Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive593

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


User:Bbriwiki in violation of WP:ORGNAME, WP:COI[edit]

Resolved: Other noticeboards exist specifically to handle these types of concerns. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 09:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Bbriwiki (talk · contribs) appears to be a SPA whose sole goal on-wiki seems to be the creation of Barat Bioinformatics Research Rnstitute (sic), the company associated with the username. I have already CSD'd the page per A7 and told them our policies on advertisement, but it appears the username itself is unacceptable. Could an admin please review? Thank you, Throwaway85 (talk) 08:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Username issues go to WP:UAA and COI reports to WP:COIN. Since you've discussed the issues and they continue to edit, I'd likely make the issue known for community consensus at WP:RFC/N. NJA (t/c) 09:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, as I mentioned to Toddst1, I knew there was a more appropriate forum, but couldn't remember where. I'll take the matter up at UAA. Thanks Nja. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


Tadija (talk · contribs) has been engageing in incivility and false accusations, sayng I'm a sockpuppet for another user, Human Rights Believer (talk · contribs), who Tadija has been also incivil too.

Nothing could be further from the truth - I'm not a sock for anyone, certainly not Human Rights Believer who is notorious for edit wars on other users. Please see my page user:apm2007 for the false accusation. Tadija is a Serbian nationlist who always pushes Serb POV in edits. Many thanks2007apm (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone want to confirm or deny the link between the two users? There is nothing suspicious, but nothing killing any suspicion. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)page
I had called for a checkuser Wikipedia:SPI on User talk:Tadija, however I note from my page 2007apm Tadija has withdrawn the accusation. I therefore consider this issue closed and request that no further action be taken by an admin. Many thanks 2007apm (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I think that a very stern warning should be given to Tadija. When I blocked Human Rights Believer he was fairly dancing in the streets about my action, which I have to say I am less than impressed about. See User talk:Tbsdy lives#Human Rights Believer. Mjroots has since warned him about being appropriate. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 07:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
My concerns was just because of these edits by 2007apm (talk · contribs):
After being warned multiple times on his talk page (User_talk:2007apm#January_2010). Same way of disrespecting the advices and notices was reason for Human Rights Believer (talk · contribs) being blocked. I didn't say even one word to HRB, and my previews ways of editing can be check with admin Prodego (talk · contribs). Human Rights Believer (talk · contribs) was accused of WP:DE by other editors, and temporary blocked indef.
Also, 2007apm (talk · contribs) is trying to make problems for me here. I think that this is incivility and wiki stalking. It looks like wiki stalking is my personal filed of knowledge, as all my previous problem were wiki stalking by Sarandioti (talk · contribs), and his numerous socks, as Moreschi (talk · contribs), or Prodego (talk · contribs) can confirm. Even this action is questionable for me. Why 2007apm (talk · contribs) wanted admin assistance regarding my suspicions? Why is that important to anyone by him, or me? At the end, as you can see, i stopped reverting 2007apm (talk · contribs) questionable edits, as someone else already did it.
At the end, i am asking all that think that i did something wrong to address me, so we can together find best possible solution that we all agree for. That should be the way of wiki, isn't it? :) Sorry for any possible insults, it was far from my main idea. --Tadija (talk) 10:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Firstly Tadija, a self proclaimed Serb nationalist (he even has a Serb flag on his page), is always pushing pro-Serb POV.
Secondly he engages, as some kind of lone warrior in an edit war against multiple editors
Secondly, although he accuses me of wiki stalking him, in fact he has been wikistalking me, look at my talk page.
Thirdly, although Tadija has cleared his talk page talk, a review of his block log page shows he has a bad record.
Although Tadija claims to have been the innocent victim of wiki stalking by Sarandioti, I wonder if Tadija's agressive style was the cause of Sarandioti's so called stalking.
I would therefroe ask that Tadija be banned from editing my talk page and Kosovo related articles for two weeks. Many thanks Andrew 2007apm (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

───────────────I recommend you two stop going at each other on this noticeboard, and let others look into the situation. You aren't going to solve anything by both continuing to argue and argue your case here, but you might both be blocked, so I suggest you take a step back and let others look in a judge for themselves.— dαlus Contribs 00:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

As i told earlier, i am open for any kind of problem solving! I didn't want to argue, just was writing explanation of my actions. And, i am inviting 2007apm (talk · contribs) to solve any possible problem with me, here, on my, or users talk page. --Tadija (talk) 11:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 2007apm is blocked indef as a sock of User:Emperordarius, a highly disruptive user. - Tadija (talk) 21:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Help with user persistently adding links to disambig page[edit]

GardmanVS (talk · contribs) is ignoring perfectly civil posts I am making to his/her talk page. This user's first contribution was to create an article Resourcing, but this was quickly redirected by another user (correctly in my opinion) to Resource (disambiguation). This user attempted to discuss at Talk:Resourcing thus acknowledging that the redirect had taken place. All subsequent contributions - more than fifty - have been to link the term resourcing in every and any article where it can be found. I spotted this edit pattern earlier today and attempted to engage through the user's talk page. Despite this the user has continued to add the link to other pages (around six as I write this) and has not responded in any way via his/her or my talk page. Can someone else intervene and remind this user that linking to disambiguation pages as he/she is doing is not the correct way to do things. It might also be worth pointing out that it isn't the right thing to add wikilinks to closed discussions such as this edit. Thanks. --Simple Bob (talk) 11:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It's got to the point of vandalism now. That FAC is a good example; he basically seems to have googled "resourcing" on en-wiki and linked it, regardless of what it is referring to. I suggest a 24h block to start with, escalating if he doesn't get the hint. Ironholds (talk) 11:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. As you can see he/she is still continuing to make the edits.--Simple Bob (talk) 11:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

User notified of this discussion, something that really ought to have been done by you, Simple Bob, when you brought the issue here. BencherliteTalk 11:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

As you can see from the user's tak page I was in the process of doing that... --Simple Bob (talk) 11:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Short-term block, since he wouldn't listen. Once he responds on his talkpage, can somebody please gently and patiently explain to him again why those links weren't proper? Fut.Perf. 11:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I have once again had to revert an edit by GardmanVS (talk · contribs) who put numerous links to the Resourcing dab page from on this occasion Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development here and here although I have also reverted similar edits from related humanities orientated articles and have now put a warning note on his/her user page with some encouragement to stop. Then noticed in one of the earlier posts on his page that it had been already raised here and he had been blocked previously. There seems to been no attempt by the editor to respond to the most recent requests either on his own page or here to explain his editing rationale, but I will point him here again to give him a opportunity to explain. Tmol42 (talk) 15:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

PS I see an attentive Admin has already taken action, thanks.Tmol42 (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


I'm reporting this user Love19886 (talk · contribs) for being un co-operative, for providing mis-leading content, disputing the references provided, and for harbouring promotional content to suit its needs, while proper references provided by me to improved the article on the List of FC Barcelona records and statistics are ignored. Judging on its controversial edit history in wikipedia, it is possible that it could be a sockpuppetry account and is only used to distrupt articles. Nciqu (talk) 19:54 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm reporting this IP account (talk · contribs · WHOIS), it could be link to that users' accounts. It is possible that there are accounts link to this user, because most of its edits are the same. Nciqu (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Reporting this IP account (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for vandalizing my talk page with NPOV and removing references on the List of FC Barcelona records and statistics and possibly a sockpuppet account by this user. This issue or dispute needs to be resolved. Nciqu (talk) 10:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for article protection for List of FC Barcelona records and statistics[edit]

I think this article should be protected for a few days, to settle down the edit disputes, until all disputes are solved. Its strange how "Point of views" has over-powered this article, its like "point of views" are correct, while "references" are seen as incorrect. Nciqu(talk) 12:20 25 January, 2010 (UTC)

You're in quite the edit war with a user, and at least one IP user. I'll gently warn you about WP:3RR as well. If you feel there's sockpuppetry afoot, then WP:SPI is thataway, and page protection is thisaway. Page protection is not going to help you in your dispute with another registered editor, not should it ever be percieved as an attempt to do so. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I will add: please read WP:VANDAL, the edits by one of the IP addresses do not come close to meeting the definition of vandalism - they appear to be an attempt to address the issue with the information that was being added. We work on consensus and communication. I have also noted that I do not see anywhere that you have advised either Love or others that they are being discussed here at WP:ANI. Communication works both ways. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thank you. Nciqu(talk) 12:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, responded while the above convo was taking place. I've warned all involved about WP:3RR and locked the page for a week. Further edit-warring when protection expires will lead to blocks (I'll keep the page watchlisted), so I strongly encourage you all to work our your content differences on the talk page. Failing that, see dispute resolution for some ideas of how to proceed. EyeSerenetalk 12:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok, once again thank you. Nciqu(talk) 13:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Unitanode and good hand/bad hand[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Archiving this now. Only issue still under discussion was prodding of unsourced BLPs by Unitanode, but per this it seems Unitanode will not be continuing that for the time being, so not really any need for administrative action or further discussion. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This has recently been brought to my attention on my talk page(User_talk:Chillum#Continued_prodding_under_a_new_account_name). I am seeking outside scrutiny as I have already involved myself in what is essentially a content dispute. The short form of the story is that User:Unitanode started a rather aggressive {{prod}}ing effort towards BLP articles lacking references. Me and a few other editors made comments to the effect that he was being a bit careless in his application of {{prod}} tags. He has since created a new account and has been using that to add prod's to the same type of article.

The new account is User:Unitasock and the name is clearly chosen to not hide the fact that he is the same person. My concern is that he is effectively hiding these edits from anyone who has asked him to stop doing this. While seeing "Unitasock" makes it clear that it is Unitanode, those that know Unitanode have no way of knowing about Unitasock. My previous discussion with this user on the matter of prodding was not very productive so I am not leaving it to others to look at this issue.

I will reserve personal judgment other than saying it gives me pause for concern and leave it up to folks not involved in the current unreferenced BLP deletion content dispute(you know who you are). Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 00:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to correct the details as it was me that brought it to Chillums attention, the alternative account is marked as such and is not new as such, it is from Aug 2009, but it was the way unitanode moved from his main account when he was requested to stop to the alternative account in what looks like an attempt to continue with his actions without attracting attention to his main account. Off2riorob (talk) 01:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the correction. My primary point was not the creation of the account but rather the manner in which the editing switched over when such editing was criticized. It gives at the very least the appearance of avoiding scrutiny. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 01:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I will recuse from further comment here, since I've had interaction with the editor in the last few days of which i idn;t think too much, but this look like blatant "good hand, bad hand" socking and bordering on trolling. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 01:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Respectfully request that the second account be retired. Durova403 01:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)co

Brief explanation[edit]

  1. My criteria for placing the tag is, does it have sources of any kind? If no, I tag it. If yes, I quickly check them, to make certain it's not just a fan blog or something of that sort.
  2. If it has a source, I stub-ify the article to only the bare facts of the subject's notability, and remove the "unsourced" tag.
  3. The reason I use Unitasock, is because it's contribution list is easier to cut-and-paste so as to create a holding area for the articles I've worked on (both PROD tags placed, and other work).
  4. As someone mentioned here, I'm not trying to hide anything, as I'm keeping a log of my work on the Unitanode userpage, and a subpage listing all articles I've worked on.

I'm doing my best to work on a significant problem in the project. I have no problem with people coming behind me and working through the list to try to source these articles. UnitAnode 02:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Why did you move to your alternative account? Off2riorob (talk) 02:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
    Read #3 again. I use it because it makes it easier to keep a running log of my work. The Special:contributions list is basically uncluttered there, so it's easier to cut-and-paste from. Nothing sinister or nefarious about it. UnitAnode 02:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
That's a fair explanation, and sorry to have speculated otherwise here. I'm not the one who brought the report and I would not have on the sole issue of having two accounts. I would encourage everyone to consider this particular question settled (but not necessarily the issue of prodding articles). - Wikidemon (talk) 03:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)


I also note that Unitanode and his sock have been warned not to engage in indiscriminate[1] mass-prodding of unsourced BLPs pending the outcome of WP:RFC/BLP and has at this point announced that an intention to continue even though expecting to be brought to AN/I[2][3] and blocked for it,[4] and refuses to discuss the matter further.[5] I am currently spot checking the latest round of PRODs, and will report back shortly on what the false positive rate seems to be. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

  1. Hiroshi Abe (astronomer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - viable nomination, could not easily find sources, appears to be non-notable. No obviously derogatory or controversial material in article.
  2. Theophilus Adeleke Akinyele (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - viable nomination - few sources and notability could reasonably be questioned. No obviously derogatory or controversial material in article.
  3. Makio Akiyama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - viable nomination, could not easily find sources, appears to be non-notable. No obviously derogatory or controversial material in article.
  4. Akufen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - bad nomination, clearly notable and easily sourceable. No obviously derogatory or controversial material in article.
  5. Gianne Albertoni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - bad nomination, appears notable with hundreds (per google, which usually overstates) of foreign language news sources. Weak stub article, but no obviously derogatory or controversial material in article.
  6. Karl Alpiger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - bad nomination, appears notable with many news sources. Very short stub article with no material that could possibly be considered controversial.
  7. Joanna Ampil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - bad nomination, appears notable with many news sources. No plausible controversial information.

I could go on but that's enough to convince me that most of these PRODs will not stand under the current deletion policy. That policy is being actively tested and debated at the RfC, and in the likely event that we do end up requiring all BLP articles to be sourced we will have an orderly procedure for making that happen. Making mass disputed content edits (or depending on how you look at it, mass invocation of procedure) while the policy is under active debate is pretty disruptive. On the mitigating side Unitanode has made only 20-30 nominations in this latest round, and none so far after being warned or after this report started. However, given the editor's announced intention not to stop unless made to do so, it pretty much forces either a block or an acceptance that an indefinite number of articles will now be prodded, which is either going to have to be undone, or if it stands would render the many editors' efforts at RfC moot. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Tony, I have removed your "resolved" tag because this is not resolved. Using multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny most certainly is an admin issue and can require action. If you wish to give an opinion on this matter then please do, but I see no basis for resolving this mere minutes after it was posted. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 01:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

  • At 23,49 tonight Unitanode made this comment on Lar's talkpage.. I'm not sure either. I'm prepared to have my block log sullied for this, though, as it's the right thing to do. Chillum is making it pretty clear that if I continue, he's going to block me. Not in so many words, but that's what's going to happen. UnitAnode 23.50, one minute later he started to edit and prod under the alternative account. A clear case of delibrate avoidance. Off2riorob (talk) 01:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
To be clear I have no intention of blocking anyone I am involved in a content dispute with, I only said to him if he edit warred to replaced the {{prod}} tag and continued beyond warnings that the result would be a block, but not from me. He has not to my knowledge edit warred to replace any prod tags yet, I was responding to his hypothetical respond to them being removed. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 01:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Given the timing and the actions, the account they're expecting to be sullied with a block is the alternate account, so it does appear to be using an alternate bad hand account to avoid scrutiny. There has been considerable discussion about this editor's civility on this issue as well, so there seems to be an overall breakdown in collaboration with other editors. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC) stricken by Wikidemon in light of explanation given above

Would you please stop trying to archive an active discussion less than 30 minutes old? It is very rude and clearly the matter is not resolved(you can tell because people are still talking). Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 01:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Refusal to listen to concerns about editing behaviour makes Unitanode ideal admin material, and he'll probably be an Arb this time next year. DuncanHill (talk) 01:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I am seriously getting sick of your sniping. The above comment is unhelpful and unnecessary. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 02:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
There's plenty of genuinely disruptive unhelpful and unnecessary behaviour going on, I suggest you concentrate on that. DuncanHill (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
And I suggest that you stop sniping - if you have specific concerns please start a new thread. Your comment above is not helpful in this discussion. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 18:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Something needs to happen here, Unitanode is again saying on his talkpage that he needs to get back to work and how it is some massive problem and there are 50 000 more to prod, at least he is keeping a list , I worked through the top half in a couple of hours and cited them all, some of them were clearly very notable people, very multiple external links supporting content, none of them were derogatory or libelous in any way. If this mission is continued we will fast become swamped with the work it is creating. Off2riorob (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Could somebody explain exactly what the problem is here? --TS 01:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Not to be a gadfly, but doesn't the recent ArbCom decision at least implicitly condone the actions he is taking? -- Atama 01:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
(Resp to TS) Avoiding scrutiny, or operating a Good Hand/Bad Hand account? Not that this is necessarily the case, but the basis upon which other inhabitants of this board might review. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I should hope they're not encouraging systematic rule-breaking. It would be best if this issue can be handled here and doesn't have to go back to Arbcom so quickly. Wikidemon (talk) 01:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Frankly, if a quorum here finds that the user in question is performing "good hand, bad hand" tactics to avoid scrutiny and is being apparently careless in prodding (which upon inspection, I believe to be the case), we're well within our rights to stop the action if deemed disruptive. While I'm sure we're gonna' get a lot of "arbcom said this!" to excuse behavior, careless deletion and prodding wastes people's time and is disruptive, "good intentions" aside. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 01:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Not really condoning this action, that as I read it said, people should take their time and policy still applies, users should not systematically prod uncited blp articles, care should be taken in all aspects of editing, for example Unitanode prodded Paul-Marie Coûteaux this article, he is clearly notable. Prodding should not be done willy nilly like this, an editor should still take a little time to improve it first. Off2riorob (talk) 01:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Anybody tried asking? There's loads of possible reasons, editing from different locations, maintaining a separate watchlist etc. There is certainly no subterfuge over whom the account belongs to.   pablohablo. 01:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Maybe that belongs in the above subsection where the socking is being discussed? ++Lar: t/c 02:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I am unclear what the issue is with Unitanode putting PROD tags on things. Especially given the analysis above being a bit off the mark, it's not about whether the article COULD be sourced, it's about whether it HAS them... were there any that were prodded that actually were well sourced?

I am also unclear why anyone (with sufficient clue, anyway) would want to, at this time, remove PROD tags from unsourced BLPs without fixing them. I suggest that to do so would be really poor form, to say the least. I suggest folk not do it. Show the nasty BLP crusaders a thing or two about how wrong headed they are... by actually fixing things that have sat around for years unfixed instead of hanging out here on the dramahboards. ++Lar: t/c 02:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

@Lar, why the rush to PROD al 50,000 of them? Indiscriminate PRODding is frankly clueless. Surely it's due diligence to actually read the article and check any external links for something that establishes notability and, if none is found, to check for some and check the history and whatlinkshere before slapping a PROD on it. Judging by the speed and inaccuracy of Unitanode's tagging, I find it hard to believe that he's doing any of those things. I agree that many need to be deleted but mass-PRODding all of them does nothing to help this mess. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 02:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Which of his PRODs lacked sources as of when they were PRODded? That's the issue, not whether they COULD be sourced. Not his problem. All the articles I deleted and PRODded in the last few days did not have acceptable (in most cases, ANY) references. I checked the history of each one before I deleted it. I did not just run a bot. I skipped articles in the category that seemed to have sources. It's not my job to ADD sources. The COMMUNITY had 3 years to do that. I was just cleaning up a little. And now, many of the articles, once we imposed a bit of an actual deadline, have been sorted out. That's goodness. You need to rethink things a bit. ++Lar: t/c 02:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
First off being an unreferenced BLP last I checked was not a reason for deletion. Secondly {{prod}} is to check if something is uncontroversial to delete, this is clearly not the case. Finally the real issue seems to be Uni's insistence that he will re-prod any articles that the prod is removed from, and his flat out refusal to spend a mere 5 minutes checking if the article is salvagable. Arbcom does not dictate policy, only motions so unless consensus changes then neither should policy. Unless arbcom comes along and makes a motion that Uni is doing right I think we should just follow consensus. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 02:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I think you need to check again. ANY unsourced material is subject to removal, and if nothing remains so is the article. ArbCom recently passed a motion validating this but it's not new news. ++Lar: t/c 04:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't see editors systematically adding prods to blps as crusaders of any kind, a robot could do that, something worthwhile is adding a reference to an uncited article, a robot couldn't do that. Off2riorob (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
since the user has a criteria, it cannot - by definition - be indiscriminate. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
That's exactly what I was going to say. Hasty, perhaps, but not indiscriminate. -- Atama 02:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Off: "crusaders" Me either. Obligated to do something that's needed doing for 3 years? Not me. Try again. ++Lar: t/c 02:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I was able to add information and references to Hiroshi Abe (astronomer), Makio Akiyama, Akufen, Gianne Albertoni and Karl Alpiger. Joanna Ampil is not tagged anymore. Information is online regarding Theophilus Adeleke Akinyele, but it requires subscription access. Warrah (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
  • It's very simple. Arbcom, with a handful of admin allies like Lar, have decided to say "fuck you" to community processes. Like Lar, they are not interested in adding sources to articles. Some people get their kicks from destroying rather than creating, and it's pointless trying to change them because they've got the biggest sticks. DuncanHill (talk) 02:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Hm. you forgot to mention those who like to remain complacent... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I hope we can avoid too much meta-conversation about what the policy is and should be. What is clear is that the policy is disputed right now, and there is a question about mass edits (and potentially use of tools) to favor a change in the status quo. As far as the "three years" and "complacency" arguments there is an active WP:RFC/BLP going on, with almost unanimous agreement to work towards a defined date where there will be no more unreferenced BLPs, so it's simply not the case that nobody is doing anything about it. Other pages are for policy work. The concern here is editing that if carried out to a wider extent takes the decision away from the community. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
A genuine question
I read repeated references to "uncontroversial" statements that are not sourced not needing to be deleted; and I can't help but wonder how, exactly, one can possibly know whether a statement is uncontroversial without a source to back it up? For all you know, even a bare birthday can be both controversial and land someone in a mess, think longevity records, for instance, or current age where it has a legal impact? Birthplace? Obama anyone? "Afred J. Binks is the prime minister of Strangia". Uncontroversial? Or maybe it's "Alfred G. Binks", and J. is a serial murderer.

The fact is, without a reliable source, any statement is impossible to declare "uncontroversial". Notability has nothing to do with it. — Coren (talk) 04:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Coren, go and click the random article button. Keep clicking it until you find any non-trivial article where every single basic fact is traceable to an inline, immediately verifiable, obviously reliable, source, that makes that article, by your standards, 100% uncontroversial. I am guessing you will still be clicking by the middle of next week, and beyond, especially if you fixed each one as you went. If this is the true issue, prodding unreffed blps is not the solution, or even the start of a solution. MickMacNee (talk) 05:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Or even just flipping through FAs would be an interesting exercise. MickMacNee (talk) 05:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
More to the point, having a source doesn't make the statement any more reliable. Many of the best sources are behind paywalls, or in books. And lots of editors misrepresent sources, some intentionally, others through good faith misunderstanding. The only articles that are well sourced are the controversial ones, the ones in which you have two large groups of editors fighting tooth and nail over every source, what it means, and how much weight should be placed on it. Sourcing is one step. Having the article reviewed is another step. But it's all a continuum. And pretending that adding a source suddenly draws a bright line between acceptable and unacceptable is fallacious. Guettarda (talk) 06:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
MickMacNee, Coren would eventually come across Charles Fryatt Face-smile.svg. Mjroots (talk) 06:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Every single fact in every single article should be supportable by the sources cited for that article, per WP:V and WP:RS (and by extension WP:NPOV). That does not mean that every sentence needs footnoting, if we have a couple of biographies cited then most of the background detail will come from them and does not need to be separately footnoted unless there is something unusual like a dispute, a fact only in one of several sources or a "WTF?" where the reader is likely to want to verify that specific statement. I do foresee a problem in those articles on individuals for whom Wikipedia is the first formal published biography and all the content is drawn from news reports and discussions of the individual's work. I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to deduce my views on what should be done about subjects where we are the first to cover them in depth. Guy (Help!) 09:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
As a point of order, I personally believe that most every fact should, ideally, be sourced and not just sourceable. That would generate quite a few footnotes to be sure. Until that happens I'd leave the burden on editors wanting sources to question in good faith whether an uncited claim may in fact be problematic, rather than saying we should delete 90%+ of the content in the project. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
  • The source of Coren's question may be found here in the Soxred edit history report on his contributions and here in his edit history. Coren has only 1339 mainspace edits, total, in his entire editing history. His most recent 500 article edits stretch back to December 2007, and since becoming an arbitrator in January 2009 he has made exactly 73 mainspace edits. That's an average of less than two article edits a week, including minor edits. Coren, the answer to your genuine question is firsthand experience. Spend five hours a week on the back end of new pages patrol and encounter the unreferenced soccer biographies that might be inaccurate but certainly aren't pejorative. And if you can't manage five hours a week from your busy arbitration schedule, take a leave of absence from arbitration. It is vital that arbitrators not fall out of touch. Durova403 16:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Wow, I hadn't made the connection that this odd stamement was made by an arbcom member. Indeed it is reminiscent of the perhaps mythologized anecdotes of the American president baffled by the new technology at the grocery store or the Supreme Court justice who had ruled on the issue many times who was shocked upon having finally to deal with the American health care crisis when a hospital initially refused treatment because they could not find her insurance record. If "subject to challenge if someone chose to do so" or "possibly incorrect" were a standard for what makes something controversial, then the word itself lacks definition. Everything under the sun is controversial by that standard, and sourcing would not change that. Personally, I have no problem reading a sentence to assess whether the factual claims made are problematic. For the vast majority of sentences it's pretty clear whether they are controversial or not. For cases where it's not clear on the surface, that's why humans talk and why Wikipedia has talk pages. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Sourcing "Standard"
A very serious but mostly ignored matter is the sourcing "standard" being used by some proposing and performing mass deletions. For instance, we are informed that labelling an otherwise acceptable reference, supporting most of the article, under "Further reading" instead of "References" is a deletion-worthy flaw.[6], that not fixing all categories and templates is equally cause for deletion/userification[7], and that the deleting admin is apparently the sole judge of what constitutes a reliable source, even though the source has a long history of debate at WP:RS/N with mixed results, sometimes yes, sometimes no.[8].John Z (talk) 06:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Suck it up dude or don't edit here! Stewarts can do whatever they want these days, it's WP:IAR or WP:BLP or just WP:LAR... Pcap ping 09:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
Stewards are reconfirmed every year. You could post your comment here. Ruslik_Zero 13:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
That's an idea. But my point was more to show how remarkable and potentially destructive some proclaimed sourcing standards are. By the way, I am not the similarly named editor in these diffs.John Z (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
What exactly does my being a steward have to do with anything? Pcap especially seems to be way off in the weeds. ++Lar: t/c 04:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Lar has now made a thread on Wikipedia Review ridiculing people that signed the petition against the abuse of WP:IAR. He's acting with the same disdain for the community as User:Scott MacDonald. Presumably, he'll also get a personal thank you note from Jimbo soon. Pcap ping 08:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

My issue[edit]

I don't have an issue with Unitanode prodding unsourced BLP's - It's valuable work that he's doing. I do however have issue with him prodding articles and not notifying the original author - This is standard practice and simple good manners. Uni should take the extra minute to notify authors - they may even decide to source the articles. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

  • I've figured out a way to solve that problem, Ryan. Twinkle has an auto-notfiy function, which I'm taking advantage of in my work. Before this, I'd never used any of the gadgets, so thanks to Xeno for pointing out how Twinkle can be used in this regard. UnitAnode 21:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
    • As well as notification, it'd also be good if Unitanode learned how to do Google searches and add sources to articles, or is assessing notability and adding sources "someone else's problem?". Fences&Windows 21:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Gee, has anyone considered that maybe the author should source an article before posting it to live space? I know it sounds whacky, but some authors actually do it. Or do these authors just think that is "someone else's problem" too? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Just stop. I have a holding area for unsourced BLPs that I've worked on. If you wish to save them, look them up. If you wish to observe my skill at referencing articles I write myself, there's a list of them on my userpage. I'm under no obligation to do an article writer's research for him. UnitAnode 00:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
        • I have to agree with Unitanode and Niteshift36 - the onus for references is on the editor who added them, not others to do it for them. Though of course, if you know the reference then it's good to add it in... - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
          • The onus for references is on everyone, and if you really cared about the encyclopedia, you would follow WP:BEFORE before prodding/AfD'ing. The editor who starts an article has no special status, there are no article owners. A wiki works by each one improving the work of each other, step by step. To argue otherwise is completely against the very basic concept of a wiki, every wiki, not only WP. --Cyclopiatalk 13:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
          • Well that's a nice philosophy, but not terribly realistic. What your summary boils down to is that it is everyones responsibility, but also nobodys responsibility. "Everyone" is supposed to do it, but when someone fails to do it when writing an article, who cares? Nobody says a word to the author, but they want to jump all over an editor that takes it on himself to follow the policy that any unsourced material in a BLP should be removed. If none of it is sourced, then no article should be there. And no, an author doesn't own the article. I didn't say any such thing. But they DO have a responsibility to source it. Just because you are willing to give them a pass and allow them to totally abdicate any responsibility for following policy doesn't mean all of us will. And while you're throwing around the "if you really care" line, consider that some might feel that caring is ridding the site of unsourced articles that can detract from the legitimacy of wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:28, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
          • Cyclopia, carefully with the "you" comments. I've never even once PRODed an article. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 18:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
            • Ouch, sorry. I meant it as a generic impersonal "you", but I understand the problem. My sincere apologies, I lost a bit of cool probably. --Cyclopiatalk 15:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Can we please encourage Unitanode to stop?[edit]

I've de-prodded several of Unitanode's recent nominations, which (after examination - I did not do this blindly) were bad in that they were not remotely deletable under current policy. Can we please encourage Unitanode to stop, and block find some way to restrain the editor temporarily to avoid further disruption to the project if they continue? This deliberate provocation has gone past making a WP:POINT and just seems to be ongoing trouble now. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I second this one. Cleaning up after Unitanode has gotten extremely tiring. Among the editors doing the mass-prodding, Unitanode is the only one so far who's so indiscriminate he might as well be a bot. If he were a bot, I'd have long since asked for an emergency block. RayTalk 15:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I must concur. I'm willing to make the assumption that the PRODs are being made in good faith, but being an unsourced BLP is not a criteria for deletion and many of these subjects are notable. slowing down on the PRODs and taking time to look for sources cannnot be a bad thing. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 16:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I won't be stopping. BLP requires that these articles be reliably-sourced. If you're willing to look up and add the sources, do so. I'm doing it my way, you do it yours. But if "yours" includes deprodding unsourced BLPs without adding sources, I would recommend you stop, as that is far worse than any supposed (and imagined) disruption of which you seem to be accusing me. UnitAnode 21:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
If you are asked to stop you will be stopping Unitanode. Prodego talk 21:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
No, I won't be. UnitAnode 22:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
This isnt a matter of "I can do things my way, you do things your way". Unitanode, this is a matter of you being overzealous and applying your own interpretation of our policies upon everyone's articles. It's one thing to have your own opinion about policy and how it should be implemented, it is another to actually implement your opinion on your own. It clearly seems the majority is against your interpretation. If something is notable it is notable, being poorly sourced doesnt make it non-notable; it is clearly stated in policy that creating or adding to an article without knowing our "way of doing things" or our "proper procedure" does NOT invalidate a contribution. What you are doing is in fact saying "do it our way or dont contribute". If you dont like there being poorly sourced/unsourced BLP's, then YOU find sources for them; do not PROD them JUST because they are unsourced even though they are notable. If its notable it stays. Oh, and per IAR, Jimbo, and the very penumbra of every single policy in Wikipedia- NO the BLP policies dont REQUIRE that anyone MUST do anything; consensus determines what we may or may not do in each individual case based on consensus reached through common sense, which in this case has decided you are wrong on your interpretation.Camelbinky (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't see anything close to a "majority" against what I'm doing. And even if there were, say, a 55-60% majority against it, that doesn't mean I need to stop. We're supposed to improve the project, even if a "majority" of the participants at ANI think I'm wrong. UnitAnode 22:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
UnitAnode continues to PROD unreferenced BLPs indiscriminately (apparently operating in something close chronological order by date of creation) after the above discussion. I've wasted about half an hour cleaining up perhaps 1/3 of the mess by selectively de-prodding some that did not appear to be viable PROD nominations and doing some assorted sourcing and improvements. I do think it's time to do something at this point - failing that, or if anyone wants to edit war or wheel war, this will go to Arbcom because UnitAnode seems to make clear above that all requests to stop will be ignored. Arbcom, if you look at the new wheel war case request, is taking a dim view of further provocation and use of administrative tools now that there is an RfC in place. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
A wheel war would only occur if someone unblocks without consensus. If there's good reason to unblock consensus will form. Currently there are very strong indicators that a block would be preventative. The continued indiscriminate prodding is consuming other people's time to review. There's a historic precedent for the community taking action against an editor who systematically misuses prods and overwhelms the community's ability to correct inappropriate prods and provide references. Durova403 00:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I mention that for the benefit of an involved administrator who has encouraged UnitAnode and who said they would unblock if UnitAnode were blocked over this,[9] in case they missed Arbcom's latest pronouncements on the subject. Arbcom has said that grand gestures involving tools could quite possibly could lead to a loss of tools.- Wikidemon (talk) 01:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

A disruptive editor is an editor who rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors.. Unitanode, this means you. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Eppstein, that was the quote I wanted to use but didnt know where to find it. It is probably one of the most important pieces of policy that should be spread around more often and listened to by those that think "policy says X so I can do X no matter what the rest of you think". Consensus of the community-at-large in any particular discussion trumps EVERYTHING WRITTEN DOWN. Think of us as one big giant US Supreme Court, ultimately it doesnt matter what words are specifically written down in the US Constitution and how its interpreted by any individual judge, the Constitution only "says" what the Supreme Court ultimately says it says. The Constitution says I have the freedom of speech, the Supreme Court says that doesnt apply to "yelling fire in a crowded movie theater". Same with this situation, policy may or may not encourage or "say" you must (or can) PROD every single BLP that has poor sources/unsourced; but we the community says "no you cant because its disruptive". I hope this was a good analogy.Camelbinky (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Unitasock, please, please stop. This edit removed valuable information about Bob Elliott a nationally famous actor for decades, and the information removed was stuff like "he wrote a book" and "he starred in this TV show", where the best possible sources are the book and the TV show. There is no way that is improving the project. For the love of whatever deity you follow, stop. --GRuban (talk) 00:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No sign of moderation Last bad PROD at 22:58,[10] last refusal to stop 0:35.[11] Editor is flatly disregarding warnings by administrators. It seems it will go on indefinitely absent a block. Can we get some indication whether anyone is willing to do that or whether this should go directly to Arbcon? - Wikidemon (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
And now thirteen deletion nominations for articles that had PROD tags removed, most with a deletion reason that accuses me of something. Could someone speedily close them all or just undo the nominations? Allowing them to run seven days will waste hours of editors' time each, and I don't want to have to defend myself or follow that many deletion discussions for clearly notable people. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I "accused" you of nothing. It was a simple statement of what had happened: you deprodded without any attempt to source them. It's a FACT, not an accusation. UnitAnode 02:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
You are misrepresenting the situation and you know it. As I have said several times I selectively removed PROD nominations from articles that appear sourceable, verifiable, without any obvious BLP violations, and well-enough written that the material is usable. If you have a legitimate reason to claim in good faith that they are deletable under current policy you are free to nominate them for deletion, but that does not seem to be the case. Just so you know, you are upsetting me here. Per WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA please don't use your AfD nominations as a forum to take potshots like that against me. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Unitanode, even granting that every single thing you are doing is a positive contribution improving the encyclopedia, this can still be disruptive. Adding a million perfect articles about notable topics would be a great improvement, but not if done at a speed that would crash the servers. The volunteers here are no less a part of wikipedia than the computers it uses, and if one contributor's actions are exhausting many others' ability to keep up, it is time to stop.John Z (talk) 01:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Have any of you bothered to read my userpage, where I explain my rationale, including how I decide to add a PROD, other work I do on these articles, etc.? I've PRODed about 160 articles in four fucking days! How is that disruptive in any way?!? I've done other types of work, including quickly formatting references as well as other things, to 60 or 70 articles. That there are itchy trigger fingers trying to block me for this is a sign of just how much of a dramapit ANI has become. It's more than a bit pathetic. UnitAnode 02:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I have read your rationale. Might I, respectfully, suggest try looking for sources before you tag an article though? As I said at the RfC, in an hour, I've sourced 7 BLPs, taken one to AfD and prodded 2. I've come across Tour de France champions, former head of government and Olympic medalists by hitting "random page in this category". It take a little longer, but it's more rewarding. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 02:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
(Mostly copied from talk page) I think the proof is the number of people who have asked you to slow down; a consensus or pretty near. The human servers are straining, and particularly about your edits. What you are doing could be OK and handleable in a normal context, but this is an extremely high load period. Every system dealing with such edits is extremely, unprecedentedly overloaded at the moment. In this context it makes good sense to start looking at the leading strains on the system first, even if they might not be enough to strain the system in normal times. I've seen people blocked in normal times for violating community norms about prodding who worked at a much slower rate than 160 in 4 days. You aren't working in a vacuum, but in a collaborative project.John Z (talk) 03:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleting unsourced or poorly sourced statements from BLPs is within policy. People need to internalize that. Deleting entire BLPs if they consist of nothing but unsourced or poorly sourced statements is within policy. People need to internalize that too. ArbCom gave a pretty clear ruling about this in the recent motion. Everyone who isn't clear should go review it. HOWEVER, in the interests of working to find a more optimal solution than mass deletion (even if that mass deletion is supported in policy, which it is), Unitanode is using PROD instead. Anyone who removes a PROD without sourcing the article acceptably, is, in my view, going against the spirit of policy, even if they think they have the letter of policy on their side. I suggest you not do that. Unitanode's (much milder than say, seeking a block, or starting an arbcom case, both of which are certainly within reason as valid responses) response has been to put the articles up for deletion instead. This is completely acceptable.

I'm seeing a disturbing pattern here of threats and harrassment of Unitanode. That needs to stop because it is completely unacceptable. If you see him making mistakes, point that out gently and kindly, but ... lead, follow, or get out of the way. "Can we please encourage Unitanode to stop?" says the section head... no... we should encourage him to continue and find ways to help him. ++Lar: t/c 02:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I personally think PRODing is disruptive if you dont go by the criteria and follow "good practice" suggestions like finding sources yourself before PROD. That's not the question here though. Alot of us think you need to simply stop prodding everything you see that has no sources. Having no sources is not a reason to delete; being non-notable is the only reason I can think of that is even remotely related to not being sourced, but you dont need any sources to tell you whether or not something is notable. An unsourced article about Albert Einstein would still be notable... because he is notable... its inherent to the subject, not to the sources to "prove" it to you or anyone else. If an article exists and you dont recognize its notable LOOK IT UP; if you dont find anything that shows its notable in your due diligence THEN you might want to PROD it or take the issue to the most relevant Wikiproject mentioned on the talk page, or see if you get a response from anyone who has worked on the article. Yes, it takes time and means you have work to do... Oh well. If it means that much to you to get rid of articles you'll do some work; if it isnt worth the work then maybe you shouldnt be deleting articles. The benefit of all this is to slow you down and hopefully make you realize yourself if an article truly needs to be deleted instead of you tagging everything you find and making others sort out the truth about notability. This isnt a case of Kill them all; let God sort them out, we dont have a deity here who can sort out your PRODs quickly and save the Worthy.

No, deleting articles solely on the basis of unsourced is not consistent with our general policy that it is not required that you know our policy or procedure and that notability is main determinate NOT quality. Quality is NEVER an issue for deletion.Camelbinky (talk) 03:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If you want him to stop, just go ahead and revert... I have just been lectured on the fact that this kinda bullshit is a perfectly valid PROD-removal. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
And he doesnt have the right to be doing things at a pace that overwhelms and creates undue work and stress on multiple users to "fix" his hasty decisions. The point is that a large group of editors has asked Unitanode to slow down, take a breath, and do some due diligence to relieve some pressure. Unitanode has shown contempt for this community request. This is plainly a violation of our policies as mentioned above.Camelbinky (talk) 03:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
It's not "overwhelming" anyone. It's "annoying" some people who don't like it, and that's all. UnitAnode 03:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Don't you think it proper to assume good faith of the many above who have been trying to work collaboratively and say they are overwhelmed?John Z (talk) 03:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
(ec)like I said, go ahead and revert... you might wanna put "ahooha-oink, well-grown boink" in the edit-summary. Be creative, it's fun. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
It is clearly disruptive to a fair few editors, to me it is the way it is being pushed in the way it is as if this is the best and only way to deal with it, there is a clear division running through the wiki as to how this should be dealt with, and , it is going to continue and get worse as it does, presently about three percent of them have moved off the list, some were mass deleted and some have been moved to incubation but if this is what is going to happen it is going to get worse and continue for many weeks and editors are going to be destroyed. Off2riorob (talk) 03:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, tough titty says the kitty, as the saying goes. AN emphasis has been placed on deleting unsourced BLPs rather than mealy-mouthing around with incubators, rescue squads, etc... ArbCom, Jimbo, a sprawling RfC, have all come down on getting rid of them. If I had more free time, I'd be doing it myself. Tarc (talk) 03:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Consensus of the community trumps all in any particular discussion. Quite a large number have asked Unitanode to slow down and do some due diligence of his own. Therefore he needs to. Thats what this is about. Nothing else. Alot of people have asked something, a consensus was formed, and now he has to conform to it or face consequences. It doesnt matter what ArbCom has said about BLPs, IAR tells me I dont have to give a crap, ArbCom doesnt make our policies or make decisions for us that bind on us, consensus of the community in Wikipedia on an issue trumps EVERYTHING that comes before it regardless of what ArbCom has said in the past or present. My personal opinion on what he does- Unitanode adds no benefit to Wikipedia in what he is doing because deleting without doing any research is lazy and is throwing the actual work on others to decide if something is notable or add information. Unitanode should do some real editing and ADD information to articles and find sources for articles that have none. If an article has no sources then that's not a problem for Wikipedia, if it has information that is libel or false or the subject is not notable is a problem and then PROD or stronger is required. Quality is not an issue and never is. We are a work in progress. How about making it better and help in the progress instead of just deleting anything that doesnt fit your criteria of being "good enough"?Camelbinky (talk) 03:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Again, if you disagree, start mass-reverting. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Camelbinky, you are sadly mistaken if you think a two-bit AN/I thread full of bellyachers trumps what I noted earlier. Tarc (talk) 03:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)And that's why Wikipedia is failing. "Consensus" is the bigest joke there is on this site. If Arbcom has said something regardeing BLP's then we need to at least keep it in mind. Should'nt common sense trump all other arguments?--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 03:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • As Tarc points out, consensus doesn't trump BLP. UnitAnode 03:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
    • ArbCom doesn't write policy. ;) Durova403 17:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Unitanode is restricted from prodding articles[edit]

Should include AfD as well given recent nominations of articles after PROD failed - Wikidemon (talk) 04:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Until the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people is completed and firm rules are established, Unitanode is restricted from prodding articles.

Note: This nonsense will have to be supported by a block, as I don't plan on stopping the work I've been doing because Ikip and a few others don't like it. UnitAnode 04:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support as proposer. This disruption has got to stop. Ikip 03:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose per my above statement.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 03:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. The failure to follow WP:BEFORE makes indiscriminate prodding disruptive. THF (talk) 04:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
    Do you know what "indiscriminate" means? What I'm doing is not even close to "indiscriminate." If you want some proof, simply go to my userpage, read my game plan, and click on the work I've already done. UnitAnode 04:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
    Also, WP:BEFORE isn't policy, it's advice about process. WP:BLP is, and trumps it. ++Lar: t/c 04:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support I would be satisfied if he just slowed down and paid attention to the amount of deletion activity going on, and said he would listen when other people say they are overwhelmed.John Z (talk) 04:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
    • THAT's not an unreasonable request, I'd support that. As long as the requests to throttle back from people actually doing the work and not just the "we can do whatever we want and screw BLP policy" crowd. ++Lar: t/c 04:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I am very glad we can agree here, and I thank you for the unjustified compliment at Unitanode's talk page. Some of the hard workers who deserve it have requested restraint here. I made a suggestion here that might help exploit system capacity a little better.John Z (talk) 07:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support unless someone finds a better solution per the discussion above and repeated unheeded requests on editor's talk page. We have a process under discussion to address the entire problem in an orderly fashion, and going it alone wastes a lot of people's productive time. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose although as soon as the better process moves from from "under discussion" to implemented, then I expect Unitanode will stop on his own, and switch to the better process. There are a half dozen good alternatives, I'm not fussy which, but meanwhile there is harm being done every day by unsourced BLPs and time's a wasting. Unitanode is doing something about it, bravo for him. Ikip is a timewaster, and something ought to be done about it. ++Lar: t/c 04:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. Better to put an end to this without any further contentiousness. Durova403 04:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Conditionally oppose. The problem appears to have ended. If it resumes then consider the support reinstated. Let's all move on. Durova403 18:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Consensus elsewhere leans towards support of this user's actions, AN/I caterwauling notwithstanding. Tarc (talk) 04:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Guess I'll oppose, for obvious reasons having to do with BLP problems, and solving them rather than doing nothing. UnitAnode 04:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Opposed to this kind of restriction for an activity that improves the encyclopedia overall. The RFC looks to be heading toward something similar to this in any case. Kevin (talk) 04:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Object per Kevin. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Both WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE strongly advocate trying to actually solve a problem prior to declaring it unsolvable and proding or deleting. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the simple reason that large numbers of people are doing the same thing and we've never ruled that simply listing something for deletion is improper. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support provided Unitanode doesn't promise to at least google the people whose biographies he wants to delete. Anybody proposing an article for deletion, at CSD, PROD, or AFD, has an elementary duty to check that the subject isn't, oh, the most famous expert in his field. Or a world leader. Or the most signficant pop star in half a continent. Expecting other people to clean up after the trail of destruction he's blazing is reckless, irresponsible, and extraordinarily rude. RayTalk 06:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:BEFORE, i.e. evidence must be demonstrated of having looked for sources and discussing with article creator before prodding any articles. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 08:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
    • No it doesn't. Nowhere is this written in policy. BLP however, is policy. Furthermore, it is the responsibility of those editors who wish that article to remain on wikipedia to ensure it is up the the required standards. ViridaeTalk 09:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Unsourced information in BLPs may be wrong, and if no-one can check what is wrong and what is right, it should go. This improves Wikipedia. Maybe restrict a bit so that the category does not overflow so massively that 'we' can't keep up with it, but it is still just prodding, anyone has 5 days to do something about it (maybe more if the deletion process can't keep up), and in the end, the admin who considers to delete it still can have a look. For those articles which haven't been googled yet, you might want to help Unatinode in providing sources for those. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support This is a behavioural issue with this particular user; although I generally oppose using PROD as a means to resolve this issue, other editors appear to be able to do it without such a glaring number of false positives and a borderline-blockworthy attitude to good faith requests and correspondence. Orderinchaos 08:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Though I'd accept an assurance from this user that they will start checking for sources and only prod articles that they can't find references for. Not bothered about the use of an alternate account for this and I note with some relief that they are at least informing the authors. ϢereSpielChequers 12:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose and shame on unethical people who are opposed to removing unsoruced, unwatched and unverified claims about living people.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong support per WP:BEFORE and deletion policy, and because mass prodding does absolutely nothing to help BLPs. --Cyclopiatalk 14:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
    So the fact that there are now dozens of previously unsourced BLPs that now have sources (based solely on the fact that I PRODed them "does absolutely nothing to help BLPs"? That seems ludicrous on its face. However, it's not at all a surprising claim, given the hysteria which some who oppose PRODing seem to approach the issue. UnitAnode 14:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • It was not the PRODding that helped -it was who, scared by your PROD, added sources, that helped. You're basically pointing a gun to articles yelling: "Source it, or it dies!", at an unreasonable rate. I think we could make a lot of good things happen in real life this way -say, taking people in the street, pointing a gun at their children and yelling "Volunteer for charity, or I'll blow their head off!" but somehow I don't think it would be an appreciated solution. What would help is if you do your homework before PRODding and then PROD only those for which you can't find sources, sourcing the others. Then I'd understand your actions. --Cyclopiatalk 14:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
    With this reply, I hope that everyone can see what I meant when I used the word "hysteria." A simple question, Cyclops: would the articles now be sourced if I had not PRODed them? A simple yes or no, without the killing children metaphors would be appreciated. UnitAnode 15:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Probably no, but it is utterly irrelevant: mass PRODding without WP:BEFORE causes much more troubles than leaving the same articles unreferenced. But you don't seem to hear that. --Cyclopiatalk 15:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
    Not "probably no", but definitely no. Now, is it important to have sources in our BLPs? Again, a yes or no would be great. Dissembling is not really that helpful. UnitAnode 15:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Probably no: you cannot have proof. About your question: It is more important to have the BLPs to work on, than to have sources, and it is more important to not clog the PROD process (making it essentially useless) and to do it following WP:BEFORE than to have these sources right now. In a few words: Unsourced BLPs are bad. Deleted BLPs just because someone fails to do homework and disrupted PROD are even worse. And no, I don't give simple "yes or no" answers to loaded questions. Things are not black or white. --Cyclopiatalk 16:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
    That's madness. You just answered "probably no" to the question, "Is it important to have sources in our BLPs?" That statement alone makes the case that my actions are justified. As for having "disrupted PROD", that's just nonsense. The PRODs worked. Many eyes looked at the articles, and fixed the problems within a lot of them. If that is "disrupting PROD", then more people need to be doing it. UnitAnode 16:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I answered "probably no" to your previous question about the addition of sources: you cannot say "definitely no", because you have no proof that sources wouldn't have been added, but it's a minor point (it's just to be pedantic, if you want). To your question about importance of sourcing, again, I answered that mass-prodding and making process unusable is way worse than unsourced BLPs. Again: pointing guns at people probably helps getting the work done, but it's not the correct way to get work done. --Cyclopiatalk 17:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • In the RfC, Jimmy Wales has proposed giving as much as nine months to fix these articles. Most people willing to endorse a BLP-PROD solution also want time to fix it. Perhaps you should actually listen to the community rather than unnecessarily disrupting various processes because you don't like the community's timelines. You will probably get your way eventually, but you are basically screaming "I want it now, now, now, now, now!" Resolute 17:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support at least until an actual arbitration case is accepted by ArbCom to clarify the "BLP motion." Collect (talk) 14:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support: I have no problem with Unitanode prodding articles, if he searches for sources before he does. Joe Chill (talk) 14:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. per failing to follow WP:BEFORE. Power.corrupts (talk) 14:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support: I just stumbled across this discussion, as I've been busy elsewhere, such as de-prodding and sourcing numerous prods from unitanode. Someone should turn him onto this cool internet site called "Google".--Milowent (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support: For the time being, right now it unclear how best to proceed with this and it is creating a fair bit of tension. Off2riorob (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support unless evidence is given that WP:BEFORE was observed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support as per my comment above. Even god himself proposes as much as nine months to fix the problem before deletion. There is no reason for the unnecessary rush and strain on resources just because Unitanode doesn't like the community's proposed timelines. Resolute 17:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose, per Kevin and Git-R-Done. --SB_Johnny | talk 17:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support & I get the strong impression from the comments in the "Arbitration?" subsection below that editors thought they were commenting in this section. The continued mass prodding is disruptive, and UnitAnode can wait until the community decides whether or not to change policy. I thought that was essentially what ArbCom has already said about all disruptive activity. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support I wasn't going to support until I scanned todays AFD log. The work is noble, but you need to refine your methods. If you are unwilling to refine your methods you need to stop. If you are unwilling to stop, you need to be stopped.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


It's obvious that Unitanode and Lar that what they are doing is justified, even if the BLP RfC has not yet completed, and there seems to be no consensus on the speed with which to prod unreferenced BLPs. I think someone procedurally inclined should either open a new arbitration case, or extend the one on the PROD wheel war with this issue, because it's essentially an application on the ground of that attempt to change the PROD policy. Based on the above discussion, the community is unable to deal with this issue. Pcap ping 09:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

  • STRONG OPPOSE Look, you followed dispute resolution on this (with another Admin) brought it to the Arbs and they see no problem with it. Drop it, get down from the Reichstag and build an encyclopedia. You're beating a dead horse for crying out loud. The Arbs have spoken already on this issue. Naluboutes,NalubotesAeria Gloris,Aeria Gloris 12:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support As I stated earlier in this discussion, it was very easy to correct the articles that received Prod tags. Indiscriminate tagging doesn't help anyone. Warrah (talk) 14:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong support per above comment. Mass prodding does nothing to help BLPs and the editor behaviour is absolutely disruptive. --Cyclopiatalk 14:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support It is clear that ArbCom did not intend its resolution to be used as an excuse for more drama. Such acts contrary to BLP status quo policy, and contrary to any spirit of colloquy at all at the RfC are contrary therefore to the nature of how WP works. I also feel that "get out of the way" is a mode of debate copnducive to reducing the number of editors on WP quite substantially at a time when encouraging new editors is vital, Collect (talk) 14:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support It's clear that Arbcom's statement is being interpreted in different ways by different people. We need to ask them to explain themselves, and, if necessary, to enforce it. --GRuban (talk) 14:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per Collect's comments. Resolute 16:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wouldn't that amount to handing over the policy decision making to ArbCom? Durova403 17:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Extended content

Proposal by Unitanode: Ikip is restricted from working on biographies of living persons, except to add sources to them[edit]

  • Support as proposer. The problem needs fixed, and Ikip is simply obstructing. UnitAnode 04:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • No diffs or discussion provided of any problematic activity, and a community topic ban would be an extraordinary remedy in any event. Unless it can be supported this proposal looks mean-spirited as a response to the above one, and seems to be pushing some boundaries. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Support - it's a start. (diffs can be provided if necessary, but if you NEED them, you're not very familiar with Ikip's brand of interaction) ++Lar: t/c 04:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I am indeed unfamiliar, which is why I qualified it with the "unless..." Is there an active discussion or process matter this springs from? - Wikidemon (talk) 05:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose? what in the word does this have to do with this conversation? If you are talking about my moving articles from main space to project space, unlike yourself Unitanode, I took criticism and suggestions to heart, and have completely stopped, here is what I said:
    "Of course. I appreciate and respect your concerns. I stopped yesterday and will not resume until a wikiproject agrees fully." [12]
    I will NOT continue until there is consensus to continue. So you are creating this retribution section over something that is a non-issue. Also note my tone of cooperation compared to yours.
    Lar and I unfortunately do have a bad history together. Our first interaction was when Lar vigorously supported one editor calling another editor a troll. Ikip 04:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
    • " Our first interaction was when Lar vigorously supported one editor calling another editor a troll" - false characterization of what actually happened. I think one of us needs to start an RfC on the other because really, you're way out of line. As per usual; You are a significant disruption to the smooth operation of this wiki. ++Lar: t/c 04:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
      • (removed not the time nor the place) Ikip 05:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Neutral diffs please?--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 04:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Object, why? –Juliancolton | Talk 04:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
    Becuase he's been nothing but obstructionist and antagonistic every step of the way. This battleground mentality was a nice example of the problem with Ikip's attitude, but it's by far not an isolated example. UnitAnode 05:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Strongly object Attemmpts to quash opposition to controversial or perceived disruption is greatly unhelpful. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. Ikip's interactional style is confrontational and may merit a community response of some sort, but the main part of this discussion has not been to urge him to stop removing PRODs from articles. Several editors have specifically recommended mass removal of Unitanode's prods, and although that advice was of questionable value it was not sufficiently criticized when it was made to justify a sanction for following it. Durova403 05:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Ikip has acted in good faith. Bidgee (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment, I have nothing to do with the issues discussed with this editor. There are no edit diffs provided, the BLP work complained about has stopped voluntarily, and probably will never proceed again. Therefore, can someone please close this? Ikip 05:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Technically I don't see Ikip actually editing any articles. He has been busy moving articles and creating tons of cross-space redirects to the Article Incubator (which could be interpreted as relating to BLPs) and other more general discussions about articles so I don't this proposal is effective. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose But I'm not sure about him having a bot to move articles, see Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 43#Bot to move articles from main space to Wikipedia:Article Incubator. Dougweller (talk) 06:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose per everyone else, i.e. WP:SNOW. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 08:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose I don't agree with everything he is doing but he is acting in good faith and is not harming anyone/anything in doing so. I'd like to see him wait for a period (say a week) before resuming the incubations, as real progress is being made on fixing them and the un-incubation part of the operation adds about 4 unnecessary steps to each article. Once the "first wave" of mass fixes/refs has gone through, I think it would then be OK. Orderinchaos 08:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose, are we really suggesting that someone is forbidden to remove unsourced statements which are possibly harmful to the BLP in question? --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Ikip is not the problem. Warrah (talk) 14:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose and trout-slap Unitanode for this disruptive proposal. Nice to hear people talk about "battleground mentality" when a few lines above they scream their Jihad to continue prodding unless blocking, regardless of consensus and AN/I outcome. That said, Ikip is maybe losing his cool here and there, but he(she?) is one of the valuable editors actually trying to argue to stop the insanity. --Cyclopiatalk 14:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Seems the usual "Opinion is running against my actions, so let's try saying someone else is as bad just to conflate everything" argument. Collect (talk) 14:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Collapse because consensus appears to be that this is retaliatory and disruptive. Joe Chill (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

An observation[edit]

The above ban proposals seem to have degenerated into yet another inclusionism vs. deletionism debate. This is not appropriate. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

More like a warmed-over Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/JB196 with wider attention. Durova403 06:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I echo Juliancolton's concerns. Co-opting BLP into inclusionism-deletionism makes us all worse off. One of these things matters way more than the other.--Tznkai (talk) 07:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Inclusionism matters way more than deletionishm! Or is it the other way around? But in seriousness I agree that the discussion above isn't really useful or going anywhere. A couple of people (including me) have recently left longer notes on Unitanode's talk page asking that editor to dial back or stop the prodding for now, though I'm not sure that will lead to a change. Exacerbating tensions between opposing camps, so to speak, does not seem advisable when we're trying to come up with a way to work together on unsourced BLPs, and in that respect Unitanode's actions (and some of the responses to them) strike me as counterproductive. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I'm a deletionist, but I don't support mass prodding without individualized investigation. THF (talk) 14:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
In case it wasn't clear, I consider inclusion-deletionism as one thing, and BLP another.--Tznkai (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
It was definitely clear, I was just trying to inject a little (probably a very little) humor into the discussion, and I very much agree with you that discussion of BLP (which actually matters) should absolutely not be folded into the rather tired inclusion-deletionism debate. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
And how do you intend to make that happen, exactly? If wishes were horses, and all, given that the rallying cry has already gone out to the inclusionists (and, to be fair, I suspect the inclusionists believe the same cry has been sent to the deletionists). Hipocrite (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't intend to make anything happen, and am quite confident I can't make anything happen (or not happen). My point is just that debating BLP should not devolve into a general debate about inclusion vs. deletion. Many people are not treating it that way which is good, but of course some almost certainly are and that's not good. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless I suddenly became an inclusionist overnight, Juliancolton is off base. There are overriding policy issues so let's assume good faith that most of this discussion's participants are not fronting for an ideology. Arguably, it poisons the well to dismiss a serious discussion on such sweeping terms. Durova403 17:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


It's worth pointing out (if it was not already above) that Unitanode has grown frustrated with the response to his or her prodding of unsourced BLPs and apparently is not going to continue doing that right now, per the comment here. As such it's probably not all that useful to continue talking about somehow preventing Unitanode from continuing with the prodding. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank goodness. If the problem has stopped then let's close this discussion for the present. Durova403 18:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, thank goodness! If I had continued, some more BLPs might have actually gotten sourced. Can't have that... UnitAnode 18:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:MJ787123 and User:SineDie519 are involved in severe edit war[edit]

Above mentioned users are edit warring over Trey Grayson for more than one hour now. Both users have been warned but in vain. Hitro talk 19:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I blocked MJ for 48 hours, and Toddst1 blocked SD indefinitely. We also protected the page at the same time. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Ongterm vandalism from multiple IPs and users. Ccrazymann (talk) 19:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Changed this to a subsection, as it's the same issue as above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, the unsourced BLPs are moving to a new namespace[edit]

Resolved: Has been resolved amicably with the contributor who was taking the action. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 22:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

How much can the article incubator hold? Mebbe *all* of the unsourced BLPs will fit. Example: Barry Stewart. Concerned, Jack Merridew 08:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The only issue I can see with this is that WP treats redirects as exact copies of the page it is pointing at, which nullifies the benefit of {{NOINDEX}}. Ideally these should be moved with the redirect suppressed to achieve the goal. MBisanz talk 08:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleted or blanked? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 08:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
The redirect in the mainspace should be deleted, the article should be left in the Wikipedia space unblanked if the goal is to maintain the content and keep it off google. MBisanz talk 08:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
(ec) I believe that hundreds of cross-namespace redirects are being left behind. Looks like it's a script; it is going at quite a clip. Jack Merridew 08:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Has this mass-moving activity actually been sanctioned by the community, or the bot approvals group, or is this a freelance effort? If the latter, the account should probably be blocked ASAP. -- The Anome (talk) 08:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

There have been proposals involving mass-incubating on the BLP RFC, but as far as I can see, none of them has so far gained very much traction. This does seem to be an unlicensed bot. Also, I'm not sure if Ikip was aware this would lead to the redirects being removed from mainspace - the result of his actions is that many potentially good articles may get hidden from mainspace and made harder to find for people who might actually fix them. Much harder than if they were in a prod queue or simply in the unreferenced BLP categories. Fut.Perf. 08:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I blocked User:Ikip for running of the unauthorized bot for the page moves. He was also asked to stop, but kept moving pages. The block can be lifted without my permission just as long as he stops. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Not a bot - editor has a .NET wiki helper app. I'm going to unblock. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 08:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, is he stopping and what is this helper app he is using? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
He said on his talk page he will stop. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Chaos ensues; article has been recreated... see also: Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Unreferenced BLPs/Australia/Barry Stewart Jack Merridew 08:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Can someone also do me a favor, and delete this page , I cited it and put it back to the mainspace but the incubator version needs deleting. Off2riorob (talk) 08:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Don't do that please. It needs the history, so I just had to do a histmerge. ViridaeTalk 08:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, perhaps you could point me towards the correct way to do it? Off2riorob (talk) 09:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
You cant do a histmerge yourself. If yu are going to edit the articles, do so while they are in the incubator and then move them back. Alternatively, move them back then edit them. Dont copy paste back into the mainspace, the history needs to go too. ViridaeTalk 09:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)x2 Non-admin view, but this should be paused ASAP while nothing in the RfC is even close to official. Was done during edit conflict. Though the incubator idea is "liked" it is certainly not a leading proposal. A total rouge/freelance move like this is highly disruptive and I'd argue an injunction from ArbCom should be filed requesting these sorts of mass-article changes be stopped for X length and/or editors involved in the original ArbCom case filing be specifically told not to given the already established view of acting without consensus, discussion or policy. daTheisen(talk) 08:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Following-up after quick actions here-- I'd still suggest an ArbCom injunction requested so that disruptions like this attempting to spark further mass community drama can be eliminated and the rogue nature of seeking this drama be heavily enforced. daTheisen(talk) 08:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
I dunno. This was all noticed and corrected in about 20 minutes. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 08:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I deleted a good 50 or so of the cross-namespace redirects, then got bored and stopped. I didn't see any need to wait, since if people objected to the move they could always just move things back to mainspace (the whole article history is perserved in the moves, I wasn't deleting any actual content). No comment about the moves themselves. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 08:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Mr Ta bu shi da yu wanted me to comment here. I wanted to thank Rjanag, Ta bu shi da yu, Viridae, Zscout370's diligence in patrolling wikipedia. Without their often thankless work, we would be overrun by vandals. My apologies for not alerting ANI first, maybe I should have done that originally? I thought after the community overwhelmingly accepted WP:Incubator, and when the project was closed overwhelmingly keep, that moves like this, for unencyclopedic articles was accepted by the community
We have discussed this move at WP:incubation. A member of Wikiproject Australia set up a page based on what we discussed. We were all excited. Two projects were going to help solve the BLP unreferenced problem. I will continue to discuss this further, with those projects.
I didn't remove the redirects because as soon as those redirects are deleted, editors can't see the pages anymore in their watchlist. I think it is better to keep these redirects for two days only, so editors can see the move on their watchlists, prompting them to either move the page back or fix the unreferenced problem. But this seems like a concern, so I will delete all redirects.
I hesitate to bring this up, but I think it bears mentioning for those who don't know the history. Jack Merridew posted this ANI. Just a month ago, editors were reviewing Jack Merridew probation, after he had been blocked indefinitely for stalking. I spoke the loudest against Jack Merridew, because of continued harrassment (once called stalking). Future Perfect threatened to block me if I ever mentioned Jack Merridew again, he was criticized by Arbcom clerk Penwhale for this threat. irrelevant
Again, administrators, thanks for your diligence. Ikip 09:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like a reasonable statement to me. No real harm done, though not sure about the article incubator issue. I think we can put this down to a reasonable effort at implementing something that had consensus, but still has teething problems. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

moar KAOS:

The above all need history merges. Please don't forget the talk pages. Regards, Jack Merridew 11:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

  • Obviously it would be much easier to address the unreferenced BLPs while they are in article space. The out of process deletions and the moves are very disruptive. Any actual BLP problems should be addressed in the usual ways. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, it's all resolved now. I'm marking this as resolved. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 22:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Dispute at Naturopathy[edit]

This could be viewed as a content dispute, but I am bringing it here because I believe it is actually an issue of fundamental policy. We have two editors, Jmh649 (talk · contribs) and QuackGuru (talk · contribs), who are reverting to maintain the text, "Non-scientific health care practitioners, including naturopaths, use unscientific methods and deception on a public who, lacking in-depth health care knowledge, must rely upon the assurance of providers. Quackery not only harms people, it undermines the ability to conduct scientific research and should be opposed by scientists". Their justification is that the passage is sourced. The question has been argued out on the talk page and noticeboards, with no solution. I hope to establish a consensus, clear enough that admins are willing to enforce it, that statements like this are absolutely out of bounds on Wikipedia. There are a lot of other problems with the article, but this is the worst. For what it's worth, let me add that I'm a scientist and pretty much always defend the scientific point of view, but I believe that statements like this only alienate people. Looie496 (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The reversion was actually of a large quantity of referenced text [13] not just that line. This was without any discussion on the talk page as far as I could see.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
You yourself emphasized those lines at Talk:Naturopathy#removal of referenced content. Looie496 (