Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive593

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(

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).

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)

• 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

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.

• 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)

Mass-prodding

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

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.

• 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 ...at 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)

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).

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. -

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. -

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頭 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

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.   pablo_hablo. 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 {{

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頭 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

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)

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 . 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: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"

Suck it up dude or don't edit here! Stewarts can do whatever they want these days, it's

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)

My issue

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 Postlethwaite^{See 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... -
        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
          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. --Cyclopia^talk
          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. -
          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. --Cyclopia^talk 15:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Can we please encourage Unitanode to stop?

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

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. Ray^Talk 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

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: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)

(

^{Let's talk}

03:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)