watchlist |
watched |
Maoririder
In looking over a lot of stuff, the whole thing about Maoririder all looks like a lot of wasted server time. Where did we come up with the idea that he is mentally retarded or just a kid? There are two possibilities as I see it: A) Maoririder is playing a game of good edit/bad edit on purpose, or B) Maoriride is just a new Wikipedian who is still learning and perhaps isn't trying to be very specific with his stub creations because he doesn't grasp the situation yet. I think that I have to agree with your argument that he is just new, but don't agree with any arguement that he is retarded or autuistic, at least not yet.--MONGO 08:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- From the Evidence page: "The evidence presented against Maoririder thus seeks to misrepresent Maoririder's removal of his admitted personal attack as a craven, cowardly act of concealment. Who is violating community norms here?". I noted that he removed the attack, and then denied ever making one. I don't recall using the words "craven" or "cowardly". I don't think he's either. If you want to slander me, than open up an RfC or RfAr against me. --Scimitar parley 14:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- Or you could just stop blatantly misrepresenting the evidence. --Tony SidawayTalk 17:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- I didn't use the words "craven" or "cowardly". Who's misrepresenting what?--Scimitar parley 17:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- I'm simply asking where the notion that Maoririder is retarded came from. I see evidence of problematic use and of personal attacks but also see that he is relatively new. He has similar editing style to Gabrielsimon. I'm taking a stand here, just was curious if all the evidence supports the diagnosis...an Rfc is NOT something I have any intention of recording. Without using Tony's talk page for a filibuster, also curious where you got the idea I was claiming that you used the words "craven" or "cowardly" as I haven't called anyone that to my knowledge.--MONGO 20:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- I've responded on your talk pg. --Scimitar parley 21:15, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- I'm simply asking where the notion that Maoririder is retarded came from. I see evidence of problematic use and of personal attacks but also see that he is relatively new. He has similar editing style to Gabrielsimon. I'm taking a stand here, just was curious if all the evidence supports the diagnosis...an Rfc is NOT something I have any intention of recording. Without using Tony's talk page for a filibuster, also curious where you got the idea I was claiming that you used the words "craven" or "cowardly" as I haven't called anyone that to my knowledge.--MONGO 20:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- I didn't use the words "craven" or "cowardly". Who's misrepresenting what?--Scimitar parley 17:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Scimitar, the presentation of evidence against Maoririder, upon which I was commenting, falsely claimed that he was trying to cover up an attack he had made. It was a de facto accusation of craven, cowardly, despicable behavior, and completely unfounded. Withdraw that false accusation. --Tony SidawayTalk 23:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
- If you check the page, you'll notice that I editted my contribution well before you asked me to withdraw it. I have my faults, but I hope blind stubbornness isn't one of them.--Scimitar parley 14:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
stub cleanup
If you're wanting to help Maoririder clean up his stubs, he's got a new batch here: Special:Contributions/Bluejays2006. Best of luck getting a repeat edit from him on them. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 19:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
With all due respect, count me out. I'm through with this whole affair. Why I've become the bad guy in all this is beyond me. I didn't file the complaint. I only supported it in hopes the guy would straighten up and fly right. I'm taking a break since, quite frankly, I've become sick of Maoririder trashing me when all I tried to do was to help. I'll probably change my mind once I've cooled off, but for now, I'm taking myself off the project for a bit. I wish you the best in trying to help this user. We did it with SuperDude115; I thought we could do it with Maoririder. Maybe we still can. - Lucky 6.9 00:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for Your Apology
I did lose some sleep last night about this whole thing, i've become something of a Wiki-Addict, and I have never been particularly adept dealing with intrapersonal rivalries, especially those which arose through a misunderstanding. I believed that we might have had different goals regarding Maoririder, but i'm glad it seems that we only have differing opinions on how to reach that goal. Who knows? Eventually I may try to establish a Wikiproject for Disabled Wikipedians out of this effort. Anywho, since it looks like you haven't gotten a Barnstar lately, and your apology is worth one in my book, so I stuck a picture of what it looked like on that milk carton on the side. I'll sure somebody'll find it eventually;-) Karmafist 04:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Edit war
I suppose you know by now that after about a week of calm, User:Theathenae has returned with a vengance. He has edit warred many articles (including Arvanites). When I asked him to co-operate on his talk page, he just deleted my message here. If that is not bad faith, I don't know what it is. What should I do? I know that you're probably tired of this dispute by now, but please consider intervening. REX 10:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
- Oh I was busy with other cases for a bit, but I may have more time now. I'll take a look. But meanwhile, remember that it takes two to edit war. --Tony SidawayTalk 10:47, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry to pester you again (If you don't want to hear from me again, I'll understand, just tell me). Theathenae calls my GOOD FAITH and COOPERATION message wiki-stalking and deletes it without answering. Look! What should I do? Edit-war? I have already made another concession (it is an original research one, but necessary since Theathenae won't accept what the sources say). He just won't listen!!! REX 19:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Unprotection
Tony, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't unprotect pages I've protected. If you feel something's been locked for too long, by all means leave a note on my talk page, and I'll see to it. For example, the Open gaming dispute has been going on since January at least, possibly before, between two editors, and they seem to be the only two who edit it. Six days to sort it out is therefore not too long, and I was waiting for one of them to respond to the latest point before unprotecting; I'm also in touch with both by e-mail. I won't re-protect, because I think they're about ready to start editing again, but in future I would really appreciate being allowed to unprotect pages I have protected, unless there's a request for unprotection from someone not involved in the dispute, and I'm not around. I know you don't like protected pages, but it's sometimes better than blocking for 3RR and having people attack each other on talk pages. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- I appreciate your feelings, but a personality clash isn't really a good justification for keeping an article protected from all edits. I don't see 3RR as an alternative to page protection--just get the editors to agree not to edit war. --Tony SidawayTalk 02:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- That had already been tried, to no avail, and it was becoming increasingly bitter, with both parties requesting help: there had already been a RfM, an article RfC, and a rejected RfAr. I therefore checked to see whether anyone else was editing it, and after establishing that no one was, I protected it, put up another article RfC, asked for help on the mailing list from anyone knowledgeable in the area, and engaged in e-mail correspondence with both parties, as well as explaining our policies to the new-ish one. It has gone quite well, and an agreement is close by the looks of it. My point is that often the protecting admin knows the dispute and is better placed to decide when to unprotect. Also, in general I feel that admins shouldn't undo each other's work by unprotecting or unblocking, unless a clear error has been made and/or the original admin isn't available — although that doesn't mean we shouldn't raise issues with other admins when we disagree with them. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Traditional Catholics
I am unclear as to why you locked the "Traditionalist Catholic" page again. I made the "wholesale edit" (which I didn't know was some breach of etiquette), was told not to, so then just posted the definition agreed upon in the talk pages. But that, too, was reverted and the page locked. I don't understand. Used2BAnonymous 05:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
P.S. Also, the structure used was the one recommended by Pathoschild (the moderator), and worked out among us all. Used2BAnonymous 05:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- Apologies for the screw-up. I unprotected. --Tony SidawayTalk 05:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you, Mr. Sidaway.. S'all good : ) Used2BAnonymous 06:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
More personal attacks by User:Cool Cat
Please see: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek/mentorship#More personal attacks by User:Cool Cat. — Davenbelle 06:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Albert M. Wolters Talk page
Just curious: why wasn't Talk:Albert M. Wolters undeleted in addition to undeleting the article? Is the discussion there now irrelevant? --Tabor 19:41, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually I'd no idea that it had been deleted. I don't think it's normal practice to delete talk pages, except for mischievous pages. I'll undelete it and merge in my comment. --Tony SidawayTalk 21:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
- That's my fault, I deleted the talk page when I deleted the article per AfD. In hindsight it was a mistake - indeed deleting the article was probably a mistake since the AfD consensus was illogical. Tony, I do think we need a mechanism to review bad AfD decisions (like this one) and not just the process. But, for the record, I'm a little uncomfortable with you unilaterally restoring this - are you now the last court of appeal in any process! Doc (?) 21:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Doc. I know it's uncomfortable, but IAR is like that. A corollary of IAR is that I'm putting my reputation on the line. If this article is deleted I personally will not undelete again, but I rely on others who think the article is a worthwhile one to undelete it. I am pretty sure we can ensure that way that there is a clear lack of consensus to delete. Deletion policy has this: if in doubt, don't delete. Honestly we should not be deleting good stuff, because it's a stupid thing to do. --Tony SidawayTalk 21:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. - brenneman(t)(c) 06:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- Yes it does. I've restored the material that, without discussion, you removed from the deletion policy. Don't do that again, it's utterly disgusting and sneaky. Quite beyond belief. --Tony SidawayTalk 16:23, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. - brenneman(t)(c) 06:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- Hm, I trained as a lawyer - so maybe I'm a little over-fond of process - and unsure about arbitrary IAR (although I have used it myself). I think you could at least have waited to see if the VfU process would have come to the right result. Your unilateral action looks highhanded and anti-consensus - if everyone behaved like that we'd be in real trouble. On the other hand, what I don't get is the VfU 'this is about process not content' argument - so will they restore articles that are junk because they were deleted out of process - and refuse to reprieve articles that are good because proces was followed? (That process is in itself deeply flawed). If I was a stronger believer in IAR, I might be tempted to pull an Ed Poor on VfU right now! --Doc (?) 22:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
We've got a bureaucracy and as part of that bureaucracy you did something that you would not have done as an individual. Well maybe you don't view that kind of behavior as "high handed". I differ. At some point somebody with a bit of commonsense ought to be able to say "You know what? That decision was totally wack." I take it upon myself to do that, and every time I do it I'm risking my whole reputation. I'll do that only when I think it's worth doing so and I think there's a serious problem with the usual processes. --Tony SidawayTalk 23:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
- Maybe it's better to fix the process, than rely on (inevitably arbitrary) royal pardons? --Doc (?) 23:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
I can't fix the process until I build a substantial head of complaint that, fuck it, good stuff keeps getting deleted and it shouldn't be. --Tony SidawayTalk
Hey
I have seen your name a lot lately... so have this Barnstar of Diligence for being so active on Wikipedia.
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c3/Hero_of_the_USSR.png/100px-Hero_of_the_USSR.png)
Take care. File:Smilie.gifMolotov (talk)
23:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks, but those weird merkin star things really spook me. I've replaced that nasty barn pin thing with a nicer picture. --Tony SidawayTalk 00:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- I like that...could you give me one of those. : ). File:Smilie.gifMolotov (talk)
00:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- I like that...could you give me one of those. : ). File:Smilie.gifMolotov (talk)
- I take that as a 'no'. Take care anyway. File:Smilie.gifMolotov (talk)
00:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- I take that as a 'no'. Take care anyway. File:Smilie.gifMolotov (talk)
Hehe! You didn't give me a chance to respond! I don't hand out Hero of the Soviet Union awards lightly, you know. I'll have to consult the Revolutionary Committee, but in principle I see no reason not to award you. Thanks. --Tony SidawayTalk 00:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Deletion
I have no opinion on the subject of the article. I do not plan on voting on the second AfD. I do believe in process. This was a unanimous vote for deletion, and you decided to just go ahead and undelete it without even waiting to see what the VfU vote was going to be. You have no concern for other admins nor for process, only for whatever you think should be done, and everybody else, and all of Wikipedia with them, can go hang. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- My objection to the VFU vote is in my email on wikien-l: to wit, that falsehoods are repeatedly raised as excuses to keep deleted. Summary undeletion is the only way to enforce the principle that content matters more than process. That this is an encyclopedia first, and a community second. Read the article, and stop making patently false claims about my opinion. --Tony SidawayTalk 01:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Albert_M._Wolters_(second_nomination)
It's vanity and cruft. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 01:47, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- It's people like you that make me frustrated with Wikipedia by circumventing the vfd (which was unamious,) and the ineffective dispute resolution methods. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 01:48, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Answer the question. Have you in fact read the article? --Tony SidawayTalk 01:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Independent school (UK) protection
Thanks for taking care of this. To be (somewhat) fair to the protecting admin, there wasn't a template placed because AFAIK there isn't one for move-only protection -- until recently, there wasn't really an explicit policy, either. Hopefully this will "bed down" more in time. Alai 03:12, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Sadness
I have decided to post this comment to you, as well as to the debate on Wolters.
Mr. Sidaway, would I be right, in the spirit of WP:IAR, to vandalize your user page because I think you are disruptive, and wished to show you how painful disruption can be? Anarchy is a vicious cycle. If we really ignored all rules, this project would fail. I haven't been here that long, but when I first arrived, I found you to be a good admin of sound judgment, and I liked you. Your recent attacks have been depressing. Make your points (which are often good ones) with logic, not with with disrespect for others. I do hope WP does not become a land of George W. Bush-esque unilateralism. I am sad.
I'll add to you here that I agree the article should be kept, and so voted. I also voted to Keep Deleted at VfU because I knew SteveBish, or myself, could easily expand the article, and achieve reposting quickly through process. Your actions just made things more complicated, made me lose a little faith in you, and did make me very sad. Xoloz 14:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- The VFU vote was a travesty because there is a clique there that denies that deletion policy mandates VFU to look at content, and goes to the lengths of removing from the VFU page actual quotes from the deletion policy that show their claims to be false. I have to say I'm depressed myself at your false claim that I closed the second AfD. I did nothing of the sort. I created the second AfD.
- The suggestion you make above would fall afoul of WP:POINT. All I did was ignore all rules to achieve the end that would have been achieved, if VFU were not broken to the point where it ignores and misrepresents the undeletion policy. We must never delete good articles, and where AfD does so VFU is supposed to correct the error. When both fail, it's left to people like me to correct the error. --Tony SidawayTalk 15:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, Mr Sidaway, it would fall afoul of WP:POINT if I vandalized you, but if I used IAR as a justification, does WP:POINT matter. As to my apparent incorrect reading of edit history, it matters little; creating the second AfD before VfU was done, in a self-admitted attempt to circumvent it, is just as much a depressing lack of respect for process. I will also add that I find your mentioning of WP:POINT in the context of my rhetorical question to be either odd or disingenious. You must have (or reasonably should have) realized that WP:IAR, as you contrue it in your actions, becomes a dangerous license to do all kinds of mischief.
- Lastly, VfU had not failed. The article would probably have been undeleted, and the process worked. All you did by circumventing it was to cause disruption. Further, your observation, it is left to people like me to correct the error strikes me as plainly megalomaniacal. I am saddened further. Xoloz 15:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- Call me Tony. Everybody else does.
- Yes, WP:POINT would matter because you would have caused a fuss to demonstrate a point rather than to achieve a policy objective. That's the opposite of the way IAR works. If you don't understand the difference, and yet I tell you that there is a very real difference, maybe that explains why, on the few occasions I have ever use IAR, I have achieved the objective with little damage to my overall credibility, if any. In short, Xoloz, I recommend that you yourself avoid making use of IAR until and unless you can understand the difference.
- Now that I correct you on one fact, you move to misstating another. As I said, I didn't close the new AfD, so now you falsely claim that I started the second AfD in order to circumvent VFU. Wrong, I undeleted the article in an act of circumvention of a corrupt and counter-policy process, that pertaining at present on VFU, which regularly stands and wrings it hands and incorrectly claims it cannot do anything to undelete perfectly good articles, if the process of deletion was formally correct. Actually I only completed the second nomination of the article because someone else had added the tag but failed to complete it. I don't like messy, dangling ends. Do you see a pattern here? You don't understand what's going on so you repeatedly misinterpret and misstate the facts.
- You don't understand why I mentioned WP:POINT in relation to your suggestion. I do so simply because your suggestion would unequivocally fall under WP:POINT.
- You falsely claim that VFU would probably have undeleted the article. No it wouldn't. VFU has been traduced and regularly denies the undeletion policy. Attempts to appeal to the content of a deleted article are falsely described as inadmissible arguments. Even you admit that you voted Keep deleted for some utterly nonsensical reason. --Tony SidawayTalk 16:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- Mr. Sidaway, although I am an accomplished wordsmith and, as an attorney, a master of obtuse language, your second paragraph makes almost no sense to me whatsoever, except insofar as you seem to enjoy saying that I misstate things. As best I can tell (and this requires, admittedly, some work on my part in inferring what you mean, because your words seem horribly muddled to me) you appear so thoroughly convinced that VfU is flawed such that you are willing to see any act aimed at its sabotage as good, notwithstanding the fact that is unknown how many (if anyone) agrees with you that VfU is broken. So be it.
- I will not seek to reason by analogy with you. (I could, for a hypothetical example, conclude that you, as an editor, are broken, and that any attempt to sabotage you would fall under IAR as an objective good... but no matter.) The fact is, I have a great distaste for IAR and (whatever subtleties you may have grasped that I fail to see) I would never invoke it in anything other than a hypothetical example.
- From my point of view, it seems that you simply do not understand (or don't care understand) what due process means (I draw this conclusion not as an ad hominem, but based solely on your belief that my VfU vote was "absurd", when I explained it to what I consider very reasonable satisfaction, both to you, and at that forum.) So be it.
- I continue baring you no ill-will as a person. I think you are probably a fine friend, and I have seen evidence that you have a sense of humor. I hope not to encounter you in an administrative capacity, for the opacity of your responses (from my POV at least) makes administrative-type discussions between us very, very likely to fail.
- That said, I continue to assert that VfU is not broken, and I find no evidence given to suggest that it is. I will oppose most of the positions you take in this regard.
- As you advised me that I don't understand your view of IAR (and, on that point, you are probably right), I advise you, in a friendly manner, that you should recognize that many other people have a way of viewing "due process" that is much different than yours. For many, "due process" is the best guarantee of fairness, justice, and (in circumstances much more grave than this) life and limb. When you act on your view of IAR, these people will be upset. It isn't because they misunderstand, it is because they have a different understanding of the good that process achieves. If you wish, you may try to empathize with them and with me; I implore you at least to recognize this difference. From their (and my) point of view, your endorsements of WP:IAR will likely seem highly egocentric; from yours, justified. My reasoning on that VfU was as far absurd as any reason can be, and unless and until you gain some appreciation of this, we will continue to speak different languages of logic.
- If we were friends, I would have much more to say to you; and, if (for some bizarre reason), you wish to engage in a serious and somber debate on epistemology and personal conviction, I will gladly do so outside of WP. For WP contexts, though, my observations are complete. Again, my apologies for any perceived slights, injuries or misstatements. I only spoke to you because I hoped to communicate for our mutual benefit, but I am now of the opinion that the value criteria from which we each proceed (and the nature of the language and arguments we each employ) are likely so different as to be irreconcilable. For practical purposes, I hope you use IAR sparingly; my faith in due process is not shaken, and I hope you see the beauty of such methodical deliberation (as I understand it) someday. Best wishes, Xoloz 17:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry if my words seem muddled to you. I'll say it in short sentences. You're a lawyer. You think this is a court system with due process and all the paradiddle of real life. It isn't. When the rules get in the way of the encyclopedia, we ditch the rules, not the encyclopedia. Of course IAR is egocentric! You need to be an egomaniac to use it, and a very accomplished one to get away with it. --Tony SidawayTalk 18:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, I am surprised and pleased that you grasp why you might be considered an egomaniac by some. Perhaps your reasoning processes are not as far off of my earth as I thought. That admission does make your actions more consistent with motives I have seen before. When you use short sentences, your point is better conveyed to me. Whether this particular "ditching" of the rules was a good one, and whether (in the end), you'll "get away with it" is undecided, of course. Wolters will (and should) stay; but, in the process of expediting him, you have given me reason to doubt your administrative competence. Perhaps you win more fans than you alienate with this method. I suppose, also, that the reasonableness of your choices might affect the ratio of the "pissed off" to the admiring. Also affecting this ratio would probably be the behavior of those who share your interpretation of IAR (Snowspinner, Ed Poor, Neutrality, seem such examples to me.) Anyway, best of luck in the marketplace of ideas! I, for one, am absolutely certain that this particular IAR idea will lose. Notwithstanding your own skill as the "get away with" sort, if thing ever catches on at WP with a real idiot (over time, that is all but inevitable), its tryrannical potential will become obvious. Xoloz 19:03, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- That's why only egomaniacs ever use this method. It's like a tightrope walk. The idiots may try it, but they don't get away with it, so it's a self-correcting mechanism. --Tony SidawayTalk 19:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- There, we almost agree. I'm quite sure it self-corrects to zero because, over time, it is really hard to use IAR without looking like an idiot. You've obviously got skill, and you're still here, but whether you (or anyone) can manage the temptations of unilateral power in the long term... well, best of luck, as I said. Xoloz 19:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Robert Steadman - why did you unprotect?
Why did you unprotect Robert Steadman? It has been invaded by very similar vandalism today?
I can't work out how to protect it again.... could you return it to its protected state please?
Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vhjh (talk • contribs) 16:45, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry you need to be an administrator actually to do the protection. I've fixed it now. In future, ask in Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. You can also use that page to request unprotection of a protected page.
- I unprotected because we're not supposed to protect articles from editing for long. Protecting pages from editing kinda defeats the whole point of having a wiki!
- I've looked at the fighting and it looks like it isn't vandalism at all, but a dispute on whether to include links to threads in the TES board where a user called robertsteadman or something similar voices some fairly trenchant political views. I don't think the political views of a composer are out of place in a biographica article, but as source material this is lacking. Anyone can adopt that username, so these aren't really verifiable statements by Steadman the composer. An interview with the composer would be better. But that's just my opinion. I suggest you talk about this cordially with the other editor while the article is protected from editing. I or someone else will be back in a few days to see how things are going. --Tony SidawayTalk 18:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Your vote, please?
Sir, with your Albert M. Wolters comment in mind, would you please look at the article my wife and I wrote on Michael E. Berumen, which is up for deletion, unfairly in my view. Thanks. icut4u 18:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for contacting me. Out of respect for your good faith in asking for my opinion, I won't vote, because I'd probably have to vote to delete. He is a self-published writer. --Tony SidawayTalk 18:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Long term vandalism/protection cycle
There has to be a better plan in place for long term and automated vandalism targets like Schnorrer, right? SchmuckyTheCat 18:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- I suppose it might be nice, but I don't think the current process is particularly problematic. --Tony SidawayTalk 18:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
- From an admin POV the amount of "process" to protect it isn't problematic. From an editor POV it is highly problematic for anyone who wants to edit. Maybe it would confuse (or even satisfy) the bot if it was moved to Schnorrer (Yiddish term) and Schnorrer was a dab. (and protected with a talk page explanation if the bot still comes back). Though not quite a valid reason to dab, a protected dab page is less a hindrance to getting edits on the real articles. I'll do the work if you unprotect it. SchmuckyTheCat 19:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't like the idea of doing that disambiguation just to deal with a silly bot. Any editor can edit the article when it's unprotected, or propose a change on the talk page when it's protected. --Tony SidawayTalk 19:40, 17 October 2005 (UTC)