Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive440

At Talk:Barack Obama (where I am attempting to mediate resolution of a disputed paragraph that was previously the target of an edit war), WorkerBee74 has repeatedly made personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith against multiple editors. Examples include [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21] and [22]. That's just going back through 25 June; let me know if you need me to go back further.

User was warned for his behavior multiple times, including [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]

It's also worth noting that user is "predicting" problems when two blocked users return from their blocks. This user was suspected of being a sock of one of those users (

I request that an administrator review

For context, also see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive438#WorkerBee74 (which references Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Barack Obama pages). Those in turn link to earlier incidents and other sockpuppet reports. Wikidemo (talk) 05:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

WorkerBee74 is being censored for his viewpoint, which will be a minority until more editors who are interested in a balanced NPOV article (as opposed to a Barack Obama hagiography) participate in the process. He has called them "Obama campaign volunteers" and certainly their obstinate refusal to consider including anything resembling criticism in the biography, no matter how prevalent and widely published in reliable, notable sources, makes that a possibility. Every trick in the book is being used in a campaign to rationalize this whitewash. I'm sure it is very frustrating for WorkerBee. It is clearly very frustrating for User:Noroton, User:Utahredrock and User:Justmeherenow, a trio of exprienced, non-SPA editors who have been beating their heads against the wall trying to introduce NPOV into the article.

I took a 30-day voluntary topic ban from the article; one of the reasons was the obstinate refusal of the obvious Obama fanboys to consider making it anything approaching NPOV. I am a workaholic, but people like that make me need a break. Review the page Talk:Barack Obama and its recent archives, consider the circumstances and the extremely mild nature of the expressions of frustration which are being reported as personal attacks, and consider also that the same accuser has made false accusations against me. Kossack4Truth (talk) 10:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

see his complaints on my talkpage. He ran me off all the Obama articles with his tenditious editing. i would support a tpoic ban for the reporting user as there has been enough gaming the system by him to censure disagreement .Die4Dixie (talk) 11:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC).

I've had a Checkuser run on me twice so far and the reports were "unrelated" both times. There is a very real problem with that article. Don't let its Featured Article status fool you. Just within the last four months, some very real and well-grounded criticism has arisen against Obama throughout the mainstream news media.

WP:NPOV demands, inclusion of this criticism. But it is being systematically excluded by a small, determined group of editors. User:WorkerBee74 is clearly frustrated. Kossack4Truth (talk

) 11:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll skip the content dispute. After an ongoing level of background incivility (the last part of which is reported in the diffs above), WorkerBee74 made a dig involving another editor's wife[30], and when called on it said "get over it" and taunted that people would be laughing at the target of the insult if he complained.[31] In normal circumstances this would be what it is. However, all editors on the Barack Obama article are on notice from the earlier AN/I reports and administrative intervention (linked here) that further incivility will not be tolerated. WB74 was one singled out for warning, and almost topic banned, so he surely knows better.

I also suggest examining Kossack4Truth's behavior. He too was warned and nearly topic banned. The self-imposed break is laudable, but a bizarre groundless report filed here a few days ago to accuse an editor on the page of lying[32], and renewal above of the "Obama fanboys" and "campaign volunteers" taunts that were in part the subject of the proposed topic ban, show that he may not be ready to edit constructively. There are, alas, some serious unresolved concerns about sock puppets too. Wikidemo (talk) 11:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

"returned from a short period of inactivity from this particular account" in the above users comment under the section he started below on me would seem to be a veiled allusion to my having more than one account. That, coupled with the compulsive behavior to report every editor with whom he disagrees as a sock puppet or uncivil has become for me , an all too troubling pattern. I took a break , kossack took one. I think it might be time for you to take one too, Demo. Please believe that this comes from a sincere place. The complaints are becoming less based in the real activity, and are beginning to affect good faith editors abilities to contribute with out the constant misguided policy complaintsDie4Dixie (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Will you please stop making personal attacks? My editing and behavior is not in question - please don't disrupt this report to complain about me. Wikidemo (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, Wikdemo, but your behavior is in question. See below. WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

All of the above claims by User:Wikidemo and User:Clubjuggle are a tempest in a teapot compared to the constant obstruction, distortion and (yes) misrepresentation of Wikipedia policy, and general POV-pushing by the pro-Obama editors who have taken up residence on that page. User:Scjessey, after being "warned and nearly topic banned," promised to take a two-week voluntary topic ban which lasted only four days. The difference between Scjessey and me is that I keep my word. I am currently in the 16th day of my 30-day voluntary topic ban.

Please review the diffs provided by Clubjuggle. Scjessey and other pro-Obama editors have repeatedly (yes) misrepresented the facts and Wikipedia policy, WorkerBee74 has repeatedly called them on it, and for that he's being singled out for revenge. Kossack4Truth (talk) 11:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not productive to turn this into a story of revenge, going back on words, POV pushing, etc. Again, that kind of contentiousness demonstrates lack of readiness to constructively contribute. As was explained the last 3 or 4 times K4T attempted to accuse ScJessey of prevaricating over his decision to return early from a self-declared wikibreak, it was not a deal or a promise, and there was no obligation that ScJessey stay away. He changed his mind and returned, after announcing he would do so upon learning that other editors proposed for topic bans were not in fact going to be banned. Wikidemo (talk) 12:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree strongly. It is productive for the Wikipedia project to expose the tactics that are being used here by the pro-Obama faction: (A) obstruct, distort, deny, misrepresent both Wikipedia policy and the facts, (B) hold a reasonable discussion hostage to your demand for both finality and immediate resolution before two of your opponents can return to the page, and (C) whenever you're called on it, or someone responds to you out of frustration at your tactics, come whining to

WP:SSP with exaggerated reports. I've had a Checkuser run on me twice. Both results were "unrelated." WB74's ISP has now been exposed to the world by a Checkuser, so I can see how a Checkuser could destroy my privacy, and it's been done to me twice. So I don't like it. I submitted without complaint the first time. But I'm getting sick and tired of it, Wikidemo. I do not appreciate these whining exaggerated reports. You and the rest of the pro-Obama cadre, with few exceptions, tell half-truths. And I will be vigilant to ensure that the other half of the truth follows quickly wherever and whenever your half-truths are told. Kossack4Truth (talk

) 13:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

"...come whining to

WP:ANI

[snip] with exaggerated reports."

You mean like this? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Wisely, Wikidemo immediately admitted that you, SCJ, had "been participating on the main and/or talk pages more aggressively than one might hope for given attempts to diffuse tensions." [33] He's a master of the understatement, SCJ. The two of you have been tendentious. You mention talking about the article with your wife on multiple occasions. But the moment I suggest that you "talk it over with your wife," without anything at all more that that, you claim that it's a personal attack, or perilously close to one. Yet in the past, you have repeatedly made snide comments about those who disagree with you.

You are substituting false accusations for a reasoned and calm discussion of the proposed content changes on their merits. I have consistently sought a discussion on the merits and there has been excuse after excuse from you for dodging or delaying a discussion on the merits. Wikidemo openly holds the discussion hostage to his unreasonable preconditions. I have repeatedly exposed your false claims (and Shem's) concerning Wikipedia policies and well established practices here it Wikipedia. Both of you need a break from the article and we need a break from both of you, your many false statements, your false accusations and your obstructive tactics. I suggest a two-week topic ban for both of you.

The version of the

WP:WEIGHT, at which point you resorted to yet another false accusation because you've run out of policy to distort. WorkerBee74 (talk

) 17:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned my wife just twice:

1. Crediting her with helping write a new proposal text
2. Follow-up humor related to the first edit

Your comment was at best facetious, but given the tone it came across as sneering jibe designed to provoke a reaction. And referring to my edits as

tendentious is a remarkable piece of fiction by a master of disruption. -- Scjessey (talk

) 17:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Everybody here can see what you're doing. If they care about NPOV, what you're doing isn't going to work. We can't show favoritism to Obama. Like Tony Blair, there's a loud chorus of criticism from notable, reliable sources and we have to give it proportionate space. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Another unnecessarily hostile post: [34] --Clubjuggle ^T/C 19:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think that's the kind of "hostility" worth reporting here. Look to the previous edits and the next one. Scjessey makes a partisan, over-the-top statement with a not-quite-solid relationship to the truth (knowing it would annoy WB74), WB74 responds, calling it "misrepresentation", Scjessey says he's being called a "liar", although the word does not necessarily mean "lie", just as Scjessey's statement is not necessarily anywhere close to the truth. Each side goads the other, needs to break off, doesn't.

talk

) 22:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• recent revert warring up to 3RR on a related talk page, after report filed (I have no opinion on the content here):[35][36][37][38] Wikidemo (talk) 00:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

And again, we see Scjessey distorting

William Ayers, after donating $200 to Obama's 1998 State Senate campaign, and launching Obama's career at a fundraiser in his own living room in 1995, couldn't reasonably be described as a "supporter." Again, we see Scjessey twisting and distorting policy as an excuse to delete any negative material about Obama. And again, we see Wikidemo telling only half the truth, because Scjessey edit warred too. Kossack4Truth (talk

) 02:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you too accusing me of misrepresentation? That wasn't meant as a content issue, just a simple report of another present example of WorkerBee74 edit warring on Obama-related articles. The other half of the revert sequence is that WorkerBee74's attempt to insert disputed content was reverted by two editors citing

WP:BLP concerns. Wikidemo (talk

) 03:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I now see what Kossack4Truth is up to. He figures that by repeating my username here as often as possible, he can make it appear as if this is a two-way thing and get whatever sanctions are applied to WorkerBee74 applied to me as well. Let's be clear about this though, this incident report was filed because of WB74's lack of civility, and not because of any content dispute. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

ongoing incivility

(heading inserted to make clear this is not response to K4T, above)

Yet more attacks after this report was filed: [39] - says I'm lying and makes generalized insults about other editors on the page of "hypersensitive, quivering, fragile little egos". We really ought to deal with this - please don't let these editors muddy things by making counter-accusations. Wikidemo (talk) 12:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC) (struck part of complaint because editor has now retracted part of insult)

Admins are invited to notice also that WB74 immediately thought better of it, without any prompting from anyone, and retracted the very language Wikidemo has put into quotation marks: [40] Wikiemo omitted this evidence for some reason. You keep leaving out evidence like that, Wikidemo. Why do you keep leaving out all the evidence that undermines your exaggerated accusations? Kossack4Truth (talk) 13:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Wikidemo made his post at 12:14 UTC [41]. User:WorkerBee74 did not make his edit until 12:47 UTC [42]. --Clubjuggle ^T/C 13:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I note that WB74 has retracted part of the insult (stricken, above, and greatly appreciated), but as of now the text still accuses me of lying. I've asked him to reconsider and revert that, and if he does I would be more than happy to strike or remove this subsection. I don't really want to get into any more drama and arguments here, just reporting what happened. Wikidemo (talk) 14:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It's probably also worth noting that "immediately," in this case, means "an hour and 16 minutes after the original edit." [43] --Clubjuggle ^T/C 15:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

FWIW: I have no opinion on how awful or mild WorkerBee74's behavior has been because I haven't been paying attention to all the arrows flying on that page except for the ones I've been pulling out of me and a few I've launched myself and later retracted with apologies. Admins and editors looking into this should discount anything just mildly impolite and should recognize that everyone experiences some rudeness on that page, making it more difficult not to be rude in return, even if it's a little later and even if the new target may not have been the original instigator. I've noticed that WorkerBee74 has tried on a number of occasions to be more polite than the editors responding to him and has made constructive comments. So has Wikidemo. Clubjuggle has been extremely helpful and we've slowly gotten to the point where we're close to consensus on one difficult topic. My sense is that the page is not as bad as it once was.

Thanks for noticing, Noroton, that I've "tried to be more polite than the editors responding to [me]" and that when they're rude to me, it's "difficult not to be rude in return." I have done my very best not to respond in anger to their supremely frustrating tactics, their avoidance of discussion on the merits, and their false accusations.

But when they make false statements and misrepresent Wikipedia policy to rationalize the whitewashing campaign, I can't just silently tolerate it. I have to speak out. What is an appropriate way to describe what they're doing? "Lying" is fair and accurate, but too harsh. They object here at ANI, carefully gathering diffs and even deleting my comments, when I use a term as mild as "misrepresentation."

Should I use a code phrase when referring to their false statements and their many distortions of policy? Do you think they'd be offended if I use a code phrase like "gilding the lily" or something? WorkerBee74 (talk) 17:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

How about simply not accusing other editors of lying? You've said three or four times that I lied, and alluded to it again above. Did I? You also say I've been tendentious, and that I'm holding the page hostage. Am I really? Refraining from such accusations would go a long way to returning the talk page to civility. Wikidemo (talk) 18:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

...and again[44] - half an hour ago, calls another editor's comments untruthful. WB74, do you really not know after all this time what is problematic about making comments like that? Wikidemo (talk) 19:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

How about simply not accusing other editors of lying? He's not accusing you of lying. He's accusing you of misrepresenting the truth. This is a subtle but significant distinction. When a false statement is made, are page participants supposed to just allow it to stand unchallenged? Kossack4Truth (talk) 23:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a note here from a mildy involved editor. Leaving aside who makes the statement, and who its directed at (insert any editor in either). I think we all know things are misrepresented here by people, either in good or bad faith, or on accident. Stating this fact is not a cause for AN/I discussion. Arkon (talk) 23:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I did not start this discussion. However, now that this editor has been brought here for the nth time for his behavior, I am presenting the facts. His repeated accusations that I am lying are just one of many issues, but being accused of lying is irksome and poisons the atmosphere. "Misrepresentation" can mean either of two things. First, a lie. Second, a deliberate misstatement of the truth. Both are inappropriate given that he is on notice to reform his uncivil behavior. But he makes it clear that he means lying:

• "claiming that he did is another misrepresentation".[45]
• "calling it a lie, while accurate and fair, would be awfully harsh"[[46]
• "your many false statements, your false accusations and your obstructive tactics....[47]
• "What is an appropriate way to describe what they're doing? "Lying" is fair and accurate, but too harsh."[48]
• "there you go again, misrepresenting the facts...kindly limit your statements to the truth"[49]
• "everybody here can see what you're doing"[50]
• "you must be a disciple of Saul Alinsky...that is yet another in your endless stream of misrepresentations."[51]
• "misdirection...misrepresentation...unapologetically false statements are your trademark here"[52]

This is just a sample of the editors edits in the last three days. How is this not accusing other editors of lying? Wikidemo (talk) 00:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This is just a sample of the editors edits in the last three days. If the shoe fits, wear it. Try to be more precise about the facts and your description of policy. Then he won't be able to complain about your inaccuracies. Kossack4Truth (talk) 02:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

??? those are diffs of accusations of lying by WorkerBee74 against 2 or 3 editors. By "if the shoe fits", K4T, are you repeating your own accusations of lying? Wikidemo (talk) 02:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) The editor in question is now under a 3-day block for edit warring.[53] I'm wondering if that means we ought to archive this discussion, perhaps to the "obama pages" sub-page. Given the history, I don't think that block is going to resolve the issue but I'm not sure how much more there is to be said or done here for now - no specific administrative action required, but an ongoing need for some help and supervision on the pages (see Noroton's appeal below).Wikidemo (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Create a committee of admins with their own AN/I page just for this circus

Admins, I think this is something like the sixth report in the past six weeks. You can either have a new report every week on the ongoing Obama Talk Page Soap Opera or gather a group of volunteer admins to form a loose committee who will pledge to watch the Flying Wallendas, the dancing donkeys and elephants and even the clowns, and within about seven days, when the next editor decides to post a complaint, direct that editor to the AN/I-Obama page where the committee members will be familiar with the storyline and don't have to reinvent the wheel. Just my opinion, thought it would save you all some time; and it would be a lot easier to identify real troublemaking vs. heated comments that typically come up in long, heated debates. There was a temporary AN/I page about two weeks ago that discussed special remedies and the behavior of certain editors, and that worked pretty well (if I can find a link to it, I'll add it;

The page, and especially the talk page need some oversight. I have to recuse myself due to my own political beliefs. I'd like to ask that some non-US based admins help with general oversight and civility patrol on the page. As the election gets closer it will be very difficult for US based admins to act as unbiased moderators. Even if they don't have bias, whichever one is on the loosing end of a dispute will claim a bias. Having non-US admins will help to calm the situation. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

StuffOfInterest, your political beliefs don't disqualify you from anything here. We all have them and are supposed to check them at the door. I'm suggesting that admins deal only with behavior, not content. Your

talk

) 20:54, 30 June 2008 (UT

Actually , there is a certain editor who lurks around the Obamma pages that really needs a AN/I page all of his own , one in which he could report everyone for sockpuppetry, psuedoincivility, and in which he could threaten everyone with whom he disagrees with banning. It would likely reduce the work load of admins, who would be able to more easily spot troubling patterns of disagree/ provoke/ report. Just my two cents worth.Die4Dixie (talk) 13:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Another wildly uncivil editor there - we could certainly benefit from some oversight. Wikidemo (talk) 16:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

There are still 50 articles that need either stubbified, deleted, or completely rewritten. All the articles not crossed out on Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/CarolSpears are about 95% likely to contain copyvio or at least severe plagiarism. We need help - it takes at least three minutes per article to do the minimum (stubbifying), if we're expected to rewrite them completely, to avoid the copyvio, then that's at least 15-30 minutes.

There's also the problem that a sizable percentage of the information in them is wrong - CarolSpears did not copypaste very carefully, so, a description of a leaf might be a description of the stem misplaced, or a description of a plant's habitat in one country might be treated as its habitat in general - notably in the (now deleted and redone from scratch) Agrostis gigantea, the description treated it as if the situation in America - where it is not a native plant, but an invasive one - was the typical situation of that plant. She's also treated Isreal as the world, the Alps as a different mountain range, and a description of one species as if it applied to another. (This is from memory, there's been a lot of articles to go through.

I cannot do this alone. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend turning them into stubs instead of full rewrites. Full rewrites can be done later. Right now, we should just focus on getting rid of the copyright violations while still maintaining an article (however stripped down the article may be). If you wish, you can assign me a group of them and I'll work on them this week. I don't mind helping. Enigma ^message 05:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

As a side issue ... unless I missed something, Carol hasn't participated in the RfC. I find this a bit troubling, considering the magnitude of the problem and the fact she was nearly banned.

Um, that bit might be my fault. :-) I'd advised her to take time to chillax before responding on it so that she was calm when doing so. I didn't specify how long though! --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 16:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

well, she's now commented on her own RFC..."Does anyone know a word that rhymes with "species"? -- carol (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)" Exactly the sort of thing that got her there to begin with. You ever feel like some people don't want the help offered to them? LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I am beginning to marvel at the apparently limitless patience that we are showing here.

1. Carol has been involved in large scale plagiarism that is taking a lot of effort to fix.
2. Her response to this has been to repeatedly attempt to minimise or dismiss the relevance of her plagiarism, by arguing about other people having plagiarised her.
3. Any attempts to deal with problematic editing are met with word play, point scoring, sarcasm, and argument. She doesn't seem to be interested in getting things right, just in winning arguments.
4. Carol is repeatedly rude to those who take issue with her problematic editing.
5. Her reaction to a user RFC has, yet again, been rudeness.

Just how far can this be allowed to go?

As far as I can determine, more hours of editor time are going into solving problems that Carol has caused than she spent putting stuff into the encyclopedia in the first place. On any simple measure, her continued editing is not a net positive to the project. This is before we even begin to consider her poor attitude to her fellow editors.

Unless we see a dramatic shift in style and content, a block/community ban is inevitable Mayalld (talk) 13:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I've not been involved with this editor, but have been watching developments from afar since stumbling across CarolSpears some time ago. In my view, Mayalld has hit it on the head. Editing here is a privilege, and one withdrawn from many individuals on a daily basis... and on far less provocative grounds. It certainly looks like her contributions have been a net detriment so far, and have wasted the time of many excellent, productive editors. Most worryingly, she seems to have some sort of cognitive or behavioural issue that prevents her both honestly evaluating her own actions, and responding constructively to other users' concerns. It speaks well for the patience and tolerance of those editors who still believe she can be salvaged, but I've seen similar problems with other users until eventually they've ended up banned. The pity is, it causes so much unnecessary aggravation before we reach that point. EyeSerene^talk 14:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to agree with this now, too. If she doesn't show some sign very soon that she is taking it seriously and stops fooling about, I will be endorsing the next community ban proposal. Sarah 14:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I too have been watching this from afar and have to agree that a lot of editors have been working real hard to clean up many articles only to find more articles in the making with no help from this editor at all to help repair what was already done. The responses that have been given are not at all helpful and are very hard to understand the reasonings. I too would vote for the community ban if that would come up again. I really think the new articles and new editing at least should stop until this is resolved. Thank you, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Wikihw blocked for 1 week by Satiori Son. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Like a low-grade fever, this issue has persisted long enough to require some additional attention. The problem is with user

It’s perplexing. Wikihw is not a vandal, he’s not pushing POV, or doing anything else in Wikipedia that could fairly be described as disruptive. By and large his edits are sensible and useful, and he appears to be a responsible, if intermittent, editor. But he has made the same reversion more than twenty times since mid-March, without comment, while steadfastly ignoring the requests of three editors to discuss the issue. As I said in my original request for editor assistance, I don’t want to engage in a silly edit war; but at the same time it’s not right simply to acquiesce in an edit because the editor indefatigably reinserts it while refusing any attempt at discussion. Thanks in advance for any comments or help. JohnInDC (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The wording of that section reads like an essay someone else wrote. Consider this item from 2001 [54] in which the quote about "cherishing three things" appears. It's clear they're taking it from someplace else. I wonder if the user is copying-and-pasting the longer version of the article from which this reference quoted - or whether it's an amalgam of different quotes? In any case, the wording of it looks fishy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Baseball Bugs about the paragraph being added, but in any case, that's a content dispute and not really to be decided here (although, FWIW if the user engages in dialog and still insists on re-adding the content, I would back you up in removing it, as per Bugs' reasoning).

The real issue here, though, is that an otherwise good faith editor is edit warring (it may be slow motion edit warring, but it's still edit warring) and is unwilling to engage in dialog either on his talk page or on the article talk page. I have issued the user a very stern final warning.

I fear the problem is here that maybe the user just doesn't understand talk pages and user talk pages (I have not seen a single edit outside of article space). It would really suck if it came to this, but if the user continues to ignore your pleas for dialog, a very short block may be the only way to get him/her to start responding to these messages. I really hope it doesn't come to that. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

To paraphrase Yogi Berra, if someone won't talk to you, you can't stop him. A block might make him "open up". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Even if it’s not a copyvio, this kind of behavior is completely unacceptable. I have come across this type of editor numerous times over the years. They know that by persistent but sporadic reverting of an edit, they keep from technically violating

WP:3RR

and are likely to eventually wear down the majority who disagrees with them. And since their edits are not vandalism or harrassment, they are rarely, if ever, blocked. Reports to ANI such as this are often dismissed as content disputes.

This behavior is especially troublesome when accompanied by a failure to engage in dialogue, even when solicited by others. Wikihw has made zero article talk comments and zero user talk edits, even though they have been specifically asked to discuss this issue on several occasions.

I think JohnInDC did the absolutely right thing by bringing this here, and I respectfully disagree with his charitable observation that Wikihw’s edits are not disruptive. These edits are quite disruptive to a collaborative project such as this, and are directly violative of the official policy

WP:CON. Assuming Wikihw once again refuses to discuss this issue, I submit a short block would be warranted to prevent further disruption. — Satori Son

18:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hah, perhaps I am being too charitable. I imagine it's a form of self-conscious restraint against my general tendency toward impatience. In any event I'm glad that the consensus is that this is a problem. I would add though that if the decision is made to effect a block, some consideration should be given to its length. While a relatively long block may not be warranted in substance, Wikihw doesn't seem to edit very often, and a shorter block might simply escape his notice. JohnInDC (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, only JohnInDC said the edits weren't disruptive :)

I think we are unanimous here: Despite the slow burn of this edit war, if he reinserts the text even one more time without first engaging in dialog, he gets a block -- even if he doesn't reinsert the text until 2011.  :) --Jaysweet (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway. added my disclaimer here because, you know, I can't do the block myself should it come to that...\

Nothing wrong at all with JohnInDC going a tad overboard on the

WP:AGF

. I’ve just seen this way too many times, though I’m trying mightily to not be cynical.

As far as the infrequent editing goes, based on recent contributions it looks like a week block would be about right. Personally, I think there’s enough to block right now, but I won’t do anything until others have time to comment here – and I would really like to hear Wikihw’s side of things. — Satori Son 18:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

On a side note, perhaps there should be a corollary to the 3RR rule -- call it the 10RR rule -- that says if you make 10 reverts of the same content without another editor backing you up, you get blocked regardless of the duration in which the 10Rs were made. In theory the 3RR rule already covers this, but in practice what do you think the chances are of a

I'm in agreement with JohnInDC. He's been great in monitoring this, and mainly on his own. I've reverted it a few times when I've seen it. Wikihw has not been willing to engage in debate, and JohnInDC has been very civil. SDC (talk) 21:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The red-link did it again [55] so I reverted it, based on this discussion and also my concern that the entry, even if factually true, could well be a copyright violation, and even if not, it's POV-pushing and undue weight about one guy, Herman Hollerith. A sentence or two would do; the essay is way too much. Of course, Herman himself might just laugh at all this. He was a card, especially late at night when got punchy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

And I should point out that the red-link did this several hours after being issued a "final" warning by User:Jaysweet: [56] So far User:Wikihw remains unblocked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Given his reasonably savvy use of wikipedia editing over the last year (doing page moves and such), I think it's very unlikely he can't figure out how to post to a talk page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 1 week by Satori Son. Good show. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Was just coming here to update. I'll leave a notice on his talk in a minute. — Satori Son 15:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks all. (I'll be interested to see what happens in a week and a day -) JohnInDC (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep. If he does it again, we'll be back here again, and probably he'll get a longer block. At some point, he might get the message. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive438#Admininstrative attention needed at Lyme disease

There are multiple new accounts successively editing at

• Shine a lite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (signs as Elena Cook, a Lyme advocate)
• Foundinkualalumpur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Freyfaxi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Blakeusa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Uits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Bnk wkpd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Jotunn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Charanti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Dath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Recruiting here and here.

MastCell is doing his best, but it is these kinds of circumstances that lead to admins snapping. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there enough for a checkuser? I would suggest that most if not all of those accounts will be the same two people. That article is going to be an ongoing problem because those editors have the truth and we all involved in a cover-up of the the truth (for example, Mastcell, myself and others are all medical researcher involved in bioresearch or something...). --Allemandtando (talk) 21:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

And those are only the accounts from the last month. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, trying to get others to see the seriousness:

• Grann, David (2001-06-17). "Stalking Dr. Steere Over Lyme Disease". The New York Times. Retrieved 2008-06-30.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thats rather scary. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Also at

• Mcpucho (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Shahmoney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

and now User:Freyfaxi has explicitly threatened an edit war in his edit summary [57]. I would normally be willing to block that account, but I am involved in previous discussions. My personal opinion is that we should treat this matter as we did CAMERA. Off-wiki calls for POV editing should be met proactively, DGG (talk) 23:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked User:Freyfaxi 31 hours for disruption. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not often that I beg, but I'm begging outside admins to look at this group of obvious single-purpose meatpuppets attempting to warp the article to their agenda. I'm reaching the point of frustration at seeing new accounts pop up to revert the article left and right spouting personal attacks and half-baked conspiracism. And the only administrative action taken thus far is that Will Beback fully protected the page. While I greatly respect Will, this is not the right approach. There could not really be a more clear-cut case of abuse of Wikipedia. Checkuser is not necessary for obvious, disruptive sock/meatpuppets, and since these are likely all solicited from a specific agenda-driven online forum, they are likely not checkuser-related anyway. I'm asking for review and assistance from any and all uninvolved admins (thank you, Gwen Gale). I am literally this close to simply blocking all of the named accounts as obvious, disruptive agenda-driven meatpuppets, despite my involvement in editing the page, and let the chips fall, because this is simply ridiculous. MastCell ^Talk 00:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked Shine a lite (talk · contribs) for attempting to conduct an offsite campaign of meatpuppetry and Foundinkualalumpur (talk · contribs) as a blatantly disruptive single-purpose account. Freyfaxi (talk · contribs) is already blocked, and I reckon on their last chance to shape up; Blakeusa (talk · contribs) has received strong guidance from several other editors and will be shown the door if they don't change their stripes. Shahmoney (talk · contribs) is already indefinitely blocked, and Mcpucho (talk · contribs), Uits (talk · contribs), Bnk wkpd (talk · contribs), Charanti (talk · contribs) and Dath (talk · contribs) all appear inactive. The last account, Jotunn (talk · contribs), appears to be neither disruptive nor focused solely on Lyme. east.718 at 02:18, July 1, 2008

A new account:

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) SandyGeorgia (Talk

) 04:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

What a surprise. Anyhow, east718, thank you for looking at the situation - your willingness to review it is much appreciated, and I'd like to invite you (and any other admin reading this) to watchlist the article as we've clearly not seen the last of this meatpuppetry. MastCell ^Talk 07:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Watchlisted. I would suggest indefinite semi-protection on both articles.

龱

09:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Another new account, Rosyatwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), first edit is attacks here. RetroS1mone talk 12:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

talk · contribs) is an admitted meatpuppet of the just-blocked Foundinkualalumpur (talk · contribs), created a few hours after Foundinkualalumpur's indefinite block to carry on the same arguments, and should be indefinitely blocked forthwith. Rosyatwiki (talk · contribs) should also be blocked as an obvious meatpuppet/recruit to this mess. MastCell ^Talk

18:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Wanaqueling has been indefinitely blocked by

talk · contribs). MastCell ^Talk

18:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

InternetHero (talk · contribs) is disrupting Internal combustion engine. S/he is displaying too much ignorance of policies and guidelines for an editor with more than 1000 edits.[58] Moreover, his/her contribution rate increased abruptly and dramatically in June after no edits in May. An increase in the fraction with no edit summaries occurred at the same time.[59] This suggests to me a compromised account. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Removing EB as a reference, claiming that it is not appropriate is just not on. They are sitting right on the 3RR threshold,[60][61][62] have made some bazaar comment about other editors ending up in jail, and is completely ignoring input from other users. I hadn't considered the possibility of a compromised account: I just assumed this was a new user unfamiliar with the way things work around here. I'd say either Wsiegmund's appraisal is correct, or this user is feigning ignorance to game the system. -- Mark Chovain 02:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

In their defence, however, they are currently seeking a third opinion,[63] so this may be a genuine mistake. -- Mark Chovain 02:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this is just a minor content dispute. The drop in the number of edit summaries can be explained by their tendency (judging from past contribs) not to use edit summaries on talk pages--they're simply using a talk pages more than usual right now. I agree that they're right on the cusp of

WP:3RR right now, so I'll add a warning to their talk page letting them know. --jonny-mt

02:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I (only just) beat you to it :). -- Mark Chovain 02:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw >.< --jonny-mt 02:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

There's also this edit[64] which was a bit odd. The user may be drunk or something, or it could be a group account, or compromised, or the user may just have an unusual personality type I suppose. They've been blocked before, twice, including for edit warring.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 02:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, before this closes, note should be taken of this edit, in which the editor refactors Wolfkeeper's talk page comments. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I was just trying to thelp and make things neat. I don't see how Britannica is GFDL compatible as the websites' terms of use prohibits commercial re-use or redistribution. If he gathered the primary source used, I'm sure he can use that in sequence. As for the edit to which seemed immature, I can say that it wasn't me. I accidently used the show preview button before letting my friend use the comp. I was cooking oatmeal before going to bed, and he did that. I feel my account isn't "compromised" as I have contributed with over 500 non-talk edits in the last year and a bit. I'm sorry for trying to refract Wolfkeeper's edit in the talk page, but I seriously don't understand the animosity towards me. It seems as though since I have no1 to help me out, I am automatically "guilty" provided by this unofficial 'consensus'.InternetHero (talk) 15:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear admins, I just noticed another account that appears to belong to banned editor Davenbelle that is not at present blocked. Please look at:

• Wayang kulit (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Sincerely, --

Like Jack has tried to do with all accounts he had created, he self-declared that this was an account operated by him. Account is blocked. Seraphim♥Whipp 16:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast effort! Sincerely, --

Tally-ho!

17:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for reporting it. Seraphim♥Whipp 18:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome and happy editing! (Hopefully, there aren't any more of his that he hasn't yet revealed.) Sinceely, --

Tally-ho!

18:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Articles deleted. Account blocked for a short time to see if I can get their attention. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This user is creating a bunch of pages that are blatant copy and paste jobs from other sites. I warned the user, but he/she shows no sign of stopping. Enigma ^message 18:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

checkuser results are in: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Giovanni Giove as of now only User:Saintsarecomingthrough has been blocked indef as sock. Request to block the other 10 discovered socks indef as soon as possible. (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Giovanni Giove for the list of socks). thanks, --noclador (talk) 08:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• one sock still to block: User:Captainantoniocorelli as per checkuser result at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Giovanni Giove --noclador (talk) 11:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• The good captain is undoubtedly playing his mandolin, as he hasn't edited for a while. If the account reactivates then it may become appropiate to say "ciao!" LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)