Archives

April2k12

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Udar55 (talk) 18:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, when you go to nominate multiple articles, you can bundle them together into one debate. The tip off is that your rationale is word-for-word identical across all of the debates, near as I can tell. If the articles are so similar, perhaps they could be discussed en masse. Too late now, but might be worth considering next time. FYI. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea I could do that, Thanks.Newmanoconnor (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, AFD can be tricky even for experienced editors - and I see that you've been here just a few weeks. You'll also notice that there's a post above mine that points to this discussion about your AFDs - and specifically about how there is discussion and a potential Request for Comment about what makes an MMA event notable. It might not be unwise to go ahead and withdraw these nominations (or let me know and I can do it for you) in favor of whatever consensus develops as part of that discussion. If there's going to be an RFC, then you'll have a lot of editors taking a wait-and-see approach at the deletion debates, which does nothing but waste time and effort at a debate. Ultimately, the debates might end in No Consensus, which defaults to keep, just as This debate on UFC 142 did. Your call, I can help out if you like. You may also wish to comment on the discussion at ANI, as per the above. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do me a favor and read my comment after yours at the ANI, if you think they should be withdrawn, let me know and I will add that to the AfD's and you can close them all.

Whether you areinterested in the content or not, You might take a minute to look at the most recent AfD's, quite a few have been deleted or merged to the omnibus. My AfD rationale for all those I did today comes from the admin who closed the last one as delete. It summed up what many of us had been pointing out on all these. I'm just doing what I think is right for Wikipedia. I appreciate your help, and I'm ok with anything you or the two admins involved in the AfD want to do. I did limit those AfD's to future events in light of the notability discussion at the mma project, but maybe that wasn't the best decision. My ANI comment kind of sums it all up for me.Newmanoconnor (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno. WP:CRYSTAL is certainly in play, as we don't do much with future events - but once reliable sources start coming in, and as we get closer to the event itself, that's when things get interesting. If it were me, I would withdraw Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ultimate Fighter 15 Finale because you have both the notability of a UFC fight coupled with the notability of an episode of a notable TV series. Consider the previous installment, The Ultimate Fighter 14 Finale, which has plenty of sourcing. That's the only obvious Keep I see of the bunch. You might look at UFC on Fox: Diaz vs. Miller as well, since that's next week. Put it this way, if the fight had been last week and had reliable sourcing, would it be kept? By the time the AFD ends, the event will no longer be a future event. It's touchy, as you have seen. I won't speedy close any of them without your sayso, but you might reconsider the ones I mention here. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask for their withdrawal and then close em.Newmanoconnor (talk) 18:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for them to be closed, do you mind?Newmanoconnor (talk) 19:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - both of the above AFDs have been closed as withdrawn. Did you want to pull any of the others? If so, give me a bit and I'll take care of it. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The rest should take care of themselves, I posted the request at the ANI, and the admin has responded who is involved with the MMA discussions, though the ANI is still open.Newmanoconnor (talk) 19:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hey, seeing your contribs - I guess so! Give me a few minutes and I'll close them for you. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 147 already has an editor recommending delete, so it can't be withdrawn as such. I'll post a message asking them to withdraw their !vote. Once that's done, it can be closed. There's another as well, I'll check into it - think I commented. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK,  Done. Everything that didn't already have a comment has been closed out. Thanks for the note, and do let me know if I can help out down the line, if and when. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What was the purpose of CANVAS tags on the articles for deletion page for UFC 146? I see you added one to my comment spuriously? How did you come to this conclusion? Have you yourself been coerced into doing this or have some personal interest? It appears you have some history in nominating articles, esp. UFC articles for deletion - and I think personal bias is playing some part here. Please desist from making this a personal agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volatileacid (talk • contribs) 22:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No personal bias man, I tagged every new comment on UFC146 after some Bozo decided to canvass on bloodyelbow and twitter, about AfDs on UFC articles. The tag is exactly what is says, an expression of concern. Not certainty, not anything personal.

As far as Individual UFC articles go, I support deleting any of them that do not meet notability guidelines for MMA events or GNG. I believe in Wikipedias policies and guidelines, and think it is bad for the encyclopedia to have content built as if it's a fan site. Wikipeida is an encyclopedia, not a Wiki with different subject matter on it.(yes I realize it is a wiki,you should be able to understand my point).

I am not in anyway on a mission to get rid of MMA on Wikipedia. Just like all the WP:OTHERSTUFF mentioned in arguments, my agenda is to help build the few pages I may be helpful with, and keep Wikipedia as close to a true encyclopedia as we can.

However, I will continue to nominate articles that have nothing other than stats, an show no lasting effect or notability. It doesn't have to be on par with the Tyson Holyfield ear bite, but what makes that event soooo significant.

Please try and assume good faith and don't attack me on my talk page, I understand your frustration and wanting to know my rationale, but a simple , hey why did you do xxxx, would serve you better.

Unless you have constructive ideas to share, or want to collaborate on a solution at WP:MMANOT, please don't leave this kind of comment hereNewmanoconnor (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise. I jumped to a silly conclusion. My bad. I'm sorry. Volatileacid (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No need for an apology, I understand your pov. I would like to ask that if you really want ot change things, please contribute constructively to the discussion at WP:MMANOT, The Omnibus will move forward on it's own, but we need to gather consensus on MMA events for notability. To take to RfC. SOmething other than ALL UFC EVENTS AR NOTABLE.

Also, I would suggest you try and find mainstream, non MMA only sources for the notability,lasting significance,etc of any individual UFC event that you think you can get it for. I will even help if you can find the sources. Other wise, eventually the UFC events that are Future cards, or Normal coverage of stats,etc will probably be deleted.Newmanoconnor (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have delivered a final warning to the user for their generally disruptive editing on the MMA notability discussion with a direct warning that the next step will be a posting on AN asking for sanctions. Hasteur (talk) 11:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a noticeboard devoted to just vandalism issues: Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (or WP:AIV for short). Reports should be sent there for vandals, instead of WP:ANI. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 03:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's at it again, please blockNewmanoconnor (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is just to let you know that I have replied to Bbb23 about your editing, on my talk page.  —SMALLJIM  12:08, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WWE_Night_of_Champions

Then here, get this deleted, it's not notable Glock17gen4 (talk) 07:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've totally botched the AfD setup and im not experienced enough to fix it. Its also kinda pointy...Newmanoconnor (talk) 12:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just spend more time and delete everything MMA and UFC related, you're da man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.158.190.229 (talk) 01:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you're just gunna attack MMA and UFC related articles then? Glock17gen4 (talk) 02:44, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check it again. I dont see anything wrong with the deletion process do you? Glock17gen4 (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UFC 146 per your false accusation of canvassing. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. LoverOfArt (talk) 01:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

it was a notation of concern, which the AfD warns about. If you weren't canvassed, Great! You should check out the canvass efforts on Twitter,Bloodyelbow,Sherdog, etc.Newmanoconnor (talk) 01:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Deleting Ban. Thank you.

Hey Newmanoconnor. Just letting you know I posted a proposal in ANI that maybe everyone should take a break from the AfDs and ANI discussions for a bit so we can all cool down and also think about what criteria we could base evaluation of MMA articles on (i.e. build consensus to re-write WP:MMANOT). As part of that, we could just shut down the current AfDs, and also leave already deleted articles alone until we have a new policy in place. I get the feeling I'm not really welcome in this discussion, but I thought I'd toss the idea out. If I can be of assistance, let me know. Thanks for your work on the project. (P.S. I'll be posting this to the other users mentioned in the most recent WP:ANI discussion. Feel free to let anyone else know as you see fit. Thanks!) --Policy Reformer(c) 04:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with closing the AfD's at anytime, they won't be closed by an admin anytime soon though. I had all these up for AfD last week, and voluntarily withdrew them for a proposal such as yours. Those of is who are wikipedians first and fans second, including a few who favor individual articles for every event, we're making progress, until two users decided to derail the process. The previous ANI you keep hearing so much about, it was such a farce that no admin would close it. The admin we had working with us, finally quit, saying all the other admins told him he was a fool for trying, that MMA is a toxic cesspool. There are socks and meat puppets everywhere now, canvassing is all over MMA websites under the misguided tag lines of Wikipedia trying to destroy MMA. for awhile I thought it was worth the fight to keep Wikipedia the best it can be, and also not allow behavior like this to win. I'm not so sure anymore. I came to Wikipedia to make it a better tool for people, more reliable, accurate information, etc. Unfortunately it seems like between the paid editing for businesses and singles/music groups, and this no one really cares. maybe I'm just tired.Newmanoconnor (talk) 04:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you. I've got some time this coming week to spend on this and would welcome your assistance in cleaning this up. I think I've gotten a couple of those opposing inclusion of MMA events on board with letting us hashout new MMANOT guidelines. If we can get the hostility that AfDs bring to quiet down, and perhaps even police ourselves (I thought we might create some sort of edit-notice for deleted articles to point to the MMANOT guidelines so fans see that editors who are also fans have come up with updated guidelines, and they shouldn't be as frustrated that the articles were removed). We really just need a new MMANOT policy.

Like you, I'm editor first and fan second which is why I jumped in as I hate to see the area called a "toxic cesspool." It may be warranted in some cases (how long has an MMA event article gone on the day of an event without being semi-protected for vandalism), but surely not when we're having policy discussions. Everyone involved seems to have valid points, and like those admins, I'm sure we'd all like to move along with our lives. Anyway, thank you.--Policy Reformer(c) 05:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I won't edit war, but why change the "wisely and reasonably" part of my own words? That was meant complimentary!  ;) --24.112.202.78 (talk) 05:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

well, I didn't mean to cut that out, I only meant to add the rest of the statement. I didn't think you were doing anything in bad faith toward me, I just wanted the complete quote, so it cannot be taken out of context. I'm happy to correct the error in removing that part of the sentence, and if you want to revert, I won't go back over them again.

My only issue is I suspended the all before, only to Have a single spa editor derail the whole process and run off good people on both sides of the fence. Regardless, I meant what I said, if you can find an admin who's willing....Newmanoconnor (talk) 05:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I guess I can't get enough. I'm really, really closing my browser after this. Maybe.

So I commented on the most recent proposal by Trey (i think) at WT:MMANOT. I think it's workable. If we can get guidelines down on our own, I'm nearly certain I can call in a favor with an admin or two to review it. Regarding the socks/meat puppets, yeah, I see them, and we're going to have a rough time controlling them. I think it would help if we shut down the earlier discussion that became so messy on MMANOT (archive it). Then, we post some sort of notice pointing to CIVIL, SOCK, and MEAT policies. At the beginning of our discussion, post a "READ THIS FIRST" pointing to GNG, RS, etc. And then simply state, "We're trying to get this done. Editors who wish to be involved in the discussion should not make nor respond to uncivil comments." When a user's out of line with policy (b/c they just showed up from some forum), the same reason why experienced editors would disregard their comment (RS for example) is already posted for them to read. We don't need to remind them nor provoke them. Let's those of us trying to work towards a solution actually focus on that rather than responding to everyone coming in who says, "Wikipedia should be UFCipedia!" Some would say this isn't a way to build consensus, but nor is violating WP:CIVIL, and we just don't have time for that anymore. Someone from the forum wants to come in and play by the community's rules, the more the merrier. Thanks again.--Policy Reformer(c) 05:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you have my full support.Newmanoconnor (talk) 05:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I object to your claim that MMAjunkie is unreliable. MMAJunkie is respected by other media outlets as a source of MMA-related coverage, it is a well-known and established site and not a blog that got set up the other day, and it provides coverage for USA Today, a highly notable publication. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify for you, my"claim" is that Mmajunkie.com and the like are not the kind of WP:IRS sources needed to satisfy current notability guidelines.If Mmajunkie reports something other than routine coverage, I'm sure USA today would pick it up, and bingo, WP:IRS is met. Newmanoconnor (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Something to check when you're thinking about reporting an editor as a sock is the user page of that editor, including IP's. Not their talk page, but the user page. Often, when an editor is reported to ANI their user page is edited to add the sockpuppet template which explains who the reporter thinks they are a sock for. You reported the IP on the 8th but the user page of the IP was tagged by TreyGeek on the 7th. It can be a bit startling when you get reported as a sock, especially if you know you weren't and/or you're involved in a dispute about something. I'm not saying don't report if you think someone is a sock evading a block, but it's good to check a few things. And if you do report someone, I'd add the template to the user page. Just remember that, if it's rejected (meaning anything other than a block for socking / evasion) to remove the template as a courtesy to them. Ravensfire (talk) 00:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One more unsolicited suggestion - don't engage Agent anymore than you have to. He's actively looking for conflict and will twist and turn anything and everything into an attack against him or his views. Keep your comments cool as you've been doing, but realize that he's not interested in getting along with people, just getting his way. You've been doing quite good at that so far, just keep it up! Ravensfire (talk) 00:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks,I appreciate the feedback.Newmanoconnor (talk) 01:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Newmanoconnor, I don't think Nyttend was making any substantial changes with this edit. If someone really wanted to get picky about how the language was structured, it was saying that the Wikipedia article had to get written about in sources, which really isn't what it should be. Nyttend's change was to point out that it's the subject of the article, be it a fighter, and event or an organization, that notability is for. Nothing major and nothing that I think is controversial in any way. It's truly a minor change. Ravensfire (talk) 19:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish for no minor corrections to be made, please go to WP:RFPP and request full protection for the page; we never prohibit the editing of policy pages or guidelines — let alone essays — simply because discussion is ongoing. Nyttend (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fully admit to being reactionary, which I shouldn't have been regardless, when I noticed it was an admin, I reverted my change. They obviously know better than I. At the same time, we both know that there are some people looking for any reason to cry foul in regards to anything related to MMA. I appreciate the admins advice, I don't think we need RFPP.Newmanoconnor (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Bunny for You

I see seven or so experienced, thoughtful Wikipedias who all see eye to eye. That sounds like the community speaking. I trust the community more than I trust my own view. You are all probably right and I am wrong. I hope you find a lasting solution, as wasted keystrokes on back pages is one of the great tragedies at Wikipedia. I look forward to working with you one day when we are both paddling in the same direction. Much respect and best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A topic ban for Agent was proposed at AN/I, but was loudly shouted down by the subject of said topic ban on the grounds that the cabal to suppress MMA content from Wikipedia was behind the motion. Any editor who endorsed the proposal was called many things that are completely unacceptable. I suggested that discussions of sanctions be tabled pending participation and improvement from the RfC/U. As their conduct hasn't improved I indend to give the RfC/U 15 days from it's inception before I propose a "User had not acknowledged any of the concerns and has treated this attempt at discussion as a further sounding board for soap boxing" with an immediate visit to ArbCom. Hasteur (talk) 03:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I removed it right after I posted it. I agree with your plan. I really wish we could just move forward and ignore all these SPA's.Newmanoconnor (talk) 03:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The upside is that at ArbCom we can present Agent00f, BigzMMA, ScottMMA, all the tagged and blocked SPAs, IP SPAs to get a wonderful set of discretionary sanctions legislated for the MMA space that can go to Arb Enforcement where admins are not afraid to use the toolset, and are looked over by the 2nd highest authority in enWP. Yes this does reveal a future plan that I'm hatching, but it's been suggested several times that ArbCom is needed to drain the swamp. Hasteur (talk) 12:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What now with this one - redirect again or AfD ? Mtking ^(edits) 04:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Newmanoconnor. You have new messages at Talk:UFC on FX: Alves vs. Kampmann.
Message added 05:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hasteur (talk) 05:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think throwing gasoline on a smoldering fire is a good idea? Please consider undoing your redirection. We have to demonstrate WikiSaint level patience so as to have the good faith on our side. Hasteur (talk) 05:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your actions and policy assertions on the talk page, but I love you and respect you and understand what you've said here.Newmanoconnor (talk) 05:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you removed two user's comments with this edit. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 02:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was really nice of you, I had no idea, I corrected it.Newmanoconnor (talk) 03:02, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's why they keep me around. :) --kelapstick^(bainuu) 03:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]