User talk:WorkerBee74: Difference between revisions

Hello WorkerBee74, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Alison ❤ 23:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC) Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Thank you Alison.

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Attacks

Regarding your comments on Talk:Barack Obama: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Accusing those who disagree with your POV of being campaign volunteers or staffers is unacceptable. Shem^(talk) 23:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

tendentious editing - for this further edit[1] and many others. You are edit warring on an important talk page, and behaving in a tendentious way. When you make an edit with the stated purpose of changing the slant of an article about a presidential candidate, referring to those who disagree with you as "campaign volunteers" you are not editing the encyclopedia constructively. If you do not stop it seems likely that you will be blocked from further editing. Wikidemo (talk) 16:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for your opinion

		Please Vote For Change We Can Believe In Or Even No Change at Obama Article
		Requesting your final opinion on the Bill Ayers language You previously !voted (here) on what language to use at the Barack Obama page. We're trying to get a consensus now. Please take another look at how the discussion has progressed (especially here) and consider what option might make the best consensus, then !vote again at Talk:Barack Obama#Call the question after detailed discussion: Option 3 or not?. Please keep in mind the discussion has been long, so if you can accept what seems to be a likely option, please do. This is one of Wikipedia's most prominent articles. Thank you. Noroton (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Barack Obama, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Floridianed (talk) 18:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for edit warring on the Barrack Obama article for 24 hours. If you wish to contest this block please use the {{unblock}} template. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 18:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock|Please review my last edit at Talk:Barack Obama where I agreed to "edit war no more." That was just minutes before I was blocked. A truce had been offered and when I noticed it, buried in the middle of the Talk page, I immediately agreed. The stated purpose of WP:BLOCK is not to punish, but to protect Wikipedia. Because of the truce, I believe that the block now serves no useful purpose, and prevents me from constructively editing and participating in that discussion. WorkerBee74 (talk) 13:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)}}

No opinion on the block, but fixed the template. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Lovely. WorkerBee74 (talk) 23:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems this block expired before being addressed, so I have disabled the template. - auburnpilot talk 02:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Barack Obama

WB74, I'm taking a 30-day Wikibreak from the topic of Barack Obama, but I'd like to continue visiting you on your Talk page. Rely on moderators like Bigtimepeace. If there is breaking campaign news, I see no reason why it shouldn't be added to the article immediately, but be careful to do it using strictly neutral language. And be prepared to discuss and modify afterward. For any other addition of material that is not breaking news, always discuss it first on the Talk page and obtain consensus.

We have a truce based on an initiative started by Wikidemo. I am grateful to see that you have sigend on. Right now the only edit warrior who hasn't signed is User:Life.temp, and I can argue that he/she is headed for a topic ban. Please do not allow anyone to put you in the same category as LT. Sign on for the truce and let them be the ones who break it.

JJB has an excellent initiative based on the Ron Paul article and he deserves your consistent, calm and non-combative support. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, you know how I feel from my e-mails. I am not very optimistic about what's going to happen next. But I promise to try and work it out. WorkerBee74 (talk) 13:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I want to correct the mistake I made earlier. The original offer of a truce came from User:Shem, not User:Wikidemo. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Rezko and Obama vs. Paxson/Iseman and McCain

Hi - Will you work as hard on including information in the John McCain article concerning the letters he wrote in 1999 to the FCC urging "action" on a matter relating to Paxson Communications after receiving $20,000 in campaign contributions and numerous (four) campaign related "free" trips on Paxson's corporate jet (see [2])? I'm perfectly willing to WP:AGF, but I'm curious if you'd agree whether Obama's relationship with Rezko (which includes not even an allegation of any favoritism) has roughly the same significance as McCain's relationship with Paxson (or, more directly, Vicki Iseman who was lobbying on Paxson's behalf) and that arguing about one and not the other makes you look partisan. Is McCain your next stop in your relentless pursuit of the unvarnished truth?

...but seriously, I hope you understand the point here. One partisans's "oh my god, it's so obvious - I can't compromise on this, it's a matter of the truth vs. not the truth" might be not quite the same as another partisan's and it's entirely possible neither represents the NPOV truth. The point of NPOV is not to smear all candidates equally, but to talk about them all in the same, neutral, way. If the difference between Rezko/Obama and Paxson(Iseman)/McCain seems like night and day to you, I suggest you take a break and seriously examine your motives here. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel any need to take any breaks.

Re Paxson: there is no allegation that anyone did anything illegal. There has been very little attention paid to this from critics or the neutral news media. According to Wikipedia standards, not much to go on.

Re Iseman: no proof of anything illegal or inappropriate. There isn't even an allegation that anyone did anything illegal. Vicki Iseman isn't talking. McCain has denied the rumors. Apart from one story by the New York Times loaded with innuendo rather than facts, and picked up by other media because it was the New York Times rather than the National Enquirer that was peddling rumors, again there isn't much to go on according to Wikipedia standards.

I have tried to seek guidance from written WP policy, and the unwritten policy represented by other articles covering similar subjects. Please see my comments about the well established precedent represented by George W. Bush, and other articles about prominent politicians during their campaigns for the highest elective offices they could reach, such as Hillary Clinton, Tony Blair, John Howard and John McCain.

In particular, in October 2004 while Bush was in a hotly contested race for re-election, his WP biography contained at least 13 separate conjugations of the words "criticism," "critic" and "criticize." This despite the fact that there was a separate article about the 2004 presidential campaign. This is not an isolated example, and it's an extremely prominent article that has received the attention of Wikipedia's best and brightest, so it cannot be dismissed as an aberration. WorkerBee74 (talk) 13:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Either you're not understanding my point or you really are editing from an entirely slanted POV. Yes, there's no allegation McCain did anything illegal for Paxson or vice versa. Similarly, there's no allegation Obama did anything illegal for Rezko or vice versa. On the other hand, while there's no allegation Obama expressed any favoritism toward Rezko there are undeniable reports McCain took action on Paxson's behalf (to the point that the chairman of the FCC remarked about how unusual this was). Obama casts himself has an ethical alternative to the usual slimely politicians which makes his association with Rezko, um, interesting. Similarly, McCain casts himself has a voice against special interests and particularly lobbyists, which I think makes this incident with Paxson at least as interesting. Surely you see how these two events are entirely parallel? Are they currently receiving the same amount of press coverage? No. But, the Paxson incident was reported by the NY Times and the Washington Post, which are not exactly the PR wing of the Democratic Party.

The only reason to mention Iseman at all is that she provides the connection between McCain and Paxson. The point is not that they might have had an affair, but again the parallels with the Obama/Rezko connection are clear. You haven't exactly said it directly, but I assume you think because Obama admits a friendship with Rezko and Rezko has been convicted of bribery that a reasonable person should assume Rezko was bribing Obama. Wikipedia can't say this outright, but putting "Obama and Rezko were friends" and "Rezko was convicted of bribery" in consecutive sentences sort of makes this implication. Similarly, we can't say McCain and Iseman had an affair, but what would be the implication of saying "McCain and Iseman were friends" and "Iseman claimed she had connections to McCain" (followed up perhaps with the perfectly true fact that McCain's first marriage ended after he had an affair with an attractive younger blonde)?

My point is that the difference between presenting the facts and twisting the facts to make a point almost certainly depends on your own POV. As far as I know you haven't self-identified as a McCain supporter. Your edits pretty clearly label you as one. The more you insist on painting Obama in the least flattering light the more obvious your own bias becomes. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

...Are they currently receiving the same amount of press coverage? No. That is correct, and they never did. We have to follow what the largest groups of secondary sources find to be notable. As required by WP:NPOV and especially WP:FRINGE, at WP we have a duty to give proportionate coverage to non-fringe minority viewpoints, but we also have a duty to give no coverage at all to minority POVs that are indeed out on the fringe.

A large number of reliable, neutral secondary sources find Obama's association with Rezko to be noteworthy and they're asking a lot of questions. But based on the volume of the coverage in reliable, neutral secondary sources, the viewpoint which finds the Paxson and Iseman stuff to be notable or questionable is a fringe viewpoint. There are a few, clearly partisan voices on progressive blogs that are trying to make a point about Paxson/Iseman, but they can't seem to get any traction in the neutral, mainstream media. NYT & WP mentioned it once or twice, but that was it as far as they were concerned. By comparison, the neutral media haven't dropped the Rezko stuff.

Your perception of my political leanings is amusing, but when editing, I will go where the bulk of the secondary sources take me. I've done a lot of reading over the past few weeks, but it only supplements a lifetime of following US politics closely and carefully. I've read the secondary sources about the candidates, I've read Wikipedia policy, and I've read hundreds of encyclopedia biographies about famous politicians, in WP and in Encyclopedia Britannica. The standard for WP biographies of US presidents and presidential nominees is well-established. WorkerBee74 (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Cut/paste

I noticed that you mentioned you can't cut and paste. May I ask why not? I'm just curious, really. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 14:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and take a look at my responses on the Obama talk page

WorkerBee74, I was too angry and upset to even look at the page for a while, but I'm grateful that you took up the argument in such a reasonable way. Inspired by you, I went back to it, and you might want to look at my replies to Rick Block, Wikidemo and Scjessey, since it might give you ideas about your own response. Thanks again, Noroton (talk) 21:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Unsolicited advice

You might want to find some other interests beyond Barack. There is plenty of interesting stuff to work on here. And try to remember to always log in... Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 17:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of the ground rules is welcome within the "proposed ground rules" section, however I disagree with your characterization on several fronts, to wit:

• "...encouraging others to use SPA tags. An SPA tag is quite clearly a challenge to the editor's motives" - If you read WP:SPA you will note that it cautions established users not to rush to bad-faith assumptions, and to avoid biting the newbies. The WP:SPA essay explicitly reminds participants be extra-careful to assume good faith. To this point, no one has been tagged as WP:SPA. How about we agree to revisit the issue if it begins to become a problem?
• "In effect you are giving one side in this debate, but not the other, carte blanche to constantly challenge the motives of the other side with such snide remarks as 'all the established editors are on my side.'" - Immediately after that comment was made, I left a note on its author's talk page reinforcing the need to focus on content and asserting that any claims of consensus at this point are very premature, and also reminding him to focus on content, not contributors. I have sent several such reminders today (check Special:Contributions/Clubjuggle) to editors on both sides of this debate, in the interest of keeping the discussion focused. If we go back to the previous meta-discussion of contributors' behavior, we will not make any more progress than we did the last go-round.

For those reasons, and in the interest of keeping the discussion focused, I ask that if you have an issue with another editor, please either leave me a note here on my talk page so I can attempt to address it as mediator, or bring it up to the user directly (civilly, of course) on his or her talk page.

Our best chance at finding a consensus will be to set aside any personal beefs with other editors and to focus on improving the baseline text. Thanks, --Clubjuggle ^T/C 19:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

WorkerBee74: Let me repeat my advice, a bit more strongly, mediator or no. You would be well advised to step away from this article. Seriously. A mediator won't be able to help you if it turns out you've been socking. Your comments at the SSP are not doing you any favors, the evidence strongly supports the allegations of misuse. ++Lar: t/c 03:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions on the Obama talk page, but...

... try to keep the tone mild. I know it's tempting to respond heatedly (I do it myself, of course), but Keep ducking and dodging and twisting and weaving, isn't going to help convince the other side (and I'm talking about other editors than Scjessey). There's a point at which heated language isn't going to bring us any closer to consensus, and too many people are already getting too tired to stick around. Besides, people can see he's ducking and dodging, and when they reach that conclusion themselves, it's more powerful than anything you or I could tell them. Unfortunately, a lot of the people who left would have been useful in helping to get to consensus. Eventually you and I are both going to get tired of this, so let's tone it down. You've made a lot of good contributions so far, by the way. Thanks for that. Noroton (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Noroton's advice is sound, and his behavior in the discussion so far is a good model to follow. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 19:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply to your note on User talk:Clubjuggle

Thanks. Since the RFCU only returned "possible" it's certainly looks to me that User:Shem has overstepped by tagging you as a "confirmed" sockpuppet. I'll file a report an WP:AN/I. To be perfectly fair, though (and in the interest of full disclosure), the findings of the RFCU does create grounds for reasonable suspicion of sockpuppetry. I therefore must also file a report at WP:SSP documenting those observations, so those with more experience than myself in making those determinations review the facts and make an appropriate determination. I will continue to assume good faith on your part unless and until an official determination would me made to the contrary. This SSP report is not in response to your request, I was actually started working on it an hour ago but my phone rang. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 23:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Please be aware that I have requested an AN/I that an uninvolved admin swing by your suspected sockpuppetry report and provide a resolution. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/WorkerBee74 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Clubjuggle ^T/C 01:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Adding section breaks

Please stop adding section breaks, and then replying to comments in the new sections. It makes a thread very confusing to follow, and responses can be missed. There is also the potential for automated archive problems. Limit new sections to new topics, or sub-sections of existing topics. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Your contributions this morning

It's amazing what a good night's sleep and some time to think things over and gain perspective can do. Your proposals this morning show a new willingness to hear the other side and engage in some give and take, and I for one want you to know that has not gone unnoticed. Given recent history, it may take you some time to regain the trust of other editors, so please continue to exercise the restraint, patience, and willingness to temper rhetoric as you have in your post this morning. Thanks, --Clubjuggle ^T/C 13:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read and heed

See this closing of the socking case. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Incident report filed at AN/I

Hello, WorkerBee74. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 04:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

Blocked: three days for edit warring. You've been reverting George Stephanopoulos multiple times with rather substandard sourcing, attempting to include allegations of ties to terrorist organizations in contravention of our WP:BLP policy. Your refusal to use the talk page, effort to chill the editing process, and pattern of poor behavior are having a negative effect on the editing atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect. When you come back from your block, please remember to make use of our various avenues of dispute resolution instead of bypassing the negotiating stage with hostile behavior such as continuous reverting. east.718 at 02:47, July 1, 2008

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

WorkerBee74 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I cannot cut and paste so cannot provide many diffs, please forgive me. The Washington Post is not "rather substandard sourcing." In fact, it is the gold standard of sourcing. It stated that Ayers launched the political career of Barack Obama by holding a fundraiser for him in Ayers' home in 1995, and that Ayers also donated $200 to Obama's campaign in 1998. Thus it was reasonable, and not a BLP violation, to describe Ayers as a "supporter." Scjessey was well aware of these facts and the reliably sourced support for them, due to his daily work on the related Barack Obama biography. He is also well aware that due to my physical inability to cut and paste, I can't easily copy the sources into the George Stephanopoulos biography. On my third revert I did laboriously type in the full Washington Post reference with footnote. Furthermore, I did attempt to use the Talk page but never saw any response from anyone, and will type in this diff to prove it: [3] Scjessey has his own history of blocks for edit warring, and should be watched carefully. In this case, he followed his usual pattern of using BLP as a club to revert anything resembling criticism of Obama. The page itself appears to have resolved well with intervention by other editors, so we will have no resumption of the edit war on that page. I have already taken a pledge not to editwar on the main Barack Obama article, and have behaved reasonably well in that article for weeks despite a lot of baiting by Scjessey that has been recognized by other, well-established editors. WorkerBee74 (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You were edit warring, so I'm not going to unblock. You didn't exceed 3RR, however, a block can still be legitimately applied in these circumstances.

Regarding the sourcing, presumably, we all could agree The Washington Post is a very good source, and blogs are very poor sources. Accordingly, if The Washington Post says the story comes from blogs, then it would be responsible to mention this in the article. Also, the subject of political endorsements from criminals is nearly always controversial. Remember, the BLP policy isn't just about libel, it also includes ensuring the neutral point of view policy is strictly adhered to. In this context, giving undue weight to a political endorsement from a criminal could reasonably be perceived as a BLP violation. In future, I suggest you use the talk page to gain consensus before making controversial changes.

PhilKnight (talk) 15:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I've just gone to bat for you on User talk:PhilKnight's talk page. If he unblocks you, and you make me look bad, I'll be the first one asking for a tough response. I strongly suggest you review WP:CONSENSUS, and review the advice you've received on your talk page. And quit letting Scjessey bait you. You're welcome. Noroton (talk) 01:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

AN/I report - courtesy notice

I've filed a report your most recent post-block edits to the Barack Obama here: WP:AN/I#WorkerBee74 on Obama page, yet again. Wikidemo (talk) 07:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Blanking the Barack Obama article is a good way to earn another block. Don't do it again. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

This is the diff of you blanking the page. For what it's worth, I cannot believe you would intentionally do that. It must have been a Wikipedia error of some kind. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Go look at the page history. You did in fact blank the page. Also, any consensus, to the extent it exists, was for the use of the word in a specific context and phrasing. The use of criticism where you placed it is not supported. We are discussing the paragraph as a whole. Any consensus will be on the paragraph as a whole. Please use extreme caution when declaring consensus, especially declaring consensus in your favor. you seem to have had difficulty with this in the past. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 21:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you were done a serious injustice

That three-day block was too harsh for someone who wanted to keep correct information in the article, and I think by the time of your third edit, the sourcing included was solid. If it had happened to me, I'd be fuming for a while afterward. I assume that has something to do with your blanking the Barack Obama page. It wouldn't surprise me if you were indefinitely blocked just for that. Please check your email in a bit, and please get away from Wikipedia and enjoy the holiday. Happy 4th. Noroton (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

please weigh in

While I am looking for supporters to "keep," please weigh in however you see fit at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Abongo_Obama

There is a strong movement to delete articles on Obama's relatives. This is of special concern to me based on the alleged ties between Obama and Islam--which I believe are overblown.--Utahredrock (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Discuss the topic, not the editors.

Hello. Please consider this a polite warning from an uninvolved administrator. There has been discussion on the administrator's noticeboard regarding some of your recent editing activity. On briefly reviewing your contributions, I notice that you seem to have difficulty restraining yourself from commenting on your fellow editors (for example, referring to some of them as the "Barack Obama Whitewash Brigade", if I recall correctly.) Discussing editors, rather than their edits, has two problems. First, it is almost always spectacularly unpersuasive. Secondly, it is a slippery slope: what you consider to be a witty bon mot may be considered by the recipient or observers to be a clumsy and hateful insult, and may result in further unpleasant exchanges. Wikipedia users who are chronically incivil can be, and I assure you often are, given extended blocks or topic bans. I strongly suggest to you that if you wish to continue to participate here, you go to herculean efforts to comment only on article contents, ideas, and edits, and not on the editors. Kind regards, Nandesuka (talk) 22:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for continuing incivility, BLP and other issues which have continued beyond your last block which ended on July 4. As the last block was 72 hours, the next duration on the scale is one week. If you wish to contest this block please use the {{unblock}} template. Orderinchaos 04:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You are mentioned in this discussion I started at WP:AN/I

This involves the Stephanopolous page incident which led to your previous block: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Scjessey lying, gaming the system, POV pushing. -- Noroton (talk) 19:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

New AN/I report

Courtesy notice - I brought the issue of your recent contributions to the Talk:Barack Obama to WP:AN/I#WorkerBee74 on Obama page again. Wikidemo (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the part of this personal attack on two editors[4] that involved me and ask that you not reinstate it or make these attacks in the future. You should not be disrupting the Barack Obama talk pages to feud with other editors. If you want to air your complaints about other editors please take it to the AN/I board where there is already a discussion, but do keep it civil. Wikidemo (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you on McCains payroll? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.101.229.63 (talk) 05:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Your comments on Talk:Barack Obama

Okay, so first I'm an operative of the Gamaliel Foundation, whatever that is, now you dig up the Peter Roskam article, which I had no involvement in editing, I merely played referee during a particularly nasty edit war in which one of the participants was banned for his juvenile behavior and death threats. None of this has anything to do with the Barack Obama article, an article I've edited about zero times and only started posting to the talk page recently because your innuendo regarding the Gamaliel Foundation was brought to my attention.

Looking through your edit history, however, indicates that you have been involved in a number of conflicts with other editors, and observing your recent behavior I can understand why. Let me take this opportunity to remind you that Wikipedia is a collaborative venture and you are required to work with other editors. Innuendo such as your comments noted above has no place in such a collaborative project and inhibits harmonious collaborative editing. Your comments on talk pages should discuss edits to the article, not what you imagine about other editors. Here are some links which you might find instructive: Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

As I said at ANI, one of the editors I was in conflict with has just given up a long-standing WP account because he was about to be outed as a Democratic Party; operative and I suspect others whom I've been in conflict with differ from him only in their diligence in covering their tracks. Under such circumstances, I think I'm entitled to ask. I think you will agree that the Gamaliel Foundation represents a very curious coincidence, and it appears under your supervision, Peter Roskam became a list of talking points from the Tammy Duckworth campaign staff, while editors who tried to change that were systematically blocked. By you. Sorry, but that's the way it looks to me. Perhaps you'd care to explain. WorkerBee74 (talk) 15:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have to explain anything about the Gamaliel Foundation because I have no connection to the Gamaliel Foundation and never heard of it until 2 days ago. There is no "curious coincidence" because 1) I haven't been editing the Obama article and didn't even use the talk page until you dragged me into it with your baseless innuendo and 2) I have been a editor and administrator of long and good standing for years before Obama ran for president. Such baseless accusations are inappropriate on Wikipedia and you should not level such charges against other editors based on nothing but your own imagination.

As far as the Peter Roskam article goes, I stand by my participation there. As I said, I merely played referee during a particularly nasty edit war and Wikipedia policy prohibits administrators from acting in such capacity on articles they are actively editing. Thus my involvement with article content was zero. I only "systematically blocked" a single editor by the name of Joe Hazelton, who unleashed an impressive torrent of juvenile rants, offensive ascii art, and death threats with dozens of sock puppets. I'm sure you will agree that such behavior is inappropriate from anyone, regardless of their political orientation. I don't know how you learned of the Roskam article or from whom, but I caution you about listening to self-serving tales of woe from people who have their own axe to grind. Gamaliel (talk) 15:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't made any accusations against you at all, but your immediate defensiveness is also a bit curious. I found out about the Roskam BLP by reading your edit history and then reading the history of that BLP and its Talk page. Then I started finding all these accounts that you declared to be socks and indef blocked without benefit of a Checkuser. I also reviewed the history of your User page which suggests that you might indeed have links to the Democratic Party. You posted then removed that material. Since you've either watchlisted my User Talk page or started folowng me around using my edit history, would you care to explain? WorkerBee74 (talk) 16:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The only curious thing here is that you've started leveling all kinds of accusations against an editor who's never even edited the Barack Obama article. The only link I have to the Democratic Party is voter registration, which is openly declared on my user page and has not been removed, as you imply. Perhaps you'd care to explain why you are engaging in all these hostile accusations, or innuendo, or whatever term you'd care to employ. Gamaliel (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I repeat: I have never made any accusations against you. I am just asking questions. Any innuendo is in the eye of the beholder, and is unintentional. I'll remark again about your immediate defensive posture. You're leaving a lot of my questions unanswered so I'll ask them one at a time. Please compare the October 2006 version of Peter Roskam with the current version of Barack Obama. Why is there so much material in the Roskam BLP that looks like it was drafted by volunteers for the Duckworth campaign? WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Why not ask the editors who actually wrote the material you have such a problem with? I had nothing to do with it other than to block a guy who was calling people "assholes" and posting ascii art of him flipping the bird. None of this has anything to do with the topic at hand, your behavior, specifically your fondness for making accusations. You can claim whatever you want about your statements, but loaded questions ("Have you stopped beating your wife?") are indeed implicit accusations. That sort of behavior is inappropriate and needs to stop. Gamaliel (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll ask you, if you don't mind, since you were refereeing them. Let's explore your acknowledged role as a referee on that page. When you saw that one side was adding a lot of material that was critical of Roskam, including direct quotes from Duckworth herself, did you see that as a possible source of problems? WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

As I told you I did not play a role regarding article content. I acted solely to enforce Wikipedia rules of conduct. Article content was the responsibility of the users editing the article. Gamaliel (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

But at Barack Obama, you're becoming involved in the content decisions and your position seems inconsistent with the content decisions that you silently consented to at Peter Roskam. At this BLP, but not that one, you object with some persistence when there is a possibility that the biography might include facts that do not reflect well on the candidate.

You've cited circumstances, so I shall cite circumstances. A Democratic Party operative has recently abandoned a long standing WP account because he was afraid he might be outed. Others are continuing his work in obstructing any hint of criticism in the article mainspace. I hope you can see why all of this, coupled with your previous administrative history at Peter Roskam, your party registration and your own efforts at Talk:Barack Obama, are troubling to me. WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no inconsistency. In every article, Peter Roskam's included, I advocate the exclusion of poorly sourced material as per Wikipedia policy. Whoever this supposed party operative is, I have no knowledge of his identity and the timing of my involvement in participating in the talk page of the Barack Obama article is solely the result of your actions.

What is troubling here is your behavior. You imagine editors who wish to act in accordance with policy regarding article sources as "obstructing any hint of criticism". You imagine sinister connections between unrelated editors and between editors and organizations they've never heard of. None of this is appropriate behavior for Wikipedia. As I've reminded you, Wikipedia is a collaborative project and you must work with other editors, not assume they are political operatives and accuse them of all manner of imaginary malfeasance. We understand that that this sort of thing may be unfamiliar to users used to the rough and tumble behavior of internet message boards, but we don't engage in that sort of behavior here, and we will not tolerate it indefinitely. Gamaliel (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll say it once more: I haven't accused you of anything. But the results speak for themselves. WorkerBee74 (talk) 21:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Whatever word you choose to identify your behavior, it needs to stop. Gamaliel (talk) 21:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Gamaliel, if you think the way I've been questioning you on this page is so very very mean, I invite you to conduct an experiment. Stop editing as Gamaliel at Talk:Barack Obama, start an alternate account, and try to introduce a little well-sourced controversy and criticism with the same persistence and the same bristling, defensive demeanor you've shown here. You'll quickly learn the true meaning of words like "accusation" and "innuendo." You'll have an SSP and an ANI filed on you in a matter of hours if not minutes. And the little bit of questioning I've done here will seem like a day at the beach.

Then, when your blood starts to boil, you'll understand why I reacted the way that I did. Who knows, they might successfully bait you too. WorkerBee74 (talk) 23:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Somehow, Gamaliel has failed to come up with the usual bristling, defensive response. Perhaps it's because the usual baiting and provocation by other editors on that page is impossible to defend. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Not averse to a bit of baiting of your own, are you? -- Scjessey (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Just angling for a response, hopefully constructive. There is absolutely no comparison to be made. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You think that kind of trolling is designed to elicit a constructive response? You will stop provoking people in this matter immediately. Gamaliel (talk) 19:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments about the user who left

You've claimed a couple of times now that the user who left did so because of fear of being exposed as a "Democratic Party operative". Per this ANI thread the user denied having a COI that would need to be declared but was obviously concerned about having his/her real life identity linked to the Wikipedia account. I don't know what the issue was, but your claim about the reason this person left seems to be pretty far off base (my guess is that it's related to previous real life harassment from a Wikipedia editor who tracked down this user's real life identity). The user's gone, so is not here to correct you, but I respectfully ask you to stop repeating this claim. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The editor in question fought with incredible tenacity against the introduction of anything resembling criticism or controversy, in the biography about the Democratic Party's presumptive presidential nominee. He made numerous false accusations against me and generally poisoned the well; and I'm not the only one who thought so. Then a veteran editor who I trust and respect accused him of having a COI. He denied it like most anyone in the same situation would, true or not; but, rather than stay and defend himself, he abandoned a four-year account with thousands of edits.

To me, that has "Democratic Party operative" written all over it. Due to his relentless efforts to delegitimize me and anyone else who disagreed with him, and to my belief that had the roles been reversed he'd still be saying "WorkerBee74, Republican Party operative" at every opportunity ten years from now, I don't believe I owe him the courtesy.

But as a favor to you, Rick, I'll shut up. WorkerBee74 (talk) 03:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Obama RFC

I've added a header. You should probably delete your sig (but not the time) from the statement of the issue. And if you really want comments only from previously uninvolved folks, I'd suggest you not respond to comments (at least not for a while). In fact, I suggest you undo this edit (under the circumstances, I think it would be OK to take SCJ's comment with it, although you might run that by him first). -- Rick Block (talk) 23:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I have removed your comment from within the RFC. It was your own request that involved editors refrain from commenting on the RFC. It is entirely inappropriate for you to ignore your own request and post your own. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 23:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the rest of it as well.[5] However, even the initial set-up is problematic and seems like forum-shopping given the request that involved editors not comment. I doubt any neutral editor would agree that we should add more criticism for its own sake, but all the same to the extent people on the RfC reach a different conclusion without taking into account the work people who have been diligently editing the page and are familiar with how it got to where it is, it creates a procedural fork. Wikidemo (talk) 23:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Before this gets out of hand, can you (WB) confirm (here) that you're OK with the deletion of your response to the first comment? I nearly deleted it myself, but wanted you to do it to show that you're OK with it. Since it's gone now, I think it would be helpful if you explicitly confirm that you don't mind. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Rick, I hesitated to do anything because you suggested "it would be OK to take SCJ's comment with it." As you know, all of my actions have been under the microscope lately and if I'd deleted SCJ's comment, 60 seconds later Wikidemo would have started another ANI thread about it and two minutes after that, MastCell would have blocked me permanently. I see that Wikidemo has already deleted them himself, so I don't have to take such risks. The only reason I added anything at all was since I started the RfC (and this is my first after all), I got the impression that I had a duty to serve as moderator. WorkerBee74 (talk) 15:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I see now that someone has restored my comments, and I have no problem with that either way. All's well that ends well, all right? WorkerBee74 (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Curious bystander restored your misplaced comment erroneously, and this has been explained on the editor's talk page. Please self-revert your tendentious edit that goes against the express wishes of an administrator. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, please don't use edit summaries to throw veiled threats in my direction. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

No veiled threats from me, SCJ. If you continue to edit war, and bully newbies as CB has correctly observed, you will be blocked. That's not a threat. That's a fact. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not edit warring, and you have no evidence to prove otherwise. I think you'll find it is you who are closer to any kind of administrator sanctions, with all your contentious edits and combative talk page stance. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

RFCs are not meant to be moderated by the originator, in fact the originator is meant to be anonymous (the statement of the issue is supposed to be neutral). -- Rick Block (talk) 18:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Through the page history, the "anonymous" originator can be easily identified; so no point in even trying that. The statement of the RfC issue within the template was strictly neutral. Some elaboration was called for however, and in that elaboration (after the template), I tried to be as neutral as I could. If I failed to be, I apologize; but the activities of others (particularly Wikidemo and SCJ) are threatening to destroy any progress that might be made there, so I wish you'd do something about it. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:RFC#Instructions, RFCs are not to be signed with your user name. Also, if you wish to comment on the RFC, please do so in the "Involved Editor" section. Commenting in the "uninvolved editor" section after asking others not to do so gives the appearance of gaming. Thanks, --18:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee report

You have been named as a party in a report seeking a hearing by the Arbitration Committee concerning events at Talk:Barack Obama and WP:ANI. I have posted the report at the Talk Page for WP:RFAR since the main page is semi-protected. Feel free to add your statement, and please transfert the report to the main RFAR page if you see fit to do so. Thanks. 74.94.99.17 (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful. Another forum for false accusations against me, just when I thought things were starting to improve. WorkerBee74 (talk) 13:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know, I answered your query. It is on my talk page, per my policy ... ++Lar: t/c 19:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

BHO

I think this sums it up best:

Arjuna's right about fringe views. If this was a case of right vs. left, editors could provide balance and avoid expressing their own points of view. But this isn't right vs. left. It's dirty vs. clean. Doesn't call for "balance." --Ohaohashingo (talk) 02:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

As long as this attitude exists, and there are editors and Admins who are willing to look the other way, or worse encourage this behavior, Wikipedia will be little more than an extension of mybarackobama.org. CENSEI (talk) 03:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you completely, CENSEI. I've always been very middle of the road on my politics. I feel that my choice of careers compels that. When I read about a left-wing bias at Wikipedia, I was always skeptical, considering the source of the allegations (Newsmax and other right-wing sites) but the more I participate here, the more I realize the truth of it. WorkerBee74 (talk) 14:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

And it looks like with this article probation, the editors who have managed to circle the wagons and stake thier calim on it essentialy own it. CENSEI (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's do what we can to make it NPOV. Speak out politely, and don't make accusations - they're eager to take it to WP:ANI and make us look like the bad guys. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Its funny, Wikidemo placed the "notification" on my page about the article probation. I am imagining its some kind of pre-emtive strike so that an "uninvolved admin" can swoop in and block me if the article's owners find my edits distatefull. CENSEI (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

To further the implementation of article probation I have placed routine notifications on the talk pages of all editors who I could find who made a significant edit to the article in the past day or two, or otherwise verified that they are aware of the terms of probation. They do not contain an accusation of improper editing. Wikidemo (talk) 00:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll remember that when I am blindsided with a block. CENSEI (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

If you remember that the articles are on probation, presumably you will not be blocked. If you are that is between you and the blocking administrator. Wikidemo (talk) 01:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Gentlemen, can I ask you to take this somewhere else? Every time I see "You have new messages" in boldface in a big orange box at the top of the page, I drop everything and race over here because it is (or at least should be) an important message addressed to me. WorkerBee74 (talk) 02:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Strange. It's not that they started on your talk page w/o your interacting and therefore aproval but now you want to "throw them out"? Funny! And sorry to give you another boldface in an orange block. I'll retire now so don't worry. Regards, --Floridianed (talk) 03:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Article probation notice

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, that an article to which you have recently contributed, Talk:Barack ObamaThe Obama Nation, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Please accept this as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that you have violated the probation terms. Thank you. - Wikidemo (talk) 04:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Your behavior

Okay, your last comment is quite enough. You've been warned about your behavior before on other articles, you are aware that these articles are under probation, and you've made disruptive statements before on that talk page. There's no need to exacerbate matters and antagonize other editors with such comments. Keep your comments restricted to content and do not discuss other editors. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 03:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

re: That wasn't vandalism

Okay, let's just call it "aggressively removing large sections of criticism which you know very well goes against talk page consensus." — goethean ॐ 15:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring at The Obama Nation

You have made the same contentious edit to remove a considerable amount of content from The Obama Nation five times in just over two days.[6][7][8][9][10] You are aware of the terms of article probation,[11] under which disruptive editors may be blocked or banned from Obama-related pages. Please do not make further contentious reversions. Wikidemo (talk) 01:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page

here. Also discussing this at the bottom of the TON page. Noroton (talk) 02:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm inviting your comment

Here (and also, if possible, here?)  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 05:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation/Incidents

I have opened an incident report here. Feel free to read the contextual material and comment. I make the report now before the situation develops further.

Honest question

You have previously mentioned that you are unable to cut and paste, but you're able to search NEXIS pretty extensively. May I ask what type of device you're using that can access NEXIS but can't cut and paste? I'm honestly curious. Thanks, --Clubjuggle ^T/C 16:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The employer I work for does not allow the posting of emails or any other messages (including WP edits) using company computer equipment. This is carefully monitored by the IT weasels and people have been suspended for it. However, I can use the company computers to do Nexis searches. And I can use my smart phone to edit WP articles since I have a significant amount of time when I'm not actually doing anything.

My reputation here is excellent. There's serious talk about me getting my boss's job when he retires, and he's 63 years old. So there's no way I'm messing that up.

Is that a sufficient disclosure? WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense, thanks. I just couldn't make sense of it before. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 18:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Obama

This is not how it works. Controversial material should be added after a discussion on the talk page with consensus to add the material. This is especially true for blps and articles on probation, so please don't add it back without consensus on the talk page. Regards, Cenarium ^Talk 14:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is it "controversial"? There's no denying that by naming Palin as his running mate, McCain has profoundly altered the landscape of this campaign. That is a fact. Complaining about it, or calling it "controversial," doesn't change that fact. WorkerBee74 (talk) 14:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Who do you think you are WorkerBee74! You know you cant edit an article that someone else owns, they will have you banned for behavior like that. CENSEI (talk) 15:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Talking about the polls has been recently rejected and you know this is the kind of things that will likely be controversial ,it's not like fixing a comma. Cenarium ^Talk 15:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Mind if I butt in? I thought you might want to consider the WP:TOPIC section of Wikipedia's style guidelines. No one argues against the notion that the poll results are notable in the context of the presidential campaign. Any timeline will certainly include them, regardless of the way the election turns out. But like the metric weight of a Troy ounce, the rate of Carbon-14's radioactive decay, and the poetic offerings of Ralph Waldo Emerson, polling bounces from the conventions do not belong in Obama's biography. Perhaps they aren't as unrelated as my tongue-in-cheek examples above, but they certainly won't be looked back on as bearing any great weight in the man's life six months from now. Similar biographies of other presidents and presidential candidates, winners and losers, living and dead, do not include their convention bounces... and nor should they. It's the wrong context for the information. --GoodDamon 22:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to get involved in the discussion, but you are right that controversial is imprecise and incomplete in this context, it's rather if your edit has a high probability of being reverted, then don't save it. And look at the talk page for related discussions before editing. Regarding Wikidemon, I don't have sufficient evidence and cannot act on this, you should seek dispute resolution (if you have time). Cenarium ^Talk 08:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:FAR for Barack Obama

Barack Obama has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

I have nominated Barack Obama for Featured Article Review. You are welcome to participate in the discussion. Curious bystander (talk) 23:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Please take another look at Weatherman/Terrorism RfC

This is a message sent to a number of editors, and following WP:CANVASS requirements: Please take another look at Talk:Weatherman (organization)/Terrorism RfC and consider new information added near the top of the article and several new proposals at the bottom. If you haven't looked at the RfC in some time, you may find reason in the new information and new proposals to rethink the matter. Thanks! -- Noroton (talk) 03:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Civility

You know better than this.[12] Stop acting uncivil. Anything you do in such an uncivil manner will not get any serious consideration from most editors. Wikidemon (talk) 05:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Please stop with the contentious, hostile and counterproductive editing at the Acorn article.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

3RR and ANI

Courtesy notice. I have filed a 3RR report here) and AN/I report(here) regarding your edit warring and general tendentiousness at Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Wikidemon (talk) 19:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

By now, you should know better than to edit war. Your attempts to get the page protected on your preferred version are not encouraging. Please take the time to read up on Wikipedia's policy and guidelines and see if you can't find a less combative way of contributing to Wikipedia. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

We are discussing a proposed edit on the following page: Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Please contribute in a constructive manner. Thank you, and don't forget to sign your messages on the Talk page with four tildes. ~~~~ Marx0728 (talk) 23:46, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

BLP warning

Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Talk:Barack Obama. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey WB, if Noroton's brief couldn't wade throught the an/i minefield

What makes ya think your polemics are gonna last!  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 16:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. You know all about this by now. Consider yourself lucky you're getting a warning. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Another personal attack

If you do not remove this immediately (as I politely requested), I will remove it for you and file an report at WP:ANI. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Since you have twice ignored my request, I have filed the ANI report. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 21 days

Because of your continued disruptive editing and civility issues, I have no choice but to block you for 21 days. Too many of your actions at Talk:Association_of_Community_Organizations_for_Reform_Now have been inappropriate and way out of line, and it is obvious that this is a continued pattern with you. If you cannot stay civil in discussion with others, it is likely that the next blocks will escalate towards a year or indefinite lengths. Please take the next three weeks to examine our policies on civility and such before returning, Metros (talk) 03:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

WorkerBee74 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The length of this block is excessive when you consider what actually happened. See the comments by Marx0728 on the User Talk page of the blocking admin for all details. I will do my best to refrain from disparaging motives of others in the future.

Decline reason:

I don't think the length of the block is excessive at all, given the circumstances, and given your block record. POV pushing was met with resistance, which was then met with incivility. I think you need some significant time away from Wikipedia to reevaluate your participation here. I don't necessarily believe that Marx0728 and WB74 are the same editor, but either way Marx's plea to the blocking admin carries no weight with me. Mangojuice^talk 03:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Also, since several editors appear to have this page on their watchlists, I'd appreciate it if one of you would transclude my Strong support for the currently proposed "voter registration" section on the ACORN Talk page. Thanks. WorkerBee74 (talk) 22:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Note:The editor made this request immediately after deleting a number of warning and dispute discussions on this page that lead up to the block,[13] in one case calling them "lies".[14] They did the same immediately before the block.[15] Marx0728 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the editor who supposedly claims the block is unreasonable, is one of the suspected sockpuppets of this editor. Given the editor's long period of incivility, tendentiousness, edit warring, wikigaming, sockpuppetry, etc., all as an anti-Obama WP:SPA, I would suggest that any lifting of the block, whether before or upon its scheduled expiration, be subject to mentorship and/or a topic ban on Obama-related topics.Wikidemon (talk) 22:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It appears that any editor willing to treat me in a civil fashion, and find merit in any of my proposed edits, is a "suspected sockpuppet." When the accusations are untrue via use of Checkuser - and as an American, I believe in innocence until guilt is proven - the smears persist. Evidently these people are allowed to keep repeating these false accusations with no consequences to themselves. It's time to either prove it or drop it, and issue blocks to those who persist in these false accusations, with the same vigilance, inflexibility and length used against me and others who have been falsely accused in this manner. These smears must come to an end, Wikidemon. And if you want a topic ban, propose it at WP:ANI and - you guessed it - prove that one is necessary to protect Wikipedia. WorkerBee74 (talk) 00:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

No, not untrue. "Inconclusive" was the phrased use, with widespread agreement that you probably are a sockpuppeteer based on behavioral patterns. The eternal cry of the sockpuppeteer who is capable of changing IP addresses -- "prove it" -- does not negate that likelihood. I would ask that any administrators reviewing this user's case take into account the sheer weight of incident reports filed, and strongly support a topic-ban. --GoodDamon 00:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)