User talk:David in DC/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions with User:David in DC. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I've just reverted the category "Statutory rapists" from the articles of Buz Lukens, Dan Crane and Gerry Studds. I've explained why in my edits, on one of the articles' talk pages and on the talk page of the "new" editor who inserted them. This editor began editing under the name Lemonsquares, a week or so ago. Another edit I found in his history was one labelling a politician Jewish. The politician's congressional biography states that he's buried in a "Beth El Cemetary" so I'm inclined to believe the information is accurate and have left it alone. Nonetheless, these four edits --- three labeling politicians with a derogatory sexual category and a fourth labelling a politician a Jew --- sure seem, ummmm, familiar. I'd appreciate it if others kept an eye out for similarities to the edits of Tommy/John. Thanks David in DC (talk) 03:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree - there is no excuse this time for allowing Celona to reappear, and not be dealt with. A user check is in order. Can you request through SA? --Jkp212 (talk) 05:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like you've already done it. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 15:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it likely. The account is clearly not a new user and the interest in adding categories in regards to sex crimes with minors is a major red flag. Nothing conclusive yet, but I'll keep an eye on him anyway. AniMate 09:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Check out the recent edit history at Mark Levin. David in DC (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, that ended more quickly than I expected. Ya gotta figure he has more socks tho.David in DC (talk) 01:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This bears watching. No proof except my crap detector David in DC (talk) 23:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on this too. It does strike me as odd when someones first edits are to add (inflammatory?) categories to articles. Looking through the edits I don't see anything to incendiary, but I'll keep watching just in case. Frankly, I could care less if John celona returns, as long as he doesn't continue the behavior that lead to his bannings. AniMate 23:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm convinced Celona/Tommy reappeared as Lemonsquares, who, within a month was showing his true colors and was banned as a sock of RWReagan. A few days later, Emma appears, making sex-scandal related edits to pages both John celona and Lemonsquares edited before their respective bans. I do care if he/she reappears. It can bode no good. Banned editors should not be able to evade bans by shedding skin and blithely resuming editing. David in DC (talk) 23:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh I'm on board with the Lemonsquares as a sock, but I think you misunderstand me about not caring. I don't care if Celona comes back and starts editing if he does so in a positive manner and stays within Wikipedia's guidelines. Tommypowell didn't and he was banned. Same for Celona and Lemonsquares. If he continues this kind of behavior then he'll keep getting banned, if he returns and starts editing productively, then we probably won't even know if its him or not and he can stay. That's all. I'm skeptical that he'd be willing to return and edit productively though, as his taste for salacious and inappropriate conjecture seems to be the only editing he cares about. AniMate 23:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's an interesting edit. Can't resist revisiting places edited in previous lives? David in DC (talk) 13:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Similarly. David in DC (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. Lotta socks out there. David in DC (talk) 16:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm unsure if John celona/Tommypowell is involved in this, as it appears you've stumbled upon a completely different sock farm. Celona tended to focus on rather graphic or at least inflammatory sexual details. These socks seem to specialize in copyright vios (and adding lots of categories). Interesting. I suppose Alison (the checkuser who blocked EmmaRoad) might be able to shed some light on this. Probably just boils down to there being alot of freaks out there. AniMate 08:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Where I tangled with Emma is exactly the same kind of issue as we saw from Tommy/John. See edit history of David Wu, Allan Howe and Bob Wise. Sex and politicians. Last time around, he or she used massive clean-up and edits to many congressional info boxes and bios to obscure the controversial edits. This time it was massive edits to record the religious identification of Members of Congress. But slipped in, there's always a return to exposing sexually titilating information. David in DC (talk) 13:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Still not thoroughly convinced, as there appears to be a linear progression of socks associated with The Mystery Man and John/Tommy's edits overlap his. We'll probably never know, but the good news is that some administrators are aware that this kind of problematic editing is occurring and anyone who engages is in it will likely be blocked. Regardless, you're doing great work in the WP:BLP area. Keep it up. AniMate 23:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This bears watching. No proof except my crap detector. But the account was established 5 days after Emma was blocked as a sock puppet and a few of the first edits follow the old congressional infobox clean-up edit pattern. Then a few finishing up the physicians/dentists/etc in Congress category Emma was working on. Now he's moved on to categorizing homosexuals, including creating a brand new category for LGBT Democrats and filling it up. Also identifying LGBT politicians who aren't Democrats. Nothing wildly inappropriate, but banned editors should not be able to evade bans. David in DC (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. David in DC (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

And again. David in DC (talk) 19:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This IP editor bears watching. The pattern is very close. many edits, mostly in our friend's area of obsession, the intersection between sex, politics and scandal. I'm going to be afk for a couple of days, chaperoning a middle school trip to Ellis Island. Would someone please watch this and take appropriate action. Thanks. David in DC (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I've requested an investigation. I'd still feel better if I knew others were watching this. Thanks to anyone who takes up my request. (MB?, SI?, Aleta? AniMate?) David in DC (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

IP blocked for a week,as sock of The Mystery Man.David in DC (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems at least possible that a reader may type the name in looking for the case, so the redirect seemed to solve some BLP issues (as well as the fact that the article on Mr Krar had no real content) as well as being of service to our readership. Apologies for not notifying you directly. Thanks for you understanding and happy editing! Pedro :  Chat  15:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, your 'form' comment over on my talk page about William Krar being an "attack page" and threatening me with blocking for having created it is IMO way out of line. Perhaps it was worth redirecting, perhaps not, but it certainly wasn't an attack page. Please be more careful with tossing accusations like that around in the future. Bryan Derksen (talk) 17:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You're entirely right.

Thanks. And admittedly, I should have imported at least one of those references from the main article when I made the stub. Bryan Derksen (talk) 23:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

WP copyright policy query: The images in the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress are not in the public domain. The site has a full page listing conditions of their use. A lot of pics from there have gone into new info boxes recently. Three (John Wiley Bryant, Andrew Jacobs, Jr. and Gus Savage) have been newly uploaded. Are they kosher? David in DC (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

From what I know, any work on that site that was produced by the U.S. government is public domain, as American copyright law on this point would override any claims otherwise on any website. Also from what I know, though, one of us is a lawyer and it isn't me. It might be worth bringing this at Media Copyright Questions, as some of the people there are more knowledgeable than I am. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I followed your suggestion here David in DC (talk) 16:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the support!!! Check it Out Honorific titles in popular music with any feedback it looks good nowTalk:Honorific titles in popular music Kelvin Martinez (talk) 13:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I just finished reading over this debate. I wanted to thank you for your patience and good sense in that debate.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That's enormously reassuring. Thank you for taking the time to write. David in DC (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I protected it last time, I'll do it again. Just say the word (on my talkpage) if the IPs jump in the river again....all jokes aside.  :-) Keeper ǀ 76 21:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to invite you to join the newly-formed Rock music WikiProject. There's alot of Rock-related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help us get this project off the ground and a few Rock music pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks! --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 08:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I hope you don't mind that I am asking you for advice. A few hours ago this page was changed. The tabloid cited or better the author was out for revenge then but it the attack fell flat because the whole issue has not been pursued by the mainstream media as intended. Anyway. I would not really object to adding the name except that WP:RS will prevent it as there are none. I have deelted the material, which was added in a way that IMO shows what the real intention was. What I am wondering is if there is a way to get the links deleted from the history without having to address this on BLP:ongoing concerns and starting the fuss all over again. I am quite new to WP and thanks to you I am bit more familiar now with the "inner workings". But I am still a novice. So any advice is very welcome. Thanks. (Jamesbeat (talk) 21:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC))

I know less than you think. I'm not sure if there is a way to do what you're looking to do, but you could try e-mailing your request. Here's a link that might help.David in DC (talk) 22:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I will try. Thanks a lot for your help and also for all your well thought contributions regarding this issue. (Jamesbeat (talk) 22:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC))

This is likely too late to be useful, but for future reference: any administrator can do what you ask by deleting the offending revisions from the page history (I'm always happy to help with that sort of thing, and if it's sensitive you can even e-mail me rather than asking on my talk page). In extreme cases, there are also a limited number of users with an ability called "oversighting", which not only deletes them but prevents even admins from viewing or restoring them. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Monique Fuentes, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monique Fuentes. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? William's scraper (talk) 02:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		I, AniMate, award David in DC this barnstar for excellent work in dealing with biographies of living persons. You are an excellent contributor with a ridiculous amount of common sense and deserve to be recognized. AniMate 05:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been meaning to do this for some time, but just now got around to doing so. Now please take that annoying practical joke new message bar down. Not sure if you remember the drama it originally caused... but it was epic (epically boring and ridiculous, but still). AniMate 05:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. And thank you for your advice on the practical joke box. I saw it and laughed out loud. I had no idea it had a history. I've taken it down. David in DC (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Veronica Moser, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veronica Moser. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Horrorshowj (talk) 09:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello David - I think you're getting very close to the point that you should consider applying for adminship, if doing so holds any interest to you. I think the tools would likely be useful to you in your BLP work. There are some cons as well (not so much cons about being an administrator as about going through the process to become one), but I figure there's no point in discussing those until I know whether or not you're at all interested. Anyway, let me know - here or at my place. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I've answered on your page. David in DC (talk) 00:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I caught the reference - let me know if you every change your mind, and until then keep up the good work. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello! I have proposed deletion of the David Huckabee article under AfD for WP:BLP and WP:NPOV violations. I do not think he is notable simply because he is the son of Mike Huckabee, nor do I believe his crime (alleged) makes him notable. I saw that you have been a major contributor on the talk page, and wanted to notify you in case you might have interest in commenting or following the discussions. Thank you. CorpITGuy (talk) 14:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you for the sources, however the article was already deleted. Thank God and those who support us for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khaty2 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you David.iop (talk) 17:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi David - just noticed that you put a "support" vote under the "oppose" heading for Wizardman's Arb Comm candidacy [1]. As it stands now, that's being counted as an oppose vote, so you might want to go back and either move it to the support section or change the wording to make your intention clearer. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I like contributing here and your kind guidance has, time and again, helped keep me from inflicting too much damage while I type as if I were using my toes. David in DC (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:David in DC. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.