manuductive (talk) 15:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::::With all due respect, you are making this too complex. This is very simple. We have a parameter in the infobox named "criminal_penalty". If a person had such penalty and it was widely reported, then we simply place such info. End of story. I am doing some database work right now. You have a parameter/field. You have the content. Just fill it in. My very best wishes (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::No, that's not the standard. Template:infobox person says "Only use those parameters that convey essential or notable information about the subject" -- nothing about "widely reported". -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::No, we exclude criminal issues from the infobox unless they're central to the person's notability, which is not the case for Ritter. It's really insensitive to the living person and doesn't follow the principle of due weight if we amplify information that reflects poorly on them when it's not significant for understanding why the person is somebody that people care about. I already cited similar examples (like Mike Tyson--we care about him for his boxing career, not for his crimes). You tested the limits of this principle by offering the example of Jeffrey Epstein, which I then refuted. Epstein's crimes were so massive that they actually do constitute the reason for his notability. Your claim that you are "just doing some database work" by reverting this edit is without merit, but this comment seems to imply that you accept our consensus on this talk page that Ritter's legal issues are not the basis for his notability. Your edit summary says you reverted per BRD, but this is not how BRD works. You ignored my point for over 24 hours--you don't get to then reappear and revert me without providing a legitimate reason. It is well established that Ritter is notable for his professional activities and not his legal issues. Please address the discussion in good faith or revert your edit. Manuductive (talk) 03:13, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Yes, the instruction does say: "Only use those parameters that convey essential or notable information about the subject". And this is exactly such info: he is widely known as a sexual offender [https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna45049386], along with other things, and this was widely published. This page currently belongs to categories "American prisoners and detainees" and "American people convicted of child sexual abuse". Same should be in the infobox. My very best wishes (talk) 05:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::The statement you quoted is explicitly designed to exclude information like this from the infobox. His legal issues were reported on, but only because he was already notable. The article you cited clearly describes the basis for his notability, which is that he is "A former United Nations weapons inspector". His legal issues are mentioned only because they pertain to an already notable person. This is exactly the case for Mike Tyson, Wesley Snipes, and Paris Hilton, who are notable for various reasons other than their legal issues, and we do not give undue weight or emphasis to the details of their legal issues by including them in the infobox. Their legal issues were reported in the media, perhaps even extensively, precisely because the persons were already notable for other reasons, not vice versa. Consider whether these legal issues would have been reported on at all if the person were not already notable. We do not include this information in the infobox because it would appear to be intended to besmirch his character by drawing undue attention to derogatory information, not to provide essential context about the person's notability, which is prohibited per BLP guidelines. Contrast that with people who are actually famous for their legal issues, e.g., Al Capone, Jeffrey Epstein, Pablo Escobar, John Wilkes Booth. Then, putting legal info in the infobox is clearly allowed, because it gives the essential and notable information about why the person is considered important enough to warrant having their own bio. Also, for the second time, do not use that label ({{red|he is widely known as a ****** ********}}), per BLP (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Crime_labels#Additional_policy_concerns). We have a clear consensus against using that label, per BLP guidelines. I urge you to strike that part of your comment. Manuductive (talk) 16:37, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::These example are not so much relevant. He is not even remotely as notable as Mike Tyson, Wesley Snipes, and Paris Hilton. He is barely passing (although clearly passing) our notability guidelines. And that is one of three things he is known for: an inspector, an offender and a propagandist. But whatever. I already stated my opinion and explained it. My very best wishes (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::"Per BLP" there is nothing wrong with saying that Scott Ritter is a sexual offender, sex criminal, etc. You're misunderstanding something crucial about WP:BLP. Those are neutral expressions, its not like anyone is calling him a "pervert" or "internet kiddie diddler" or "pedophile" even though you could support that from RS they're value laden. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:32, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::So now your argument is that the labels you are trying to apply to the subject are OK because they do not have a negative connotation. Are you friggin serious? Get out of here with that nonsense. You clearly haven't read any of the policies. Manuductive (talk) 15:53, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::I never said that they lacked a negative connotation, just that they are not value laden in the same way as those other terms. If you think you can suggest a version of "sex offender" which has a positive connotation go ahead and try. IMO thats a neutral description, its an accurate description and is as least value laden as possible. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:08, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::That is a ridiculous argument. Also, it is not relevant. Please don't write anything else about this. Your comments have no value whatsoever to this conversation. Did you not read WP:BLPCRIMINAL or do you just not have the competence to understand it? I think it may very well be the latter based on your utterly absurd assertion that the label you propose is "not value laden". Manuductive (talk) 16:17, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::Nothing is entirely unladen. The burden is on you to provide an equivalent expression which is less value laden if you believe that one exists. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::Wow, you are just pulling shit out of your ass. Anyways, the way we handle this is by not applying any label (as said many times before). We describe the offense and we say that the person was convicted of whatever offense. Then we let the reader decide what they want to make of it, instead of trying to brand a living person as being a particular thing. Manuductive (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::These were criminal offenses of a sexual nature. I would note that "offense/offender" and "convicted/convict" come with a lot of values attached if you're avoiding that sort of thing in the absolute. I don't think its possible to describe child sex crimes in a way which doesn't include some sort of value judgement just given all thats wrapped up in that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::When I say describe the offenses, I mean we describe the actual conduct that the person performed. For example, "Timothy McVeigh loaded a truck full of fertilizer and parked it in the parking garage underneath the OC federal building." We get as specific as possible. Manuductive (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::That is not a quote from the lead of Timothy McVeigh and is more specific than anything in that lead. Not thats its relevent as McVeigh is dead and so isn't covered by BLP. The idea that we get as specific as possible in the lead just doesn't hold up, the lead is for summary not specifics. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::As User:Manuductive already stated, this proves the opposite of what you're saying. {{tq|Essential or notable}} doesn't just mean "stuff that was reported on someone" or "anything already in the article". It's not independently notable and it's clearly not the main reason he has an article, therefore it shouldn't go in the infobox. I also take issue with your re-addition of the information into the infobox, saying "we do not have consensus" and that it should be made into an RfC.

::::::::::Why? I don't see this no consensus or consensus against in the discussion. If anything, I see there is consensus to remove it, and one person arguing it should stay in, using policies and arguments that support removal. To me this just seems like a WP:1AM, and prolonging this discussion and even trying to say we need an RfC to remove it, when there's already clear consensus one way, only serves to keep the content that shouldn't be in the infobox even longer for no good reason. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 17:01, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Well, I only suggest to follow the instruction in the infobox. It says "Only use those parameters that convey essential or notable information about the subject". Is it an "essential" information about the person or rather for his biography? I believe that the answer is obviously "yes": that was widely reported, hugely affected his career, and he spent several years in a prison. Is not it something "essential"? My very best wishes (talk) 20:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::(See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates) The restrictions for these infoboxes are related to information "that is relevant to the person's notability". We cannot put derogatory information in the infobox unless that information is the reason for him being notable. I have repeated this several times and it is almost getting to the point of WP:DTS.

::::::::::::As we have said before, Ritter's legal issues are not the reason for him being a notable person. He is notable because of his professional activities. Just like the legal issues of the other persons I named, they are not to be included in the infobox because they are not the reason for them being notable even though they may have been extensively reported on in the media. The media reported on these legal issues because Ritter was already notable. If he had not been notable, the issues probably would not have been reported on at all.

::::::::::::Contrast that with persons whose legal issues are related to their notability (e.g., John Wilkes Booth). It is the total opposite. If the person had not had the legal issues, then they would not have been notable.

::::::::::::The reason we do not give such elevated prominence to a person's legal issues unless they are essential for understanding why the person is notable is because it would look like we are trying to make the person look bad, which makes Wikipedia look bad because it turns us into a hack-job tabloid.

::::::::::::We must be careful to adhere to a neutral point of view, not overemphasizing details, especially derogatory details that would themselves be non-notable, that do not bear directly on a balanced, unbiased understanding of the subject and his public role. If a person's public role is their criminal conduct (e.g., Timothy McVeigh, Ted Kazynski), then that is when we do put that in the infobox. It's essential for understanding why we even care about the person at all.

::::::::::::Wikipedia is not the place to carry out our politically-motivated animosity towards a particular individual. "...an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest. More generally, editors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of a biographical article should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally, if they choose to edit it at all."WP:BLPCOI

::::::::::::Then that is where we differ. I don't think it's essential information because it is not the primary cause of his notability. That is in part what the RfC that started this was about — is it notable enough to include in the lede? Yes, but is it the primary reason he's notable? No, so we don't include it in the first sentence per MOS:LEDESENTENCE. I feel like that's enough context and information to infer that we shouldn't therefore put it in the infobox.

::::::::::::I went ahead and removed the information from it again. If you have any issue with that, you're welcome to open an RfC yourself to include it once this one has concluded — since there's a pretty close overlap in topics, it would be best to wait until this one has closed per {{tq|#Multiple simultaneous RfCs on one page}} on WP:RFC. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 00:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Thank you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Editing_of_Biographies_of_Living_Persons#Principles clearly supports your decision:

:::::::::::::"Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." This means, among other things, that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached" Manuductive (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Well, we have 2:1 "consensus" here, and it is not based on the strength of the argument, just on the "head count". Now, you say this page can negatively affect his life. No, it can not. This was published everywhere. We only summarize what RS say on the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 03:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::The fact that something "was published everywhere" over a decade back does not make it an appropriate default, and can do damage by giving it more focus that it's due. The criminal is not the primary driver of his notability; while it deserves coverage in the article, it does not rise to the level of infobox inclusion. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:31, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::As about WP:BRD, this content was in the infobox already 2 years ago [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scott_Ritter&oldid=1144561961]. This is not a new material. There was previously a de facto consensus to keep. You need WP:Consensus to remove. My very best wishes (talk) 03:43, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Consensus isn't achieved through voting or headcounts, it's based on arguments rooted in policy. And the policy cited doesn't support your point of view. Additionally, "no consensus because it's been here for a long time" ≠ consensus to include. You link WP:CONSENSUS as an argument against removal, but had you read that, you'd see {{tq|An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted. Should another editor revise that edit, the new edit will have presumed consensus until it meets with disagreement.}} It was disputed — through removal — so there is consensus against its inclusion in the infobox. Doubly so because of this very discussion on the talk page. Additionally, there is WP:Silence and consensus that further explains this. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 03:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::I still do not see any clearly documented WP:Consensus to remove the long-standing info from the infobox and the categories, but I leave this to others to decide. My very best wishes (talk) 20:28, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::Then please read WP:CONTENTAGE. {{tq|While WP:Consensus policy reminds us that any undiscussed edit that is not disputed by later can be assumed to have consensus, a good-faith challenge by an editor nullifies that default assumption}}. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 21:23, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

• It doesn't make sense to remove these things from the infobox and the categories when they're given an entire paragraph in the lead; clearly the outcome of the RFC above implies that it's going to get coverage elsewhere in the article suitable for something given that degree of weight in the lead. We could hold a second RFC if you somehow disagree but it seems like it would be pointlessly duplicative - something that has a whole paragraph in the lead clearly passes the WP:BLP thresholds to be mentioned as categories and in the infobox, which would generally represent a lower threshold than an entire paragraph in a three-paragraph lead. --Aquillion (talk) 10:44, 5 April 2025 (UTC)
• :I don't think I agree. WP:BLPCAT says, "Category:Criminals and its subcategories should be added only for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability". While the conviction is a noteworthy thing about Ritter, it is not why he is notable. – notwally (talk) 10:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Again, this seems like it's just rehashing the central point of the RFC above. If an entire paragraph of someone's lead is devoted to something, then it's obviously central to their notability. --Aquillion (talk) 11:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

::::"An entire paragraph", per RFC, is a single sentence. And BLP intros are full of things that are not key to a person's notability, but which are significant enough in their life that there is article content that should be summed up. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:57, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::No it isn't... Per RfC it is "In 2011, Ritter was convicted of several criminal offenses after engaging in sexually explicit online activity with a police officer posing as a 15 year-old girl (or some variation thereof)." there is nothing in the RfC that weds us to that specific language. Doesn't really matter how long it is though, anything which is due for the lead is due for categories. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:13, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::The presence in the intro is not "proof" that a sentence is part of the subject's notability. Manuductive (talk) 03:17, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Who are you quoting? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:20, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::{{tq2|If an entire paragraph of someone's lead is devoted to something, then it's obviously central to their notability. --Aquillion (talk) 11:43, 5 April 2025 (UTC)}} This is false. Manuductive (talk) 03:21, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::No, I'm asking who the "proof" quote is from. Who are you refuting. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:23, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Oh, you got me! What a clever argument! I don't have time to give you a basic education on logic.
Also, {{tq|anything which is due for the lead is due for categories}}. This is absolutely false. Stop inventing policies. You are causing a big waste of timme. I would say go and read the policy about BLP templates before you comment again, but this has already been suggested to you and you still seem to not comprehend or care. Manuductive (talk) 03:28, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I apparently misunderstood what you meant, but that doesn't give you license to attack me. I must have missed "policy about BLP templates" but I will always do the reading, can you relink? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:22, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::WP:BLPCRIMINAL. Please stop writing on this topic. You are wasting so much time and your position is totally incorrect. Manuductive (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::I think you're confusing categories and templates, I don't believe that any templates have been challenged. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Bro, you clearly haven't read the policy. Please just stop. WP:BLPCAT Manuductive (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::WP:BLPCAT and WP:BLPCRIMINAL are the same link, what navigation template is at issue here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:31, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::Yes, the same link. Read it. If you understand it or not, doesn't matter. Just click the X in the upper-right hand corner of your browser and go do something else with your life. Manuductive (talk) 16:34, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::I've read it again, I know that it applies to navigation templates... But the only navigation template on the page is Iran–United States relations and I don't see any other having been removed recently. It's also upper left on my browser, always important to remember that not everyone share's your perspective. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::Are you blind? {{tq2|These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and {{Infobox}} statements (referring to living persons within any Wikipedia page) that are based on religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation or suggest that any living person has a poor reputation.}} Manuductive (talk) 16:45, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::I'm not blind I'm just a little lost here, I think we're talking past each other somehow. What navigation template's inclusion are you challenging if not Iran–United States relations? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::::Categories and infobox related to criminality. This is the same as not putting labels. Do you understand what a label is? We don't call somebody a "bank robber" if they just robbed a bank once. They have to have that as their occupation. The criminal conduct in the case of our subject was not notable for BLP purposes. Manuductive (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::::Ok so you are confusing categories and navigation templates... This has nothing to do with navigation templates... and we've just wasted a bunch of time. Ritter didn't do it just once... Its not notable but it does contribute to the subject's notability... Anything which receives significant coverage in independent reliable sources is relevant and contributes to the subject's notability. We also don't practice first past the post, we consider the subject's current notability not the subject's notability at any point in the past. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:24, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Here are some examples of notable crimes:

• Enron Scandal
• Assassination of John F. Kennedy
• Watergate
• Bernie Madoff's Ponzi Scheme
• Jack The Ripper
• The Manson Family
• Bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building

Notice the difference? Notable crimes are when somebody runs a 747 into a skyscraper or operates a decades-long human trafficking ring that catered to billionaires.

Let's put this to rest once and for all. Weight in the bio justifying including a sentence in the lead of an article is different from the basis for the subject's notability that justifies having an encyclopedia article about the person in the first place. The standard for noteworthy crime is that the crime is itself noteworthy. That is NOT the case here. Weight is saying that a person is a certain nationality--it's important for understanding the topic, but doesn't itself constitute our reader's reason for being interested in the subject in the first place. Imagine a Wikipedia bio for every person who got caught up in a chat room sting. There would be tens of thousands of randos with a bio. I personally am against having it in the lead at all. But some editors apparently think it has enough weight in the body to warrant inclusion in the lead. This is not an argument for notability. Somebody might have gone to jail and it bears some weight for understanding that person's life. But we aren't writing an article about everybody who's been to jail. Also, there is a high standard for labeling somebody as a criminal or amplifying their criminal issues in the infobox. Find me one person who is notable for politics or media who was convicted of a non-notable crime who we put the criminal information in the infobox or template, or label them as a criminal. It's against BLP. Manuductive (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2025 (UTC) ^{Blocked sock.🦅White-tailed eagleTalk to the eagleStalking eagle 04:18, 7 April 2025 (UTC)}

:The standard in this context isn't WP:NOTABILITY its WP:DUEWEIGHT. I would suggest that you drop the stick. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:11, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::FOR THE LAST TIME:
WE DO NOT APPLY LABELS OF CRIMINALITY TO BLP UNLESS THE CRIME ITSELF WAS NOTABLE. Manuductive (talk) 03:31, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Maybe for the first time you could point out where in P+G it says that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:25, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::::It's been cited already.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Scott_Ritter#c-Manuductive-20250207211600-My_very_best_wishes-20250207202800] You do not hear it, and either do not have the ability to understand, or you would rather waste our time than read the policies. This conversation is finished.Manuductive (talk) 16:08, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::That says "Category:Criminals and its subcategories should be added only for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability" not "WE DO NOT APPLY LABELS OF CRIMINALITY TO BLP UNLESS THE CRIME ITSELF WAS NOTABLE" those are very different standards Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::@Notwally Please explain the justification for removal of this category. As aptly explained by @Horse Eye's Back the original removal of it by the blocked editor was based upon a misinterpretation of policy. This crime is clearly contributive to the subject's notability. Simonm223 (talk) 18:16, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::{{u|Simonm223}}, this article subject was notable long before the criminal conviction, and I do not believe the conviction has made him more notable. {{u|NatGertler}} previously did an analysis of the news articles referencing him, and more recently stated that "BLP intros are full of things that are not key to a person's notability, but which are significant enough in their life that there is article content that should be summed up." I do not agree with Horse Eye's Back that the conviction is "one of the primary reasons behind the subject's notability" or that "anything which is due for the lead is due for categories". I would also note that those who reponded to the RfC opposed mentioning the conviction in the first few sentences, which is where aspects relevant to notability are generally included as per MOS guidance (see MOS:OPENPARABIO, as well as the comments by some in the RfC). Considering the amount of discussion about this issue and how contentious it has been for years, I would encourage opening another RfC at this point so that a clear consensus can be established going forward. – notwally (talk) 20:46, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Could you please point me to the prior RfC on the cafegories? Simonm223 (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::"this article subject was notable long before the criminal conviction, and I do not believe the conviction has made him more notable." that does not matter... The only thing that matters is what the subject is currently notable for... Not what they were notable for at the time the article was created. We take into account everything which has gotten sigcov. The only way to demonstrate that it does not contribute to the subject's notability is to demonstrate that it has never received signficant coverage in independent RS. If it would count in a GNG discussion it counts here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::The article subject is not notable because of his criminal conviction. That conviction only has received coverage because he was already notable. So it absolutely does matter, as several other editors also noted in their RfC responses. WP:NOTEWORTHY is not the same as WP:NOTABLE. – notwally (talk) 22:16, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::That isn't how WP:NOTABILITY works. Notability does not expire nor is it a first past the post system, everything which has caused a topic to receive sigcov from independent RS contributes to their notability. If someone is a MLB player first and a senator second would you really argue that being a senator didn't contribute to their notability because they were only a senator because they were first notable as a MLB player? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:22, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Being a senator is notable on its own. A criminal conviction is not. I'm not interested in engaging with bad faith arguments. I already suggested creating an RfC to determine consensus. – notwally (talk) 22:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Ok, replace senator with high school principle... Can sigcov as the subject's role as a principle contribute to notability if the subject was already notable for something else? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::We would not have an article on this guy if all he had done was what he was convicted of; it's a sadly common thing, not something that makes on notable. It's a fact of his life that should indeed be covered in the article, but not the source of his notability. He wasn't arrested because of his notability; he did get coverage because of it. (I think your idea that being a high school principal is notable is at odds with the relative lack of coverage of high school principals here.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 23:29, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::: Ok, and where in WP:NOTABILITY does it say thats how it works? Because I don't see any equivocation of that sort at WP:GNG or anywhere else. Note that if this was how it worked we would not include any criminal categories at Harvey Weinstein or Michael Vick because they were notable before they committed any crimes. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:53, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::I'm less concerned about the categories than the short description. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 00:50, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::Well now a lot of what you've said makes more sense... For context we're discussing categories in this subsection (specifically these ones[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scott_Ritter&diff=prev&oldid=1284455655]). One of the ones above has the discussion about the short description. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:57, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

{{talkref}}