Talk:Scott Ritter

14 August - Vandalism by removing all reference entirely to Ritter being a "Convicted Sex Offender"

Someone is clearly and consistently trying to remove any mentions of Scott Ritter and paedophilia, (BLP violation removed). 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)

First sentence

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 [1]

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)

...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)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2024

I am requesting to change the first sentence to the following. This is in response to the talk section 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. In separate sting operations in 2001 and 2009, Ritter was arrested and later convicted for sexual offenses involving minors. Mabate23 (talk) 00:05, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

References

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 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)

Remove “Child sex offender” from lead

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 convicted child sex offender, if you define that status (as the linked article does) as 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 [[2]] 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)

BLP noticeboard

Hi, @Luganchanka, there was a BLPN topic [[3]] 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)

Source of fame

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)

Claim of Ritter's belief

An editor has 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)

RfC: Ritter's sex offenses convictions

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

• 1. he is a convicted child sex offender (or variants)
• 2. 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)

Responses

• 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)
• (Summoned by bot) 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 [4]. – 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 (Summoned by bot) per arguments of SmittenGalaxy, Galaxy All Tomorrows and others 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 @Pincrete 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)

  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)

Discussion

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

Pinging previous discussion participants @Burrobert:, @Nomoskedasticity: @Skynxnex:, @Mabate23:, @Hatman31: @Lardlegwarmers:, @Ser!:, @Luganchanka:, @Notwally:, @Horse Eye's Back:, @NatGertler:, @JFHJr:, @Springee:, @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

"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)

• 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 -

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)

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)