WorkerBee74 on Obama page again

WorkerBee74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log · rfcu) has returned from a one-week block[1] for incivility and wikigaming on Barack Obama-related articles to wikigame again[2] and provoke yet more dissent and rancor.[3][4][5][6][7] I hope not to have to rehash the disruptive history that got us here, or to respond to personal attacks made against me for trying to deal with this disruption.Wikidemo (talk) 20:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I support Wikidemo's post here. Tvoz/talk 20:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors and admins are encouraged to carefully review the diffs Wikidemo has posted. WorkerBee74 returns to the page, olive branch in hand, and requests mediation. He's told in semi-polite terms to f--k off, and generally treated with barely concealed contempt, and he gets a little annoyed. The memorable phrases "disagree/ provoke/ report" and "whining exaggerated report" were coined in this content dispute with good reason. 74.94.99.17 (talk) 21:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The foregoing message is by one of WorkerBee74's likely IP WP:SOCKs. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/WorkerBee74. "Whining exaggerated report" and "disagree / provoke / report" are phrases this and and some other disruptive editors coined to attack me for dealing with their misbehavior. This report is not about me. Wikidemo (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I coined that phrase and other editors and administrators have warned you that you attack me by using such dismissive language as disruptive. Your action of reporting people here does not give you license to attack people. Your previous bleating behaviour about me and shrill attacks are unacceptable, as well as your psuedo-officious talkpage warnings are passive agressive behaviour. Her is one for you: Continue to engage in your antisocial behaviour, and it will be you who will be blocked. Consider yourself warned and nough of your meritless gaming the AN/I system to attack user as you did me.Die4Dixie (talk) 15:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

What does the "demo" in "Wikidemo" stand for, by the way? Are you a Democratic Party operative? Now regarding this "likely socks" nonsense, a Checkuser has been performed and has proven that we are unrelated. Otherwise, I'm sure you would have seen to it that WorkerBee74 was indefinitely blocked, Wikidemo. So please stop making these false accusations. 74.94.99.17 (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

If you read the sockpuppet report, the conclusion was that WorkerBee74 socks at 74.94.99.17 - he's certainly acting like WorkerBee74 again here. Socking on his own AN/I report to taunt and make accusations... Wikidemo (talk) 21:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

As a user who has edited this page, and has actually supported workerbee's POV: he indeed appears to have many socks. Now, if only an administrator would close out the one month old case on him at WP:SSP (and if Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kossack4Truth had been taken seriously, for that matter), then we might be able to move forward. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Continued wikigaming (attacks me a second time for rejecting mediation - which seems to be the ploy).[8] - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemo (talk • contribs)

As the last blocking admin, and being someone with absolutely no affiliation with the Barack Obama article or US political topics, I also support Wikidemo's post here. It seems there's a lot of end-run gaming going on. Orderinchaos 13:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the suspected sock reports and other links, I have to say that a block should be immediate. To me it looks like Gaming the system and socking. I think it time to stop this esp. because of the showing of so many socks being utilized. I endorse a block at this time which includes any socks that are active.--CrohnieGal^Talk 16:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Can we please do something about him, now? By taunting me again (about the ninth or tenth time) for discussing his conduct here he's throwing down a gauntlet. Since my last report above he's insulted me again while accusing other editors on the Obama article of "ownership", "flippancy",[9] and plotting, misconduct and bad faith over the events that got him blocked before[10], and accusing a nominator of an improper AfD nomination.[11] He's basically taken over the discussion again on the Obama article with a point that isn't going to go anywhere. Wikidemo (talk) 22:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It's really time to put this to rest for good. Gaming the system should be more than enough to draw the line; proven use of sock-puppets tops it of. Maybe I'm the stupid one not to use such disgraceful "tools" to get my way? I might consider it in the future if it works that well and screw my principles of honesty. Best regards from a somehow mad user, --Floridianed (talk) 12:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• Consider starting an RFC on user conduct asap. Remember to provide diffs, and clearly mark recent evidence of misconduct between the previous block and when the RFC has been certified. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Do we have to make the case from scratch again? We've been through this a dozen times now. That's extremely time consuming given the extensive history here, and always acrimonious - I get personally attacked every time by this editor and cohorts and scolded by well-intentioned administrators new to the situation that it's just two sides fighting, only a content dispute, I should put up with it, etc. Why can't we just implement the topic ban that everyone keeps proposing? Wikidemo (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that'll be effective enough, and, I don't think admins are going to give the all clear for it. If you do the RFC, you can take it to ArbCom if it becomes a problem again. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't leave many good options. I'm not sure I want to invest that kind of time right now or be subjected to the inevitable backlash. At an RfC people will judge the most recent behavior in isolation as a fresh issue without considering the history of the article, escalating sanctions, sockpuppetry, etc. He has thrown the gauntlet as I said - by attacking me again, and taunting me for coming here, if you guys do nothing he's emboldened and he can do it again and blame me for "whining", deliberately provoking people so I can have them blocked, etc. If no admins are willing to stick with it we may just end up in a free for all again on the article. Maybe I should just start striking or deleting his comments when he attacks me. Wikidemo (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I distinctly remember a certain Bigtimepeace saying he'd be looking at the article in response to my suggestions of individual sanctions (which got enacted later down the track anyway!) - what happened to his 'watch' over the article? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The editor is continuing,[12] so at this point I have deleted part of his comment[13] and asked him to stop.[14] I don't know what else to do. Wikidemo (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Time out

I would like the opinion of uninvolved admins and experienced users here. WorkerBee74 is a single-purpose agenda account, one of a handful on pages related to Obama. He has been blocked 4 times in the ~50 days since his account was created. There is a strong suspicion that he's logging out to support himself with IP edits. I propose to indefinitely block this account and move on.

On the other hand, an argument could be made that essentially all he does is argue at Talk:Barack Obama - note 227 edits to the talk page and only 11 to the article. A case could be made to just ignore him unless he either has a cogent, civilly expressed content point or starts edit-warring on the article. I would like some feedback before implementing anything. MastCell ^Talk 17:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

My only agenda is to make this WP biography about a famous politician more similar to other WP biographies about famous politicians. Noroton's comments at the AfD on Bill Ayers election controversy describe this group of editors accurately. Such biographies as George W. Bush (Good Article, 16 conjugations of the word "criticism") and Tony Blair (loaded with criticism on the day it attained Featured Article status) say a lot about this group of editors and their single purpose and their agenda. Trying to keep it civil here but their constant baiting, obstruction and provocation have been repeatedly rewarded, MastCell. WorkerBee74 (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

He may have a single interest here, but if he's advocating for his side using the talk page and not edit warring, then tough shit. That's the point of this. In fact, he's painted himself into a corner now ,because should he invoke WP:BOLD and add what he wants to to the page, there's every chance he'll be attacked for edit warring fast. I see no big problem with letting him continue to advocate via our approved and encouraged means, the talk page. As to the incivility, that's a big problem, as are the false accusations. However, the first example above ,where he warns another editor to not get baited and instead pursue the recourses Wikipedia, is fine by me. On hot topic pages, running a game on the new guy is common; one starts something, revs up the new guy, then others swoop in for the block requests and so on. Preventing that isn't bad, it's good and helps level the playing field. Finally ,I note that Workerbee's assessment is correct. there isn't any criticism of Obama anywhere on that page. The closest thing is the National Journal's listing of him as the most liberal senator; given they always call the Democratic candidate the most liberal (fill in the blank), that's hardly a balanced article. No block, warning and incivility probation. ThuranX (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, ThuranX. Thank you very, very much. Zero criticism in a biography about a major party's presumptive nominee? With FA status? For any reasonable person, that alone should be setting off some alarms. Add to it Noroton and his patient documentation of these editors' relentless baiting (ask him, he'll show you). Mother Teresa would blow her cool at some of these people. WorkerBee74 (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you're correct. There's no substantial criticism of John McCain in his article. Nor do I think any should be added; it's not a coatrack for the presidential campaign. McCain's article looks quite good to me. No alarm bells. On reading it, I don't get the sense that editors are manipulating McCain's Wikipedia article to reflect the opposing party's talking points. (OK, it does have a crappy "McCain in popular culture" section). A review of the last couple weeks of editing there looks reasonably calm. Agenda-driven single purpose accounts are quickly handled. I think something similar can be achieved on the Obama article, though I have to say I view Workerbee74 as much more part of the problem than of the solution based on the issues I've outlined above. Thanks to ThuranX for commenting; again, further uninvolved commentary is invited. MastCell ^Talk 21:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

MastCell, if you can't find any criticism at John McCain, try running a search on the page using the word "Keating." McCain was completely cleared by a Democrat controlled committee in that investigation but it gets a mention in the article lead, one or two paragraphs in the body of the article and if I recall correctly, until very recently, it had a bold section header. Try to find anything comparable in Barack Obama. WorkerBee74 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to argue this here, but the Keating Five were subjects of a massive investigation by the Senate Ethics Committee. That's a slightly different level of notability than Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers, though perhaps only "Obama campaign volunteers" are able to perceive it. And McCain's article scrupulously notes that he was cleared of all wrongdoing, that the event led to his interest in campaign finance reform (one of his signature issues), and that it has never been an issue in his numerous campaigns since. As the article should. But since you seem to be trying to find an angle of hypocrisy here, I'll agree that if Obama is or has been investigated by the Senate Ethics Committee or similarly substantive body, then it belongs in his article, maybe even in the lead. Uninvolved editors? MastCell ^Talk 22:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Not so fast, MastCell. I was just getting warmed up. Take a look at Hillary Clinton. Two sections with bold section headers on "Lewinsky scandal" (where Hillary wasn't even investigated and in fact was a victim) and "Whitewater and other investigations" (where, like McCain, Hillary was exonerated). Then take a look at the October 2004 version of George W. Bush. Sixteen separate conjugations of the word "criticism." Looks like it was written by Josh Marshall. But you don't want to argue this here because it's mitigating evidence, right? WorkerBee74 (talk) 23:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You are correct insofar as I don't want to argue this here. MastCell ^Talk 23:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably because you were losing the argument in rather spectacular fashion and you knew it was only going to get worse. WorkerBee74 (talk) 12:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why mastcell had to put emphasis on uninvolved right after 'thanking' me. If you don't want comments, don't ask for them. fatuous thanks and snide italics? go to hell. ThuranX (talk) 22:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC) All due apologies. ThuranX (talk) 00:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding - I did not mean to dismiss your comments in any way, only to solicit more uninvolved input in addition to yours, rather than more argumentation from involved parties. I apologize for the misunderstanding. MastCell ^Talk 23:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Mention the article devoted to this controversy briefly in the body of Obama's article, with a mention of the fact that despite all the "controversy", Obama has nothing in his past to suggest this sort of thing, and has condemned Ayers' past actions. This is a non-issue, but the fact that it is a non-issue can be documented, and should be. II | (t - c) 22:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Involved commentary

Article probation

The several previous ANI discussions about editorial conduct on the Obama page clearly do not resonate enough, and problems have still not ceased. I think we as a community have had enough of this drama. I propose the following restriction be enacted:

The Obama pages are subject to the following terms of article probation. Any editor may be sanctioned by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith. Sanctions imposed may include restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors, bans from editing the Obama pages and/or closely related topics, blocks of up to 1 year in length, or any other measures the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project. For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions (note: enforcing this provision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute). Sanctions imposed under this provision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators are not to reverse such sanctions without either (1) approval by the imposing administrator, or without (2) community consensus or Committee approval to do so. All sanctions imposed are to be logged at Obama/Community_sanction#Log.

Need community consensus to impose this. If it needs any tweaking, let me know. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The terms and conditions of article probation are already in effect. Admins Gamaliel and Rick Block are participating on a regular basis now; they're "involved" but they can call for other admins very quickly. What we have here, NMCV, is a group of editors who have developed marvelous expertise in what Die4Dixie accurately describes as "disagree/ provoke/ report" and what ThuranX described as one editor "revving up" the newbie so that others can report him. They engage in a constant stream of low-level provocation and baiting. False accusations are being used as substitute for a discussion of a proposed edit on its merits. Every trick and stratagem in the book is being used to block anything negative about Obama, and get rid of any editor who seeks to introduce it.

Don't reward this behavior.

One of them gave up an account of several years because he was afraid he was about to be outed as a Democratic Party operative. I suspect there are others who differ from him only in being more careful about concealing their Democratic Party links. WorkerBee74 (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This is completely inappropriate behavior for Wikipedia. You don't get to level accusation after accusation against other editors based on nothing but your own imaginings. If your present behavior is any indication, your previous problems were entirely because of your reaction to normal Wikipedia interaction. If you want to be a positive presence on Wikipedia, you must learn to play well with others, even if, especially if, they disagree with you. Gamaliel (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Strong support --Clubjuggle ^T/C 16:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I heartily welcome such attention to the article. As someone who has been repeatedly berated by the involved editors as a "whiner", liar, etc., for participating on this noticeboard in a non-administrative capacity, I ask that we clarify that good-faith, plausible reports of editor misbehavior, SSP and checkuser requests, and other are not impermissible assumptions of bad faith, but that taunting editors for their good faith participation in administrative discussions is considered disruptive. Non-admins can be honest dealers too. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, casting aspersions (assumptions of bad faith) has been, and continues to be a major problem in this area. It is unacceptable for editors to continually make accusations in an attempt to besmirch another's reputation. Engaging in tendentious argument is also futile. Any concerns should be raised in the appropriate forums, if at all. (Eg; sock-puppetry accusations go as a checkuser request or to WP:SSP) If users have concerns about the continual filing of reports against an individual (should that happen) as if it were an act of harassment or something else, then they should pursue WP:DR. Accusations, attacks and the like are not to be scattered through article talk page discussions, as it further contributes to a toxic environment. The proposed article probation is intended (in spirit, if not by the letter) to tackle these sorts of issues as well. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I support any measure that encourages users to play nice, but I'm wondering why we need probation for the article and why we don't just impose it on the particular troublesome user. Gamaliel (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not the first user who has been troublesome there, and been subject to lengthy ANI discussions, blocks etc., and for some time to come at least, won't be the last one either. I think the proposed/new scheme should be more effective in dealing with any other problems/problem-users, both now and in the future. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I support this suggestion. Gamaliel (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I support this suggestion as well, although how it differs from current practice will clearly need to be explained on the talk pages. I suggest we apply this to both the McCain and Obama pages. There don't seem to be quite as many problems on the McCain pages at this point but applying this to only the Obama pages would no doubt be characterized by some as evidence of a pro-Obama slant. -- Rick Block (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

What previously required constant community consensus for each individual editing restriction can now be imposed at the discretion of an administrator. I'm not sure it can be extended to McCain pages in the absence of any major problems, like the Obama pages have encountered in the last 3 months. It's primarily intended to deal with editorial misconduct; an important BLP should not be subject to a toxic environment, especially for that long. But if the community wants to deal with both issues at the same time, I certainly do not have a problem with it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Support. About time. Please give a warning first, except in egregious cases. I hope that at least several administrators get involved in this. Editors should understand that baiting/taunting/goading by someone else will not be considered an excuse for their own behavior. As FT2 has been saying recently, we're each responsible for our own behavior. I expect monitoring administrators to set a good example in their own communications and follow procedures to the letter -- otherwise you may start repelling good editors from the articles. Noroton (talk) 02:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I support (as noted, I'm not an admin). Gathering up thoughts from the above discussion could we include some or all of the following? "Except in egregious cases editors should receive at least one warning, or must otherwise be clearly aware (1) of the terms of this article probation, and (2) that their specific conduct is deemed problematic, before any administrative sanctions apply. A heightened standard of civility applies: editors should not on the talk page post comments that disparage or make accusations regarding each other's alleged biases, veracity, editing ability, conflicts of interest, status as legitimate editors, and so on, whether directly or indirectly, by name or by reference to groups or edit history. All commentary about editor behavior should be directed to appropriate dispute resolution forums, or a sub-page created to discuss edits on the talk page, which reports if made reasonably and in good faith are not considered to be in violation of the article probation." - Wikidemo (talk) 04:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably not; the standard wording I've used for this remedy is sufficient. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree the attention would be welcomed;however, the standard practices of civility etc. are more than adequate. I would suggest one warning from an uninvolved administrator to the talk page of a truly offending editor and than true sanctions starting with 24 hour topic blocks and escalating thereafter. I think most editors could use a clean slate there. I do think that the "friendly" warnings often do not serve to calm a situation, but rather to inflame. if we can get someone uninvolved in editing to watch, it would be warmly welcomed.Die4Dixie (talk) 05:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)05:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The clean slate is okay, if only people will take advantage of it to get a fresh start. I think the concern isn't the occasional isolated lapse of temper but long-term low tension that's developed among editors. At the risk of too many rules we could ask that any official warnings under the probation system be left to uninvolved administrators. Wikidemo (talk) 05:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm done here unless there are more suggestions.--Die4Dixie (talk) 06:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. This idea is on the right track, but before officially supporting I'd like to see some input from admins who have experience with enforcing Arbcom sanctions, for example, admins who have logged any blocks or bans under Arbcom cases. The above proposal, though it does not come from Arbcom, has the flavor of those kind of sanctions. Also, whoever is going to impose those kind of restrictions will need to follow the Obama page night and day. Do we have admins willing to volunteer for such hazardous duty? EdJohnston (talk) 18:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I think (I might be corrected if I'm wrong) there are 2 admins, Gamaliel and Rick Block, who are regularly looking at it (although, I don't think any admin in the world will want to do it as exhaustively as you've suggested :) nuh uh). Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Since both Gamaliel and Rick Block are active in participating in the discussions on that page, neither is likely to be in a position to do anything more than report problematic edits and comments -- just as any other editor would. Given Rick Block's statements to me on my talk page, I have no faith in his ability to step back from someone he disagrees with and give a fair assessment to an uninvolved admin. What we need are multiple, uninvolved admins who get a sense of what individual editors have been doing on those pages because they've been watching them regularly. MastCell has done some of that, but I haven't seen that admin comment on this section of the thread. In the past, some other admins have said they'd watch those pages, but I haven't seen evidence of that. This proposal of Ncmvocalist's will not work until we get what we've always needed: multiple, uninvolved, admin eyes aware of the context and attached to fingers willing to warn and block for clear misbehavior. Noroton (talk) 21:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Another copyvio editor: wrong information, copyvios, broken links, spam links, bad geography, bad interpretions

I've been looking at some articles by User:Wilhelmina Will who is running a race for DYK and other awards on her vanity page. Her articles have tremendous problems, they're largely copied from single sources, generally blogs, they're factually incorrect, she mixes up geography (though on a lesser scale than a recently indeffed editor, New Mexico for California), the links are broken, they include spam links, she's copied wholesale from copyrighted internet sites. Check my edit history for some of the articles of hers I've had to edit and tag. I bring up the other example in this because, like CS, it appears that most of this editor's contribution should be removed from Wikipedia.

I assume, as usual, I will be attacked for this. But, it is nice to see that some editors care about quality on Wikipedia, though, and thank you to all those editors who did not feel it necessary in my case to shoot the messenger.

However, again, this is fair warning for when this comes back to haunt Wikipedia: this editor is copying material that already has copyrights, and having Wikipedia copyright it as Wikipedia material; she is creating articles that are wrong (like one article uses a source that is all about a turtle not being a crown group sea turtle, and she calls it a crown group sea turtle in the article, obviously not understanding the technical article at all); she is copying from blogs to build articles and sourcing them to the blogs, she is copying huge amounts of text from IMDb, etc., etc.

She appears, like CS, to have created hundreds, if not thousands of problem articles. I've only looked at ones that appeared on the main page in DYK. They are all bad in unacceptable ways. I have alerted the folks at DYK who will be watching her contributions more carefully to address this one issue. The other issue remains, what is to be done with her existing articles, potentially all of which are seriously problematic from the sampling I've taken?

--Blechnic (talk) 00:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It's human to make mistakes. Fix them if you see them. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That is not a helpful comment coming from you Will after you didthis - by fix do you mean removal? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Every article she has created that I have looked at has mistakes in it. When I confronted her the first time she got belligerent. Should I review her hundreds and hundreds of articles and correct all of the errors, like the sea turtle article based on a misreading of the primary source she created? I've looked at half a dozen articles, all are almost completely useless for some reason. How about somebody find one article of hers that isn't completely useless, rather than have her continue to contribute wrong, copied, and bad articles? --Blechnic (talk) 00:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Blechnic - are all of her articles copyvio issues, or are a lot of them just cleanup problems? Fritzpoll (talk) 00:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Her list of created articles is here. I note quite a few BLP articles in this mix, and there are several hundred of them. I only looked at a couple, and though they were not horrible, they weren't well sourced and there were at least minor errors in them. Both that I looked at quickly were borderline as to copyvio, so I can't answer that conclusively. I'm going to start working from the bottom up if someone else would like to start on some of the others. Risker (talk) 00:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll start at the bottom of the list. Fritzpoll (talk) 00:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict.) They all appear to be largely copied from various sources, although cleverly so, and some will debate me on this issue. Still there is enough copied to find which page she copies from with a simple and quick search. She does copy lists in their entirety, such as a huge list from IMDb. However, the bigger problem, as with CS, is that her use of technical literature is wrong. For example on the sea turtle article, Ctenochelys, she reads the abstract and says it "is considered to be a crown-group sea turtle," but the source she used is an article about it no longer being considered to be a crown group sea turtle, and in fact, it's not considered in the extant sea turtles where she plops it in her first sentence. She includes spam links.[31] Nothing about the one reference in this article says anything about him being the director of all the soap operas. And her single sources are usually personal blogs of the person the article is about.[32] It appears every article of hers that I have looked at has deep problems. I am tired of looking. Maybe she can clean them up herself.

Good start, Fritzpoll and Risker. She might be willing to learn how to do it properly, also. --Blechnic (talk) 00:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The science articles are going to be the problem, if you don't know phylogeny something like someone saying it's a crown group when the article is about it no longer being considered one might not jump out at you. This whole article is so off, but so convoluted, I don't know what to do about it. I personally think Ctenochelys should just be deleted. --Blechnic (talk) 00:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll let other admins respond to this one as well, but it depends on the scale of the problem - I'll see how many science articles there are. But I'm not sure what CSD criteria could apply Fritzpoll (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, I got up as far as Morawanocetus from the bottom, and have made a note of the scientific articles on the way. I need to go to bed. Mostly so far, I have no direct copyvios, but some very poorly sourced articles. I suggest someone contact the author and offer to mentor her through the next month or so and to point out the lack of importance of DYK. She seems motivated, but in just the wrong direction at the moment. I hope she will reply here soon Fritzpoll (talk) 01:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone remember the User:Orbicle case? This is how we handled it, with User:Gmaxwell's help. He queried the database for all new pages by the user, listed them in alphabetical order, and we had a team of about 10 (look at the page history) go through the list to check sources, and then we crossed them off when they were done. Some were copyvios which we re-wrote, others were fine as is. When there's a long list, this can be an efficient way to approach the problem.

Wilhelmina gets her articles from Articles for Creation. I haven't checked to see if she copies directly from there, but it is possible she does, assuming good faith on the part of the people who post there. I feel a certain responsibility here because I've been supportive of her efforts, have encouraged her, and she has often come to me for opinions about notability and sources -- but I haven't checked her work for copyright violations. Seeing as copyvios are a serious issue, I think we need to go through these, and of course if Wilhelmina herself would help that would be best of all. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 01:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I agree, for what it's worth. Many seem to come from Articles for Creation, but created without actually reality-checking the proposal (for instance, Oaaa, where the source was one unverified answer at a Q&A site). The cryptozoology articles are pretty bad