Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Agent00f

Thank you for using rssforward.com! This service has been made possible by all our customers. In order to provide a sustainable, best of the breed RSS to Email experience, we've chosen to keep this as a paid subscription service. If you are satisfied with your free trial, please sign-up today. Subscriptions without a plan would soon be removed. Thank you!

Latest revision as of 19:20, 14 May 2012

To remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 00:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 19:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC).

Agent00f (talk · contribs · logs)

Anyone is welcome to endorse any view, but do not change other people's views. Under normal circumstances, a user should not write more than one view.

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct and have previously attempted and failed to resolve the dispute. Only users who certify this request should edit the "Statement of the dispute" section. Other users may present their views in the other sections below.

[edit] Cause of concern

In the 3 weeks (From April 23rd 2012) that Agent00f has started taking an interest in Mixed Martial Arts based articles, there has been a complete stagnation of the process of forming a concensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability. From personal attacks, to asserting conspiracies out to burn all coverage of MMA events to the ground, to excessively long postings designed to derail conversations, to outright disdain for community standards. After having several trips to various administrator noticeboards, they still refuse to accept community standards and consensus. Arguing on all points from WP:ITSUSEFUL/WP:ILIKEIT/WP:OTHERSTUFF and anything else to filibuster the process of developing a workable guideline for how we can include MMA event coverage that still conforms with WP standards.

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

[edit] Desired outcome

Agent00f will:

desist from making intentionally disruptive postings;
cease all personal attacks;
cease filibustering;
come into line with generally held community guidelines in terms of conduct; and
post in such a manner that editors without copious amounts of free time will be able to read their debating points.

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive184#User:Agent00f reported by Mtking (Result: blocked)
1. WT:MMANOT#Moving Forward, Without the Bullshit - Thread that was the inception of the 3RR report
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive750#User:Hasteur and User:Mtking versus User:Agent00f
WP:ANI#More disruption involving MMA
WT:MMANOT

[edit]

[1]
[2] - Using outside comparisons to make the text more dense after original posting. <IAR note: wrong link. Delete this note after fixing.> JJB 12:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
[3] - Response to an admin who asks Agent00f to assume good faith; claims that the "3 editors" are mentally ill.
[4] - Response to same admin who suggested that a Deletion nomination could be a good faith action. Response uses pejorative language to poison the viewpoint the Admin gave.
[5] - Response to a user in good standing who asked Agent00f to stop making tangential/Ad-Hom attacks on editors. Agent00f proceeds to launch into a long winded "Let's look at this from a logic perspective" instead of actually saying anything about the request.
[6] - Asserts that the change proceeding forward is "placating an idle bureaucracy"
[7] - After a editor points out specific phrases that are attacks, Agent00f claims that they are facts and posts a unwinable challange to contest the statements.
[8] - User soapboxes that a warning delivered appropriately is a threat against them after the comment very clearly states that it is not a threat.
[9] - Calls editors who in good faith nominate articles to AfD bureaucrats.
[10] Violation of WP:AGF - claims that an editor does not know anything about MMA and can have no meaningful opinion, apparently based on said editor disagreeing with Agent00f.
[11] - Violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA, in claiming that the "3 editors" have a personal vendetta, are ignorant and are throwing tantrums, and further calls for the "troublemakers" to be banned.
[12] - Violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL: claims that his opponents have "questionable," "abusive" motives.
[13] "Since you don't seem to be in habit of giving honest or straightforward replies" being the first of several personal attacks in this diff. (NB: As of this point, the above diffs were among the first two dozen of Agent00f's non-minor edits on Wikipedia, within his first two days of regular editing. More diffs can of course be provided, but at this rate, it's evident that WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL violations constitute the bulk of his editing.)

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute.

Hasteur (talk) 01:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Ravensfire (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Newmanoconnor (talk) 04:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional users endorsing this cause for concern.

TreyGeek (talk) 01:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
When I engaged Agent on my talk page, we had a great dialogue open up. It seems like when he encounters resistance, he starts with the battlefield mentality. Ish dar ian 02:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Chillllls (talk) 03:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Ravenswing 06:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for those certifying the dispute.

Q. Help me understand here. I saw a deletion review of UFC 27 (link will be live for a little while yet). It looked no different from UFC 26 and UFC 28 except in external links. There are zero sources anywhere except external links, which are all promoters of the event one way or another. What policy or guideline (not essay) tells us that we shouldn't delete and merge 80%-90% of these articles? JJB 03:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Based solely upon the current state of UFC 26 and UFC 28, there is nothing to suggest why these articles should not be deleted. I have not done any search for truly independent sources for these events. It is possible that such sources could be found. With the inclusion of such sources, they might possibly pass Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to be kept. --TreyGeek (talk) 05:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Endorse TreyGeek's Answer The real reason is that as a "Gentlemen's Agreement" most of the editors involved in the negotiations to establish a MMA centric set of guidelines have (for the most part) refrained from nominating for deletion any of the articles. That other processes are being used by MMA Advocates (Like the above mentioned deletion review) to get a second round of AfD to try and argue their article back to life. The Gentleman's Agreement does not cover such cases, and from what I have observed, those of us who did comment commented on the validity of the procedure being executed (which is the purpose of deletion review. Hasteur (talk) 06:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Q. It would seem this should be an open-and-shut case to those of us unfamiliar with MMA (but who think highly of Chuck Norris and Jesse Ventura). Who (plural) is advocating in favor of keeping every single article and what are their means of advocating for that? JJB 03:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Jessie Ventura is the man politically and wrestle-ically(?). Seriously, a large portion of the MMA fan community (which may not be the same as the Wikipedia editor community) feels that all UFC event articles should remain on Wikipedia. There is a smaller group of the MMA fan community who feel that even articles for lesser known MMA promotions should also remain. When looking at AfD discussions, rarely is there a valid attempt at advocating keep for event articles using Wikipedia policies and guidelines. While, this isn't quite what you were asking, there is a, possibly, small portion of the MMA fan community (such as myself) who feel that MMA event articles (UFC or from other promotions) should have an article if they meet Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, including WP:ROUTINE, WP:SPORTSEVENT, WP:DIVERSE. --TreyGeek (talk) 05:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
There have been various advocates that have lobbied for keeping every single MMA article. User:BigzMMA was one of the loudest previous advocates of this position, however their deliberate incivility/homophobic attacks/sockpuppetry caused them to be blocked indefinitely. Hasteur (talk) 06:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Q. Now I've at least glanced at every paragraph on this page and I still have no idea what the dispute is about. Aside from the "delete most" view, what other view would there be to get in such an argument with the "keep all" view that there is such confusing battling over one ambiguous notability rule versus a longer ambiguous notability rule? What two views is the dispute between? JJB 03:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

An ongoing attempt has been made to construct a set of guidelines specifically related to MMA event notability (to modify WP:MMAEVENT). These notability guidelines could stand on their own, be added to WP:MMANOT, or potentially to WP:NSPORTS to specify how MMA events should be treated in terms of Wikipedia's notability requirements. User:Agent00f, whom this RfC is about, often posts in this discussion long responses to comments that, to some, don't address the issue at hand. The user has claimed they have offered their own proposal for WP:MMAEVENT, however, if such a proposal was made it is difficult to tell in the walls of text that often accompany the user's comments. However, to several users (myself included) it appears that User:Agent00f is simply attempting to derail constructive discussion of the issue with their seemingly long-winded comments. In addition, User:Agent00f often complains of warnings to their talk page, mentions at WP:ANI (and I would expect this RfC) to be harassment and a personal attack against them. Personally, this is a weak argument considering the truly personal attacks and harassment some members of the Wikipedia community have had to endure as the result of enforcing Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --TreyGeek (talk) 05:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Endorse TreyGeek's statement In addition, good faith requests to strike offensive commentary and pejorative labeling has been met with continued and enlarged personal attacks. Hasteur (talk) 06:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Response

The most important things to keep in mind when reading all of this:

The general background is the rule making process for the MMA subject space that potentially impacts many entries.
I've been the only person left to shine some subject-specific insight into what they're doing (wrong), and it didn't reflect well.
None of their accusations are ever targeted at the substance of what's been said, but rather semantics or hurt feelings.
This RfC comes on the heels of 3+ ANI's against me by these same folks. Basically one every few days once it was obvious domain-expertise was going to be mutual incompatible with their poor plan.
In summary, it's mostly insider politics to drive an inconvenient factor out, and no meat.

{This section is reserved for the opinions and views of the user whose conduct is disputed. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but only the person named in the dispute should change or edit the view in this section.}

[edit] Response to concerns

"In the 3 weeks (From April 23rd 2012) that Agent00f has started taking an interest in Mixed Martial Arts based articles, there has been a complete stagnation of the process of forming a concensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability"

This is a topic which had been stagnant for many many months prior. For the entire duration before I joined, practically nothing's gotten done, despite the active participation of many editors. Most of those editors have left in the interim (from I can gather from the logs) due to frustration and disgust. Since I've joined, there's been at least an attempt at a two-sentence rule clarification, a great leap fwd for the process no doubt. Hasteur's attribution of causality here has no factual basis.

When I made the observation that the common denominator of the string of past failures was only 3 editors who dominate the conservation to the exclusion of other voices, this led them to start a continued assault and pattern of harassment, open threats, and many attempts at frivolous ANI's. Note on the contrary that I've not engaged in these deplorable acts. If there's been some kind of battle going, it's been targeted at me. I've done what I can to defend myself. Which leads us to:

"From personal attacks, to asserting conspiracies out to burn all coverage of MMA events to the ground, to excessively long postings designed to derail conversations...."

The afflicted parties feel the previous statement is a personal attack even though their long-standing participation is a plain fact. That they've been setting the agenda is also empirical fact borne by a simple read at the talk page. I've never claimed it's any kind of "conspiracy" but rather attributed the main problem to systemic issues which allowed a concerted few to effectively block the views of less concerted stakeholder in this matter. (Though it's worth pointing out the oddity of 3 folks who're consistent on one side of an AfD's campaign on a subject guiding the reconciliation process.) The frustration and helplessness this causes on the part of other previous participant is what's poisoned the process. Instead of a casual environment of serious work mixed in with some humor necessary to motivate volunteer orgs, everything has turned caustic for anyone not readily onboard with their prolonged "leadership". 95% of the time is forced on politics, which is why nothing substantive related to the sport ever gets done.

As an aside, their other accusations of "personal attacks" might include my claim that actively AfDing while the pages in question are under review is an act of poor faith, and some other obvious statements, but frankly I don't see how these claims are controversial.

"Arguing on all points from WP:ITSUSEFUL/WP:ILIKEIT/WP:OTHERSTUFF and anything else to filibuster the process of developing a workable guideline for how we can include MMA event coverage that still conforms with WP standards"

The reality is that I'm the only person left in the discussion with much of any domain expertise. This is not an exaggeration. Literally every one of the perhaps dozen or more regular subject contributors are gone, which should give great pause for thought/concern. Given how many times this has happened before (though most vote with their feet), the problem common to them all is clearly not me. In any case, I've analyzed the weaknesses in the previous plans which made them unworkable and laid out clear and concise sport-relevant corrections. The posts on the current RfC are but a sample. However, these have all been ignored/dismissed if not worse. By worse I mean accusations of filibustering (with attendant AN threats), claims they're not understandable despite no requests for clarification, etc. I've been more than happy to spend time explaining to reasonable editors who don't engage in the same disingenuous behavior.

In summary, as I've explain numerous times before the problems with this process are somewhat onerous and non-trivial. This superficial attempt to scapegoat me, just as many others have been scapegoated and driven off before, is not going to fix what's been plaguing this extended and tumultuous affair. Instead, I'm willing to work towards a lasting solution which starts with mitigating these ridiculous attempts on me, and focuses on the meat of the matter.

Other Notes:

Hasteur's been up to the same old habits of canvasing mostly for sympathetic views (eg previous ANI's). Note sport-interested parties are not notified, instead focusing on those who relate to one side of a wiki-insider vs subject-enthusiast divide, even editors who've only been participating for a day (only joined due to link from a hostile AN) and have little knowledge of the background. It's quite ironic to accuse me of a battlefield mentality given this behavior.
I have no idea why Ravensfire is in the list of users who've tried resolve the dispute. I've only seen him on the talk page once. Agent00f (talk) 04:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Links Above and Other Misc.

As first order of business, I would suggest that editors actually read the contents of the links (and esp the context) instead of the misleading labels applied to them. Though I suppose from the labels it's easy to see just how motivated these people are to smear me with anything they can come up with. A simple look at the junk/spam that's accumulated from their efforts on my talk page vs. what I've posted (or not) on theirs is a telling tale. As a further note, the truth is not in the middle of what any two people claim, so please try to evaluate all facts objectively.

I can reply to any of the links above, but in the interest of time, I'll just do so if anyone has specific concerns. Feel free to ask, as always. Agent00f (talk) 08:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

If anyone has any concerns like citations for the statements above, please ask. The talk page has >1500 edits over not so many days, and I don't have the inclination to scour over them to litter this page and hope someone finds it useful. Agent00f (talk) 10:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Example picked at random:

[14] Violation of WP:AGF - claims that an editor does not know anything about MMA and can have no meaningful opinion, apparently based on said editor disagreeing with Agent00f.

I'm not sure why any assumption of faith or anything for that matter is necessary here. First, Mtking admittedly knows nothing about MMA as a subject from comments prior to this. Just as for example I don't know anything about fashion modeling. Both are plain factual statements so I'm not sure what the problem is here. Second, when someone lacks any knowledge of a subject, it's difficult if not impossible for them to write good domain-specific guidelines for it. For example, I would be terrible at writing rules to govern fashion entries. Again, not sure what this has to do with faith. Also note I've explained this before, but in another case of IDHT, Ravenswing is repeating this here despite ignoring my previous (same) explanation. Agent00f (talk) 08:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Other Relevant Facts

This is an extensive list of simple observable facts concerning the case. The errors (generally minor) TreyGeek graciously pointed out in the discussion below that have been corrected in the original so it should be fairly accurate. Far as I can tell, no one has challenged the accuracy of the statements presented in the list, only complained that they show some editors in a poor light. Facts often do this; such is life. Agent00f (talk) 08:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

List the policies and guidelines that apply to the response.

[edit] Users endorsing this response

Agent00f (talk) 02:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for the user named in the dispute.

A. The events, along with with promotion information and fighter history, constitute a cohesive set of resources for many users on wiki. For example, someone interested in either a previous or future contest between two fighters can research their previous histories against similar opponents (in style, size, age), details like dates/venue/pay/etc, each cross-referencing to the other. Taking intrinsic elements away from this coherent and orthogonal set of resources subtracts more from the whole more than the value of each item. This a collection which has been built up into its existing synergistic form over many years, usually garnering top hits on search engines, and was not an area of problem for anyone until the recent indiscriminate AfD campaigns against the subject as a whole. An important point to note is that only a small portion of the AfD's (which cost nothing themselves) need to be successful for the useful of the resource to be destroyed, and this can be used as leverage.

A. None of the tens of thousand of users and quite a few editors (2k+ pages) want this resource to be destroyed for the cause of "just following the rules". Of course this doesn't mean that they desire to avoid rules altogether, only that those rules be sane and amiable to a stable future. The problem is that solutions offered to us (by the AfD clan, yes all of them support deletion) are all simplistic, ambiguously open to future AfD's, and terrible in design. The affair has been at an impasse because a very small group which dominate the agenda disallow any alternative plan to be discussed, and prefer to silence critics by playing politics over concentrating on the nuts and bolts (though to be fair, they lack the domain knowledge to work on any relevant details). What you see here is typical of the "work" they generally engage in and are best at.

A. The basic dispute is that the current RfC plan is essentially useless to any lasting solution since it doesn't address any of the fundamental problems in AfD or otherwise. This doesn't mean the previous rules are better, just that people are fed up with terrible plans being forced from up on high onto the actual stakeholders. This has been the situation for many months. I've tried to feed new ideas into the process but have been rejected like all those before me.

Also, I don't pretend to speak for the entire userbase, though I suppose many users seem to commend my efforts on this and consider me as somewhat of a spokesperson because they themselves often fear speaking out due to threats/harassment and real possibility of retribution (afd,etc) against their work.

Q. What do you think forms the basis of the assertions by several editors that you demonstrate WP:IDHT behavior? Your comments in the AN/I threads indicate that such an assertion should not apply to you. Do you think that this is a failure of your "opponents" to properly understand your viewpoint? Chillllls (talk) 04:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

A. I feel I understand those others' POV perfectly fine since it's rarely complicated. I reply to anything addressed to me in earnest and you'll find a near perfect track record of this in the history. OTOH, those others sometimes claim that I'm impossible to understand, generally after the fact with no expressed desire for clarification or otherwise. If you're looking for selective replying and similar DISRUPT behavior, I'm certainly not the source of it. As to why they think my words or ideas are obtuse, maybe it's because some idea are intrinsically non-trivial? I can guess, but I don't really know what's going on their heads.

Q. With reference to this (diff 13) comment you made, do you think there was anything inappropriate about it? Why or why not? If you were generally asked to refactor the comment, what changes (if any) would you make? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

A. First, please be reminded of the context of this comment: it came after a long string of dodging simple reasonable requests/comments, and my patience was wearing very thin from the selective replies. As just one example, just above this I took the time to create a description of many problematic issues, and Dennis only choose to focus on one he claims to have expertise in but avoids addressing any specific points. That said, it's pretty obvious I was quite harsh in tone, and that's because I chose to be given the ridiculous circumstances. Perhaps what would be more helpful here is if you can help provide some guidance and advise what you would do in such a situation. Threaten to create an ANI for selective replies (DISRUPT)? This is a serious query. Agent00f (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Q. With reference to this edit and edit summary you made, do you think there was anything inappropriate about it? Why or why not? If you were generally asked to amend the edit and edit summary, what changes (if any) would you make? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

A. Some background here: admin Dennis Brown choose to join the party a bit back (well before me) specifically as a "leader" of sorts to end this affair. However he curiously chose to do so by directly and fully backing the plan of the AfD clique, entirely to the detriment of MMA-interests. This lend a feel of real authority to a process formerly dominated by the petty sort. When he left after the first ANI fiasco, it was as if the institutional burden had been lifted, which is why I felt it was proper to try to move this back into an egalitarian business-casual atmosphere more befitting a volunteer org. It's pretty obvious between the serious analysis of previous failures are trappings of parody. This was supposed to be an intro (as you can see from the last line) to better proposals (not necessarily by me) that had subject-interests in mind and would be safe for other stakeholders' inputs. Of course this was deleted right away by Mtking and Treygeek (and 3RR ANI opened when I tried to prevent wholesale deletion), and you can formulate your own reason as to why. Given that you're now aware of the general goal, please advice on how you might've tried to approach it. Thanks. Agent00f (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Q. You seem to be up on the articles. Can you please list all deleted or deletion-process articles (including any current AFD/DRV like UFC 27) where lack at this instant degrades the "orthogonal" fulness of the dataset? This would be very important for determining content recommendations. Thanks. JJB 02:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

A.There was for example "deletion" of UFC 143 not too many days ago. This is an event which was headlined by a contest between Diaz and Condit for an interim title. Users interested in the event (because they're heard of it, etc) can click on its page, learn about the circumstances that led to the need for an interim title, and further research the contestants in question. On the other hand, if they had an interest instead in, say, Condit, this event is linked from his wiki page list of contests, and the reader can then find out the circumstances around an important time in his career. A chain of events in itself can also replay a valuable narrative of what's going on in a sport/org. For example, by looking through the events consequentially, a reader can figure out when one strategy/style became dominant over another, or perhaps the rise in fighter pay. In this case, note even the lack of "notable background" for one event in this chain can be useful. Perhaps nothing interesting happened at one particular event; it's best to let the reader see this for themselves than to deduce this from wiki notability guidelines. The current general format of chain linked events facilitate consistent and meaningful presentation of all this inter-related information in the most useful way possible. This explanation is meant to describe how the relationship between pages work and it's unrelated to any omnibus solution. Agent00f (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Q. Mmmkay. This leads to two different questions. Your answer suggests that most or all deletions are redirected and merged so that content is not lost. Omnibus content totally redundant with event content is undue weight; partial redundancy is possible under WP:SUMMARY but requires significant event notability. All of your stated concerns seem to be equally addressed by omnibus as by event or "card" articles, and the omnibus by year also allows "replaying the narrative" more easily than individual articles. (The exception is if the omnibus becomes "too long", but I don't see that happening soon.) First, is there any previous WP content you can point to (text portions or full articles) that does not appear in any current mainspace article and thus is absent in such way as to "degrade" the dataset? Two examples would be fine, or if you've been keeping a longer list that's fine. But maybe this hasn't happened? JJB 18:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

A. I don't think "omnibus" in general is a bad plan, and in fact generally support idea of cramming more stuff onto a page if that's the only way to save it. What I did object to was the way the info was organized, (ie, the "presentation"), since the prior format of cleanly linked events (no confusion to user that this wasn't a part of a bigger whole). Example of some stuff that's missing is official fighter pay which used to be on some pages (and more minor things like walkout music), but this is a minor point compared to the overall bad design in common cases, and principle design by people who seem to lack any awareness of the subject. As one example, annual divisions make no sense. The pages would start out small and get progressively more unwieldy, and it offers the view that this is a seasonal sport when no such idea exists. It's like suggesting that F1 races be grouped by 3 calendar months. Clicking a link that's always in the same place is a much more consistent way of moving about and makes sense. As another, whereas adding additional info (esp systematically) to individual events used to be easy (let's say payouts, or other money issues) and encourages participation, now editors have to consider whether it makes an unwieldy design even more unwieldy. I listed these and other objections in reply to Dennis's proposal. Agent00f (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Q. Second, why doesn't your intended page relationship work just as well with "2012 in MMA" omnibus articles? Assume for instance that after community discussion there are only 10 or 20 out of 140 UFC articles regarded as notable. In what hypothetical use case would a user be unable to find content they should be able to find? I have also read and anchored this Agent00f proposal, but I don't see any navigation problem that isn't easily settled in the assumed instance. (There is a general notability problem, but let's resolve that separately.) JJB 18:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

A. The existing omnibus does work with these relationships, since it's largely the same info. It just does so in a poor way in some cases, and those cases just happen to be the most commonly used ones (ie UFC). For example, in the case of the BAMMA (small) promotion, listing all of the few events on one page does make much more sense (which is why user supported this in general, ie not obstructing). What I'm really asking for is more flexibility to offer the best presentation as circumstances change. Linking from the main page (pages which are subject to AfD over ambiguous rules) is much less consistent than previous/better solution and discourages incremental work (ie. why would anyone even start work on something if someone is looking over their shoulder to AfD?). If that's not clear from my prior comments, then I apologize for not expressing/explaining it clearly. Agent00f (talk) 19:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Additional views

This section is for summaries and opinions written by users who are not directly involved with the dispute, but who would like to share their views of the dispute. Anyone is welcome to endorse any view on this page, but you should not change other people's views.

[edit] Outside view by John J. Bulten

First order of business, Agent00f has a killer username.

Second, I have zero interest in keeping any MMA articles (although I might affirm keeping any policy-compliant article), so I have no natural sympathy for the topic. All editors need to actually apply core policy like verifiability and neutrality. To comply with encyclopedic purposes work is needed and (slight problem) nobody is lining up to do it (AFDs are easier) so the topic set remains suboptimal. If my deletionism on this point puts me on the same !side as one subset, I also don't have a natural affinity for either subset in a user-conduct question. (I will admit a slight natural affinity for walls of text, as other users can attest.)

Third, diff review:

Agent00f says the 3 know nothing and are on a personal crusade. This is somewhat immoderate.
Wrong link.
"no normal sane MMA fan" in context is not a "claim[] that the '3 editors' are mentally ill". ADD: y'know, I missed the intent of "accommodate their OCD" in a hasty reading, maybe I was thinking of ODBC or something, that one is uncivil. JJB 16:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
"users who obviously have an agenda" does not obviously "use[] pejorative language to poison the viewpoint".
Calling Hasteur a "user in good standing" begs a question; Agent00f says nothing responsive to being requested to stop ad hominems he doesn't see, which is understandable.
"placating the needs of an idle bureaucracy" is not overboard, and in context asks for correction if wrong.
Hasteur regards POV statements as attacks. "argue the case" is not "unwinable".
Agent00f calls it a threat, Hasteur doesn't, when it says "determine if sanctions ... banning you from the site entirely".
Another use of "bureaucrat" regarded as pejorative. Agent00f uses it to describe AFD as an abusable process.
Agent00f explains a reason for declining to AGF and for making a negative conclusion about Mtking. ADD: AGF states (emphasis added), "It can be seen as a personal attack if bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually in bad faith and harassment if done repeatedly." JJB 16:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Agent00f says 3 seem to have a personal vendetta, know nothing about use, (implied) they are throwing tantrums, and "bluntly, get rid of these few troublemakers"; that's now pushing it.
"questionable" is civil enough and does not fail AGF. "abusive" used as an implication can be immoderate.
"you don't seem to be in habit" of honesty, with a profanity, but based on examples. Attacking honesty with examples is borderline; without examples it would definitely have been uncivil.

I reserve the right not to respond to more diffs or to interact with analysis of my analysis.

Fourth, I do consider content as well as conduct. My initial assessment of content is that Agent00f argues for keeping an apparently longtime status quo even though such a keep is inconsistent with core policy (as will be explained in time); for instance, appealing to a silent majority of perhaps hundreds of thousands, and arguing in favor of improved Google rankings, are very clear logical fallacies on WP. The others are arguing for deletion of individual cases and with the hopes of deleting many cases en masse later, even though this is a backdoor approach; the argument that frontdoor negotiation is taking too much time does not require a degradation of the article set. While deletion might be an improvement in the case of a single article, it is not invalid to argue that deletion does not improve the encyclopedia because degradation of the article set is an unnecessary obstacle to discussion toward overall consensus.

Fifth, as a side note, the MMANOT discussion is so confusing and ambiguous that DGG and I read the same proposal and voted oppositely because we appeared to come to different conclusions about what the proposed change would accomplish! Thus the proposal and original are neither one about notability, but about what the advocates want the data to be a priori.

Conclusion: The community should on this page approve some version of two paths forward.

Solution Step 1. Close the user-conduct part of this review as not rising to the usual level of vituperation, bilge and naked hatred we usually see at RFC/U.

Solution Step 2. A few volunteers work with these editors on bite-size tasks that get the project policy-compliant over time.

Ignoring all rules, I would be interested in:

convert this page to a community content RFC as the MMANOT page RFC suffers from echo-chamber talking past each other and this page would get more review (close that RFC and cease hashing out MMANOT); the RFC is "What path makes MMA policy-compliant?" and you're reading one potential answer now;
propose a deadline, say one month, for Agent00f to get all the content that interests him into a personal set of spreadsheets, because WP is not an offline storage for a fan group and if this database truly does not exist anywhere else there's not a reason for it to be hosted on Wiki;
given such a firm deadline, there is no problem temporarily undeleting all deleted articles that are perceived as "degrading" the data set by their absence, as well as mentoring Agent00f via volunteers who can enfold his (relatively calmly) stated concerns into an understanding of typical policy;
during the deadline, have a place where editors can volunteer to review 10 or 20 articles at a time to see if there are any potentially notable (any not reviewed before deadline get an automatic but rebuttable nonnotability presumption);
have Agent00f clearly identify his objectives and use cases and explain to him how these are typically handled on the larger WP site (e.g., redirects can still be used to point to sections of merged articles without significant loss);
have all interested editors scour for reliable sources (if there are truly zero sources for most of this, or an average of only one RS per article AGF, there is no indication that anyone besides fans finds the whole topic notable);
the Big Task, conversion of the data set to a final form, should be deferred until community discussion (not local discussion) establishes better RS guidelines than either of the MMANOT proposals; that conversion can also be conducted in bite-size volunteer queue pieces.

In short, this is a walled garden that should not be bulldozed but transplanted (offline insofar as appropriate), and the flaring tempers relating to the apparent impossibility of the Big Task are not to be handled by user-conduct but by community-content routes. JJB 14:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

ADD: Note to self: Agent00f's best current proposal appears to be the three links here (a diff of the proposal link that was collapsed on this page's talk). JJB 00:15, 13 May 2012 (UTC) Perhaps, though, per this page's talk, Agent's best current proposal is the one I anchored and uncollapsed here. JJB 18:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

JJB 14:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Conditional Support No RfC, see Seraphim's comment below. No in undeleting of events that have not taken place.Newmanoconnor (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Seraphimblade

We already have perfectly good article suitability criteria. Articles must not be out of project scope, their content must be verifiable, and their subjects must be extensively covered in depth by third-party reliable sources. I don't see why yet another subguideline is needed at all, it seems to be an example of process creep. Perhaps what we're seeing here is frustration at a process that will almost inevitably fail and is ultimately unnecessary. At this point, I would recommend everyone take a step back, and ask if this is really needed at all. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

As proposer. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
JJB 16:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Newmanoconnor (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] View by Dennis Brown

Since my name has been invoked and a bit of misinformation has been stated by Agent regarding me, allow me to shed some clarity on the issue. Let me apologize for the length of this reply, it is necessary. I did not come into the MMA discussions as an outside admin. I started a few months ago, before I was an admin. My role there was never as an admin. The role was as an experienced outsider who was neutral about MMA events themselves but was/is well versed in Wikipedia policy. I became an admin in the middle of the process, which didn't change my role. Agent manages to misstate both my intent and actions, partially from his desire to push his own agenda, and partially from a lack of understanding the previous months of debates, conversations and events in this community before his arrival. The history of the talk page is clear enough that my goal was to get a consensus to build an omnibus system after several admins recommended as such. The goal wasn't to get permission (none was needed), it was to get participation by both sides, so the system would reflect the will of the community. Agent insisted this was a secret effort to delete UFC articles.

The purpose of the omnibus system was both to provide a new way to list UFC type events, but more importantly, it was a "failsafe" for articles that were going to get deleted. It would allow the content to remain on Wikipedia even if the individual articles were deleted. For some reason, Agent refused to accept the motives and actively filibustered my efforts and the efforts of others, to the point that I gave up. What Agent is doing should be painfully obvious to anyone that take the time to read. And taking the time to read all the archives is painful, to say the least, as he has gone out of his way to be intentionally obtuse, redundant and verbose for the purpose of diluting and distracting from the discussion. This isn't a particularly novel or clever approach, but it has been effective enough due to the unwillingness of uninvolved admins to wade into the mess.

Because I was involved in the MMA discussions months before Agent arrived, well before I was an admin, I can't act as an admin there except in cases of vandalism, per Wikipedia policy. I'm "involved". Had I not been involved and simply stumbled into the discussion, it is likely I would have taken unilateral administrative action against him for intentionally causing disruption and acting in bad faith. His sprinkling in the occasional disingenuous offer of cooperation doesn't cover the obvious and intentional intent of disruption for those who can stomach reading the entire history of the discussions.

The fact that no action has been taken yet is due to the unwillingness of admins to enter the toxic environment of MMA discussion either on the talk page or the many ignored ANI discussions, and not a testament of his innocence. At this point, I don't care what is deleted and what is kept, and I have no desire or willingness to participate there again. I am here simply because Agent has misrepresented my actions and words, time and time again. If the community is foolish enough to ignore his actions, then the community deserves results of inaction here.

Users who endorse this summary

Hasteur (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Mt king ^(edits) 02:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Newmanoconnor (talk) 02:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Ravenswing 03:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Blackmane (talk) 09:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC) I only interacted with Agent00f on the ANI but also read through the entire talk page that Dennis was involved in and the mounting frustration with Agent00f during the discussion was evident.

[edit] View by User:Blackmane

Agent00f has a tendency to turn any statement one makes and turns it into obvious evidence that one has a deletionist agenda or is an anti-fan where the MMA articles are related. Apparently, the suggestion from myself, a totally uninvolved outsider who has never worked on (nor intend to) an article nor contributed to the AfDs not policy discussions, somewhat in jest, to orbital nuke the entire project is such evidence. I admit though that had I been involved with the various AfDs I would have voted to delete many of the articles which obviously failed notability. Although Agent never outright attacks anyone, they lace their statements with veiled barbs. However, it's their filibustering at WT:MMANOT that astounded me into recommending a topic ban (and rather unnecessarily an interaction ban). A number of editors, many of whom have posted in this RFC/U, were involved in that discussion and up to 29 April things were moving forward, but from their first post on the MMANOT talk page on 29 April, Agent00f managed to bog down and drive the discussion in circles for 14 days. If that's not disruptive, I don't know what is. Blackmane (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary

Blackmane (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Hasteur (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC) and add that except for one blurb in 2010, Agent has never added any material to any article on Wikipedia. His edits have been limited to the disruption at MMA.
Ravenswing 01:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Newmanoconnor (talk) 03:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC) I'm amazed he hasn't been given a topic ban or extended on yet.i've agreed with JJB'S about a lot, but he hasn't improved at all, let's be honest...any other topic and he would have been banned awhile ago.

[edit] Proposed solutions

This section is for all users to propose solutions to resolve this dispute. This section is not a vote and resolutions are not binding except as agreed to by involved parties.

[edit] Template

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Template

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

[edit] Reminder to use the talk page for discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Friginator 15 May, 2012

-
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Agent00f&diff=492568010&oldid=492567175
--
Manage subscription | Powered by rssforward.com

@@ Line 195: / Line 195: @@
    '''Q.''' Mmmkay. This leads to two different questions. Your answer suggests that most or all deletions are redirected and merged so that content is not lost. Omnibus content totally redundant with event content is undue weight; partial redundancy is possible under [[WP:SUMMARY]] but requires significant event notability. All of your stated concerns seem to be equally addressed by omnibus as by event or "card" articles, and the omnibus by year also allows "replaying the narrative" more easily than individual articles. (The exception is if the omnibus becomes "too long", but I don't see that happening soon.) First, is there ''any'' previous WP content you can point to (text portions or full articles) that does ''not'' appear in any current mainspace article and thus is absent in such way as to "degrade" the dataset? Two examples would be fine, or if you've been keeping a longer list that's fine. But maybe this hasn't happened? [[User:John J. Bulten/Friends|JJB]] 18:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
-   '''A.''' I don't think "omnibus" in general is a bad plan, and in fact generally support idea of cramming more stuff onto a page if that's the only way to save it. What I did object to was the way the info was organized, (ie, the "presentation"), since the prior format of cleanly linked events (no confusion to user that this wasn't a part of a bigger whole). Example of some stuff that's missing is official fighter pay which used to be on some pages (and more minor things like walkout music), but this is a minor point compared to the overall bad design in common cases, and principle design by people who seem to lack any awareness of the subject. As one example, annual divisions make no sense. As another, whereas adding additional info (esp systematically) to individual events used to be easy (let's say payouts, or other money issues) and encourages participation, now editors have to consider whether it makes an unwieldy design even more unwieldy. I listed these and other objections in reply to Dennis's proposal. [[User:Agent00f|Agent00f]] ([[User talk:Agent00f|talk]]) 19:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
+   '''A.''' I don't think "omnibus" in general is a bad plan, and in fact generally support idea of cramming more stuff onto a page if that's the only way to save it. What I did object to was the way the info was organized, (ie, the "presentation"), since the prior format of cleanly linked events (no confusion to user that this wasn't a part of a bigger whole). Example of some stuff that's missing is official fighter pay which used to be on some pages (and more minor things like walkout music), but this is a minor point compared to the overall bad design in common cases, and principle design by people who seem to lack any awareness of the subject. As one example, annual divisions make no sense. The pages would start out small and get progressively more unwieldy, and it offers the view that this is a seasonal sport when no such idea exists. It's like suggesting that F1 races be grouped by 3 calendar months. Clicking a link that's always in the same place is a much more consistent way of moving about and ''makes sense''. As another, whereas adding additional info (esp systematically) to individual events used to be easy (let's say payouts, or other money issues) and encourages participation, now editors have to consider whether it makes an unwieldy design even more unwieldy. I listed these and other objections in reply to Dennis's proposal. [[User:Agent00f|Agent00f]] ([[User talk:Agent00f|talk]]) 19:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
    '''Q.''' Second, why doesn't your intended page relationship work just as well with "2012 in MMA" omnibus articles? Assume for instance that after community discussion there are only 10 or 20 out of 140 UFC articles regarded as notable. In what hypothetical use case would a user be unable to find content they should be able to find? I have also read and anchored [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability#4th|this Agent00f proposal]], but I don't see any navigation problem that isn't easily settled in the assumed instance. (There ''is'' a general notability problem, but let's resolve that separately.) [[User:John J. Bulten/Friends|JJB]] 18:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
-   '''A.''' The existing omnibus does work with these relationships, since it's largely the same info. It just does so in a poor way in some cases, and those cases just happen to be the most commonly used ones (ie UFC). For example, in the case of the BAMMA (small) promotion, listing all of the few events on one page does make much more sense (which is why user supported this in general, ie not obstructing). What I'm really asking for is more flexibility to offer the best presentation as the importance/content increases. Linking from the main page (pages which are subject to AfD over ambiguous rules) is much less consistent than previous/better solution and discourages incremental work (ie. why would anyone even ''start'' work on something if someone is looking over their shoulder to AfD?). If that's not clear from my prior comments, then I apologize for not expressing/explaining it clearly. [[User:Agent00f|Agent00f]] ([[User talk:Agent00f|talk]]) 19:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
+   '''A.''' The existing omnibus does work with these relationships, since it's largely the same info. It just does so in a poor way in some cases, and those cases just happen to be the most commonly used ones (ie UFC). For example, in the case of the BAMMA (small) promotion, listing all of the few events on one page does make much more sense (which is why user supported this in general, ie not obstructing). What I'm really asking for is more flexibility to offer the best presentation as circumstances change. Linking from the main page (pages which are subject to AfD over ambiguous rules) is much less consistent than previous/better solution and discourages incremental work (ie. why would anyone even ''start'' work on something if someone is looking over their shoulder to AfD?). If that's not clear from my prior comments, then I apologize for not expressing/explaining it clearly. [[User:Agent00f|Agent00f]] ([[User talk:Agent00f|talk]]) 19:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
    == Additional views ==

Pages

insurance