User talk:Agent00f

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

Also, when you post on

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

Again, welcome! Hasteur (talk) 11:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would ask that you

Thanks for the welcome. I've contributed before to a few technical pages a different username and sometimes anonymously from work, but it's always nice to be invited by another and I will try to reciprocate.

Woah... you might want to explicitly declare the link between the accounts via

Wikipedia:SOCK#NOTIFY for the different username as having multiple accounts for any reason except for a few very documented reasons is not allowed. Contributing via a IP is not explicitly prohibited, but make sure to stay away from the same discussions so as to not present the appearance of attempting to change the consensus with multiple accounts. Hasteur (talk) 12:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I can't remember what my prior account was named (apparently not the handle I commonly use) and have long lost use of email address it was listed under anyway. That's why I registered a new account in first place.

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Newmanoconnor (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you're specifically referring to. I'm guessing it has something to do with claiming that either someone doesn't consider in the user experience, or someone only thinks in terms of bureaucratic rules. Both are provably true statements, and therefore not an assumption. Also, while both approach may have the side effect of ruining wiki, I've never said that was their intent. Agent00f (talk) 01:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See your plethora of comments on WP:MMANOT talk page. Yes you have been calm and somewhat reasoned on some posts, but at this point, and for the majority of posts, you aren't doing anything but being disruptive and making accusations about people on personal missions, being bureaucrats, questioning their integrity and intelligence. You aren't helping anything. Why don't you spend some of this energy finding sources to prove why a single UFC event of your choosing is notable enough for a single article.Newmanoconnor (talk) 03:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please be specific instead of using vague accusations. It's quite unfair if I'm not able to defend myself due to what I'm currently assuming is unintentional ambiguity. Everything I've said is well measured and backed by clear and indisputable evidence. For example, I have labeled this as a dispute between bureaucrats and user advocates: these are carefully chosen descriptive words derived from folks' descriptions of their own decision making process. If you have a problem with bureaucracy, please take it up with people who describe themselves as such, not the observer. As another example, it's trivial logic that the same set of information re-organized in a confusing format to get around the letter of the rules is not a "better" design in any conceivable way, therefore it's clearly insulting to tell users that it stands on its merits while trying to force them to take that blatant falsehood in good faith. Again, I see the problem as the action, not the observation.

As for the time I've spent forming numerous clear and rational arguments, that was only because I started out assuming that folks who claimed that "logical and rational" arguments would be taken into account were acting in good faith. Now we both know this was never going to be the case, so I'm not sure why you're puzzled how things turned out. Agent00f (talk) 03:35, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your final warning. Stop Filibustering, posting long diatribes regarding the unfairness, bureaucracy of wikipedia, entire arguments that the status quo for MMA articles "doesn't hurt anything", and deliberately attempting to derail the consensus process. The next posting you make on WT:MMANOT that strays into any of these realms, I will open a filing on the

So, is it the policy of wiki for editors to continuously make arbitrary accusations without evidence? I've asked for substantiation of any of these charges, but none has been forthcoming, so I'm puzzled as to why you believe them to be true. It's also notable that list of "banned by Hasteur" topics is currently what's under discussion at the MMA omnibus page, so the request is to essentially voluntarily ban myself from the conversation, or else. Look, I don't doubt that you have more pull with perhaps some other insiders that you've come to know in the past, but please consider how this kind of behavior reflects on your peers when one party to a "consensus" takes to threats to prevent the other side from participating. Agent00f (talk) 12:21, 2 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. Thank you. | pulmonological ^{talk • contribs} 17:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for

Sorry, this is a bad habit of mine. I'm usually doing something else when I use the interwebs, but I'll try to keep this in mind. Agent00f (talk) 17:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for your great work.

I'm certainly willing to contribute regularly and heavily to any of the following: Individual pages, omnibuses, pre-existing indexes and proposed indexes. What I'm more reluctant to contribute to is the notability guidelines. If you continue putting together intelligent proposals, I will continue to support them. The real issue with contributing right now, is the deletionist horde operating in that space, who are intent on getting us to put work in, which they will then nominate for deletion. I really don't want to edit articles with people standing behind me just waiting for me to finish, so they can blank the work. Sunny Sundae Smile (talk) 13:01, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't promising anything, but I think you'll like the ideas that are coming.... Hope you at least retain interest until Monday. :) Agent00f (talk) 01:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at

]

You currently appear to be engaged in an

try to reach a consensus

rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's

Thank you for the self revert, I will withdraw the 3RR if you undertake at

Mtking ^(edits) 07:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

The obvious subterfuge of this offer demonstrates that the message of the text was perceived to be a grave threat. Make no mistake, it was designed to be. Your 3RR threat is meaningless and I couldn't care less. Agent00f (talk) 09:52, 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 Call for sanctions. Thank you. Hasteur (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a formal request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to ban Newmanoconnor, Mtking and TreyGeek banned from deleteing more MMA pages, any help would be good

ScottMMA — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottMMA (talk • contribs) 03:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Agent00f. You have new messages at PolicyReformer's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Policy Reformer(c) 09:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Agent00f (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The blocking admin only refers broadly to "filibustering", and "personal attacks" while failing to provide any actual reasoning to relate these accusations to my comments other than they're "unacceptable". The substantive content I've added only state directly observable facts of the case (which can admittedly shine a poor light on some users, as is rather the point of an AN), since admin decisions need to be based on a complete understanding of facts. Note this AN was only the latest by the same party (3 users) against me, so it was only appropriate to be detailed and verbose to avoid yet more frivolous AN's in the future. As far as I can tell, the Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise is only citing WP:TLDR, which doesn't exist, and blocking someone who isn't just tossing about 1-liner as seems to be the norm and therefore expected. Agent00f (talk) 23:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Substantiation according to WP:GAB,

1. Admit to it.. It would help if I knew specifically what I need to admit to. Contributing substantive and complete arguments is in the spirit of both wiki and debate in general. Contributing directly observable facts, even if the list is long, is also not against the rules. For example, in a DUI case, iterating prior DUI's and other factual events that relate to personal responsibility are entirely relevant, even if they reflect badly.
2. Make people trust you again. I can't imagine why there was any distrust in the first place, unless there's an inherently distrust of those who substantially back up their assertion.
3. Don't do it again. . I suppose I can stop doing this, and fit in by only dropping one-lines packed with WP:RULES to be contradict by someone with their WP:OTHERRULES, but IMO this doesn't really help given it's what led to the string of past failures on this whole affair.
4. Tell us why you are here. This whole MMA/wiki affair is a classic case where the aggregate level of intelligence displayed has been insufficient to solve it. The topic is a cesspool of circular reasoning and terrible logic. Compounding the problem by piling more warm bodies onto the "consensus" process won't help, and I'm trying to propose a smarter process which still involves all parties and bypasses the former obstacles. The AN which I suppose circumstantially led to this block was from a wholesale deletion of this proposal by a party who is a common denominator in all the past failures.

Finally, it's worth pointing out that Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise made this block without closure or even a note to the AN that was initially created as yet another frivolous harassment against me. Others are now allowed to make accusations unopposed; this seems wrong. Agent00f (talk) 00:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I guess you missed the part of GAB called

NOTTHEM. Read that, then try again. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Agent00f (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The block only refers broadly to "filibustering", and "personal attacks" while failing to provide any actual reasoning to relate these accusations to my comments other than they're "unacceptable". The substantive content in question only state directly observable facts of the case, since admin decisions need to be based on a complete understanding of facts. It was entirely appropriate to be detailed and verbose to avoid yet more frivolous AN's in the future given this one was only the latest in a string against me. The blocking reason seems functionally equivalent to WP:TLDR, which AFAICT doesn't exist. Substantiation according to WP:GAB,

1. Admit to it.. It would help if what specifically I need to admit to. Contributing substantive and complete arguments is in the spirit of both wiki and debate in general. Contributing directly observable facts, even if the list is long, is also not against the rules. For example, in a DUI case, iterating prior DUI's and other factual events that relate to personal responsibility are entirely relevant, even if they reflect badly.
2. Make people trust you again. It's not obvious why there's distrust in the first place, unless there's an inherently distrust of substantial assertions.
3. Tell us why you are here. There's a given affair on wiki that's persisted for many months despite multiple attempts at resolution. I'm trying to propose a smarter process which still involves all parties and bypasses the former obstacles. The block was a circumstantial side-effect (not the closure) of an AN involving this affair. Agent00f (talk) 03:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you missed the part of GAB called

NOTTHEM. Read that, then try again. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Again. Agent00f (talk) 03:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Looking at your editing history, I see a solid battleground mentality, with multiple extensive posts which at their best are designed to explain why everyone you don't agree with doesn't know what they are talking about, and at their worst are full of accusations of evil conspiracies. I also see numerous unmistakable declarations that you regard yourself as on a sort of crusade to force through what you regard as the RIGHT view, against the forces of evil in the form of those who have different views from yourself. I see substantial disruption caused by huge numbers of unreasonably long diatribes. And so on and so on ... there are so many ways in which your editing is just not constructive, whatever your intentions may be. There is nothing to suggest that you would edit in any other way if you were unblocked: on the contrary, you deny that there is any problem with your editing, and make it perfectly clear that you have no intention of changing. The one thing about the block which, it seems to me, may be considered open to question, is that it is for so short a time.

talk) 08:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

As far as I can tell, this addresses nothing written in the unblock request, and seems to be its own battle rant on how terrible I am without any attempt to understand the context and therefore basis of its conclusion. It's hard to imagine this meets any kind of institutional standard for addressing a specific problem much less wiki admin. Agent00f (talk) 09:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, did you put subst: in front of this? It makes your unblock request unusable. Of course, so does your request ... please see

BWilkins ←track) 23:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the suggestion, but it's best if uninvolved editors take this request. Substantiation of claims is also welcome as always. Also please do not assume unfamiliarity with formal academic standards of logic. Agent00f (talk) 23:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note; I already declined the above unblock request, but I don't have the time to fix everything now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your decline was noted and appropriately fixed. Agent00f (talk) 03:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, per

WP:BLANKING, you aren't supposed to remove declined templates while the block is current. Ishdarian 03:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Noted. In return also note I didn't delete The Blade of the Northern Lights's comments. I would also appreciate it if someone can address the contents of the request instead of just deferring to technicalities. Agent00f (talk) 03:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that. It's just that the template was gone. I'll talk to you about the contents, just give me a minute... Ishdarian 04:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a

Thanks for continuing to validate the claims of WP:HARASSMENT terrorism by the MMA AfD clique targeting any dissent. No doubt 86.149.148.121 is hesitant to sign up since we all know that happens to people who speak out. I'll add this to the mountain of supporting evidence against the clique in only the latest of frivolous AN's SPI's against me. Agent00f (talk) 22:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not harassment, it's genuine concern that you were evading a block. It's nothing to freak out over. FYI Hasteur came to your defense. I don't have any way to check a named accounts IP's, but apparently the suspicious one is from the UK, and Hasteur believes you are from the US...Or knows it. Not sure which.Newmanoconnor (talk) 00:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's just more of the tactic that this same group has been using against anyone who dares dissent against their historic string of failures (over many months) to reach any kind of lasting resolution on this topic. I've only joined for about a week or two and the trash above from them on my talk page is but a small sample of their general strategy and pattern of harassment, intimidation, and subterfuge. No assumptions are necessary here when the evidence is so clear. Agent00f (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So because the accusation was made for any reason you're going to strike out at anybody? Ok, my good faith extensions (Defending you on the SPI, asking that discussions be held up until you're unblocked) are over with. I tried to extend a olive branch after being counseled privately that I was coming across as a bit of a

dick. I look forward to our mutually beneficial collaboration once you're unblocked. Hasteur (talk) 00:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

We're talking about the pattern of harassment exhibited by the exact same predicable parties against anyone who do not accept that they're the authoritative voice of the disccusion. Simply look at the massive influx of junk above by the same few people, look at their history of action (including torrents of AfD's while discussions are ongoing) against MMA contributors/users, and lack of any substantiation once they're called out. If someone else has better words to describe this, the floor is open to them. Agent00f (talk) 00:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agent00f, I'm sorry this made you feel that way,it certainly was not my intention,which is why i struck the above and in the SPI said i would defer to the other guys on this matter,who both said it wasnt you.Newmanoconnor (talk) 01:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about how I "feel", but rather the fact of the case. "We'll stop harassing you if you stop dissenting" is not evidence that harassment did not occur. This systematic pattern of harassment has the effect of discouraging participation from other voices, regardless of intent. The only way to demonstrate otherwise is to cease this category of actions altogether, including MtKing who is the presiding pinnacle of such behavior. Agent00f (talk) 01:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In reference to your revert of my edit(Please do not erase evidence from others' user pages in direct violation of WP:TALKO editing rules. Striking it out was sufficient.), It is considered common courtesy to remove a sockpuppet notice if it is in error, or closed as such. I was advised so by multiple users and an admin.Newmanoconnor (talk) 14:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agent, I know you want to help out with the MMA fiasco, but you're going about it the wrong way. Right now, here's what your block says:

• 15:06, 6 May 2012 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs) blocked Agent00f (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 72 hours (disruptive editing: aggressive filibustering, walls of text and personal attacks on WP:ANI and elsewhere)

• This edit is a prime example of disruptive behaviour.
• This edit is an example of the soapboxing, and the edit summary is lacking in the assuption of good faith to boot.
• Soapboxing again, and the 'no one trusts them as human beings' bit is a personal attack.

This stuff isn't really acceptable per community norms. I appreciate the fact that you're bringing a different perspective to the issue, but you need to do it in a calm, collected fashion. Use policy and diffs to re-enforce your points, not massive walls-of-text. I can assume good faith with all editors involved, because everyone is trying to better the 'pedia. There are holes in the policy right now, and that's what you, me, Anna, Trey, Connor, MtKing, et. all, are trying to plug up. It takes consensus, and consensus takes time. If you see a point you don't agree with, refute the point. Don't bash the editor. Don't refer to like-minded groups as cliques; it puts a barrier between you and them. We should all be working together, not against each other. Ishdarian 04:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We're on the same page that not everyone who disagrees with any particular POV is in a "clique", and even if they somehow are, there might be good reason. However, it's difficult to deny the categorization altogether when you see two users who worked closely to the exclusion of others (a fact directly confirmed by admin Dennis) both participate in a revert war yet write me up for 3RR by circumventing the brightline rule between themselves (breaking the internal logic/spirit of the rule via collusion as mathematically defined). I tried to be accurate and objective, not simply throwing around epithets. In the same vein, I can't see what's fundamentally disruptive with producing a list of clear violations by two users in question in an AN.

In general, while some the wording of the content from me above was perhaps a bit SOAPish to convey a point, the message is true and intended to highlight a substantive argument. If it's wiki policy to always formulate the message in a given format as a rule, then I can certainly comply and accept the sanction as a lesson learned about prose, but it doesn't change meaning.

On the point of "assuming" good faith, I've observed on the subject before that those familiar with the course of events often no longer have to assume. The material/links on this talk page is illustration enough of "what happens" to people who are not in a small fold on acceptable opinions. We both know the same doesn't happen if I were on the other side of the issue. It's disappointing when this kind of admin/rule-shopping finally conveniently finds the right one.

In general, we're in agreement and I have no reason to complain about wiki policy except when it's in violation of the 5th pillar. Processes are guidelines (ie. generalizations) in place to resolve a majority of problems, and this affair is simply not within that 95% it's designed to conveniently resolve. To avoid re-writing what's already been said, the last reply here to Policy Reformer who makes the same argument reflects my view on why continuing to make the same assumptions when there is a history of failure seems wrong. I apologize it's not directly related to the block at hand but there's no reason to violate the block in spirit again by ranting, so please just ignore the THEM and SOAP parts since rest apply.

I appreciate the reply, though I suppose none of us appreciates the fact the process thus far has consumed a lot of time with questionable results. Agent00f (talk) 05:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 3RR issue never should have gotten to where it did. If you had known about the rule, I guarentee you wouldn't have wandered into that territory. It wasn't really forum shopping to report you at

WP:AN3

. That board is there specificly to deal with edit-warring and 3RR violations. Those who lurk AN/I know that posting 3RR vios at AN/I is generally bad juju.

This issue is slowly crawling forward. I know it seems like a lot of the same, but at

WT:MMANOT

, there is actually progress towards setting up an RfC. And they're waiting for you to come off your block to give your input. This is the furthest this ordeal has gotten in months. A lot of the badgering socks have gone away. What we have left are valuable contributors.

You come off your block in a few hours. I suggest waiting it out till then. I'm not trying to be a dick, but I think you need to lay off the ditribes while participating in the current MMA discussion. If you feel anyone is doing anything against policy or trying to bait you into getting into trouble, come talk to me; I'm more than happy to help. Ishdarian 06:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I forgot to mention: Assuming good faith goes very far. Stating On the point of "assuming" good faith, I've observed on the subject before that those familiar with the course of events often no longer have to assume is not the kind of attitude to have when requesting an unblock. Even if you don't agree with how someone is going about things, never assume bad faith; it only leads to trouble, and a very painful

'rang. Ishdarian 06:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks. On "diatribes", I often find that describing a complex idea simply (esp when using external logic), it can create unnecessary confusion and even more work afterward. The consequence is a balance between oversimplification and "obfuscation". The reality is that when someone uses incorrect reasoning, they're often wrong for nontrivial reasons not easily codified. If you look carefully, most of IRL and wiki-law in particular is specifically designed to avoid actual reasoning for other social processes (ie compromise, etc). Agent00f (talk) 06:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agent00f has been retaliating against the relentless tyranny of a group of editors. The behavior of these editors has been some the worst I have ever seen on Wikipedia. I commend Agent for taking this on all by himself. Portillo (talk) 01:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't mind sticking my neck out for the underdog stakeholders here against those who abuse the system to destroy the value of their work. Agent00f (talk) 09:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About your e-mail request: that was an autoblock, probably triggered because you tried to open a page for editing some time during the last 24 hours before the block expired. It's not something we admins have control over, and I must say I find the way it is implemented by the software quite confusing and not very useful, but as I said, we can't do anything about it except to manually remove it whenever somebody complains about it. Since you are now editing again, I suppose it's expired in the meantime. Sorry for the trouble. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:30, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your email. Here are a few replies to some of your points.

1. If you look at this edit, you will see that the content I restored had indeed been placed there by you. The formatting was different, because the process of copying used in declining or accepting an unblock request does not always maintain the format, and this gave a different impression, but the text was that which you had posted.

• This claim is very tenuous. The text was copy & pasted from the prior unblock request to prevent losing it. When Ishdarian created the new box/template, it should've been removed since the original copy now exists right above, in the proper area. The claim that the "text was that which you had posted" as if I whole created it with no other context is at best a circumstantial technicality.

2. You wanted me to take the effort to adjust the formatting to make it "remotely readable". It was readable, although perhaps not neat. I could indeed check every time I do something such as accepting or declining an unblock request on the off chance that this is one of the few occasions where the user has used formatting that has not been maintained, and then spend time prettifying the formatting. I am not sure that would be the best use of the time I have available for work on Wikipedia, but I will consider it. Thanks for the suggestion.

• Scrambling carefully formatted bullets and threaded replies into one long unformatted string is not "readable". It makes the unblock request reason look as incoherent as as the reply to it. That's unfortunately only one of the many massive ironies of the process, another being the ranting reply whose style wouldn't even be remotely acceptable as an unblock reason.

3. You ask me to be more "conscientious". If you can tell me in what way you think my conscience has been wanting, then I will consider whether I agree, and if so what I can do to improve.

• Conscientious at a basic level means ability to self-reflect. For example, this is conscientious: "...If it's wiki policy to always formulate the message in a given format as a rule, then I can certainly comply and accept the sanction as a lesson learned about prose, but it doesn't change meaning." A failure to recognize that one's work violates one's own rules about ranting and whatnot is not conscientious. As a constructive pointer, perhaps read over whatever you might post in the future and ask if this is acceptable to you if it came from another.

4. You say that I am "unprofessional". Indeed I am, as all Wikipedia editors are. We are all amateurs, and being "unprofessional" is not a criticism of someone who is not supposed to be professional.

• This isn't an argument over semantics. Professional here means acting in a manner that reflects well on the organization. In light of this, your statement implies that no wiki admin should hold themselves to any standard because they aren't paid. Professional behavior generally includes trying to understand the point rather than dance around it. This leads to the other pointers for improvement: avoid focusing on irrelevant technicalities, and communicate to convey meaning rather than confuse it.

Replied. Agent00f (talk) 21:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Agent00f. You have new messages at Ishdarian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Replied. Ishdarian 03:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...for all you've done to protect Wikipedia, MMA and rational thought from a small, but extremely determined, deletionist bureaucracy. Your time was not sacrificed in vain, though it can seem that way at times. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of

Can you elaborate on why you need to delete a simple question based on simple fact to an editor who's clearly trying to BITE/intimidate another without questioning the larger context? Also, as a heads up, should I expect more censor-deletions against what I write in the future? Thanks. Agent00f (talk) 01:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've also deleted another comment addressing accusations against me without doing anything about the baseless accusations. Good to see such earnest editors in action to make wiki a welcoming and constructive place! Thank you. Agent00f (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As per the procedures, I wanted to make you aware of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Agent00f. The process is voluntary and designed to bring in outside viewpoints from the dispute to attempt to negotiate a solution. Hasteur (talk) 01:27, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agent00f, RfC/U is not a venue to continue bickering between those editors with whom you are clearly in dispute with regarding this. Your response section is for the purposes of responding to the certified dispute; if you wish to amend parts of your response to include material which is included in the amended certified dispute, that is not really an issue. However, if you wish to comment on individual views or comments, please use the talk page as noted here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The material I replied to was posted in that section by Ravenswing, not me. Agent00f (talk) 08:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...which is why his material was also moved to the talk page (and which is why he did not attempt to reinsert it on the main page, collapsed or otherwise). On a separate note, please note that I have posted a reply to one of your comments on the talk page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're saying here. I directly replied to it in that section. I saw it was in the talk section, too, which is confusing. Agent00f (talk) 09:00, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The main page contains a statement of dispute (by certifiers and those involved in the dispute), and a response to the statement (by you). Additional views are also made on the main page by outsiders to evaluate what is said in the statement, response, and sometimes on the talk page. However, comments on additional views, and general discussion between the parties as to views/comments should be on the talk page. Ravenswing made a reply/comment on your response which should have been made on the talk page, not the main page. You similarly made a threaded reply to Ravenswing's comment on your response; that also belongs on the talk page, not the main page. Do you follow? Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:10, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What caused the confusion was that I didn't see the material was already removed from main page when I hit save. It was there when I started the reply. It's more clear what happened now I looked at the edit history. I'm aware Raven probably should've posted there, but I'm not enough of a stickler for technicalities that I cared. Agent00f (talk) 09:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this edit. Why would a notice that these are replied to below a bad thing? Isn't the point here for everyone to see comments and replies before forming a judgement? Doing this without a link only means that folks will skim over the rest and perhaps miss the replies since they're embedded in other material. Agent00f (talk) 10:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I too am running afoul of RFC/U's strongly constrained technical requirements. However, NCM is an excellent moderator and, if NCM strongly recommends not ignoring rules because it improves the discussion (because of high risk of being derailed), I affirm. The basic requirement is that outside users are limited to writing their own outside views, asking questions of the participants, and endorsing briefly the views of others; participants are also allowed to answer questions. Each of these has its own place. Recommendation of solutions can also be done by anyone. For the sake of clarity it's best to stick with these, and though I think I told you somewhere that adding an "@JJB" section to your view (response) is acceptable, it appears this is probably not best practice. Discussion seems to be progressing toward appropriate closure, however. JJB 18:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

In short,

Hasteur asked something similar above, and I've answered there same as I would here. I've never edited MMA pages or been involved in MMA space before. I do not bother to log into sites if unnecessary (and only did so here because of visibly rampant witchhunts for sock puppets), and as personal choice never log in at work or via work vpn. The first kinect edit is representative of my few edits per year in high tech/physics/math space. You can tell from its rather decent formatting that it's not the first time I've done this before. Thanks. Agent00f (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good start. I'm going to cut you a wide swath of

guilty

. Please do work on avoiding ambiguity. Verbum sat.

I can safely say in bold: Do not edit anything having anything to do with MMA anywhere unless logged in as Agent00f. If you have any any qualms whatsoever about this brightline, I strongly recommend

this guideline

. But otherwise, welcome to Wikipedia!

I think the best next question would be, I spotted your three-link proposal but have not reviewed the links yet; I mentioned this at the bottom of my outside view just now. Can you give us any summary or context to get us started on how these links could be used as a full proposal? In particular, what are the goals or benefits that you are seeking via particular data presentations, including Google rankings, findability, sortability, internal linking, and so on? Is there a convenient list of use cases? I am a database programmer and knowing the "business requirements" upfront (in addition to the community requirements) would be the best step for a final policy-compliant article set. JJB 00:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I've logged in via my account for MMA related comments for just that reason. It's not difficult and it protects technical pages (some of which are relatively unsourced, as you may be aware of) from AfD. MMA-related related issues can be solved via this process; let's all pray the same people don't find other subjects not to their liking and start this BS all over again.

On the second topic, I'll try to add some stuff to the RfC page as you mentioned before. Thanks. Agent00f (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem if someone actually neutral and would be willing to engage in substance instead of just rhetorical claims (ie "I say so") had oversight. You obviously aren't up for nomination, but someone in the same vein is definitely acceptable. Please note that self-proclaimed neutrality of the sort we've all seen and "editors in good standing" don't count. I'll strike that clause and offer to strike other similar ones as reasonable others see fit. Thanks. Agent00f (talk) 19:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Implying that a particular admin would "jump on a bandwagon" or block without knowing what's going on, as you did here, that's a personal attack. I'm sure Qwyrxian doesn't mind this rather feeble attack on his character, but that's beside the point. You and the concept of civility need to get better acquainted. Drmies (talk) 22:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is the implication that when someone 1) jumps on a bandwagon 2) makes the exact same accusations against me with 3) seemingly no reference to clear links/replies to said bandwagon in the RfC, and 4) dances around when this was pointed out, then I should keep my mouth shut since criticism is a one way street of some sort? Recall sweeping significant events under the rug is not the same thing as civility. Ethical and civilized people point out truths even when they're uncomfortable ones. BTW, that wasn't a rhetorical question, and I'd appreciate it if you can answer. Thanks. Agent00f (talk) 23:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason you would want to keep your mouth shut is that there is zero to gain and much to lose by criticizing everything that can be criticized. Pick your battles, if they are battles. One editor says let's go to Medcab posthaste to prevent worse, i.e., another ANI, another hasty resolution. But Medcab doesn't reply fast enough to prevent ANI flareup. Best walk on eggshells for a couple days instead and let things simmer. Getting a "cooldown" block will not help your endgame. A mentor would say much the same. :D JJB 00:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It's a tad frustrating that this topic keeps attracting that type of editor. I'll step away from it for a bit and see what happens. Agent00f (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is you, not MMA. I'll bypass your nonsensical stab. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know the RfC is an arena for talking about me, along with the last few hostile ANI's and whatnot. I'd like to move forward with the substance of the work at hand since almost nothing's gotten done for many months, but it's pretty difficult when all this personal topics get in the way nonstop. It seems I can choose to either stop bothering and let my accusers have at it or be criticized for defending myself. Do you have any advice? Thanks. Agent00f (talk) 03:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fo shizzle? Of course I have advice, and you can read it at the RfC/U--the U means "you"; it's not about MMA. To be plain: you can hold steady to your course, which probably will lead to a growing group of editors "against" you, with all kinds of consequences--like a block. Or you can consider that there really is concern about your attitude (not your content edits to articles--they are not the topic of discussion and I haven't looked at them) and consider changing said attitude. You seem to think that this RfC and other threads were evidence about some voting block (or however you put it) acting against MMA articles and picking on you as a scapegoat, but that's not what it is. There is no inherent bias against MMA as far as I know--and believe it or not, I'm quite "uninvolved" in this matter because I don't care about the topic any more than I care about monster trucks or horse racing. As harsh as it sounds, this is about you--and at present, it is going nowhere, at least nowhere positive. Good luck; enjoy your glass of water, though I prefer good Belgian beers. Drmies (talk) 04:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're offended, copy each offensive diff into an offline document and give your best brief neutral (noncontentious, nonbaiting) summary of it. Never post this document because it might be construed as an evidence attack page. If you want to test formatting, simply begin to create a sandbox page, use preview to perfect the formatting, and then copy the code back offline without saving into WP. (Accidental saves can be

speedy deleted for your protection.) Review the document from time to time and cull (cut out) weaker examples or any cases you might recognize that neutral editors might differ about. One option is to follow Lincoln's example: in that case the evidence document will never see the light of day. The other option is to present it when you are finally asked for evidence. But either way it's a perfect catharsis. Also: I learned from martial arts that the best forms of self-defense are those that weaken the opponent by using his strength against him while using minimal exertion oneself, not those that amount to strong offense. JJB

21:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

JJB's advice is very sound. You can collect instances that back up your feelings. I would not share my feelings openly if I were you. Take examples of behavior you believe are problematic and keep them offline. You just don't know when the time might be right to share examples of what feels offensive. I have seen that the people who seem strong today on WP may be weak tomorrow and vice versa. In the meantime learn to do everything in a way that clearly demonstrates you are always the most reasonable person and walk away when people criticize or get in digs. Walk away and wait for things to change. Factseducado (talk) 22:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Advice: do not reply to drmies. He is angry at you. Yes, you must let your accusers vent. You have made good points but continuing to engage with your detractors is to remain stuck. Let them have the last word. It shows maturity. Don't defend yourself tonight. Before you post more at your user RfD ask for outside input. You are upset. You do need some help through this. Tempers will calm down but you need to wait. Stop commenting. If you comment point out your willingness to work with a mentor or go to mediation. Make no reference to "him" or "them" or "people like them." Skip those comments. Write in a Word document then close it and drink a glass of water. Then read it and take out anything defensive or about people you are unhappy with. Keep a low profile. Goodnight. Factseducado (talk) 04:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not angry, Factseducado. Drmies (talk) 04:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to bed. About your user RfC, I think it may be wise to not comment more tonight. You don't need to rise to attacks. It's not productive. I can go make comments early tomorrow if you tell me what you think is very important to address. If you can't resist commenting then I wonder if it feels like an option to point out that you are open to both mediation and mentoring and say nothing more. If you feel you have to say more, you could admit being wrong about something. You could admit that you wish you had never written the OCD comment. Real people have OCD and sometimes they require surgery because the problem is so bad. Obviously you don't want to pick on people who have medical problems. At the same time it is very important that you ignore people you might feel are being mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factseducado (talk • contribs) 04:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Agent,

I would like to hold up your side of the MMA discussion for a little bit so that you don't tip over the edge to a ban of some kind. Would you communicate with me about some of the points that need making in various venues so you can get a bit of a breather. Soldiers need R&R and you are a bit too close to this unhappiness.

Yours truly,

Factseducado (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The mains points can IMO be culled from this section in the RfC. Here are also some more short MMA topic specific points:

1. It's important to draw the focus away from me personally (ANI's every few days, etc), as the core contingent there has been trying to do even though I'm a recent enrollee. This area became a mess as soon as they joined, continued to be a mess as long as they hung around for many months, and will therefore likely remain a mess if their plans are implemented as is. The whole atmosphere's been poisoned to the point that no sport domain regulars trust them or want anything to do with them. This level of politics doesn't make for happy endings regardless of whether I'm around to see it.
2. Most of the new guys/gals like Blackmane or Ravenswing only joined on the back of those hostile ANI's above, where they were proposing to nuke the subject, nuke all contributors, and of course block me for good measure. Despite this, they claim to be "neutral" wiki experts whose wisdom should be trusted above others. This is not a joke, it's their own words. Sometimes we get the odd admin along like Qwyrxian who does trust them without checking this basic background. It seems problematic when new eyes on the matter mainly comes attached to folks who despise MMA even more than the former core group.
3. On matters of substance: as hard as it is to believe, third party JJB who just happened by the RfC has been the only editor to ever ask questions on the specifics of the work/topic at hand. I actually tried to ask for such editors on main page, but that thread/section was deleted wholesale by the core group (across two of them so no way for me to revert w/o 3RR violation). Given his actual experience in wiki matter, it took JJB all of a day or two to hash out a simple yet superior proposal to whatever's been going on with the former core group for months. I'm not sure whether this is common for wiki, but it doesn't bode well for an org's image when it takes months get someone competent on the job, esp if it only happened by complete coincidence.
4. This is a plan which can resolve this problem once and for all if passed by wider wiki community, which is very likely given that the MMA entries in questions are better organized than many similar lists on wiki, and I can guarantee MMA interests will support it if surfaced. Pursuant to this new proposal, the core group basic voteblocks against it, even though it's very similar in logic (though better design in several material ways) to their former "omnibus" plan. Their reasoning is obviously suspect if not non-existent. Qwyrxian wants to block me from participating in any real RfC which might come of this, which I can stand if it gets wider recognition from fair editors and isn't dominated by the predictable/expected voteblock.

This is just a starter of the most important point, and as always please feel to ask questions. My email link is also activated. Thanks. Agent00f (talk) 00:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I hear you. I am able to make rational points. I think it will be beneficial to take this down a notch. There's no sense getting you banned.

I'm going to be working on some things in real life that will be very time consuming. Do you think it's possible to keep necessary comments all on your current user RfC? I think that page is high priority because you do need to work with other people on WP even if they are wrong.

Sure, the RfC is really the only place anything much is going on. Basically all other proposals have been dead before they hit the water. BTW, I have no problem working with those I disagree with. I do it daily IRL without issue, though it's not quite the same crowd.

How many, if any, other pages do you anticipate will need commenting on in the next 3 days not counting today?

I might make some comments on the MMANOT talk page, but they're much lessor priority. Don't need to watch those.

I wonder if you'd be willing to run some comments by someone new before you post just so you don't get any hackles up more than they are already. You are a fairly new editor. Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions might be a place to ask. Just don't reply to anyone who answers with their own opinions on MMA if you go to the Teahouse and some random person answers. Also, see if you can think of any nice user or admin who has been around awhile. You could ask that person how to say what you mean without upsetting people until the focus moves away from you. If you tried asking for advice (assuming you can think of someone) then you would not appear so confident and detractors might back off. In any event it would be a point in your favor that you act like you want outside input about your comments. Remember it's not about winning or being treated fairly: you don't want to get banned because that wouldn't help.

Finally as of this moment talking about groups and voting blocks is not going to help you. I'm sorry. I know facts are facts and things have happened. I am pointing out to you that focusing on other aspects of this topic for the time being could be a wise strategy. Please, seriously consider (and hopefully try hard to act on) the idea that "me" against the bad "them" will dig yourself into a hole and make people angry. It is technically a violation of WP policy. I am aware that that this policy is sometimes invoked in a political manner. Such is life. Sometimes you've got to play by other people's rules when they are unfair.

Yes, I'm aware this situation isn't exactly fair. I've tried to follow the letter of rules, but throwing around nebulous accusations is basically free (esp for the type unaware of how ad hom fallacies work and frankly don't care, etc). Even though it looks like me vs the world on the surface, that tends to be an illusion from the unfortunate circumstances. The only way to put up meaningful resistance is to be bold (just look at Anna Frodesiak's role as the token Colmes of the bunch), which results in the constant threats/harassment/ANI's. When you combine this with the fact that a solid voteblock has existed (yet no one is allowed to bring up) for many months on pretty much every issue surrounding this (to the extend of driving away very reasonable editors like Sundae Smile above), that's the way it appears from the outside looking in. Not sure how much I can do to morph the circumstances except ignore unethical behavior, esp. when it's pretty obvious the minds of the names above aren't exactly open to change.

Yes, nebulous accusations will make anyone feel defensive. Look at how a trapped animal acts: aggressive. Still you are going to have to rise above.

I can see why you are discussing how surface appearances relate to an actual need for substantive progress on MMA issues on WP.

I know it sticks in your craw not to be able to discuss voteblocking or groups of others. This is not the time for those discussions. It's time to move forward because nobody can change the past. We can't control how other people behave. You have expressed your views. You have made many good points. I'm suggesting that you let that topic rest for now. It is in your interests and the interest of addressing MMA concerns to stop mentioning "others." You could get banned. It may not be fair but it's real. Things that are safe for discussion now, as far as I can tell, are ways to move ideas for solutions forward. Also starting sentences with "I feel..." can be helpful in a situation like the one you are facing. For example, "I feel we need some more people to join this discussion," is a safer way of saying, "You guys have been stopping better ideas." This is the time for tact. You can Google "i statements" and read the top 5 results. I'm not saying you need to make this a way of life. At this particular moment in time it's a safe alternative for you. Factseducado (talk) 02:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this comes to wider community discussion please advise MMA followers not to use socks. It's the easiest way to fail.

Yes, I also think this is important, though I don't control anyone's actions. Lack of much cohesion or organization among MMA interests has been our own consistent failing.

I'll keep an eye out here for your reply.

Yours,

Factseducado (talk) 00:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Truly. Agent00f (talk) 01:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to help. This problem didn't start overnight and it won't be solved overnight. Sometimes letting solutions evolve slowly is actually faster. You can come across as a good guy that way. You can get through this and some progress can come in the MMA arena. WP is a horse of a different color. It works in a way that new editors have a really hard time comprehending. I'm not saying that it always works well. The MMA coverage is a sticky wicket. Let's work through it slowly. Mediation might help. Hard to say if it will but the alternatives aren't looking too good from where I sit. If you state that you want mediation you will have a point in your favor for willingness to listen to others. Factseducado (talk) 01:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with any process that's reasonably fair. Obviously ANI's or an RfC where most participants came in (often canvased) with a fixed perspective is not it, and I had no choice in those, so it's difficult to imagine it's downhill from there. :) Agent00f (talk) 02:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agent needs all the help he can get. He has been going at this all by himself. Although Ive been editing Wikipedia for years, Im unfamiliar with Wikipedia politics. This whole situation has actually made me thankful that I am unfamiliar with the bureaucracy of Wikipedia. Portillo (talk) 09:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree agent is in a difficult spot. Cooperation is the only way out. Some people don't appear to be feeling as cooperative as would be ideal. Nobody can control their actions. In the meantime, please encourage Agent00f to confine himself to being the most cooperative and reasonable person involved. That has a chance of working. I have not replied to everyone because I don't think that would be productive. It is my belief that tempers are high. It is often wise to wait to discuss matters until people are feeling calmer. Our brains literally don't work well or think as creatively when we are upset. Factseducado (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Agent00f,

Things are slowing down regarding more unhappiness with you. I can see you have stopped commenting as I advised. That was really a smart choice.

For today it's a good idea for you to post on your talk page and let other people hash out ideas on MMANOT and your user RfC. If you really want to write something, how about trying it out on me here on your talk page first? I'll keep an eye out here so I can let you know if it's best to remain silent or say something that is constructively phrased.

The longer you stay completely away from responding to unhappy comments, the more points you get for being reasonable. Remember you job now is to be the most reasonable person in the discussion. The best way to do that today is to not discuss the unhappy topics.

How about we brainstorm any other area of WP you could write something of value on? Maybe you know a good source for an article in need of some help. Your willingness to demonstrate you want to help WP be as good as possible could reflect really well on you. That RfC/U may remain open for a long time. In the meantime, you can show how mature and helpful you are. I know you have a lot to offer.Factseducado (talk) 18:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My comments on this are here. Thanks for your forbearance. JJB 20:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I wrote, "Agent00f sought out advice from at least two people and he has followed my advice. He is not making comments and that is a very mature action when people are criticizing him. That certainly demonstrates a huge desire not to filibuster or obfuscate. He is being restrained and doing other things. This is to be applauded. I wish many more people who have felt on the defensive in other spots on WP would follow his example and stop trading tit for tat. I believe WP would be a much more pleasant place and fewer people would get in trouble if more people walked away. I have never written that anything was too long to read so obviously I have made no such excuse. I have read a great deal in the MMA area for a long time back. MEDCAB works differently than DR mediation. I believe all the unhappy people writing about the MMA issues would be better off looking for a new way to address the problem because progress is not happening. I'm glad Agent00f is willing to try something new like mediation or mentoring because things tried thus far have not been successfulFactseducado (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)"

Agent00f, you can prove me right about what I wrote. I know it's counterintuitive to walk away for a little while from what you care about but it can actually work. You can write something helpful on other topics. I know you can. Factseducado (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think editing other areas w/ my account under normal circumstances is a pretty good idea, but as mention on this page before I frankly don't want to take the risk of bring this trouble to other subjects. Most of the areas I have interests in like for example computer vision systems or solid state emitters can be obscure (few editors to help) and potentially brush up against a hardline interpretation of GNG, and unfortunately the majority crowd drawn by the constant ANIs have prioritized engagement at the personal level to the exclusion of subject or process. Nonetheless, I'll try to pick out a few random hobbies latter with hardier pages to sample and demonstrate that content contribution is trivial compared to politic/bureau BS. Agent00f (talk) 04:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, editing any article in a manner consistent with WP's best practices would disarm several of the concerns that we have enumerated as it would demonstrate that you are not here for a singular purpose. My suggestion: If you you're concerned about editors following you for a personal vendetta, that is stalking/harassment. I'd am willing to assist you in finding a place to contribute and to approach you privately (should you wish) with suggestions. I'm willing file into slivers, to melt down, and beat into a plowshare the hatchet that has existed between us. If you would like me to go away, I'm willing to do that too. Just let me know what you would like to do. Hasteur (talk) 06:24, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agent00f, I fear you have hit the nail on the head. I have very recently seen a situation that may be exactly what you have described. It's very sad that I am wondering if a person or persons is interested in disrupting other areas of WP editing due out of what may be retaliation. These kinds of problems can be hard to spot and perhaps harder to prove to anyone who has not experienced this behavior on WP himself or herself. If you think it's best for WP that you not edit any article because of the current atmosphere, then do what you know is right for WP. There's no reason for this unhappiness to spread to tearing down parts of WP through no fault of your own. I can only imagine how hurtful that kind of behavior must be to editors on other unrelated pages who don't even know that WP has people in it capable of wanting to damage their own labor of love for mean, unrelated reasons.Factseducado (talk) 16:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to bed. This has been a very full, busy day for me on WP. Some people appear to be unhappy about some things I have written but it is unclear to me what is making them unhappy.

Your conduct was unimpeachable today. Hopefully, your continued calm, low profile reaction will help them accept that you are not interested in arguing or defending yourself. I regret that I do not think tomorrow looks like a good day for you to participate on your user RfC site. It is not a happy place right now.

I hope to not have much to say at your user RfC tomorrow. The situation as I see it has been sufficiently explained at your user RfC. I'll keep an eye out for anything new there tomorrow. I am hoping that at some point participants there (aside from DGG, JJB, and Portillo) will feel they have fully expressed their interests. It helps that they cannot get your hackles up because you are not responding.

Perhaps you could test out some ideas on things you'd like to write on the MMANOT site here, if you feel there are things you'd like to be able to add. I'll keep checking here, at MMANOT, and at your user RfC.

Take care.Factseducado (talk) 02:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's not really certain if MMANOT is going anywhere anytime soon. Their recent rule RfC was a failure due to poor outside reception and not much else is happening. There seems to be some interest in the JJB proposal at my user RfC, but frankly nobody else dares to touch it for obvious reasons. It would also be difficult for me to resume much of anything with spectres hanging overhead. Agent00f (talk) 04:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I just saw your MEDCAB proposal. I'm not sure if it would help if I supported it or that would just result in a pile-on for the opposite choice. Generally speaking I would think most reasonable/knowledgeable "mediators" tend to favor stable long term solutions over dogmatically applied hardline stances. However, I'm not sure practically speaking how much power MEDCAB has if parties are still free to arbitrarily AfD with GNG after settlement. Agent00f (talk) 04:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The beauty of MEDCAB is that there is no room for fighting. The mediators don't decide or encourage anything. The hope is that a solution acceptable to all can be found and that the long process of working together towards the solution will help the participants see each other differently. Once all sides are invested in an outcome reached together, they may all want to defend the outcome in larger WP when MEDCAB is over. My point is that it's worth a shot because this is not a positive atmosphere regarding MMANOT.

I see exactly why you have not signed your name on the MEDCAB proposal. Please allow me to explain that over there. Your interest in preserving the peace there is admirable and I'd like everyone to know the maturity your judgement shows.

This is your last warning. The next time you make

• Commenting that the last 1000+ of Mtking's edits are exclusive to MMA/similar AfD's and ensuing disputes is not a personal attack. It's a simple verifiable fact directly related to the subject at hand: the commonality of dozens of the same AfD's across more than one sport which should be resolved all together instead of each individually (a complete waste of admin resources). Also, please don't modify other editor's comments unilaterally over and over again. That's in direct violation of WP:TALKO and WARing. Thanks. Agent00f (talk) 09:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Also please not that this in comparison is a personal attack from you given that it serves no purpose to the topic at hand of AfD's and was directed at me for no visible reason except relatiation. Agent00f (talk) 08:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I should have to defend my self to you, but I can think of edits I have made this week outside the MMA field, so it is not a verifiable fact, it is an attack as you are commenting on the contributor and not content, as for my comment I did not make reference to you or your motives.

Mtking ^(edits) 09:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• The readers can easily verify the ratio to their own liking by clicking on the link presented. It is very very high over 1000+ entries. It verifies that this has been done A LOT. Therefore it's directly relevant to the topic of many similar/same AfD's which should be consolidated and surfaced to broader sport community instead of belabored individually, esp. given that AfD's are starting on other sports. Agent00f (talk) 09:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC) Also as to your comment, it's a direct link to a RfC/U started by a similar party to the AfD's, rather personal and clear in its target. Agent00f (talk) 09:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agent00f, I'll go look at that MMA page this second. In the meantime please do not communicate with anyone anywhere on WP except me, Portillo, JJB, or DGG. I am unaware of who else is currently feeling they are able to assume good faith with you. This is not in any way for some punitive reason. I am really trying to help you and I have seen unspecified problems. This is not a good environment for you today. Again I'm on my way over to see what has been written, by whom and when. Maybe I'll know more when I've done that. Wish me luck. Factseducado (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back. I have looked it over as thoroughly as I can. I don't see an attack. I do see that a user or users is/are changing comments another user or users have written. It makes it very difficult for me to see the chronology of what has gone on. I am starting a new section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Factseducado (talk • contribs) 16:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since Facts asked me to comment at my talk, the question is not whether Agent00f committed an attack, but what the templater thinks constituted an attack, which is usually an easier question. Mtking obviously refers to the comments he (Mtking) deleted here and here. Agent00f is correct that this is a pretty egregious WP:TALKO violation by Mtking, and that this does not constitute a personal attack but a relevant AFD observation. (Mtking is not the party chosen to enforce "comment on content, not contributors".) OTOH, this judgment is complicated by the fact that Agent00f also has a habit of using nonneutral language ("nominator is quibbling over template technicalities" could have been "nominator raises a template question", and "warring" could have been "talk-page deletion"), and this habit does need time to be broken. "Warring" is a very nuanced judgment and we should not be the judges of it. As another example, I changed the words "elected enforcer" in the above to "party chosen to enforce" during the writing of this comment, because even though I agree with the first version it could be easily misinterpreted and so should reasonably be moderated. Per my former advice, it is best for us to "let it be", and write a neutral summary of the event offline if necessary. JJB 18:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Agent00f, I know how willing to listen to advice you have been every time we have interacted. So let's communicate here now, alright?

You definitely don't have to say anything that makes you uncomfortable.

Thanks,

Factseducado (talk) 16:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You definitely made progress understanding your role in the future at WP. How about walking away and waiting a day for responses or longer. How about 12 hours? Remember it's your job to be the most reasonable person in the discussion and to walk away frequently just because you have been unhappy in that environment in the past.

Congratulations on your hard work and improvement. It is a challenging situation and you are showing maturity.

Factseducado (talk) 22:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As one who loves having information, I'd like to introduce you to the X!'s Edit Counter. The tool allows all sorts of interesting analysis in what people work on. While It's not required, I'd like to invite you to opt into the counter for the purpose of looking for areas you might want to edit in. Thank you for your consideration. Hasteur (talk) 21:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, User:Ryan Vesey is willing to "co-mentor" you as adopter, meaning he would do the decisionmaking (including being approached by editors who object to incivility if any), and would have User:Wehwalt serve as go-to admin for any consultation, and if a block decision were ever needed. While I would hate to be in your position (and have been pretty close to it before), I would encourage you to communicate with Ryan and formalize this relationship, independently of whether anyone else thinks it should be done. That way if things go wrong later you have an audit trail demonstrating your compliance with policy. Mentoring and adopting are very common for new editors anyway, but they are also used when there is hope for an accused editor to grow beyond behavior that tempts others to make accusations.

I am not likely to take too much part in the conduct side as things go on, but certainly feel free to contact me if you think I would be interested in a page of any kind. So I am leaving this recommendation in your hands, having found the willing parties. I believe acting on it will strongly favor your interests. As to content, the way to reach policy consensus is through gradualism, which takes patience and leads to the aha! moments where meeting of the minds is accomplished. The same is true of the path to justice. JJB 14:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for the time you've already spent on this, JJB. Though I don't think I lack patience in general, perhaps the nature of my background and thus coincidental selection of peers means that I'm not used to working with the more diverse range of editors on WP. Even if you're not a mentor in official capacity, I'll continue to carry the guidance provided in spirit. Agent00f (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Digression: since you asked, there are 23 people ahead of you at

You have been mentioned at ANI by Dmcq! (Laughing hard.) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive edits by User:John J. Bulten. JJB 01:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Just so I can separate sarcasm from seriousness: Are you actually reconciling yourself to omnibus for now? If so, the indicated direction is to add cites (e.g. plenty from Yahoo Sports) to the disputed articles and abide by the AFD consensus about who will survive who will perish. However if you are not changing your strategy I would appreciate knowing that too. Thanks. JJB 22:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

My comment here is quite serious. Given that the decisions made in this area still make absolutely no sense (and previous requests for clarification ignored), attempting further reasoned discussion or action seems futile. I've reconciled myself to preventing anyone from being scapegoated for poor reception of work they're not even part of. I was also trying to prevent the MMA precedent and subsequent drama from infecting anywhere else on wiki, but have noted the summary bans for anyone who tries. Agent00f (talk) 00:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Agent. I have a request, would you have a look at my suggestion, and the discussion at Talk:2012 in UFC events/Archive 3#Another way to organise. My statement to you is this:

1. Like it or not, the omni isn't going anywhere (as proved by 3 AfD discussions)
2. The omni is not easy to navigate which is part of why people don't like it
3. If we can improve the navigation/appearance, maybe people will like it

I would like your opinion on how we can improve it, because if it is going to be here, it might as well be easy to use. Keep in mind my request in the section though, I just want to discuss how to improve the article, not the merits of it, or how other editors are trying to disrupt MMA. I just want to improve the article as best I can, because frankly, it doesn't look like it is going anywhere. Note this is only if you have interest in improving the article, if your position is delete at all costs, I would appreciate your staying away, as I want to dedicate this section to constructive improvement of the article that we currently have. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My comment in the section just above is quite serious. However I can repeat what's been said before regarding the omnibus: Currently people seem to be very frustrated because it's plainly visible that cohesive sets of entries with even worse notability details than UFC events exist as the rule rather than exception on wiki (ie. MMA is the exception). These survive AfD regularly, yet the MMA pages are being constricted to a worse design for who knows why. Answering that "why" in a believable way is the key to the solution, not the specifics of how to copy/paste everything together to aggregate notability through sheer volume. Put another way, even if there exists some magical omnibus design that's satisfactory, it still doesn't resolve lingering concerns such as the ambiguous question of when to split off ungainly sections, given their deletion in an exceptional manner is exactly why we're in this mess. Agent00f (talk) 08:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given your reasonable and genuine request, it would be seeming of me to leave it hanging entirely. I've mentioned before why splitting off to pages for FOX or FUEL makes no sense: the venue for broadcast is largely irrelevant to the contests themselves exception for live viewership numbers, especially after the event when they can all be watched on a number of services (cable-box, Xbox, etc). It also makes no sense when pre-lim contests are usually aired on a different network than main contests for PPV events. Agent00f (talk) 09:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I understand, and frankly my position is,

1. There are indeed cases that are far worse than MMA.
2. There is a high likelihood that what happens at MMA will not move on to these articles (pessimistic opinion).
3. There are events within MMA that should have been "targeted" (probably not the right wording) before the main UFC events were considered for deletion.

For the most part I don't think I have participated much in the actual AfDs, (not sure if I actually participated in any with a keep or delete, I may have made a comment or two though). Currently my goal at the 2012 article is to improve it so it is as acceptable as it can be to everyone. I understand that it will never be acceptable to everyone, but I would like to see the finished product (knowing that Wikipedia will never be finished) as acceptable to all parties as possible. Even if it isn't what everybody wants, it is what we have now, and I would like to improve what we have now as best as we can. That is why I invited you to participate in the discussion, if you want to improve what we have now (despite it not being what you want) to make it as acceptable to you as possible (making a bad situation the best that it can be) I would like your input. If you don't want to help me make the best of a bad situation, that is fine too. I certainly don't think that you should quit trying to improve individual articles, but if you want to improve what we have, you are more than welcome to help me. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 09:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input about splitting based on network. That makes sense, my justification for the split was based on,

1. UFC on Fox and the like are somewhat akin to a TV series, where it might make sense to include the "episodes" together. I understand that it isn't really a TV series.
2. The chronological links between events (part of what MMA fans want is the ability to easily go between events as they occurred) is easily completed via the infobox that is shown in the discussion on 2012 in UFC, making the navigation effectively the same as if the articles were separated, with the exception of linking to a section within a larger article rather than an individual article.

The flow of events (as you noted preliminary making their way up to the main contests) would actually promote an omnibus article in the format it is in now, because if one event leads to the other, why would we separate them (other than the preference that some [read: a lot of] people have for viewing them. I know that is not a popular view within MMA fans. Either way, your point is noted and I would appreciate your pasting the anti-split-by-network section on the article talk page, if you wouldn't mind. Much thanks. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 09:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note, the "sequence" of events in the UFC is agnostic to broadcaster. It's really only due to inside commercial arrangements that they're split between networks. Also FWIW, your suggestion of 5 or 10 events on a page makes a lot more sense for consistent formatting than arbitrary splits by calendar year if omnibus is an imposed inevitability. I'm glad that you find my input to be of some value, but frankly I no longer have any interest in the specifics of a space where they're seen as tautologically DISPRUPTive to some. As mentioned before, none of the decisions in that space make any rational sense, and I just can't function in such an environment. Please feel free to use those comments above or any before as you see fit, and I wish you the best of luck. Thanks. Agent00f (talk) 10:14, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Agent00f. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 18:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I just wanted to say that I understand your POV for re-establishing articles. With your continued effort, we can really show the importance and notability of saving these articles for future readers. Here are some links you should look at to refute the opposition:

• [WP:N(E)]

• [WP:NOTRELIABLE]

• [WP:AGF]

Autokid15 (talk) 22:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you're familiar with the history of this contention on wiki, but it would be naive to assume that it has any basis in reasoning. From personal experience I've spend a considerable amount of effort arguing the meat of the matter only to have it cast aside for the underlying personal politics, which is the real issue here. For example, the same admin who KEEP worse entries at AfD for other sports (eg tennis, no references/sources) would on the same day rule against far better sourced MMA ones with similar arguments. These episodes tend to expose the shamefully political and irrational underbelly of wiki, and the main lesson here is to avoid wiki insiders if at all possible since the bureaucratic machinations have nothing to do with content. Agent00f (talk) 22:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agent, I closed the request for comment on your editing style because I didn't think there was sufficient consensus on what (if any) action should be taken against you. However in my closing remarks I did note that it was established that your lengthy talk page contributions were disruptive and that "I do judge that there is a consensus that Agent00f has a long way to go to become a net positive contributor here." I counselled people to hold off and wait to see what your talk page conduct was like. There was then a lull but early this month you started lengthy contributions to these two AfD discussions UFC1 155 and UFC 156.

In those discussions you have been intemperate, accused other editors of lying, of shameless behaviour, of being ignorant and exhibited many other examples of poor behaviour. Please stop. You've made your !vote at the AfDs and badgering subsequent opinions is not going to help your cause. I fully realise that you will not feel this warning to you is justified and that you have expressed only what is true and that you have not made any attacks. Nevertheless I judge that your present behaviour at those AfDs is disruptive and I'm letting you know that if it continues or emerges in other ares I will block you to prevent further disruption to the encyclopaedia. I will present any such block at

As a sample of the type of type of professional discussion I hope this will be, it's notable evidence of the last statement when reddit.com/r/mma, a 30k+ community (one of but many) almost unerringly upvotes to the subreddit front page concerns that one user can successfully undo the work of many content editors (and driving them off) with very little effort. Agent00f (talk) 21:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No the irrelevance to the topic started when you turned the discussion on to one about me personally and away from Flags at MMA articles if you disagree where the hat should go then please take it to

The relevance that your claim is unsupported (and rather refuted) by the pretentious links in the same comment is obvious enough and only personal because such a fact reflects quite badly. Similar for the plain fact that MtKing then chose to deliberate obscure the refutation. Agent00f (talk) 09:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert you latest

Mtking ^(edits) 09:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I changed your hatting boundary to be more appropriate (ie FIA comments per title). It rather appears you edit warred against this, and then tried to accuse others of what you were doing. Agent00f (talk) 09:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Testing Testing Testing

	The Special Barnstar
	P4P greatest defender of UFC event pages Sfour (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Seconded. Beansy (talk) 02:09, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Off-wiki canvassing (MMA). Thank you. Hasteur (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked you for an indef period of time for severe violations of user conduct document at ANI. If you wish to appeal this block, please see

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Agent00f (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

• First of all, I was never properly notified of the accusation. Note that the "notification" section above was created by Hasteur as a minor edit so no message was sent to me at all before the block.
• Second, perhaps it can be explained how exactly a Reddit AMA, which btw is an Q&A (ie answering questions), in any way constitutes canvasing. Anyone can read its contents which is just an accurate description/explanation of the situation, and answers concerns unaddressed in many prior threads for Reddit users. This only happened because Hasteur's own AMA on the subject left many issues still murky, and I was invited by the users and admins of the subreddit to clarify matters. It's pretty obvious this and or any other relevant background info were missing from the debate due to lack of proper notification.
• Third, to avoid unnecessary contention, this would be best addressed by an admin who's at least read [WP:CANVAS] or perhaps aware of what an AMA/Q&A is; because it's not clear that good judgement can be passed without some context. Thanks.

---

• Bbb223, the unblock request very much addresses the reason for the block in that it asks what the reason was since since the cited rule has nothing to do with the situation at hand. I hope you can understand this is a logical prerequisite to addressing any reason. Agent00f (talk) 03:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Bbb23 (talk) 03:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

--Bbb23 (talk) 03:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Agent00f (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I'd really appreciate it if someone can explain how such a block was even on the table given it's a reddit AMA/Q&A done via invite after someone else's AMA and had nothing to do with voting or anything mentioned in WP:Canvas. The rationale from the discussion appears to be WP:IDONTLIKEHIM is which isn't something I can fix. Agent00f (talk) 3:23 am, Today (UTC+0)

Decline reason:

You specifically requested other readers of your Reddit post to vist MMA-related AFDs and !vote in support of keeping them ("One place to focus efforts are the immediate AfD's (articles for deletion) themselves... If you do come across one (WP:NOT (specifically "not a newspaper") seems to be the main contention these days), you need to cite reasons from the linked wiki policies why it should be kept.") This is clear off-wiki canvassing (specifically, it's a form of both votestacking and stealth canvassing). Protesting otherwise is not going to get you unblocked. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Yunshui, it would help to read the entirety of answer to specific questions you choose to quote from. Ironically, the selective quote is just an re-iteration of wiki's own policy on article deletion ("cite reasons from the linked wiki policies why it should be kept"), which I noted to be ineffective (ie. "annoying/frustrating when the results seem largely arbitrary", interesting if anyone would consider this to promote said activity). Regardless, recall that sanction are predicated on harm, not punitive, so even if this amusing misinterpretation were the basis of the complaint, it still doesn't explain how this rather discouraging "canvasing" constitutes any damage to wiki: the question was asked and answered, and nothing came of it as intended. Agent00f (talk) 10:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the entirety of the thread. I see user:insickness asking if Reddit readers should pile on at MMA AFD discussions ("Would it help if more people from this subreddit became Wikipedia editors and joined the fight?") and you replying that they should (quote mentioned in unblock template above). The rest of your posts are basically complaints about the bueaurocracy you perceive exists at Wikipedia and the lack of MMA-sympathetic admins. Wikilawyering doesn't change that fact that at no point have you accepted that your actions contrevened Wikipedia's guidelines on user conduct, or posted a valid reason for being unblocked. I suggest you read

the guide to appealing blocks carefully before posting another template here, otherwise your next unblock request is liable to be your last. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I've already read GAB quite carefully and assuming you have, too, perhaps you can provide guidance how exactly I'm supposed to answer these questions:

• "Admit to it": I answered a specific question from someone of what could be done about deletions with wiki's own prescribed guidelines to subscribe to AfDs. I now understand any such thing is verboten regardless of the cautionary tale of its ineffectiveness.
• "Promise, credibly, that you will stop doing whatever got you blocked.": the contention is anything which can be seen as prescriptive should be avoided. In hindsight I complete agree it was a terrible idea to reiterate the general AfD process since folks might accidentally get the impression it works despite abundant presence of reasons why it doesn't.
• "Don't do it again": There's no confusion here of the evident negative consequences and negligible positive so I don't see why I would.
• Tell us why you are here: At this point it's an experiment to determine the value of straightforward transparent reasoning vs its bureaucratic counterpart to wiki's inner core. The preliminary evaluation was already provided and only awaits further validation. Agent00f (talk) 13:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention#Blocking_of_participants_in_this_wikiproject.3F. XOttawahitech (talk) 00:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]