Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

"WP:CR" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Cleanup resources, Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:Competence is required, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Content removal.

"WP:ANC" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Assume no clue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical instructions for closers

Please append {{Doing}} to the discussion's entry you are closing so that no one duplicates your effort. When finished, replace it with {{Close}} or {{Done}} and an optional note, and consider sending a {{Ping}} to the editor who placed the request. Where a formal closure is not needed, reply with {{Not done}}. After addressing a request, please mark the {{Initiated}} template with |done=yes. ClueBot III will automatically archive requests marked with {{Already done}}, {{Close}}, {{Done}} {{Not done}}, and {{Resolved}}.

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

Other areas tracking old discussions

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

Requests for comment

Talk:Awdal#RFC - Habr Awal/Isaaq clan

(Initiated 143 days ago on 24 December 2023) ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done although I wouldn't mind a 2nd set of eyes on the close. I'm not as sure on this as I'd like (which I suppose is no consensus). Either way, a second look never hurt anyone. Soni (talk) 15:06, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Tasnim News Agency

(Initiated 94 days ago on 12 February 2024)

Closure request for this WP:RSN RfC initiated on February 12, with the last !vote occurring on March 18. It was bot-archived without closure on March 26 due to lack of recent activity. - Amigao (talk) 02:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

RfC: Change INFOBOXUSE to recommend the use of infoboxes?

(Initiated 61 days ago on 15 March 2024) Ready to be closed. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Before I try to close this I wanted to see if any editors believed I am WP:INVOLVED. I have no opinions on the broader topic, but I have previously participated in a single RfC on whether a specific article should include an infobox. I don't believe this makes me involved, as my participation was limited and on a very specific question, which is usually insufficient to establish an editor as involved on the broader topic, but given the strength of opinion on various sides I expect that any result will be controversial, so I wanted to raise the question here first.

If editors present reasonable objections within the next few days I won't close; otherwise, unless another editor gets to it first, I will do so. BilledMammal (talk) 04:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War#RFC on Listing of Belarus

(Initiated 61 days ago on 16 March 2024) Hello, this RFC was started on 16 March 2024 and as of now was active for more than a month (nearly 1,5 month to be exact). I think a month is enough for every interested user to express their opinion and to vote at RFC and the last vote at this RFC was made by user Mellk on 15 April 2024 (nearly two weeks ago and within a month since the start of this RFC). The question because of which this RFC was started previously resulted in quite strong disagreements between multiple users, but I think there already is a WP:CONS of 12 users who already voted at this RFC. Since the contentious topics procedure applies to page Russo-Ukrainian War, I think this RFC must be closed by uninvolved user/administrator to ensure a valid WP:CONS and to prevent further disputes/edit warring about this question in the future. -- Pofka (talk) 09:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Will an experienced uninvolved editor please close this RFC. If there is a consensus that Belarus should be listed, but not as to how it should be listed, please close with the least strong choice, Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it should not be closed with the "least strong choice", but instead with a choice which received the most votes (the strongest choice). The most users chose C variant (in total 6 users: My very best wishes, Pofka, Gödel2200, ManyAreasExpert, Licks-rocks, CVDX), while the second strongest choice was A variant (in total 5 users). So I think the WP:CONS of this RFC question is C variant. -- Pofka (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

 Doing... —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Whadjuk#RfC: Inclusion of Noongar words

(Initiated 60 days ago on 17 March 2024)

No new posts for over a month. Legobot auto-removed the RFC tag, but I'd like a definite outcome. Mitch Ames (talk) 08:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Strong objection - there is no such thing as a definite outcome in this particular issue, it is unresolved and likely to remain that way. JarrahTree 09:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done Soni (talk) 11:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Libertarian Party (Australia)#Conservatism

(Initiated 47 days ago on 29 March 2024) RfC template expired. TarnishedPath^talk 01:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk: Elissa Slotkin#Labor Positions and the 2023 UAW Strike

(Initiated 47 days ago on 30 March 2024) RfC expired, no clear consensus. andrew.robbins (talk) 04:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSN#RFC:_The_Anti-Defamation_League

(Initiated 39 days ago on 7 April 2024) Three related RFCs in a trench coat. I personally think the consensus is fairly clear here, but it should definitely be an admin close. Loki (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforcing ECR for article creators

(Initiated 38 days ago on 8 April 2024) Discussion appears to have died down almost a month after this RfC opened. Would like to see a formal close of Q1 and Q2. Awesome Aasim 00:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

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

(Initiated 38 days ago on 8 April 2024) Clear consensus for change but not what to change to. I've handled this RfC very badly imo. User:Alexanderkowal — Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:International Churches of Christ#Request for Comment on About Self sourcing on beliefs section of a religious organization’s article

(Initiated 31 days ago on 15 April 2024) No new comments in eight days. TarnishedPath^talk 01:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Havana syndrome#RfC on the presentation of the Havana Syndrome investigative report content

(Initiated 21 days ago on 25 April 2024) No new comments in 12 days. {{u|Gtoffoletto}}  ^talk 08:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:2024 United States presidential election#RfC: Define the threshold in national polls to include candidates in the infobox - new proposal

(Initiated 1 day ago on 15 May 2024) An RfC on exactly the same matter was literally closed a few days ago. Prcc27 (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

 Closed by editor Redrose64. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 04:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Deletion discussions

XFD backlog

V	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Total
CfD	0	0	19	12	31
TfD	0	0	0	0	0
MfD	0	0	1	3	4
FfD	0	0	0	3	3
RfD	0	0	18	46	64
AfD	0	0	0	0	0

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 8#Medical schools in the Caribbean

(Initiated 56 days ago on 21 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 8#Category:French forts in the United States

(Initiated 55 days ago on 22 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 10#Category:19th-century Roman Catholic church buildings in Réunion

(Initiated 53 days ago on 23 March 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 24#Category:Asian American billionaires

(Initiated 22 days ago on 24 April 2024) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:38, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Other types of closing requests

Talk:Maersk Hangzhou#Second merge proposal

(Initiated 113 days ago on 24 January 2024) Merge discussion involving CTOPS that has been open for 2 weeks now. Needs closure. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter: I would give it a few days as the discussion is now active with new comments. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 00:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

As nominator, I support a non consensus closure of this discussion so we can create an RFC to discuss how WP:ONEEVENT applies in this situation. GoldenBootWizard276 (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:1985_Pacific_hurricane_season#Proposed_merge_of_Hurricane_Ignacio_(1985)_into_1985_Pacific_hurricane_season

(Initiated 107 days ago on 30 January 2024) Listing multiple non-unanimous merge discussions from January that have run their course. Noah, AA^Talk 13:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Pharnavaz_I_of_Iberia#Requested_move_6_February_2024

(Initiated 100 days ago on 6 February 2024) Requested move open for nearly 2 months. Natg 19 (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Has now been open for three months. 66.99.15.163 (talk) 19:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:12 February 2024 Rafah strikes#Merge proposal to Rafah offensive

(Initiated 93 days ago on 13 February 2024) The discussion has been inactive for over a month, with a clear preference against the merge proposal. CarmenEsparzaAmoux (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#Talkpage_"This_article_has_been_mentioned_by_a_media_organization:"_BRD

(Initiated 30 days ago on 16 April 2024) - Discussion on a talkpage template, Last comment 6 days ago, 10 comments, 4 people in discussion. Not unanimous, but perhaps there is consensus-ish or strength of argument-ish closure possible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Talk:Forest_management#Merge_proposal

(Initiated 18 days ago on 28 April 2024) As the proposer I presume I cannot close this. It was started more than a week ago and opinions differed somewhat. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Press_Your_Luck_scandal#Separate_articles

(Initiated 14 days ago on 2 May 2024) Please review this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Agroforestry#Merge_proposal

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

Talk:List_of_generation_I_Pokémon#Snorlax_Merge_Discussion

(Initiated 42 days ago on 4 April 2024) Proposer of merge, discussion has been open for a month and seems to be shifted towards keep, but I'd appreciate an outside opinion as there have been some votes of opposition on top of my nomination. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Off-wiki canvassing (MMA)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

[Not sure where better to post this]

There's some apparent off-wiki AfD canvassing at [1] note: I have no view as to the merits of the articles concerned. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are some links for Agent00f:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MMA sanction proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support I agree that it is perhaps a bit broad, however the off-wiki canvassing and willingness to create sock accounts just to win has now reached a tipping point. Mtking ^(edits) 19:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support Broad, but so long as applied judiciously by administrators will help deal with this issue. NativeForeigner ^Talk 22:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support I had the displeasure of closing a couple of these, and I'm amazed by just how bad this topic area has become.—Kww(talk) 22:39, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support: Seems like every few days there's another MMA thread in Wikipedia-space. Time to end this madness pbp 23:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support: This is almost the same as the typical wording for discretionary sanctions, and it also calls out deletion discussions for special emphasis, which is where much of the problem has been happening. The mere fact that such sanctions can be available may reduce the temptation to recruit others externally to slant a debate. EdJohnston (talk) 23:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Quite keen to see Arbcom done out of a job on this one :) - it's not a matter of two sides in a dispute, the continued MMA disruption is a pain in the situpon for the community generally Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support No question that the bullies and bullcrap in the MMA subject area need to be reined in (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support, since we need this, and others' comments have shown me that I need not have qualms about the wording or the breadth. Nyttend (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support, nothing else is fixing this. Articles on MMA may well be about fights, but they shouldn't be fights. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: i have stated elsewhere that the UFC event articles need lots of work, and have been doing my best to understand Wikipedia policy relating to these articles. Two problems i see with this process are A) it seems that the users supporting the articles are less Wikipedia Savvy and don't see discussions like this, they only see the deletion of articles sometimes in mass and respond in frustration. B) given that there are a number of articles that need work, my fear is that it's much easier to put a bunch of AfD on articles than it is to do the work to improve them. if a number of the articles are removed, how would someone like myself know when it's appropriate to try to recreate them with better sourcing? Kevlar (talk) 02:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The formal practice is: 1) create a draft article in your own user space (aka User:Kevlar/ArticleNameHere, then 2) visit WP:DRV and request a review for the purpose of re-instating the article.
  • The informal way is to create your draft article (offline or in your user space) then place it at the appropriate article name. If anyone objects, you can point out that it's a completely new article from scratch. It may get sent to AfD but, if you've got enough sourcing to back it up, it should be fine. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:56, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support Obviously necessary as shown by this and previous discussions. Johnuniq (talk) 03:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: If this action will allow admins to respond quicker to the abuse and toxicity that is dealt to those who attempt to edit articles so that they conform to Wikipedia policies then I support it. I might even brush the dust off MMABot. I will admit to being a pessimist and believe that the rampant socking and anon IPs that come out of the woodwork won't be abated by this. I do have a couple questions:
  1. Will this discussion be announced at WT:MMA prior to the close of it? (The obvious reason why not to do so would be the flamewar that would erupt here.)
  2. If the sanctions are approved, would a notice be placed at WP:MMA or WT:MMA or some other 'easily accessible' page (other than WP:GS) that serves as notice to the MMA WikiProject participants?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Support; sadly necessary. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
• At long last. The less said about the deletionist-blah above the better. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:16, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support – I've edited in the MMA area in the past and saw some poor behaviour and absurd arguments, but I also saw some over-zealous campaigns against MMA content and unacceptable criticism of MMA editors, so I was on the fence on expanding admin authority. I was planning not to comment. But then, I got accused of making a personal attack (see further down this page and my talk page and that of MBisanz) for suggesting that an editor was walking an "unwise path", and I was reminded of the frustration I had in the MMA area. There have been MMA disputes for a long time and, on balance, I've come to the view that admins choosing to work this area of the 'pedia should be equipped with a bigger stick. I hope that it is not needed and that policy-compliance and harmony become the norm in MMA areas, but it is clear this won't happen on its own. Since an ArbCom case would take months to impose discretionary sanctions that have much the same effect and they are the obvious first approach to improving the situation, let's skip the three month wait and authorise admin discretion (with the usual checks and balances) now. EdChem (talk) 10:29, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose – I have kept myself largely out of these conflicts within the MMA Wikiproject, so I can't speak to the depths of text based depravity that may have been reached in past attempts to deal with many of these issues. In my few interactions, as an MMA editor, with the wiki-admin community several things have seemed apparent. First and foremost, it does not appear that most if any of the admins gunning for mass reform have a vested interest in the editing, maintenance, or upkeep of MMA articles. That's not to say that they need to be solely responsible for content, however it suggests that they have no endgame in mind for what MMA on wikipedia should look like, i.e. what should be acceptable and appropriate. The response to MMA articles as they have currently been constructed is that all or most of them should be deleted. The sanctions being put forth here seem like yet another tool to drive working editors away from this project, and without admin support it's hard to see a way to rebuild it. I see that many editors and admins feel deeply about the problems in MMA articles, and I sympathize with them, but I can't see burning everything down and hoping it regrows into something better as a viable method of construction. In that light, I can't see this as anything other than another book of matches in that battle.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, I believe most of the people supporting this do have an idea of what MMA articles should look like in the end - that comparable to other sports, in which not every single match is notable even if well-reported by sources, and to focus on the broader picture of the sport. Yes, there will be deleted articles, but that is becuase the existing walled garden of editors have fought tooth and nail to keep articles that shouldn't have been created in the first place. What the problem is that many of the MMA editors do not recognize is that WP is meant to be a tertiary summary of a topic, not a detailed repository. Offsite wikis are better suited for full details of the various UFC numbered events, while WP is better suited to highlight the championship level matches. This point is always lost on the MMA-defending editors, particularly when they pull in sockpuppets to influence !votes. --MASEM (t) 16:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Had the problem ever been addressed this way, perhaps you wouldn't have this argument. To my knowledge this started from a position of top down deletions of all UFC events regardless of notability/title fights/etc. Much of the extraneous material has been deleted at this point. We no longer have articles around UCMMA events, or KOTC events, or M-1 global events, etc. But there has been no clear development of what an "article worthy event" should be and attempts to establish such a standard were quickly disbanded. And without that, attempts to delete, or consolidate all of them, without a vested interest in the building good event articles creates a naturally hostile position in which everything must be protected or everything will be lost. Giving people an extra tool to get rid of opposition seems like another push back in the "lets get everything deleted and then see what the few remaining people can manage to rebuild" camp.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm pretty sure that early on the issue with MMA articles was pointed out in comparison to the coverage of most other sports on WP, with a long-standing policy that it is only the exceptional regular game that is notable despite the fact you can find coverage of those games in numerous sources. Fro the onset, most of the content in the MMA articles wouldn't be kept, period. I know there were arguments to summarize down the individual numbered event pages into lists which would try to retain the key results. It is just that those internal to the MMA garden didn't want it like that. Both sides were hostile to the other at some point, so there's that, but it was clearly the inappropriate use of off-site canvassing to block any attempt to make improvements that was the problem. --MASEM (t) 17:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
        • And it's the mindset that "most of the content in the MMA articles wouldn't be kept." that makes this problematic. Telling a group that several thousand hours worth of work should all be destroyed and there's no room for negotiation is a terribly hard bargaining stance to take if the end goal is the general "improvement" of a series of articles. And the summarization of results into a single article was a good idea, but the way in which it was carried out was terrible, and any editor worth their salt should see that page as a terrible construction. But it's a starting point, a point to be evolved. Figuring out reasonable guidelines under which an event should be considered notable, and then constructing omnibus pages for non notable events would be a very good way to work within the community without trying to slash and burn your way through it. If people are this concerned about MMA's walled garden they need to try and understand and evolve the positions these people are working from. Measures like this only serve to further entrench sides against one another.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 17:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
          • As WP is an open wiki, getting upset at losing hundreds of hours of effort in the name of improvement is a waste of time - sure, I've been there seeing an article I've spend hours on get whittled away, but since that content belongs to the entire Wikipedia, I shrug and move on. Instead, my take on what I saw from various MMA battles were outside/anon/IP editors rush in to try to save it without understanding that. And that is the problem in trying to set up a reasonable approach to go forward - if those that really want to keep those articles can call in a proverbial army of socks to fillibuster and revert changes, there's no hope in trying to establish guidelines. Hence, why this proposal for sanction makes sense; the MMA editors can work with those that want to provide a sound approach to getting the MMA right, but the discontents can't go rushing off the peanut gallery to block such attempts; this would help set the expected decorum of such discussions. --MASEM (t) 17:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
            • Your dispassion is admirable. But we're no talking a person or a few hours or an article. We're talking about the work of 100+ editors on several thousand articles over several thousand hours. Asking them all to be dispassionate is unrealistic. And I have no problem sanctioning people for sock puppetry, but the wording of this allows for much broader use. It seems more like a tool to draw out dissent from mass deletion and then ban those dissenters. Thaddeus Venture (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Preventing future drama

Apologies for adding a section after the closure but I think this is warranted. As I think everyone has seen, there is conflict between various editors on the notability requirements for the MMA area, both individual fighters and groups. There's also a small dispute popping up about flag icons. There's not much that can be done about off-site meat-puppets popping in but I think the dedicated editors would greatly helped by a couple of folks from here who haven't been involved with MMA. There's a nascent discussion on WT:MMA about creating a good structure here that follows the notability policy. Having a couple of editors/admins with a good background in notability and applying it to sports events to facilitate and help structure that discussion would be a fantastic way of reducing future drama. Please, if you can, pop over and help out. There a lot of dedicated editors on both sides of this dispute that would greatly benefit from finding a resolution and creating solid project standards and guidelines in WP:MMANOT. Ravensfire (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, this is one of the first reasonable approaches to this problem I have seen. It is very difficult to develop criteria for this topic as it involves a sport that is largely unstructured (or whose structure may vary from promotion to promotion), but rapidly rising in notoriety (at least at the UFC end of things). Repeatedly telling people what isn't good enough is a terrible way to try and improve the project as a whole and a concerted effort to develop content that follows guidelines and develops standards would go a long way toward smoothing this process out. There is certainly fat to trim in the MMA WikiProject, but attempting to bulldoze it as a starting point only furthers hostilities between editors and admins. There is some general agreement between editors that a more focused omnibusing project with well reasoned spinouts is necessary, but the more structure we can get in at the ground level the better. Thaddeus Venture (talk) 17:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

But what you cannot do it have a walled garden that ignores or contradicts the overall meta-consensus on such content. If that means less spinouts than MMA would like than we should structure the composites to best allow the notable and enduring content to sit together in comfortable chunks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

So far the walled garden exists only because the general method of dealing with the issue has been to cleanse with fire and hope that the next time people re-build they do it right. This approach has set many mma editors to feel that they need to protect everything in order to slowly improve anything, or everything will be lost and need to be rebuilt from scratch. Getting people in on the ground floor who are more interested in establishing clear guidelines through which the project could be steadily improved rather than just deleting everything outright and then trying to establish guidelines, would lead to a much more receptive group of editors. References have been made to a past, poorly planned omnibusing project, which quickly spiraled into a mess and got deleted, but that was still realistically the first step in the right direction. A more controlled version of that, that does not result in 100,000 word articles would be a lot less likely to get deleted. Anyway, as Kevlar announced below. Please take a look at the current guideline process before launching into a meta-consensus vs. MMA argument.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 17:54, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Not exactly. Walled gardens exist from a group of people wanting to do things their way. There's some regard for WP policies, especially at first, but questions are resolved in ways that best support their preference. Outsiders that point to concerns or flaws are dismissed, ignored or attached. The walled garden does not exist because of "cleanse with fire", it was there before any of that started. The "cleanse with fire" came from the resistance from the walled garden adherents. Pointing fingers and saying "it's all their fault - they are the bad ones" isn't helpful at all. Ravensfire (talk) 19:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying the blame is all on one side, having edited MMA articles for a number of years, I would say that the initial "walled garden" was a group of well meaning, but generally wiki-ignorant editors trying to develop MMA articles for wikipedia. And they were ignored for long enough for their systems to become pretty entrenched and they felt justified in believing that those systems were developed within wikipedia guidelines (not to say they were, but they thought they were). Much of the "pointing to concerns or flaws" that went on from that point forward was, "I'm pointing this out by deleting it, and it's up to you to build it back better than before." Of course from that point things get tricky, people have been underhanded, not used good faith, done off site canvasing, and generally ignored directives/missives, and much of the fault for poor behavior lies with MMA editors, that is undeniable. My point is only that this is developing one of the first concerted efforts to get the administrators that are interested in cleaning up the MMA wikiproject, actually invested in developing it as well, rather than just cleaning it out and leaving whoever hasn't been chased off behind to pick up the pieces. Laying all the blame in either direction isn't helpful.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Please take a look at this proposal to change the notability guidelines for MMA Events. i really feel it could greatly diminish the ongoing bickering. Kevlar (talk) 17:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Question on IBANs

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

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

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

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

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

I did find a precedent for disallowing such IBANs. An interaction ban with Zeromus1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was previously mooted by the same group of arbitrators. After a tip-off from me, Zeromus1 was indefinitely blocked by AGK as a sockpuppet of a site-banned user. Another arbitrator Courcelles then struck off Zeromus1's name from a similar proposed interaction ban.[2] Mathsci (talk) 13:12, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

There may be instances where one party to an interaction ban is later indefinitely blocked subsequent to the interaction ban, and the ban was not lifted because nobody bothered to appeal it. As far as I know there has never been an interaction ban imposed when one party is already indefinitely blocked. T. Canens (talk) 11:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, User:Abd is an example. Mathsci (talk) 11:48, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• Could an IBAN be a condition for an unblock? --Jayron32 04:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• Are you suggesting they be unblocked, and placed under a mutual interaction ban with Mathsci? (Sorry for my lack of familiarity with the details here.) --Mors Martell (talk) 16:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• Of course it can, but that's not really relevant here. Suppose that B is indefblocked; you can condition an unblock of B on the condition that B not interact with A. What's being proposed in the motion was to ban A from interacting with the indefblocked user B. T. Canens (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

New article, nominated for AFD, edit war over if IAR/SNOW allows for removal of AFD notice. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• AfD is over, stop screwing around, there is no way this is going to be deleted.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Its over, because it was closed inappropriately multiple times by non-administrators, while the discussion was happening. We agree on the outcome, but IAR is bullshit in this circumstance. There was active discussion ongoing. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Calling it a "discussion" is overstating it; it was a pile-on against one anon, who was merely sniping at the keep comments with no real sense of policy or perspective. There was never any way that this would have been closed as other than "keep", both in terms of overwhelming "keep" support and because the historic magnitude of the event was quickly clear, so why isn't that an ideal example of IAR? We do not keep processes going just for the sake of the process itself, especially not just to give a heckler's veto. postdlf (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, part 2

I have applied semi-protection to the article after someone posted the supposed suspect's supposed Facebook page, and someone else posted a bunch of links to photos from that Facebook page. I am sure admins are keeping an eye on this. Poor kids, poor parents, poor us. Drmies (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• I've got the supposed subjects page (right now, a proper redirect) under watch, expecting that may be edited soon. --MASEM (t) 19:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • The Facebook page has been taken down, but when I looked at it about an hour ago, it appeared to be the person the media has been reporting as the shooter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
    • It's not the shooter. Given that the shooter was dead and he was going "IT WASN'T ME, I WAS AT WORK" after the shooting, you tell me. Alexandria (chew out) 20:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
      • I think you need to check more recent reports, you're a little behind the times. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
        • NY Times is now reporting that Ryan Lanza was the brother picked up at the scene and Adam Lanza was the shooter, so it may have been me who was behind the times. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
      • It was someone with that name. There's more than one guy with that name in the world. Wait until we know who's who. DS (talk) 20:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
        • The Facebook page was for someone who was born in Newtown, CT, went to Quinnipiac University, and now lives in Hoboken, NJ. One report a few hours back (out of Washington) said that NJ authorities were searching a location in Hoboken for weapons. Sure, it could have ben a fake, but it wasn't a new account. It doesn't matter, I agree with Drmies' decision to remove the link, as any relevant information will come at some point from a RS, so there's no need for an EL to a primary source. I was just commenting on my own personal evaluation of the page, not recommending that it be used as a source. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• To expand on a comment that Masem makes above, anyone watching the shooting page should likely also watchlist the (currently) redirect from the shooter's page. For better or worse, precedence is pretty well set here that the perpetrator of such acts are quickly notable in and of their own right for pages on them. The media and police pry apart their lives, and most of that info ends up in the perpetrator's page, not the incident page. So, once there is a bit of sourcable info, expect the shooter's page to be built out, and that it will need close watching just like the incident page. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:44, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, per BLP1E, we should not have a separate page for the shooter, particularly since he is (reportedly) dead. The redirects to the shooting page are appropriate, but if this guy wasn't notable before the shooting, he shouldn't suddenly have a page because of it. --MASEM (t) 22:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
    • If he's dead, then BLP1E has no application. Simple WP:GNG or WP:CRIME instead apply. postdlf (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Er, yeah, good point, but yes, still wouldn't not expect a separate article. --MASEM (t) 22:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
        • No, Postdlf, I believe there has been some consensus in the past that BLP also applies to those who recently died. Drmies (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
          • It's not just informal consensus, it's part of BLP policy as WP:BDP. Postdlf is entirely mistaken. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
            • News to me. Lord save us from instruction creep. postdlf (talk) 01:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
• Further proof that crowd-sourced editing and breaking news does not mix well, this is the same amateur-hour bullshit we see every time this sort of thing comes around. Tarc (talk) 20:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Tarc, I'm just watching CNN and now they're showing the one and identifying the shooter as the other (I'm from overseas: I don't do names). I'm completely disgusted by what this brings out--a whole bunch of sensationalist numbnuts who feel it incumbent upon themselves to report every little thing they hear on Wikipedia. That ***** who posted the Facebook page, and the other ***** who posted those photos, I have no words for them. Do you remember the shitstorm over Shooting of Trayvon Martin, where a whole bunch of such editors were reporting a whole bunch of news, and I got shit from a bunch of respected editors about protecting that? As far as I'm concerned, articles like this get locked down fully from the get-go. Drmies (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• I was just going to draw attention to this mess on User talk:Drmies, ironically. There are similar problems with Sandy Hook (Newtown), Newtown, Connecticut, and History of Newtown, Connecticut, both with bad writing (one of the articles had two sections covering this at one point) and poor sourcing. Uncle G (talk) 20:49, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• For the love of all that is holy blank the page, and lock it for at least 24 hours. What on earth is wrong with you people? Act responsibly, for once.Dan Murphy (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Hey give them a break they are serious compositors, recording for posterity accounts of mayhem, as it happens or didn't happen, or whether it was here or there, or what someone's brother said his uncle told him, serious reporting of all the speculation as its speculated. John lilburne (talk) 21:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Since we are an encyclopedia, and not a newspaper, we can afford to wait until things get straightened out, but I wouldn't be too hard on the editors who are trying to put together an article, since the reports in the media is just about as sloppy, and tend towards sensationalism and tabloid writing as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
• I've watched the wikipedia page, and we've behaved far more responsibly than a number of news sources. Moving very quickly, with many critical eyes.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 21:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • So true that our reliable sources can't get the facts correct. The police bend over backwards to clearly state facts, and the news reports immediately report it with changes that are apparently not correct. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
  • "We" does not include a fair number of people, including this person and this person (and again), unless you aren't watching the right pages, or have a very loose definition of "responsibly". Uncle G (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm watching our pages in comparison to how fast news sources reacted, and watching live coverage of the absolute bullshit they spouted.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I've been watching over things when I can; I think I've gotten a lid on where it spilled over into Newtown, Connecticut, and the Lanza redirects are locked down (and a few variations are salted). I fully agree with the semi, and as always the talkpage is the place to discuss the content issues. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

Earlier today, I extended the semi-protection for this article for another week. The talk page could use more neutral eyes on it, to help explain and mediate. I expect this will be true for at least another week. If some experienced editors that aren't interested in editing the article would watch the page closely, it would be helpful. The potential for disruption is pretty high and tempers are likely to continue to run hot. Thank you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• Given Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting#Adam Lanza article? I have half a mind to raise the protection on Adam Peter Lanza and Adam Lanza from semi- back up to the original full protection, but set to expire after a week. I see no reason for history to repeat itself here, given that many of us have seen this before. We need to learn from what has happened over and over, not dance the same dance yet again. Let's not do the premature-and-bad-biography-nominate-for-deletion-discuss-for-a-week-then-another-week-at-deletion-review-quickstep this time. Let's just wait the week without having the massive diversionary time and effort sinks, instead. There are plenty of other discussions at AFD that that time and effort by many people could be far more productively spent upon. Faithful amplification (AfD discussion) and Jumping to conclusions (AfD discussion), for examples. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • What a refreshing approach. NOTCENSORED needn't throw NOTNEWS to the curb.LeadSongDog come howl! 21:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
• The heat of the current situation and potential for damage warrants a slightly heavier hand than usual. All the wikilawyering and such (ie: reverting closing of threads) isn't helpful, although short of any individual action. I wouldn't be surprised if someone just extends the semi-protection longer than the one week extension, and I would support it. I want everyone to able to participate, but we have to balance that with our ability to monitor. Full protection on those articles as redirects is heavy, and technically preemptive, but I think doing so in plain site with the understanding that it is a reasonable application of IAR is warranted. And calling this censoring is absurd. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Protecting the redirects as redirects is sound. Important though these cases are there is rarely any reason to have a separate biography article, even when everything is well in the past, certainly not in the first few weeks. Rich Farmbrough, 03:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC).
    
• Do it NE Ent 22:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• Of course it is absurd. It is also inevitable that someone will call it that (if it hasn't already been said). I'm just saying that should not deter Uncle G from doing the right thing.LeadSongDog come howl! 22:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I understood what you meant. I've been here through all of these BIO-AFD-DRV cycles. ☺ The pretty coloured box was in one of them, at Deletion Review. I for one don't want to see the likes of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Sneed, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Sneed's rumor, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayne Chiang again this time. Uncle G (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to propose an edit filter that prevents entering the name of the school or suspected shooter in any article in mainspace for a while. No need to screw around with multiple protection stages and people creating articles under alternate names to bypass those protections.—Kww(talk) 00:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Wouldn't that affect this article too? I think at this time that would prevent more good edits than bad.. Unless we can implement a "accept awaiting review" for anything with that name. We in #wikipedia-en-pc would be happy to take care of it if that's technically possible. But I don't think an edit filter is good here. gwickwire^talk_edits 01:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Edit filters can easily allow thing in WP namespace and forbid them in article space. That's one of the nice things about them.—Kww(talk) 02:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
    • In other words: Yes, it would affect the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting article, too. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 02:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Bah, I wasn't clear. Not this AN article, the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting article. gwickwire^talk_edits 02:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I think, though don't quote me on this, that you can create an exception for specific articles using regex. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 03:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• • • • •  Done by Drmies (talk · contribs) NE Ent 13:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Is there any value in considering putting together some "how to carefully admin a major tragic event" guide, involved when and how prot should be applied and to what articles, and to deal with a rash of good faith but misaligned edits from unfamiliar/anon editors, based on our experience with this article? As well as what doesn't work so that we don't keep going down the same paths? --MASEM (t) 02:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I think we really need to. As this can't be the last event like this, sadly. gwickwire^talk_edits 02:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary as long as we have an active core of editors. NE Ent 8:00 am, Today (UTC−5)

I'm thinking more of a shortcut of accepted admin steps to take that have been accepted and need no discussion in the very short term after such events (eg, is semi-prot of the article appropriate, is creating and full -prot of names associated with the event appropriate, etc.); these are decisions that after the initial flurry of edits can be come back to evaluate but in the short term to avoid disruption. --MASEM (t) 17:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• An active core of editors is nice, but though Uncle tagged me earlier to keep an eye on the talk page, my shift was cut short by RL. BTW, you all noted I protected one of the redirects and altered Rich's protection of the other. Cries of censorship--that strikes me as the WP version of Godwin's law. The internet presents a huge disconnect between input and emotional effect. It's not censorship to try and prevent massive BLP violations such as posting the Facebook page of a guy who didn't do it in a Wikipedia article; in fact, I still feel bad that I didn't rev-del those edits rightaway and I'm glad someone made up for my oversight. Masem's point is well taken though I wonder if we have the framework to do this: voluntary editing and scheduled tasks don't always jive, and if one of my kids makes a mess in the bath tub I'm going to run upstairs and fix that first, until Mr. Wales starts paying me by the hour. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

File:PopeCyril14.jpg

This was moved to commons, but the file information was corrupted while it was. Can someone check the details on the deleted page, and shove a speedy delete on it if it's not good? Cheers. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

In January 2005 some basic descriptive text was added and the image was tagged {{unverified}}, in December 2005 the tag was replaced with {{pd}} with no additional information provided. In march 2010 the tag was changed to {{PD-release}}. There was no other activity in the history other then the commons move tagging and eventual deletion as moved to commons. Monty₈₄₅ 04:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

That really shouldn't have been allowed to move to commons, then. Thank you. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 05:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)