Talk:List of WWE personnel

Edit warring again

While checking the unblock request for Kalajan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), I checked the history of this article and found that there is still a massive amount of edit warring going on. Since there is such a dispute about who is or who is not an employee of WWE, and since the same edits are being done and then being undone, I've protected this page for a week. And if I've protected m:The Wrong Version, that's too bad. I don't follow professional wrestling or the rumor mill for it, so I have no opinions on what the correct version is.

Work out your differences here at the talk page, not in edit wars. Also remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fan site, so everything said here needs to be reliably sourced. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 02:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I am attempting to resolve this dispute by searching for reliable sources for the wrestlers in question. I am basing these reliable sources on WikiProject Professional Wrestling Sources.

Here are the wrestlers in question. If/When I have found a reliable source, I will include the url link beside their name.:

David Otunga - http://www.wrestleview.com/news08/1225317534.shtml

Mike Hutter - http://www.wrestleview.com/news08/1228748343.shtml

Dos Caras Jr. - http://www.wrestleview.com/news08/1224968010.shtml

Phil Shatter (Chad Lail) - http://www.411mania.com/wrestling/news/82975/WWE-News:-Shane-McMahon-in-Mexico,-Carlitos-Future,-Chris-Harris-and-More.htm

Matt Walsh - Matt Walsh's myspace page http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=30417295

Byron Wilcott -

Jason Riggs - Jason Riggs' myspace page http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewProfile&friendID=23661752

Johnny Riggs - Johnny Riggs' myspace page http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewProfile&friendID=6074049

That is all. Dahumorist (talk) 04:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Unless you guys want this article placed on article probation, I suggest everyone stops edit warring. D.M.N. (talk) 08:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Mayspace is not a reliable source, wrestleview might not be either for this but I don't care. As long as it ends the protection.--WillC 20:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Certainly the official myspace of said person is a reliable source? Myspace serves the same purpose as official websites nowadays. Dahumorist (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem with myspace is that anyone can make a myspace look legit. We don't know if that is a fan created page for the guy/girl whatever or the real guy.--WillC 20:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Since all of these guys are "unassigned talent" types, let's come to a conclusion on this...

Unless these guys make an appearance in FCW (or on one of the big 3 brands if they skip over FCW), do not include them on the roster, period.

These guys are not worth having the article shut down.

Vjmlhds 20:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yea, that, or we can use the approved sources according to WP:PW, which I did for 4 of the people in question already. Frankly, I'm just wondering why this is still considered a dispute. I am resolving it currently as you can see above. If we have problems with some of the sources, then those guys will remain off the page until further sources are provided. Dahumorist (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well if you remove the unassigned section move the page to List of World Wrestling Entertainment on screen employees. Kalajan€₣ 21:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

What exactly would that accomplish? Just because a few unassigned individuals can't be verified you feel it's necessary to remove all off-camera personel?  Hazardous Matt  21:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Heck I'm just trying to prevent edit wars and make a consensus. Kalajan€₣ 22:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

That's called content forking. Don't even think about doing that. iMatthew // talk // 22:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh okay, pick on the little guy why don't you. Kalajan€₣ 17:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Kalajan, do not tell someone that we've reached consensus on removing off-camera personel (as you did here) when you've only made a suggestion to do so without anyone else having commented.  Hazardous Matt  22:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I thought everyone would agree. Kalajan€₣ 22:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Bottom line is, whether you agree or not, we users of Wikipedia have to abide by Wikipedia's WP:MOS, and the MOS states that we must cite information using reliable sources. In this case, WrestleView is not reliable because it is only reliable for Television and Pay-Per-View results. Other website, even PW Torch and WON, are not reliable because of the same reasons. Myspace's are not reliable either, unless it can be confirmed that the myspace is actually the superstars, like a photo promoting their URL. That's the bottom line, which is ridiculous that an edit war broke out over this.--Truco 22:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Kalajan, do you want to be blocked again? I think that until these wrestlers appear on TV, we will NOT add them. When we reach a consensus and the page gets unprotected, I strongly suggest that no one touches it, unless it has been vandalized. ₰imon^KSK 22:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It was just a suggestion. Kalajan€₣ 22:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Next time use discussions to build a consensus or to get a question answered to avoid edit wars and protection of an article.--Truco 22:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well the article is now protected so I suggest agreeing with whats his name's suggestion and remove the unconffirmed guys. Kalajan€₣ 22:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Everyone agrees to it.--Truco 22:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. And keep my suggestion in mind, everyone. ₰imon^KSK 22:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Seriously the edit warring needs to stop, I added a disambiguation to the top of the article since 'WWE Superstars' redirects here and people are reverting it. -.- — Moe ε 00:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Should we ask for our page back? Kalajan€₣ 14:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Clean Up

Doesn't the talk page need to be cleaned up? There are 30 sections Benton Tigers  00:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it does, I'll archive it if no one has a problem.--WillC 00:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Do it its fine with me Benton Tigers  01:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wait until we finish this block thing. Kalajan€₣ 13:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Jericho

When the problems get resolved and the page gets unprotected we need to remove chris Jericho. Source-[1] Benton Tigers  21:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Its just being used as a storyline, if it were a true firing, WWE would report an article on Jericho about a release. When the problems are resolved, he needs to be moved to unassigned talent.--Truco 21:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Deal Benton Tigers  21:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, switch out Matt Hardy's pic for Jack Swagger due to him winning the ECW Title, as well as reactivating Dibiase and adding him to the Legacy.

Vjmlhds 22:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed.--Truco 22:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you say unassigned talent? Good idea. Kalajan€₣ 14:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Sgt. Slaughter/Ron Simmons released.

Both Sgt. Slaughter and Ron Simmons have been released from the WWE. Can a mod please remove them and Slaughter's picture.

http://www.pwinsider.com/ViewArticle.php?id=35826&p=1

As for Gavin Spears, if an update does not come up on wwe.com or a reliable source that he was released, we can add him back to the ecw roster.

Firstly, I don't know if PWinsider is a RS, probably is though so I'll agree with you there, if no one can find a source saying that they are, remove them. Kalajan€₣ 14:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it just be easier to wait for a second source, rather than put the burden of proof on finding information that states Slaughter and Simmons are still with the company, as you're suggesting?  Hazardous Matt  15:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I looked up Simmons on WWE.com and I don't think I saw him in the roster (were he usually is). Kalajan€₣ 15:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

People can be taken off the WWE roster page for various reasons. PWInsider isn't listed as a proven-reliable source. It's probably best to just wait and get a fully-relaible source on that.  Hazardous Matt  16:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Kalajan Farooq is still on the WWE RAW Superstar page [2]  Benton Tigers  16:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I said I didn't see him. Kalajan€₣ 17:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Geof Rochester needs to be removed as well. He was Director of Marketing. His bio was removed from the wwe corporate site, and no longer listed as a member of the board of directors.--NickSparrow (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the point here, the page is blocked anyway, and then when it's unblocked everyone is going to try and edit at the same tyme, so... Can someone just unblock this! Kalajan€₣ 20:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Use {{editprotected}} for this request. That way, another admin will review it. I don't have time to review this request at the moment since I'm busy with other stuff. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Well can someone try that? Kalajan€₣ 21:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You are not completely helpless, please feel free to do it yourself. iMatthew // talk // 00:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Ron Simmon's profile is no longer on the RAW page.

Referee Mickie Henson was released as well. Henson, Simmons, Slaughter (and picture), Rochester needs to be removed. Matt Cappotelli was released, but he wasnt even listed, so we are good on that front.--NickSparrow (talk) 04:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hade Vansen has been released as well. He is a developmental talent.--NickSparrow (talk) 05:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Protection: Utterly ridiculous

"Oh my God, so much edit warring! Quick, the article will die, lets protect it!"

This "protection" is a big load-a-crap. This is Wikipedia. We collaborate with information and try to reach consensus. The failure to reach consensus for some is not an excuse for limiting the ability of the diligent users to edit and improve this article. Which ever admin who "protected" the article, with all due respect, you don't own it. Seriously though, with all due respect, because I have no idea who you are, and why you did this, but it was of absoulutely no consensus. I imagine you were satisfying some user's request, but this is outrageous. People have to come to the talk page and write down the differences THEY should be making and adding to THEIR contributions, for THEY made them. And for what? So a selected few (the admins) get to make those contributions [which didn't belong to them, I might add].

Oh, and if you, the admin, say you're protecting the page due to policy, you are wrong. Because, due to WP:PROTECTION, Isolated incidents of edit warring, and persistent edit warring by particular users, may be better addressed by blocking, so as not to prevent normal editing of the page by others. And this is exactly what I'm talking about. I suggest the article be "de-protected", because the proper channels weren't done. Also, just because someone is an admin, it doesn't mean you can create the consensus of protecting a page all by yourself. First review the cause and partake in the proper analysis of the situation which in this case would've been blocking, semi-protecting or just a simple warning. Raagio ^T/_C Guest Book 00:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The admin was User:Elkman. He actually had a reason to protect it Alex because it was fully protected once for edit warring, and then after it expired, the warring began all over again. As a result, the repeated edit warring led to another protection, which expires in a few days, I believe. If the edit warring continues, WP:PROBATION needs to be sought for those warring users.--Truco 00:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Kalajan, you, Dahumorist and SK. A handful of people, and I might be mistaken, but I am not aware if anyone else was involved. These four users could have been warned and even blocked, oh, and Dahumorist and SK were the ones really "firing up the war". So, basically with warnings for Truco and Kalajan and potential blocks for Dahumorist and SK, I believe the "protection" could've (SHOULD'VE) been avoided. I already explained the proper channels that should have been partaken, as stated in WP:PROTECTION. Oh, and Truco, that other protection you mentioned that happened before... it was also... utterly ridiculous. Raagio ^T/_C Guest Book 00:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes both wars were ridiculous. Warnings were given to all users for edit warring, and Kalajan was blocked for 24 hours. He then returned and stirred up another war, which led to the current protection. SK was only being a good faith user and trying to get Kalajan to reach a consensus in order for removal of the full protection. In addition, why should they have warned me if I wasn't involved in the war?--Truco 00:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think, based on looking at the page history, that page protection is suited for this case. It looks like you need some time to resolve some issues of who is supposed to be on this list. Blocking is of course possible, but that usually just leads to a slower edit war, which won't really accomplish a consensus. Once you all have have come to a consensus just request the page be unprotected at WP:RFPP. The page isn't locked forever, it is just a break from editing until a problem is resolved. Prodego ^talk 00:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

There really isn't a problem, it was just a silly war by one editor, and the reverts by other good faith users.--Truco 00:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Truco that there isn't no problem. Especially not one that should affect every single other editor in Wikipedia (about what? million? millions?) and prohibit them from editing this article, regardless of a short length of time or not. However, Truco, it wasn't just one editor. You reverted some edits by SimonKSK, SimonKSK had a bried edit war with Dahumorist about something having to do with unassigned talent and Kalajan was just parading with bad edits (be them good faith or not) which were reverted by SimonKSK. All this, I checked in the history. So, in conclusion, it was you four who actually would have something to dispute about, however, because SimonKSK is not upset because of your revert Truco, I guess this doesn't include you. Prodego, as you see, there was only 3 editors involved, whereas two are ready to discuss and reach a consensus at the talk page. The other, Kalajan, is a once-blocked editor who continues to be involved in edit wars. A longer block could have taken care of that, or maybe a probation. No need for protecting the article. Raagio ^T/_C Guest Book 01:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I edit warred. Yes, it was good faith. Yes, I think the protection was stupid. My edits were all good faith. I reverted Dahumorist's edits, cause he had no reliable source. Kalajan was just being uncivil. I agree that a longer block should have taken place for him, and his talk page should have been protected because of this. I mean, the first edit war was pathetic. He didn't seem to get what a reliable source was. He edit warred, made personal attacks, was uncivil, and did I mention he edit warred? In my opinion, a longer block should have taken place. 1 week, in my opinion. It's sad, but all we can do is wait it out now. ₰imon^KSK 02:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course I don't own the article. I never said I did. I clearly stated my reason for protecting the page a few sections ago, if you had read back that far. (Which you didn't, since you didn't know who protected the page.) When I first saw the page history, I saw that JamesR (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) protected it on January 10, then Tiptoety (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) unprotected it after a consensus had supposedly been reached on this talk page. The unprotect was done on 16:26, January 10. (I think that's my local time). Between that time and 20:44, January 11, here's what happened to the article:

• Byron Wilcott and David Otunga were removed and then readded to the list five times.
• Dos Caras, Jr. was removed and then readded to the list seven times.
• Jason Riggs and Johnny Riggs were removed and then readded to the list four times.
• Glamarella was added and then removed from the list three times.
• Matt Walsh and Mike Hutter were added and then removed from the list three times.
• Chad Lail was added and then removed from the list three times.

I protected the page at 20:44 on January 11. Kalajan (talk · contribs) was blocked at 14:23 on January 11. In that time, he made 8 edits to the page and used inflammatory edit summaries. Nevertheless, other people were edit warring, as shown by edit summaries and the number of reverts. Dahumorist (talk · contribs) made 6 edits and said he was looking for sources, SimonKSK (talk · contribs) made 8 edits and used an edit summary to encourage discussion on the talk page, Kaizer13 (talk · contribs) made one edit with an inflammatory edit summary, and Truco (talk · contribs) made two edits. TJ Spyke (talk · contribs) made one edit, D.M.N. (talk · contribs) made one edit citing WP:BLP, and Spike7000 (talk · contribs) made one edit. There were a few other edits that didn't touch on the contentious material about unassigned talent.

With the number of times each of these wrestlers was added and then removed from the list, it's pretty clear that there was an edit war going on. My decision to protect the page was to stop the edit war and to encourage discussion here. I see there's some discussion, but not much of a consensus yet. I'm willing to discuss unprotecting the article if people are willing to come to an agreement on what sources can be used to cite someone being a WWE employee. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No Truco you're wrong, because I didn't return and make another war, the page was protected because I asked to be unblocked and because I've had issues with Elkman in the past (Elkman we have to speak), he protected it after looking into the history. And SK, my block is over so it's too late to suggest another one. Lets just stop edit warring and unprotect this, if anyone declares war, he'll be blocked, not the page. Opinions? Kalajan€₣ 16:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Also I had nothing to do in this war:

• Byron Wilcott and David Otunga were removed and then readded to the list five times.
• Dos Caras, Jr. was removed and then readded to the list seven times.
• Jason Riggs and Johnny Riggs were removed and then readded to the list four times.
• Glamarella was added and then removed from the list three times.
• Matt Walsh and Mike Hutter were added and then removed from the list three times.
• Chad Lail was added and then removed from the list three times.

Probably the third? Anyway, everyone edited, more or less it matters not, all that matters is were we are and it's all our falt. WE have done this and we'll get out of it. Please don't treat me like a vandal or anything. I participated, and I don't see it fair that you say four editors were in the war, it was well more. Kalajan€₣ 16:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It was stated above that while other editors were making edits to the page those edits were not what contributed to the conflict that caused the page to be protected. And regarding your issues with Elkman and your block, I don't see an issue there. Tiptoey blocked you and Nikki311 (upon your request) evaluated your block and found it justified.  Hazardous Matt  16:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm moving the discussion here so that other contributors can edit in peace (Matt, your comment here please). Kalajan€₣ 16:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You're suggesting that you move the discussion regarding this article off of the articles talkpage?  Hazardous Matt  16:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes because as you see this thing is getting heated up, it would cause a bad impression. Kalajan€₣ 16:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Definitely not. Discussion goes HERE, this is the talkpage, not a page is your userpage. D.M.N. (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh god there are more rules here than in Naziland (Germany in WWII). Anyway, lets see, let's reach a consensus here. Now, we unblock the page, and if a user fires up a war, let he be blocked, not the page. My issues with Elkman started in april and it was all a mistake (Contact me Elkman). Let's say that almost everyone warred, that's that, and reach the consensus I suggested. Kalajan€₣ 16:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

And the thread is Godwinned. Anyway, the policy is not for an immediate ban. An editor is to be warned and a ban may result if the editor in question does not stop the behavior they received the warning for.  Hazardous Matt  16:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yah, but they weren't even warned, just because I vandalized a page about 8M ago it dosen't mean I can't turn a new leaf. Kalajan€₣ 16:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You were warned for your edits repeatedly and disregarded them. Some of the edits done were good faith reversions, which while violating 3RR may not warrant warnings if it's to revert vandalism. Now, if we can please get back to addressing how to resolve the protection instead of just dwelling on the protection itself?  Hazardous Matt  16:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes of course. Anyway, the user that wars will be warned, if he does it again blocked, and that's that. Kalajan€₣ 16:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Stop focusing on getting people blocked and please read below and contribue to this can be resolved.  Hazardous Matt  17:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Ted Dibiase

Why is he listed as inactive? He finished with the filming of The Marine 2, and appeared on this week's Raw, so he is not inactive anymore. --Pavlen (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

If you read a few sections up you'll see that the page has been fully-protected due to edit wars. It will get updated eventually.  Hazardous Matt  15:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Conditions for unprotecting this article

I'm willing to consider unprotecting this article if the contributors are willing to agree about what sources will be used to substantiate whether someone is to be listed in the "Unassigned talent" section, or anywhere else in the article. First, I'd like to remind everyone of Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and also point out that Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Style guide#Sources has a list of sources and web sites that have proven reliable for professional wrestling.

Here are the main issues I see:

• Editors are not willing to agree on which sources are reliable.
• Editors haven't always been providing references to back up their additions to or removals from the list. Since this stuff is becoming contentious, we need references. (See Wikipedia:Citing sources.)
• The editing has become inflammatory, with accusations flying back and forth.

In fact, I'm wondering if it's even possible to prove that someone has been hired by the WWE if they haven't appeared on-air yet.

I'd like to get agreement on whether the following wrestlers should appear in the list of unassigned talent, as well as consensus on the sources:

• Byron Wilcott
• David Otunga
• Dos Caras, Jr.
• Jason Riggs and Johnny Riggs
• Glamarella
• Matt Walsh
• Mike Hutter
• Chad Lail

I have no opinion and no knowledge about whether these wrestlers are WWE employees or not, and I haven't done any research. That's for you guys to determine. (Also, I may be mixing real names and screen names here. I don't know the difference -- I'm more proficient in architecture, like the difference between Richardsonian Romanesque architecture and Beaux-Arts architecture.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think any talent that pwinsider.com announces (i know its not a rs, but they are about the only reliable site when it comes to hiring/firing of talent/employees), should be allowed. In the "Unassigned" section, if a rs is not given, then the non rs should be listed, with the text of "Unconfirmed" next to the individual's name.--NickSparrow (talk) 05:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I say use the links I provided above for the people in question. Mike Hutter, David Otunga, and Phil Shatter (Chad Lail)'s links meet the WP:PW specifications. The others (Byron Wilcott, Jason and Johnny Riggs, and Matt Walsh) don't. Why don't we keep a section on this talk page that keeps track of them using "unacceptable" links, and when/if an acceptable one is found, they can then be added. According to [3], Dos Caras isn't coming afterall, so he can be canned completely. As for Glamarella, I have no real opinion. Dahumorist (talk) 05:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Really, there's no reason a continued discussion about questionably signed talents can't remain on this page for this very purpose. Dahumorist (talk) 05:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is a better source for the signing of Jason Riggs, Johnny Riggs, and Mike Hutter. http://www.411mania.com/wrestling/news/94207/WWE-News:-Stock-Price,-FCW,-Next-Austin-Movie,-More.htm

--NickSparrow (talk) 07:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem I found with that link is that they source PWinsider.com, and no matter how hard I search PWinsider, I couldn't find their post on the subject. :-\ Dahumorist (talk) 15:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't check these links at work due to policy, but if the 411mania link confirms it, I'm willing to accept that.  Hazardous Matt  17:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The article needs to be unprotected because of the simple fact that there is some info that needs to be corrected and it can't because theres a protection on it. How can people keep the article up to date when theres a protection block on it? --Chrismaster1 (talk) 19:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You would discuss the changes here, so an admin could make the necessary changes.  Hazardous Matt  19:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

If anyone wants to make non-controversial changes to this article, make a new section on this talk page with {{editprotected}} at the top and details of exactly what change to make, and a sysop will come along and edit it. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Unprotected

I've removed the protection from this article. It doesn't look like any of you have agreed on which sources are reliable, or whether any of these particular wrestlers indeed should be listed or not listed. In other words, I'm pretty sure you people will edit war over this article again. Besides, you're spending far more time debating my protection and people's block logs than discussing improvements to the article.

I suppose I was expecting too much for a group of professional wrestling fans to agree on how to edit an article. After reading this article and this article, I have more of an insight into the minds of today's 18- to 24-year olds. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't very civil but thanks anyway! Kalajan€₣ 19:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to be a major asshat just because you have more authority than us dude. If you have no respect for wrestling, stay the hell away and leave it to somebody else. Go and have some fun with your Euclidean geometry or something. Disrespect may or may not be intended. --Kaizer13 (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree (but without the swears) Kalajan€₣ 20:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

How dare you, Elkman. I'm here editing this page to make it as encyclopedic and factual as humanly possible. And I'm not the only one. And you lump us together like we're some group of degenerate little kids causing trouble. I take much offense to that. The small amount of power you've been given has gone to your head. You honestly owe myself and all these other people an apology. You'd think someone with authority on wikipedia would be caught up with the rules about Civility. Dahumorist (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

WHAT!

Why's it been protected again? Kalajan€₣ 21:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No ****ing way.

I told all of you to stay away from the page. Truco said to use warnings. I said to build a consensus. NONE of you listened. I don't get what is so hard? ¿Should I say it in Spanish, amigo? I am tired. I have no words. None. ₰imon^KSK 21:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I love this. It got protected again. I'm just going to laugh everytime now. Maybe it should stay protected forever. Because it seems none of us can quit warring.--WillC 21:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No but see, I edited about 2 times and it wasn't edit warring, just the essencial. Kalajan€₣ 21:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The funniest part was that it was not you, Kalajan. ₰imon^KSK 21:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't!?!? WOW. Kalajan€₣ 21:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

From this edit summary by Elkman, I must say he reads the future. Some of you need to get more aquainted with the Wikipedia policy of Reliable sources. Kalajan, no offense, but you need to learn how to edit Wikipedia more properly, I noticed many mistakes in your revisions, such as rewording statements into badly worded fragments and deleting wiki markup. Other users need to word their edit summaries better, because that is what admins look for in edit warring, which caused this bad-faith protection because it was the IPs who added incorrect information. In addition, use warnings on IPs, see WP:WARN. If that doesn't work, report them to WP:AIV if they vandalize excessively or if they revert more than 3 times. I will contest this protection, but request semi-protection, as long as users can handle not warring.--Truco 21:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I say let the article stay protected. It is just going to start another edit war as soon as it is unprotected. As soon as the last one expired I saw about 15 edits in one minute (I might have exaggerated a bit). The warning users and ips will not stop the edit wars. When people learn to use the talk page before making big or controversial edits will it end.--WillC 21:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

CONSENSUS

This is nuts, let's show that we can work together here, people. SOME OF THIS IS A REPOST FROM ABOVE - I say use the links I provided above for the people in question. Mike Hutter, David Otunga, and Phil Shatter (Chad Lail)'s links meet the WP:PW specifications. Nick Sparrow posted a source for Jason and Johnny Riggs. The others (Byron Wilcott and Matt Walsh) still need to be discussed. Why don't we keep a section on this talk page that keeps track of them using "unacceptable" links, and when/if an acceptable one is found, they can then be added. According to [4], Dos Caras isn't coming afterall, so he can be canned completely. Agree or Disagree? I Support. Dahumorist (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

As for some other edits (Ortiz and Long being moved to Smackdown, and Vickie being deleted), that's just vandalism that needed to be reverted. Dahumorist (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Those were IP additions, without sources or unreliable sources, which leads to their removal. I have requested unprotection of the article, because there isn't an edit war here, its straight common sense per WP:RS.--Truco 21:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Article probation?

I don't mind who comments here, but most admins will probably know what this is. This protection log makes for very bad reading. I remember several months ago similar thing happening on the Sarah Palin article. Shortly after, that was put on probation. I, looking at the above, am leaning towards a possible article probation towards this article due to the amount of edit warring that is taking place. For those unaware of article probation, please see Wikipedia:General sanctions#Sanctions placed by the Wikipedia community, and for an example of it in place, see Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. D.M.N. (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You know, I requested unprotection, but at the moment, this is the best thing to do. I Support article probation, until a consensus is reached about who should be included, what should not be included, what is a reliable source, what isn't a reliable source, etc. With the many chances this article has gotten to reach a consensus, users fail to produce one, and would rather fight about it. This is the best resort for now.--Truco 21:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Support short-term probation on the article until primary disputes are resolved.  Hazardous Matt  21:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoa Whoa Whoa. If you look above, I have set up a possible idea for consensus. I think at the very least, we should wait for some responses and see if this can be done before probation comes into play. Keep in mind, lots of things needed to be changed when this page became unprotected. Naturally, what comes along with that is the occasional vandalism that we see every so often anyway. I agree with Matt that the article should be protected until the disputes are resolved, however. Dahumorist (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Dahumorist, I agree that this can be settled but just agreeing on what sources are credible. The reason I'm avoiding that conversation is I primarily access WP from work, which has strong policies against casual browsing. I find the 411mania reference to be reasonably reliable as I've come to find them a trusted news source.  Hazardous Matt  22:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I find them extremely reliable as well. Dahumorist (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

411mania is not reliable because they do not have an accurate fact checking system, there was a general discussion about this article in the past about is reliability on Wikipedia, and it was found not reliable. Yes, you propose a consensus, but this article needs a more in-depth consensus, like there was a couple months back.Truco 22:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair nuff, if we're going strictly by the accepted WP:PW sources, which is fine by me, then Mike Hutter and David Otunga have reliable sources. The others don't, so, they should remain off the page until reliable sources are provided. Until then, we should keep a section on the talk page for discussions about questionable talent signings. Is that REALLY an unreasonable possible consenses? Thoughts? Comments? Dahumorist (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

See below for a general wide discussion.--Truco 22:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Block

Why does everybody keep argueing over the page being protected and the page being blocked why don't the wikipedians block the users who are causing the vandilism instead of protecting the page and making people (Kalajan) mad.  Benton Tigers  22:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

A million sections over this is unneeded, see above discussions as to the reasons.--Truco 22:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

In case you've missed it, there are too many editors to block, and I have no confidence that blocking editors instead of protecting the page would help. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

No Benton I'm not mad, don't worry, but my opinion here is that the page shouldn't be protected, only a user's right to edit disabled. Kalajan€₣ 14:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus discussion

I am intending this discussion to build a consensus among editors who edit this page. If, a consensus cannot be reached, and another edit war breaks out, probation will be sought. If I missed a subject, add it below the other ones. --Truco 22:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Signings/Releases

I don't know the exact wrestlers that are being debated over signing with WWE, or being released, but the bottom line is: For signings, the only accepted reliable sources are statements made exactly by that wrestler (this can be sourced with whatever source as long as the source states "Christian Cage officially stated in an interview") or an announcement made by WWE. For releases, many can be sourced with WrestleView, WON, and PW Torch because these websites have inside information with WWE and they get the news edge on releases, but these are the only accepted sources for that (and by WWE and direct statements by that person). For FCW: they must appear on FCW, WWE/FCW must acknowledge their signing or appearance, blogs by WWE employees, and statements by that wrestler.--Truco 22:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Support As long as we have a set standard on what makes a reliable source, I'm fine with it. Vjmlhds 22:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Sources deemed reliable  Hazardous Matt  22:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose I hate to cause trouble here, but when it comes to developmental signings, WWE.com never does them. The only sources for them are sites like PW Torch, the newsletter, 411mania, PWInsider, Wrestleview, etc. Dahumorist (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, it depends where they get their information from. If it says "According to an inside reporter" then it will be okay, but if WrestleView says "According to PW Insider" (then you will have to find where the original information came from, it just cant be coming from website to website, it has to have an original source.--Truco 22:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that. Dahumorist (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I completely disagree that just by saying "inside reporter" makes your statement untrue. You never know if they're lying, spreading rumors or publishing misinformation. The official statements must be by FCW, WWE, or any other first-party sources [in this case, the Wrestler's own sites]. Raagio ^T/_C Guest Book 01:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

When I said "inside reporter" I meant a reporter who has connections with WWE; they can't lie about that because the website could get sued for false publication of information.Truco 01:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That is not a reason for proving they aren't lying. Raagio ^T/_C Guest Book 02:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Eh, fine then, all developmental signings are only reliable if they appear in FCW, have been announced as a contracted superstar by FCW, or by WWE and their own personal statements.--Truco 02:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That seems good, you can also add that if any WWE contracted talent [like JR in his blogs] would mention them, they can also be added. Raagio ^T/_C Guest Book 02:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Added.Truco 02:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

But many of them confirm on their personal site via MySpace, which is deemed unreliable. Dahumorist (talk) 04:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

3. Undecided If a wrestler themselves, WWE.com or a reliable source posts the hiring/firing of any wwe employee, then that should be allowed. As for the release of developmental talent, it should be placed under discussion here, if a reliable source is not posted, but pwinsider or the other newz sites post the release. We must consider this, since WWE.com does not post the release or signings of developmental talent, and we need to keep the page accurate as possiable. As I mentioned with Unassigned talent, remove the category all together. When the wrestler debuts in FCW or WWE television, then they can be added. If a accurate source, WWE.com, or the wrestler themselves (not myspace) states they have been signed to WWE and have not debuted yet, then they can be placed in "Other personnel" with the source and "Wrestler; yet to debut full time" next to their name.--NickSparrow (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is any point on posting why you're undecided.

1. REDIRECT User:Raaggio/Signature/Current 21:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Tag-Teams/Stables

A tag team is an active duo of wrestlers who tag-team regularly, this is not an example of "Glamarella." A stable is more than a duo of people, which doesn't necessarily need to consist of wrestlers. Members should be added as they are officially stated via WWE.--Truco 22:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Support Fine by me. Vjmlhds 22:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

2. Support Dahumorist (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

3. Support  Hazardous Matt ' 22:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

4. Oppose, Glamarella's a team, it's not that hard! Kalajan€₣ 14:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Take the definition of tag-team "An duo of wrestlers that wrestle matches together regularly" (meaning, at least every 2 weeks). A valet/wrestler combination is not a tag team, meaning that Glamarella is not a tag-team due to this definition.--Truco 21:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

5. Support A team of a male/female should not be listed as a tag team unless they go after the tag team titles, or win them. Then they should be listed. A stable is 2 or more active members (managers/valets can count towards this).--NickSparrow (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

6. Support' Benton Tigers ' 21:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Inactivity

Inactivity of wrestlers falls under the criteria that they have not appeared on television over 3 weeks, a general average time. In addition, if they are out for other reasons they have stated or WWE has stated, that is qualified as sources.--Truco 22:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Tentatively Support I think 30 days is the best time frame, but in principle I agree. Vjmlhds 22:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

2. Support I agree with the above, should be 30 days. Dahumorist (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

3. Support 30 days. Sometimes Creative just forgets someone's on the payroll.  Hazardous Matt  22:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

4.- Support One month is 30 days right? Kalajan€₣ 14:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

5. Support - One month. If inactive, I suggest putting: Inactive; last seen on WWE television on ........ D.M.N. (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

6. Tentatively Support I think if a superstar is not on television or wrestling at live events, then they should be considered inactive. If the wrestler fails to be seen on television within 3 weeks, but wrestled in a dark match or on the road at live events. Then it should be noted by their name.--NickSparrow (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Which wrestler is on what brand?

A wrestler belongs to the brand which WWE.com has them on, if they appear on other tv shows more regularly, like the Miz and Morrison on Raw, it is because WWE tapes ECW and Raw together and due to the "talent exchange" which is equivalent to the disbandment of the brand extension in a way.--Truco 22:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Support Amen. Vjmlhds 22:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

2. Support Unless of course, WWE does a brand change on television and is slacks on switching them on the roster pages. Dahumorist (talk) 22:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

3. Support  Hazardous Matt  22:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

4. Strong Support Whatever WWE says goes. Kalajan€₣ 14:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

5. Support Whichever brand WWE.com has them listed on, it should be like that here. They can appear on all the brands due to the talent exchange agreement.--NickSparrow (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

All because of "Unassigned Talent"

Here's an easy solution to all of our problems.

Get rid of the "unassigned talent" table.

All of these rookies are not worth the trouble of having this page locked.

I propose from now on unless there's a sourced article saying these rookies have appeared in FCW, then they are not to be included on the page, period.

Since there is too much controversy over what makes a reliable source, then let's make life easy on ourselves and don't include rookies who may or may not have signed contracts until we see them in a WWE or FCW ring or TV program.

This is getting out of hand and a hammer needs to be dropped or else this going to continue.

No TV or source showing they wrestled in the WWE system, no mention in the article, period and amen.

Vjmlhds 22:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, a list of reliable sources has been available for some time. It's just that not everyone's favorite website is listed as a reliable or trustworthy source. Though, if there is no source saying they've wrestled in the WWE system, then they probably haven't.  Hazardous Matt  22:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree vehemently with Vj. The problem that occurred with the page was that someone deleted the ones that were unsourced. Of course, previous to the page overhaul and redesign, most of those people DID have sources but they disappeared. The only reason an "edit war" occurred was because that SK dude insisted that my sources were unreliable. There is no reason these wrestlers should be left off the page because of one guy's opinion on what sites are reliable. WP:PW lists reliable sources and we should follow that. That's what it's there for! Dahumorist (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the definition of employee:

An employee contributes labor and expertise to an endeavour. Employees perform the discrete activity of economic production. Of the three factors of production, employees usually provide the labour.

If the talent is unassigned and not competing, that means they have yet to begin fulfilling the labor they must do in their contracts. So if the person is not working, then they still aren't officially employed, just making checks for doing nothing. Raagio ^T/_C Guest Book 02:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. If Mae Young can be listed as Occasional Appearances (and she should be, despite sitting at home), then signed talent are employees too. Dahumorist (talk) 05:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Whatever you decide to do with unassigned talent is fine by me, just as long as there's a set criteria.

Plus somebody needs to fix the page ASAP.

Somebody put Ricky Ortiz and Teddy Long on Smackdown so now both the SD and ECW tables are screwed up, and Victoria needs to be removed from Smackdown as she will retire after her match tonight. (WWE.com is reporting this, so it's not a spoiler).

Vjmlhds 13:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

As for Unassigned talent. I think it should be removed all together. It causes to much trouble for the page to always be protected. Lets leave the FCW section as is and update it as wrestlers appear/leave. Low-Ki can be added to the roster as "Kawal".

As for Tomko, why not place him under "Other personnel" due to being the only unassigned talent with a accurate source. We can put "Wrestler, yet to debut full time" next to his name. Same with Josie and Garrison. Everyone else removed until they debut on wwe television or debut in FCW.--NickSparrow (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Low-Ki II

Just wanted to further note some stuff regarding Low-Ki. He worked another FCW taping so he might as well be placed under their roster. He also is going by the name "Kawal" so at the very least that name change can be made. Hot Stuff International (talk) 08:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Also Carson Oakley changed his ringname to Alex Riley according to the FCW site. Dahumorist (talk) 18:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)