Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:51, 27 July 2008

Hello WorkerBee74, and Welcome to Misplaced Pages! 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages Community Portal Follow Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 23:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

tendentious editing - for this further edit 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 Misplaced Pages's most prominent articles. Thank you. Noroton (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages, 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 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 )? 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 /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 /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 /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 /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 04:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/WorkerBee74 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Clubjuggle /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 /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 Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Clubjuggle /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

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: 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 Misplaced Pages 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 /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 Misplaced Pages 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/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)

Edit warring warning.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Barack Obama. 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 have been blocked in the past for this same behavior and people will not hesitate to block you again. I recommend that you moderate yourself, your edits, and apparent passion for Barack Obama.

I also highly recommend that you take a long wikibreak from all things related to Barack Obama and maybe apply some of your energies to non-controversial articles that can use your help and editing. Brothejr (talk) 13:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed this to the ongoing AN/I discussion here: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents‎#WorkerBee74 again - Wikidemo (talk) 14:04, 7 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. Misplaced Pages 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: Misplaced Pages: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 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 Misplaced Pages 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: Misplaced Pages:Civility and Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. As I've reminded you, Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 /C 23:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the rest of it as well. 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)