Template:Active editnotice

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 38 as Wikipedia:Closure requests/Archive 37 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

This page has archives. Sections older than 2 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Wikipedia discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).

Do not list discussions where consensus is clear. If you feel the need to close them, do it yourself.

Move on – do not wait for someone to state the obvious. In some cases, it is appropriate to close a discussion with a clear outcome early to save our time.

Do not post here to rush the closure. Also, only do so when the discussion has stabilised.

On the other hand, if the discussion has much activity and the outcome isn't very obvious, you should let it play out by itself. We want issues to be discussed well. Do not continue the discussion here.

There is no fixed length for a formal request for comment (RfC). Typically 7 days is a minimum, and after 30 days the discussion is ripe for closure. The best way to tell is when there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result.

When the discussion is ready to be closed and the outcome is not obvious, you can submit a brief and neutrally worded request for closure.

Be sure to include a link to the discussion itself and the {{Initiated}} template at the beginning of the request. A helper script can make listing discussions easier.

Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale.

Closing discussions carries responsibility, doubly so if the area is contentious. You should be familiar with all policies and guidelines that could apply to the given discussion (consult your draft closure at the discussions for discussion page if unsure). Be prepared to fully answer questions about the closure or the underlying policies, and to provide advice about where to discuss any remaining concerns that editors may have.

Non-admins can close most discussions. Admins may not overturn your non-admin closures just because you are not an admin, and this should not normally be in itself a problem at closure reviews. Still, there are caveats. You may not close discussions as an unregistered user, or where implementing the closure would call to use tools or edit permissions you do not have access to. Articles for deletion and move discussion processes have more rules for non-admins to follow.

If you want to formally challenge and appeal the closure, do not start the discussion here. Instead follow advice at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.

• Wikipedia:Requested moves#Elapsed listings
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion
• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure
• Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Old discussions
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Old business
• Wikipedia:Proposed mergers/Log
• Wikipedia:Proposed article splits

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1156#Boomerang_topic_ban_proposal_for_User:Hcsrctu

(Initiated 19 days ago on 9 May 2024) Ratnahastin (talk) 03:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new administrative discussions above this line using a level 3 heading

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

(Initiated 74 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

(Initiated 52 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI this discussion can now be found in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 439. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 21:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

(Initiated 50 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Brothers of Italy#RfC on neo-fascism in info box 3 (Effectively option 4 from RfC2)

(Initiated 50 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: The RfC tag was removed the same day it was started. This should be closed as a discussion, not an RfC. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Mukokuseki#RfC on using the wording "stereotypically Western characteristics" in the lead

(Initiated 48 days ago on 11 April 2024) ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 09:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Mukokuseki#Close Plz 5/21/2024 Orchastrattor (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:SpaceX Starship flight tests#RfC: Should we list IFT mission outcome alongside launch outcome?

(Initiated 38 days ago on 20 April 2024) An involved user has repeatedly attempted to close this after adding their arguments. It's a divisive topic and a close would stop back and forth edits. DerVolkssport11 (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the RfC was closed in this dif, and an IP editor unclosed it, with this statement: "involved and pushing"

In just over an hour, the above editor voiced support for the proposal.

I reclosed it, and the same IP opened the RfC again, with this message: "pushing by involved users so ask for more comments".

I reclosed once more. And then the editor who opened this requests opened it. To avoid violated WP:3RR, I have not reclosed it, instead messaging the original closer to notify them.

The proposal itself was an edit request that I rejected. The IP who made the request reopened the request, which I rejected once more. They then proceeded to open an RfC. Redacted II (talk) 12:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Hunter Biden#RfC: Washington Post report concerning emails

(Initiated 34 days ago on 24 April 2024) There's been no comments in 5 days. TarnishedPath^talk 03:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning RfCs above this line using a level 3 heading

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 27#Category:Unrecognized tribes in the United States

(Initiated 52 days ago on 7 April 2024) This one has been mentioned in a news outlet, so a close would ideally make sense to the outside world. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Stress marks in East Slavic words

(Initiated 23 days ago on 6 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Amina Hassan Sheikh

(Initiated 22 days ago on 6 May 2024) If the consensus is to do the selective histmerge I'm willing to use my own admin tools to push the button and do it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning XfDs above this line using a level 3 heading

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 42 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to me that there is a consensus here to do anything, with most editors couching their statements as why it might (or might not) be done rather than why it should (or should not). I will opine that I'm not aware there's any precedent to exclude {{Press}} for any reason and that it would be very unusual, but I don't think that's good enough reason to just overrule Hipal. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 May#Multiple page move of David articles

(Initiated 28 days ago on 1 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

(Initiated 26 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Agroforestry#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 25 days ago on 3 May 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 May#2018–2019 Gaza border protests

(Initiated 19 days ago on 9 May 2024) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Place new discussions concerning other types of closing requests above this line using a level 3 heading

So you lot have blocked me from doing category related edits. Have a look at this piss poor outcome: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 14#Category:Bibliographies by subject. FFS... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The corps has. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a military expression. Short for "The corps has gone to shit." Usually used when talking about the good ol' days. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Alan, are you just going to keep starting threads here hoping that at some point some gullible admin will decide we can't possibly manage our categories without your personal input? FYI that is the least likely outcome. As I said in the last thread where we tried to get you to stop pissing and moaning about your topic ban, your WP:IDHT behavior is extremely tiresome. Let it go, you are only making the day when the topic ban is lifted move farther away with this persistent complaining about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• That was a perfectly valid procedural close and not even relevant to AN. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • While starting a Cfd w/o adding the notification templates to the relevant categories is a spectacularly bad idea to start with, I have to wonder if filing the nomination iteslf was a violation of the topic ban, since Wikipedia: space isn't mainspace. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 05:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • (EC) If it isnt, Its pretty clear with the above posting it should be. Perhaps a discussion should be had to extend the topic ban to mentioning catagories anywhere? Obviously if you are under a topic ban for something, and you want to take an action that requires you to do further actions covered under the ban, then a sensible person would not do it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let's not shift the goal posts. Reyk _YO! 11:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I prefer to think of it as removing the posts altogether. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Alan, is this type of stuff of yours going to keep happening? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:14, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Give the guy a fucking break, please. Nobody has questioned his faithfulness to the project, and it's to be expected that there will be a period of acclimation to his new status, so it's incumbent on all of us to give him a little leeway to express himself, and not raise a shitstorm about it when he does. I ask every one of you to contemplate what it would be like if you were prevented from contributing in your own little corner of Wikipedia, and use that feeling as a stepping stone to empathize with what Alan is going through. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • BMK, I don't think anyone is questioning his faithfulness. However, comments like the beginning of this thread reek of "you cannot do this without me, your project is a joke without my protection... you bunch of imbeciles for preventing me from stopping this horrible damage" (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:31, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Let's please have less of the "Oh it's Alan Leifting yet again!" and a little bit more rational thought. Alan Leifting was banned, by my reading, for xyr recategorizing of pages outwith the article namespace — user-space draft articles, images, and so forth — in a ham-fisted and destructive manner that is, in xyr own words, "too fiddly" to do the right way that doesn't blank entire draft articles written by other people.

  Are we really extending that to being unable to nominate a category at CFD for renaming? Was Alan Leifting renaming categories or nominating categories at CFD ever a problem? Was xyr adding {{cfr}} to a category page ever a problem? It seems not, by my reading of the past discussions. If it isn't, we shouldn't be making silly procedural knots out of it just because Alan Leifting has managed to get this issue into four successive archives of this noticeboard. (Although it does seem that Alan Leifting has deliberately tried to create the procedural knot, in order to then complain about it.) If it is, then it should be clarified, with diffs (for which there are none in the past discussion), that Alan Leifting's Categories for Discussion nomination behaviour is also a problem subject to this remedy.

  Uncle G (talk) 12:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well renaming/nominating catagories may not have been a problem for him before. It is now. This isnt a case of people piling on Alan, if he had just used common sense in the first place, people would not feel the need to comment. Here is a simple clarification: Alan, dont start anything procedually you know you cant complete as it would violate your topic ban. There, its clarified for him. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So...why didn't someone help him and tag the categories for him? Nothing wrong with that. Nyttend (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because he didn't ask. I could have tagged them and re-listed the discussion, but he hadn't even listed all the subcategories that were apparently being nominated, so I figured it would be just as easy to start a new nomination as keep the old one open and going. I offered to help him start a new nomination if he wants to, but he hasn't taken me up on it yet. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody seems to have asked for a list of the categories... --Nouniquenames 03:37, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's generally regarded as being necessary to list them at CFD if they are going to be renamed. The category tagging is the more important issue, however. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of topic ban

Alan Liefting has a topic ban on "category-related edits outside the main namespace". I would be interested in getting a clarification about whether that covers:

• Nominating categories for deletion, given that he cannot follow the procedure to tag the category
• Edits such as [1], where he edits a template to add a cleanup tag, because the topic ban prevents him from removing the categories. (For context, the lack of consensus that the categories should be removed was a factor in the topic ban itself.)

— Carl (CBM · talk) 12:50, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the topic ban is pretty clear, and that it is also clear that Alan is deliberately testing the boundaries of it instead of making any effort whatsoever to respect it. Taking a category to CFD is a category related edit outside of mainspace. Adding a "re categorize" tag in the template namespace is a category related edit outside of mainspace. I don't see any grey area there. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep, per Beeblebrox, Liefting seems intent on pushing his idea of it being "all about the reader" and forgetting we work in a collaborative and collegiate environment. This means being generous and understanding to fellow editors. Liefting has often said he has little time for "niceties" like edit summaries or prod notices, yet that's at the heart of making Wikipedia a decent working environment. His continuous objection to understanding what a topic ban means, and his own admittance that he'll continue to disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point (with his bulging block log) go to show that not only does he understand the terms of his topic ban, but worse, that he's keen to push his luck by insidiously breaking those terms and then cry all the way home when he's caught doing it. Wikipedia isn't a one-man-show, anyone can change categories of pages, but to do so in direct disagreement with the current community perspective is v sign we can do without. Maintain the clear and obvious topic ban which says he should not make any category-related edits outside the mainspace. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it's reasonable to interpret the topic ban as precluding him from starting WP:CFD discussions. Particularly given that the topic ban was because of failure to work well with others, it's not unreasonable to me that if Alan thinks a category should be nominated for deletion or renaming, he should politely ask another editor to post such a CFD or CFR. He absolutely should not post a CFD nomination that he cannot execute (because of inability to tag the categories), and then throw WP:SOFIXIT in the face of anyone complaining as he did in the CFD discussed here. That seems WP:POINTy and disruptive to me, particularly given his indefensible stance that tagging categories with notices of the CFD was not necessary (and it would be difficult to find something as clearly against written policy, guidelines, and consensus).

  (Not that anyone has raised yet from what I've seen, but) I see no issue with him merely participating at CFD in discussions others have already started, however, even if that literally falls within the scope of "category-related edits outside the main namespace", because it wouldn't serve the purpose for which he was topic banned. postdlf (talk) 21:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That particular interpretation conflicts with longstanding consensus in other similar areas. (Specifically, at WP:AFDHOW, "If you are unregistered, you should complete step I, note the justification for deletion on the article's talk page, then post a message at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion requesting that someone else complete the process." Inability to complete does not preclude starting a discussion.) Either he cannot participate in such discussions, or he is unrestricted in them. I am of the opinion he should not be restricted in them as they seem unrelated to the reason for his ban. --Nouniquenames 03:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That's merely a workaround for the technical limitation that anonymous editors cannot create new pages and so cannot start AFD discussion pages. It's limited to that context and the concern that you should not have to create a logged in account to participate at AFD; it is not representative of a broader principle that it's okay to start what you cannot finish, particularly when the validity of the XFD hinges upon proper notice to the community. Note also that it involves the opposite of what we have here: the anonymous editor must first tag the article, then asks someone else to create the discussion page. We also had the situation here that Alan did not even list all the categories he intended to affect, leaving it to someone else to do the work of sifting through the category structure and tagging probably around two dozen categories. And he never even asked anyone nicely to do that, instead claiming tagging wasn't necessary. So even if it was not part of the topic ban to begin with, if this is how he intends to deal with it at CFD (i.e., not deal with it) it should be part of it now. postdlf (talk) 15:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to put this out there, not really asking for a formal discussion (of course, unless that's what comes of it) "It would be a good thing if Admins considering approving a request for the ACC bit to just get a tool admin's input on the user requesting the flag, since the user should have some kind of track record at ACC". Thanx for what ever this might bring Mlpearc (powwow) 00:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me attempt to reword that: "If you're considering giving someone the accountcreator right, ask a Toolserver administrator's opinion in order to understand the track record of the person who wants to be an accountcreator". Did I understand you rightly, or if not, where did I go wrong? Nyttend (talk) 06:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Mlpearc means tool admins in regards to the ACC tool. More specifically these users. Legoktm (talk) 07:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not being clearer, you both hit the nail on the head, if a user goes to WP:PERM and requests the ACC bit the patrolling Admin(s) look a "on wiki" statuses, while back at ACC the same user might not be ready to handle special requests yet, even after hitting the six requests limit a few times, and a tool Admin would be aware of this and could shed light on the PERM request. Mlpearc (powwow) 16:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly makes someone a tool admin? Are Bsadowski1, Cobi, Deliriousandlost, etc simply regular administrators who use the account creation tool? Sorry for being dense. Nyttend (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. The users on that list may or may not be en-wp admin's. They are Toolserver admins for the request interface, they have management functions such as accepting new users, suspending current users, they are able to black requesting IP's and/or email addy's of known socks, vandals, and so forth. Mlpearc (powwow) 23:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably help if you didn't call them "Toolserver admins" and used the phrase "ACC tool admins". Or something that doesn't mean the same as "toolserver roots". Legoktm (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't call them toolserver admin's, I was just clarifying that they, I am not an en-wp admin. Mlpearc (powwow) 00:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How would getting the accountcreator flag let them handle special requests? I thought it only removed the rate-limit on how many requests they could handle. Legoktm (talk) 07:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So I assume this isn't coming out of nowhere. Are there admins, otherwise uninvolved with ACC, granting this user right without properly assessing an account creators actual record?? If so, a) this is a problem, and b) there should probably be some sort of notice to administrators at the RfC page to not do this. Swarm ^X 06:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I want to have the page ꆈꌠ꒿ redirect to Nuosu language (it's the native name for the language), but it is blocked by a blacklist. Can an admin help? 24.34.53.2 (talk) 18:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The third character, "YI RADICAL HXOP", is in the Unicode "Symbol, Other" category, which is blacklisted. Is this the correct one to use or should it be ꆈꌠꉙ (which looks identical, but has a "YI SYLLABLE HXOP" at the end)? Peter James (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't know the difference... I checked the Nuosu language article saw that the symbols were identical to those indicated here by the anon and created the redirect. If I used the wrong symbol, any admin can speedy and create the right redirect. Or, alternatively, ꆈꌠꉙ can be created as well: redirects are cheap, after all... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, the second one's been created. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• User talk:BrownHairedGirl‎
• User talk:Good Olfactory

I want to say from the outset I am not looking for (do not want) someone to sanction anyone. (which is part of why I am here and not AN/I).

What I'd like is more eyes on this, to hopefully prevent this from escalating any further.

See also my comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 30#Actresses.

As far as I am concerned, I don't care about the cfd discussions anymore, and am more concerned about the editors now. - jc37 06:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... it would be helpful if you explained what you wanted "more eyes" on. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was my initial thought, but a quick glance at the talk pages, makes it obvious. Bother editors are engaged in a discussion over certain categories, largely revolving around whether actors and actresses categories should be distinguished by gender. Many, many words have ensued, civil so far, but the temperature is rising, and no sign of abating. My concern (and my guess is that this is jc's) is that it may escalate to the point that one or both drives the other away. It is rare to have epic battles between editors with over 600,000 edits between them, and the loss of even one would be unfortunate. I don't have enough knowledge or interest in the underlying subject matter to provide much help. Sounds like a job for Dennis Brown.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You hit the nail on the head.

And these days anything related to WP:EGRS can be contentious, even amongst the cfd "regulars" at times. The lack of ability to reference categories (due to obvious technical reasons) vs. "I think a particular group should be represented in the categorisation system, to not do so presents bias" vs. "only those EGRS which are directly relevant to a particular topic may be categorised".

It's more complex than this, but I think that those are the basics. (If I missed a perspective, I have little doubt that I'll hear about it : )

There's currently a big RFC (which I think is likely to lead to several others) which has been open awhile. (It would be nice if one or more of would try to close that : ) - And there is a more specific one concerning actresses at the VP. At the same time, there were several actress by nationality categories up for cfd.

WP:EGRS has pretty much been the compromise that has mostly worked so far (not that such discussions aren't still occasionally contentious).

Anyway, so much for background.

My concern now is just as you said Sphilbrick, about the editors. And as I have been apparently placed in an adversarial box by at least one of them, my words alone are likely to have limited effect. Hence the request for "more eyes" here. - jc37 18:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh, yeah, that actor/actress thing. Took one look at it the other day and just backed away slowly. Never expected that to get as passionate as some of the regional disputes! — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Not sure where better to post this]

There's some apparent off-wiki AfD canvassing at http://www.reddit.com/r/MMA/comments/13govr/hi_rmma_im_one_of_the_folks_resisting_ note: I have no view as to the merits of the articles concerned. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is interesting, but not really unusual. It doesn't look like Mtking has been notified of this and I'm not sure about who 'agent00F' is because the username is not registered. Slap the standard canvassing notice on the AFD and if we can figure out who the individuals are in this matter, have it brought to 3O or another venue. This really isn't major drama, but this is sounds like a personal matter and it does impact the wiki. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:28, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think User:Agent00f is who you're looking for... Dana boomer (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I notified Agent00f Hasteur (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified User:Mtking. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of note there is a previous RfC/U regarding Agent00f and MMA based topics. See the mentioned previous visits to ANI in the RfC/U and their mainspace contributions when evaluating their behavior. Hasteur (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh joy. Recent AfD's have been plagued by socks. Look out, here comes another flood. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Off site convassing from those who want every single MMA event and fighter ever to have their own article on Wikipedia and damnation to anyone who would dare disagree! 76.205.1.40 (talk) 02:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just finished reading the off-site thread. Wow - no wonder Mkting left. Agent00f absolutely made it clear that Mkting and a few others should be chased off so they can keep building their walled garden. Ah well - anyone who's tried to get in their way has been chased off so they certainly don't have any reason to stop. 76.205.1.40 (talk) 03:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Basically. I had a look at the utterly laughable SPI report that some pro-MMA folk filed alleging that Beeblebrox (a damn oversighter) and Scottywong are socks of Mtking. In MMA-related discussions, I've seen numerous accusations that Mtking was some kind of "abusive admin" (his user rights log never show him having been granted the mop, of course). That a user as patient as User:Dennis Brown can jump headlong into the MMA disputes and come out of it reeling in disgust shows that something is definitely wrong. There was a RfC/U on Agent00f's behaviour and nothing has come from it. (I know, an RfC/U failing to positively change problematic behaviour? That's never happened before!) I have no idea what to suggest, but that this nonsense has continued for so long is ridiculous. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any current (or imminent) AfDs of MMA articles? bobrayner (talk) 10:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:MMA#Article_Alerts lists no items that in my mind would set the MMA flood to come and derail the conversation, however it has been observed on multiple instances that calls to arms similar to this one have derailed any meaningful progress in attempting to improve the guidelines so just as I'm one of the named individuals in "the axis of MMA deletionisim" I would strongly encourage the previous behavior be considered before this ANI vanishes into the archives as all the previous ones have. Hasteur (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am reminded of the finding in WP:EEMLmessages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion may be considered disruptive. In particular, messages to fora mostly populated by a biased or partisan audience — especially when not public — are considered canvassing and disrupt the consensus building process by making participation lopsided. I'd support an indef for Agent00f on that basis. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance that this might be a joe jobs?  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the external discussion it reads like Agent00f and does have the hallmarks of their writing style including the blind hatred of people who understand WP's policies. Hasteur (talk) 20:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll defer to your judgment. I didn't bother reading it myself, but thought someone should raise the possibility.   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  20:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@LGR -- It's possible, but looking at the posts makes me think that's not the case. That someone cares that much about this is of order unlikely, but that someone would care enough about this to set up such a detailed fake is of order unlikely^several. a13ean (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have never personally participated in off-wiki canvasing, and I don't particularly condone it. Maybe it's fine for soliciting advice to make articles better, but I'm guessing that's not what we're talking about here, and I am no fan of cyber-harassment. However, the attitude towards MMA I am seeing here is the sort of thing that is making it very difficult to move forward. Meanwhile many excellent contributors to MMA articles have run away from all of the drama, leaving people who are heavily invested, people who are jaded, or people who outright thrive on drama (I assure you I don't fall into the last category). Meanwhile a very pleasant guy who also worked very hard on MMA articles like Oskar Liljeblad? Gone. Anyway I think very few people who have helped out in WP:MMA would object to outside editors asking them to trim the fat. However there's certainly a middle ground between cutting an extremely notable event like UFC on Fox 2 (was the first two-hour UFC card on national television, and was headlined by two title eliminators in addition to eight other matches that had ramifications in five different weight divisions), and an article on Wild Bill's Fight Nights (an actual promotion by the way). That casual Wikipedia users and editors with an interest in MMA have reacted to the top-down approach taken towards deleting MMA events as a malicious attack, is hardly surprising. If you were going to try and improve hockey articles, you'd maybe delete some articles on minor league players who never reached the NHL, not random NHL All-Stars, and while that's not a perfect analogy, it's basically what this feels like. Grouping MMA fans together and belittling them as a whole as I've seen all too often around here is furthermore not constructive and not a way forward. This has been going in circles for a year now and it's reached farcical levels. As it were, I'm all for reasonable discourse. I think the pro-MMA camp would be very happy to re-establish specific criteria of what merits individual articles, what merits omnibus condensing (omnibuses would mostly be for combining multiple events into single articles, by year or whatever), and what does not merit any sort of article. I believe this was tried very briefly last time but the two sides were miles and miles apart. If anyone here wants to try to settle this again by establishing clear criteria with an open mind for what is inherently worthy of an MMA article and what is required to support that, I would certainly be open to trying that again (probably I'm going to regret this, but again, I hope we can at least all agree we need a constructive path forward). Beansy (talk) 08:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beansy, the reason why we're at the current situation is because a compromise of the omnibus article was offered however the "obstructionist" (for lack of a better term) crowd kept re-nominating 2012 in UFC events for deletion because they saw it as the gateway to all the UFC articles being deleted. Being that several editors who offered the omnibus compromise have decided that the drama, harassment, personal attacks, and outright grief are not worth it, many have moved on and elected from a orbital strike against the entire subject area with the option of rebuilding from scratch. Hasteur (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Hasteur, this is where everyone was miles apart. 2012 in UFC events, while better than nothing, was an objectively inferior solution to keeping things the way they were. Omnibussing third tier UFC events like UFC on Fuel (by year) or Ultimate Fight Nights (by year)? I wouldn't agree with it, but you wouldn't encounter a tidal wave of resistance from people either. Grouping all the events for short-lived-but-significant promotions like Affliction and World Fighting Alliance into single articles? Sounds fine. Omnibussing Bellator events by season? There's been no objection (it sort of makes sense since they do weekly shows in-season and their undercards are mostly fluff). Taking all 30 or so UFC events from 2012 and omnibussing well over 300 fights into a single article as well as the respective backgrounds and fallouts of the 120 most notable or so fights? It's unwieldy, far less user friendly, and eats up far more bandwidth. In short, it's not helpful, it's not a compromise, it's not a solution. In fact I'm not even sure why people are fighting so hard to delete major and popular articles for belonging to a community here that had perfectly fine self-regulation, regular contributors, and represented is one of the fastest growing sports in the world. A community that's been blown all to hell now. If someone could explain where this originates from or the motivations behind it I'd love to hear it. I think that's only been asked of your side approximately 15,000 times now (the motivations here, not the WP:N or WP:NOT reasonings; do I really need to link to similar pages from two dozen other sports that aren't being targeted like this?). Also nominating UFC 157 for deletion is particularly unhelpful: it is the first UFC event to have a women's fight headlining it (or any women's fight at all), the first UFC event to have an openly gay fighter on it (who is in the headlining fight at that), the inaugural UFC Women's Championship fight, and the first major combat sporting event of any kind to be headlined by an openly gay fighter. If you actually feel that's not notable I don't see how we can come close to hammering out a compromise. (And yes I did put all those things about the event in my comment in the AfD before putting it here; I can add articles when I have time to further solidify notability, and as the event draws nearer there will probably be as much mainstream English-language press for this event as there has been for any MMA event ever, considering that Ronda Rousey is rapidly becoming a supernova for the sport and Liz Carmouche is breaking new grounds for gay athletes). Beansy (talk) 06:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some links for Agent00f:

• Agent00f (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Agent00f

So long as User:Agent00f continues his off-wiki canvassing and keep bringing in other warriors to help him out, it seems unlikely that regular editors will have the patience to work on articles on MMA. I support Elen's suggestion of an indef block for Agent00f. This guy is not new, there was an RFCU about him in May. If he had any intention to reform he would have done so by now. The discussion in the RFCU shows that people were making a serious effort to compromise with him. These efforts were fruitless. The new thread at Reddit shows he is continuing with the usual battleground stuff. EdJohnston (talk) 16:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've just read through that thread, and I'm disgusted. What a horrible account; no wonder Mtking packed it in. I echo the calls above for Agent00f to be indefed. He's making everything even worse than it currently is; he's not here to build an encyclopaedia, just to win his own personal battle. He won't be satisfied until he's got his way and will never compromise, because he clearly views this as his own personal crusade. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've indef blocked Agent00f. MBisanz ^talk 17:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took the bold action of nominating UFC 157 for deletion. Not 2 hours after I made the nomination Common Sense MMA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) comes in and argues for keeping reasons and personal attacks in the exact same way that every enthusiast (including Agent00f) reasons. I've already added the {{notavote}}, but I'm betting that we'll be able to drain some of the nonsense. Hasteur (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More like you took the bold action of lying... You flat out declare that the event is not covered in reliable source or notable. Yet, anyone with a computer can take two minutes to Google search the event as I did and find out the contrary. Before you go making more accusations, I looked up the article after reading about in USA Today, not because of some Agent guy or some web forum. I found your discussion, because the top of the article links to it. Now again, why don't you Google "USA Today" and "UFC 157" and in a matter of seconds, you will see that this globally televised event is the 1) the first time women fighters will compete in the UFC; 2) the first time a women's world fighting championship will be contested both on PPV and in the UFC; 3) the first time an openly gay fighter of either gender will compete in a major televised MMA event from ANY promotion; 4) the UFC is the largest fighting league in the world. These milestones in women's, gay, and sports history are covered in USA Today, the Detroit Free Press, and other non-MMA specific newspapers even months before the event occurs due to these major changes in the sport and advances for openly gay people and women athletes. To say it is not notable is insulting to women, gay people, and thus not just to fight fans. Its significance is only going to increase. It is not somehow going to become less notable. It is an event of firsts. And as such, it will always be the first time that the biggest MMA promotion in the world announced a main event featuring an openly gay Olympic athlete female competing for a world title on a globally televised card.Please apologize and withdraw your frivolous and hurtful AFD immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Common Sense MMA (talk • contribs) 19:53, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the stuff belongs either in the AFD or better yet, use these many sources to improve the article. However you have accused Hasteur of lying which is a personal attack if you don't provide evidence. For starters, please demonstrate where Hasteur "You flat out declare that the event is not covered in reliable source or notable" as I'm not seeing it. They didn't seem to do that in the AFD, instead they simply correctly noted that there are not reliable secondary sources used in the article and therefore it appears to fail GNG. Note there is a big difference between saying there are none currently used in the article and saying they don't exist. (And saying they don't exist may be a mistake, perhaps even in some cases are bad mistaken, but is not a lie unless the person is actually aware of the sources.) Hasteur may have did the former (said there are no reliable secondary sources used in the article), but you have accused them of doing the later (said they don't exist) without evidence. Note that while people are encouraged to search for sources before nominating articles for deletion and may find people getting annoyed at them if they repeatedly nominate articles for deletion with plenty of reliable secondary sources (just not used in the article), there's no strict requirement to do it in every case and in MMA cases which appear to be a mess, it's perhaps not unresonable to someone does not do so. If you are unable to provide evidence Hasteur actually said what your claimed, I strongly suggest you withdraw your statements and apologise yourself. Nil Einne (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's not going to get the chance. This is another sock of User:BStudent0 Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is obduracy of the establishment forcing new editors to break rules, and then be forced to leave, is it hurting the project? Didn't Common sense make sense? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:07, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. SPA editors that are willing to sock, lie, canvass, obstruct and wikilawyer in order to bludgeon the system into capitulation do hurt the project, however. A few were blocked in this thread. Most MMA editors are good people, but a few that aren't have tried to make themselves appear to be the victims, using other editors as pawns, and causing a great deal of damage along the way. Win at any costs, no matter how many rules you break. If anything, people like Agent and others have made MMA a net negative for Wikipedia. Not because of the content, but because of their actions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:47, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which leads to what is most disappointing about this whole episode...were it not for those few problematic pro-MMA editors deciding that the rules didn't apply to them, their desired result probably would have come to fruition to a large extent. Bobby Tables (talk) 15:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. In particular, I would note that if the now blocked editor had used their time as a sockpuppet to add all these reliable secondary sources that allegedly exist and cover the even in depth to the article rather than wasting their time attacking other editors here, in the AFD and even seemingly in Elen's talk page they might have contributed something useful in that time and who knows, perhaps even saved the article from AFD but instead they choose to do what they did. Nil Einne (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This is all very problematic. I wonder if we have reached the point where we should consider arbitration or some other form of external review/oversight of this area? Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• My thought was some form of discretionary sanction. It would be along the lines of: Single-purpose editors who cite the needs of the external MMA community or who fail to cite policy at MMA AFDs may be topic-banned from further participation in MMA AFDs. If such editors fail to abide by the topic bans, they will be site banned. Closing MMA AFDs isn't super hard because the standard admin approach of discount non-policy based comments usually removes the effect of the external coordination, but it is annoying and I suspect the external coordination will learn how to game it over time. MBisanz ^talk 15:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a judicious step. Is that an arb motion or an AN/I proposal? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As long as individual AfDs for MMA are made as debates/discussions and not predetermined motions. Beansy (talk) 23:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Arbitration assumes that there is a set of editors who are as of yet unrestricted in their editing who are causing conduct disputes through their actions. Discretionary Sanctions may be applied by an administrator but those require an ArbCom case/motion to enact. Based on the amount of change that is currently occurring with respect to them (and that very few of the truly disruptive editors remain) I doubt this is an appropriate action. General Sanctions on the other hand are able to be imposed by the community and designed to prevent the disruption of Wikipedia, while at the same time minimizing the inconvenience to editors in good standing. As I'm neck deep in this it would be highly inappropriate for me to suggest any sanctions, but I do note that it is high time that sanctions be looked at one way or annother. Hasteur (talk) 15:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You can look at past examples of topic-area sanctions that were placed by the community. See the first six entries in Wikipedia:GS#Sanctions placed by the Wikipedia community. As you can see, the wording varies from one to the next. If you want to use something like Arbcom's discretionary sanctions, you can just say that. That kind of sanction at least has the benefit of being well-understood by admins. It looks to me that MBisanz's proposed wording for MMA is on the right track, but is potentially gameable, because the externally-canvassed voters would just take care to make some trivial reference to Wikipedia policy every time while continuing to push their POV as usual. The Arbcom-style wording is: "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the area of conflict (or for whom discretionary sanctions have otherwise been authorized) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." Note that a single admin can take the action in his or her own discretion. I would clarify that this applies to MMA-related editing, but in each case the admin's action can be appealed to a noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What in particular about Agent00F's reddit thread was enough for such a quick block, and why doesn't that apply to Hasteur and his thread here http://www.reddit.com/r/MMA/comments/133rqk/wikipedia_isnt_out_to_burn_mma_coverage_to_the/ ? 10.0.0.x (talk) 04:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC) another blocked sock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 09:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agent00f was trying to recruit people to disrupt wikipedia. I was going to try and build bridges and extend the olive branch. Hasteur (talk) 13:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Involvement from editors on other sports wikiprojects that have addressed the issue of which fixtures/bouts/matches/leagues/competitions are notable would be particularly helpful, but I can't blame them for keeping out given the behaviour of some of the participants. Which is a shame because the community has managed to sort this notability vs directory problem for most sports, but those with an interest have always had to be prepared to select the best. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the best (and nicest) MMA editors have been driven away already. I could be wrong but if I recall, this started with a single editor launching and closing speedy deletions of UFC events within hours, without following any of the guidelines, and spiraled out from there with a predictable hornet's nest reaction. Most sports wikiprojects have never had to face that. And @Hasteur, I appreciate your stated intentions but I don't think nominating UFC 157 for deletion was consistent with your efforts to extend an olive branch. I feel like I tried to extend an olive branch myself just before that happened and that particular nomination felt like someone extending a grenade. However, if you still want to figure out a compromise I still want the same. God knows the current situation is just painful for everyone. Beansy (talk) 00:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hasteur, you have been extremely hostile to me as an editor coming in cold from the AfD boards. I have no history of editing UFC articles and left you a question on your talk page and you came back to me with this. Furthermore, you've been very hostile to other editors in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 157 who clearly have no affiliation with this on-going battle. Your "olive branch" has been sour and very off-putting and disrespectful even to outsiders. Mkdw^talk 08:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MMA sanction proposal

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the the topic of mixed martial arts, if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. This may include, but is not limited to, banning from participation in deletion discussions any editor who reasonably appears to be acting in coordination with an interest other than that of the Wikipedia community and without regard for compliance with content rules. Sanctions may be appealed to the administrator who placed them, the administrators' noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee.

Given the above discussion, I'm proposing the above community sanction for MMA articles. MBisanz ^talk 14:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I would support that. I've been as thick in mediation at MMA as you can get, and I'm afraid that soft words will get you exactly nowhere. Perhaps a big stick will have better luck. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly support that. The whole area is a walled garden of non-notable articles which are proving impossible to remove through off and on-wiki canvassing, sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry. I feel sorry for the genuine editors in the area who end up being tarred with the sane brush as those that are disruptive. Black Kite (talk) 18:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. (And has anyone pointed out that sites like Wikia may be their better option?) --MASEM (t) 18:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did point out MMAwiki.com here Wikipedia talk:MMA#MMAwiki.com. Mtking ^(edits) 20:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Other measures have gotten exactly nowhere. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, this is long overdue. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 18:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Question This proposal's wording seems really broad, but since I don't normally deal with this kind of sanction, I don't know — is it broader in scope than other sanctions in problematic areas? I'm just afraid that it might be used by people to get their opponents in trouble improperly. That being said, I agree that we need something here; if you can point me to established sanctions in other areas that are comparable in their breadth, I'll support this wording. Nyttend (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I cribbed from Ed's wording from prior Arbcom proposals in the above section and it generally seems to fit with the types of language used at Wikipedia:GS#Sanctions_placed_by_the_Wikipedia_community. MBisanz ^talk 19:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I agree that it is perhaps a bit broad, however the off-wiki canvassing and willingness to create sock accounts just to win has now reached a tipping point. Mtking ^(edits) 19:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Broad, but so long as applied judiciously by administrators will help deal with this issue. NativeForeigner ^Talk 22:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I had the displeasure of closing a couple of these, and I'm amazed by just how bad this topic area has become.—Kww(talk) 22:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Seems like every few days there's another MMA thread in Wikipedia-space. Time to end this madness pbp 23:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: This is almost the same as the typical wording for discretionary sanctions, and it also calls out deletion discussions for special emphasis, which is where much of the problem has been happening. The mere fact that such sanctions can be available may reduce the temptation to recruit others externally to slant a debate. EdJohnston (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Quite keen to see Arbcom done out of a job on this one :) - it's not a matter of two sides in a dispute, the continued MMA disruption is a pain in the situpon for the community generally Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support No question that the bullies and bullcrap in the MMA subject area need to be reined in (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, since we need this, and others' comments have shown me that I need not have qualms about the wording or the breadth. Nyttend (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, nothing else is fixing this. Articles on MMA may well be about fights, but they shouldn't be fights. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: i have stated elsewhere that the UFC event articles need lots of work, and have been doing my best to understand Wikipedia policy relating to these articles. Two problems i see with this process are A) it seems that the users supporting the articles are less Wikipedia Savvy and don't see discussions like this, they only see the deletion of articles sometimes in mass and respond in frustration. B) given that there are a number of articles that need work, my fear is that it's much easier to put a bunch of AfD on articles than it is to do the work to improve them. if a number of the articles are removed, how would someone like myself know when it's appropriate to try to recreate them with better sourcing? Kevlar (talk) 02:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Obviously necessary as shown by this and previous discussions. Johnuniq (talk) 03:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: If this action will allow admins to respond quicker to the abuse and toxicity that is dealt to those who attempt to edit articles so that they conform to Wikipedia policies then I support it. I might even brush the dust off MMABot. I will admit to being a pessimist and believe that the rampant socking and anon IPs that come out of the woodwork won't be abated by this. I do have a couple questions:
  1. Will this discussion be announced at WT:MMA prior to the close of it? (The obvious reason why not to do so would be the flamewar that would erupt here.)
  2. If the sanctions are approved, would a notice be placed at WP:MMA or WT:MMA or some other 'easily accessible' page (other than WP:GS) that serves as notice to the MMA WikiProject participants?

That's pretty much covers my concerns/thoughts/whatever. --TreyGeek (talk) 03:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I hadn't thought of announcing it there because the current problem is more localized to AFD and I didn't want to intimidate MAM participants into thinking that everyone dislikes all of their editing. But if you want to leave a note there, by all means go ahead. We could make a sanctions template for use at AFD to remind people of the sanction. MBisanz ^talk 14:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Given the potential/demonstrated canvassing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support given the history. --Nouniquenames 03:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Given the continued disruption occurring in this topic area over a protracted period. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A big problem since summer of 2011, and this strong action has become necessary because of a sustained pattern of misbehaviors by a wide range of MMA-fan participants. I don't think this action alone will solve the problem, but it will give admins a tool to help solve the problem, at least in formal procedures. BusterD (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The constant disruption is getting tiresome. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Add verbiage "Sanctions may be appealed to the imposing administrator, WP:AN or ArbCom." NE Ent 16:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done MBisanz ^talk 16:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. It's a pity we need this, but we do because a weakness of the Wikipedia model is that a small but determined and organised group can get their way by making things so unpleasant for opponents that the uncombative majority are driven away. JohnCD (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  ...anyone else find it an interesting sociological study that topics based on war and battle-sports are the areas where we have the most wars and battles? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support We need to be able to enforce the standards and this is unfortunately necessary. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I have a funny feeling this'll fix the problem a lot better than another round of RfCU or ArbCom would. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The sanction is too broad and has no specified expiration. It also does not specify exactly what type of sanctions are permitted for admins to apply. Based on the evidence shown here, the problem appears to be mainly at MMA-related AfDs. I can not support a sanction which would needlessly cover thousands of articles for an indefinite period and with non-specific limitations to the imposable sanctions. --Odie5533 (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose; I've been digging into this matter (I can't say MMA has ever appealed to me, but I've seen this dispute crop up from time to time). We have a number of deletionists fighting with MMA-fans, and this sanction seems to end up favouring the former - for no obvious reason. I've looked through a lot of the deletion discussions and so forth and found it to be a case of individuals sitting in trenches unable to reach compromise. Many of the for/against arguments are poorly made with a focus on what I call "policy wonkery" rather than considered thoughts on content presentation. I suggest the community enforces some form of mediation that establishes a sensible way of covering this sport on Wikipedia in a way which reflects the sort of content we aim to have. --Errant ^(chat!) 19:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There is apparently a guideline that has consensus at WP:NMMA. An example of where it works is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caio Magalhaes. An example of what this proposal seeks to remedy is Willdawg111's comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitch Clarke and many of the comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 155. Also, this proposal only favors those who engage in Wikipedia discussion over those who would coordinate off-site to promote non-policy retention rationales. MBisanz ^talk 19:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I do believe the bigger debate as it stands is the question of event notability rather than individuals notability. I've rarely seem a debate devolve into vitriol and across the bow deletionism vs fan socking so blatantly and repeatedly. Of course the fansocks lose, because of the policies enacted to discourage it in the first place, but the cohesive and coherent points by the more sane users get lost amongst the white noise. this has resulted in several discussions which, to my eyes, are WP:SUPERVOTE vetoes by the closing admins who have a less than neutral point of view and rather than participate in the debate have instead taken it upon themselves to be the arbitrators of the content (especially as several of the same admins appear closing the same debates, after a period it becomes obvious they are less neutral adminning and more taken it upon themselves to dictate the content of the area). I've said before this brings to mind the same debates that occurred three-four years ago amongst wikipedia and professional wrestling but WP:MMA seems to be a much smaller community than WP:PW was (which was active when wikipedia was at its largest) that featured numerous users and admins (one of which, SirFozzie, is now an arbitrator. I sympathise with the members of WP:MMA in this regard, it must feel like rocks trying to hold back the ocean, and to a large extent it is. –– Lid^(Talk) 02:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you list these "supervote" closures and give evidence of the closing administrators having a conflict of interest in closing them? Thanks. Black Kite (talk) 10:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• At Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 November 8 Kww appears as a regular contributor, referring to the pointlessness of the debates at hand, and again subsequently at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_November_16 again endorsing the perspective of these articles consistently requiring deletion. Not shortly after being a participant in the November 8th DRV's Kww closed debates as delete at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 155 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 156. They can not be advocated to be an uninvolved editor in these regards, they have firmly placed their cards on the table prior to these deletion discussions and are an involved admin in a content dispute. Your overruling of another user to allow Kww to govern a content dispute is a supervote in action. –– Lid^(Talk) 10:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I hardly think that an admin giving an opinion at a DRV (and it wasn't as if he was saying "delete everything") would preclude him from closing similar AfDs. And unless I'm in psychic contact with Kww, I could hardly have known that my (correct) re-opening of the AfD would result in him closing it, and closing it as delete. I fully expected an admin to come along and as Keep or No Consensus, to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 10:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• If you think the dispute is "We have a number of deletionists fighting with MMA-fans" you clearly didn't dig into the issue long enough or hard enough. Black Kite (talk) 07:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That is a hard argument with snide commentary to back up when one looks at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 156, or more specifically the history of it. This article has not gone through DRV, though I suspect it will in the near future, however what does appear is that you, after editting the discussion, overturned a keep closure and then user Kww subsequently later closed the discussion as delete. To an external observer the same names pop up on both sides of the debate: Kww, Black Kite and Mtking on one side, and the members of WP:MMA (and their canvassed sockpuppets) on the other. It appears to me, and my knowledge of deletion processes, that after the subsequent re-opening the listed numbers (and arguments) in no way changed and a supervote was enacted to overrule the entire situation. Like I said above - it's a bunch of rocks against the ocean, the ocean having powers that the rocks don't. When the same admins keep enforcing the same actions against the same users NPOV starts to become a questionable position, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar#Final decision for the policies governing the rights and powers. –– Lid^(Talk) 07:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• @Black Kite; there has been constructive work on this topic, but at its core the dispute involves two (relatively small) entrenched camps bitching at each other. Neither camps behaviour has been pleasant; the best solution is for the community to mediate solid rules for the whole MMA area (I note that the current guideline only covers individual fighters) which will end the matter. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no idea what you means when you say "both" camps behaviour has not been pleasant. I'd like to see some evidence for that. But your point is met by mine - mediation has been tried - it didn't work - all we ended up with was a horde of MMA editors saying "sorry, we don't really care about your policies, we've decided every event is notable". They even managed (after AfDing it a number of times) to delete a merged article for "UFC events in 2012" because AfDs were ending with decisions of Merge. Meanwhile, nearly every AfD is deluged by socks, meatpuppets, SPAs and demostrations of obvious on- and off-wiki canvassing. If that isn't disruptive, I don't know what is. The people I actually feel sorry for are the few good faith MMA editors stuck in the middle of the tendentious behaviour. Black Kite (talk) 09:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I unclosed the UFC156 AfD because it was closed against WP:NAC by a non-admin who didn't take into account the strength or weakness of the comments, nor the fact - though he wasn't to know this - that a number of the !votes were from socks of blocked editor. I previously edited the discussion to remove personal attacks. I don't see any problem with either of those issues. Black Kite (talk) 09:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That would be a matter for DRV to decide, not you. It would take some substantive knots to be tied in arguing to state you are an uninvolved editor in the proceedings and that you have no authority to overrule a non-admin closure. More importantly, and the part I keep coming back to, is when one camp has an admin in the pocket to close discussions in one direction and they don't need to take part to do so, the other side can uniformly be unable to win the debate as they have the impossible burden of being able to overcome the authority that closes. –– Lid^(Talk) 10:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• A DRV would merely say "closed against NAC, relist". If I'd wanted to close it as Delete I'd have done it - I merely reversed the close that was against policy. And by the way, if you're going to start casting aspersions at me, ("admin in the pocket") you'd better have some damn good evidence. If the "deletion" side did have that, do you think those hundreds of MMA event articles would still exist? Black Kite (talk) 10:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That is, again, not for you to decide. You don't get to appeal to authorities and then explain why you didn't appeal to other authorities in a content dispute. –– Lid^(Talk) 10:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, it is for me to decide in this case - I think you need to go and read NAC ("Decisions are subject to review and may be reopened by any administrator"). If the AfD had been closed by an admin, you'd be correct. But it wasn't. Black Kite (talk) 10:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Do I retort with Closing discussions in which you have offered an opinion or for a page in which you have a vested interest (i.e. a page that you have edited heavily) should be avoided. The sole exception is if you are closing your own withdrawn nomination as a speedy keep and all other viewpoints expressed were for keep as well. or does that only apply to non-admins considering your previous contributions to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 November 8, and I'm only looking over edits that took place in the last month. FGrom what I can tell this dispute has lasted minimum a year and the tools of certain users (including myself) should be nowhere near it. –– Lid^(Talk) 10:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Feel free to show how I have "a vested interest" in UFC156 or have edited it heavily. I can't stop you making insinuations about my motives, but at least base them in reality (or indeed, policy), please? Black Kite (talk) 11:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• "No authority to overrule a non-admin closure"? I've rarely heard something so daft. NAC is just-about tolerated in the case where the result is completely uncontroversial. In any other case, NAC is utterly non-binding, and nobody should so much as bat an eyelid if an NAC is overturned by anybody for any reason. Sheesh. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I may support this on principle, but the wording needs to be more restrictive; otherwise, we'll have admins giving away indef blocks to any user who may appear to be confrontational. I would like to see a more specific wording, specifying which type of sanctions are allowed and which aren't, how they may be applied, etc. "Own discretion" is too broad for me. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• That's the way discretionary sanctions have typically been handled from my knowledge. The ability to appeal to AN or Arbcom is the limiting factor on abuse by enforcing admins. The fact that any conceivable sanction is on the table discourages gaming and attempts to test the limits. MBisanz ^talk 19:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support Having taken part in Agent00f's RFC,I saw first hand the need for some level of sanction that could be applied to this area. Blackmane (talk) 19:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Seems okay as long as it goes both ways (I don't believe the WP:MMA community started this war). I think hammering out clear criteria for event notability (including omnibussing) with WP:MMA's input and involvement and embedding it into the general criteria for sports notability (I forget the darn page for that, sorry) would be the best way to end this, which is what I think most people want, myself included. Beansy (talk) 23:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Drmies (talk) 03:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 04:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As there are long running problems with MMA articles which previous interventions haven't been able to fix, this is entirely appropriate. Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I fear that this may result in draconion actions taken against many good MMA editors and favor the deletionists. MMA deserves to be on wikipedia, just like any other sport does! JonnyBonesJones (talk) 08:36, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support So long as this also applies to Hasteur and Mtking, who I do think should be banned from deletion debates on this topic. Silverseren^C 08:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Please feel free to show evidence of either of these user's disruption of AfD. Black Kite (talk) 10:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support; sadly necessary. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• At long last. The less said about the deletionist-blah above the better. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – I've edited in the MMA area in the past and saw some poor behaviour and absurd arguments, but I also saw some over-zealous campaigns against MMA content and unacceptable criticism of MMA editors, so I was on the fence on expanding admin authority. I was planning not to comment. But then, I got accused of making a personal attack (see further down this page and my talk page and that of MBisanz) for suggesting that an editor was walking an "unwise path", and I was reminded of the frustration I had in the MMA area. There have been MMA disputes for a long time and, on balance, I've come to the view that admins choosing to work this area of the 'pedia should be equipped with a bigger stick. I hope that it is not needed and that policy-compliance and harmony become the norm in MMA areas, but it is clear this won't happen on its own. Since an ArbCom case would take months to impose discretionary sanctions that have much the same effect and they are the obvious first approach to improving the situation, let's skip the three month wait and authorise admin discretion (with the usual checks and balances) now. EdChem (talk) 10:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is any admin going to step up and close this as "enacted"?

It seems clear that the support for the sanction regime is widespread, and in the absence of it we have the query below, which would seem to indicate that its implementation is necessary. Can someone please take the bull by the horns? -- I've seen people site-banned with less support. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:46, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 2012 Arbitration Committee Election is closing today (in about 8 hours). Until then, users may review the election page to learn more about the election and determine if they are eligible to vote.

Voters are encouraged to review the candidate statements prior to voting. Voter are also encouraged to review the candidate guide. Voters can review questions asked of each candidate, which are linked at the bottom of their statement, and participate in discussion regarding the candidates.

Voters can cast their ballot by visiting Special:SecurePoll/vote/259.

Voters can ask questions regarding the election at this page.

For the Electoral Commission. MBisanz ^talk 15:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking flak (at least partially deserved) over Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 November 25#Improper mass deletion review (closed). I'm in a quandary, however. SchuminWeb's close wasn't great. It's certainly a step that I would not have taken. However, it was at least 97% right. Of those 272 images that were deleted, I would bet that somewhere between 260 and 270 of them fail WP:NFCC#8/WP:NFCC#1, in that any understanding they impart is so trivial that they can easily be replaced by text. I'm not inclined at all to restore 272 images in order to salvage half a dozen.

Can anyone suggest a rational process to get past this? Some way to identify a dozen images that at least stand a chance, as opposed to simply reversing my endorsement and having to go back through the process 272 times to get rid of the decorative images?—Kww(talk) 22:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As originator of the DRV, and as objector to some of Kww's language in the close of that, I support this request as expressed in Kww's 2nd sentence, para 2. My original intent was to focus attention on these three things: the poor quality (I argued seriously flawed and awful precedent if allowed to stand) deletion nominations, the poor quality close of all those deletions sans discussion even at the images which stood a chance, and to point out what I believe to be ongoing misinterpretation and misrepresentation of NFCC#8 language by deletion nominator, deletion closer, several admins, and the DRV closer. I do not believe, in good faith, that NFCC#8 is being followed as intended, and either its language needs to somehow be clarified by explanation, or we all need to be reeducated. I appreciate Kww's willingness to discuss. My lament is that I strongly support the NFCC as written, but nobody seems willing to read the same meaning from it. It's not self-contradictory. It's not some horribly opaque arcane text. We should be able to go forward from this unscathed. --Lexein (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lexein, looking at your comments to Kww and claiming that you are following an interpretation of NFCC#8, I would suggest you review the "Acceptable" and "Unacceptable" uses of images on WP:NFC as to get a feel of long standing casebook examples of where images should and should not be used, most of these reflecting on the nature of NFCC#8. These should help explain what is intended by NFCC#8, which, reading the Kww messages, are counter to what you are interpreting it as, and suggests that you need to come to the long-standing meaning. We'll willing to see what clarification text can be made at NFCC to better explain that meaning, but as it is, the intent has been long established. --MASEM (t) 00:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By request: quoting the WP:NFC#Images requested section: "Acceptable use / Images / Film and television screenshots: For critical commentary and discussion of the work in question." in re WP:Deletion review/Log/2012 November 25#File:Andy_checking_phone_on_stage.jpg_.28closed.29 Maybe the acceptable and unacceptable use examples need to be changed to raise the bar more, because the episode was discussed critically by quoted, cited reliable sources in the article Andy's Play. The assertion that the scene can be concisely described, to replace it by text, fails: the prior suggested "replacement text" was reductive and IMHO absurd. --Lexein (talk) 01:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you see, NFC#I says allowable used but all other NFCC must be met. A shot of live actors standing on a stage is easily described by free text and ergo can be replaced per NFCC#1. And given the article already does the job of describing the scene via text, the claim that it can't is bogus. --MASEM (t) 02:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I looked where you asked, and answered you definitely. Nothing you have just said follows: cat, you've chased that moth before. It's purest illogic. It's insulting, unhelpful, disruptive, non-explanatory, and slightly embarrassing, except, apparently, to you. Your reductive "shot of live actors" is just that: reductive and explains nothing. If you don't understand that, it's not my problem and you're flogging a dead horse. If you do understand that, and you're just being disruptive, it's getting very, very tiresome. You cannot prove that the image can be adequately replaced with free text: every example you might propose will miss a detail which important to understanding the scene; therefore, I can prove text cannot replace the image, and the image serves better than text. I'm not the only editor who has made this response to you. Further, any such text is WP:OR. Policy, to be followed, does not require breaking of other policy. This, in case anyone cares is the essence of the problem: Masem is not abiding by the intent of the policy, and is hyperextending parts to trump other parts, so that all is Catch-22. I do not like being toyed with by manipulators of language, and I want them to stop. --Lexein (talk) 06:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, it is definitely not OR to describe a scene in text as long as no interpretive elements are brought in (this how most plot summaries like that for Andy's Play are written, assuming the episode is the primary work); moreso, if this scene is one that is described by sources to merit its inclusion, one can always point to those as sources to further distance any possible OR. There's no mishandling of NFCC here - all ten criteria have to be met, and while NFCC#8 is often the hardest and most important one to assure is met, all 9 others are equally as important, and that's what most of the images in this set failed to do. --MASEM (t) 15:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the large bulk of the files in question, the matter is quite simple: no tangible argument for how they pass NFCC#8 was ever brought forward. Not by the original uploaders in the (non-existent and/or boilerplated) FURs, nor by the two boilerplated keep votes in the FFDs, nor by anybody who might have stepped forward to try and fix their FURs during the week they were at FFD, nor by anybody in the bulk DRV discussion. As long as that is the case, they need to be kept deleted. Let the remaining individual DRV threads play out, and let people bring forth new, individualized DRVs with individualized NFCC#8 rationales for any remaining ones they consider salvagable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the best way is to have any individual images be DRV and evaluated closer that way, ignoring any drama associated with the mass deletion that started it; in other words, working that the 272 image deletions may have included a handful of false positives but as the majority were proper violations, let those that want to use the images to request and argue restoration. (And unlike some other pictures, recapturing of screenshots is a trivial matter here; it is not like the original source is gone or hard to trace down, so I'm more in favor of keeping the images deleting and reviewing the exceptions, than bringing them all back and reviewing there.) --MASEM (t) 00:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A number needed very simply improved NFUR text, but that message was not made clear at any time in the deletion process. IMHO, it should be. Since there's time in such deletion discussions, the need to improve the NFUR rationale should be made clear, and required as part of deletion nominations where appropriate. Four words. Not a guarantee of surviving the FfD, but still. --Lexein (talk) 00:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not true; they needs text in the articles they were to be used that then would have supported the rationale to keep them. That's basically what NFCC#8 boils down to (give or take). If they are just there to decorate the page and not discussed in text, they immediately fail #8. There were a few that should be reviewed that could meet #8 but that was a handful, and far from a majority of them. --MASEM (t) 02:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What? I said a number of images, because some of the NFUR were grossly deficient, according to several editors. Of course the articles also needed the requisite text and sources as well, I was not arguing against that, obviously. I refuse to be misunderstood. --Lexein (talk) 02:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, asking uploaders to improve their NFURs very rarely has any positive effect. When I nominate these kinds of images, I very often include a remark about inadequate boilerplate rationale in my FFD nominations, where that is the case. Hardly ever do uploaders take the hint and try to improve them, and even if they do, it very rarely is an actual improvement. In most cases, such uploaders merely replace one piece of boilerplated generic drivel with another, more elaborate and impressive-looking piece of boilerplated generic drivel. The thing is, you can't write a good rationale for a bad image use case; if the article isn't right, there's just nothing to improve about the NFUR. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Kww, I recommend that you revert your closure of the DRV because you improperly based that closure on your analysis of the arguments made with regard to the NFCC merits of the images at issue. What I think you should have done instead is determine whether there was consensus in the DRV about whether deletion process was properly followed in the contested xFDs. This is because deletion review is explicitly not a second round of xFD, but a forum for settling disagreements about the deletion rules (including disagreements about the propriety of mass nominations or the extent of administrators' discretion in closing xFDs).  Sandstein  12:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Subtle distinction: many of the overturn arguments were based on the notion that the individual deletes themselves were unreasonable. I don't know how to weigh such an argument without doing at least a spot check of the FFDs and determining whether the close was reasonable. In the cases I checked, it was: the FFD nomination represented policy (although some argue that "decorative" is an offensive term, it is the intent of NFCC to prohibit such images) and the keep votes did not. The remaining overturn arguments were based on the notion that there is something inherently wrong about doing the right thing a lot of times in a row, a position for which they offered no basis in policy, and I can't find one. At my best and most charitable, I could rewrite this as "no consensus to overturn".—Kww(talk) 14:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't agree that it's right to let the supervote/close of 250+ discussions stand, and require individual DRVs for each one. That's not FairProcess. It's important that DRV is seen to be doing its job; and that means a bad close cannot be allowed to stand because of special pleading. Kww says most of the images "deserved" to be deleted, but I don't see it that way at all, because that's simply not Kww's judgment to make. Or SchuminWeb's. The community decides what deserves to be deleted at XfD discussions. Administrators don't decide it on AN. Administrators have delegated authority to make deletion decisions only when certain narrowly-defined speedy deletion criteria are met. Otherwise, they shouldn't be pressing the "delete" button without a consensus to do so.—S Marshall T/C 08:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • With non-free images, the situation is slightly different though, because there is clear principle of default-to-delete (in the absence of any tangible argument for keeping) built into the policy. The tangible, concrete argument for keep must be made not just at the FFD, but more crucially, it must already be stated in the NFUR, and in most of these cases it wasn't. No matter how you handle the process, at one point the issue of blanket procedure versus individual debate will turn against these images: somebody must make an individual, specific keep argument for every single one of them, somewhere, and in these cases, nobody ever did. If these were restored today, I'd tag an estimated 95% of them for speedy deletion as either "no rationale" or "disputed rationale" tomorrow. Would you then go through them and write those (non-boilerplated, policy-conformant) rationales? For how many of them? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Certainly I wouldn't; I'm inactive at FFD because I'm fundamentally uninterested in images. I use images from Commons in articles, and I've never uploaded an image with a claim of fair use. My concern is about the proper operation of DRV. Because admins have the power (but not the authority) to delete material based on their own personal judgment, editors with a concern about deletion have to be able to appeal to DRV. It's important that DRV is seen to take action when the concern is justified. It's simply not right that DRV should uphold a mass deletion when there are good faith doubts about it. If these images should be deleted then let it happen properly and in an orderly way, by means of the untainted process that you suggest.—S Marshall T/C 11:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So that they may complete their duties as scrutineers of the 2012 Arbitration Committee Elections, the stewards User:Pundit, User:Teles, User:Quentinv57, and User:Mardetanha are authorized to grant themselves checkuser rights on the English Wikipedia. They are authorized to use these rights solely for the purpose of fulfilling their duties as scrutineers. They may retain these rights until the election results are posted and verified; at that time the checkuser rights should be relinquished.

• Supporting: AGK, Courcelles, Hersfold, Kirill Lokshin, Risker, Roger Davies
• Supporting after posting:
• Abstaining: David Fuchs, Elen of the Roads, JClemens, Newyorkbrad
• Not voting at time of posting: Casliber, PhilKnight, SilkTork, SirFozzie
• Inactive for this motion: Xeno

For the Arbitration Committee, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this statement

Could I get some input from an admin about a problem concerning dates and dating? Is it proper to use the term "BCE"? I cannot find a policy page on this anywhere, and perhaps someone could point me in the right direction. Is it proper on Wikipedia to use, for example, "The incident took place in the year 1267BCE", rather than "The incident took place in the year 1267BC". I reverted a good faith edit from an editor who was changing hundreds of such calender indicators all over Wikipedia, and is continuing to do so. I then asked her why she was doing this. Here is the talk page response: User_talk:Sue_Rangell#RE:_Your_recent_BCE_revert

I do not think these are bad faith edits, in fact I am not even sure that this isn't wikipedia policy. Can somebody show me? Thank you. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 04:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• See WP:ERA. Basically which ever version gets established first should be left that way. Trying to change large numbers of articles from one to the other rarely ends well. Monty₈₄₅ 05:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• [edit conflict] See WP:ERA. Basically, BCE/CE should be used in two contexts: (1) in non-Christian religious contexts, and (2) in religion-neutral contexts in which BCE/CE appeared originally. Conversely, BC/AD should be used in Christian religious contexts and in religion-neutral contexts in which it appeared originally. If you're writing on a religion-neutral topic that's never had either BCE/CE or BC/AD dates, you get to choose. It's comparable to WP:ENGVAR, in which we follow the national variety of English that's appropriate for the subject, and in which we defer to the earliest appearance of a specific variety if the subject doesn't have ties to a specific variety of English. For example, Heironymous Rowe and I both write about lots of archaeological sites in the USA, and since it's a neutral topic, I leave his BCE dates alone, and he doesn't touch my BC dates. Nyttend (talk) 05:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• And the background to what the style manual says is a lot of back and forth over several years, including editors doing mass changes who got sanctioned for it. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate, Wikipedia:Eras, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jguk#Final decision, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/jguk 2#Final decision, just for starters. Santurwoman (talk · contribs) is, all innocently, dancing out into the middle of a minefield. Uncle G (talk) 12:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you everyone. You are all great teachers. I have found and absorbed WP:ERA, and have all of the information I need. Feel free to close this topic at this point. very much appreciated, be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a backlog at Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests that could do with the attention of some willing admins. I've just done a bunch, but there are still 17 requests pending. While some of them require knowledge of template coding or JavaScript to answer, quite a few are updates to articles or trivial template fixes that anyone can do. If you're not sure how to answer requests, take a look at Wikipedia:Edit requests#Responding to requests or ask me if you have any questions. And if you help out, I'll buy you a virtual beer. (Or maybe a real beer if I happen to meet you at Wikimania next year. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question for administrators. A small group of arbitrators are proposing an interaction ban with a user currently indefinitely blocked at WP:AE and previously sanctioned by arbcom, TrevelyanL85A2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). In the short history of wikipedia has anyone ever suggested an interaction ban with a site-banned user and what could it possibly mean? I have no idea how to respond to the handful of arbitrators making this bizarre kind of suggestion. Mathsci (talk) 10:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, per WP:IBAN an interaction ban prohibits, among other things, mentioning the other editor on Wikipedia, reverting their edits or contributing to their talk page. These aspects of an interaction ban could still have a practical effect in the situation you describe. (Whether they would have any useful purpose is a different question.)  Sandstein  11:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer. I will have to search back to see whether such an IBAN has ever been applied with an indefinitely blocked editor. Mathsci (talk) 11:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this discussion taking place? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See the "Motions" section here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:11, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did find a precedent for disallowing such IBANs. An interaction ban with Zeromus1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was previously mooted by the same group of arbitrators. After a tip-off from me, Zeromus1 was indefinitely blocked by AGK as a sockpuppet of a site-banned user. Another arbitrator Courcelles then struck off Zeromus1's name from a similar proposed interaction ban.[6] Mathsci (talk) 13:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]