Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Agent00f

To remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 00:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 18:26, 24 June 2024 (UTC).

---

• Agent00f (talk · contribs · logs)

---

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

Statement of the dispute

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

Cause of concern

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

Applicable policies and guidelines

1. WP:NPA
2. WP:CIVILITY
3. WP:TE
4. WP:AGF
5. WP:SOAPBOX
6. WP:NOT
7. WP:CON
8. WP:GAME
9. WP:IDHT

Desired outcome

Agent00f will:

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

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

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

Demonstrations of Unhelpful commentary

1. [1]
2. [2] - Using outside comparisons to make the text more dense after original posting. <IAR note: wrong link. Delete this note after fixing.> JJB 12:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
3. [3] - Response to an admin who asks Agent00f to assume good faith; claims that the "3 editors" are mentally ill.
4. [4] - Response to same admin who suggested that a Deletion nomination could be a good faith action. Response uses pejorative language to poison the viewpoint the Admin gave.
5. [5] - Response to a user in good standing who asked Agent00f to stop making tangential/Ad-Hom attacks on editors. Agent00f proceeds to launch into a long winded "Let's look at this from a logic perspective" instead of actually saying anything about the request.
6. [6] - Asserts that the change proceeding forward is "placating an idle bureaucracy"
7. [7] - After a editor points out specific phrases that are attacks, Agent00f claims that they are facts and posts a unwinable challange to contest the statements.
8. [8] - User soapboxes that a warning delivered appropriately is a threat against them after the comment very clearly states that it is not a threat.
9. [9] - Calls editors who in good faith nominate articles to AfD bureaucrats.
10. [10] Violation of WP:AGF - claims that an editor does not know anything about MMA and can have no meaningful opinion, apparently based on said editor disagreeing with Agent00f.
11. [11] - Violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA, in claiming that the "3 editors" have a personal vendetta, are ignorant and are throwing tantrums, and further calls for the "troublemakers" to be banned.
12. [12] - Violation of WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL: claims that his opponents have "questionable," "abusive" motives.
13. [13] "Since you don't seem to be in habit of giving honest or straightforward replies" being the first of several personal attacks in this diff. (NB: As of this point, the above diffs were among the first two dozen of Agent00f's non-minor edits on Wikipedia, within his first two days of regular editing. More diffs can of course be provided, but at this rate, it's evident that WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL violations constitute the bulk of his editing.)
14. [14] Notwithstanding incorrectly calling AfD nominations Admin Shopping, I find that calling any editor's contribution "terrorism" particularly unhelpful to any discussion.
15. [15] - From TODAY "There been no evidence that I ever ignore decent reasoning, so can we AGF that I won't unless it actually happens? If this isn't acceptable and subjective evaluation are necessary to continue, can we at least use judges which are actually neutral and without agenda, instead of those self-proclaiming to be while continuously proving otherwise?" Agent still believes he is right above all else and his application of logic infallible. That others who have contributed to WP for quite some time, in broad areas, are are accused of being nonneutral and having a hidden or blatant agenda against MMA/UFCNewmanoconnor (talk) 21:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
16. [16] "It's pretty obvious that people who propose and support (as written by their own hand) wiping the subject and all its contributors off the map are not neutral, not matter how they believe themselves to be." No one has ever tried to wipe the sport or editors off the map Newmanoconnor (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute.

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

Additional users endorsing this cause for concern.

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

Questions 1

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

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

A.

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

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

A.

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

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

A.

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

Q. As to conduct, and referring to my solution 1 below, voluntary statements of self-restriction on conduct are always welcome. Are you able to make any statements that you would not challenge admin action in certain circumstances if criteria satisfactory to you were met? This is similar to a sovereign who deigns to be treated under the common law. For instance, you could say, "If two editors and one uninvolved admin believe a certain comment contains a personal attack, I hereby give advance permission for the admin to strike or remove the attack portions." For initiating a peace offering, can you make any such admission in advance? JJB 21:30, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

A. As has been demonstrated on the multiple trips to ANI, practically no Administrator who is uninvolved will deign to step in to meet the "one uninvolved admin" requirement of the proposal. I suggested an alternative below in the Proposal 1 section that is similar to this proposal (by forgoing the administrator section but adding 1 or more editors). I note that it's not just personal attacks that are being slung. Large blocks of text, obviously disproved statements, latching onto microscopic problems and generating 10k of wiki-text arguing about it has completely stalled the process of coming to a new consensus for the MMA articles. Hasteur (talk) 04:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Q. The following content questions are to all three certifiers. If there were an AFD on List of UFC events today, how would you !vote, with sufficient explanation to guide us where you are going with the topic area? JJB 01:17, 17 May 2012‎ (UTC)

A.

• It really depends on the reasoning of the nomination, but here's what my sample would probably look like

  Keep: List is significantly sourced, is an appropriate use of list class articles. Contains appropriate preamble to determine membership in list definitively. Does not make sense to merge to annother article as it is significantly long. Hasteur (talk) 04:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

  I might suggest a collapse on some of the rows of the events table as it feels exceedingly long. Hasteur (talk) 04:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Q. Do you affirm the basic plan of 2012 in UFC events, where a nonnotable 2012 UFC fight can be listed if it doesn't have its own (either notable or spinout) article? JJB 01:17, 17 May 2012‎ (UTC)

A. I'm not sold on the spinout idea. I support properly WP:SPLIT articles, but the overall plan of 2012 in UFC events is acceptable. If the 2012 in UFC events becomes too large, I recommend that specific classes of events (UFC on FX, UFC on Fox, UFC on Fuel, Ultimate Fighter) be split off for sub-list status or to convert the 2012 in UFC events into a directory and split out the UFC numbered events. Hasteur (talk) 05:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Q. Is there any bar to the nonnotable fight in the omnibus by-year article having the exact same level of detail as Agent00f would anticipate seeing in a hypothetical (notable or spinout) fight article? JJB 01:17, 17 May 2012‎ (UTC)

A. If there was a seperate fight article, I would like the content in the omnibus to be reduced to the high points (controversies, failed drug tests, upset title changes, etc). The omnibus serves 2 purposes, to be a refuge of articles that cannot survive on their own, and to provide a summary of the events that do have stand alone articles. Hasteur (talk) 05:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Q. Do you understand that many other spinout subarticles of list articles are nonnotable as individual articles but are accepted because the article spun out is notable (list of minor planets, lists of centenarians)? JJB 01:17, 17 May 2012‎ (UTC)

A. I suspect there's a bit of crossed wires here. Those lists are used as a directory and organization structure for classifying/sorting the articles they're about. The individual articles that I randomly sampled are well sourced and are not questionable in their relevance/notability and are able to stand on their own as individual articles. The MMA spinouts as proposed depend on the notability of the set together or the federation to demonstrate the continuing importance. Hasteur (talk) 05:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Q. If, as I suspect, the same level of detail would appear in the omnibus article as in the individual-fight article; and if, as I suspect, the omnibus article, as an individual article, is just as nonnotable as the individual-fight article; and if the only objection to the individual-fight article is nonnotability; then why wouldn't we use the same WP:SUMMARY principles for breaking an event list into fights as we would into years? In fact, why wouldn't individual fights be more appropriate spinout organization? Remember, I did come into this dispute on high alert myself, with my nuclear football open and the launch codes ready for keying in. JJB 01:17, 17 May 2012‎ (UTC)

A. Shall we remove the firing key from the football? I believe the reason why we're breaking the larger promotions down into years is to make the page more readable in a sitting. If a different organization scheme can be demonstrated (Time between Ultimate Fighter Championship contests for example) as being a natural grouping, then we can go with that. Ideally, the top List of UFC Events contains a link to the name of the event. In some cases, the link would redirect to the appropriate omnibus article (for those that are still "incubating"). In other cases, it would go straight to a stand alone article for that event that meets the general requirements of an article.

I hope this answers the question and not inadvertently invoked the "A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?" option Hasteur (talk) 05:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Q. Re "crossed wires", yes, I'm not talking about the notability of an individual minor planet or centenarian. I'm talking about the notability of one sublist of 1000 minor planets, or of a certain arbitrary demographic of centenarians, including miscellaneous. These are nonnotable and unsourced, and "depend on the notability of the set", and yet you accept them as "a directory and organization structure for classifying/sorting the articles they're about". You also accept omnibus as such a structure, yet "2012 in UFC events" is nonnotable and relatively unsourced and depends on the notability of list of UFC events. Just like UFC 27, in fact. And all such structures are arbitrary and do not rely in any way on how RS classify or break down the topics. Though this may start to sound repetitious, why wouldn't the same content be better in individual articles than in an omnibus? Or why must it be assumed that if UFC 27 exists that it's notable, when this is not actually true in the last lead graf of WP:N (see comments I just added below)? Maybe if we changed all the names to the likes of UFC events: 27 to indicate that the topic is not the event but a breakout of a list of events, that would help? Any certifier may answer these content questions. JJB 18:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

A. Can we table these content discussions to someplace more appropriate (MMA Project Talk page, MMA Notability Talk page) as it really does not pretain to the conduct of Agent00f? Hasteur (talk) 19:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Response

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

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

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

Response to concerns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other Notes:

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

Response to Links Above and Other Misc.

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

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

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

Example picked at random:

1. [17] Violation of WP:AGF - claims that an editor does not know anything about MMA and can have no meaningful opinion, apparently based on said editor disagreeing with Agent00f.

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

Just as another arbitrary example of how ridiculous the claims above are:

1. [18] "It's pretty obvious that people who propose and support (as written by their own hand) wiping the subject and all its contributors off the map are not neutral, not matter how they believe themselves to be." No one has ever tried to wipe the sport or editors off the map Newmanoconnor

• Comment You keep trying to attribute this to those of us that have been steadily involved, as if it were a real proposal at a content discussion. It was not and remains so. Granted, it was certainly not the most civil thing to suggest,but I can understand the frustration behind it, without endorsing it. Neither Hasteur,Dennis,Trey,MTKing,I, or anyone that have been regularly working on the project have made this suggestion is seriousness or in jest.Newmanoconnor (talk) 21:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

This proposal to wipe the subject off the map at just the last ANI has been linked here before. Note some of the same names in yet another proposal to ban me just below this a few days later; that was also mentioned here previously. So either Newmanoconnor is unfamiliar with what's been going to the extent of not reading RfC proposals or ANI's he's endorsing, or this is just more WP:IDHT. Agent00f (talk) 22:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Other Relevant Facts

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

Applicable policies and guidelines

List the policies and guidelines that apply to the response.

Users endorsing this response

1. Agent00f (talk) 02:30, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
2. JJB 02:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC) except for occasional bumping the guardrails. Guess I'm an involved editor now!

Questions 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q. As to conduct, and referring to my solution 1 below, voluntary statements of self-restriction on conduct are always welcome. Are you able to make any statements that you would not challenge admin action in certain circumstances if criteria satisfactory to you were met? This is similar to a sovereign who deigns to be treated under the common law. For instance, you could say, "If two editors and one uninvolved admin believe a certain comment contains a personal attack, I hereby give advance permission for the admin to strike or remove the attack portions." For initiating a peace offering, can you make any such admission in advance?

A. If we're referring to how law is conducted, it at least refers to clearly written statutes and reasoning for verdicts. The weight of personal beliefs (even of the judge himself) is general minimal. This is why I asked for objective guidelines below. There been no evidence that I ever ignore decent reasoning, so can we AGF that I won't unless it actually happens? If this isn't acceptable and subjective evaluation are necessary to continue, can we at least use judges which are actually neutral and without agenda, instead of those self-proclaiming to be while continuously proving otherwise?

Q. This is the Wild West, dude. Is there any party, such as an individual mediator or group of mediators, to whom you can entrust any part of the sovereignty of your own ability to make decisions? There is a general agreement that admin decisions at ANI are usually pretty good but can also be appealed politely, and that is a communal trust of our sovereignty that it is presumed you agree with. Do you accept that as a minimum norm, and can you build on it in any additionally specific way given that your views about conduct have been disputed? Thanks. JJB 21:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC) ADD: I see one answer of the form I am seeking here: "In good faith I'll have to hold off on posting any "soapboxing" on the MMA talk page until this is resolved." I have asked the same question of the certifiers, seeking the same form of answer. JJB 02:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

A. Yes, I think the ANI admin who actually read the conversations have been by and large reasonable. Editors who read and ask questions to try to understand what's going on before rendering verdict are quite reasonable. AFAICT, you've basically been the first person who's ever done this in all the preceding months. That is not an exaggeration: there have been zero prior examples of this. This isn't rocket science here. It's pretty obvious that people who propose and support (as written by their own hand) wiping the subject and all its contributors off the map are not neutral, not matter how they believe themselves to be. Agent00f (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Q. Is there any set of conditions that will result in your admiting that your contributions have been problematic, non-constructive, and uncivil with an eye to reducing or eliminating the cause for concern? Hasteur (talk) 12:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

A. Of course, it's rather obvious I'm a pretty reasonable person. So if anyone should provide some half-decent reasons (ie substance, not rhetoric) for why something is correct, I'd admit it as a matter of personal ethics. For example, you seem to see anyone who dissents from the AfD voteblock as "problematic, non-constructive" as matter of tautology. "Uncivil" seems to your way of excusing a the continuous wave of ANI's and such. This aren't half-decent reasons because the definition of the words (rhetoric) as you use them is highly flawed. "Because I say so" is not a reason, and that's pretty much the most popular one around here. For example, the voteblock seems to consider Dennis a reasonable person, yet when he's pressed to provide simple evidence or arguments (ie substance), he dodges with arguments from authority (ie. "because I say so"). The one reply from him below has been the first I've ever seen which doesn't dance around straight questions. On the other hand, simply look at JJB's discussion here: full of substantial questions and answers that actually touch on the subject at hand. Study and contrast the approaches and the answer you seek is simple. Agent00f (talk) 19:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Q. Put another way, other editors affirm the RFC/U part is about you, and when you repeatedly use intemperate language to discuss other editors, during the RFC/U, the language itself confirms the belief that a page about your conduct is appropriate, without giving any support to the idea that others' conduct needs addressing. The only way to make it not about you is to demonstrate ability to change. And even if we reach consensus about content, the conduct page (this) will still be "about you". Sad to say. The Q is: Can you find two or three comments of yours that you agree were immoderate and strike them, and point us to the stricken comments? Believe it or not, backing down from prior statements is a better demonstration of support for your position than pridefully insisting that everything said was correct and there is nothing to back down from. That's known as a "hill to die on", and this shouldn't be it. JJB 17:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

A. First, given that the sole MMA space voice left at this point is me (there were quite a few months ago, basically the same things happened to them as it did to me), it's become whatever more difficult to distinguish between me and opposition to plans push down from elsewhere. Generally speaking though, basically the same environment exist in the MMA space as it ever did for many many months, and it will probably continue this way until every last MMA-interest is disposed of, so focusing on me who's only been part of it for a short span is fundamentally unreasonable. More to your question: my claims are based on direct observations and carefully considered. So unless there's contradictory evidence (which btw I can observe I always ask for and provide when requested), then I see no need to strike the substance of what I say. This is a matter of basic ethics, and asking someone to compromise ethics for popularity is a bit unbecoming. However, I've agree before that sometimes being too direct can make for poor interpretations. For example, in link 13 above, I said that "Since you don't seem to be in habit of giving honest or straightforward replies, this likely wouldn't happen". This was probably too forward at the time, even if I'm maybe only 70% sure I won't be getting such a reply anytime soon. In hindsight, this statement was intemperate then. I can provide more examples, but I suspect the folks here want something more socially adroit. IMO what's really the core problem here is that if the insinuation is I should make e-friends with those actively making the MMA space objectively worse in order to minimize the detrimental impact, then I'm sorry but they seem to decline folks who aren't on board, and I'm clearly not.

As to things I was wrong on, even though I didn't say anything at the time, I didn't really think you (JBB) would be able to offer a better proposal/solution, but that turned out to be false. In turn, I never thought anything worthwhile would come of this RfC, but this proposal did. I make mistakes in my (rather more difficult) work quite frequently, and it's really quite refreshing I didn't make many factual ones here. Agent00f (talk) 19:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It was suggested that I strike those comments I would consider intemperate or the like. I've done this for the one above, and I have no problem with doing it for similar reasonable nominations. Agent00f (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Additional views

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

Outside view by John J. Bulten

First order of business, Agent00f has a killer username.

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

Third, diff review:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ignoring all rules, I would be interested in:

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

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

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

ADD: Per later discussion, my initial detailed path proposal need not be the actual path. There need not be informal RFC nor undeletion of future events if that is reached via consensus. The crux of this view is that we need the two steps outlined briefly, a quick solution to conduct concerns, and a bite-size task breakdown for compliance. Those paths are being stepped out on already. JJB 21:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

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

Outside view by Seraphimblade

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

Users who endorse this summary:

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

View by Dennis Brown

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

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

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

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

Users who endorse this summary

1. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
2. Hasteur (talk) 02:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
3. Mtking ^(edits) 02:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
4. Newmanoconnor (talk) 02:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
5. Ravenswing 03:40, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
6. Blackmane (talk) 09:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC) I only interacted with Agent00f on the ANI but also read through the entire talk page that Dennis was involved in and the mounting frustration with Agent00f during the discussion was evident.
7. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC) After reading over this page, selected diffs, and most importantly, Agent00f's own responses here, Dennis Brown's summary seems like a very good one. One of the most telling points is that, as Ravenswing has pointed out, Agent00f has made no recent article edits and almost no actual proposals; thus, xyr behavior seems to be entirely with the intent of preventing forward progress, unless such "progress" is made only in the odirection which xe and xyr alleged silent majority support. Qwyrxian (talk)
8. Agreed. Drmies (talk)

View by User:Blackmane

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

Users who endorse this summary

1. Blackmane (talk) 10:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
2. Hasteur (talk) 12:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
3. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:06, 13 May 2012 (UTC) and add that except for one blurb in 2010, Agent has never added any material to any article on Wikipedia. His edits have been limited to the disruption at MMA.
4. Ravenswing 01:12, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
5. Newmanoconnor (talk) 03:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC) I'm amazed he hasn't been given a topic ban or extended on yet.i've agreed with JJB'S about a lot, but he hasn't improved at all, let's be honest...any other topic and he would have been banned awhile ago.
6. Until recently I've been watching this only from the sidelines, but this discussion made me want to jump in. Filibustering is indeed the right word. Drmies (talk)

Proposed solutions

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

Proposed solution 1 by John J. Bulten

1)a) Agent00f agrees not to disrupt intentionally, attack personally, or filibuster, and agrees to adhere to community conduct guidelines and to post in ways respectful to editors who don't wish to read the entire posting (as by summaries and internal formatting). Agent00f agrees to rely on neutral third parties for informal mentoring in the event others believe in good faith this agreement has been repeatedly breached.

b) The parties agree that the content issue is a question of spinout articles rather than inherently notable articles, and agree to consider articles like UFC 27 to be valid summary spinouts of articles like List of UFC events, while building on the agreed understanding that the spun-out articles, taken as a set with the main article, should still meet verifiability, neutrality, and nonoriginality policies, such as not relying overly on primary sources as a set. (Compare list of minor planets, lists of centenarians, and other examples.)

Have at it. JJB 20:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Is there a way to establish clear guidelines for things like filibustering other than "you're filibustering because I say so"? For example, in the past there's never been a reply to the question of how a detailed reply which addresses the substance of issues in full is "filibustering" other than "I say so". I tried to discern common practice from here but there's only correlation with the top of the pyramid chart presented. Agent00f (talk) 20:27, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Non starter for me. Unless there's some sort of enforcement in provision 1A (Agent agrees to strike or refactor comments that are judged by 'X' editors in good standing that violate this agreement) there's no motivation for him to adhere to this agreement.

As for 1B, I don't think I understand. Are you saying that the parties agree to unify the articles with a future discussion of spliting them once the section is ready to stand on it's on? I'll agree to that. However if you're saying that "Let it be read that the articles had previously been agreed to be split out", I do not agree to Hasteur (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you please reply to the question above about reasonably objective guidelines instead of turning it into a popularity contest (which is btw against wiki policy)? These remarks also beg the question by assuming that violations have ever occurred given there's never been any such guidelines uniformly applied to any party. Thanks. Agent00f (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

For 1B, it helps to follow JBB's links above, to for example to this arbitrarily selected spinout. You can find these lists all over wiki created without dispute since it conforms with general precedent. Generally speaking I believe if someone disagrees with clear precedent, the onus is on them to state reasons for their disagreement. Agent00f (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Re to JJB's below comments of 21:25 The reason why I chose a plurality of editors in good standing is so that editors who are familiar with Wikipedia best practices in regards to civility can basically say "Agent, that's uncalled for. Strike it." Do I intend to use this option? No, however as evidence directly above Agent still (after being shown many times) has difficulty with accepting the best practices of wikipedia civility therefore a way for a plurality of editors to call out violations of civility allows a micro-sized consensus to be established without having to run to an administrator every single time that Agent flies off the handle. Almost all of my requests to Agent to moderate their behavior have been responded to with further incivil commentary and challenges to point out the incivil behavior. A editor who was here to build a collaberative encyclopedia would take these suggestions and requests and attempt to improve their conduct. Agent has not. Hasteur (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

AFAICT, the "editors in good standing" you've referred to before were self-described "neutral" experts who often just happened to supported wiping the subject and all its contributors off wiki. IMO people whose totality of input to the conversation is righteous indignation and threats plus fruitless ANIs aren't in a position to judge anyone. Agent00f (talk) 22:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

nowhere did I say uninvolved editors. I said editors in good standing, for a very specific reason. Those editors who are familiar with the context will never be uninvolved. Editors in good standing are ones who are not under sanctions. Hasteur (talk) 02:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I've asked before how you derived this from wiki dispute resolution policies given that it seems to contradict them directly. Can you answer that now? Thanks. Agent00f (talk) 03:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Anybody who expresses an outside opinion that you don't like is, as I have observed, treated with diresion and disrespect of the highest order. Therefore the only people who are familiar with the context and what has been going on are automatically part of the cabal to destroy MMA coverage. The idea is to make civil requests of an editor (who is supposed to consider them and if reasonable comply). To ratchet up the level of scrutiny, we ask for multiple editors to concur with the statement so as to give a firmer pointer that the statement is offensive. I'm sure that you'd like to consider your above statement of 03:12 and possibly give me some good faith as that was typed on my tablet while at the opera. I know I would have granted you the same assumption of good faith for an obviously out of normal style posting. How about it?Hasteur (talk) 04:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you please describe what you mean by "outside opinion that you don't like"? I clearly don't respect people who barge into a room with no understanding of what's going on and "say their piece" regardless, both IRL and online. I suspect few here do. For example, I didn't "like" how JJB first described my actions using the words you do, however he actually then read through and considered the situation in full and offered some advice, which I very much respect even if don't agree with the entirety of his POV. Compare this to Blackmane and Ravenswing, who come after high-fiving over various proposals at ANI to both ban me, nuke the subject, and nuke all the contributors. All of this while calling themselves neutral wiki experts. All of this without any domain or situational familiarly (to this day), even a shallow one, btw. So it's entire true I have zero respect the decision-making capacities of that kind of editor, as would most folks anywhere in life, and I hope we can at least agree on that. Agent00f (talk) 19:55, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

1a. I left enforcement deliberately vague to see what would be proposed. I have no problem with stricter enforcement, but judgment by involved editors "in good standing" is not the way to go; either the parties can find a way to agree among themselves whether a breach has occurred, or they need a third party like WP:MEDCAB, or an agreement for unilateral admin action in agreed cases, or the like. Just as Agent00f would be waiving his rights to sole judgment over whether he has infracted, so would other involved parties be waiving their rights to sole or collective judgment. I'm open to alternatives that preserve the (apparent) need for third-party mediation. Incidentally, WP:FILIBUSTERing is defined as "repeatedly pushing a viewpoint that the consensus of the community has clearly rejected, effectively preventing a policy-based resolution", a bit different from what I'd expect; but it seems a defeatable presumption if any given post has sufficiently new content and, if in doubt, contains a polite request to point to where the specific content was previously rejected by clear consensus. OTOH nobody can stop anybody from charging filibuster in good or bad faith, which is why third parties are needed. If Hasteur actually thinks that a plurality of involved editors are sufficient to force striking of a minority editor's comments, that could be presented as an alternate solution for commentary. JJB 21:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

1b. Yes, it's about future agreement, not any past agreement. If you read the Q-and-A toward content on talk carefully, you'll see that Agent00f and I are discussing agreeing on split-outs and not sweating having by-year omnibi or not. But this is not saying that fights are individually notable: this is saying that an event list article is notable based on outside sources, and a set of fight articles is a proper way to group detailed event-list content into subarticles. This solution transcends the inherent-notability question, which is waived; the event articles can stand on their own very early, because they are not standing on their own in-article primary sources but on the secondary sources demonstrating that the main topic (the event list) is notable. We all agree that List of minor planets: 200001-201000 is nonnotable as a topic but is appropriate as a spun-out portion of a notable topic (1337 Gerarda is not the best example as it has references). As soon as there is more than one line or graf of content for any fight, we are free to spin it out as an article and agree not to delete it, not because it's notable, but because the content set is notable and taken with the rest of the content set it meets the core policies. This spinning-out occurs much earlier than it would if it were necessary to demonstrate individual-event notability. JJB 21:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• OPPOSE - 200025 Cloud Gate has an individual sub article, as there is enough data(coverage) to warrant it. [200024] has nothing. I for one Oppose the assumption that UFC is notable enough to have a summary list and spinoff sub articles that are greanted notability by inclusion on the list. Or as JJB likes to say "Transcends notability" In the proposed solution we would be assuming that since UFC(Franchise) is notable, and lends it's notability to [UFC events], that all events warrant a stand alone article. There are quite a few UFC events that there are NO secondary WP:IRS for.While UFC is gaining popularity it is certainly not at the level of soccer/football world wide, or American football or any other mainstream worldwide sport. Coverage of the events is disparate and does not continue in many cases, often lacks notation of lasting impact on the sport, and is frequently parroted from primary sources.Newmanoconnor (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• It's notable that Newmanoconnor supported the "ominibus plan" before, which uses the exact same logic to conglomerate items not notable on their own. It's also notable he knows this list of hundreds of clear and unquestioned wiki precedents, yet chooses to WP:IDHT. It's furthermore pretty obvious that the list of planets above all basically use the same JPL interest-specific source (not unlike sherdog) as their only citation, and are generally far less substantive and cohesive than the existing complete list of sequential UFC events. We're only really asking for Newmanoconnor to be somewhat consistent in his reasoning here. Agent00f (talk) 22:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion Newman. I'm not comparing the UFC fight to the individual notable minor planet. I'm comparing the unsourced, nonnotable UFC article to the unsourced, nonnotable random list of 1000 planets. The random list of 1000 planets is permitted to exist as a consensus method of breaking down the main article. That is, [200001-201000] has nothing. That list is no more "notable" than UFC 27. I'm saying let's all agree that UFC 27 is nonnotable. Why should one method of breaking down UFC events (by-year) be automatically better than another method of breaking down (by-fight), when neither breakdown method is individually notable? If you are saying that List of UFC events is nonnotable in itself, why, that's a different opinion, it might well be true, please come straight out and say it so we can review your reasons in daylight. I don't think this is IDHT, this seems like the communication is still broken down. Let me try it in the #Questions 1 section above. JJB 01:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I hope I am misunderstanding you when you say "we are free to spin it out as an article and agree not to delete it" as that would be very much outside the authority of this or any board. It is inconsistent with WP:N. That it came from a likely notable "List of" is meaningless, as it can not inherit notability. If I'm hearing you properly, I am very confident that this would not stand up to scrutiny, as it would be attempting to put a binding resolution on people who are not a party to this discussion, while granting an exception to WP:GNG that is unfounded and unprecedented. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I am no flouter of policy; this is no GNG exception, but a breakdown of a larger topic, just as proposed omnibus would be. As a gedankenexperiment, why don't we start the AFD on List of minor planets: 200001-201000 now? "Delete Absolutely nonnotable; fails GNG flatly; absolutely no sources; the related topic only has primary, nonindependent sources; interesting only to fans; no attempt to explain encyclopedicity; having notable minor planets doesn't make the list notable; one page at NASA is not significant; no evidence of lasting importance; no inline text; no significant planets found; nothing useful to merge to list of minor planets; read the policies." But these articles, and many other suchlikes, have long survived because they are recognized as spinouts. Do you, or Newman, see how we're talking past each other? Newman seems to think that anything that allows UFC 27 to exist means we've decided it's inherently notable, so even if I find a policy way to allow it to exist without inherent notability I'm still granting it notability even though I deny that. Either I'm wrong in analyzing all the other lists on WP, or we just haven't found the right way to communicate our views to each other yet. JJB 02:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Who decided that Bach's works should be broken into cantatas, chorales, songs or arias, and "everything else"? We have no secondary-source reasoning for that judgment. Who decided that mathematicians whose names start with X is a useful breakdown or a notable topic? This should be easy, shouldn't it? JJB 02:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, can you provide some guidance of what to do when the biggest proponents of a lessor plan come out raging against a very similar but better proposal without producing a single reason as to why the two are substantively different? Can you also advice if and when novel definitions of "unfounded" and "unprecedented" in addition to "objective/neutral" are used to rhetorically exclude singular subjects from a wide-ranging stable of commonly used practices on wiki? I hope you can help with these simple and probably common questions with your wiki/policy wisdom. Thanks. Agent00f (talk) 03:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Pardon the length of this reply, it is necessary. The biggest danger in "commonly used practices" is that many commonly used practices are counter to policy. This is why WP:OTHERSTUFF was created. That was my original goal, not to be a "policy wonk" but to make sure that whatever did get agreed upon was bullet proof in the eyes of the wikilawyers, and that I could defend it effectively. I would disagree with "spin outs" being notable by themselves however, and I mean no disrespect, but I think that JJB is reading prior outcomes from an angle. An article spun out of a "List of" will be held to the exact same standard as any stand alone article. GNG demands it, and at AFD, editors !voting have NO obligation to consider the parent. If I was closing a non-MMA AFD as an admin, I wouldn't give the child article extra credit for having a notable parent In the case of planets, each individual planet may not be notable, but the group is. A properly defined group is more than the sum of its parts. The omnibus system is a type of "List of" article in part, expanded with prose and facts. You can't directly compare MMA to NFL football in most ways, but some comparisons are worthwhile, such as saying "while each event isn't automatically notable, each season is" The same is true of MMA in that if you group up multiple events in any acceptable grouping, be it by year or season, then there are enough references that talk about the group as a whole (and some of the individual events) to make that particular omnibus article relatively bulletproof. (This is one reason I have been against grouping MMA by simple numbers, like 10 events, and instead by year, season, network, as there is no foundation to why particular groups of 10 are notable as a group) If I seem a little strict on this point, it is because others will be at AFD, DRN and other boards. The overriding guideline that applies here is WP:LIST. And while it is "only" a guideline, I assure you it is a guideline with teeth. It is worth a read. It is more productive to discuss policy with someone who has read all the relevant policies. You don't have to like them, but we do have to abide by them, or change them.

Agent, when I say unfounded and unprecedented, this is what I mean: Unfounded means there isn't a specific policy that I'm aware of that says this is the proper way to do it. That doesn't mean it can't be done, it just means that policies and guidelines do not say "do it like this", so it is subject to interpretation and open for debate. No one can be forced to accept it. When I say unprecedented, I'm not saying it hasn't been tried, I'm saying I have never seen an example where it has worked. Decisions made on boards like this can't affect people who aren't involved in the discussion, by design. It would be unenforceable and history backs me on this. Any solution has to be one that the community already accepts. That doesn't mean we can't be creative, it just means we can't throw some new rules on the community as they will be rejected. The community is not bound by this discussion. As to why others have been less than receptive to your ideas, it might be your methods. Please don't take offense, but you came into the discussion late, were very verbose to the point that it made it very difficult to read the rest of the page, many of your questions had already been answered previous on the page, and your tone was, at the least, confrontational. I had managed to dial the drama down at the talk page, and your actions were seen as dialing it up. Many people voted to have me become an admin specifically for my objective handling and ability to dial back the drama at the MMA discussion, and clearly stated so at my RfA, yet I was your first target when you started here, almost like you were trying to take out the biggest guy in the prison yard to exert your dominance. You say I didn't answer some of your questions, but you have to look at the incredible volume of text you generated, making the task very difficult. Most everyone complained about the verbosity. Additonally, sometimes your questions are not as clear to me as they are to you, so I wasn't sure what you were asking for. Once it looked like you were attacking me, you pissed off a lot of people. Not because I was right or had the best ideas, but because I had managed to bring just a little civility here, so the discussion could actually take place. It is fine to say my ideas are bad, my understanding of the needs of the community is faulty or my reading of policy is wrong. Those are neutral observations. You made it personal against me, to the point that I lost my objectivity. I was there solely to be neutral, not to take sides, sometimes leaning one way, sometimes the other, in order to get both sides in the middle. Not as a leader, but as a voice of reason and a source of trust and experience. Personal comments about me don't upset me on a personal level, but when they negatively affected the entire discussion and brought back chaos, it undermined my efforts. That did upset me. If you want to know why others are not receptive, it is because they see you as undoing a lot of effort and hard work by a great many people, myself included. To be honest, I never expected anyone to adopt my ideas, they weren't mine anyway. I expected them to take them, tweak them, change them. I proposed them to simply get the conversation STARTED, so I could step back and let others actually engage. I mean no disrespect when I say, you made your own problems here by your unnecessarily brash behavior. It appeared you were questioning the faith of a great number of people, with a misunderstanding of the complexity of events that had preceded you. It takes much more than the best idea to persuade people of differing opinions. Respect isn't given, it is earned. Or lost. I spent a great many years trying to earn trust and respect here, you can't expect to just walk off the street and have it handed to you on a silver platter simply because the superiority of your ideas are obvious to you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, thanks for providing your first substantive comment I've seen on this subject. I hope more would come on the way to ARBCOM, and not because of it. A few comments:

1. "In the case of planets, each individual planet may not be notable, but the group is. A properly defined group is more than the sum of its parts." Can you touch on why a year's worth of MMA event content all crammed on one page is "notable", but a simple breakout list which links all events (each of which also contain full navigation UI, fwd/back/up) isn't? I would think such a cleanly formatted sequential list with an interweave narrative (and orthogonal properties against fighter bios etc as explained to JJB above) is also more than sum of its parts.
2. "An article spun out of a "List of" will be held to the exact same standard as any stand alone article." Is therefore your contention that a substantial number of not all of entries spun out of the existing lists references above are open to successful AfD, or is only that we need to make list of lists of MMA events to be safe? How do you think other subjects which depend on lists would handle the kind of arbitrary AfD's inflicted on the MMA space if few of their entries are safe, or is any talk of other subjects automagically OTHERSTUFF if it's not convenient, even if we're talking about wide-ranging practice on wiki?
3. "The same is true of MMA in that if you group up multiple events in any acceptable grouping, be it by year or season," As you're no doubt aware since it's been mentioned countless times before, the basically unit in MMA is a single contest. It ranges up to 15-25min of officially sanctioned time, not completely unlike a game with 40-60 or whatnot of officially sanctioned mins. There are perhaps 10 contests between separate opponents (no real "teams") on a MMA card, in the ballpark of games per season. The card/event is a well known and commonly referenced quantity in the sport, while a "season" or "year" makes absolutely no sense. So why would an unwieldy grouping like calendar year be better than the grouping of all the contests on a card? If the grouping is indeed "arbitrary" to outsider in a sense, why not one which makes sense to users?
4. "I'm not saying it hasn't been tried, I'm saying I have never seen an example where it has worked." What would you need, above and beyond lists upon lists in a giant range of subjects where's already common practice, to convince you that "an example where it has worked" exists?
5. "many of your questions had already been answered previous on the page". That's curious, because when I ask for perhaps a link to where it's already answered, none was ever provide. This and other simple question dodging was the start of where the distrust slowly started to form.
6. "almost like you were trying to take out the biggest guy in the prison yard to exert your dominance". Please take the context from my perspective. The first thing I saw when I entered the fray was you, an admin, strongly pushing a proposal created by two people (your own words) strictly on one side of the issue. The proposal was highly flawed for all the reasons I specified in my reply (one of my first) to request for comments. I only got in return a very selective reply to one criticism about search results, and that ended in an argument from authority rather than specifics of what I'm talking about. So you can imagine that at this point I can only conclude the proposal was really more of a "done deal" and the only order of business left was to pick out at best a couple of reluctant MMA space editors to seal it. You can then imagine this didn't sit well with me ethically: it has all the trappings of abuse of power, and domination over people by those who don't share their fate. As for my own "dominance", the endless string of threats, harassment, ANIs, etc, tell the tale, as I'm sure it also did for those in my position before. BTW, can you tell us what happened to all of the MMA regulars? Why am I, somewhat of a SPA, the only one left to oppose policy which has significant detrimental impact on the subject space?
7. "I was there solely to be neutral, not to take sides, sometimes leaning one way, sometimes the other, in order to get both sides in the middle." You keep saying this, even when actual record of reality shows otherwise. That reality shows one side of issue are joined at the hip, never opposing each other in any significant way, and always vote in concert. When a supposed mediator with an official title becomes attached to that same hip, and starts pushing that group's ideas as his own, he is functionally equivalent to the leader of the cabal. This is simply human sociology.
8. "It appeared you were questioning the faith of a great number of people, with a misunderstanding of the complexity of events that had preceded you.". My claims have been for the most part fairly simple: good decision cannot be made with a significant ignorance of their subject matter. I'm hardly an MMA "expert" by any means, yet it's shocking that my casual knowledge is king in the land of the blind. It's shocking not just in the obvious way, but because many people fancy themselves "experts" on wiki policy yet show no apparent insight other than hand waving and "I say so". It literally took months into the process before JJB who just randomly happened upon this pointed out that lists constitute a common wiki precedent.

In summary, I think this was a good conversation. It's unfortunate that you waited so long to answer questions directly and completely, because this could've turned out much better if you didn't suppose I would be easy to get rid of from the start. Thanks. Agent00f (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

To reinforce a very important point implied above: I never came into this with an implicit distrust of Dennis as a "neutral" party. That's something he earned step by step by refusing to show good faith to one side of the issue. For example, if I really thought he was inherently untrustworthy, there's no reason to take him at his word that omnibus was the best possible solution for MMA under existing rules (which we now find out isn't), which I offered to do many times. Now that he's so vehemently opposed to a similar yet better plan, this "neutrality" shouldn't be in much dispute. What's quite ironic here is that I of all people have show far more willingness to compromise by offering modest changes to the original omnibus or even taking it wholesale if that's all we can get. Dennis has clearly not been very convincing that's all we can get. Agent00f (talk) 19:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

*cough* Don't you think that was a bit rude? HINT Hasteur (talk) 19:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I would say that the facts of the case reflect poorly on Dennis. I wasn't my intent to sweep things under the rug, but rather moderate how I word them. I read the 19:43 comment again carefully, and it's damn straightforward observation on how things went. Can you point to which sentence or words you specifically object to? Agent00f (talk) 20:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose: I don't believe the first paragraph is nearly strong enough, and I don't believe the second paragraph to be appropriate. This is a RfC on Agent00f's conduct, not on any article content dispute. Ravenswing 01:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Merely reflects my belief that the high burden of proof for a stronger control has not yet been met. You might get a different suggestion from the next random uninvolved editor who takes an interest, someday. JJB 02:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

1B is not actually even an option. This is a request for comment on an editor. We cannot make content decisions about articles here. Not even a tiny bit. There's no reason to believe that all interested editors in the content are watching this. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:45, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Technicalities aside, would you support surfacing this proposal to the broader wiki world? In general it would be great if we can have a show of hands how many here would like more sunshine on this matter. I do. Agent00f (talk) 03:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I support a site-wide RfC that is carefully managed to hat/cull responses solicited off-site that show no understanding of our policies and procedures. I do not support your participation in that RfC (or anything else MMA related) unless you first commit to a complete reversal in your manner of interaction. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed solution 2 by John J. Bulten

2) Hasteur's comment really puts me over the line for the night. The idea that one editor's fate should be in the hands of his opponents rather than an admin, a mediator, or a mentor is very hard to interact with. Therefore solution 2 is that the certifiers and accused all go straight to WP:MEDCAB for both conduct and content. I will support at that page if it arises. I may avoid further substantive comment here, as I've said my peace and those who wish to understand will understand. JJB 02:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Medcab will reject this on the grounds that they don't do conduct disputes. I reject this proposal as you're missing the point. As has been demonstrated several times in this RfC/U, if an outside editor expresses a viewpoint that Agent does not like they sling all sorts of personal attacks (mentally ill,ignorant, not only unfamiliar with what's going on but clearly has an agenda). I am trying to give as much WP:ROPE to Agent before I propose a closure to this and go straight to WP:ARBCOM that does deal with disputes arising from conduct (which is the entire purpose of this). Hasteur (talk) 04:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

If you feel that unbiased third parties at ARBCOM will support the ridiculous assertions above, I'd rather you did that from the start than waste all this time on these half dozen ineffective attempts at me. Thus far the folks on one side of the issue have demonstrated zero substance on the topic at hand (ie MMA, lists, etc) while forcing 95% of the time to be spent on frivolous politics, and I don't think the kind of people who make it to that level will see that as kindly as you suppose. Keep in mind they're more likely to use JJB's than Ravenswings, something I'd rather welcome. Agent00f (talk) 04:37, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom would dismiss this out of hand as not having tried other forms of dispute resolution. By having this on the books, coupled with other demonstrations of significant conduct issues, it is possible that they may endorse a significant set of conduct sanctions to be applied to the entire MMA space. There's a process of trying the lower rungs before we go to the "supreme court" of English Wikipedia. Hasteur (talk) 04:42, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's easy enough to see from the response to the very reasonable proposal above that the problem here are the common denominators of the last several months' failures. The only unique angle I seem to bring of all MMA regulars before me is that I'm not as easily intimated by the gross politics at play here. So bring it. Agent00f (talk) 04:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is exactly the kind of tone that I find problematic and inconsistent with our goals. That others are saying similar things (but not as inflammatory) might explain it, but it does not excuse it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree absolutely with Dennis Brown, and I was going to say the same thing--"this is exactly the kind of tone..." The battleground mentality is absolutely clear from rhetoric about "gross politics" and the suggestions, implicitly and explicitly, that there are no editors or admins who are so uninvolved that they could make reasonable decisions in these matters of conduct. That's politicizing--an editor or admin who has a problem with Agent's tone and manner of contributing doesn't necessarily have a problem with MMA articles; an editor or admin who judges that some or many MMA articles have notability problems is not necessarily a h8er. That's the conspiracy issue I mentioned in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts/MMA_notability#Another_honest_question_regarding_notability, and I detest such theories. Agent is well-advised to stop playing that kind of game, to stop accusing others of always having an agenda, to stop suggesting that all the problems raised by others must have a basis outside of policy. Drmies (talk) 14:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

You speak of battles and I wouldn't disagree there's one going on. However it's been one of the MMA space defending itself against parties with no future stake who make forceful and ill-informed decisions for those who do. Basically the worst form of decision by committee. Now imagine if a similar outside voteblock descended (with arbitrarily applied AfDs) upon useful and well organized resources in a subject you favor, would you dissent/resist or just ago away? You can see the results of "compromise" JJB (a third party) tried above. Agent00f (talk) 17:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Stop digging! There is no such thing as "the MMA space", and all parties here, including me, have a stake in this. You're implying that "the MMA space" is somehow separate from the rest--it isn't. This is a collaborative project and MMA articles need to meet guidelines just as much as others. "Voteblock" is just another way of saying "conspiracy", and "arbitrarily applied AfDs" is just hot air. The subjects I favor are just fine, thank you very much, and consensus is generally speaking strong enough to resist any kind of hypothetical "voteblock". And why am I not a "third party"? Why would you think there are even two clearly delineated parties to begin with? You're dividing into camps yet again, and the more you say, the more I am convinced that those who accuse you of filibustering are absolutely correct. I don't think you are a team player (one team, just one: us). Drmies (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

There's very much a MMA space, and I'm surprised anyone would completely deny this obvious nuance. It consists of the people who'll actually have to use the affected pages going forward. If the pages have crap design, it effects them in a material way, a rather different effect than to someone who'll never use them anyway. On voteblock, it's simple observation that one exists, just as it's simple observation that several people are always in the same car together. It implies no conspiracy except the conclusions you've leaped towards. Another simple observation that this topic is contaminated by groupthink as we observe people who have little familiarity with the matter jump on various bandwagons nonetheless. Also observe that I never grouped you in with anyone (and still don't), even as you've simply jumped on a bandwagon to condemn me. So who's picking sides to be on here? Finally, the quality of a team is contingent upon open and honest discussion, not suppressing seemingly unpopular POV, not politics. Can you say that for many of the comments on this page? Thanks. Agent00f (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Hasteur's implication really is a non-starter. However, I don't necessarily think that MEDCAB is the best solution. There is a consensus emerging that Agent00f's behavior has been problematic and disruptive. MEDCAB is not the solution to this--Agent00f changing his/her behavior is. Unfortunately, it looks like Agent00f so far is arguing every little point, and so far hasn't really conceded any possibility of bad behavior on xyr part. If that's the case, then it's likely this RfC/U isn't going to produce any useful results (unless you can get so strong a consensus that we can take it back to ANI and ask for actual sanctions). Qwyrxian (talk) 02:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's pretty obvious this RfC was created as yet another platform for a core sympathetic group after the last in a line of frivolous ANI's failed. A pretty decent proposal came out of this, so I'm sure they'll find something else to use instead for harassment which doesn't involve risky moves with significant neutral parties like MEDCAB. Meanwhile, where would you recommend we take the discussion of the substantive issues in the meantime since nobody here except JJB seems interested? Thanks. Agent00f (talk) 03:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

BTW, it's also worth mentioning that the "consensus" in this group formed long ago. In fact, you wouldn't be able to find them voting differently on MMA-issues in general even well before I played any part in it. It's well-established that causality doesn't go backwards in time. :::Speaking of "XX is not the solution to this--Agent00f changing his/her behavior is", is your conclusion that a group which voteblocked for anything (arbitrary AfD's, problematic designs) that has the consequence of making the sport's coverage on wiki outright ridiculous will find a lasting solution? Can you briefly explain the reasoning for how subject editors would find such a solution palatable? These are quite serious questions. Agent00f (talk) 04:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

@Qwyrxian. RFC/U's hardly every produce anything because it is non-binding. It's something that is done because Arbcom or Medcab won't touch a case until all the motions have been gone through, warnings, ANI's, RFC/U's, DRN, etc. Invariably, recalcitrant editors who get hauled through RFC/U's will just filibuster their way through it, dragging it out until everyone who has commented is sick to the teeth of it and abandon it. The RFC is then closed after the usual length of time, the subject of the RFC then continues as before until it's brought before another couple of ANI's, which drag on for days. Various sanctions are proposed, voted on, rejected/supported until the indefhammer is dropped on them. I'm sure you've seen enough RFCs to know this.

@Everyone else. I'm sure by now that you've all had a taste of Agent00f's expertise in filibustering and diversion. This all started as a RFC into their conduct. It's now descended into yet another back and forth about the content that caused this all to begin in the first place. Blackmane (talk) 11:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It's interesting that the "conduct" problems are all with people who actually use the resource at hand and want to talk about the substance of the issue. It seems I have two choices here in the eyes of those who don't: either stop resisting the voteblock to force ridiculous consequences on a well organized and useful resource, or just go away. Their way or the highway. It's also worth noting that Blackmane was making proposals to nuke the MMA space plus all its contributors not a few days ago in an ANI, yet emphatically claiming to be another "neutral" party. Agent00f (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

@Q - The problem is that at ANI, no admin will participate. Regardless of the individual circumstances, it is soundly ignored in a well orchestrated and intentional way, which emboldens the players as there are no consequences for your actions as long as MMA can be attached to it somehow. I've called for action many times, as I'm too involved to do so myself, and all I could hear was the sound of crickets. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

This is a pretty good exhibit in just how "neutral" Dennis Brown is on this issue. For all this self-professed "neutrality", I've never seen him disagree in any kind of substantive way with the parties at the core of the failures of the last few months. You'll never see him participate in honest/open discussion with domain expertise to determine the effect of his decisions. In fact, I've never seen him vote opposite to the predictable block on issues going fwd, and that's largely a lovefest curiously lacking any MMA stakeholder support. As such, they are of course never problematic in his eyes even though they're basically despised by anyone who see their destructive and poisonous results in the subject space. So it's rather predictable who he feels needs to be sanction and becomes frustrated when he doesn't get their way. Recall this is all the same from well before I ever joined the fray, so unless causality runs backwards in time, this all has little to do with me specifically. Agent00f (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Agent, I was neutral in my handling of the MMA article issue. I never claimed to be neutral in my interpretation of your behavior. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 19:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Given that you've blown off every suggestion contrary to the your own from MMA interests, no matter how well articulated and moderate (Beansy ring a bell?), I would disagree that you were ever neutral on handling MMA. I would agree that were never neutral in your stance towards me, or anyone bold enough to call this out. Agent00f (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

It turns out that Medcab does, as I suspected, address "mostly" content issues where "there is often overlap between content and conduct". Accordingly I think opening a case is appropriate, as there is enough foundation built that Medcab might take us over the hump toward consensus. It takes awhile to find a mediator and get everyone onboard, so there will be natural transition time from this page to that. If Agent00f agreed to Medcab and any of the certifiers declined, I don't know what that would do for the "Agent00f is obstructionist" argument. Also, if we reach a happy solution in a week Medcab can just turn us down for that reason. Please comment before I commit. JJB 17:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Should we assume you plan to include links to the previous mediation where the Omnibus idea was developed, and to the lengthy discussions already having taken place at WP:MMANOT as all of those previous discussions are relevant to the content and conduct issue as well as yours and Agent's arguments for getting around notability being easily agreed to if we supported the Omnibus. Newmanoconnor (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

If it would help get you onboard, sure. I think that TLDR and CCC would make it very hard to rely on that discussion though, and none of the developers of that consensus are answering my questions about the difference between my variation and their own. But please stop saying I'm trying to get around notability; what I'm trying to get around is the false idea that every article must be on a notable topic, which is not what WP:N says (though it's a knee-jerk reading of it that I too shared at first). It says that notability does not limit list content, and WP:SUMMARY says that topics with unlimited content, like list of UFC events, should be broken up, as we agree. We just (potentially) disagree on the best breakup method. JJB 18:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

In response to Dennis Brown above: while I have no intention of putting any of these articles on my watchlist (I am a fairly bad judge of notability and the like with regard to sports, because I simply don't understand the whole field), if this RfC/U concludes the way it appears to be going at the moment, and if Agent00f doesn't change his tune, I will be happy to block Agent00f if he continues to edit disruptively. You'd be welcome to bring future concerns directly to my talk page, though given the long term problems here, I'm more likely to look more kindly on something raised by someone like yourself rather than Hasteur, etc. Please note that this is not because I think Hasteur is necessarily wrong, but because I believe that some of the people who've interacted with Agent00f the longest appear to have become so irritated with him that they can't distinguish between when he's being truly disruptive or when he's acting within our bounds. While RfC/U's do not lead to binding results, they can at times provide a clear summary of past behavior, which makes it far easier to determine when new behavior is part of a larger pattern of disruption and thus disruptive (and thus, easier for an admin to decide whether blocking is appropriate). Qwyrxian (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you hold off on blocks until you or whoever's advice you're taking this time can actually distinguish the difference? It only seems fair that we don't rush to judgement based on innuendo. It's also worth pointing out that you seem to be DISRUPTIVEly/selectively replying to my comments, and it would set a good example for other admins if you could follow WP:POLICY while within the role. Thanks. Agent00f (talk) 22:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed solution 3 by John J. Bulten

3) At risk of being a perennial inserter, I observe: JJB 20:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Hasteur: 'I am open to a currently uninvolved editor agreed to by both sides in the dispute being appointed as a "Judge of Conduct" on behalf of Agent00f. If editors raise a polite request for Agent to not do something that is rejected, the editor may go to the JoC for a ruling to determine if it is a real problem or if it's just the editor being cranky.'

Agent00f: 'I have no problem if someone actually neutral and ... willing to engage in substance instead of just rhetorical claims (ie "I say so") had oversight. You [JJB] obviously aren't up for nomination, but someone in the same vein is definitely acceptable. Please note that self-proclaimed neutrality of the sort we've all seen and "editors in good standing" don't count.'

Cf. List of adopters. JJB 20:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

As half of this proposal, I endorse this proposal, but wish to hold closure pending an acceptable mentor being contacted and agreed to mentor Agent00f. I would like to suggest User:Feedback or User:Worm That Turned as potential mentors. Hasteur (talk) 20:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I just really hope it's not an admin like Qwyrxian who threatens blocks without even reading much of this RfC. I mean, there are obviously some reasonably complex issues here and it's best if get someone who doesn't just jump on populist bandwagons. Agent00f (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I just really hope it's not an admin like Qwyrxian who threatens blocks without even reading much of this RfC. I mean, there are obviously some reasonably complex issues here and it's best if get someone who doesn't just jump on populist bandwagons without much passing familiarity. I would also be hesitant about anyone Hasteur picks given s/he feels people who think the sport/subject + all contributors should be nuked are "editors in good standing" fit to judge this situation fairly. Agent00f (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Seriously man, this is exactly the kind of comment that will get you blocked, yet you continue to make them.Why not propose someone yourself, or make a comment about this proposal, instead of using it to attack Q's character? Newmanoconnor (talk) 22:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

If it's not quite obvious yet, I'm not exactly someone deferential to trite authority. I'm also not attacking anyone's character, I'm saying that Q is rushing to judgement without much familiarity by relying on clearly flawed testimonies. This is what created the mess in the MMA space for many months, and continuing to perpetuate it isn't going to help anything. Perhaps JJB can recommend someone since he seems to be the third-party here capable of looking before jumping. I can look myself if time permits, and it would likely be someone with a technical enough background and thus some interest in understanding before judging. Agent00f (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Template

4)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion

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