User talk:David in DC/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

[The Editor Who Must Not Be Mentioned]

You wrote of [the editor who must not be mentioned]:

In every exchange we've had, your comments have been arrogant, high-handed or condescending. I hope the rest does you some good. David in DC 16:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

It is a relief to find that somebody else agrees with what I perceive to be a very condescending attitude on the part of this user. I find myself nearly in fear of expressing an opinion on here lest I be castigated and then have every article I've touched sent for deletion! I feel that some of the admins have a very serious ax to grind. Thanks for speaking your mind. Drew30319 17:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Some may find it a relief what you wrote, but frankly, having seen your post, I think you need to read this. If you have reviewed [redacted's] extensive contribution to Wikipedia and seen the work he has done here and still come to the same conclusion then accept my apologies since we simply and honestly disagree. But I believe that any honest assessment of [the editor who must not be mentiond's] overall contribution record leads to the conclusion that he is an outstanding editor, fully committed to the projects goals and someone who acts consistently within the purview they establish. If you don't believe he has acted in good faith sobeit, but I hope you put some thought into your comment before what seems to me a petulant outburst. Eusebeus 22:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

actually, you can be fully committed to the project's goals, and still be condescending and rude. He, [redacted,] has recently caused several problems, such as blanking and redirecting Al Gore III's page (essentially overriding several previous decisions to keep it), and continuing to ignore precedent and consensus (as well as polite requests to undo the edit) until another admin undid his edits. He's done this on other pages of late (fixing the edit warring on Prickly City in the same fashion). In addition, he's been sloppy in his redirects; the Al Gore page referred to Al Gore III, and he didn't fix the references (resulting in looped links), even when they were pointed out to him. What David in DC posted, while not polite or what I would have said, was definitely more polite than many things [redacted] was saying of late, and I do think he needs a break. --Thespian 23:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed. One could scarcely contest [redacted's] dedication to Wikipedia; his contributions are considerably more extensive than my own. My objections would be over style rather than substance. For all his dedication, I think he could use a healthy dose of prudence and civilty. I wouldn't have put it in as many words as David in DC, but having been the subject of one of his petty personal attacks, I can see where he's coming from. - Peter 01:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Add me to the list of people with grieviances. [redacted] has launched TWO personal attacks against me (once calling me a Tossblanket and another an Asshole), he also censored and locked my userpage for about week, til I was able to find an admin with a spine (in this case Jossi) to come and uncensor it ^{You can find a nice guide to that incident here}. [Redacted] from the beginning never assumed good faith with me, and yes, high-handed or condescending isn't a bad way of putting some of his behaviour. He's also an outright deletionist - those that spend half their time looking for ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING THEY CAN POSSIBLY DELETE up to the point where they have a total bias against any form of inclussion. I also was left totally voiceless when he called a couple of his cronies to start pontificating in a matter. For these reasons and more, I found [redacted] to be in many ways a liability to the spirit of Wikipedia. I do believe there is merit to the assertion that he was a major constructive editor on Wikipedia and therefore somewhat of an asset, but really, what a [insert the personal attack he made against me and put it here]. If and when he does come back, I sincerely hope he becomes more reasonable. In these kinds of situations my (endorsed) course of action is of course to stay out of his way and ignore him completely, which is what I have done for several months. And will continue to do so. But I value myself as a non-troll, non-liability, constructive wikipedian with a genuine grudge against an admin for what I deem to be purely reasonable, rational, logical reasons. So there we have it. Rfwoolf 15:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment ("arrogant, high-handed or condescending"). I was long ago labelled a "troll" and "POV pusher" by [redacted], and since then he's treated me with condescension. I got labelled because I opposed a POV pusher whom he happened to admire. Sure he's done some good, but the poisonous atmosphere he creates far outweighs the good. How many potentially good editors have been driven away by his attitude? I personally know of a couple, and I'm sure there are more. If he comes back I hope he sincerely reconsiders his approach. ATren 17:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Yup, I am an arrogant, high-handed condescending bastard - which is bad, but not half as bad as being the kind of sad, lifeless bastard who carries on whining about trivial grudges for as long as these two pitiful examples have. [Redacted] 18:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

  Thank you for proving my point. I guess the time off has only intensified your willingness to piss on the civility policy. ATren 19:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Which two? The way I read it you've got four unequivocal critics here (me, Drew, rfwoolf and ATren), one unequivocal endorser (Eusebeus), and two mixed reviews from folks who value your contributions but verify that, "What David in DC posted, while not polite or what I would have said, was definitely more polite than many things [redacted] was saying of late, and I do think he needs a break" or "For all his dedication, I think he could use a healthy dose of prudence and civilty. I wouldn't have put it in as many words as David in DC, but having been the subject of one of his petty personal attacks, I can see where he's coming from", (Thespian and Peter).

Of the six partial or total criticisms of your comments, which two were made by "the kind of sad, lifeless bastard who carries on whining about trivial grudges"? And if you re-read that quote, does it give you any insight at all into why your tone and actions of late are beyond the pale? David in DC 18:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Total Rubbish. I am the only one who has bothered to rise to [redacted's] defense in these picayune matters. There are hundreds more longstanding editors who would endorse without reservation his qualities as an admin and the value of his contribution. Eusebeus 18:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Are there hundreds of editors that would endorse calling another editor asweaty cunt or^{see comment below} a whining twat? By all means, let them line up here and endorse him. ATren 19:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

ATren, you have just made a tit of yourself. Perhaps an admin would care to check out Special:DeletedContributions/JoeMaculy and tell ATren why I used that block summary with that capitalisation. [redacted] 22:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, right, [redacted], like I have access to that page? Give me a break. I checked his contributions, they were empty from my perspective, and the link you gave me doesn't work. But really, given your use of the terms "twat", "fuck off", "cunt" (elsewhere- you know where), is it so surprising that you would give such an edit summary? ATren 22:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Assuming that was his edit summary (which, of course, I can't verify unless I'm an admin), I've stricken that claim, but what about the "whining twat"? What about "fuck off" (which, by the way, is currently front and center on your talk page)? ATren 22:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, I too could probably attest to some admin "qualities" and the values of his contributions (more to the latter to be absolutely honest). But what happens when an otherwise good admin abuses his power a bit, is uncivil a bit, launches personal attacks a bit, is a hypocrit a bit. Is that not worth mentioning... noting... recording? I agree that this whole page attests to some kind of grilling of sorts, yes, and I'm sure a couple of us can see the asset in [redacted]. But the rest in all fairness is worth mentioning, don't you agree? Rfwoolf 18:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• What a shame. It appears that rather than "take some time off" that [redacted] is persisting in his haranguing of editors. I for one am getting very very tired of admins that abuse their power to the extent that they are exhibiting behavior and speech that would, in real-life, get them socked in the ear - at a minimum.

"Perhaps I was a little too subtle above. The message I was trying to convey is this: edit some articles or shut the fuck up you whining twat. [redacted] 18:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)"

How am I supposed to care about all of the contributions made by [redacted] when this is how he is treating fellow editors? I am disgusted that, as an admin, his behavior has been allowed. Were he not an admin I would assume that he would be blocked and given time to "cool off," and rightfully so.

I have not been editing for a great deal of time. When I first started I spoke my mind in a "non-Wiki" manner and learned quickly that my method in doing so was inappropriate. But we're not discussing a new user - not even a "regular" user, this is an admin and as such should represent the very best of what Wikipedia is about. I could be wrong and could be facing all kinds of vitriol and AfDs, etc. based on my frank, but polite, opinion. And if the message to me is "fuck off and leave Wikipedia alone" then I likely will do that very thing. I've done what I can to be of value but have zero desire to either see or receive abuse that goes unpunished.

Truly this is a shame. Drew30319 00:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

{{helpme}} I think someone with authority who [redacted] respects, if such a human exists, should review the material above with him, with an eye toward guiding him toward civility. He's apparantly a personage who's made great wikicontributions, but his abusiveness is turning off people who, by no stretch of the imagination, should be called "a whining twat" or a "sad lifeless bastard" or be told to "fuck off". David in DC 18:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

If you believe another user is in violation of policy then take it here WP:AN. There is no excuse for personal attacks or rudeness on Wikipedia, It only creates strife and prevents us from accomplishing our goals. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

For God's sake... dispute resolution exists for a reason. If you all have problems with [redacted], open a request for comments. Going on and on in scattered forums and gripe fests all over the Wiki isn't going to achieve what you want it to achieve. MastCell ^Talk 19:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I ask for help, I follow the advice I get, I'm castigated for following the advice. David in DC 19:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

And then a different fellow purports to block me (check out the history of this page for details) David in DC 19:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't purport to blocking you, I did block you. Please take this matter to RfC or drop it completely, continuing in this vain is not an option. Nick 20:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you mean "vein"? David in DC 20:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

As for Mast's suggestion that my actions won't "achieve what you want [them] to..." I've concluded no actions will. [Redacted] is unbelievably incivil and the focus of fury is on those like me who want someone in authority to call him on it. But those in authority, valuing his content contributions, have no interest in, or ability to, help him understand what's incivil about his routine use of phrases like whining twat, fuck off, pile of shit and the like.

Shameful. David in DC 20:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You have just as much authority as anyone else who edits here. That's how Wikipedia works. Someone who is an administrator or a bureaucrat is simply someone who has more editing and oversight capabilities, that's it. You need to take charge yourself and go through the dispute resolution. Please see WP:DR for further information. Read into it and learn how to solve this issue yourself. First attempt to discuss the situation with 3rd parties. You've tried that. Secondly, Attempt a mediation or comment from neutral people. Thirdly, Put this on the Admin notice board if you truly believe he is violating Wikipedia policy. Fourthly, if all else fails, Go through a formal mediation. If THAT fails then an arbitration. If you're not willing to go through all of that to resolve the dispute then forget about and ignore the individual and move on. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Gee, willikers, aren't you the same Wikidudeman whose last advice to me was: "If you believe another user is in violation of policy then take it here WP:AN. There is no excuse for personal attacks or rudeness on Wikipedia, It only creates strife and prevents us from accomplishing our goals. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 18:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)"

I followed that advice. It bought me a rebuke from our overeager friend Nick up there. Now you've got a significantly different bit of counsel. I'm not jumping through your suggested hoop so fast this time. Last time I got sandbagged. David in DC 00:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for that. I thought an admin notice board comment would get comments from other administrators on the matter but I guess that didn't work out. Your best bet is to go through formal dispute resolution IMO, If you're that concerned with it. That's what Nick advised. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Having also read your fine recapitulation of the situation on Nick's talk page, I accept your apology, without reservation.

I'm not going to start a mediation about a respected admin's undisguised (and virtually uncontested) incivility. It's clearly not worth the bother. His peers deem his potty mouth less important than his contributions. And they may be right.

I'll follow the easier, and saner, course of just ignoring it. David in DC 15:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Best of luck. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 15:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm as confused as you. You've followed what appears to be the "proper" steps but have been attacked for following those steps. You "talked to other party involved," you've "discussed with third parties," you've "requested help," you've "reported on the Administrator's noticeboard" and still no assistance. The good thing is that hopefully you've realized that there are a great deal of people that share your opinion of the uncivil nature of the editor under discussion. The sad thing is that you now realize that User:Moreschi who told you "Hasn't he fucked off and left [redacted] alone yet?" and User:Nick who told you that you should be "shutting the hell up" don't follow the meta:Dick standard.

I would suggest that you follow the latest suggestion by User talk:Wikidudeman who I believe is well-intentioned and his advice has so far been (I believe) accurate. Unfortunately it appears that you're dealing with a group that - in my estimation - is every bit as clique-ish as a high school chess team. So give WP:RFC a shot. But please let me know when you do. As I've no axe to grind with the editor-that-must-not-be-named but am instead a third party that has observed his incivility I will gladly share my thoughts and observations there. Best of luck to you. Hopefully most editors will recognize the value of reducing the level of incivility on here. It's absolutely unacceptable behavior that they would never attempt in "real life." Drew30319 15:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry - it looks like the above discussions occurred while I was in the middle of writing. Best of luck in your decision! (and don't think that your opinion is not appreciated) Drew30319 15:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• No prob. Given the meglomaniacal Shylock reference that's up today on the page-that-must-not-be-named, I'm more confident than ever that disengagement is the best course. My grandmother used to say "Never argue with a crazy person, people might not be able to tell the difference." She'd say it in Yiddish and then translate for my benefit. Somehow, it sounded even wiser in Yiddish, even tho I don't speak the language. David in DC 15:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

What more can one say about this?

Hath not a Sysop hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions . . . ? If you prick us do we not bleed? If you tickle us do we not laugh? If you poison us do we not die? And if you wrong us shall we not revenge? with apologies to William Shakespeare David in DC 02:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Calls for assasination

Some say the Orthodox rabbis who referred to Yitzchak Rabin as a "rodef" gave sanction to his murder. Certainly his murderer does.

Some say the King's cry "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" was sanction enough to authorize the assassination of Thomas a Becket.

Does anyone think there's an article worth writing on this topic? I couldn't write it. I find the utterers of such incitement loathesome. Even if they are tolerably educated. So my POV would interfere.David in DC 00:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Dish

Does anyone think there's enough fodder for an article on the origin and etymology of the phrase "(S)he can dish it out, but (s)he sure can't take it?" David in DC 00:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, no. At least worded so. It seems possibly like a paraphrase extension of the idiom; "Reap what you sow." "(S)he can sow, but can (s)he reap?" --JJLatWiki 15:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I only just became aware of Wikiquotes this past Saturday night. I think I will pursue this there. The idea of connecting it to the biblical quote you cite is intriguing. Thanks for thinking about my query and responding. David in DC 15:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Trolling

It's not appropriate for you to comment in such a manner on a deletion discussion. In future, please comment on the subject at hand and do not engage in petty trolling at every opportunity. You can and will be blocked for such behaviour. Nick 00:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for making the point in my parenthetical. David in DC 00:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

British English

Hello. I saw you added some periods (full stops) in this article. Please note that in British English, abbreviations like Mr, Mrs, and Jr are generally not followed by a period. You shouldn't switch between English and American spelling when there's no specific need. See also here, here and here. You may not have been aware of this, but I reverted your edit for now :) Melsaran 12:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. David in DC 19:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Joe Glazer

Thanks for the kind comment. I was just getting started! I've added a discography, and a few footnotes to satisfy the sticklers for documentation. Dwalls 00:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Rochester, New York

I think you may be being a bit over-generous  :-) diff -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 16:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, well that's very different. As Emily Litella used to say: Never mind.  :) David in DC 20:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Junkies Edits

I think your edits are money, was that you who called in to today's show?

I do think the vandalism on that page is money too, but I agree that it needs to be policed and Wikipedia is not the Jonedome. --12.156.195.3 13:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Yup, that was me. David in DC 15:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the props. Sounds like you're a fan of the show too.--Lindsay 02:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello again

Hi David, I'm afraid you're random interjection on my talk page just shows how quick you are to make snap judgements and how uninformed you are in regards to the whole situation. I had an extensive discussion one of the parties I unblocked before making any decision on unblocked, and given the fact nobody gave any of those being blocked the courtesy of trying to assist with the dispute, or the courtesy of thoughtfully reviewing their unblock request, accusing me of not having the courtesy to contact a fellow administrator over an unblock request which was slightly late in the day to count as a preventative measure, I'm really not at all impressed by your remarks on my talk page. Nick 19:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Then the universe remains in balance, as I'm really not at all impressed by your remarks on my talk page. David in DC 19:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I do have to say here that the block was not so delayed as to fall outside the scope of being preventative, if it had been for vandalism then yes (if you check my edits to AIV, you will see many "rm report - stopped" edit summaries). For edit wars which are often very stop-start (depending upon when the users check back), 2 hours is far from being unreasonable. Without wanting to re-start this whole debate, or getting involved in any animosity between the two of you, I did find that David's comment hit the nail on the head in response to your question of the benefit of contacting the other admin. TigerShark 22:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Nick Says (elsewhere) That I Was "...trolling (quite badly) another administrator...."

Do you suppose this means I was not a competent troll? I dispute this.

Do you suppose it means I was competently trolling, intensely, one of his fellow admistrators? I dispute this, too.

Do you suppose it means our over-eager friend Nick has his panties in a knot over matters long-resolved? I suppose so.

Do you suppose, if he deigns to respond, it means I'm being stalked by someone who ought to know better? Again, I would suppose so. If it happened. Which it shouldn't.

Do you suppose longtime admins feel the right (or even the obligation) to put newer-comers in "their place"? I do.David in DC 16:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:EM

What follows is a contribution I've made to the discussion page at the essay referenced in the title of this posting. Please read that essay. It's a bit of pure gold.

Here's a copy of my contribution:

Shameful

Editors are not robots. They are human beings with human feelings. It's incredibly dispiriting to see the number of longtime editors and admins who don't get this.

I don't think the userspace issue is at the crux of the problem. It's a manifestation of it, but the crux is this: editors should be treated with respect, especially by admins, and especially where the admin has a choice about being nice or being harsh. The number of longtime editors and admins who have lined up above to critique an essay that simply urges kindness and civility is shameful.

It's impossible to be here very long without running into an admin who not only corrects you, but corrects you as if you're a child and he's in charge of maintaining good order and discipline on HIS playground.

No, WK is not a social networking site, but it surely works better if the denizens here behave in at least as polite a manner as they would IRL. I've had run-ins with two admins who just don't get it that I'm as important as they are, if WK is to prosper and grow, in perpetuity.

One has stopped editing here entirely, but I've made a couple of peace offerings to him off WK and I think we may be coming to respect one another. For all his crankiness near the end of his time here, he's an incredibly funny fellow, and I respect humor a lot.

The other will absolutely astonish me if he doesn't repond to this entry with his patented brand of condecension, high-handedness, mean-spirited commentary and bullying.

My contributions to WK are little more than a drop in the bucket. I've provoked a couple of victories for balance and NPOV on a couple of pages about sexual abuse in the Jewish community. On one I pissed off enablers and on the other I pissed off the vigiliantes who oppose them, so I've struck my own kind of balance.

I've enriched, in small ways, entries about my home-town and about a historical figure associated with my adopted home-town.

I've taken up, with others, the chore of speedily deleting vandals who hit the pages about Bruce Springsteen and about The Junkies.

I've ensured that one entertainment celebrity's page includes one notable blemish in his history (manslaughter) at least as prominently as the roles he's played in movies and on TV.

I've helped draw a connection between magical thinking and Arthur Clarke's famous observation about the relationship between magic and technology.

And I've corrected some grammar, usage and spelling in a bunch of random places.

Like I said, a drop in the bucket.

But for Wikipedia to succeed, ultimately, it needs the goodwill of gazillions of people making gazillion-squared such drops in the bucket.

Joke about imaginary cabals all you like. Goodwill is a precious, and easily squandered, commodity. Patience, tolerance and civility are vastly underrated virtues.

Admins, please think hard on this. The goodwill is yours to nurture or squander.

Set before you are a blessing and a curse. Choose the blessing. David in DC 01:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed Links at Death of Emily Sander

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Death of Emily Sander. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you.--Strothra (talk) 17:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

As I indicated on the talk page for this article, I defer to the wisdom of the majority on this topic. But this is a good faith difference of opinion. I resent the label "spam" a little. And the poor girl was NOT a "porn queen" David in DC (talk) 18:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Peter Yarrow, revisited

Would you give an opinion on the talk page as to whether you think Category:Sex offenders is appropriate for inclusion on this article? Thanks! Aleta (talk) 02:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate and respect the way you have supported the consensus on this article. It gives me faith in the balance of the WP process. Thank you. --Jkp212 (talk) 06:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup templates

Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "{{Unreferenced}}", "{{Fact}}" and "{{Cleanup}}" etc., are best not "subst"ed , (e.g.The Awareness Center). See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 14:44 21 December 2007 (GMT).

Checkuser ?

If you are convinced that John is using sockpuppets you should at least consider requesting a checkuser. Albion moonlight (talk) 10:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting coincidence - the IP address for the suspected sockpuppet comes from Rhode Island, which is where former State Senator John Celona is serving federal prison time for ethics violations. --Jkp212 (talk) 18:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Albion: because I'm such I newbie I don't know how. I was going strictly on timing.

Jkp212: Thanks for doing what, as Albion points out, I should have.David in DC (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Turns out my guess was right. The IP 68.14.11.178 is the editor who re-added John celona eidt that I had reverted. On the Yarrow talk page, John celona's signature now includes the exact same IP address.David in DC (talk) 20:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Multiusers of the same IP address are not uncommon or against wiki policy.: It is difficult to catch a sockpuppet even with a checkuser such as the ones that (selected) administrators have been entrusted with : Albion moonlight (talk) 08:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Springsteen maintenance

Thanks, you do good maintenance on that page too. The whole article really needs a bit of an overhaul at this point; it's on my list of things to do, but work on political candidate articles have been keeping me from getting to it so far. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI the album cover is being removed from the Springsteen article because the WP fair use rules say you can only use the cover image in the article about the album itself, and not in any other articles such as on the artist. The rule is not always enforced, which is why these images tend to stay in for a long time until they're suddenly yanked. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:29, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Civility

Do I owe this anonymous editor an apology. I don't think I do, but maybe I'm being insenitive. Whaddya think? [[1]] David in DC (talk) 18:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Not that I can see. Aleta (Sing) 20:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yarrow again

Do you think that a block is in order? Why do we need to go through page protection when it is the same editor, making the same edits, openly ignoring the consensus on the talk page and numerous requests from fellow editors to stop? --Jkp212 (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm giving him one more chance to compromise. I don't think it's in him, but maybe he'll respond to my hopes and not my fears.

If he can't accept it, I'll support a request to block.

He strikes me as Arafat at Wye. Barak gave him everything he could reasonably expect, and more, but Arafat couldn't say yes.

Sadly, I predict the same fate for the final compromise I've floted on the Yarrow talk page.

If it happens, notify me of the place to add my take and I'll do so. Cheers. David in DC (talk) 23:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

What would be the grounds for a block? He hasn't been disruptive and has engaged in talk-page discussions over the change. There doesn't seem to be much of a consensus to omit "three months". I think a block of only one participant in this dispute would be inappropriate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to request one while the rfc is pending. If JkP does, I'll be happy to share my unhappy experiences with this tendentious, bad-faith assuming, POV-pushing editor. But if JkP is inclined to wait, I predict the RfC comes to a consensus short of his maximum requirements, and then he becomes incivil enough again to provide plenty of block fodder. Give 'em enough rope and his sort usually hang theselves. David in DC (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC) : Albion moonlight (talk) 11:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

David, I have made a request on the administrator board: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User_John_Celona -- please feel free to include your thoughts. I was ok with not making this type of request until Celona starting going article by article, making POV edits to the examples that I cited in the Yarrow talk page. --Jkp212 (talk) 03:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I've chimed in. I've elso reverted his edits to Gene Krupa and Charles Lahr, citing WP:POINT. David in DC (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully things will calm down and work themselves out. I appreciate your good nature. --Jkp212 (talk) 21:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not making a "point" on the Krupa and Lahr articles.

I am adding to these articles by inserting verifiable links which were not previously there. Please stop vandalising these pages. You are violating WP:PointJohn celona (talk) 02:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with John about his Krupa edits. I do not think what you did was vandalism but I urge you to Please slow down and consider using the dispute resolution process to resolve your disputes with other editiors. You are allowing yourself to be triggered by what you perceive to be a bad attitude.

I am considering making some major edits to the Gene Krupa article . I will discuss them on that talk page before I do so. Be well. : Albion moonlight (talk) 11:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Albion, Have you seen what led up to the Krupa edits? Check the yarrow talk page. Those were edits made to prove a point, which seems to violate WP policy, and are certainly against the spirit of this forum. --Jkp212 (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Those edits were not made to prove any point. Please assume good faith. Your arguments for censorship on the Yarrow page concern the BLP. These arguments are not applicable to Krupa or Lahr, who are dead. There is thus no "point" to be made. Please refrain from censoring the verifiable links I am reposting to those pages. I am using "censor" in a NPOV sense not accusatoryJohn celona (talk) 00:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Words to live by

WP:DICK David in DC (talk) 01:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Please Stop Your Stalking

You are [2] going back months and months ago in attempts to solicit other users who have no connection to your BLP dispute on Peter Yarrow to harass me. Please desist from doing this.John celona (talk) 14:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Your overall record of contributions to the project are relevant to the discussion at the administrator's noticeboard about your proposed block.

(Warning to the squeamish - I'm about to show a diff whose edit summary is "(Anus licking by Everett.)") I thought this an interesting diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Brent_Everett&diff=prev&oldid=154646189. What on earth could be the good faith reason for adding such crud? David in DC (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

RE:Roman Heart

Hey, just wanted to let you know that I undid your bold move of blanking the article. While I agree that articles do need to be sourced, I don't necessarily believe that blanking the page will fix the issue at hand. Instead, it might be better off if you were to add some sources to it. If that's not your cup of tea, than maybe you could suggest the article to a wikiproject to work on it. If your extremely dissatisfied with the article, you could list it at afd. Hope that helps. Happy editing! Icestorm815 (talk) 04:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. I'll nominate for deletion. David in DC (talk) 04:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note that user David in DC is stalking every page I have ever posted, apparently intent on mischief. He has already blanked this page once. Anyone interested in this page should keep an eye on it and contact me on my talk page if further problems arise from this user. If he repeatedly blanks this page, you may want to request a block and let me know on my talk page. John celona (talk) 14:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Caroline Kennedy

David, you're coming close to violating WP:3RR. The content you're inserting is not appropriate for a biography, and violates WP:SYN. Please see the talk page. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I've responded there.David in DC (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Death of Emily Sander

You have been warned once before, in December, to not add the inappropriate link to the article Death of Emily Sander, yet you have re-added the link. If you attempt to add this link again, it will result in an admin being notified with the possibility of a ban. Please stop making nonconstructive edits to this article. will381796 (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. We have a content disagreement. With the perspective of a month's thought, I concluded that a different formulation of text and footnote might be appropriate. So I was bold and tried this new formulation. It is different from what we all discussed a month ago.

One editor, you, disagreed, pretty darn fast. And was bold, and reverted. A little quick on the trigger, for my taste, but so be it. If anyone else who has this on their watch list sees our activity, they may have thoughts.

That's how articles are built. It's an ongoing process. Please do not "warn" me or invoke calling a hall monitor. Disagree with me here, or on the article's talk page. And if you're as certain as you seem, revert. But please stop pointing red flags, like "inappropriate," or "unconstructive" or talk of bans in my direction. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see my reply on the Emily Sander's talk page for further reasoning. For the brash tone of my message to you above, I do apologize. will381796 (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

John Celona

Thought you might be interested in this [3]. -- Nobody of Consequence (talk) 20:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

He is, almost certainly, a sock of Rastishka. Take a look at the edit histories of the suspected and confirmed socks of Rastishka -- many, many, of the same edits and language. He called the holocaust a hoax in several of his identities. --Jkp212 (talk) 07:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I've seen the note NOC put on his page. Does something more need to be done to report this, or is putting up the template enough? I do not know how to report this. Does one of you? David in DC (talk) 13:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I have never posted using the name Rastisshka as a cursory IP check will reveal. Bring on the next irrelevant personal attack. Not a single Rastishka article was ever posted on by me. The edits are on completely unrelated articles and the language is not similar. Can someone tell me how to file requests to block 2 users who have continually harassed and stalked me, repeatedly filing blatantly false accusations. John celona (talk) 14:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I've filed the request for checkuser (which is linked above), but we may have to report it at Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets instead. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 04:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

NOC, I don't know enough to report as a suspected sock puppet. Do you really? I think he's a twit, but then, I'm sure he thinks the same of me. If you've got good evidence he's more than a twit (such as a sock puppet) please make the appropriate report. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 05:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. [4] Nobody of Consequence (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Peter Yarrow mediation

Hello - I have filed a request for mediation over the dispute on the Peter Yarrow article, and I have named you as an involved party. I would very much appreciate it if you would visit the request page and consent to mediation in the appropriate section. Thank you, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Your son

I hope your little one recovers quickly! Aleta (Sing) 02:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Same sentiment. Best wishes David. --Jkp212 (talk) 04:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both. Two nights ago I spilled coke on my keyboard. Then my wife had me in the attic at 2:00 a.m. looking for squirrels. I found none. Whether ther are any in hers remains an open question. Last night we bought and installed a new keyboard. Then we wound up three-in-a-bed because of terrifying (to wife and 10-year-old), near-hurricaine force winds. Today he crushed the tip of his pinky. I'm hoping tomorrow is less interesting. David in DC (talk) 04:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want us too look into postponing mediation just say the word. I sincerely hope your luck gets better and your son heals quickly. : Albion moonlight (talk) 14:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Unbelievably kind. No postponement necessary. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

In case anyone's following this Monkeyboy in DC made it to school today with a splint. No Phys Ed or recess today, and no fiddle club, probably for a few weeks. Meet with hand surgeon Monday a.m. Best and most likely outcome: loses a nail, regrown nail looks gnarly. Lesser possibility: fracture(s) to itty-bitty bones in 10-year-old pinky (beyond first knuckle), nerve involvement.

I hear Wikipedia is not a social networking site, so that's the last I'll type of it here. If you're curious, you know how to google my handle. Thanks for all your kindnesses, folks. David in DC (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Alternative to mediation

Hello, I've requested on the Yarrow talk page that if mediation does not proceed b/c of the lone editor rebuffing the process, then we should agree to leave the December consensus version in place, at least as it relates to the subject matter in question. If you have a moment to share your thoughts on the subject, that would be great. Thank you Jkp212 (talk) 00:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Peter Yarrow. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 08:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Tone

Below are four issues to resolve I put up on the Yarrow mediation. Below that are three from an editor who takes a different view than mine. But please do not focus on the substance of the text at all, for a moment. Concentrate on tone. Is the contrast in tone as stark to an outside eye as it is to mine?

_____

What weight should President Carter's grant of clemency have? How should it be dealt with?

Does the word "groupie" belong in the article at all? In the encyclopedic text? In Yarrow's quote?

Does the article's shortness cause a problem with any mention at all, giving the incident "undue weight"?

If mention in the article is not undue weight, is inclusion of the categories? David in DC (talk) 02:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

____

Should well-sourced prison sentences which were highly publicized campaign issues in a presidential election and the unseating of a 12 term Congressman be censored from an article even though they have been on the article by consensus for over 3 years? John celona (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Should a convicted and imprisoned sex offender be deleted from the "sex offender" category because friends or fans of the subject don't like him placed there on vague "weight" rationales? John celona (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

When the sources clearly show that a child molester's victim was forcibly molested should the article censor that fact while allowing the convicted molester's self-serving statement labeling his victim a "groupie"? John celona (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

____

I believe the difference in tone provides ample reason to question the other editor's fitness to participate in a collaborative project like wikipedia. David in DC (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

my RFA

Thank you! Thank you for your support in my RFA. It passed with a final count of (73/3/1), so I am now an administrator. Please let me know if at any stage you need help, or if you have comments on how I am doing as an admin. Have a nice day! :) Aleta Sing 19:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Peter Yarrow organization

Hi David, I've made a pass at the long overdue reorganization of Peter Yarrow. Would you take a look at it?

I hope your son's hand is mending well!Aleta ^Sing 21:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The Antithesis of AGF

I almost flung this insult yesterday.

Hey, Jack, do you know why people take an instant dislike to you?

It saves time.

(Any resemblence to any actual persons -- living, dead, incarcerated or at-large -- is strictly coincidental.) David in DC (talk) 14:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Mediation open

I'd like to announce that the Peter Yarrow mediation is open at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Peter_Yarrow#Opening_the_Mediation. Please visit that page to read the issues and make your opening statement. Thanks MBisanz ^talk 01:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: American Criminals

I'm sorry for doing that. I just did not feel like fighting that battle again, because I had just finished a similar one earlier. I will review his additions as well as Category:American Criminals for any erroneous additions. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

David, can you help? I do not want to break the 3RV rule although User Celona has done so. Someone needs to block him for violating that rule. Thanks, --Jkp212 (talk) 16:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not prepared to edit-war with the guy over all these pages. A final resolution will come in the discussion at the American Criminals category. In the meantime, if I run across an article where the American Criminal tag seems especially egregious, I'll edit it once. I gotta say, I have new respect for JzGuy's concerns that WP coddles those it should treat more firmly and deals harshly with those it should protect.David in DC (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not an edit war when there are numerous editors who are trying to protect an article from vandalism, and one lone editor is breaking policy right and left. --Jkp212 (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It's nettlesome, but I'm confident enough eyes are looking at this in enough fora. I think the Billy Preston thing is downright shameful, and have said so on the talk page. That Bob Taft should be on an American Criminals list is just as ludicrous, if not as cruel. Misdemeanors. He served out his term as Governor. Like I said, nettlesome. It's up to the community now. Let's see how it works. (As I said above, if I see an inclusion that's egregiously wrong I'll edit it once.)David in DC (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Bob Taft

Done, but no way am I going to wade through that category. Let's hope the disputants get the message. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That really doesn't help. I'm trying not to take sides on this, but obviously I have an opinion. If another admin feels the need to block anyone, I'm not going to step in. As pointed out at Talk:Billy Preston, a lot of this arises because the category is too loosely defined, and this weakness is being exploited at present; but I suspect neither of these editors is too willing to have the matter tested by consensus. Ho hum. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed the implication. However, both have been now warned for having reached 3RR, and the next one by either will get them a block. Looking at 3RR policy, it applies specifically to one article at a time, so they may well just take it elsewhere; that wouldn't stop them being blocked for disruption, and I wouldn't have a problem with that. Since I don't have time to watch every page this might apply to, could you let me know if the venue changes? Thanks. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Neither has edited Billy Cannon since the 3RR warnings. However, an idea has occurred to me that Wikipedia:UNDUE#Undue_weight should perhaps apply to the use of this category, with necessary adaptation to meet the circumstances. Jimbo Wales seems to be setting out a useful guideline which might well be helpful. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The world is a circle. Please read the Peter Yarrow talk page. The article is currently in mediation and that's where this whole fustercluck has its origins. WP:WEIGHT. You make me so happy I want to cry. David in DC (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Fragglestanian Nationalism

How about the University of Tuktoyaktuk? ;o) Wanderer57 (talk) 23:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying Chumra.

Have you ever heard of the University of Tuktoyaktuk? It is famous (or at least known) for only one reason.

Wanderer57 (talk) 01:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I have not, and don't want to spoil the joke by googling. OK, here goes <George Burns voice> I don't know Gracie, what's the reason? David in DC (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm so glad you asked me that! The town, which is in northern Canada, is far too small to support a university. The university was invented so that people could make and sell sweatshirts decorated with a university crest and the name, in large letters, "TUK U".

That's it. If you are into these things, I might be able to find you a sweatshirt. Cheers, Wanderer57 (talk) 15:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy

Indeed - the fact that it had been there for so long was troubling. Glad to help, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Vandalism by someone you've blocked previously

Thanks for warning him. The IP being registered to edu.static.optonline.net so I guess this is a school library or something, the guy probably did his edit and left. I blocked the IP for a couple of months since I couldn't find any productive edits. -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

MBisanz should know...

David, just in case you haven't alerted him, MBisanz should be told about the ANI thread as it is obviously directly relevant to the mediation. Aleta ^Sing 04:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and notified MBisanz of the thread. Aleta ^Sing 04:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Brame

Yeah, that IS amusing. You know I really wish we could take a little time and work out a compromise on this issue. I don't really care about Yarrow per se so I would be willing to agree in advance that he would NOT be placed in any category if we can come to a compromise. Let me know if you want to work with me. As a small-l libertarian my concern is evenhandedness not political agenda and, though it may seem otherwise I take NO JOY at all in this tit-for tat nonesense. So let me know-I have a few ideas and will be more than willing to hear what ideas you may have or come up with. John celona (talk) 19:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Since you're reviewing all my American Criminal edits, you can see I'm not working from a liberal point of view. Protecting the reputations of Dewey Clarridge, Tom Clines or Gene Hasenfus really isn't high on any liberal's to-do list. Nor is the cause of 19th century brothel-keepers, but if the articles don't assert a conviction, you can't call them a criminal. I'd love for the tag of American Criminal to stick to Sherriff Clark, but the category, as currently written, doesn't allow that. The RfC might change that, but I'm editing strictly by what the policy is now. As for collaborration, I think not. According to your unretracted and unapologized-for false accusations, I may not even be me. Eff that. As for stopping the tit-for-tat, please feel free to stop titting. I've already said at the ANI that I'm not going to revert the reversions you're making as my self-elected American Criminals super-editor. So there'll be no tatting.David in DC (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:N/CA

Have removed your additions for now, because I don't see what problem you are trying to solve - come back to the page and discuss it there. Very much open to idea that will help other projects! Fritzpoll (talk) 00:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Can't find the RfC you are referring to - can you point me in the right direction? Fritzpoll (talk) 13:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Abe Hummel

Thanks for your message. I should really have included the information before. When I have more time I'll go through the article and add proper footnotes and references, too. Mikedash (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

David, Thank you for taking the high road in the 3O and gracefully accepting consensus. While I tend to agree with you personally on the matter, I too thought that consensus of the project went the other way. Perhaps consenus will change on special issues as it has in the past. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

See

See the Talk page of the article on Nelson Bunker Hunt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.51.240 (talk) 11:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Yarrow

Why does your proposed version differ from your original one and your comments where you state that you prefer to use "a short sentence"? --Jkp212 (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Dealing with trolls

would be so much easier if there weren't so many well-meaning, but dunderheaded, troll enablers David in DC (talk) 16:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

you and jkp

I get you guys mixed up. Sorry if you were not the one that was guilty of accusing John of sockpuppetry but it still makes me shake my head in disgust when either of you try to bait him. I understand why John thinks that you 2 may be the same person. I think he may well be wrong about that but it is not a spurious assumption. The 2 of you have been going after him for months now and I honesty do get the 2 of you mixed up. Sorry about that but my advice to John still stands. He should just ignore the 2 of you whenever possible.  :Albion moonlight (talk) 23:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Wascz

It's possible an article could be written about this guy which didn't violate BLP; but this was not it. There were some pretty blatant BLP violations there, and when you took them away, nothing was left. Then there are the little questions like WP:V and WP:RS... --Orange Mike | Talk 20:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Charles Walker (Georgia politician)

Not a blp variation. perfectly sound sources if you had bothered to look for them. DGG (talk) 04:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course it was a BLP violation. It only stopped being a BLP violation when you researched and added the cites. Please see my further response on the article talk page. David in DC (talk) 05:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Precision

I live to amuse. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Criminals

My fault, I should've used nowiki. Thanks for the catch. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 19:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP/N

Thanks a lot for submitting this. I just added a comment and noticed that another subject about revealing real names is discussed on WP:BLP/N. I am not quite sure if publishing a link to this would be of any help in our case. Maybe you can give it a look here. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesbeat (talk • contribs) 20:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Genie has an even more compelling reason for being protected than porn actors. I think porn actors' names should be protected, but not as viscerally as I feel Genie's should be. I think linking the two trivializes her cause. It's not a comparison I would readily draw. David in DC (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You're right, of course. Sorry for having published the statement unsigned. (Jamesbeat (talk) 21:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC))

changing the thread

Why does the thread need to be in chronological order? If I am responding to a remark, and I wish to do so directly below the remark I am responding to, then why should that be changed? --Jkp212 (talk) 20:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead, I won't revert. But it's easier for other people to read in chron order. Jamesbeat responded before you and with fancier language but he already made your point, the "As with court cases" language is enumerative, not conclusive. David in DC (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. --Jkp212 (talk) 04:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Is Luke Ford a Reliable Source?

I've recently deleted some stuff cited to Luke Ford on the basis of his web site not being a WP:RS.

This from the reliable source examples page:

Trivia on sites such as IMDb... should not be used as sources. These media do not have adequate levels of editorial oversight or author credibility and lack assured persistence.

This description of IMDB fits Luke to a tee: "does not have adequate levels of editorial oversight or author credibility and lacks assured persistence."

Hell, Luke should have that printed on his business card.

Luke Ford is a hilarious, trailblazing guy. But his site is not a WP:RS. Even less so now than when he actually ran the place. David in DC (talk) 14:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helping.

I love what I have seen thus far. Thank you. Maybe Jkp will join us . I hope everybody does. Albion moonlight (talk) 05:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. You should know I did not contact Animate. I filed a notice on the BLP Notice board about inserting the birth names of porn actors. Animate participated in the discussion. It was the very first time I'd ever heard of Animate. Animate contacted me, in the next section down on this very page. David in DC (talk) 00:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

John celona

I've kept an eye on John ever since I ran into him editwarring over the inclusion of details in regards to the kidnappings perpetrated by Michael J. Devlin. He joined four days after User:Tommypowell was indef blocked. Both Tommy's user and talk page have been deleted but if you look through his edits, you'll see the same interest in sex crimes involving minors and gay porn stars. Am I saying they're the same person? No, I have no proof of that. However, I was just as concerned about Tommy's behavior as I am about John. Fortunately, due to the high profile of the kidnappings an administrator caught Tommy and blocked the account. We don't have anything quite so high profile here, so I'm considering filing an request for comment over John's behavior as a means to make sure he doesn't continue the kind of behavior he has shown on the porn star articles, Peter Yarrow's article, and the articles about the kidnapping victims. If he still disagrees with everyone at the BLP noticeboard, then I almost surely will go through with the RfC. You can check it out in my sandbox (ignore the clutter at the bottom) add some diffs and change some of the language if you like. Hopefully this won't be necessary, but if it is I hope you'll help. AniMate 23:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know, Albion moonlight left this message on my page. I let him know that I'm the one who initiated contact and the possible RfC (which I'm not even sure I'm going to file. AniMate 00:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see this David in DC (talk) 00:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No comment. :P AniMate 00:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, John has said he intends to disengage, which kind of makes the RfC obsolete for me. Feel free to take it over if you'd like to continue it. I'm going to be watching him from now on, as he still refuses to acknowledge BLP, but have no other current issues with him. AniMate 00:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Time will tell.David in DC (talk) 00:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

As it often does

are you on drugs today?

how can you say the bexley thing is not related to the mediation? It's more content related to the issue we've been discussing for 6 months... --Jkp212 (talk) 00:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

While I would not have phrased it the way JKP has, I have to agree that it is certainly closely related to the mediation topic. Aleta ^Sing 03:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I just expected more from David, considering his reasoned edits over the last few months..--Jkp212 (talk) 03:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

We cannot stop others from editing while we dicker. xx has every reason to feel cheated. xx put in sourced information which is relevant to the article as it stands today. If he re-inserts it when the lock is over, none of us have any business reverting him because of our mediation. As to drugs, yes I am. Without them my depression, high BP and acid reflux would be unmanageable. Not on any of the fun ones, though.David in DC (talk) 12:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

David, it's not relevant info and it's a BLP violation. That trumps many things, man! --Jkp212 (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

If the incident is mentioned at all, and Operation Respect is mentioned at all, then true, sourced information about how the conviction affects Operation Respect is notable and ought to be included. David in DC (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact that some community newsletter states that his daughter performed instead of him at some high school is NOT notable, even if the conviction is mentioned, and even if Operation Respect is mentioned. --Jkp212 (talk) 21:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to mess around the bedfellows a little further, I tend to agree with Jkp on this. I think the inclusion of this incident is far more likely to lend undue weight to the incident than any of the things we're throwing around in mediation (while, except for John's ideal version, which is way, way out there). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for sharing everyone. Perhaps this conversation really belongs on the Yarrow talk page. David in DC (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

One additional thought

that's more appropriate here than on Yarrow's page. I think the above posts are incontrovertable proof that Jkp and SI are sockpuppets of one another, whose strings are being pulled by JC and Aleta. They are clearly gaming the wiki, at the behest of Albion Moonlight who is really xxhoping. (They're gaming the wiki too.) I will now have to admit that I am a sock puppet of Xenu, who came to life when L. Ron Hubbard died and took over my mind when I was wearing my aluminum foil cap the wrong way. (With the shiny side IN! How could I have been so foolish?!) David in DC (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Now for sure I know you are on drugs :) --Jkp212 (talk) 15:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikibreak

I don't know if you're on drugs or not (though certain drugs do make this place a little more bearable), I hope this wikibreak isn't too long. Recharge and come back soon. AniMate 04:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Travelling from Wed morn thru Sunday evening. I may pop in now and again if I have time and easy internet access. But if I'm slower than usual to respond to things, I didn't want anyone to think I was ignoring them. David in DC (talk) 04:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Briana Banks

I see that you removed Ms. Banks birth name from the article stating that there is a consensus reached. I don't see a consensus, I see a discussion but no final decision. Could you make it more plain to me where/how this consensus was reached? I've already read over the BLP noticeboard postings. Dismas|^(talk) 00:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I see one. But there's more.

Please see this.

Also this comment on the BLP notice board: "Well I know that a number of the participants in WP:P* (myself included) routinely pull out uncited names from porn star articles on simple WP:BLP issues... what if the name's wrong? And there are other stars besides Brandy who have had their names pulled from the article at the star's own request... Sasha Grey is one I remember offhand. Beyond that, the principles that John Celona mentions above ("an actor's real name is reliably sourced and widely disseminated") apply, and no, IMDB is not a reliable source for the name! Now if we can only get all the various editions to follow that last point; I know of one porn star complaining about a foreign language Wiki that has their real name on it with IMDB as a "source", and her parents were getting hassled on it as a result of it (it's Katja Kassin & the German version)... unfortunately the Wiki in question doesn't seem to be responding to her complaints. Tabercil (talk) 06:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)"

And also this code, hidden at the top of the Brandy Alexandre page but visible if you hit "Edit this page", from Jimmy Wales: "As a courtesy while we discuss the issues surrounding this article, please don't add Brandy Alexandre's real name to this article. And please treat SavvyCat with particular respect and understand that if she seems a bit touchy about this article, she has every right to be: it's about her. As a person with a biography about myself in Wikipedia which is frequently used as a place to attack me, I can say that Assume Good Faith is absolutely necessary in a case like this. --Jimbo"

Cumulatively, they persuade me that the better course is to delete. David in DC (talk) 01:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Completely off topic. Is your name taken for the patron saint of theives, Dismas Hardy of the John Lescroart books, or maybe both? The Lescroart books are just about my favorite series of crime/legal thriller type novels.David in DC (talk) 01:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

"Cumulatively, they persuade me..." So according to what you just said, there is no consensus as of yet and you are removing this information based on your own feelings towards the issue which is currently undergoing discussion. Am I reading that right? It seems that you are using two examples to make a judgement for the entire genre/collection of actors. Additionally, what leads you to say that LukeFord is not a reliable source? We get images from his site on a consistent basis. Why is the text not reliable? And finally, yes, it's from the saint. I'm a fan of spy movies and such, so I'm sort of drawn to Dismas. Dismas|^(talk) 01:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I see a consensus on the BLP Notice board. I see what the WP Porn project says, at the section of their project page I directed you to. I see what Jimbo put at the top of the code on the Brandy Alexandre page. If we read those three things differently, we can agree to disagree. As with John celona vetting all of my American Criminal edits, if you see things differently, please revert, or, if you want more input than just you and me, ask for a third opinion. I won't edit war. Also, great handle, check out the Lescroart books. They start with one called "Dead Irish" and make the most sense if you read them in order. Cheers. David in DC (talk) 12:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Luke Ford is a blogger/porn gossipest who doesn't have the most sterling reputation for fact checking and veracity. We use his images simply because he gave a CC license for them. We don't scrutinise his pictures like we do his text because the images are not controversial (in that they don't seem to be doctored) other than being unflattering (since he is a poor photographer) while much of the text he writes is just outright gossip. Vinh1313 (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Vinh on Luke Ford. Please read this. David in DC (talk) 17:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

American criminals redux

Yo David, sorry for not replying to your last comment, our conversation got lost in the archives. I think we can agree that, according to the category rules, Butcher does not belong in the category. It is equally obvious to me that the category rules are stupid and should, in the interest of the encyclopedia, be ignored if they cannot be altered. As it is an unimportant issue I was prepared to let the matter drop, but a third party has since restored the category to the article (or is that the other way around). Sincerely, Skomorokh 17:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Your question to JzG

Hi David - I happen to have JzG's talk page watchlisted, so I noticed your recent question to him. He hasn't been on Wikipedia in more than a month (I don't think he's fully retired, just not active at the moment) so you're unlikely to get a response from him. I looked at the diffs you provided, though, and I'm disappointed to see that John's behaving like that. I was reluctant to deal with my behavioural concerns with John and Jkp while mediation was ongoing, both because I saw substantial improvement on both of their parts and because I figured anything like that would just torpedo the mediation, but this really isn't acceptable. I've sent him a warning here; if his conduct continues, I think WP:RFC/U is the way to go, unfortunately. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This is what led me to believe Guy might take an interest. I'm glad others have, as well. Time will tell. Both your note to JC and AM's addendum may do the trick. Hell, if I got an apology for the sham sock-puppetry accusation, I might be less pissed off. Or if I'd gotten a response to this.

I suspect that Guy would take an interest if he was around (he's usually pretty strict on the BLP front). And I agree that John's sock puppetry accusations were patently false, though, in the spirit of WP:AGF, I'm assuming that he was making them based only on a narrow cross section of your edits, since he wasn't around for the earlier history of the Yarrow page. I agree that he probably owes you an apology, but in my experience that's not very useful around here - I'm probably owed a half dozen apologies or so, some from fellow admins, but no point in letting the experience be ruined by it. Occasionally you get one, like Guy did from you (I had his talk page watchlisted then too), and it's great, but you can't rely on it. In any event, hopefully John will calm down; please let me know if he doesn't. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear - I won't have much time to deal with this until the weekend, but I'll start putting together an RFC/U on Saturday. I'll keep you updated. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I'm a little late, but I've started it at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/John celona. I'm going through his edits in chronological order, so don't worry about a lot of missing stuff in the evidence section - I just haven't gotten there yet. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, could you give me an hour or two to finish going through his contribution history? As I said, I'm doing it chronologically, so I will get to the stuff from June of this year, I just haven't yet. Having both of us edit at the same time causes edit conflicts, and makes it more difficult to know what's already in there and what isn't. Once I'm done going through I'd certainly welcome your additions; it's just easier if we do it separately. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I'll knock it off. David in DC (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

All done. Feel free to make some additions of your own if you think that I've missed anything, and then add your signature to the "Users certifying the basis for this dispute" section. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I added myself to the users certifying section. I first "tangled" with him during the child victims of sexual abuse debate, and once again over the porn star issue. AniMate 00:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to alert you to this. I wish to hell I'd realized he was a sock earlier - I'm deliberately not thinking about the time that could have been saved, because it would make me too angry - but I thought you'd want to know. I haven't blocked because I'm concerned that some people might object on a technicality, but I'm certain that the first admin who looks at the evidence will do the deed. And so a saga comes to an end...? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Animate suspected this from the start. Please see this. Please also see this. I wrote it when particularly frustrated by AM's enabling. By contrast, I think you handled this whole thing admirably. Hindsight is 20/20. Don't let it get you down. WP is a beguiling concept. In practice, it still falls short. That's ok, so do I. David in DC (talk) 13:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Fish and vandal

Hi. Your edits are fine - it's the guy from Western Slope Anglers who uses the anon dial-up that's the problem. The article needs a full-time sprotect - it's like three or four times now that he's simply waited for the sprotect to wear off and then resumed. Thanks. Dyanega (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Pulitzer nominees

I reverted the edit on fake Pulitzer nominee (not related) Mr. Itkin. (My apologies on the name issue.) As for Pulitzer nominee status, he's not one. It is not correct that Mr. Itkin has been nominated for a Pulitzer. He was not. He was an entrant, nothing more. It is a false claim. None of your citations qualifies as a reliable source; if you examine them, you'll see that each of them is merely a recitation of Mr. Itkin's handout biography. All of the citations cited are merely his PR material in which he makes the false claim. As you may know, only the jury can nominate someone for a Pulitzer. Usually just three nominees a year per category. Then the board chooses the winners. Anyone else is not a nominee, but an entrant. If he was nominated, his name would be found on the Pulitzer Web site. You can search for his name here: http://www.pulitzer.org/. It appears from the record that he may be a Pulitzer entrant, not a nominee. That is, he may have entered, or the publisher entered his work (anyone can do that, for $50), and wasn't chosen by the jury as a nominee, nor by the board as a winner. To claim to be a Pulitzer nominee, when you're only an entrant, is to mislead the public. An Academy Awards nominee is one of the final few. The Pulitzers work the same way, as described by the FAQ on the Pulitzer Web site. Having your publisher send in your stories or book no more makes you a Pulitzer nominee than having your movie studio send in your film makes you an Academy Award nominee. If he wants to lead off his press materials with "Pulitzer Prize entrant," that would be accurate. Bottom line: What the Pulitzer board calls "nominated finalists," the world calls "nominees," and he wasn't one; he's an entrant; to call yourself a Pulitzer nominee, when all it means is that you or your publisher entered you in a contest where your work went nowhere, is not an honor, not a claim to notability, just plain old fakery. If you research the question, you'll see that this is not my reading of the Pulitzer process; many others have been called out publicly for posing as Pulitzer nominees. It happens about once a week. See, for example, a discussion of this issue in The New York Times, here: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9404E4DE1538F93BA15754C0A9649C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=3 as well as http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/healthmindandbody/story/0,,2287331,00.html and http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=878 and http://freedomsfire.blogspot.com/2006/06/pulitzer-prize-nominees-for-truth.html and http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=28;t=000609;p=2 and http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/7/2/165515/6874 . Finally, for comparison, see the Wikipedia biography of photographer David Leeson -- one of many cited at random; he is in fact a Pulitzer nominee; you can find his name by searching the Pulitzer Web site; his claim is genuine; the claims of those who pretend to be nominees, when they are not, draws honor from those genuine nominees. 70.20.20.2 (talk) 00:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

July 1 2008 - Best edit of the day

In which someone unfamiliar with the behavior voices a truth. With brevity and pith. David in DC (talk) 18:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program

There appears to be a set of IP sockpuppets pushing a POV here. What do you think? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

See my talk page. An admin watching my page jumped in.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

How Many Psychiatrists does it take to change a lightbulb?

One.

That took a lot of work on both of our parts. Groan again. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope your right .

It may have been premature to take down the controversy sign on the Yarrow talk page but I will only put it back if another insistent editor comes along and reopens the argument. I watch and contribute to a a few of the pages related to Judaism and or antisemitism and I have thus come to realize that there are a lot of John Celonas out there. Sometimes they learn to be civil and sometimes they don't. I backed the call for a ban because John had failed to respond to the Rfc on him. I think that wikipedia is better off without him but I do not share your optimism that there won't be others like him. If there are, then I will put the sign back up myself. : Albion moonlight (talk) 22:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Because he failed to respond to the RfC? I guess that's one reason, but if that was the reason, he deserved more time to respond. A better reason is that he was already banned, and that a mere four days later he resumed another year+ of extraordinarily bad behavior.

You occasionally make 180 degree turns that make one's head spin. First you found it very notable that I sought out AniMate. Very shortly thereafter, when it became obvious I did not seek out AniMate, you said it was of little importance. Your bullshit detector seems to have failed you quite badly in the case of Tommy/John. But your repositioning yourself from defender of his rights to endorser of the RfC and of his banning was quite impressive. A full 180 degree flip-flop with a very high degree of difficulty. Take that act to Peking this summer and you could earn "ten"s across the board in verbal gymnastics. Cheers! David in DC (talk) 22:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come on, David, be a little more gracious. I feel a little silly myself for defending an abusive sock, but we're all on the same side now. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint, SI. I was as gracious about this as I could manage in my edit summary on the Yarrow talk page. I feel less constrained here. I seek to never again engage with AM. If AM stays off my talk page that becomes easier. So, when AM came here, I laid out the opposite of a welcome mat.David in DC (talk) 22:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

If you were as gracious as you could be on that edit summary then you are basically incapable of being gracious to people who disagree with you. SI is a gracious editor You could better yourself by learning from him and listening to him and mimicking his behavior. He says he feels like "a little silly" but he shouldn't he tried to help John become a better editor.

Our paths will no doubt cross again. I will not avoid you. I actually find your anger quite amusing and look forward to watching your edits and your comments in the immediate future. If you were to bother to read this you would have the opportunity to see that the admin who finally blocked him indefinitely did so reluctantly. A similar position was also taken by other adminshere You need to lighten up David, Wikipedia could use more editors like SI. You could become one if you tried. You just need to learn more about the process that leads to neutrality.  :Albion moonlight (talk) 08:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Charles Walker

I saw that you removed[5] a link to the LA Article "Newsmakers" with the edit summary "Link not about Charles Walker". You are mistaken here. Unfortunately, the free preview of the article only shows the first paragraph. The article itself consists of 4 paragraphs, each with a separate short story. I had to pay to view the full text. The second paragraph is about Walker and it reads:Staking Out His Place: What would you do after playing 229 games of checkers simultaneously, defeating 227 contestants, losing one contest and tying one? Charles Walker claimed the title as world checker king in Petal, Miss., over the weekend and exulted: "I am going home and eat me a steak." Walker's only defeat came at the board of Marian Tinsley, 65, the mathematics professor and retired undefeated champ: "The only one who beat me was Father Time." I'd like to have the link restored, since it serves both the verification and notability purposes. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 03:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I've put the reference back in an added to it the above quote where Walker is discussed. Since access to the LA article, that would allow to view the relevant portion of the text, is not free, it might be better to remove the http link, I am not sure. Or maybe add a note of some sort to the ref saying that it is a pay-per-view article... Nsk92 (talk) 03:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I apologize. I've responded more fully, and with a suggestion, on your talk page. David in DC (talk) 13:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

"I actually find your anger quite amusing and look forward to watching your edits and your comments in the immediate future."

So, how goes the stalking? Find anything actionable? I'll bet not. You'll find errors and apologies. A couple of BLP-judgment calls. And a lot of little, useful edits. I'm like Thomas the Tank Engine. I'm a very useful engine. How about you? David in DC (talk) 18:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You do not need to defend your edits David you are in fact a very useful editor. I intend to show the Thomas the Tank Engine Article to my grandchildren when they come to visit me this weekend. I find a lot of interesting articles by watching other peoples contribs and clicking on them. I think that is why they are a matter of public record.Thanks for the wiki link..... Albion moonlight (talk) 06:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Frank Sinatra

I was wondering if you could expand on frank sinatra with some quick facts maybe and also if your able to help with other references in the notes. Kelvin Martinez (talk) 23:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Reference

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4