Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Agent00f

Please provide diffs[edit]

Can all parties please provide diffs? Simply saying 'he's engaging in personal attacks' or 'they started a continued assault and harassment on me' is unpersuasive. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have compiled an initial set of examples of disruptive editing and placed them in the certifier's section. There are significantly more, but these lay out the initial groundwork where Agent00f is getting their "I'm a victim" style in order. Hasteur (talk) 07:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for compiling that set. Could you please provide more specific diff examples next to your answer "good faith requests to strike offensive commentary and pejorative labeling has been met with continued and enlarged personal attacks"? Thank you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you simply look at my talk page, it's but a sample of what's been going on: threats, with no reply when I ask for specifics so I can defend myself. The ANI's linked by Hasteur are also a reliable source. Notice the same 3 names (+newmanoconnor, who just joined in their reliable votingblock a couple week ago) always pop up, including on this page. These 3 have been driving away MMA-interested editors since the beginning (there used to be dozens, now it's basically down to). I can of course provide much more, but the MMA omnibus is gigantic, so it's best know what someone is looking for before spending hours hunting down something different. Thanks. Agent00f (talk) 07:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The list here is helpful in its format as it allows outsiders to review a few specific diffs (containing what is intended by the certifiers to be more serious examples) and lets the outsiders form a view as to whether your conduct is as alleged by the certifiers, or otherwise. Similarly, if you could compile something in the same format so that outsiders can review a few specific diffs in the same way, that may be more helpful than reviewing an entire talk page which may contain a lot of material which you consider irrelevant too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:42, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware one might be helpful, but again I'm not sure what people are interested in. The statements seem reasonably evident to me, and no one familiar with the situation has thus far denied them anyway. There have literally been >1500 edits on that page in not that many days. In the response I point to my talk page flooded with harassment, and I was hoping that if anyone had specific points they want to address/source they can simply ask and I'll go look for it. For example, Ravenswing wasn't clear about the facts, and I corrected it below, but I have no way of knowing beforehand. Agent00f (talk) 10:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment re: Agent00f's response[edit]

As is apparently one of Agent00f's stocks in trade, much of what he says above is a distortion, if not outright false. There have not been "many" attempts to open ANIs against him; there was one. (In point of fact, the earliest ANI concerning Agent00f was one against Hasteur and MtKing for their alleged actions towards Agent00f, opened by an editor who perhaps coincidentally had an article prodded by MtKing several hours before.) Far from not engaging in similar activities, as he claims, his oft-repeated accusations are on ANI and on the MMA notability talk page for all to read. Far from never claiming that there's a "conspiracy," as he asserts here, his rhetoric continually hammers on the "3 editors" and their "deletionist agenda." Far from Hasteur engaging in illicit canvassing, as Agent00f claims, he has properly notified those with whom Agent00f has had significant, identifiable interactions.
His language is further clogged with odd turns of phrase. He is fond of the word "stakeholder," as if that is a meaningful phrase on Wikipedia, where decisions are made through consensus among participating editors, and where claims to act on behalf of an amorphous, undefined mass of non-participant surfers are quite properly dismissed. He further has claimed, as he does here, that he is the "only person left in the discussion with much of any domain expertise," whatever that is supposed to mean, and has described himself as a "regular subject contributor."
Unfortunately, that last assertion is not borne out by any fact. Save for two edits two and a half years ago, Agent00f has yet to make a single edit in articlespace. First active only three weeks ago - his first edit was, as it happens, to harass MtKing on his talk page with the slur that he knew nothing about MMA - he has created no articles. He has contributed to no articles. He has tendered no proposals save for exhortations to keep the status quo ante and to prevent MtKing, Hasteur and TreyGeek from MMA edits. His presence has been entirely disruptive, and there is no reason to believe he has any intention to help to build this encyclopedia. Ravenswing 06:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ravenswing has only joined the fray a day ago after repeatedly disparaging "fanboys" in the most recent AN, and is therefore not only unfamiliar with what's going on but clearly has an agenda going into this.

The first ANI was opened "prematurely" by an editor concerned with Hasteur's multiple "final warning" ANI threats against me (each one ratcheting up the pressure to "appologize" "or else"). Hasteur readily admitted later he/she was going to do it anyway (in talk page I believe). Hasteur actually already started canvasing for support among 4 closely aligned editors a few hours before this in preparation (no notification to anyone who might be against). These canvased partisan were exactly the ones advocated for a block in the ANI. This is all recorded (incl. timestamps) at the bottom of the ANI which is linked above by Hasteur. When this was revealed, the ANI was closed, and the admin resigned.
There are other AN's again me like for example the one Ravenswing was partaking in great camaraderie with those wishing to drop a bomb on all of the MMA subject pages AND their contributors. In that one AN alone, there were about 3-4 separate calls in separate section for blocks by the predictable regulars, or in one case, the editor (blackmane) who proposed nuking all of MMA (fully supported by Ravenswing, btw, it's linked above). Of course these were all baseless and no action was taken, thus the creation of this RfC to continue the pressure/intimidation.
There's also the other AN for 3RR by Mtking linked by Hasteurs above. This was the edit were Mtking and Treygeek together wholesale deleted my comments. I count at least 3, and really more like 5-6 depending on if each separate effort to gather votes for a block in AN's are counted. I've defended myself appropriately in each.
"his rhetoric continually hammers on the "3 editors" and their "deletionist agenda."". This is a very accurate observation. These 3 editors have been a consistently reliable SUPPORT vote on AfD's or any issue related to this topic for months. Two of them worked together to created the plan(s) you see today as described by Dennis the admin. Perhaps if Ravenswing doesn't like this description of 3 collective AfD advocates, he can come up with a better one.
As Ravenswing already knows (since I told him directly), the only reason I logged in to post on MMA-talk is because of the rampant witch-hunts for SOCK violations, and even more so than before I don't intent to log in for other page edits given the possibility of vindictive AfD's from this crowd. (many pages on high level technical topics on wiki might not pass AfD/sourcing). Given Ravenswing already knows this, I'm not sure why he's blatantly violating IDHT.
"harass MtKing on his talk page with the slur that he knew nothing about MMA". I added a comment in an existing thread by others users criticizing Mtking on Mtking's page. This is the edit in question. I said this user seems to know nothing about the subject at hand yet writes rules to govern it. This is a true and valid concern. Ravenswing has obviously seen the context and should stop exaggerating.
"He has tendered no proposals". In good faith we'll assume this error is because Ravenswing is ignorant of previous events on the MMA talk page.
Ravenswing should admit and apologize for these quite obvious mistakes, but if history over the last day is any indicator, he/she will simply disengage when the evidence is clear and try again later.

Agent00f (talk) 07:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More of the same, I see. Let's take this from the top:
(1) Nice try, but this is a WP:BULLSHIT deal if ever I saw one. "I have delivered a final warning to the user for their generally disruptive editing on the MMA notability discussion with a direct warning that the next step will be a posting on AN asking for sanctions" is a notification - quite an appropriate one - not a canvass. A canvass for what, exactly? There was no ANI on you up, at that point, and nothing upon which to comment. The close of that ANI on Hasteur was, in fact, a comment that you had been properly warned for your disruptive behavior, and that no further action was appropriate at that time. No admins resigned.
(2-3) The current ANI is one ANI. You cannot conflate it into "many" ANIs - on the grounds it has section breaks - to manufacture a tidal wave of persecution against you.
(4)In one statement you say that you've never claimed that there's a conspiracy. In this paragraph you claim that there is one. Would you kindly pick one or the other?
(5) The suggestion that revealing the name under which you allegedly post meaningful edits would result in vindictive AfDs is not only a WP:AGF violation in of itself, it's well to the left of farcical. It has been a hallmark of the MMA SPA/sockpuppet/meatpuppet crowd to claim all manner of contributions under their "real" accounts, but somehow no evidence of those "real" accounts ever surfaces, and somehow these putative Wikipedia veterans generally seem to show some serious gaps in common knowledge as to how Wikipedia works ... as you have. So I believe the way to handle this is to go with Occam's Razor, and stand by my statement that you are a SPA with no history of article contributions or creation, and thus no history of meaningful contributions to this encyclopedia. Prove me wrong, and I'll apologize beautifully.
(6) I stated that your first edit was to harass MtKing, which it was. That other SPAs, sockpuppets and meatpuppets have been harassing him is nothing new. It remains a personal attack, since in fact you have no idea whether MtKing knows anything about MMA or not, except in so far as you don't like the way he proposes to handle MMA articles.
(7) As is your habit, you presume that anyone disagreeing with you is ignorant. In point of fact, I read through that talk page. There are no proposals with your name on it; rather, more than one editor asked you repeatedly what solutions you had to the issue. Ravenswing 08:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please define what you would consider a threat? Is this a clear enough threat?: "Your next posting here should be an apology to all the editors whose time you've wasted or you and I will take a trip to a forum of larger consensus (Administrator's Noticeboard) to see if sanctions are appropriate. Hasteur (talk) 13:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)" I clearly didn't comply. It's hard when the goalposts keep moving. Note this particular threat was on the same day as the one before, same day as canvassing, and same day again as the ANI, and same day yet again as the comments by the canvassed users. None of the people who are familiar with the situation reject my claims here, so as someone ignorant of the situation, why do you? Also, Dennis did resign from his position as the leader of the MMA talk space due to this.
"You cannot conflate it into "many" ANIs - on the grounds it has section breaks - to manufacture a tidal wave of persecution against you". Note the block demands were made by these editors on different non-consecutive days, again and again after each prior one failed. "tidal wave of persecution" seems about right. There were 3 distinct ANI's at different place, and many different requests for blocks by the same folks even within those. SHOPPING anyone?
"In this paragraph you claim that there is one." Can you highlight where I said there's a conspiracy? It's hard to tell when you're vague. I said they vote together, which we can tell by looking at the voting record, and two of them worked on the MMA plan, which an admin claimed.
"The suggestion that revealing the name under..." Is this a joke? You want IPs that trace back to my employer? Please note I'm not stupid.
"It remains a personal attack, since in fact you have no idea whether MtKing knows anything about MMA or not, except in so far as you don't like the way he proposes to handle MMA articles". No, I do have an idea whether someone knows something about MMA, just as you might have an idea of whether someone knows much about a subject you have domain expertise in.
"As is your habit, you presume that anyone disagreeing with you is ignorant. " No, if anything I tend to fall on the generous side of the Dunning-Kruger line. I presume people are peers in understanding unless demonstrated otherwise.
"more than one editor asked you repeatedly what solutions you had to the issue." For example, I wouldn't presume you were ignorant of what was communicated between me and other editors, nor would I assume that you didn't even read the RfC, until you said this. Please note that all editors who asked about it received an answer, and this was already linked from the RfC. This was also on the talk page more than once. But now that you've made it clear you're not aware of these things, no assumption needs to be made. All you had to do was make a reasonable request like Ishdarian did and you wouldn't be in the dark.

Agent00f (talk)

I thought I'd point out that a block was proposed then withdrawn. I proposed a topic ban, which is not a ban in the sense that you will be prevented from contributing to Wikipedia, but a measure to move you along to other pastures. However, as a result of this RFC being raised I've also withdrawn that. Blackmane (talk) 16:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did not resign as leader of the discussion. Wikipedia doesn't work that way. I went there as simply an editor who was well versed in policy, and wasn't particularly interested in MMA one way or the other. An objective voice. The fact that I became an admin late during the MMA process is incidental. Why people chose to listen to me and allow me the privilege to serve as mediator was solely because I announced a willingness and both sides felt they could trust me, based on my many years here and my previous experience in dealing with disputes. The only "power" I had was the power of persuasion and a history of objectivity. My goal became to insure all the information was kept, even if some was not in the most preferred format, and help others create a format that reflected the needs and desires of the community, based on their ideas not mine. I didn't resign, I chose to no longer participate. While it may seem to be "the same thing", it is not. I was there as a servant, not a leader. I had talked people into withdrawing or delaying many AFDs, including 9 during a single ANI. I sincerely don't think you still yet realize how badly you shot yourself in the foot, Agent, and had you a better understanding of Wikipedia policy and politics, you now would. More content has been deleted since you elected to "save" the project than during the couple of months prior to your arrival. The irony is not lost on me. You didn't run off "the leader", you simply convinced a servant that the content was no longer worth saving. The only reason I am here now is because I believe you to be a net liability to Wikipedia, as someone who has never created an article or offered a viable solution, and has only served to parasitically drain the resolve and goodwill of others. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've never said you were a poor leader in general, only that you made a very bad choice of company to keep in the process. That you served as a voice with more official capacity than others is not controversial, and it's disservice to everyone to pretend people didn't see it that way. On your last point, I've asked more than once if Mtking and Treygeek's solution as it exists today is the only possible way forward (ie "best of poor alternatives") or whether we can consider changes if it's not improved to the extent that external hard limits allow. Perhaps this is a good time to answer now that everyone else is watching. Agent00f (talk) 18:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Again with leader talk. You might fancy yourself a leader [1], but I've already addressed this. The company I chose was everyone, and I address everyone's concerns as time allowed. Laboring so desperately to make me look partisan only reinforces my previous claims. Calls to have me answer questions that have already been covered ad nauseam demonstrates your lack of willingness to read the archives. No one had yet to propose anything besides an omnibus. I clearly stated "And please use your imagination, this can be tweaked in many ways, small or large." [2]. It was in the proposal that you so radically opposed when you first arrived. Surely you can't expect me to believe that you didn't read that part. It was in the first paragraph of the proposal, it wasn't difficult to find. That I was open to all ideas was obvious to anyone who bothered to read only the first few sentences. Of course, I'm not the one whose actions are being called into play here. I haven't seen anyone, in any venue, question my good faith in the discussions. Well, except you, of course.[3]etc., etc. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is your claim now that the proposals you were strongly pushing neutral ones that only happen to coincide with Mtking and Treygeek's plan, even though you told us it's pretty much what they wanted? This has all the appearance of impropriety so it's best if you can clarify. Can you also point to where you addressed my concern above? I must've missed it along with the previous same attempts to get a cite/source for the claim it's already been answered, thanks.
BTW, I think my "solution" at the time was simple, especially since I stated it clearly multiple times: look into how idiotic the hardline interpretation of "notability" is. Tell us it's idiotic (since it obviously is), and that there's nothing you or anyone can do about the system, and this will show everyone that good faith. Other editors (recall Beansy) also had the same point which you dodged over and over again. Dodging only makes AGF more difficult. They called you out for this, too, just more politely. Have you tried looking into it at all? Agent00f (talk) 23:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find WP:N to be that difficult to understand. If you were truly concerned that it looked like there was an issue of impropriety, you could have taken a more effective way of asking the question. Instead, you filibustered and chose to destroy where others were busy building. What bothers me is that even now you are unwilling to admit your own actions, admit any culpability. Saint Agent, the humble. You do not know me Agent, you truly don't, but others do as I have a very long history here. If you feel I've done anything that is even remotely in bad faith or of bad character, then you should feel obligated to take action, to protect Wikipedia from my evil and subversive ways. This would be better than making backhanded, passive aggressive comments that vaguely imply that I lack character. At least it would demonstrate character. Again, my actions aren't the issue here, and regardless of the outcome here, you and I both know the truth. I don't care what you do at MMA, I've moved on, stopping by only long enough to clear up your misrepresentations. Eventually you will grow bored of this charade, then others will pick up the pieces in your wake and move on as well. You aren't the first to do this, nor are your methods unique or clever, even if a very few don't see passed your facade. I am bored of this conversation, as you are like a broken record, stuck on minutia and repetition, and incapable of moving forward, both here and there. If others can not see this, then the fault is their own. I have spoken my piece and will allow others the luxury of drawing their own conclusions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you still won't fulfill a trivial request to demonstrate what you so emphatically claim. Keep in mind that when people ask for something trivial to demonstrate that you have their interests in mind as a neutral party, failing their simple test repeatedly are sure steps to distrust. Also, please don't project trust issues onto others, because you've been provided a lot of opportunities to prove otherwise. Agent00f (talk) 01:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody and anybody except Agent00f is to blame[edit]

We are presented with yet annother example of Agent00f's lack of understanding that the problem is them. I wanted to draw attention to it because the first words out of their mouth are "nasty accusation" which sets the tone immediately as "Agent00f: the victim forever" Hasteur (talk) 07:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What you're referring to is now right above. Also simply look at the Ravenswing's contributions on the most recent ANI (ctrl-f Ravenswing) cheering on nuking the whole subject space and banning all contributors. Note once this same group was riled up over this, some of them immediately join the talk page to pack votes even though they're entirely unfamiliar with the proposal. A very clear picture of group-think and very unbecoming. Agent00f (talk) 07:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just a note on your section title: my statements about the parties in play are very specific, for example the 3 editors who've been the common denominator of these problem for months is very clear, so please stop intentionally distorting what I've said. Agent00f (talk) 10:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to John's outside view[edit]

I wish to point out the currently filibustered current RfC that has a very definite set of what we want to change. That the RfC has been so twisted around by off topic discussions that nobody is really sure if there is a consensus to do anything. This is, as has been stated elsewhere, the goal of the group who wishes to maintain the status quo. As has been demonstrated at AfD, the status quo is not working If the editors who protest so vehemently against any sort of improvement of the clarification of the guideline put even 1/10th of the same effort into improving the articles, we wouldn't have to create specific exemptions to protect the poor quality event articles. Hasteur (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I might amend my initial response at RFC because I do not support either notability guideline it discusses, in large part because I do not understand either of them nor see how they enhance rather than cut across the general notability guideline. Yes, it's clear that there is no consensus, so the next step is to seek a metaconsensus about what general go-forward plan would work to build topic consensus, such as I suggest. Not to mention everyone WP:COOLing down. Metaconsensus-seeking would thwart the "goal of the group" you are concerned about. JJB 16:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Hasteur claims the "status quo" is not working, but neglect to mention the reason it's not working because he/she along with a few other editors with zero interest or knowledge of the subject matter keep AfDing the articles (not necessarily successful, either). I've proposed more stringent guidelines for articles which would could minimize effectiveness of AfD in the future (such as strict templates), but curiously the AfD interests refuse to table them. Agent00f (talk) 21:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Civil request to provide diffs

Agent, please stop making those assertions. While I did not initially have interest/knowledge in MMA articles, I was drawn in after a dispute was raised at WP:DRN regarding the notability of promotions and athletes in the MMA arena. I request you provide a diff of me nominating a MMA event article that since April 1st that was obviously not an appropriate use of AfD. Administrators have been closing AfDs for months with the comment that the current article creations (and the reasons they should be craeted) are not acceptable or based on WP policy/guidelines. Please provide a diff of a proposal you have made that has any chance of being accepted by the Wikipedia Community at large. Hasteur (talk) 21:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please define "appropriate use". I find AfDing while the articles are under review by a broader/formal process elsewhere to be unethical since it provides the leverage of "these will stop if only you'd agree to our plan" in that process. Various takes on the proposal have both been linked from previous ANI's and this very RfC. It was brought up more than once on the talk page you read every day. It would be a waste of time to link them yet again if you're not interested in specific discussion. The ideas are based on sound logical thinking and does not contradict the point of higher sports rules (which btw were formulated with assumptions of the sports they had in mind). If that's a discussion anyone wishes to have, I'd more than willing to comply. It would be a breath of fresh air from whatever the hell we're doing here. Agent00f (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so just want to absolutely confirm, you're refusing to simply answer a request for diffs of proof of your initial assertions in this sub-thread for misuse of AfD nomination for a MMA article since April 1st by Hasteur and a proposal you have made that has any chance of being accepted by the Wikipedia Community at large. I'm just asking as I'd assume that since you expect the exact same behavior from us, it's perfectly fine to expect the same behavior from yourself. Hasteur (talk) 22:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you're trying to look for. I provided a definition as to what's not appropriate (AfDing while the reconciliation process is going on), and since you obviously disagree, you should provide your conflicting definition so we can agree what would constitute proper evidence. As for the proposal, please try to read RfC and you'll find it, or simply agree that you'll reply with an apology for not even reading your own RfC and I'll happily link. I'm not playing this game where I waste time to provide evident and you just move on the next "request". Agent00f (talk) 22:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, you can't read bold text where I specify exactly what I'm looking from you. Got it. Add WP:COMPETENCE to the list of things you appear to have difficulty with. Hasteur (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/UFC_143. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ishdarian#Teatime.3F <-- linked from your own RfC. Now comes the excuses why it doesn't meet your criteria. Agent00f (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those are links to threads, not diffs. The UFC 143 was not nominated by me, so therefore is invalid as an example. The talk page discussion on Ishdarian's talk page is not a proposal at the WT:MMANOT page nor is it a diff. At this point I believe my point is made that your initial assertions and adamant refusal to change shows that you refuse to acknoledge that there is a problem and therefore I will ignore any further responses to this subthread as your assertion is false. Hasteur (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't expect less frivolous excuses. Yet another nomination by Mtking, which you predictably supported (you know, AfDing as a block as claimed). Then stating something is not a proposal because you don't like it. What would you like? And for piece de resistance, complaining they're not "diffs" as if it matters. Nothing about substance, only a focus on rhetorical technicalities. Agent00f (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What struck me was his shaky analysis of those diffs. In #3, for instance, the characterization by Agent00f that other editors were mentally ill did not rest on the "no sane MMA fan" but in claiming that the so-called "3 editors" had OCD; it would appear that John didn't go beyond the first sentence of that diff. The analyses of #10 and #12, by contrast, suggests that John's understanding of WP:AGF is incomplete; there are no escape clauses in the guideline where such statements are justifiable as long as ... well, as long as you don't actually give a reason for making them. Ravenswing 15:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite ironic that this editor who's only been on this case for a day and clearly is clearly unfamiliar with what's going (as evidenced by section above) is berating others for not following his/her lead. It would be best for everyone if Ravenswing followed his own advice. Agent00f (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, that was not necessary. "WP:COOLing down", which all involved editors are anticipated to be doing during this phase, includes reading certain comments and simply refusing all bait. Spotting irony is fine, sharing it is not often beneficial. JJB 22:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

That was only direct at Ravenswing who comes into this with a clear agenda despite evident unfamiliarity with the case. Several editors like this came into the other RfC off the back of a hostile ANI (where they were proposing and cheering nuking the whole subject and ALL its contributors) and have been polluting that space ever since. If cooling down can help solve this, I'd be more than happy to do so. Agent00f (talk) 22:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is another thing you keep on doing - claiming that anyone who opposes you is "unfamiliar" with things, a deeply ironic habit given your inexperience with Wikipedia. As to that, though, you are right in one thing, at least - I am in this RfC with an agenda: I believe, from what I have seen of your actions, that you are a highly disruptive presence with no demonstrated intent to improve this encyclopedia, and that at a minimum you should be topic banned from MMA-related space until such time as you have demonstrated to the community that you can be a productive editor. (Your motives or "agenda," I will not attempt to parse; judging your actions is enough.) Ravenswing 03:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look, it's obvious from the discussion above you have no idea what's been going on in the topic, have little inclination to learn what's been going on, yet continue to offer your assertive opinions nonetheless. This kind of behavior is clearly not helpful and hopefully you can recognize this as a supposedly experienced wiki editor. Agent00f (talk) 15:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agent, a request. Can you please assume good faith in the actions of Ravenswing? Is it not expected that when commenting on a issue that the editor will have read the supporting information before writing their response? I believe, and I could be mistaken, that Ravenswing has read through the ANI threads, the discussion at the MMA notability talk page, and the commentary here therefore your above post appears to be made in obvious contravention of facts and with the deliberate intent of inflaming the discussion. Hasteur (talk) 16:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not questioning faith at all, only mindset. It's pretty obvious that after looking through the events surrounding first ANI, Ravenswing didn't figure out the timeline of events despite the timestamps, yet can't seem to be bothered when this was pointed out. If you feel I've made any factual mistakes above, please show where they are. Thanks. Agent00f (talk)

Regardless of the facts or mistakes of facts, can we please assume good faith in the actions of others? Your posting of 15:57 does not rebut a point but instead inflames the discussion. So I ask, can you commit to not using any deliberately inflammatory language? Hasteur (talk) 17:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you've started this RfC with some notion of "improving" my behavior, can you please also accept when similar if not better suggestions are made for others? It's very impolite and probably disruptive to assert strong opinions when one lacks the basic background to make meaningful ones, and I've simply noted this. Agent00f (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's always hard for anyone to be the first to make a unilateral commitment to change. Best for us all to do our best to improve our own commitments to civility. Certainly I apologize for invoking IAR too much in this discussion. JJB 20:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Response to outside view by Seraphimblade[edit]

The reason why editors are going through the exercise of trying to define a specific set of notability guidelines for MMA Events is because there have been multiple requests by supporters of MMA articles to have a specific guideline that allows the supporters to get a better initial article so it can be speedily closed at AfD. As we know that creating a guideline that grants a specific "no-AfD nominations" would never fly with the wider consensus, the editors familiar with WP policy/guidelines have attempted to create a set of guidelines that, if followed, will reduce the risk of being nominated for deletion. Hasteur (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agent00f to JJB[edit]

Moved from main page:

John, are you looking for a reply to various points like 13 above (somewhat already addressed in answer to Ncmvocalist's Q) or what I'm hoping for in general (NOT status quo) or is this a final conclusion for you? I'm placing this here only so that you will see it, so please feel free to remove when you've read it. Thanks. Agent00f (talk) 22:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too much asking for a reply to my own analyses. I was slightly disappointed that there was not much more direct answer to NCM's Qs. Your asking for advice in both Qs is a good start. The answer is, if you want your longterm hopes to work out, learn now how to hear yourself before you commit to send any reply (use the Preview button, repeatedly). If you see anything that might be taken as a judgment rather than a fact, strike it, reverse it. Always strive especially hard for neutral edit summaries, which are not undoable. "They'll do _anything_ unsavory possible to prevent" is an uncivil edit summary, and NCM was testing to see if you recognized that; it's a judgment, not a fact, I think pretty clearly so. The 13 first links were surprisingly tame, but did indicate to me that you want to watch yourself closely as you are the (primary) subject of review on this page. Editors in your situation have imploded and you are on Implosion Watch. But if you are a quick study, you might get to where we are actually discussing what you want, by caution and circumspection. See my "whoa" note above.

Whether you are able to analyze your own comments impassively to recognize when they contain unsupported judgments, or not, is a central question that this process tests. I am hopeful there will not be an avalanche of people suddenly deciding that you have failed this test enough times in a row. My best wishes are with you on that test.

Aside from that general advice, here's some specifics in the situations you ask about. (1) Never "choose to be harsh". (2) If you realize you've been harsh, apologize; "I was quite harsh" is not an apology, it's only one of the three classical parts of an apology. The other two are stated intent not to repeat and attempt to make up for the hurt caused (on WP, this might involve yielding on a point of argumentation as a volunteered self-penalty). (3) You seem to have a good handle on relatively impassionate language, as I've only seen the one profanity; keep up that good work and, as a clearly accomplished writer, watch to avoid the judgment language I've referred to as well. (4) More towards the meat, I see Dennis was questioning your good faith with a decent rationale and with some questionable language: just as you have questioned others' good faith, mostly with decent rationales and sometimes questionable language. When this happens, review the rationale, recognize the other editor's POV about you, feel free to classify to yourself how accurate it is, but resolve not to let that POV affect your good relationship with the other editor. Don't let what you know negatively about an editor spill out into WP space. (5) Dennis's actual policy interpretations were pretty good in that diff, though I don't know how fitting his implementation plans were. When someone has a different Grand Sweeping Fix than you do (such as your proportionate stakeholder representation idea), get a metaconsensus on how to proceed. Set up a discussion page, seek mediation or even dispute resolution, work it out. I'm hopeful this page might become such a harmonious discussion.

Technically whenever you Save Page it's final. So I wrote that outside view to let you know where I am, and what I hope people will endorse, but in such a way as to avoid any direct commitment to any more input; so it's that kind of "final". My stated view is stable enough but can also be amended. Feel free to claim a "Solution" section on this page for yourself and lay out your WP:BOLDest plan. That's a much better idea than getting tempted to respond to the echo chamber, incidentally. It appears the other editors are unclear what your real plan is and it appears to them "status quo" is it. You have blue sky to disprove that. JJB 22:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

There's two main issues here. This is meant to be objective, no combative, so please read with tone of the former:

I have no problem apologizing for doing something wrong. Recognizing one's own fault is the first step to self-improvement. To do this, let's examine the "doing": first there's the goal, which is subject-specific guidelines that make sense instead of just comply to some other unhelpful arbitrary limit. This is a worthwhile goal, and IMO not too controversial. Second, there's the various means towards that goal. Language can be a useful tool here, specifically use of language to communicate a perspective. If we measure this situation, it's obvious the lacking efficacy of what I've tried, but it's difficult to state with any certainty that alternate approachs (which might happen to correlate with wiki-civility) are superior if they've already been attempted by others in the history of failure. This is why I asked for advice: to provide insight or useful experience which I might lack. If better ideas come this way, then I definitely apologize for not thinking of them on my own. This is how I measure success, so asking me to apologize simply for supposedly failed compliance to arbitrary limits when there's a point to these actions is frankly not too helpful.
More specifically on the issue of "subject-specific guidelines that make sense", when I say "not too controversial" above, I meant for people with relevant/direct skills and expertise in any kind of subject. As we can see from these pages, there are of course people who do believe prioritizing making sense over strict rule compliance (eg. sport notability) is controversial. This isn't to say that folks whose primary skillset is simple rule enforcement instead of actual understanding can't be useful, only that it's the opposite of helpful when that kind of view dominates the rule making process. This has been evident enough throughout this whole affair.

On your last point, I'm working on better explanations of the subject at hand for people who don't feel committing their lives to reading months of ineffective discussion is reasonable. The point here should be to provide a broader perspective of what needs to be done. Agent00f (talk) 16:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Please recognize that, even if correlation or noncorrelation with wiki-civility are equally unefficaceous, one of them is much more clearly an improvement to the encyclopedia in general than the other, and that would be civility. If the goal of improving the encyclopedia as a whole ever were to cut across your own goal ("subject-specific guidelines that make sense", with the potential inference that that means particular content is guaranteed as inherently notable rather than that the consensus guidelines let the chips fall where they may), you would have a conflict of interest. In topics like this, "omnibus" or list articles generally cover each list item very briefly (whether as line-item or as graf or both), and list items are only broken out into new articles after notability is believed to have been achieved. 2. Please recognize that the other parties do not necessarily insist on martinet rule compliance; several have asked for a reasonable content set that passes encyclopedicity. As per my outside view, I am hopeful this discussion will (a) lead to everyone improving their own conduct and (b) result in proposals that both clearly state topic-specific notability and have clear agreed interpretations (e.g. an article sourced entirely to Sherdog is a fail). JJB 17:37, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone can show they're necessarily equality unefficaceous when all prior attempts have failed miserably and this one has yet to fail. I don't think it's in the broader interest of wiki for it to fail again. The fact that we're having this dialog is a major improvement, however circumstantial the events that led up to it. :) More importantly, I don't think improving wiki in general contradicts improving the MMA space, but rather the two go hand in hand. After all, what determines the ultimate useful/point of wiki as it can be measured in the real world is how useful is it to people who read and click on the links, not to abstract ideals as interpreted by some with no connection to reality. For example, sourcing is part of usefulness in an encyclopedia, but hardly ALL of that usefulness to the exclusion of everything else. Specifically, if "proper" sourcing is unnecessary for a section on a main page, it makes no sense that a set of sections formatted in a consistent way to better present the info (as individual but cleanly chain-linked entries) automagically runs afoul.
My main point here is that it's not interesting to talk about how my prose might've screwed this up, when it's rather obvious that certain parties reject the notion of effective dissent in the first place.
The danger of ambiguous rules (ie 5 rules interpreted in 10 contradictory ways) is clear from prior experience. This is why I support even more stringent rules (brightline tests in fact) to avoid past confusions, instead of more rules that 1) make no sense and 2) can go either way anyway. Agent00f (talk) 18:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's progress. Remember that WP:V is a core policy: everything should be sourceable even if not sourced. And there is not WP:INHERENT notability in this area. You could argue "UFC 101" is more notable than "2012 in UFC", but if so that's because the latter is a WP:SUMMARY breakout of the two facts that List of UFC events is notable and that very detailed content otherwise acceptable for the UFC article should be broken into subarticles for technical and space reasons. You might then argue breaking out into events rather than years is better (e.g., that the omnibus by year should be deleted and all events should exist as breakouts); but if you delete the by-year articles, which serve as a link between the UFC article (generic) and the event articles (subsubspecific), the UFC article doesn't properly summarize the event articles unless it starts to look like omnibus again. Thus the summary-style category of the franchise itself, a breakdown as by year if more detailed, and some spinouts by event if more detailed, is a well-established methodology, and has often been used harmoniously in TV show articles (show, season, episode). The degree to which any franchise is detailed depends on RS coverage. (As I said, if only one questionable source covers an event, that autofails it for an event article and bumps it back up to the by-year article.) Do you generally agree with such a threefold hierarchical view of the topics?

I don't understand why there is a hard-to-comprehend topic N guideline fighting with a harder-to-comprehend replacement N guideline when the questions that should be asked are more item-specific: what makes this event article notable? Testing this by AFD is useful because of general principles being illuminated by specific cases, if concerns like degradation of dataset content are addressed via merges. Again, generally (GNG) you want to see two or more independent RS confirm an event itself is notable, not the promoters. If I continue assisting I'm likely to look at more individual articles soon, but I want to ensure that will be fruitful and not rejected out-of-hand by any party. I am proceeding right now primarily by the questions I'm asking here and at user talk. JJB 19:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

This was written before you created the Q&A section below but it's worth reading:

AFAICT, the "summary style" presentation is a hack designed to run around the rule that each entry must be itself notable even if it's an integral and coherent part of a cohesive whole. This seems to be simply a design flaw in wiki rule design based on archaic adherence to paper encyclopedia guidelines. The modern value of wiki is not just its overall treatment of discrete topics, but rather the links it provides between closely related ones (thus why we tend to spend WAY more time reading it, as a tree/graph of knowledge, than its predecessors). Thus as matter of presentation, there's no real value in providing a synopsis for each event on the omnibus page if same info is trivially obtainable in a clearly delineated and chained linked list of events. This idea is trivial to grasp with some basic understanding of html and computers in general.
To pursue "inherent notability" in light of this further, note that a fighter's career might include a contest in a lessor org. We can either provide an "inherent" place to provide info about the event this was part of, or we can add that info to his bio page (along with similar info on everyone's bio page who was part of that event). This is an basic design problem, and solved in html/markup by creating a central place where the info for the event resides. We can decide as wiki does now for this kind of data to split the event page off when someone finally decides there exists enough of these slivers of info to create it, but it becomes a very thorny for everyone to decide when this is warranted when the incentive for its creation can lie in so many places (and there's no existing record to keep track of this!).
Sourcing in general is frankly IMO less thorny for real events which are taped for later distribution than most of wiki. For example, if one fighter KO's another, they didn't just do so just because some "independent site" says so, but rather because it's evident from the video. If you want more specific problems with omnibus as it exists today:
Say you want to add fighter pay, or let's choose some novel info, "referees/judges", to 10 of the events you just re-watched (available on UFC/Xbox). The latter is important because both activities are inherently subjective and thus personalities relevant to the contest. This kind of incremental improvement is pretty important and in many ways the basis of wiki. Now, do I added them to the omnibus, which makes it even more unwieldy, and also makes the big page inconsistent since I'm only adding to some events at a time? Am I not allowed to add this info in light of this? Or should how should I "accumulate" this info along with inputs from others (maybe add some comments on the ref/judging?), and who decides it's eventually enough to warrant a separate page. Basically any small-moderate change falls under this veil of confusion, and therefore not conducive to wiki as a whole. Allowing carefully formatted/linked separates pages solves all these problems. Agent00f (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
IMO it's difficult to establish straightforward notability guidelines in these scenarios, and that's why the WP:Sports rules are a mess with special exceptions probably due to prior disputes. I'd imagine if the same AfD crowd decides to attack other marginally mainstream sports, the same scuffles would result. For example, it would seem that a hard 1-independence source rule would establish notability, and Fox Sports could provide that. But it doesn't, because Fox just recently partnered with the UFC. Same for Showtime/CBS/Strikeforce. This is made more difficult by the fact that historically MMA coverage (since it grew out of nothing) was done on MMA-specific sites: it's where the fans used to congregate and where they'll continue to congregate. That's simply the way the world tends to work now in the age of the internet. It means that even as the sport becomes more mainstream as evidenced by alliances with major networks, it can become harder to source. If you look carefully into mainstream sports (say, American Football), all the major networks often have some affiliation with the sporting org. This hardly means Football is less notable because of it. Agent00f (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is very good meat and is also very responsive. Some quick thoughts before I wait on you at the next section for threading purposes. The meat is that now you're talking about not just MMA but the whole way WP does things; you're now talking about "million-user" consensus as it were. Your first two points state explicitly that WP has design flaws in this case; this is a tiny-minority opinion (if there truly were flaws, it would be appropriate to discuss on WP core policy pages and a wide variety of users would work on the flaws). Your next two points presume an argument along lines that watching a video (a WP:PRIMARY source) gives instant ability to expand WP content; but longstanding consensus (WP:SPS) is that it doesn't, because anyone can publish a video or make claims about the events depicted in the video, and thus primary sources are not inherently notable unless e.g. picked up by reliable independent sources. (Fox and CBS are independent-enough reliable sources even with agreements to broadcast, but they may be primary sources still; thus they contribute to verifiability but not to individual-event notability.) Your last point is that notability guidelines are hard to establish because of border conflicts, but these scuffles (and worse) have already appeared in many many WP areas, and they are welcomed (if civil) because they give everyone as fair a hearing as possible. Thus border negotiations are the proper route. I'd appreciate your giving some thought to the basic idea that WP has the presumption of being well-defined and accommodationist, and respond in the detailed section below, as I think we can see light at the end of the tunnel now. JJB 21:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

"but the whole way WP does things". Yes and no. I'm looking at this from the broader view of "what is good", and I see this a clear case where "what is good" is in conflict with a hardliner interpretation of the rules. I don't think this is necessarily a minority opinion on an issue, since in order to be a minority, there has to be a reasonably informed majority view that considered the same issue, and I don't see any such consideration for the opposing viewpoints ("dem's the rules" is not it). This specific issue is also much more obviously surfaced in the MMA affair than other ones where the general rule was designed to accommodate better. The rule-space solution frankly has had no consideration at all despite these supposedly "just right" circumstances, so I don't think the fact it hasn't been considered is a good argument it shouldn't be. A better argument would be if someone found where it's already been considered for same type of situation and rejected for good reasons. Otherwise "it's never come up before despite a long history" is begging the question.
I don't see how the primary source rule applies here. "The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist". It's mostly designed to question sources which aren't inherently verfiable. A video which shows a KO, the refs and judges declaring a KO, is closer as a source (if not better) to directly quoting from a science paper stating evidence than the hearsay this was meant to block. It's "directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." A widely distributed/published video (which anyone can check) is not simply a matter of X says Y because I heard it somewhere. An arbitrary journalist looking at the same video and writing it down isn't more credible (but rather less) than the video itself.
"these scuffles (and worse) have already appeared in many many WP areas". I think it's pretty obvious that they're very onerous in this case. Appealing to "other people don't have or already solved these problems" is IMO not convincing argument that we shouldn't be especially cautious here given an established history of "these problems". Agent00f (talk) 22:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guess I will reply in both threads. Here's a wall for you.

1. "The broader view of 'what is good'", I trust, means "improving the encyclopedia". But generally, the narrow view that the encyclopedia is improved by adding my fansite data is contraindicated, not by rules, but by a vast consensus that generic fansite data is not encyclopedic unless it meets local notability criteria established by local consensus. Getting global consensus to start letting in fansites is a nonstarter, as you recognize by declining to endorse random low-quality articles.

As to local notability, you seem to say the majority hasn't sufficiently considered the idea of notability criteria much looser than GNG (i.e., inherent notability). But there is overwhelming consensus that inherence only applies in clear-cut cases, like Nobel Prize winners. For one example, I was closely involved with the longevity WikiProject as it developed "pretty good" local notability criteria in very similar circumstances. There was much deletionist vs. fanaticist heat, more so than I've seen here. This same border negotiation has occurred in countless other topic areas, usually with relatively the same result. (Disclosure: I did not fare well in this topic area.) As you can see:

The lowest-level topics (bios of people older than 110 years) are not automatically notable;
They may be automatically added to list articles on a single reliable source's view;
The "fan" sites' reliability was disputed and unresolved, but they were permitted with constraints;
The "fan" sites are primary sources, not secondary (WP automatically prefers secondary);
General notability criteria (BIO, BLP, BLP1E, LISTPEOPLE) were affirmed rather than exempted from;
The lists are affirmed as incubation sites for topics with potential later notability;
No article is to be based solely or primarily on the "fan" sites.

Recommendation 1: Recognize sitewide consensus about inherent notability, or ask for further demonstrations of that consensus.

I'm not trying to claim that ufc events are inherently notable, only that if sections in an omnibus meet the guideline, then it makes zero sense that the same sections with anchors cannot be presented as pages as long as they work the same way. Same fwd/back/up link concepts exists and are presented more clearly if anything. I (and IMO most fans) can perfectly understand why a few random UFC or other events are not individually notable, but they seem to be as a complete set by org. Omni-bus supporters tautologically already support this idea. Therefore the general idea is hardly against GNG or whatever because I thought we were operating under the assumption omnibus would pass scrutiny. It doesn't help the credibility of a rule to lump in UFC 140 in the series with a one-off Big Bob's Backyard Brawl. Also, if Wiki simply has an inherent bias against pages even if they make end result more usable than sections, then we can simply state this built-in deficiency as a hard limit and move on instead of assuming questionable "common law" practices doesn't exist here.

2. The three core policies are read together. My link to WP:PRIMARY (in WP:NOR) was to emphasize that we disfavor primary sources because they tempt readers to draw secondary conclusions (synthetic research). But, and sorry for the confusion, WP:SPS (in WP:V) adds that self-published sources, being dependent, are used only for very limited claims, as verifiability requires reliability; and WP:DUE (in WP:NPOV) says that material should be weighted toward its representation in RS. As an example, if an author has hundreds of books, stories and articles, I do not get to say each one is inherently notable because WP:ILIKEIT: I have agreed that it is for the good of the project that each writing is held to a separate test of notability, and those that have insufficiently encyclopedic sources don't get articles. Some books are widely known, some stories are flops. But if I want each writing to link to the next and prior items in the clearly-sequenced bibliography, it requires gaps where writings agreed as nonnotable occur. This is usual on WP and is handled by the method already described: the nonnotable writing's name is pointed to an anchor paragraph in the bibliography that, for most intents and purposes, is treated the same as if it were a full article. It is widely agreed that notability criteria for list inclusion are lower than notability criteria for articles, for reasons already outlined. If the topic is covered only by the primary source (an obscure story is a primary source), I have no right to claim the primary source is sufficient to create an article that describes the entire blow-by-blow plot of the story; that would invite original research (even if I claimed to use a repeatable structure for analysis), would fail neutrality, and would fail reliability due to self-publication.

A widely distributed video that shows a KO is self-verifying but does not show notability. What shows notability is that journalists went to the fight itself and reported on it; otherwise it's indistinguishable from a distributed video of a fight in my backyard. The video and the journalist's account are both hearsay; but one of them is independent (not self-published) and has editorial oversight. Without the fight being independently notable, it doesn't need a separate article. Notability is an offshoot of NPOV and not giving space to knowledge important only to a tiny minority, which is a generally agreed good of the encyclopedia. NOR is not in a vacuum.

Recommendation 2: Recognize that articles created solely from primary sources belie our stated interests in preventing random insertion of poorly-sourced (unencyclopedic) articles.

The way we've both been proceeding is WP:otherstuff, but are plot summaries for tv/books handled the same way? For example, take a book/story which has 100 volumes published in serial. If we all agree UFC-events size synopsis (with links to character bios, background mythology, etc) of each are only sometimes notable on their own, and it's more usable to make each entry a page open to natural future expansion, it would similarly makes no sense to shove books randomly by year into inconsistently sized lists. You can tell us "that's how it's done", but that argument has no independent merit other than "just following the same bad reasoning as before". I've said it before, if that's the breaks, maybe people can live with it; not as a worthwhile idea but something we have to put up with to post things on wiki.

Also, let's focus a bit on the quality of the source. The distinguishing feature of a reliable source vs. lessor hearsay is evidence; it's mentioned countless times in the GNG and other similar pages. Video that X result occurred (as called by the referrer, and certified by official panel announcement right after) is the most solid evidence there can possibly be on that particular issue. This isn't inherent "notability", but a clear argument that no other source can be more notable than clear and readily available video of what happened or text of the books in the previous example. As an example, if there an official court doc documenting a criminal conviction on a page about the conviction, no other source can possibly refute the record of its words unless there are extraneous circumstances (like someone sneaked in a fake doc to the court system, or maybe if it was later overruled). Editorial oversight cannot help here.

Finally, generally speaking, MMA as a sport is not some tiny minority. It has far greater mass appeal than most olympic sports, yet a special exception are made for these for undisclosed reasons. I'm not sure why it's detrimental at all to wiki to have easy to use, complete, and cleanly formatted resources on a burgeoning sport available for amendment as the sport grows. Is the idea to wait until it reach a critical mass for the same support as baseball/football and then provide more leeway in WP:sports as other sports get (like the idea of "seasons" as inherently notable for top tier orgs)?

Speaking of otherstuff and inherent: " In addition, notability of a parent entity or topic (of a parent-child "tree") does not always imply the notability of the subordinate entities. That is not to say that this is always the case (three of the notability guidelines, for books, films and music, do allow for inherited notability in certain circumstances), or that the subordinate topic cannot be mentioned in the encyclopedia whatsoever. Often, a separate article is created for formatting and display purposes; however, this does not imply an "inherited notability" per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation, such as with books and albums."

3. I think I may say this: I doubt you have my experience in Wikipedia scuffles. There are billions of dollars invested in climate-change science, and in certain politicians' fates, and the notability of sources is much much more hotly contested there. Battlelines are drawn and every inch counts. Here we may actually have a nice quiet border. War is hell. I affirm your special caution, but it does not allow you to propose a solution that has been recognized as contrary to encyclopedic interests in every other case it's tried. To the degree that any group wins a major battle against encyclopedic interests, we stop being an encyclopedia; and to the degree that we retake ground lost, we affirm being an encyclopedia. Your only option, short of buying Wikipedia outright, is frankly to work within encyclopedicity. Specifically, use the GNG unless you obtain local consensus for an alternative.

Recommendation 3: Recognize that, without local consensus for exception, the general notability guideline applies and permits deletion of a number of present articles. JJB 01:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Per the finally comment above, we can already observe that individual sports get exceptions passed (even niche and marginally well defined, see athlete bios) if only folks push hard enough. Those that didn't get arbitrary consideration last time this was done apparently just skate by on practical application rather than fulfilling some higher cause. Is the argument that MMA fans aren't pushing hard enough, or is the resistance simply uniquely stubborn here for whatever reason? How did this ever work last time given the rules are hardly general? We can face hard reality, but only if we recognize as such first. Agent00f (talk) 03:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment RE: "Video that X result occurred ... is the most solid evidence there can possibly be on that particular issue." I can produce video in which Bruce Buffer at UFC on FX: Alves vs. Kampmann announced that Demetrious Johnson defeated Ian McCall by majority decision. That video would be irrefutable and no one would deny that what is shown in the video did not happen. However, the reality is that the result of the bout between Johnson and McCall, after three rounds, was a draw. While this is an exceptional circumstance, it is not the first time in MMA history that a bout, on video, has been announced immediately following the bout to have one result and it is discovered to have a different result. There are often situations where people will argue, using the same video evidence, whether a bout ends via knock-out or technical knockout (and in the same vein submission or technical submission). This is one reason why there is a need to cite reliable, secondary sources and not to depend upon primary sources. --TreyGeek (talk) 04:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect logic since it's obvious the secondary sources reporting on the event fare no better. The rulings made during the event can of course be overturned by later occurrences (including discover of possible technical errors). This happens when fights are deemed no-contests for a variety of reasons after the fact (ie failed drug test), but does not change the initial ruling as it's reported by "secondary sources" at the time. In the court example above, a verdict can be rendered, and modified after appeals. This still doesn't mean the official verdict in the initial trial as reported by the court itself can possibly be less reliable than a journalist recite what the verdict was. If the appeal was successful, then a direct link to the next official decision is still more reliable than someone reciting it. Frankly I think these types of misunderstandings about sources are cause by common misconceptions about how evidence works. Agent00f (talk) 08:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to catch you in a bad mood, it seems. Primary sources are valid, especially in courts; but they are not encyclopedic because they have no way of proving that the event is independently notable. Youtube is a primary source but confers no notability to my neighbor's trained penguin. It's a valid point that a video is a primary source for the immediate fight decision (that may be overturned), but the article set requires more sources than the videos. JJB 17:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

This is true, but I wasn't trying argue that primary sources establish anything as encyclopedic, only that they're the best possible source on matters of evidence (because Treygeek argues they're not). On the former issue, though, it seems counter-intuitive to essentially ban complete and consistent summary (ie encyclopedic) content until every event is significantly covered by an arbitrary media. It just makes creating/building a citizen encyclopedia needlessly difficult. If you look at WP:N for sports, it's full of special exemptions to work around the general rule (like notability for a team's season, which is often just a dozen contests of maybe 40 game min, just as a fight card is a dozen contests of 15-25 official mins), which would mean others recognized this dilemma before. Agent00f (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Q-and-A towards content[edit]

Specific replies to Agent00f's answers to questions on this page:

See discussion of hierarchical division from top level to bottom, just above. Could be regarded as fourfold (franchise, list of events, events by year, individual events) just like in TV (show, list of episodes, season, episode).
Official pay and walkout music can be listed in omnibus articles if reliably sourced. If sourcing is not independent it becomes a case-by-case decision about whether the extra detail gives too much weight to self-published details.
Division by year is the ordinary method of handling yearround data, and division by quarter or month is performed as well for notable topics yearround (note best practice in deaths in 2012). To disabuse from the idea that UFC is seasonal, an improvement would be if there were only zero or one sentence of lead (essentially navigational) and a prominent top-right template that shows each year with prior links; then the right-aligned TOC and first subject heading "==January==" and subheading for the first event follows immediately. This makes clear that if you want the just-prior event you would ordinarily click the prior year link and click the last event in that year's TOC.
However, there is nothing wrong with having each year's first and last event contain a link to the contiguous year with Previous event: UFC 141 or the like. (I see no 2011 in UFC events article but that of course can be built easily when 2012 format is settled.)
Could you amend your answer to explain what you mean by the situation in which you want a user "clicking a link that's always in the same place"? As near as I see this situation is already implemented well by the UFC event template.
Adding information for new, unscheduled, or existing events is very easy. You start by adding RS data to the franchise or by-year article. You don't create a new event article cold; maybe wait until some time after the event to ensure RS coverage. After enough RS data appears in the by-year article, in accord with a clear-cut community notability agreement, you spin the article out separately and replace the spun-out text with a short and standardized summary. Getting consensus to create, especially if this consensus appears in a clear notability guideline (rather than creating cold in the absence of GNG being satisfied and waiting on consensus to delete), would remove the looking-over-the-shoulder aspect.
Now this does mean that "more notable" events might get less space in the omnibus than "less notable" events that have only slight detail above the standardized summary; but this is quite acceptable in most other topic areas for the reasons below.
You might be objecting to the apparent discontinuity if a user wants to navigate a list of UFC events and ends up jumping from event articles to omnibus articles and back frequently because some events are "notable" and others not. This can be solved by having an agreement (typical with lists of CDs by same artist) that event articles always have prominent "next" and "previous" links, whether to omnibus or to event; they can appear in the event article both in a template and in the inline text. Whenever you "jump" back to omnibus for a nonnotable event, there is the summary of the prior and next events; whenever you are unsatisfied with the omnibus summary of a notable event, you click the detail link to jump to more information. This actually allows fewer clicks, because if even nonnotable events were to have articles, you would click for every event change, but if nonnotable events are in the omnibus, you just scroll rather than click when changing from one nonnotable event to another.
The above also allows significant flexibility for changing circumstances and incremental work.

I don't mind a detailed response if it each point stays on point. My primary question is whether you have any objection to the above community-developed style, categorization, and navigation methods. Thanks. JJB 20:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

To be frank I don't see the value of a more complex solution when a simpler one is "better". Just one link from the franchise page to the start of the event chain, a simple list of all events (already done for the UFC), and DONE. These are simple rules which are simple to brightline. This is what happened for many years and it's a good solution as any subject user would attest to. Again, the omnibus might "save" entries from deletion rules via sheer mass which is the only reason it's OK (that and it's actually better for very small/insignificant promos that people aren't going to update/append anyway, but this is the exceptional case here), but only because those rules are pretty stupid as applied to this case. Omnibus is still more problematic for anything larger, than the existing simple solution, for the reasons in my reply above.
Discussed above; it's unwieldy.
This seems like more acceptable workaround solutions for a problem with the rules as they exist now. Seems to me better to fix the rules if they're problematic, since an argument that "the rules are what they are", instead of "this is why the rules are good" is exactly why the fifth pillar was introduced. This is a debate I'm perfectly willing to have.
N/A
If you look at the way the prior ufc events are formatted, it's clearly in a sort of "template" form where links to prior and next events are in the same place. This is good for navigation UI when users can find exactly what they're looking for easily. On the contrary, there's no notion to tie ufc 143 to "2012". Sure the user might be redirected eventually to the right anchor on some page (via google, etc, or via confusing internal redirects: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UFC_143#UFC_143", really?), but it's another solution looking for a problem when the new page title has nothing to do with what they're looking for.
Yes, the omnibus creates a safe sandbox in a sense, but if we can create notability guidelines that include well formatted event pages (which are part of the same whole as omnibus), this turns into a non-issue in the same sense as appending to the end of the omnibus is a non-issue. Splitting off articles based on some ambiguous definitions about "prose" and difficult sourcing questions will never be a non-issue. The guidelines for both of the non-issues would be similar except for a few words about formatting. It would also clearly exclude one-off short/non-notable events that deletionists seem to fear.
Discussed above.
Discussed above.
Frankly it appears to me when everything is objectively evaluated that the omnibus is more complicated for no real gain except in exceptional cases (smaller short-running promos). This seems to be all done to get around a rule about "inherent notability" that was established without considering situations like this. Furthermore, it seems against the spirit of that same rule to make wiki less clean/consistent to present the same info. IMO in such case it's better to revisit our interpretation of that rule first. Agent00f (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great, clear, direct. The first observation is that your counterproposal would define only three levels (franchise, list of events, event), and that notability criteria would be agreed as to when an event would be creatable. That is a policy-compliant proposal as it stands in very broad outline, but I don't know that you would like the unintended consequences of what it would involve. I will outline these for you and if we can work them out, we may have our content proposal! Will respond soon. JJB 22:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Rather than number of levels, I'm mostly concerned that the good solution is also much simpler. We're only proposing something more complicated because it runs around a certain letter-of-the-law interpretation which seems to forbid the better solution, even when applying those letters to this case runs against the spirit of the same rule. I think we all agree the spirit of the rule to prune random inconsistent entries is good. Agent00f (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue I see here is that we have proposed this exactly before, the issue still lies in the notability guidelines mentioned as "defined later" Every UFC event is not going to be notable. You give a great example with List of minor planets: 200001–201000. I think I pointed out we could have prev and next event chronological navigation regardles oof if we did Omnibus by year or any other list style organization. I like Franchise/List of Events/Event, but how do you propose to handle UFC Numbered events,UFC of FX,UFC on Fox,,etc. Are they going to be on a single list of UFC events?What is your plan when a single event does not meet notability guidlines.Newmanoconnor (talk) 21:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The very first hit if you search for "list of" provides hundreds of clear and unequivocal examples of prior precedents. The UFC on network tv events are not unique, they're simply cards which are broadcast on a different station (any more than NFL on Fox is different than NFL on CBS). The existing sequential list of UFC events and navigation links within the events themselves already handle this properly. Agent00f (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Newman, the idea is that the minor planet sublists are individually nonnotable and wholly unreferenced but we still accept them because, as a set, they fulfill core policy. If fights are regarded as spinouts they don't have to be individually notable, they only have to be subject to core policy as a set. This took awhile for me to see too; think about it again. We don't need any MMANOT debates then. Navigation is not hard and not the crux of the issue. JJB 21:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I've said this on numerous occasion before to the others here, and I don't think it's as difficult to understand as they sometimes claim I am. Agent00f (talk) 23:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1-4. Yes, it is possible within policy to claim that the "list of events" should be a summary of fight articles, not year articles; that does trump the inherence argument, because you're no longer arguing they are inherently notable, you're arguing that they are the best breakdown method of a summarizable notable topic (list of UFC events). It is a well-established exception that articles like List of minor planets: 200001–201000 and List of centenarians (educators, school administrators, social scientists and linguists) are not notable as articles in themselves but are notable as breakdowns of other summarizable articles. The difficulty then is making clear, in-article, that the articles are not standalones and are intended as the spinouts themselves. This, however, breaks the big task down into two simpler tasks: convince other editors that you're serious about wanting to work within policy rather than around it (via both civility and policy-based argument), and make the in-article changes that would make clear the primary-source reliability for these purposes (where debate would be about the level of detail appropriate for the primary source). You seem receptive to both these prongs. Under this plan UFC 27 would be restored as a detail article, as its detail has not been WP:PRESERVEd by prior process; deletion of advertised summary-detail articles would be forestalled; and new articles could still be incubated in the main list article as a line-item or short graf, but they would be understood as being able to become full articles much sooner.

5. OK, you're referring to the {{Infobox MMA event}} template. This can be incorporated in omnibus just as easily as in event articles, as there is sufficient text to balance the template in either case. Yes, redirects are intended to, and usually do, bring you right where intended when used correctly. (Yes, the coding "UFC_143#UFC_143" is intended because it means the UFC 143 section in the article that "UFC 143" redirects to, and thus uses the name twice; but this is no different from any other HTML coding used only for navigation and not intended for end-users but only for the coders.) Page titles often appear not to have to do with search targets because a searcher might want to find something under a term that is not its proper name, and these searchers need to be gently told that WP has not agreed with their term being the primary search term for consensus reasons. But all this is to demonstrate that there really are good rationales for WP process and it's not useful to kick against the community rules prior to gaining an understanding of the rationales.

6-9. It is possible that switching the argument from "inherently notable articles" to "summary spinout articles" might make the editing methods a nonissue as either method would be acceptable. The decision as to when to break into spinout articles, and how the break up the spinouts, would vary from one franchise and event list to another, but could be any main list either alone, or with by-year articles and/or event articles.

One concern is that this focus shift might be regarded by others as non-neutrally handing you a victory on a platter. It is entirely possible I'm neglecting an aspect that another editor can advise me of civilly. Certainly the spinouts are still required to conform to V, NPOV, and NOR, but are regarded as doing so as a set and thus the use of primary sources is required to conform as well in that the article set should not be based solely on primary sources. This may weaken the advisability of the status-quo reimaging and may indicate non-notability for topics like list of UFC events itself if the sourcing situation is dire in any franchise. But given that I think we're on the right track. I'm open for comments. JJB 20:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Summary Style and WP:SPINOFF are not ways around notability. The three tiered or even a few more tiers summary style the way they have been described with the best navigation possible is an optimal choice, but this has been suggested before, though not in as much detail. The issue is that the Spinoof has to have enough notability on it's own other wise it should stay a part of the summary page. I think 'Might' is an understatement if you are trying to say summary style and spinoffs are a way around notability. I'm glad you and Agent are having good dialog, I applaud those efforts, but as soon as it becomes apparent that a single UFC event might not have it's own single event spinoff article, we will be back at square one. Maybe I'm wrong.Newmanoconnor (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right at the nub (but I must go soon for a bit). It's not a way around notability because the group is agreed to be notable. But it's been long-held as a way around individual topic notability, because if the subtopic page is regarded as merely a bite-size piece of a very large notable topic (list of UFC events), N is shifted from the individual page to the set of pages. The fact is that in omnibus, the exact same content is proposed as in individual fight articles, it's just differently presented, so it's strange that "2012 in UFC" should be regarded as notable when "UFC 27" isn't (the answer is, neither are). Given this I determined to see why policy permits this, and it's because of summary-style treating articles not as discretely notable items but as notable as a group. Problem solved, just break into fights rather than years. Maybe I'm wrong! JJB 21:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

JJB, '2012 in UFC' was created as a compromise at a previous DR, a way to allow the content to still be on WP, though some do not meet the criteria for inclusion in WP. As I said previously, if the individual event articles are supported by WP:IRS then I don't thing we will have an issue. Giving the Group inherent notability because UFC is notable is nonsense. If everyone else agrees that as a group they are notable, then I would concede to consensus. however let me go on record I am Strongly Opposed to giving UFC Blanket notability as a group and using summary and spin-off as a way around the rules for other sports and to in essence have SPA's wine their way through DR to a resolution, only to then whine about the resolution long enough that some one is willing to give them a loop hole to make it go away. This seems to run a foul of [WP:GAME]Newmanoconnor (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a note that Newmanoconnor is well aware that this page of precedents exists, yet he avoids addressing the issue at hand. It's also notable he supported omnibus before, which basically uses the same loophole (put enough stuff on a page until it passes WP:N). It's best if he can provide actual reasons instead of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Agent00f (talk) 22:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Newman, I'm just looking for resolution. You seem to say that, even if we agree the fights are nonnotable, if we gave them individual articles as spinouts it would be unacceptable because it looks like and gives the same result as inherent notability. But if you agreed with the compromise omnibus, how can you argue that 2012 in UFC events is any more a notable topic than an individual fight? Or how can you say that this does not give the year the same result as if the year was declared inherently notable? And do you believe List of UFC events is a notable topic? It's not intended as a matter of whining and loopholes. Either the fight details should go on WP when there is only primary sourcing, or they should not. The omnibus suggests they should be; is that mistaken? JJB 01:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

JJB, I appreciate all the help you've given and understand your points. Let me clarify something. I agree to the omnibus, because it was a decision that was agreed upon at mediation, to demonstrate there was no wish to remove MMA/UfC from WP as a whole(which Agent loves to proclaim we are all trying to do). I agree to it, not because I think all articles belong on WP, but as a compromise. One that was agreed upon long before you, Agent, or I stepped into the fray. Were this the genesis of this effort, I would have been arguing this whole time that non notable events do not belong on WP. And if the choice is between inherent notability via summary and spin out, over AfD for individual articles, I choose the latter. Either inclusive list system can be structured to provide the ui and navigation in chronological order, I do not have issue with that, I support it out of compromise and the sympathy I have for the user experience. The key missing to the puzzle here is editors would have to agree that UFC notability as a franchise carries over to individual events before this proposed structure could be agreed upon. I for one do not agree with that idea, I'm fairly confident that there are a great number of editors and admins who would agree with that sentiment. I'm also puzzled with how this Conduct RfC has turned into a discussion on content. Though I have helped it along nicely myself, I propose moving all this to WP:MMANOTNewmanoconnor (talk) 04:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"The key missing to the puzzle here is editors would have to agree that UFC notability as a franchise carries over to individual events before this proposed structure could be agreed upon". So how was the same thing done for the omnibus? You mentioned "compromise", and "sympathy I have for the user experience" at play here previously, so is it more difficult to compromise with JJB for a superior user experience than with "fanboys"? BTW, all these questions and answers are recorded for ARBCOM. They would probably like an answer to this. Agent00f (talk) 04:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of what is recorded,I depend on it. It is more difficult, because JJB's suggestion is declaring that UFC is notable in and of itself enough to carry over to lists like science and mathematics, presidents, etc. It is not. I do not equate them at all. furthermore, rather than be stuck with non-notable, unsourced, data in a list as a compromise to further eroding WP:GNG, not to mention the behavior from SPA's and socks. this suggestion offers NO compromise. It simply does an end run around notability. if wide consensus agreed to JJB and Agents "solution" I certainly would abide. I doubt we would get that, but by all means , try. I'm still entitled to oppose the idea. Agent certainly isn't changing my mind with his usual passive aggressive , reactions to any resistance. it is what landed us here in the first place.Newmanoconnor (talk) 05:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please answer the question? I'll rephrase it: If someone's already agreed that the UFC is notable enough to have its own article and list of events entries, and omnibuses of many long pages, how exactly do they object to the commonly applied list format used for far less cohesive purposes? More importantly though, given that those in the voteblock have never opposed each other for many months, and continue to do so by flipping their vote for the very similar proposal here which obviously conforms to wiki policy, how should "reactions to any resistance" apply here? Agent00f (talk) 05:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For 1-4:This is very helpful. The arguments presented make perfect sense AND correlate with precedent on wiki. However, IMO no assumptions about my future behavior are necessary for your technical guidance to continue, because it's pretty evident that the articles are already spin-outs from the greater story for each org. It's easy to argue that a complete and sequential narrative of UFC events is much stronger than the usually acceptable lists on wiki.
For 5:I think it's a less important issue in the grand scheme of things, but it is confusing to come to a title/division that has no equivalent meaning in the sport/subject (a user might ask "maybe ufc changed their structure, or my understanding of the sport is wrong?"). As an argument for good titles it makes sense, but not as an argument for confusing ones. Eg. dividing football seasons into calendar months or years instead of the commonly understood partitions would illicit the same confusion.
For 6-9, likewise it makes a lot of sense to me that the divisions for formatting purposes should be done in a way that is natural to the subject instead of forced by arbitrary external actors.
For the rest, frankly I think this type of solution was pretty inevitable from the start. Well organized, cleanly formatted, and useful lists of closely related items never resembled the confusing wayward one-offs notability rules were originally designed to prevent. A huge amount of time was spent over months to avoid distinguishing between the two, but some of the politics was also the result of the relative ignorance of MMA stakeholders (incl. me) in specific wiki policy to prevent it. This seems to be why the "spinouts" you're talking about were created by many before us after recognizing this kind of problem. To be fair though, several people did ask the prior admin about similar rules-based solutions (instead of the omnibus run-around proposed) quite explicitly and never received an answer. Agent00f (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to JBB, the reason I didn't expand further on those ideas you listed under "ADD: Note to self" on the RfC page is because I didn't want to undermine this substantive discussion with a proposal what wasn't informed by the totality of your inputs. I'm glad you took the initiative to propose what I think basically ends in a similar place if via a different path. It's certainly better informed by wiki policy/precedent than what I was thinking. Agent00f (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 27[edit]

Having looked closer at the structure, I am disappointed to report that it does appear the UFC 27 deletion did "degrade the dataset" by not preserving the data anywhere except e.g. scattered across individual fighter articles. I am presuming prior AFDs did not "degrade" (fail to preserve useful nonnotable but list-notable content) in this way. This leads to an initial recommendation that the article 2000 in UFC events be created immediately, spun out from 2000 in sports with a bare link, and that the (admin-visible) content of UFC 27 be summarized and merged to that new omnibus, which can be later formatted like the 2012 article. Hasteur and Astudent0 also supported this in AFD. The AFD closers and delete voters did not give any arguments against merging. Accordingly I will recommend this to Sandstein, the DRV closer, first. JJB 20:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Agent00f does not seem to support this recommendation, so I am holding it for now until alternatives are clarified. JJB 01:50, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree that the deletion of an UFC event is a issue, we don't have a results page listing every MLB result for a week, for that you have to go to each teams page. Mt king ^(edits) 00:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given there are no "teams" in MMA, only the contestant entries, Mtking's equivalent solution in baseball would mean every player's bio page contained a synopsis of every "notable" game they've placed. This means for every "notable" baseball game (as determined at AfD), up to a few dozen individually tailored new sections are created for every player instead of one section where the game belongs (let's say a season). This is just another example in a long line why people who have zero domain knowledge of this sport, or sport in general, don't and can't provide meaningful opinions on the issue. However, if Mtking still insists that kind of comparison is sound, can we have it on the record that he/she suggested that "notable" events in reality shows belongs on their contestant's pages? Agent00f (talk) 08:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pasted from MMA notability page (where these frankly farcical sports analogies have been shot down time and time again): What's quite notable here is that this isn't the first time these specifics have been brought to the attention of Mtking. The evidence to date shows an absolute inability to learn anything about the subject, and the most charitable interpretation is a complete lack of interest. This doesn't seem conducive to developing an informed opinion. Agent00f (talk) 09:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These replies disappoint me because I gave you a chance to adjust your argument from inherent notability (a sure loser) to summary spinout (a possible winner) and you have been silent there but have accused Mtking of two apparent strawmen here. Argument by analogy won't work for you any more than it will for Mtking. You also are turning back to the theme that another editor can't learn anything, which is unhelpful. Take a deep breath and work toward agreement rather than disagreement. JJB 17:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you want me to reply to the spinout suggestion? I actually already typed a reply last night but delayed posting because I didn't want to discourage others from forming their own opinions on it before seeing my comments. I can post it whenever or maybe post it elsewhere first to check for appropriate prose (imo it's generally well reasoned and supportive), whatever you think is best. Agent00f (talk) 17:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In such a case, don't hesitate to share a solution! (Hesitate to share criticisms.) Since no one else has gone ahead, feel free to reply in the section above, or in the first "solution" template on the main RFC/U page. JJB 18:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Comparing UFC to seasonal sports like NFL, MLB, soccer, etc, is a common theme amongst some of these editors. It seems to be single handedly keeping UFC events from having individual articles. Portillo (talk) 10:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Portillo, your comment does shed light on a specific content issue related to MMA. Thank you for attempting to explain a way that MMA is different from sports that are more culturally supported. Factseducado (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Like Agent mentioned, it is something that has been discussed time and time again since this whole issue started. Portillo (talk) 23:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that it has been pointed out in previous dialog. I think you were so reasonable in the way you pointed it out that it was really a way of moving forward instead of remaining stuck. Factseducado (talk) 23:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Portillo (talk) 00:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, thank you. I very much appreciate your kindness and civility. It feels good and makes me want to create an even better Wikipedia.Factseducado (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Blackmane's view[edit]

moved from main page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC) @Blackmane: I've made several statements amounting to orbital nuking and a couple statements about Agent00f being over the line, and have had not an uncivil word from Agent00f, even on the couple random statements I'd made before this RFC/U. I'm sad to hear Blackmane was not received. The "veiled barbs" analysis is correct and some movement toward changing that has been evidenced. Bogging down a discussion for 2 weeks is not necessarily disruptive in a severe difference of content views (even though this case does involve ordinary mistakes from Agent00f and perhaps others). We should all reread WP:BITE. JJB 17:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

moved from main page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC) @JJB: I would normally agree with you. You may read the MMANOT talk page differently to me, but I see 2 weeks of discussion that goes nowhere. If Agent00f had actually managed to put forward something, anything, to compromise with the discussion that was ongoing I wouldn't have anything to say about it, but there isn't. Blackmane (talk) 08:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can simple search for "4th TLDR posting by Agent00f" on the notability page to find one such proposal. Note the title of the box and general intentions against anything that might require more than a couple lines to describe. It would also be nice if you could now concede that my description of this on the main RfC page was accurate. Thanks.Agent00f (talk) 17:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth noting that most of the people endorsing Blackmane view's are well aware this "TLDR" proposal exists, yet they signed off on it anyway. Readers can reach their own conclusion on this. Agent00f (talk) 17:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Dennis Brown[edit]

Primarily, I'm not not sure what Dennis is replying to (even though he states it's a reply to me), since most of his declaration doesn't contradict mine. His presence and action when he was admin was to provide institutional legitimacy to Mtking and Treygeek's proposal as "the one" going forward. See this section. The politics of this doesn't need much elaboration: the presence of formal wiki "staff" strongly pushing an idea is interpreted as authority regardless of whether Dennis accepts it or not. My main question to him from the start, asked MANY times, was whether this constituted the only possible solution (given that it's not a very good one in many details). This question has yet to be answered.

More specifically, it's uncertain where lines like "Agent insisted this was a secret effort to delete UFC articles." come from. I've never said this, and it makes no sense given what I've actually said. At most I've claimed that AfD enthusiasts don't care about the consistency or cohesiveness of the entries this subject, or iow don't care about how their ideas are bad, which seems quite reasonable to me given they've never shown any such empathy. I've also talked MANY times about how the omnibus as-is is just an inferior way of formatting the same information. How is Dennis's accusation above supposed to make ANY sense in view of this? Agent00f (talk) 17:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: there were a few instances where for example someone claimed to want to erase the entire subject and all its contributors off wiki, and I just relayed that message and claimed they weren't neutral. Agent00f (talk) 18:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Hasteur[edit]

This section is a reminder that the following conversation exists. Agent00f (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:John_J._Bulten/Friends#Clarification

How is this helpful to the conversation? If anything, this stirs the drama pot again.Hasteur (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Best stop there for this page's purposes, or continue on someone's talk. JJB 20:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Not to put too fine a point on it[edit]

Moving forward only really depends on one issue with Agent. Support for a WP centric, community based solution,letting go of his core belief that UFC events are inherently notable, and that usability to fans is more important than what the WP Community outlines. This is not to say we move forward with any single plan that has been proposed.

Putting his skills to use trying to organize the dataset, and help decide what events are notable and which ones aren't, as well as finding sourcing from WP:IRS. He could be an invaluable participant in the community.

No one is trying to destroy MMA/UFC articles on WP,Many of us are casual fans of MMA, Trey and MTKing seem to know as much as any of the other big fans that have participated for short or long periods of time.

I challenge Agent00F and US ALL to spend a fraction of the time on all this banter (which we are all engaged) helping to develop a better framework than the single Omnibus for all UFC events for a year, knowing that there ARE UFC events that do not meet notability guidelines,and there will not be an unbroken chain of chronologically ordered stand alone articles for UFC events.Newmanoconnor (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Working. As an outsider I don't want to start editing mainspace here until there is clear consensus that an initial path would agree with everyone's views. My first specific proposal to create 2000 in UFC events to accommodate text deleted from UFC 27 does not agree with Agent00f's views so a little more exploration of views, which is almost done, should turn the trick. JJB 21:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I can understand that, the fact remains that there are many individuals who offer these blanket opinions, but do no work to even source properly one article,to something other than mmajunkie,sherdog,etc. Even if those are the preeminent MMA sites, they fail WP:IRS just as thenflnetwork, or thetennisnews would to prove notability.

IMO, it's pretty obvious that "WP Community outlines" on this issue is to prune random entries inconsistent with the larger body of work. We all agree these kind of pages don't really help anyone and makes wiki as a tool look bad even to "fans". It's also pretty obvious that UFC events are hardly that given how well they fit in with the subject space; they're not Big Bob's Backyard Brawl of 2004 which is what the "inherently notable" interpretation by the naysayers imply. It's also notable here that "WP Community outlines" are hardly incompatible with "usability to fans" as implied above. In fact, the Wiki Community IS the people who use it. Otherwise, who the hell are these people? For example, I use wiki for many hours a week almost exclusively outside of MMA and would hardly endorse something that made random crappy articles permissible. Agent00f (talk) 22:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We ALL don't agree Agent, the majority of registered wikipedians so far ,disagree with you. And even knowing it is NOTAVOTE, arguments grounded in experience editing,WP:policy,etc carry more weight. I also think you misinterpret "usability of fans". It does not mean that WP will be the go to source for fans for every tiny detail about UFC events, or MMA fight. WP:ISNOTAFANSITE. We need to provide the information that meets encyclopedic and notability guidlines in the best way that is the most usable to fans and non fans alike.

The only Wikipedia Community I am referring to, or that matters in this particular discussion are the community of editors and users that work to run,maintain,service wikipedia. There is a wide range of opinions on individual event notability. However, there is consensus on WP at this time that UFC events are not inherently notable. Though it is not a vote, there are many more editors and admins that have expressed this view, with well reasoned arguments following WP:policies , guidelines ,etc. Sometimes you have to realize you may be right about a specific point, but you have to learn to work within the community of editors to build consensus. I have had to do it quite a few times,most recently on a controversial article, where I was not able to persuade a group of other editors to get behind mine and a few others positions about an article. Eventually I had to compromise that,even though this particular subject doesn't belong in a true encyclopedia, it fits in WP's policies currently, and I was at least able to help guide the article to the most neutral and balanced that it could be with the same editors things were so heated with earlier.

There isn't anyone here that hates MMA or wants to rid WP of it. I believe the majority of articles for UFC will rise to notability standards, but the fact remains that some are not notable under WP guidelines, or even the spirit of WP. Newmanoconnor (talk) 00:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"We ALL don't agree Agent, the majority of registered wikipedians so far ,disagree with you.". Can you clearly express where you or them specifically disagree with the statement you just replied to? For example, I obviously think a cleanly chained list of all UFC event with every one presented in a consistent matter is most usable to everyone, especially when compared to an incoherent and incomplete list where events directly relevant to a championship fights are missing? Can you explain where and how you disagree? Can you perhaps present a use case where having (let's say) less notable ufc 140 to fill in the gap between more notable ufc 139 and ufc 141 makes for an overall worse result than just doing what's possible on the 140 page so least the info leading up to 141 isn't missing? IMO even if 140 is the basic template, at least the links from fighter biographies and such lead to a place that editors can easily improve without fear of AfD, and that's much better than whatever this is. AFAICT, everyone already agreed to this scheme in theory, and we're just hashing out if we're willing to drop hardline requirements that make no sense (clearly made without this situation in mind) to make the presentation as useful as possible for everyone. Agent00f (talk) 00:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you also explain what you mean by your vision of a "true encyclopedia"? Do you feel that the general goal here is to get as far as paper Brittanica (no doubt "True") and no further? You seem to state that more material gets in than it should based on loopholes in the rules, which would imply that you don't quite believe in rules as dogma. Do you feel that other AfD enthusiasts share these feelings, and that wiki should implement a generally exclusionary policy to new forms of presenting information to accommodate this ideology? Agent00f (talk) 00:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure. How to address your first response yet. However, I am bewildered by your ability to twist an example of me compromising, into me somehow saying WP should be like Brittanica. I Obviously do not support running WP as if it were Britannica, or I would not be willing to include nearly as much information as Wikipedia does within it's guidelines and policies. I am able to separate my ideals and beliefs if they conflict with WP, most editors do.This maintains objectivity,neutrality,etc. I believe in the five pillars , WP:Policies and guidelines as dogma of Wikipedia. I also believe in consensus of the community of wikipedians to shape and bend rules that are not bright line. WP:GNG is a bright line and articles that can only be sourced to sites that are. Not WP:IRS. fail GNGNewmanoconnor (talk) 01:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you at least make an effort to product a clear answer?. I'm not claiming that you necessarily hold Britannica as the limit, only that seems to be what you're referring to by "true encyclopedia", where the colors of this Scotsman are your own. You've already said you must compromise from that goal, so repeating the same don't really clarify anything. Agent00f (talk) 02:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And that, Agent, is exactly the problem that people have with you. If someone makes a comment in passing that you don't agree with it, you bite into that comment and repeatedly attack that comment ad nauseam seeking some sort of answer or clarification that isn't germane to the overall discussion. It is that which those who have contributed to this RFC have a primary issue with. Blackmane (talk) 08:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, that's hardly a "comment in passing". It's fundamentally how Newmanoconnor sees his role at wiki. The crux of the disagreement seems to be that he believes in a given vision for an encyclopedia, and therefore chooses to interpret WP:N to the exclusion of all other manners of presenting info. All other niceties layered on top of this are frankly secondary until this root issue is discussed. Agent00f (talk) 22:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I take up Newmanoconnor and JJB's challange and have made a suggestion of a blitz on the UFC year 2000 events at WT:MMA. Please feel free to comment there. I'm going to finish up the conversion of BAMMA Events before I start on the UFC 2000. Hasteur (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Qwyrxian[edit]

Is a reply even worthwhile here? Qwyrxian clearly hasn't read beyond a few paragraphs, missing for example the section above where his source Ravenswing proves to be largely unfamiliar with the facts of the case (yet makes wild assertions nonetheless), or where Dennis Brown refuses to substantiate even the most trivial of his claims. A continued procession of decision making based only on trite and superficial grasp of just about everything seems to be why this topic hasn't been settled for the many months before I ever joined. Agent00f (talk) 08:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're asking yourself if a reply is worthwhile, answering "no" saves you an immense amount of time and worry (as well as the burden of replying to the replies). Answering "yes" is often a reflexive response because one believes one will "lose" something otherwise or fail to speak one's whole mind. Discretion is the better part of valor. Big hint: In this case, reading the rest of your reply suggests a clear "no", it was wholly unnecessary because no different from what was already stated. Stick to the parts of the dialogue that build toward agreement. Thanks. JJB 17:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that there's a historical pattern of editors who come in to express strong opinions without any effort to grasp what's going on. The pattern is notable because it's what ultimately led us over many months to an unworkable "consensus" process. For example, the next similar editor in this line would come in to "+1" Qwyrxian, and this would be entirely detriment to building towards any sort of reality-based agreement. Hopefully some introspection into this detrimental behavior would encourage editors to ask questions or at least read some replies before assuming answers. Agent00f (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly, Agent00f, your reply here is actually useful (though not in the way you meant), because it once again demonstrates that in your opinion it's never you, it's always someone else. To you, it's obviously impossible that I've read the entire rfcu and relevant diffs, because my end conclusion disagrees with yours. I believe this response, along with many of the others you make earlier up on this page, show that your absolute, unbending unwillingness to collaboratively engage in this process indicates that at this point the only option we're going to have is community-enforced sanctions. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's a more fundamental and importnat mechanic at work here. If someone doesn't understand that 2+2=4, and keeps insisting that the answer is 22, it's basic logic that they're unfit to analyze arithmetic further, especially if they're unable to recognize this very basic errors. In a similar vein, there are links above which demonstrate Ravenswing has egregious misconceptions of what went on, yet you consider his analysis to be valuable. It's a classic case of the blind leading the blind. This is further evident given that you obviously didn't read the considerably substantive discussion above (instead of the usual realpolitik that's forced on us) before throwing around accusations of "unwillingness to collaboratively engage". So instead of showing some familiarity with the situation, you want everyone to just "trust you" on this.

Moving on, there's another concept which is important here: group-think. Your opinion seems to be that group-think led by those unfamiliar with a situation is valuable at forming a "truth-like" consensus. I obvious disagree. However, this, like the situation above, doesn't need to be just a clash of opinions. I believe there's a correct answer to the value of unsubstantiated group-think and we together can apply some reasoning and/or science to test it one way or the other. Would you be willing to participate in this collaborate activity? Thanks. Agent00f (talk) 22:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's WP:ABF right there and really it's symptomatic of your attitude towards everyone. Blackmane (talk) 00:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note Qwyrxian's dependence on the testimony of Dennis and Ravenswing to form judgements are not my words. Thanks. Agent00f (talk) 01:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When people agree with you, it is a consensus, but any time a group disagrees with you, it is "group think". This, my friend, is textbook binary thinking. The whole point of why others think you are incapable of participating in any corroborative environment. It is staggering, the ease with which you continue this behavior after it has been pointed out time and time again. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis, I think you are unaware of the binary and battleground thinking another party has refused to be talked out of. Also, Agent00f has walked away. I applaud him. His maturity has prevailed. Factseducado (talk) 22:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But what I am aware of is his exact words not 2 inches higher than my own. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He has walked away from this. I would like to see less battleground mentality and I think that is WP policy also.Factseducado (talk) 00:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to some of the above comments, as well as recent comments on the rest of this page, I don't expect, nor do I even certainly want, sanctions to arise as a result of this RfC/U, first and foremost because that's not what RfC/Us are for. What I do want is for Agent00f to acknowledge that there are serious, legitimate concerns about his behavior, and that if he wants to remain a member of this community, he needs to address those concerns--that, in fact, is the purpose of an RfC/U. To date, Agent00f has not done so. Factseducado, Agent00f walking away from this is actually not an improvement, not a step in the right direction. Well, that's not entirely true--if walking away for a few days/week helps him get some perspective, then fine. But just waiting out an RfC/U accomplishes nothing. As far as other people's concerns about what to do after the RfC/U is done, as I have already stated, I am willing to act on future episodes of disruption as an uninvolved admin if necessary (though, of course, I'd prefer it not be necessary). Second, I still do not agree with a MEDCAB including Agent00f's participation will be effective unless Agent00f first acts on the concerns described here. MEDCAB is not magic; it requires the participants to be acting in good faith. In my opinion (and the opinion of several others) Agent00f is either unable or unwilling to act in good faith. Should Agent00f show a willingness to do that, then at that point MEDCAB may become a good option. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I instructed Agent00f to walk away and I believe it has been very successful at this point. I believe someone else may have given him the same advice. Agent00f's behavior today is above reproach and demonstrates that he has successfully internalized feedback. I don't think any good can come of taking someone's dignity when he or she has risen above an unhappy situation. I continue to encourage him not to respond tit for tat because I do not believe it is helpful. In my opinion Agent00f has demonstrated enormous good faith by being willing to walk away. I would like to urge all participants in WP conflict to walk away when their comments are not working out. Factseducado (talk) 01:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then let me be more clear: Agent00f does not have to respond to any of this. If the end result of this process is that Agent00f is silent, then that will be taken as either Agent00f consenting to what has been decided by consensus, or it will mean that they refuse to collaborate. Either way, if Agent00f continues his bad behavior, he will be blocked. Period. By me, if I'm the first to be notified, but likely by others as well. This topic area suffers from far too many problems already, and an editor who not only refuses to participate appropriately but actively engages in behavior designed to inhibit forward progress makes matters significantly worse. Your advice was partially right, in that Agent00f needs to stop trying to find loopholes and ad hominem attacks and everything else he can to escape responsibility for his own behavior. Your advice was partially wrong if you meant (or he interpreted to mean) that simply remaining silent was a viable solution. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you don't feel that walking away from these latest in a line of personal indictments is helpful, even though I've been criticized for being persistent at the last few, can I please get some clarification of exactly what's expected at this point? For example, should I just hit the "ask for mentor" button and hope for the best? Unilaterally set up a MEDCAB or even ARBCOM myself? Since I obvious lack the experience to divine an answer steeped in tribal knowledge, it'd be great if someone among the accusers can just outline the steps or at least some acceptable ones. Thanks. Agent00f (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to do whatever you want. MEDCAB will very likely fail for the explicit reason that one of the editors involved in the dispute is refusing to go to MEDCAB yet (I'd remove my objection once a non-filibustered non-derailed, non-disruptive RfC on MMA Event notability has completed). You can ask for a mentor, however the issue still remains, we have yet to see a demonstration that you are here to collaboratively build an encyclopedia since you started editing again under this account. You may go ahead and make a request for arbitration, but there is the possibility that the Arbitrators will hand down a decision that will not be to your liking. The requests have been on the table for several weeks now. That intercessors have now stepped in to attempt to moderate your behavior does not, in my mind, give you any room for continued activities that have already been noted. Hasteur (talk) 18:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, this is a request for some clear brightline statements. "requests have been on the table for several weeks now" seems to mean those "final warnings" from folks who disagree on content issues, which were already taken to ANI with confusing/lackluster outcome. I don't see how this is helpful or conducive to progress. Agent00f (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Drmies[edit]

You may not be aware that "gangbanging" is an obscenity and that I do not believe Agent00f has either used or implied it. He has implied he is being "ganged up on", which has a significantly different meaning. Accordingly, we should all watch our language. If you have a link to disprove this, please advise. JJB 23:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Seriously man, that's a stretch, even if he was using it as the sexual of the two definitions. The second of which is 2. Slang; To participate in violent gang related activity. (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. )Newmanoconnor (talk) 02:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really have no idea what Drmies is referring to, nor does anyone else it seems. It would help if he can link to it; or maybe Newmanoconnor can tell us what this is about, since he endorsed the statement. Agent00f (talk) 02:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As this RfC/U hasn't even ran a full week, I'm trying to extend good faith and WP:ROPE to Agent00f by giving all reasonable solutions and mediators time to develop a viable solution before we take annother crack at the roulette wheel of Administrators as very little has changed other than the corpus of edits to pick for violations of community standards. This response is directed only at Drmies and in no way would an antagonistic response by Agent00f be appropraiteHasteur (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what Drmies was referring to. I might have chosen a different word due to the culture I was raised in, but I make allowances for others to use terms that are deemed acceptable in theirs. WP:BIAS covers it in more detail, but suffice it to say that context matters. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a simply horrible, offensive word. If WP allows it that needs to change. I am not going to go into the harm done by group rape. I do not care if the culture someone has been raised in supports the use of a vile, bigoted word. It is not acceptable in the English language and it should never be acceptable on WP. Think of the people that word injures. It is a word that needs to die. There is no context in which that word serves a useful purpose. I'm sorry to disagree, Dennis. You must not be unaware of how sickening that word is. Factseducado (talk) 17:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing obscene about it unless you are talking about gangbanging of the sexual nature, and thats subjective. As far as group rape goes there isn't anything funny about it, and it is not one of the common definitions of gangbang. I guess we should assume you've never seen a documentary or news report that refers to gangsters as gangbangers, or gangbanging.

For JJB and the rest of you on this tangent of supposed outrage, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gangbanger. You also might want to try [Gang Bang]. Unless you like pornography I would not type it into google and search at random. Nothing about his contextual use of the word is obscene,it might not be Dennis Choice of words, but I totally understood what he meant. It is certainly synonymous with slang for being ganged up on.

I'd like to know how JJB and Factseducado feel about the fact that Agent has made virtually ZERO contributions to Wikipedia outside of his obfuscation and filibustering. He isn't even editing MMA content nor has he ever, yet he claims to be the voice of MMA content creators, while Trey and MT King and Hasteur have created infinitely more MMA content than he has. More importantly I'd like to ask any of the admins, what makes him so special as to get away with behavior that other editors would have had multiple extended blocks and possibly a topic ban? Seriously there are multiple admins here, the only one I can see having conflict is Dennis?Newmanoconnor (talk) 18:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I recently wrote about that on this RfC/U project page. I don't know how to make a link to what I wrote with a number and arrow or with blue words. I don't think I should repost it here. Should I?Factseducado (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Newman, now you are in my area of expertise. Merriam-Webster, while they recognize two meanings, is the same entity that regarded "gangbang" as too obscene for the coffee-table version of the Official Scrabble Players Dictionary. That aside, when one editor paraphrases another, it is a mistake to paraphrase with an ambiguously obscene word in such a charged atmosphere. It is especially a mistake to do so without a diff. I don't see any problem whatsoever with Agent00f holding off from mainspace in this MMA environment, but I would agree that finding another area of Wikipedia to edit, to demonstrate interest in the project itself rather than a single purpose, is highly advised. However, it is unlikely that as a new account Agent00f has recognized this constructive idea as any other than another form of attack, as it is likely it has not been presented to him as being constructive. Give him some room to grow. JJB 20:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, JJB is so right. Agent00f can grow but things are very uncomfortable for him right now. He needs some room to grow. He has not known about a lot of things that seem obvious to people who have been at WP a long time. He has been feeling alone and isolated. We know that does not bring out the good part of humans. He will demonstrate that he wants WP to reach its goals while embracing the 5 pillars. He hasn't seen how before. Nobody was around to advise him or work with him. The MMA content is a very unhappy area. He has not seen how constructive, harmonious co-editing happens. He has not seen people decide to walk away when things weren't going well but before the editor had become sucked into unhappiness. MMA content is not an area that demonstrates by example those strengths of WP. I think he really tried hard in the MMA content space to abide by the rules. I truly believe a number of parties have not been acting their best and great deal of it has to do with a problem in MMA which has been a festering wound on WP. More punishment is not the solution. Factseducado (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JJB, I don't disagree with your points completely, I do think your interjection with your interpretation of what is an obscene expression, was as inappropriate as use of an ambiguous term to paraphrase another without a diff. You are just fanning the flames in a different direction.

I'm fine giving Agent00f room to grow as a new editor, I'll even help him if he asked, but he has no desire to do that,it's been suggested he try working on something in the MMA space, out of the MMA space, etc. He has yet to do anything other than obfuscate and filibuster. I know you two are keen on Medcab, and I'm fairly confident we all would willingly participate at the right time, but a big point you both seem to be missing is that we've been through mediation at DR already once before Agent joined. When you are making judgements about "a number of parties not acting their best" you might want to look at the history of the issues and not use TLDR as an excuse not to. Newmanoconnor (talk) 20:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agent00f sought out advice from at least two people and he has followed my advice. He is not making comments and that is a very mature action when people are criticizing him. That certainly demonstrates a huge desire not to filibuster or obfuscate. He is being restrained and doing other things. This is to be applauded. I wish many more people who have felt on the defensive in other spots on WP would follow his example and stop trading tit for tat. I believe WP would be a much more pleasant place and fewer people would get in trouble if more people walked away. I have never written that anything was too long to read so obviously I have made no such excuse. I have read a great deal in the MMA area for a long time back. MEDCAB works differently than DR mediation. I believe all the unhappy people writing about the MMA issues would be better off looking for a new way to address the problem because progress is not happening. I'm glad Agent00f is willing to try something new like mediation or mentoring because things tried thus far have not been successfulFactseducado (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose Drmies view[edit]

Newman, I'm sorry to hear you seem to consider the view of Drmies as morally equivalent to my polite objection to it. Here is a little more to consider. (1) Drmies paraphrased Agent00f with a word that can be a very strong pejorative but can also be ambiguous. The RFC/U is partly about Agent00f misrepresenting other editors with pejoratives. (2) Drmies has not yet diffed how this is actually Agent00f's view. The RFC/U accuses Agent00f of making charges without evidence. (3) Drmies has placed this pejorative, along with a community-ban solution, as a good-faith view for endorsement. However, Drmies may not have seen the clearly contrary RFC/U guidance: "Reconciliation and a swift return to happy and productive collaborative editing is the aim of RfC/U, not revenge or sanction." "RfC/U discussions are not designed to impose solutions on the unwilling .... The goal is dispute resolution through working together - not outside punishment. Consequently, the desired outcome needs to be both something that could be agreed to by all of the involved parties, and something that could be implemented by the involved parties themselves." Further, it seems to me that every one of the impossible goals outlined has been recommended of Agent00f during the process; while most of the "possible goals" Agent00f has already met (he doesn't edit-war or fight over content at all; he doesn't use obscenities or profanities, unlike others; he doesn't collect offensive text in userspace). Thus this view belies much of the purpose of RFC/U. (4) And yet several other editors have affirmed this view, including those who should have knowledge of RFC/U guidance by being either certifiers or admins. (5) You then act as if my polite, good-faith information for Drmies and my unanswered request for diffs is just "as inappropriate" as the above, despite my sincerity being seconded strongly by Factseducado.

Background: I came here because I'd seen this debate at ANI, DRV, RFC (where I responded), and finally RFC/U. I came without preconceived views (other than that handy nuke button). I read the first slate of diffs and found they were very tame compared to a typical RFC/U, and said so. As time went on, I found that Agent00f has a chip on his shoulder and a habit of making barbs, but has been amenable to advice on improving these newbie deficiencies. I found that the certifiers also have a habit of making barbs, and one of them frequently refactors the comments of others in borderline ways. I found that the certifiers and those allied with them have much looser control of their mouths than Agent00f, using the brightline obscenity/profanity test. (Using the barb test, maybe not.) Accordingly, I have pushed for early closure of this RFC/U as an inappropriate forum for such a two-way street. However, the more time Agent00f has for making constructive steps without being pushed over the edge, the better. In short, the certifiers had their best chance to show me Agent00f has committed banworthy conduct, and they not only failed miserably in their best opportunity but also demonstrated what I consider morally equivalent conduct themselves. Please don't ask me to provide diffs for this generic observation, because that would mean you're asking me to collate evidence that I would have no compunctions about using later.

When Hasteur recommended a solution in the hands of a plurality of local editors including Hasteur, I almost gave up. When Hasteur backed off from the brink and agreed with mentorship, there was hope again. However, the view of Drmies and its rapid unthinking acceptance by those who should know of the guidance above and are neglecting it, makes it hard for me to press on again. I have a policy of working on areas of WP that are amenable to being fixed without controversy, and this was such an area previously. Accordingly, my next moves will need to be such as to ensure any solution will meet consensus acceptance and policy compliance, despite the observations described above. When I know such moves, I will make them. JJB 21:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

In no way did I say I wanted Agent's editing privileges in my hands. I suggested a plurality of editors who can read the context of a comment and say "Agent, that's uncalled for. Please consider striking that". Once it got up to a certain point it would be incumbent on Agent to strike the text as it was perceived by multiple editors as not appropriate for a collaborative environment. The reason why there is not an exhaustive list of diffs on his behavior is demonstrated at User talk:Hasteur#RfC/U. Had you taken a look at the examples where requests were made asking Agent00f to tone down their rhetoric were met with "Where is the rhetoric?"/"I'll strike it if you can find it". Every single attempt at asking Agent to tone it down in the context is an exercise in futility and arguing with a wall. Individually his edits are marginally offensive, staying underneath the threshold of explicitly sanction-able. That is why this has gone on for so long, because they've perfected the art of being uncivil up to the point of getting sanctioned by administration for their actions.

I question if you are not experiencing the Stockholm syndrome with your gradual and progressive aligning with Agent's PoV (introducing questions of MMA Notability here when the issue at hand is Agent's conduct) Hasteur (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing like what you describe, Hasteur. Stockholm Syndrome does not appear to be related to the behaviors I have seen JJB exhibit. I do believe there is some good faith missing in that view.Factseducado (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, Hasteur probably just made his strongest point thus far. It is one thing to say that you don't think he deserves to be indef blocked, but to find no fault with his actions, well, Hasteur summed it up rather neatly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis, if Stockholm syndrome or being below the threshold is Hasteur's strongest point, can you recognize that other editors might conclude he has no strong points at all? Further, Factseducado did not here state he found no fault, which might make this comment out of place; and as to how well Hasteur summed up, you will enjoy the below. And can you, at least, recognize the failure of the Drmies view to concur with the purposes of RFC/U I linked above, and the inappropriateness of an admin supporting such a view? JJB 22:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't remember endorsing or rejecting much of anything Hasteur has said here previously. I'm not going to analyse his every word or position at this RFC/U, as it should be obvious to anyone paying attention that he and I disagree on as much as we agree on here, and outside of here as well. We are just respectful and civil about it, as shocking as that might sound. We don't need to explain ourselves to each other, we accept our differences of opinion and move on, as per the expected norm at Wikipedia. We all have our own biases, I have freely admitted mine. So as to his claim of Stockholm Syndrome (which might have been only slightly exaggerated yet interesting enough to catch my attention), you are free to claim it, refute it, or ignore it. I do feel that Agent's behavior is being too readily overlooked or written off by a few. This is hardly a revelation, as I have been saying this for weeks. As always, you are free to disagree on your own, but I don't feel a need to defend every comment I make. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have written the opposite of what appears to be attributed to me. I have written it so many times I cannot count them. I would appreciate it if when someone becomes aware of writing that I have done something I have not in fact done, that any such person would then state something along the lines of, "I see now you never said and never meant to say that." Factseducado (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose the Drmies view myself. JJB has so obviously attempted to forge a way forward with dignity for all. I am saddened that he feels this is not a venue for the kind of experience and wisdom he has brought. I heartily endorse the idea that there has been a two-way or multi-way street of not interacting well. I have not engaged in any topic resembling MMA and I do not recall having interacted with any parties to this conflict. I am not interesting in outlining the variety poor behavior I have read in this RfC/U or experienced myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factseducado (talk • contribs) 22:01, 18 May 2012 (UTC) Factseducado (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Factseducado (talk) 22:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec, affirm Factseducado) See, Hasteur, you're affirming many of my points. First, when you say "in no way", you respond to something that it should be clear I didn't say, and you neglect to note either that what I did say agreed with your summary, or that I affirmed you for backing off from your initial suggestion. Second, by admitting that the diffs are not exhaustive because the behavior is marginal and underneath the threshold, and that other users' requests often lacked diffs, you affirm my statement expressing these points. Maybe requests to tone it down fail because there was no evidence presented of anything to tone down? Just wondering. (Or, if you're saying you didn't present enough diffs because Ncmvocalist said only to list the more serious ones, did you somehow fail to list the most serious ones?) Third, by asking me about Stockholm syndrome you insert a rather inopportune analogy into a field brimming with an excess thereof. Now, as I told Dennis, I do admit to coopting this page as a "clean slate" for the RFC, which was originally affirmed by other editors, and as you grew more opposed to this practice I trimmed it back; given the number of other rules broken during this RFC/U, I think my choice was affirmed by a constructive result, including conductwise. I explained above how I came into this situation (I am no hostage) and why I made the decision I did. Your questioning my decision as a "syndrome", at the same time that it disagrees with your own, does not help your case any, I think. But those who do not understand indirect statements usually are met with very direct statements later.

Oops, this thread is about the inappropriateness of Drmies's stated view, sorry for the digression. JJB 22:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Stockholm syndrome is explicitly what I am referring to. Take a look and look back at your edits. You'll see a progressive movement from being neutral to being a supporter of Agent00f. It might be just me, but I'm commenting on what I see Hasteur (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Factseducado[edit]

Please stop associating Stockholm Syndrome with JJB. He has said he does not want to be referred to has having as syndrome. Also Stockhold Syndrome is a serious mental problem that causes enormous suffering to the people who have it. It reflects forms of human depravity that are sickening. There is no reason to bring it up in this context. Factseducado (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even look at the linked article? In psychology, Stockholm syndrome is an apparently paradoxical psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and have positive feelings towards their captors, sometimes to the point of defending them. While I admit that editors here are not hostages, the positions that some have taken here are either a loose example of the phenomenon or are exhibiting behavorial traits that are more consistent with other phenomenon. Hasteur (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because I'm likely much older than most of the participants here, I instantly got the connection. A bit exaggerated but still an interesting parallel. This isn't saying the two of you are suffering from SS, Hasteur is just saying he sees parallels, and I simply understand his perspective. It isn't incivil, even if it isn't particularly flattering either. I don't think he meant it as an insult, and didn't take it as one. His mentioning and my agreeing probably weren't the most constructive comments made in this thread, but only because they aren't conducive to keeping the peace, not because they are unfair as an observation. Regardless, moving on would be best as we all have managed to dilute this section. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to have to ask for outside input. I can assure you that this is an area that many people in the mental health field work to combat daily. People commit suicide because of the pejorative use of mental illness-related terms. Is there a WikiProject here that weighs in on mental illness-related terms being applied to others by a person who disagrees with the others views?Factseducado (talk) 02:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are already at a noticeboard, I'm not sure what else would satisfy you. I think you are blowing this out of proportion, as the intent was to state an observation, not cause anyone to commit suicide. We don't censor here, people are free to make observations as they see fit. While we are expected to act in a civil manner and have, under no circumstance will we enforce politically correct speech or censor otherwise reasonable comments. You can always drop a note on any uninvolved admin's talk page and ask them for review, although I wouldn't expect many willing parties. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have already begun seeking outside input on WP. I would like you to assume good faith and trust me that this is a very serious problem. As you know since you read my comment in real life I have worked to educate audiences on the need to stop stigma related to mental illness. This is a very serious and offensive issue. I have also contacted our current NAMI executive and she agrees this is going to require an educational campaign. It will go to state and national NAMI eventually. The NAMI organization works to combat mental illness stigmatization daily. WP is so large and prominent that downplaying the danger to life is risky. This policy of allowing, endorsing, or encouraging the use of mental illness terms to negatively portray people without a mental illness who a person is in a disagreement with will need to be changed. I have counseled suicidal people and the surviving families of people who have committed suicide. Stigma regarding mental illness has been a major hurdle for these suffering people. The stigma regarding mental illness is an area of human rights that is being increasingly addressed in many venues. Sadly, your assertion that using mental illness related terms is regarded as civil behavior as per WP policy which you have been given a position of authority to interpret indicates that this is a sytemic problem on WP. It will need to have a great deal of attention paid to it over a long period of time by many people. This is how eliminating this kind of stigmatization is done.Factseducado (talk) 14:35, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest that you desist from this line of "Paul Revere"-ism right now. It looks like, in my eyes, that you're using a minor turn of phrase to institute a campaign or proceedings that could evolve into legal grounds, thereby chilling the discussion. If you go back to the page, you will not see a single instance of the percieved offense being labeled as a mental illness. I question your competence and bona fides as you have yet to link to the DSM-V classifying the perceived offense as a mental illness. Hasteur (talk) 15:06, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are saying you are contacting many people off of Wikipedia with the intention of getting them to all come on to Wikipedia for the purpose of "changing our ways", well, please just tell me that I have read this wrong and that is not what you are saying. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be perfectly clear, please read WP:MEATPUPPET as what you are proposing sounds dangerously like an act that can get someone blocked here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not endorse Drmies's view as I mentioned early in the above section. If the Administration did not act on requests regarding Agent's conduct before, I have little faith in a different outcome at this time. The only difference is that there is more text to choose from in terms of the behavior. Therefore I am trying this process of reconciliation to demonstrate to Agent00f the level of tolerance (or lack thereof) the community has with the style of behavior that has lead us here. Hasteur (talk) 22:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Factseducado is now a bitten newbie.

Facts has, with me, objected to reference to Stockholm syndrome, and was not met with civility but defensiveness from multiple sources about the appropriateness of this barb. But we all forget that this RFC/U is partly about an editor referring to OCD in a very similar barb, and another editor objecting. This can be called a double standard.
Facts did not understand why comments were moved to talk by Ncmvocalist when a number of other IAR incidents were overlooked. Ncmvocalist's edit summary hinted that those who frequently misplace comments on the main page may be trying to shut down discussion, and Facts took this personally and has not heard a substantive response from Ncmvocalist. While Ncmvocalist is performing routine maintenance, the slight edge to the edit summary could have been avoided or explained better.
Facts also objected, with me, to the word "gangbanging" in a view and its wide degree of support. This objection too was regarded as the ordinary bounds of civility. Ordinarily when one uses an obscenity unconsciously, one strikes and apologizes, rather than collecting a plurality of support.
Facts has hinted elsewhere that some incident outside of the MMA topic feels retributive and invoked strong emotional response. While this view may be mistaken, it's a common newbie response to feel intimidated and wonder whether the sources of that feeling have spread elsewhere on WP.
Facts suggested that something should be done about thoughtless use of mental classification of editors on WP, and was directed to read about meatpuppetry by an admin rather than directed to a "systemic bias" project where that topic is being discussed.
Naturally during all this process, the spiral closed in on itself when Facts was accused of overlong, off-topic contributions.
Other examples of Facts being bitten might be taken as personal attacks against those who performed the activities, if I listed those editors.

The way that WP has often worked, Facts should now be blocked for 72 hours for all these violations, and should have all appeals rejected for failure to present evidence of being willing to change the behavior that everyone else can see so clearly (but not explain so clearly). Certain editors, who view the objections that Facts has about other editors as being different from their own objections about other editors, would continue their objectionable, objected behavior. Further, for making this observation, I too should be investigated for all my past and present infractions.

I am certain Facts will take the advice dispensed to others and drop the subject. I do not believe others will. I can mention Dennis in particular as he can handle mention and our discussion has been amicable even if disagreed. Dennis has regarded the "OCD" charge as very serious but the "Stockholm" charge as ordinary civil give-and-take. Dennis has observed the sudden interest of Facts and, rather than enfolding and redirecting that interest, has assumed that a newbie is threatening meatpuppetry and bludgeoning. In addition to the violations of RFC/U creation already cited, there are significant violations of BITE now documented. This is not a good record for all to be creating. The disconnect that several editors are demonstrating, between treatment of some editors and treatment of others, is massive. But since RFC/U is "only about Agent00f's conduct", this is yet another topic-area problem that this board (like most others, alas) is unsuited for. JJB 20:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Could we collapse this off topic discussion by referring to it as "Stockholm-syndrome-esque" rather than actual Stockholm Syndrome? Let not get sidetracked by semantics. Blackmane (talk) 20:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Ravenswing endorsement[edit]

I would welcome the cessation of the use of the word fanboys. I would like all parties except JJB to stop using "us versus them" language. It reflects a battleground mentality when anyone does it, not just Agent00f, and is not helpful to the WP project. I think fairly stating what people you disagree with is a good idea. Some people are advocating more MMA article deletion and others are advocating less. Factseducado (talk) 23:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would welcome some discretion by a new editor who comes out of nowhere to wade into a dispute where he clearly has no experience with the issues (Wait, does that sound familiar? Oh yeah, that's exactly the same argument used by Agent00f against "uninvolved editors" when he has no substantive rebuttal). I think it's rather humorous that you choose to lecture every editor except Agent00f on battlefield behavior. It's obviously a "Wikipedia Cabal" if the community doesn't accept Agent's broad notability guideline crafted generously to allow third-tier promotions mixing cage-fighting with motocross and hot-dog-eating-contests to be MMA articles. Damn, I shouldn't even bother learning Wiki policies or guidelines; it's obviously in the best interest of the encyclopedia to let SPAs who are only interested in protecting their walled gardens to dictate policy to admins and long-standing editors </sarcasm>. Chillllls (talk) 03:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chillllls, since I'm the one who made the original remark, allow me to make the distinction that Factseducado seems to have taken the time to read most all the comments on hand before replying. Also, that is not an accurate interpretation of my "notability guideline", in part because I've yet to propose anything to that end. It might be best if unengaged parties could hold off final analysis until more editors weigh in on the specific of that discussion. Thanks. Agent00f (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am extremely comfortable in my characterization of an organized band of SPA disrupters, almost none of whom demonstrate any desire to improve the encyclopedia or any track record of articlespace edits. Their impact is solely felt in AfDs, notability discussions, ANIs and talk page harassment - except, of course, for their frequent and invariably unproven claims to be longstanding productive editors under Some Other Account, claims which they seem quite unabashed about mingling with surprising ignorance about this aspect of Wikipedia or that. On their own forums, they are equally unabashed about their declaration of war on Wikipedia.

If they find my characterization insulting, they need but prove me wrong - by becoming productive editors, with a proven record of positive contributions to articlespace. Ravenswing 06:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ravenswing, it can difficult to do much else with a continuous wave of personally directed ANI's and whatnot. From what I can gather in the archives and your observations, this experience seems to be the common to many editors with a subject interest before me. I would agree that most have been inexperienced with the inner workings of wiki (as opposed to simple page editing), but it might be unfair to criticize someone for being defensive when persistent antagonistic encounters are their first taste of the inner process. Agent00f (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

on Blackmane's question re:ANI[edit]

Blackmane asked if we should start a new discussion on WP:ANI about this. At least for the time being, definitely not. RfC/U's, just like regular RfC's, should run until such time as discussion has stopped; generally, they should run for at least a few weeks, if not a full month. There's no hurry here, so long as there isn't disruption from Agent000f that needs immediate investigation. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's what I meant. Whether we should open a new discussion on AN at the end of the RFC. I'll amend my question. Blackmane (talk) 08:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My comments[edit]

Agent00f asked me to comment. I personally do not care in the least whether we have extensive or minimal coverage in not just MMA specifically, but sports in general. I only care to the extent that what is said involves the encyclopedia as a whole, about which I very much care, and therefore I can only make some general comments that I think apply to all areas.

1. Intrinsic notability. I think this concept is very important, and I do not agree that it is overwhelmingly rejected. It is true that it is not much in favor here these days as an explicit and direct statement of inclusion, and I think that very unfortunate, because the availability and the significance of sources varies so much in different areas. But I think we all actually use it in judgment, whether or not we are consciously aware of it: we use it to affect the nature of the sources we are willing to consider as showing notability according to the GNG. In areas where we personally favor wide notability, we are relatively accepting of sources, and just the opposite otherwise. It helps of course if the sources are intrinsically strong--but even in areas where they are actually quite weak by formal if we generally think the area important and are familiar with the actual sources, we are likely to accept them. An example where we do is computer technology. Very strong sources can overcome any degree of unfamiliarity or disfavor or even prejudice. In practice this is an area where many of us do have some disfavor or prejudice, and that the sources are what we would normally consider rather weak makes it easy for us to reject very expansive notability based on them.

2.' General and special consensus We all want to keep the encyclopedia together, and have some degree of consistency across fields. This means that the community in general must be willing to accept the result that the specialists adopt. This is influenced to a considerable degree by how reasonable we think the specialists are, the degree to which we accept their expertise, and the degree to which their result is congruent with our admittedly less knowledgable but unavoidable intuitive judgment. Everyone has different interests; everyone has areas they would like to see covered particularly well, so I think we understand that people will only tolerate what to them might seem our excessively detailed coverage if we also accept their concerns for coverage in their field. The limit on this is our overall feeling of reasonableness. There's a tendency to judge that people who are making a exceptionally strong push in a special field are not being reasonable, and that people willing to compromise are. Those unwilling to compromise here tend to lose arguments. that's understandable--we can all judge general human behavior: we can tell when someone is extraordinarily devoted to something, even if we don't know much about what it is they are devoted to. The behavior of fans and advocates is characteristic across all fields, and we've learned to recognize it. People who try to get their way by pushing too hard find their cause disapproved of.

3. Combination articles. Combination articles using summary style are a very good thing, and not in any sense an end run around notablity, but a recognition, first, that there are degree of notability , second, that things not presently notable may become so, and third that although it may be technically possible to make something relatively minor an article, it may not be reasonable to do so. Thge artic;e vs/ nonarticle distinction is drastic and artificial. encyclopedias have always had both long and short articles, and it has always been common in them to group things which might equally have been written about separately, or alternatively to separate things that might equally well have been combined. This is all the more so with hypertext. There is no inherent impossibility is having the encyclopedia display as long articles, or each section displaying as a separate article, though it would require some restructuring of how we did introductions and tables of contents. The emphasis on a separate article is not relevant here, for people will find the information equally well either way.

4. Depth of treatment But in combination articles, or in separate articles, subjects can be treated in greater or lesser epth. To some extent this depends on interest, for we have no firm policies here. WP:N does not apply to article contents, where the criterion is relevance and reasonable coverage. We could conceivably have a play by play account of an event, or a scene by scene account of a show, but the rational view is that in an encyclopedia only the very most important games or shows would have such accounts. There is a problem here, that we have no good way of judging content disputes. I therefore have often supported separate articles in fields where I know certain editors will have a tendency to gradually decrease the coverage if combined. Not that anything can absolutely keep an article from getting whittled down also, but having a separate article makes it more conspicuous & easier to defend. .

5. Table format I really dislike table format as we do it, for all circumstances where more than a sentence is needed., A structured article with a good table of contents and use of subheadings is much more readable. Others may prefer differently, and to some extent it depends upon the purpose: whether study, or scanning, and on individual reading style and computer facilities. (I would much prefer tabular format if we did it without visible dividing lines, but such is not our usual style. though browsers could accommodate it.) We have the potential to have this variable also, but it will be a while until the software is redesigned with that degree of flexibility.

6. Inclusionism My own bias, as is I think well known, is to defend the greatest reasonable depth of inclusion and content. The only objection against very large printed encyclopedias was their physical bulk & corresponding cost, and this is of no concern at all to us here. The main true constraint is the fear of looking ridiculous in front of the world in general: our extreme depth in some areas has from the start attracted unfavorable attention. In some areas, there is also the problem of commercialism and promotionalism, if we have too many small articles on insignificant things. There is also the consideration that to the extent we have articles on the utterly insignificant, it degrades the importance of the truly significant.

It's my advice that where there is no fundamental ethical principle at stake, it is almost always foolish not to compromise; but on the other hand, it can be dangerous to give in to apparently bullying.

I would support the extreme detail proposed here on MMA only if we treated other topics similarly, and I think this unlikely. I think I have now said all I usefully can say. DGG ( talk ) 23:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on a deadline with a printed encycolpedia. DGG has summed up my feelings in this matter better than I ever could. I embrace his insights. I also think the content of MMA on WP has been a bone of contention for quite some time. I believe a harmonious compromise is possible and people who want more inclusion of MMA do not need to lose everything. There are solutions but civility is the only way to communicate. Factseducado (talk) 00:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, I agree with DGG, whom I've long considered a mentor. I am glad Agent asked him here. I had asked DGG previously to participate in the MMA discussion on a different issues some time ago, and he was gracious enough to comply. I know this is well outside of his standard editing fare, so I appreciate the work required to give a considerable opinion. While this doesn't address the issues of conduct, I think he sums up the goals of the encyclopedia nicely. The rub, of course, is finding a way to treat MMA the same as other sports in a neutral and objective manner, while still allowing for the unique differences in the sport, something I have always supported As I won't be participating, I hope the participants take the time to read his statement in its entirety to heart, and use it as part of the process. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, I'm glad you found the time to provide valuable detailed commentary. I'm perhaps more happy that your thoughts on matter, even if is probably coincidental, largely correlate with what I've been trying to express (poorly) on this topic for the last couple weeks. It would be great if your more tempered views can be used as a basis for moving forward toward a solution all parties can accept.

The only area I feel any need to discuss further is the last phrase "only if we treated other topics similarly, and I think this unlikely". If you would cast your gaze at this new AfD, it's apparent that MMA is not the only sport with already similar event sets. This type of organization is common for burgeoning new entrants in addition to traditional ones like tennis, horse racing (see annual Derby results), and many others.

From JJB's example, it's clear that sports are also far from the only category which share the same potential quagmire should someone be diligent enough to file the AfDs. I can't speak for everyone, but it's my last wish for what's come over MMA in the months prior to spread across wiki, and I think what happens here might be important in ways that extend beyond immediate borders. Within sports, the contagion has been somewhat mitigated with special "inherent" exceptions crafted for extremely popular team sports, and perhaps a similar solution might work for the here and now, but it may in the greater interest of all to seek a broader consensus. Thanks. Agent00f (talk) 21:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am unclear if DGG believes it is unlikely, extremely unlikely, or almost impossible to imagine. Sometimes people write things nicely to let people down easy. I'm not sure if that's why he wrote unlikely. Perhaps it's unlikely but entirely possible, perhaps not.

I agree this sort of deletion centered controversy could spread to all kinds of areas. The AfD area at WP is so backed up that there's Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting with volunteers trying to help. DGG probably either knows or has ideas as to why this has gotten to this state. Maybe almost all of the articles that are nominated for deletion should be deleted according to policies. Even so, DGG indicates a number of reasons policies cannot always be enforced the same way. At the moment MMA fans are unhappy about a large set of deletions. If a resolution can't be constructively arrived at there, then what about the other large number of articles in so many categories eligible for deletion. That's why MEDCAB looks like an option to me. Plenty of people have not acted their best selves involving the MMA issue. If it can happen there, it could happen other places. If a solution can be forged there, it could be a prototype for solutions in potential future places. I am also interested in your idea about seeking a broader consensus. Anything but the status quo is worth a shot. Factseducado (talk) 22:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Factseducado's participation[edit]

This discussion is irrelevant to the substance of this RfC/U, and should have started on an user talk page rather than this page. Collapsed accordingly.

I have certainly not discouraged anyone from contributing to these pages other than Agent00f. I am ready to bring in an outside, univolved opinion. Lack of good faith involving me is above and beyond on this project page and talk page. Who's attention does my this now need to be brought to? Factseducado (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a question of people not assuming good faith about your contributions, or is this a question your lack of competence when editing at this RfC/U? Or do you just lack attention to detail? Which part of "Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page" did/do you fail to understand? The rule came into place, particularly so that users are not discouraged from commenting, and will avoid treating this step in dispute resolution indifferently to a plain noticeboard discussion (which, evidence indicates has led to no particularly useful outcome so far in relation to this particular matter). Given that you clearly don't lack the capacity to make edits to this talk page or an user talk page, and given that you can see that comments have already been moved from the main page to the talk page (example above) & others are managing to follow the rules without a hitch (example above), it is but a wonder that you still actively made this edit which fails to comply with the relevant reminder & rule - so, again, unless you intend on discouraging others from providing input, please stop leaving behind this sort of thing to clean up. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ncmvocalist, you have moved my comment and I have not moved it back though your comment above seems to be accusing me of that. It's time for an outside opinion. I'll contact a few people so they can figure out the sequence of events to everyone's satisfaction.Factseducado (talk) 17:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And it seems you refuse to take responsibility for your editing by making foolish accusations about what others have said. What I clearly accused you of is making a comment in the main page despite many indications on the main page and talk page which suggest you should not have. Instead of making an assurance to avoid doing this again, or leaving it at that, you've repeatedly indicated on this page that you have little to no idea about how things work on Wikipedia. As I have noted/warned on your talk page here, this has now turned into a thread regarding your apparent conduct; please stop giving others a reason to be concerned about your participation. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hasteur has suggested these kinds of concerns belong on my talk page and I think he's right. Factseducado (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you do bring an outside uninvolved opinion, I will contest your outside/uninvolvedness as your hand holding of Agent on his talk page and being an apologist for him has quite firmly destroyed, in my mind, any uninvolvedness you may have possessed.Hasteur (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hasteur, I am communicating with people on WP. I did not state that I am not involved currently. I would like it if you would confirm that you can see I have not stated I am not involved currently. Also if you find any evidence that I have been in contact with any person who has commented here or on the project page, please share it because I'd really like to know if I have at any point run across any of the participants here. Obviously before this user RfC I have not made in comment in any area related to MMA. Struck because this all belongs on a user talk page. Factseducado (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ncmvocalist, if you'd like to change my section heading again, please discuss it with me here. Factseducado (talk) 16:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I am ready to bring in an outside, univolved opinion." At the very top of this section. Please reconsider how you would like to pirouette on the point of a needle as it's completely (at least in my mind) transparent in my mind that your Agenda is only to support Agent00f at any cost. Hasteur (talk) 13:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about these things belong on my talk page as you pointed out.Factseducado (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Facsteducado, you do not get to dictate how threads are titled on Wikipedia, and the fact that it has been changed once already is quite clear. You have been editing disruptively, and given that you are very clearly involved, I suggest you cease engaging in behavior which is likely lead to a block being imposed on your account. If it is not bad enough that you again failed to comply with RfC/U guidelines with the way in which you titled this section, it is even more alarming you fail to comply with talk page guidelines too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Factseducado, I would point out this post on my talk page, where you said "Would you be willing to cool off for a day before you post more on his user RfC." [4]. I wasn't offended (or persuaded) in the least, but others might interpret it as you "intending to stop contributions". Again, it didn't bother me personally, but it does substantiate the claim, and others have a right to take note of it, or take exception with it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:18, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis, you have taken that out of context in a way that misrepresents our lengthy discussion. I have asked you not to write that I have done things or written things which I have not done or written. You did not correct yourself after it was pointed out to you yesterday. I would like your official mentor and DGG to provide feedback. Factseducado (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC) Struck because this all belongs on a user talk page.Factseducado (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I provided a direct quote and a diff, and the entire discussion is still on my talk page. There is no possible way to provide more context than that. Factseducado, you have already threatened us with what looks like meatpuppetry above [5], and you are now bludgeoning the process to the degree that it has spun completely off topic. You are welcome to solicit an outside admin to come here, but I don't think you are going to like what they have to say. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:13, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis, are you saying that you are unwilling to extend good faith to me? I see no relationship between talking to our local NAMI executive and meatpuppetry. A letter writing campaign is usually how the disability rights and NAMI organizers here begin to tackle stigmatization in an entity as large as WP. You must be reflecting the consensus of WP administrators so it's obvious WP is behind in reducing the stigmatization of people with mental illness. I'm sure community consensus will move in a more enlightened direction but sadly your interest in defending association opponents in dialog with people with mental illnesses demonstrates that there is a lot of work to be done. This is a problem for WP and I'm sure attitudes will change over time. I am sorry you don't seem to feel this user RfC is going well. I think attributing it to me is an assumption of bad faith. You were very unhappy with Agent00f before this user RfC began. You said you really wanted a harsh sanction from the beginning and held off on expressing it. I think JJB, DGG, and I have provided feedback and insights but none of us decided to endorse the views here you endorsed.Factseducado (talk) 18:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC) Struck because this all belongs on a user talk page.[reply]

Factseducado, there is no doubt in my mind that your intentions are in good faith. I need to point out to you that you are free to obtain outside opinion relative to this RFC/U, but you must not solicit outside opinion who then come to this RFC/U supporting your assertions. This is the very definition of meatpuppetry. I believe that this is what Dennis is pointing out to you. Blackmane (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Factseducado, are intending to solicit people on Wikipedia? If so, you can't. I once started an RfC/U on someone, and then gave neutral announcements to a number of people who had interacted with that user before (both positively and negatively). I was told in no uncertain terms that based on the rules of RFC/U and WP:CANVAS, it is impossible to recruit people, with the possible exception of those who had, for example, commented on a previous ANI or something like that. If you are intending on notifying people outside of Wikipedia, and they actually come, I will find a neutral admin to collapse/remove every single one of those comments, and then strongly recommend that you be blocked. Recruiting people from offsite is simply not allowed; if you just get them to come, it's canvassing; if you tell them ahead of time what position to take, it's meatpuppetry. I'm sorry I have to be the "bad cop" on this RFC/U, but since the MMA field already has a terrible track record of outside canvassing in ways that ruins discussions, I want to be clear before it starts that you cannot do this. Wikipedia is a privately owned website. It has its own rules about user behavior and how to edit articles. Anyone is allowed to edit, but only insofar as they agree to follow those rules. If you wish to start a letter writing campaign, feel free to do so, but you'll have to stop editing Wikipedia at the same time, per the rationale in WP:NLT (use of off-wiki threats to influence on-wiki events). Qwyrxian (talk) 01:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody I know in real life is interested in WP, MMA, or anything related. I have discussed matters of concern to me here on WP in accordance with policy guidelines. There has been no canvassing by me on any topic ever. As I have repeatedly explained I have spoken to my friend who is the current executive director of our local NAMI. The idea that she or any other mental health or disability advocate would actually want to talk to the people holding such a view is absurd. The idea that any mental health or disability advocate would want to create an account to discuss such topics is even more absurd. No useful change has ever been accomplished in such a way. The concerns she and I share regard WP's policy to allow associating people a WP user is not agreeing with to people with mental illness is a very serious problem. Please read the comments I have written on that subject.Factseducado (talk) 02:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)Struck because this all belongs on a user talk page. Factseducado (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, Factseducado, maybe I'm just confused, and if so, my apologies. Above, you raised the possibility of NAMI starting a letter writing campaign to Wikipedia regarding their treatment of people with mental health issues. First, I don't understand why mental health issues have anything to do with this--does someone involved in this discussion have a self-declared mental health issue? Or did one editor (unfairly) claim that another editor did? Second, whether or not that is actually an issue, your statement about a letter writing campaign seems designed to pressure someone to change their editing behavior based upon the threat of outside intervention on WP. Was that not what you meant? If so, why did you raise the letter writing issue? Qwyrxian (talk) 13:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Qwyrxian, you were confused and I can see why. Thanks for apologizing. Comments about these things belong on my talk page as Hasteur pointed out so I won't explain anything further here.Factseducado (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC) Struck because this all belongs on a user talk page. Factseducado (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His statement [6] said he was consulting outside forces to change something on Wikipedia. It doesn't matter if they would participate at this RFC/U or another venue, as WP:MEATPUPPET says " While Wikipedia assumes good faith, especially for new users, recruiting new editors to influence decisions on Wikipedia is prohibited.". "Calling in the troops", even to start a new unrelated discussion about policy, is prohibited. It isn't required that they join this discussion to qualify under the policy. I was was trying to warn him that his words seemed to indicate an intent to violate the policy here, one that he was likely not aware of. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis, comments about these things belong on my talk page as Hasteur pointed out.Factseducado (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ncmvocalist, I have already asked you to discuss changing the title of this section. It began as a reply by me to you. My comment at the top here addresses that. The current title is not neutral and makes it difficult for readers to see the chronology of events and flow of the conversation.

Ncmvocalist, There is no reason not to create a section devoted to your interest in discussion my participation here and anyone else who wants to discuss that. Again I believe you are refusing to follow the policy of not biting a new editor. JJB has already mentioned you in that regard in his comment in this user RFC/U.

Ncmvocalist, I am wondering why you have been changing the times of your entries. I think that makes it difficult to follow the chronology of events.

I didn't move the comments by Hasteur of Qyrixian [sic] because they seemed to be following the flow of the conversation in the thread above. Factseducado (talk) 14:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For a start, this was the inappropriate venue to make a reply to me when I am clearly not participating in the substance of this RfC/U. In fact, with the exception of you, every other editor who has commented in this section has made comments regarding your participation at this RfC/U; perhaps you could answer the simple question of which editor in this section other than you has made any reply to me to date? If I do have an interest in discussing your participation, it would be regarding your repeated failure to follow guidelines - and even that discussion should occur elsewhere. New editors tend to be willing to learn from users more experienced than themselves about how Wikipedia works; you, on the other hand, have constantly breached policy and guidelines despite being asked not to. By making this section, you have managed to change the focus of the RfC/U from Agent00f's conduct to your participation, and sadly, you have taken few steps (if any) to rectify it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JJB replied to you in another section. If you are unhappy with that then ask him to move his reply or move it for him. Your behavior has been discussed at this RfC/U even if it isn't in the section you would prefer. Ncmvocalist, your comments to me belong on my talk page not here. Factseducado (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be offended if, as an objective outsider, you chose to collapse this section. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows how to collapse a section if that's what you say is appropriate as an adminstrator, Dennis?Factseducado (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you; now that it has been said, I am trusting others will not either. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Factseducado, stop taking offense at every little potential error. Your actions seem to suggest that you are disrupting the conversation to make a point. Want to prove me wrong? Stop exhibiting the behavior. Please stop taking shielding behind WP:BITE. Your actions and familiarity with certain interpertations of policy (and the fact that you've been here since April 23rd) suggest that thw window of Newbie-ism has already closed

Ncmvocalist, BRD. You made a bold action, they reverted, now it's time to civily discuss it on their/your talk page. Hasteur (talk) 15:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hasteur I think you're right. These topics should be discussed on a user talk page. I wonder if anyone knows how to strike comments? I don't imagine they are supposed to be deleted here. Factseducado (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just went through this to strike a number of my comments the way Hasteur explained but only one is showing up struck. Obviously I don't know why. Factseducado (talk) 16:09, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2004 Estoril Open[edit]

I have absolutely no idea on what is going on here, and I do not want to take any sides, just a remark that at this page (which I found looking at AfD nominations) a list of active users has a strong correlation with the list of users active on this RfC. I am afraid some of them may forget that Wikipedia is not a battleground, and the fate of the article on this innocent tennis competition somehow would depend on the current positional successes of the sides. I am not sure what I could do to avoid this, just wanted to bring this into attention.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Short version: Some of the MMA supporters argued that because the above mentioned AfD is currently existing in Wikipedia, their event articles should exisist as well (a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument). Previous attempts by the supporters to get articles in other spaces deleted, in Scorched earth style, have been closed rightly as WP:POINT violations. That Mtking has fired an opening salvo without giving the tennis community time to respond to maintanance tags is highly disruptive, to the point that we're supposed to give an opportunity to fix issues. Hasteur (talk) 15:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the summary. I am on neither side, not even a tennis fan or whatever. What would be the best way to feed this info to the AfD discussion page so that the closing admin would notice it, given that I already voted over there?--Ymblanter (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the correct way is to provide a Comment statement and point a link or a diff to the content you want the closing admin to look at (Assuming that the admin will look at it). Hasteur (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen your comment on the AfD page, thanks again.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The comments on the AfD are clear enough themselves, and conflating the MMA mess into them is largely unnecessary. A couple of people felt it might best to hold off immediate decisions if there's going to be a MEBCAB against the broader issue of "enduring significance" in sports event articles, which seems reasonable enough. They're contingent on existence of that MEDCAB because otherwise they are baseless per OTHERSTUFF as Hasteur mentioned. It's also worth clarifying again that Mtking is not an "MMA supporter", but rather just someone who's nominated many of the same sort of articles in the past, thus there's no relation to the OTHER POINTy-ness from the Hasteur's first couple sentences. Agent00f (talk) 17:29, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am appalled that the current behavior has been allowed to continue to the detriment of WP, but[THIS] Takes the cake. To call the AfD pointy, when it has NOTHING to do with this conversation to the MMA discussions. I'm disappointed in the good editors who jumped on that band wagon. How does stalking MTKingsother work, and trying to turn it into a battleground by referencing a user RfC and a completely different topic, and not being short term blocked....~~Well,my faith in our admins is less than solid.~~ Regardless of anything that has happened here, Agent stalking MTKing is a prime example of his behavior that we have been discussing here. Now it's descended into Portillo posting obviously false offsite info, and socks popping up spreading the false infoNewmanoconnor (talk) 23:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to Hasteur's Proposal[edit]

Facts, because Agent hasn't explicitly come out to agree with all of the assertions above nor has he directly made any assertions about remedying the concerns (at least as far as I know) we'll use the Argumentum ad GlenBeck-ium (as evidenced by a satire of his arguments) to make the assumption. Your attempts to keep Agent under wraps have been very good at not giving more evidence to the body already existing, however he has still not made any contributions to article (or article talk) space. All your campaign to be the intercessor for Agent00f is slow down the process, a hallmark of the "polite disruption" campaign. Hasteur (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I need to prioritize what's to be done, and these continuous waves of personal indictments seem to take immediate priority per Qwyrxian above. I've already answered as to why I've hesitated to risk bringing this problem to other parts of wiki, as you've seen and replied to on my talk page. Regardless, I've already written out most of the ideas/text for various petite subject additions, but need to work on sourcing next week since there will be esp. strict eyes on it. Anything more would be complete unreasonable demand on my time.

Frankly, this for the most part has been a conflict between two parties to a content dispute, but greatly exaggerated and forced onto a larger stage for even more to pick sides. I would agree with Drmies' view that it's been a giant waste of time as far as wiki material visible to outside world is concerned (though the negative result is that MMA entries are now a mess), but disagree that the solution is to start nuking parties that weren't responsible for starting RfC's after ANIs after AfDs and so on for many months. Agent00f (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@JJB's response The difference between OCD and Stockholm Syndrome is that OCD is classified as a mental illness in the DSM-V and here on Wikipedia. Please cite where I objected to being labeled OCD with the grounds that mental illness is a problem. What I have proposed is a valid outcome of an RfC/U. There are 3 basic outcomes that an RfC/U can have: 1. The subject can agree to the points and solutions raised against them 2. The subject can disagree with all the points and solutions and nothing happens with the RfC/U or 3. The subject and certifies come to some sort of compromise on the issues raised. The proposal I made is the second outcome. It's in Agent's interest of continuing to collaboratively edit Wikipedia to either take outcome 1 or 3. Outcome 2 seems to be the route we're headed towards, so I made the proposal as a foregone conclusion. We can then close this phase of dispute resolution out, seperate the notability discussions from the conduct problem, and take the conduct problem to the supreme court of Wikipedia. Hasteur (talk) 18:27, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's the acronym I wanted to remember, DSM-V. Hasteur, DSM-V gives you no excuse to compare me to a syndromized hostage. I may only have to say this once outright: your level of throwing barbs at people you disagree with, including those who come in open-minded but decide to favor the !wrong !side, is at least equal to what you've shown Agent00f's level to be, as diffs would support in my judgment. Verbum sat.

Your justifying your proposal in the "solution" section is not much better. OK, I see that escalating nonconstructive responses is technically a possible outcome that should not be an "initial goal"; I dispute the idea that such an outcome is a "solution" or should be a later "goal" either. Your admitting it to be a form of satire (or whatever your Beck reference meant) is admitting you're trying to make a WP:POINT rather than propose a sincere solution. Agent00f has already agreed to some of the charges and solutions, and made behavior changes, so your proposal (at (2)) is also logically impossible. If you want to work toward resolution, why don't we work on the stalled mentor proposal and answer Agent00f's question about how we should find an agreeable one? Then, as to conduct, you can dispassionately list whatever steps are necessary for any additional reparations (such as additional striking), and you've got your (3) compromise. JJB 19:04, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

This page is only allowed to discuss Agent00f's conduct. All parties who have discussed or do discuss any other topic will have to be reported. I know I did it, JJB did it, and DGG did it. Who else will need to come strike through or delete their remarks? If all the parties who violated this rule do not strike or delete their comments I will have to bring the problem to the the noticeboard that pertains to such violations. Also, you guys do know the DSM-V is in the proposal stage and is actively soliciting public feedback right? Also it does not cover all mental disorders and that is not its purpose. Please enroll in the pre-requisite psychology classes at a university until you are finally allowed to study Abnormal Psychology which I have taught at the college-level.Factseducado (talk) 20:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- If I weren't a party to this, I would find all of this quite amusing. Those of you bogged in minutia might try giving this a read [7]. I've given up explaining to those who can't debate properly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this giant ad hom would be quite amusing if only I didn't have to waste time on the peaks arguing against it. I've also given up explaining what argument from authority, begging the question, and ad hom means. Agent00f (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Factseducado seems to have quit wiki entirely due to harassment. This is very frustrating. Many editors in the past who just happen to hold the "wrong" opinion on this content issue have been driven past the point of leaving. Factseducado has been extremely polite and shown incredible resilience in the face of an onslaught of undue criticism, but even he/she seems to have been pushed to breaking point. This history of shameful results only continues while higher authorities only seem focused on why these "wrong" people are so terrible. Agent00f (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just point out that over the last several months both sides of the content issue have been harassed, outed, and attacked on and off wiki. It's unfortunate for it to happen to anyone, regardless of their point of view. --TreyGeek (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it appears everyone is already aware how terrible the AfD nominators's lives have been. I'd just like to point out that moving beyond the specifics of alleged crimes, they still seem to be standing perfectly fine if not launching new processes like this every few days, while there's ironically no regular subject contributors left on the subject content at hand from the dozens who started. Now that this is starting for Tennis and who knows what else, I guess we'll see if other sports editors stack up any better. Agent00f (talk) 21:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be a pisser, but you do realize that I had been able to prevent most of the AFDs, I had pleaded at ANIs, literally prostrated myself to convince people to withdraw them? And had been successful most of the time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume Dennis' comment must be on-topic and in the correct spot because he is an administrator. I think it's a pity that Dennis's self-described generosity in devoting his time to MMANOT topic resulted in his leaving all due to Agent00f who ruined Dennis and many other editor's months of progress. I don't think Dennis has erased those comments from his talk page, collapsed them, or archived them at this point. Also I think it's a shame that Dennis felt he had to remove himself from the discussion of MMANOT because he felt he lost his objectivity. At one point in his archived talk page comments he described having felt in the past like he wanted to reach through his computer and strangle someone he was unhappy with here at WP. Dennis has described himself as in dialog on his talk page as being biased against Agent00f. I was shocked when he wrote he was biased but I assume it's true because Dennis applied the term to himself though I'd made no direct or indirect statements to that effect. I'm glad that Dennis pointed out to me himself his stellar reputation for tolerance here at WP. I am sure DGG, Dennis' self-described unofficial mentor, is proud of how Dennis has handled each choice he has made as an administrator at this RfC/U. All of Dennis' behavior is a credit to the project of building an encyclopedia and clearly lives up to the trust the community has placed in him as an administrator. I can't imagine why anyone at his RfA took issue with his relative lack of contributions to articles and strong interest in disputes involving conduct at AN/I. As Dennis himself pointed out I believe in an archived portion of his talk page, everyone has different skill sets to bring to WP. As Dennis went on to point out, his strengths at WP are in handling disputes rather than building articles.Factseducado (talk) 22:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Factseducado might have felt harassed, but he wasn't. His conversations with me before the "uproar" are on my talk page and clearly show an unusually high sensitivity to anything that approaches criticism. If anything, the conversations at this RFC/U pale in comparison to the heat at MMA and other venues. I hate it for him, but he has his own demons and just can't deal with a contentious place. Many people can't deal with the notice boards, which can be rough and tumble, even when well within behavior norms. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Dennis, I have pointed out to you in the past at this RfC/U that you have not been accurate in representing things regarding me. I have also asked you before to acknowledge that you see you have not written something accurate about me. In the dialog on your user talk page I had to repeatedly reassure you that I was not criticizing you or making a complaint about you. I don't think you were ever able to understand it was never about you.
  - What actually happened today is that someone who has commented on this topic (not Agent00f) contacted me by e-mail. After I responded my e-mail account was used to harass me in real life including a threat about contacting my employer to spread libel about me. As TreyGeek alluded to I was outed.
  - I urge you to refrain from making comments about me at this RfC/U, Dennis. It is a violation of the purpose of this RfC/U to discuss anything besides Agent00f's behavior. I hope DGG has been able to touch base with you about the other area you and I don't see eye to eye on. I realize what a close relationship you have with him since you have called him your unofficial mentor. It's reassuring to know that you value putting the needs of building the encyclopedia above all else here on WP.Factseducado (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Either you're exercising the Right to Vanish or you're not. RTV means never editing again. I was under the impression that your blanking and the post to JJB's talk page were quite clear. Your non-response ever will constitute an acceptance of the RTV, otherwise we can go ahead and restore your pages. Hasteur (talk) 22:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm waiting to hear what will happen as a response to my e-mail. I think you should go let Snowold, Ncmvocalist, and a number of others know about your concerns, Hasteur.Factseducado (talk) 22:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Everything besides the first two comments in this section should be collapsed and struck out because it is irrelevant to the substance of this RfC/U. As a matter of fact a number of other areas are also irrelevant. DGG's comment does not address the substance of this RfC/U in any way. JJB's ideas about fixing the MMA content issues is entirely off topic. I thin an uninvolved administrator should collapse all of that discussion as well.Factseducado (talk) 23:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Either exercise your Right to Vanish or don't. Hasteur is generally correct, as talk pages may NOT be deleted except for redaction of individual diffs, or in a RTV case. You aren't giving people much of a choice but to ask the deleting admin, Anthony Bradbury, who is bound my policy to restore your talk page if you do not exercise the right, demonstrated by discontinuing participation. I may not know much, but I'm quite versed in Wikipedia policy. If you are going to vanish, please do. If you are not, then request your talk page be restored as a good faith measure, and to prevent anyone else from having to do the same. Which you choose is not my concern, only that you choose one. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am still waiting for a response to my e-mail. I've written that multiple times so I don't know why you are unable to read it. Meanwhile Hasteur is striking comments I've made here and in many other spots not vaguely related to Agent00f though I have asked him to stop. I have repeatedly asked you, Dennis, to acknowledge when you have written multiple statements regarding me that are false but you continued to write even more. Frankly Dennis I am pretty sure it was through you that I have been outed and harassed through my e-mail. If you want to go notify someone of something, do it. 00:07, 21 May 2012 (UTC)Factseducado (talk) 00:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Congrats, you posted as an IP, which IS easy traceable to the city you live using only google, and is partially outing yourself. Utterly brilliant. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I feel you are intimidating me by stating that you can trace me to my hometown, Dennis. Going back weeks repeatedly I have been logged out for no reason known to me. I then go back and identify that I wrote the comment because that seems honest and sensible.Factseducado (talk) 01:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - At this point, your feelings are not my top priority, as you have made claims that I have outed you, which is unfounded and untrue. Anyone can go to http://www.ip-adress.com or one of 100 other websites and enter an ip address and it will give a general geolocation of any IP address. Geolocations of IP addresses are public domain. Most everyone already knows this, even if you didn't. When you post as an IP, you are broadcasting your general location. Personally, I never bothered trying to hide my location, it is common knowledge and obvious from my edits anyway. If you were trying to hide yours, your lack of understanding how the internet works did you in. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I do suspect it was you, Dennis. Your use of the phrase "did you in" is menacing to me given the content of those e-mails. Factseducado (talk) 02:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked the admin who deleted your user and talk pages to undelete until your RTV goes through since you seem to be missing the entire point of RTV. Hasteur (talk) 02:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still busy striking my comments against my repeatedly expressed wished, Hasteur? Obviously it's allowed.Factseducado (talk) 02:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Forward the emails with full email headers as well as any other evidence to ArbCom, and cease your attacks against my character. If I have not received confirmation from ArbCom within 24 hours, I will be forced to report you instead. I have no problem providing ArbCom with any and all information they request, even private data. Failure to do so will result in action being sought against you. You have tried my patience and have successfully found it's limit. If you are going to continually claim I have threatened to out you, then you need to put up, or shut up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I suspect you, Dennis. I insist you file whatever is fileable in each and every place possible and that you do it now. There is no reason to wait and you will not be getting satisfaction on your ultimatum. I insist file now. Factseducado (talk) 02:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I've contacted a member of ArbCom and asked for guidance. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 02:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I didn't know that user was part of ArbCom. That's great because I have confessed on his or her page to sockpuppetry an meatpuppetry of enormous proportions. I have also confessed to forum shopping, canvassing, and knowingly commenting as an IP. I have requested a permanent block against me and a wide range of IP addresses to end my sockpuppeting and meatpuppeting.Factseducado (talk) 03:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the details of this case, but could reflect that upholding every detail up to the cornucopia of wiki standards can be very annoying if not frustrating to anyone hasn't absorbed the culture over a long period of time. I suspect this is why the BITEing rule was created. Agent00f (talk) 10:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BITE is focused only article creation, not the noticeboards. If you participate at noticeboards, particularly if you are not named as the subject and only entering to comment, then you are expected to be familiar with the norms. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 10:36, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that comment makes for a pretty good justification for the spirit behind the rule. An editor tries to help and gets gorged without much of the warning it contains. Agent00f (talk) 10:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Factseducado has been permanently blocked for multiple instances of sockpuppetry by Elen of the Roads. Not that most of us are surprised. He was neither as innocent as he claimed, nor as clever as he thought. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 12:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please get some verification that this was actually verified "multiple instances of sockpuppetry", and not the self-indicting "testimony" of 50 or 100 instance in an apparent attempt at suicide by cop on Elen of the Roads's talk page? From what I can gather/imply from a couple of emails from Factseducado, s/he seemed like an older individual largely uninterested in MMA per se and only seemed to get involved because of seeming unequal balance of viewpoints in this topic. This is also entirely consistent with the contrib history on that account. It would be downright bizarre for someone to make hundreds of long and genuine edits on Theosophy topics, etc, only to "cleverly" disguise their prior participation in MMA. Agent00f (talk) 18:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No one has accused Factseducado of being clever. Your version of the motivations and timeline is only one of several possibilities, most of which are considerably more interesting. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:38, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMO more interesting doesn't necessarily mean more likely. A user who undeniably makes 10k's of characters of previous contributions to content and discussion about theological philosophy, as well as demonstrates inside insight into DSM-V, and who's made no arguments about the topic details of the sport ever seems worlds away from what you apparently imply. I can provide those emails to Elen of the Roads (or ARBCOM) if s/he wishes to consider further evidence. Agent00f (talk) 18:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't linked here earlier, but there's a direct related SPI against me initiated by Dennis. Additional relevant comment here, incl by several editor present on this page. I've only learned of this quite after the fact. Agent00f (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since Dennis feels that the issue of character is important for participants here (also expressed at link just above), allow me to relate my experience with Factseducado's since it's being attacked as a result of involvement in the wrong end of this affair. After I offered some technical assistance after the thread above since she didn't seem to be adept with technology, it was relayed to me that she privately felt MMA shouldn't be allowed in the US. This is obviously something we disagree on, yet her fundamental sense of responsibility to help calm down an unbalanced situation triumphs over any personal opinions in this matter. Her contribs here and at MMANOT only show a consistent desire to take the contentious issue to MEDCAB or other moderated forum. If we're bringing questions of principled moral character to this discussion, it's shameful that a person of such high caliber was driven off wiki. Agent00f (talk) 20:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to close[edit]

I think this has gone on long enough. I see no reason to amend my "view", which was recently subscribed to by two more seasoned and (as far as I can tell) uninvolved editors in good standing. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing tells me that two ways to close an RfC are "The dispute proceeds to another method of dispute resolution, such as mediation or arbitration" and "The parties and/or participants to the dispute agree (via a motion on the talk page of that RfC/U)." This is the motion, I guess, though I can't tell if this has to be agreed upon via majority !vote or otherwise; I am also going to place a notice on WP:AN to ask for advice, input, and/or closure (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Another_request_for_closure). To reiterate: my "view" is that there will be no end to this RfC based on the conduct of the editor and that at this moment an indef block is the proper conclusion (echoing this comment by User:DGG). Yes, "at this moment"--Wikipedia:Standard offer always applies, though it's very early for that. Drmies (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Close, indef block. Drmies (talk) 15:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse move to close, support block. Blackmane (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse This RfC/U has served it's purpose, though I would say that the solution should be to proceed immediateley to ArbCom as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BigzMMA,Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive233#Request for Sanctions against User:BigzMMA, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive744#Topic ban from MMA articles of Mtking,Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive751#More disruption involving MMA,Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive235#Sanctions on MMA articles have demonstrated the Admin corps and community are not willing to step in and drain the swamp that is MMA. The ArbCom powered back hoe is the only solution at this point to get the topic space back on track. Hasteur (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Close,Collapse all not related to conduct,indef block(or topic ban)I would tend to agree with Hasteur about Arbcom,though we were making progress before all the fillibustering, and I think there are some mew ideas we could incorporate, so I wouldn't be oppossed to trying one last time to just get the gang working on restructuring. but defer to DGG,Drmies,Dennis,and Elen of Roads.As far as Arbcom goes.. Newmanoconnor (talk) 19:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse It's clear as crystal that this editor is not here to build an encyclopedia but rather is here to disrupt process as much as possible. There have been outrageously ridiculous sideshows at this RFC/U: rhetorical games, logical rabbit holes, semantic diversions, and even an IDHT, wikilawyering, persecutory-delusional account (Factseducado). Agent00f has exactly two edits to article namespace but has wasted countless hours of discussion. This should be a case study in how to create a massive dispute in the back corridors of the encyclopedia without actually improving any pages in any measurable fashion. Chillllls (talk) 04:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closing of the RFC/U and forwarding to the appropriate group for final resolution (whatever that may be). It appears that Agent00f is not going to be satisfied until people agree with their POV since they have taken their arguments to additional forums (WT:NSPORTS, WT:LENGTH, and WT:SUMMARY) with not a lot of success it seems to me. Their communications thus far with the potential mentors listed in RFC/U appears, to me, that they are interested in having the mentors to back up thier POV and not for the broader conduct issues and lack of Wikipedia constructiveness that has been addressed throughout this RFC/U. I don't see how keeping this RFC/U open is going to be of any benefit. --TreyGeek (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TreyGeek, I have respected your input, but this having "taken their arguments to additional forums" is actually having quietly joined in valid discussions initiated by others (Kykykykykyky at NSPORTS, me on the other two). These valid discussions are an appropriate offshoot of the MMA content nonresolution and their success should not be judged in situ. I must also respectfully disagree with the characterization of interest in the mentors backing up Agent00f's POV or in avoiding conduct issues (especially when one mentor has said to wait a bit for more review), because I would expect the formalization of the relationship to include a repetition of the "content-judge" requirement that all are aware of. Finally, RFC/U is not closed by the editors all agreeing on indef block: it's closed by either inactivity, move to other DR, or agreement with the accused. If parties remain active, fail to properly begin other DR (e.g. agree to medcab), and fail to agree with the accused (e.g. agree on mentors), they are keeping the case open. JJB 19:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
A correction if I may, the discussion at WT:LENGTH was started by Dmcq. Looking through Trey's list, you only seem to have started at WT:SUMMARY. Agent00f (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC) Also, very amusingly, I only found the NSPORTS page after an editor from there was accused as my SOCK for expressing "similar" opinions on a different page (found to be completely unsubstantiated of course). Agent00f (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, is there really any need to start re-iterating here in yet another new thread what's already receiving sufficient on-going coverage on the main page? This only seems to encourage "no end to this RfC" by repeating what's already occurred. I don't know if Wikipedia:Standard offer is a reply to my request for additional proper steps for me to take what might satisfy any detractors, but it doesn't seem to fit the bill. Agent00f (talk) 18:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just following procedure to move to close. When another admin walks by and sees this, they may decide this is enough to close the RfC; without closure there will be no closure and the thing will just continue to be chatter about notability and voteblocks etc. I have no opinion on ArbCom and MMA matters. Drmies (talk) 19:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is that because the exact same existing topic of conversation but with more relevant details from all parties involved on the main page is insufficient for them to reach judgement? Reader can simply start from here for a summary of prior comments. Agent00f (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Chillllls: as much as I'd hate repeating the same conversation in different place, this is probably now the best place to reply. It's worth noting that the vast majority of time wasting here has been on these personal indictments where I'm essentially forced to defend myself. While I'm also of the mind that they don't move conversation forward substantively, there's apparently nothing I can do to prevent repetitive comments from piling up on them, often from people with little familiarity of the somewhat complex background. I've certainly asked for clear advice here and have followed any forthcoming, but many detractors offer nothing except more accusations on top of unsubstantiated accusations. For example, I could ask for any instances of "rhetorical games, logical rabbit holes, semantic diversions, and even an IDHT, wikilawyering", as I very much hate these myself compared to actual substance, and would work toward their elimination, but historically I've not gotten a response (IDHT).

As evidence that I've been doing what I can to rather save everyone's time and eliminate months of messy drama elsewhere, here's my last couple edits just before your comment: one, two. Without this, all 212 articles for just one of many promotions would be individually nominated (as a small portion slowly have over the prior months, which gradually built up to today), and require at least a two order of magnitude effort in voting and arguments over the optimal approach. Resolving it would also vastly improve the pages over the either missing or inconsistently formatted mess that exists now. The savings and improvement over the time-integral of both solutions (old and new) of just this one arbitrarily selected suggestion would dwarf what time has been lost on this RfC (which is not start by me, btw). So please help save time for a plurality of wiki editors by supporting the suggestion on the AfD page. Thanks. Agent00f (talk) 05:34, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm going to completely eliminate any possibility of erroneous interpretation of my comment; I should have realized that every declaration that does not completely mesh with your view of your contributions is an invitation to type a thousand characters of vacuum. You have not contributed in any substantive manner (I do not deem two edits significant) to article namespace, the part of the encyclopedia that's visible to the public. I have yet to see an uninvolved editor ("uninvolved" according to my definition, i.e. someone who wasn't off-wiki canvassed or someone who hasn't accused random admins of threatening their employers [cf. Factseducado (and wow, isn't it interesting how you completely sidestepped any further discussion of that account?)]) support your actions. RE: your AfD comments, they're practically incomprehensible if you don't know the context of the MMA discussions; I think the omission of a contextual sentence in such comments when you've been perfectly happy to be excessively verbose (my, what a redundancy) here is telling. This will be my last post in this RFC/U because I am convinced that you receive some personal gratification from requiring others to attempt to logically process your obstinate babbling. Your denial of IDHT with an IDHT statement is the cherry on top. If you are not indef blocked, I sincerely hope that I never encounter you again on the encyclopedia. Chillllls (talk) 06:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are several personal attacks and other baffling accusations in the statement above, and yet more time is wasted by iterating these:

"I have yet to see an uninvolved editor", if you look slightly more carefully (ie read the RfC), there are at least 3 barring the nonsense exclusions. The reality is that I haven't gone canvassing for likely sympathetic comments, as the nominator of the RfC has. Note that there are a number of unsolicited words of praise just on my talk page, yet I didn't feel the need to bandwagon supporters since I trust that wiki processes are not a vote and that just reason would prevail. I've also already expressed previously (and agreed with you) that these personal indictments away from real work are a waste of time, so dragging parties who don't need to be involved would be hypocritical. The only person I ever asked was DGG to comment on JJB's content proposal (the only item of substance to come out of this, btw), even when I didn't think the nominator on Dennis' RfA would necessarily help my case otherwise. Real work is important to me, and there's no assumption necessary here.
Speaking of the definition of "uninvolved", I only see a completely unsubstantiated claim that someone is off-wiki canvased, plus similar uninformed quip for what happened to Factseducado (who is obviously unrelated to this subject as anyone can tell by contrib history). There's a link above to the SPI (only the latest in a line) to explain this, and in interest of avoiding massive off-topic drama I'll spare everyone the off-wiki harassment that caused Factseducado to flip out above and drove her to stay away.
"RE: your AfD comments, they're practically incomprehensible if you don't know the context of the MMA discussions; I think the omission of a contextual sentence in such comments when you've been perfectly happy to be excessively verbose (my, what a redundancy) here is telling." They were made for the AfD audience, and not complex. I only assumed that those who came here were at least minimally familiar with what led to this mess. I also have no idea why you chose to ABF instead of simply asking what it meant: The history of the catastrophe in MMA is basically these same AfD's for same event format one after another over months wore everyone down and caused the present battle lines to be drawn. So by combining them all in one stroke as consistent with wiki policy, we try to resolve them together as one instead of dragging on for who knows how many years more to come.
"Your denial of IDHT with an IDHT statement is the cherry on top.". I asked for an explanation of those five charges in one sentence, I got this instead. I have no idea what I'm avoiding.
I'm also sorry that you can't comprehend what I write. In future cases of others which are hard to understand, it's best to ask questions to clarify communications before throwing accusations around. Agent00f (talk) 06:55, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not support the above proposal. Why? Because the rules for RFC/U explicitly state that RfC/U cannot "Impose/enforce involuntary sanctions, blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures". Any admin blocking Agent00f directly because of this RfC/U could be promptly undone without discussion because it would patently violate the rules for blocks. Now, that doesn't mean that an admin can't, say, block Agent00f the next time xe behaves badly, on the grounds that doing so prevents damage to the encyclopedia. You have to either take this back to ANI, or wait for a fresh incident of disruption. Note that in this case, "uninvolved admin" can include admins who have commented at this RfC (I think), so long as they haven't been involved in the dispute in other places. It is entirely possible that, upon seeing a solid, well-reasoned close by another admin, see that the community really is serious about its concerns, and thus modify his behavior. I even saw a reasonable comment from Agent00f on a discussion on MMA notability earlier today. But until we have evidence that Agent00f intends to carry on with the same disruptive behavior after the close of the RfCU, action cannot be taken. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to TreyGeek: The relevant conversation for the broader policy issues between the same shared parties (MASEM from sports, Dcmq from summarries, JJB, postdlf, etc) has been combined and is progressing at the Village Pump. It's also notable that I clearly didn't start any of those conversations, but only found them while researching wiki policy. For example, the "length" discussion was directly linked to from summary talk by others and the other participants moved between these but seem to have now concentrated at the Pump. The entire discussion there is clearly centered around wider issues, and does not discuss MMA. TreyGeeks's odd endorsement here only seems to show that I've been working productively within wiki processes, and unless he wishes to point to any specific policy violations on my part, this only seems to be an attempt at silencing opinions which might not support his POV. As to mentors, readers are encouraged to read his link to verify for themselves the validity of Treygeek's claims. Agent00f (talk) 19:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you shouldn't resort to knee-jerk reactions. If you look at what I stated above, I endorsed closing of this RFC/U and forwarding it to the appropriate group. I have not endorsed an indefinite block or topic ban or any other sanction against you. I was pointing out that this RFC/U seems to have stalled and/or come to a close due to lack of activity and may simply be the result of butting of heads that don't cave in the least little bit. If ARBCOM or ANI wants to take on the matter and provide some sanction or no sanction, I'm ambivalent about that. Also, I never said that you started the discussions at other places. I said that you were participating in them and continuing to discuss you POV at them. As much as you have linked to WP:ADMINSHOP this almost seems like an instance of WP:FORUMSHOP (which links to the exact same policy). Editors in these other pages seem, to me, to disagree with your POV. However, you have not wavered from your convictions, which is either very admirable or shows someone who doesn't work well with others or both, I'm not really sure which is the case with you. Finally, in looking over the "Adoptee or Mentee" thread again, I fail to see where you are asking advice for how to best contribute to Wikipedia or how you should alter your approach to communicating with others on Wikipedia; instead your comments are focused on the policy battleground. Just pointing out what I see. --TreyGeek (talk) 00:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If simply closing the RfC was the goal, then there's no need for the additional accusations up there nor here. In fact no endorsement of anything would be necessary. As to "POV", I've not discussed anything particular to MMA in other places: it's obvious the conversation continues as it would have about significant and broad issues which apparently don't interest TreyGeek anyway. Readers can look for themselves without his interpretation as to what's going on: significant agreement has come about on issues of event notability, consistency, testing, and the list goes on. Not everyone can expected to immediate agree on everything, that's what the process is for. Proposals by others are moving forward and they're receiving broad feedback. If TreyGeek disagrees with them, he can comment there instead of here. Please also note that's also significant agreement now in the MMA space, and it's further notable TreyGeek's not participating there either. Agent00f (talk) 00:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As to mentors, I'm simply waiting for appraisals or commitments, and readers can read the few comments there themselves, without others' interpretations. Agent00f (talk) 00:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took extra steps to investigate this statement by skimming the whole Pump conversation: "Editors in these other pages seem, to me, to disagree with your POV." and to the contrary, it seems every editor (except one who's focused on OR) out of almost a dozen is agreeable to practical solutions for list and summary info notability, and the only disagreements are over how to handle details (like Grand Prix vs Poker vs Newton's bio vs South Park). If reasonable and broadly applicable solutions constitutes a POV, it seems the only party with a differing view hasn't expressed this on the relevant page. Agent00f (talk) 01:57, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Dmcq[edit]

It seems Dmcq's view was colored by some kind of outside interpretation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dmcq#VPP_discussion. For example, don't recall the subject of individually "games in a series" ever coming up there, given that we were talking about the lists (NOT summaries, btw) of WSoP poker championships, where the set of individual championships goes 1998, 1999, 2000, etc, (about the farthest thing from "games in a series"). The discussion was focused on specifics of individual notability for each, not lack thereof, and we were already in considerable agreement about notability of entries within similar lists of horse racing championships, etc. Perhaps someone can point to the edit(s) where something resembling "games in a series" occurred. It would be best if Hasteur and others stopped selectively canvasing editors to this RfC with biased commentary. It seems to be a bad habit as it's gone on before in this RfC and prior ANI's. Agent00f (talk) 19:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a reminder of the purpose of these personal indictments, readers would be advised to cast their gaze at the mindset of some within this discussion: "once Agent is dealt with". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agent00f (talk • contribs) 19:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agent, in what way is a discussion between TreyGeek and myself in which I comment on a foregone conclusion apropos to THIS discussion. Your conduct is at question here. Want to open a investigation into my conduct? Open a WQA or a RfC/U against me. As per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Guidance2#If you're the subject of an RFC/U this guideline If an RfC/U has been certified, you should make an effort to respond constructively and calmly. Don't attack or find fault with other users (especially any outside observers), and do respond to the substance of the dispute.. I ask with all due civility that YOU strike the above comment as it's very clear you're more interested in Kamakazi-ing into other editors in the subject area than trying to work constructively in the project space. Hasteur (talk) 21:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hasteur, this is a disappointing response to a polite observation that confirms you in the view, contrary to guidance as you have been advised, that "a foregone conclusion" is coming. JJB 21:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The substance of this dispute ATM seems to be "once Agent is dealt with" with respect to this RfC, etc, per your own comments to Treygeek. IMO this seems quite relevant to this RfC in light of the selective canvasing (Dmcq's contention seems to be with JJB rather than me? why wasn't any other editor in the discussion contacted?). I see no substantive discussion on my participation/actions elsewhere except *gasp* not everyone immediately agrees on all aspects of all issues. I'm simply replying to seemingly unfounded accusations against me here, once these cease there's no need for me to respond to them. Agent00f (talk) 07:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I looked though history a bit to find out why arguments are attributed to me that I've never said. It seems that ~~Dcmq~~ Dmcq had other sorts of disagreements with JJB over summaries, and with some encouragement from Hasteur seemed to have mixed together separate viewpoints and some of that other disagreement is being extended to me. I still have no idea where "games in a series" comes from, since it doesn't even relate to anything in MMA much less TV shows and Newton's bio. Agent00f (talk) 20:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)In no way did I selectively canvas Dmcq. As per the talk page User talk:Dmcq#VPP Discussion it's quite clear that I did not canvas him. I simply made an observation, linked him to the RfC/U (as an editor providing additional context), and answer a question to the user. That you come in a day and a half later accusing me of dirtying your name is preposterous. Dmcq is free to thing whatever they want, and I'm free to offer additional context to users as I saw the discussion on VPP and how you and JJB were trying to WP:FORUMSHOP a consensus that supports your viewpoint. At this point the only words I have to say are "Shame on you for turning the entirety of Wikipedia back hallways into a free for all battle to disrupt conversation". Any further responses to this will be treated as disruption and ignored as you only prove my point further. Hasteur (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Ignoring Agent00f would be excellent, as a voluntary interaction ban would be an amazingly helpful resolution here. (2) Improper canvassing has four tests, and you failed three (biased message (sarcasm), partisan audience, little transparency). "Simply linking context" is still canvassing if the tests are failed; you're free to do it, but you do need to pass the canvassing tests. (3) You are also now charging me personally with forum shopping, when I came in here neutrally and you had every chance to convince me of your proposal (and still do); this appears to be your first personal attack of me. Accordingly I will limit my responses here to correcting mistakes, rather than continuing other discussion. JJB 21:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

So they warned me that an RfC related to the disputed change was going on. Perhaps it would have been a good idea if you had been transparent about changing guidelines to support articles about unnotable events when you were in an RfC provoked by arguments about them? I hardly think your edit comment 'Avoiding unnecessary splits' and sticking it into a bundle of other edits was exactly very helpful for transparency either. Dmcq (talk) 21:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In hindsight, given what's already happening here, it was probably for the best not to keep referring everything else at wiki back to MMA drama. Agent00f (talk) 22:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was transparent about there being an RFC "content dispute", you asked for details, I clarified, and you said nothing further. JJB 22:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Frankly I'm not sure what "context" was offered since nothing about MMA was discussed between Dmcq and I. If Hasteur wants to discuss those issues with Dmcq, they can do it in some other appropriate forum since it doesn't concern me. However, I agree that I mistyped Dmcq's username above and ask for his and Hasteur's forgiveness. Agent00f (talk) 07:35, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Though there is a bit of digression above, I agree Dmcq's view is essentially mistaken in saying "some people here including Agentf00 are pointing to WP:SIZE#Very long articles as meaning that individual games in a notable series do not need individual notability". From username misspelling to objecting to 5-year consensus guidance at WP:SIZE, from misusing "games" and "series" to eisegeting others' interpretations of this guidance, the view is problematic. My research has now turned up many cases where subtopics have used many varying, often convoluted fudges to satisfy N. The content discussion here has been carried out in many places before with many results. Accordingly it is not the content but the conduct that has caused the problem, and as Agent00f's conduct has vastly improved (he is getting involved both in policy discussion and in non-MMA discussion), if there are no other conduct issues we are on our way to resolution! JJB 21:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

It is exactly what you are doing. Agentf00 just supported it. You made a synthesis of 'contents of an article are not limited by notability' and the bit in size saying articles could be split arbitrarily and stuck them together into [8]. I do not believe that bit in WP:SIZE was ever meant to support something like that and why would people do fudges to show notability for subtopics if they thought notability was not required? What your change says is that if an article can be summarized in another article then it is only subject to policies and guidelines governing content rather than notability. In effect people can just ignore WP:Notability (sports) because practically any event can be mentioned in a context like a series and a {{Main|unnotable event}} stuck there. Dmcq (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please discuss these content issues at the existing discussion where many other editors are involved? I only pointed out above that I had no idea where "games in a series" comes from and I still don't, but please feel free to answer there and not here. Dmcq, I also replied on your talk that there's no reason to conflate JJB and I no matter how Hasteur feels; our paths do not cross in that long discussion. The only "following" going on is that I followed your links to the Pump. As a side note, this whole drama seems an unnecessary result of the canvassing above, such is the history of this affair. Agent00f (talk) 21:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dmcq, I don't believe there is synthesis, but if so please go back to WP:SS and suggest a change that gives those guidelines better context. I admit the telescoping of the wording may have led to the strange POV or synthesis you perceive, but that is easily fixed on the page under discussion. "What your change says" is not what my change says but what you read into it; and preventing others from reading that into it can be fixed by rewording. But the fact that you have not fixed that page but brought the topic up at WP:SIZE, VPP, and here, might suggest that there is nothing to fix. JJB 22:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Agentf00 brought up 1997 Canadian Grand Prix or 2009_Preakness_Stakes are not in themselves notable? I do have doubts about 1998_World_Series_of_Poker. That last one in particular has been talked about a lot at the discussion at [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Splitting_articles_arbitrarily] and you yourself brought up 2012 in UFC events which was discussed here and and UFC 145. And I have suggested a change - go and revert your latest edits. I reverted your change putting in about notability not mattering and you reinstated it, do you want me to go in for edit warring or should I resolve the issue? Dmcq (talk) 22:42, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you recall, the sequence of events started when I was asked for examples where individual notability might be suspect in lists. Since we both (and I think couple of editors) agreed notability wasn't a problem in those competitions, but might be on TV shows, and then discussion continued on SIZE issues. That's why it was so surprising when you commented here for who knows why other than Hasteur's canvassing, since none of that had anything to do with MMA. So I'd appreciate it if you can discuss MMA or whatever other issues that also have nothing to do with me on the relevant talk page (like 2012 UFC event or edit warring pages, frankly I don't care). Finally, beware Hasteur's indictments: you mistyped my username. Agent00f (talk) 07:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moving On From MMA[edit]

Sigh. It was noted a while ago that it seems a risk to take any advice to work on other parts of wiki, since MMA drama always finds a way to attach to anything. What I tried a couple weeks ago to protest and avert the MMA omnibus disaster obviously didn't work and my participation there reflected many mistakes I've already learned from. I planned to minimize any footprint in MMA going fwd, and the only thing I've done there lately is suggest that one AfD should be used for all applicable pages instead of agonizing hundreds one by one. Whatever work is involved in Hasteur and TreyGeek's conversation linked above can be done without my permission, so "once Agent is dealt with" is an unnecessary hurdle.

However, given the fundamental rule conflicts which created the giant mess in MMA obviously still exist, IMO it makes sense to help clarify them for other areas across wiki to avoid similar catastrophes. For example, as a bigger fan of F1 than MMA, and it would be a similar disaster if those pages started getting deleted for the same reasons (please don't AfD F1 pages). Productive dialog is already occurring between many other editors in the proper forum, and it seems detractors can find no fault with my participation elsewhere yet have dragged this mess there or vice versa. I apologize for those troubles, but frankly there's nothing I can do since it happens despite careful separation on my end. I only hope we can find some middle ground where I leave MMA to its own devices, and MMA reciprocates in kind. Thanks. Agent00f (talk) 09:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]