Misplaced Pages

Interpersonal communication does not work when messages are left on individual users' talk pages rather than threaded, especially when a third party wishes to read or reply.

Being a "bear of very little brain", I get easily confused when trying to follow conversations that bounce back and forth, so I've decided to try the convention that many others seem to use, aggregation of messages on either your talk page or my talk page. If the conversation is about an article I will try to aggregate on the article's talk page.

• If the conversation is on your talk page or an article talk page, I will watch it.
• If the conversation is on my talk page or an article talk page and I think that you may not be watching it, I will link to it in a note on your talk page, or in the edit summary of an empty edit. But if you start a thread here, please watch it.

I may mess up, don't worry, I'll find it eventually. Ping me if you really need to.

please note this is a personal preference rather than a matter of site policy

Talk:Soccer in Australia#Pithy warning

User:HiLo48, you asked me to look at User:Macktheknifeau in light of the discussion we had here. I don't see any recent or actionable problematic editing from them, but I would encourage you to bring any future concerns here as opposed to article talk. Please show diffs when you do. Macktheknifeau, we are having an effort to sort out the problematic behaviour around Australian ball sports. It'd be great if you could join the effort, as I think HiLo48 has committed to do. Will you? --John (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

John, look here, especially the Edit summary. No discussion at all, of course. User:Macktheknifeau knows what the formal consensus is, but clearly doesn't like it.

Then look here from a couple of weeks later. Not even an Edit summary, let alone discussion.

These are but two examples of repeated similar behaviour. HiLo48 (talk) 23:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The two examples HiLo48 presented (and there are many more on various articles - thousands of articles) came after 6-7 months of the most agonising discussions on Talk:Soccer in Australia. I don't want to make out HiLo48 as a punching bag, but I would certainly not be the only one to think he has created a situation where ("anti-soccer") editors are pushed against brick walls.

I am not condoning Macktheknifeau's actions, but there is really nothing wrong/should be nothing wrong with those changes. John, I am asking for discussion and for change.--2nyte (talk) 02:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, there is something fundamentally wrong, in that they breach consensus, but I guess your point is that you believe the consensus is wrong. I don't think I created that situation. You are describing a disagreement with consensus as feeling like being "pushed against brick walls". There are some areas on Misplaced Pages where I think consensus is wrong too. I feel frustrated by it, so I know how you feel. In those areas I just try to present the soundest and most complete cases I can. Doesn't always work though. In that area of "most complete case", what is always missing in the anti-"soccer" argument is a thorough explanation of what's wrong with the name "soccer" in Australia. That explanation has to cope with the reality that a huge number of Australians, including many fans and players, still very comfortably use the name "soccer" for the game.

I apologise to John for bringing that part of the debate here, and he can delete it if he wants, but I'm trying to home in on just the key issues here. HiLo48 (talk) 04:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Consensus is consensus, and I accept the decision. Though the only consensus reached was for the title of Soccer in Australia (with the agreement that Football in Australia is ambiguous for that title). Since then, I have attempted to engage in a larger discussion regarding the use of "soccer" in all Australian wiki content - I feel that discussion is still needed.

Now again, I don't want to vilify HiLo48, but I do feel he has targeted users (I being one of them) and this topic in general. Further, I believe HiLo48 should not be associated with the decisions regarding this topic. I know these are strong claims, but I will follow them through, though I do not know the procedure to do so. I accept opposition to debate (it adds legitimacy), but I believe HiLo48 has shown great bias, even hatred toward the topic.--2nyte (talk) 05:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear. HiLo48 (talk) 05:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Umm, I would not have thought that an admin's talk page was the smartest place to launch a personal attack on another editor. - Nick Thorne 06:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know wiki policy that well, but I'm basically asking for assistance. Assistance in discussing the Soccer in Australia issue and in discussing HiLo48. I wouldn't know "the smartest place to launch a personal attack on another editor", if there is even one. Here we are discussing Macktheknifeau's edits and I thing what I've brought up is related to the issue. As a key wiki contributor to the round ball game in Australia I want the two topics i brought up discussed and resolved, but I need assistance to do so.--2nyte (talk) 06:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• I appreciate the discussion. Those two edits are indeed worrying if they were to continue, but the last one was from over a week ago. I will ask them not to do it again. Would it help to clarify whether that RfC on the title of Soccer in Australia should be used as a rationale for changing the language in multiple other articles? 2nyte, the same standards apply to you as to the other editors I have invited here. If you feel another editor is currently behaving badly, bring a diff here that I can do something about. Otherwise, it would be best to leave these feelings (which I accept are strong) behind as we move forwards in bringing peace to this area. Can you work with me on that? --John (talk) 07:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

John, I am 100% certain that the intention of the RfC conclusion was that "soccer" would apply to all articles for the sport within Australia, but not to articles such as Australia national association football team, which obviously refers to a team playing internationally. I'm certain it was documented somewhere, but I don't know where. It was also agreed that we wouldn't go changing all articles immediately, but that we would do it as the need arose. I have only intervened where there was argument, or obvious and blatant changes TO "football". Unfortunately, there have been many.

I also note that in response to my effort to distil the problem above, a major point (What's wrong with "soccer") was completely ignored, and I was described as having "hatred toward the topic". Can you see the difficulty of having rational, constructive discussion here? HiLo48 (talk) 07:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I can, which is why I don't think that currently the low benefit and high risk that I talked to you about last night make this a worthwhile area to fruitfully discuss. I would be in favour of having a break from arguing about titles and terminology in Australian football/soccer until August 2015. By that time tempers may have cooled and it could be worth talking again about this. What do you think of this idea? --John (talk) 09:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Can't see it working. Of the regular players there, you only have me and 2nyte participating here, and while I see that his intentions are mostly good, we two are hardly on the same wavelength. I'm happy with current consensus, He's not. And he's obviously not happy with me. Then there'e the editors not here. Some are known by name, and will probably reappear soon. And there's always the occasional IP editor and some less frequent others. I cannot see a mechanism that would work. Given that all I have been doing is defending a well established consensus, and breaking no rules, I think I have a right to continue doing at least that. HiLo48 (talk) 10:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for being honest with me. If we can't do it informally, the next step is to go back to AN/I and get some topic bans handed out, or else enforce the truce idea. If this is not dealt with I think the alternative would be Arbcom, which I am keen to avoid if possible. I do think it is worth a try to see if we can solve it short of a formal process. --John (talk) 11:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48, the only thing defending a "well established consensus" is the move-protection on Soccer in Australia. What you have been doing is defending your own interpreted of the current consensus.--2nyte (talk) 11:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• My own stance would be that if we see continuing strife in this area, we would need to hand out topic bans and/or short blocks. Please, please refrain from commenting on the motivations of others. If we can keep this solution-focused we can all get on with more interesting and rewarding activities. I want to see a compromise that all can live with. I am sick of seeing this dispute come round every few weeks on AN/I like a bad soap opera. I understand the underlying issues, and the nuances of linguistic and nationalistic pride that may cloud some people's judgement in an area like this. My gold medal is if in a month from now we have peace, no-one has been blocked or restricted, and AN/I can get on with its other important business. Will you help me? I am also pinging User:Tariqabjotu who closed the discussion in case he wants to comment. --John (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC) And let me also ping User:Drmies who commented above. Drmies, what do you think of this idea? Will you help? --John (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Next step; clarification

Ok, in that case can I suggest that you all describe what you think the consensus at Talk:Soccer in Australia/Archive 3 tells us. Please fill in your section below. For now, please restrict yourselves to stating your own opinion in your own section about the article titles and content, and how this is justified by the consensus. Comments about the opinions and supposed motivations of other editors will be removed. There will be a chance for threaded discussion after this. This phase will run for one week, until 7 March. Thanks for taking part.--John (talk) 21:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

It would appear that at least two editors have not been able to read the above, or do not see the need to collaborate and so disregard the request. Moreover, are the comments really giving an opinion on "the consensus at Talk:Soccer in Australia/Archive 3"? I suppose blocking each of the named editors until August 2015 would be regarded as a little extreme, but if someone were to propose that I would give it serious consideration. @John: When you get a chance, please try the result shown at talk convert. Johnuniq (talk) 05:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I've given Macktheknifeau a short block for flagrantly ignoring my repeated injunctions not to make personal comments on others. I now have some questions for you all. Macktheknifeau can answer when his block expires. --John (talk) 12:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Questions

1. Given the close of the RfC (The result of the move request was: no move. There is ample evidence, anecdotal and otherwise, that football is ambiguous in Australia. While the term may be increasingly popular for referring to this particular sport, it has not been demonstrated that soccer is unrecognizable to a degree that would warrant usurping the Football in Australia article.), how do you see the next step forward in this process? This could involve another RfC to clarify the first; as Macktheknifeau says, even if admins believe consensus is 'correct' for the "Soccer in Australia" article, in my opinion that consensus has zero impact or relevance to articles specifically and exclusively about football teams, players and groups such as Western Sydney Wanderers FC, and maybe this is a reasonable question; should the result of the naming RfC really be extrapolated onto other articles? I have previously proposed a moratorium on further naming discussions, but I would be ok with such a clarification. --John (talk) 12:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
2. If you agree with me that a RfC to clarify the implications of the first is desirable, what should the question be? What simple, neutrally-worded question(s) would best sort this out? --John (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

User:HiLo48

"Soccer" is the only non-ambiguous, universally understood name for the game in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Answer to Q1

Even if it's true that the Western Sydney Wanderers FC is exclusively called a football club in their geographic home (a claim I doubt), they are not isolated in a private bubble in the western suburbs of Sydney. They play in a national league against teams located where the game is almost exclusively called "soccer", even by its fans and players. There's a good reason for this naming practice. Where those other teams are located, "football" is not ambiguous. It means only Australian football, and has for over 160 years. It certainly doesn't mean the round ball game. So if we called Western Sydney Wanderers FC a "football" club, we would have to describe matches between two teams where one played football and the other played soccer. That WOULD be silly. More than half the Australian population call the game "soccer". This includes almost everyone on the Aussie Rules side of the Barassi Line, plus all the fans of the two rugby codes and a lot of other people on the other side of that line. "Football" is ambiguous in Australia. The Western Sydney Wanderers FC play in an Australian national league, that even chooses to avoid mentioning the sport in its name. (Ever wondered why?) This league also includes a team from New Zealand, where the game is also called "soccer". If the Western Sydney Wanderers FC never played against anyone else, Macktheknifeau might have a point. (He would need to prove it.) But that's not the case. HiLo48 (talk) 16:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Answer to Q2

We've had three RfCs. There is no point to having another. An insufficient number of RfCs is not the problem. HiLo48 (talk) 11:05, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

User:2nyte

First a few points:

1. The usage of "football" by other football codes is largely irrelevant.

2. The term "association football" appear in the Australian-English Macquarie Dictionary, on Misplaced Pages as the main neutral term for the sport and most notably in FIFA's name (Fédération Internationale de Football Association).

3. Association football is referred to as either "football" or "soccer" in Australia.

Now, pre-10 years ago (pre-2004), the term "soccer" was unequivocally the name, and only name, for for the sport in Australia (much like in the US) - local/national media referred to the sport as "soccer", state/national governing bodies for the sport used "Soccer" (e.g. Soccer Australia), and clubs were referred to as "Soccer Club" (e.g. Perth Glory SC). Since that time and since the sport own renaming the usage of "soccer" has lessened, subsequently replaced by the usage of "football" - local/national media referred to the sport as "football" (with exceptions), all governing bodies for the sport were renamed to "Football", and hundreds of clubs were renamed to "Football Club". This change has only increased in the past 2 years, with both "football" and "soccer" now common names for the sport.

The decision at Talk:Soccer in Australia/Archive 3 resulted after pitting "football" and "soccer" against each other, with "soccer" chosen as the title name for the sport in Australia due to the use of "football" in reference to other football codes, making it ambiguous as an article title for a sport in Australia. My opinion is that even though "football" is ambiguous (at least for an article title) it is the more appropriate term for the sport in general usage considering the current circumstance the sport is experiencing - it is hard to argue against that when the first point I made above is considered. Now you could use the unambiguous term (soccer) in the title and the more appropriate term (football) in the content, but my opinion is to use the unambiguous third term available to us (association football) - reasons for in my second point above and again considering the current circumstance the sport is experiencing.

So to summaries my view, I think for the sake of neutrality, and to expressing the very real change in which the sport is experiencing, the term "association football" should be used in all article titles relating to the sport and in content that relates to more than one football code, and the term "football" should be used in content that only relates to the sport (with a hyperlink to association football in the opening line).--2nyte (talk) 04:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Answer to Q1

I think this is about context and common sense - this aligns with my summary above. That is, if an article is in context, if there is no ambiguity present, such as on Western Sydney Wanderers FC or Football Federation Australia, then the article may use the term "football" throughout to refer to the sport (with a hyperlink to association football in the opening). On the other hand, the use of "football" to refer to the sport would not be in context on the article Football in Australia or Sport in Australia, so "association football" should be used instead throughout - this would also apply to article titles (e.g. Association football in Australia or Australian association football league system).--2nyte (talk) 13:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

To answer the question specifically: Should the result of the naming RfC really be extrapolated onto other articles? Yes, if specified. Additionally, maybe some form of naming conventions should be considered - drawing attention to Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (Football in Australia).--2nyte (talk) 13:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Answer to Q2

The problem (if you would call it that) is that this extends far beyond a simple, neutrally-worded question(s) that can sort this out. As I mentioned above, if we were to simply pit "football" and "soccer" against each other (even throw in "association football"), the consensus would again be in favor of "soccer". I say that because the process of thought usually goes in the vein of: football is ambiguous therefor soccer is the better alternative. But again, I bring up a point I made above, that is, if you disregard the ambiguity of "football" then "football"/"association football" becomes the better choice. So we have to ask ourselves why that is? Well, that is due to the shift from "soccer" to "football" by media and by the sport itself, and the subsequently dropping of "soccer" in recent time.

So to summaries, the best question(s) to ask would be much like in the case of global warming. Before you ask "What should we do about global warming?", you must first ask "Do you believe the global warming change is happening, and to what extent?" - I believe this would be very telling as those who believe in change to a large extent want to do something about it, where as those who don't believe in change (or believe in it to a lesser extent) don't want to do anything about it.--2nyte (talk) 02:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Macktheknifeau

Australian Rules Football, Rugby League & Rugby Union are the official names of those sports, so it should be perfectly acceptable for those sports to remain their official names and also have Football to use it's rightful & official name in this country (and across the planet). The sport is now called football across Australia, barring a handful of pro-AFL (with many having a direct financial connection to the AFL) media outlets in Melbourne. This was proven at the last name discussion.

It has nothing to do with 'monopolising' a name, because there is no name to monopolise, merely Football articles that are forced to use an unofficial name.

All the other sports have their own official names, and those are specifically not football and thus they should all be named by those official names here. Despite that, they bring up WP:COMMONNAME to support this ludicrous situation where three sports use their official name across the wiki, while simultaneously denying the use of the official name for the fourth because they don't like the sport itself, while also simultaneously denying that WP:COMMONNAME should mean that "Australian Rules" or "Australian Rules Football" should be renamed to "AFL" (a non-official name) across the Wiki because the majority of Australia calls their sport AFL. Ridiculous.

The sport is called Australia. Football in Australia is run by Football Federation Australia. It is run in each state by a state "Football Federation". Australia is part of the Asian Football Confederation & the ASEAN Football Federation as well as having recently been invited to play in the East Asian Football Federation cup. It is a member of the peak body Fédération Internationale de Football Association aka International Federation of Association Football. Football is the name of the sport.

As for the specifics, even if admins believe consensus is 'correct' for the "Soccer in Australia" article, in my opinion that consensus has zero impact or relevance to articles specifically and exclusively about football teams, players and groups such as Western Sydney Wanderers FC.

Macktheknifeau (talk) 02:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Answer to Q1

Answer to Q2

User:The-Pope

We have some people in the Australian community (both on and of wiki) who only call the round ball game football (or maybe association football) and get offended/upset/angry by the word soccer due to previous negative connotations of the word. Others use the word football exclusively for another code, most commonly Australian rules football, and only use soccer (without any intended offence) for the round ball game. Then you have another group who are happy to use either term, depending on context or to avoid any possible ambiguity. What proportion of the population is in each group depends on location, age, era, ethnicity/cultural background, etc. So there is no single consensus. I'm for soccer if it avoids confusion of codes (such as a in a multi-sport stadium article or a suburb article), but using football is ok if a dedicated article (such as a team or player article), all with a piped link to association football (a term which is rarely used and can also be ambiguous in parts Australia with Australian rules football games played in competitions named Associations such as the Victorian Football Association). Extrapolating the no move decision in that RM about a single parent article to apply to every mention of the sport is invalid, in my opinion. Achieving a true consensus is near impossible because we aren't a homogenous society. The-Pope (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The official name of the sport known here as Australian rules football is actually Australian Football, but we accept that that is very ambiguous.the common name in half the country is simply football, in the other it had recently become AFL. The-Pope (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Answer to Q1 Answered above, especially the but in bold text.The-Pope (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Answer to Q2

User:Orestes1984

Despite my enforced absence this falls within the bounds of "existing disputant" moreover I wouldn't want to see my absence let this turn into another lopsided debate. so for the period of this discussion, I'm placing myself within the status of an active editor purely within the realms of this discussion and nowhere else.

My belief is straightforward as I have tried to discuss with other editors, loosely no one in particular here, is that the sport has demonstrably changed as evidenced by the official name change of the governing orginisation that administrates the sport in Australia. The reasons for these changes are many including the removal of cultural biases that continue to exist, I have attempted to discuss some of these issues and the fact these changes have been addressed both on national TV through Australia's national broadcaster SBS, and press releases from the FFA which can all be sourced by reading through the history of the FFA in the relating article here on Misplaced Pages and also elsewhere. The sordid past of the NSL and Soccer Australia can also be found in the article pertaining to the FFA and its history. There are significant cultural and historical issues pertaining to the name "soccer" that are being completely ignored and there is strong cultural and historical context that is lacking that I have also attempted to address.

The issue here is two fold, but fairly simple, in that the word soccer pertains to a historical and cultural context and to a period of denigration that makes it inappropriate for an article title on Misplaced Pages and moreover from a historical context the governing body of the sport has made a conscious effort to move away from such contexts and move in a direction where the sport can "grow up." "Soccer" is non-reflective of the current situation with the name of the sport and it's not exactly an adornment that is well taken to by anyone with more than a passing interest in the sport who knows all of of the problems involved with the word "soccer" in Australia.

This whole issue was a soap opera that played out on SBS on The World Game Australia between Soccer Australia, and elsewhere within the media, it really should be a matter that is resolved that sport is football and not soccer... Of course we can't have Football due to the issue with conflicting sports. I simply request in this case that the 2007 consensus on the talk page of Association Football that the sport should be referred to as Association Football be respected by all parties involved and that any meddling parties with other intents extricate themselves from this debate immediately. --Orestes1984 (talk) 01:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Answer to Q1

I believe the last move discussion was whether or not we should move the article to football in Australia. Clearly the term football is one which is ambiguous, this is where I can agree with other editors here and elsewhere. Football can be used to refer to soccer, rugby league, rugby union, or AFL. I support the current article page of football in Australia it is representative of the current global page on football where more than one sport is referred to as football. I don't support arguments based on COMMONNAME however. If we go by common name then we run into all sorts of issues, where the majority of Australia calls Australian rules football AFL and the majority of people in Queensland, New South Wales and the ACT refer to rugby league or rugby union as football, or footy. If we go by COMMONNAME then it argues to reason that the only article that should be referred to in terms of actual current viewership figures as football is rugby league and in terms of Common name usage all AFL articles should be moved to AFL.

Furthermore IF common name is to decide this we should have a lottery every year based on the outcomes of audience viewership, or something equally as ridiculous, to decide whether the article page for Australian rules football or rugby league should be the page which is referred to as football for that year. COMMONNAME Just doesn't any make sense here.

Football is the accepted term for the sport largely by its fans and followers, while some outsiders with a general interest in the sport call it soccer, the league that is played in is known as the A-League, but to address the red herring being thrown here that is because it stands for the Australian League, as is the case in Japan which has the J-League which stands for the Japanese League, and the K-League, which stands for the Korean League. This is to fit into the Asian Football Confederation and their naming titles and nothing else. It was determined by the Football Federation of Australia that the league structure in Australia would loosely follow that of its other Asian football counterparts when the FFA took over and joined the AFC.

Association Football IS commonly understood by anyone with a passing interest in the game, please note Sunderland A.F.C, Bradford City A.F.C, Leeds United A.F.C, Hull City A.F.C, Oldham Athletic A.F.C, AFC Darwen, A.C. Milan (Associazione Calcio Milan) - Association Football Milan (English translation) etc... Any claim that Association Football is not understood or widely used is nothing more than a red herring.

This really is simply a case where the 2007 consensus on association football comes in as a common name exception. This argument follows almost directly the same path as the previous discussion in 2007 which can be found on Talk:Association football. Association Football is an understood term, it is used in the dictionary and it is an accepted compromise where the sport cannot be called by its official name, it is understood and it is part of the name of the international governing body for the organisation Fédération Internationale de Football Association. In common english translation International Federation of Association Football, there is no ambiguity in what type of football it is... It is association football... just like the Australian rules prefix refers to the type of football played in the other part of Australia. Association football is a perfectly fine COMMONNAME#EXCEPTION as it was decided to be the case way back in 2007. It's simple and straight forward and easy to understand, we have Australian Football, Rugby Football, Rugby Football League and Association Football and these are their respective official titles... Official names make sense here not common names. --Orestes1984 (talk) 04:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Answer to Q2

Given that it is clear that no articles on[REDACTED] can be referred to football due to ambiguity should the official term association football be used or should the term soccer be used? --Orestes1984 (talk) 04:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Other editors

User:Nick Thorne

I became aware of this dispute through its spill over into AN/I. For my part I have lived in Melbourne, Sydney, Canberra and the New South Wales South Coast. I have family in Melbourne, Sydney and the South Coast as well as elsewhere in Australia. I visit Sydney and the South Coast reasonably often and am in touch with many people across the country more or less all the time. In my experience what is meant by the word football depends on where you are and who you're talking to. In Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania, football almost universally means Aussie Rules. In NSW, the ACT and Queensland it usually means Rugby League, but sometimes it means Rugby Union or Soccer. Claims that soccer is the most popular sport on this country made by at least one editor here on the Soccer in Australia page are simply ludicrous. If talking about organised spectator sport that title would probably belong to cricket

In contrast, the word soccer is universally understood and unambiguous here. Other countries where football usually or even always means soccer don't generally have alternative varieties of the sport and so their usage is irrelevant to the Australian experience.

I will hold off responding to some of the points made above until the appropriate time as determined by User:John, however I will say this: the arguments need to much stronger than those presented so far (in support of using something other than soccer) to carry the day, in my opinion. This does not mean that they need to be expounded on in enormous length as seems to be the tendency by some here, in fact I would suggest that approach is likely to be counter productive. In the mean time I am keeping my powder dry.

Answer to Q1

After reading the August rfc my understanding of the existing consensus is that soccer should be used because of its use as the common name in this country. to limit that usage to only the Soccer in Australia article seems perverse to me. On any article where the term might be ambiguous we should use soccer. In cases where it is not reasonably ambiguous we should still use something like football (soccer) the first time we use the term football.

Answer to Q2

"What terminology should be used to describe the sport variously known as football, soccer or Association football, within the Australian context on Misplaced Pages?"

Nick Thorne 23:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

NE Ent

The way forward is for the folks who held the minority position in last August's RFC to drop the stick and accept the decision for now. I'm not a fan of "can't be discussed again until" decrees, but whoever wishes to resume the discussion should be coming with lots of reliable sources indicating Aussie usage has changed significantly. NE Ent 22:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Personal attack

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Look here.

That's obviously a direct personal attack on me. Given that this editor was already blocked for similar personal attacks when he wrote that post, this simply cannot be ignored. HiLo48 (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it can. We traditionally give blocked editors leeway to vent at their talk page. If he does this again after his block expires I will block again, for longer and longer until he either stops doing it or gets blocked indef. Either way we solve the problem. --John (talk) 19:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

So right now, you're happy to leave an attack on me (and many others) sitting there unchallenged? I don't understand. HiLo48 (talk) 20:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

It's sitting on the talk page of a blocked editor. When you were blocked, didn't you ever lash out in anger? If you didn't, good for you. I am serious, it is time to stop looking for reasons to take offence and complain about unequal treatment. This is what equal treatment looks like; I am truly indifferent as to the naming used in these articles, but I have an interest in helping you guys to sort out your dispute. Let me do it; trust me as I trust you to act in the best interests of the project. Macktheknifeau is blocked; stop looking at his talk page. I will do that for you. I am watching all the players and if you see more incivility that you think I have missed please ping me again. I decline to take further action against Macktheknifeau at this time. Let's stay positive; I bet that on 1 April we are not still having these arguments. Wouldn't that be worth it? --John (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Why not now? The problems are not new. The repeated insults from blocked and recently blocked editors are not new. The dishonesty is not new. By restricting conversation right now you are allowing untrue statements to stand as facts on your Talk page. It might all be new to you, but it's not to me. This process is not pleasant. And it has all been said before, for years. It should be obvious to anyone who can be bothered researching this a bit for themselves where the problems lie here. How are you going to sift the truth from the lies anyway? Do it now, please. HiLo48 (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I can't enact a consensus where the meaning and implications of the previous consensus are being reasonably challenged, which, once you strip out all the anger, is what's happening. Once we finish the process everyone will know what's what and there will be no more conflict. If you help me, I am confident we can get there by 1 April. I'm sorry you're finding it stressful, but it really can't be rushed. It's been festering for years, so what's a month now? --John (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm truly curious. You have conflicting claims of fact. How do you intend to determine what is true? HiLo48 (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I think I can write a decent RfC to clarify the previous one. That's what I am doing above, and you are all helping me with. A good RfC has a clear and neutrally-worded question; what do you think the question should be? I'll launch the RfC on Friday, unless it's possible to get there earlier. --John (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

HiLo, stop playing the man and play the ball here John is going out of the way here to offer a civilised forum where we can discuss what is the issue here and avoid more unnecessary nonsense. I would advise for the sake of your own sanity after many years of going round in circles with different editors that you respect the olive branch that is being offered here for a mediated discussion before this gets to ARBCOM and it winds up with a result that no one is happy with. You have your chance to actually flesh out what is a well thought out answer here and not just a single sentence. It is not beyond you to think a bit more rationally. --Orestes1984 (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for telling the world that you don't believe I think rationally enough. I cannot comprehend how John can allow such nonsense, especially from someone who has just come off a block. John, please stop this. Now. I cannot have a civilised conversation with a person who says I have to think more rationally. I'm pretty sure you gave Orestes a "final warning" yesterday. And now he declares that I need to think a bit more rationally. I already think very poorly of a lot of Admins here. If you don't do anything about that, you will have lost my respect completely too. HiLo48 (talk) 07:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

This is taking "personal attacks" a bridge too far when there was no intention of one, you know and everyone else knows what I meant. You've spent many hours supporting your position. I was stating that you should use this opportunity wisely and not get wound up by other editors here. You can choose to interpret that with ill will but it's not me that is offering any malice here. Moreover my comments that were removed were broad enough that it requires anyone to selectively interpret what I was saying in order to come to any conclusion it was about them in particular. I do not want to pick fights here so I'd suggest we both leave it at that. --Orestes1984 (talk) 09:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

John issued you a FINAL warning. Then you said I need to think a bit more rationally. HiLo48 (talk) 10:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I was writing that post as John was closing the thread, so I was unaware of his action. I want my post to stay. I feel I am being let down appallingly by administrator behaviour here. John, I am not fighting. It must be someone else. And precisely what IS a FINAL warning? HiLo48 (talk) 11:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Juggalos (gang)

You locked the article because a single editor was fighting everyone over his personal interpretation of BLP. His contention was that the article was labeling the 2 men as killers but that they hadn't been tried. Well, they have been. In 2011, both were found guilty of first degree murder and sentenced to life without parole. The BLP issue he perceived is now moot. The article should be unlocked so the info can be correctly restored (and updated). Could you take care of that? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The clear and unequivocal violation of WP:BLP policy by Niteshift36 is not 'moot'. I suggest that you read the thread on WP:ANI, where Niteshift36 makes clear that he either doesn't understand policy, or thinks it doesn't apply to him. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• This request is about unlocking the article. Don't litter it with your attempts to save face. You removed the material because you claimed it was a BLP issue. We now know they were convicted and sentenced 3 years ago. The BLP concern is now void. If you want to piss and moan about what you think the policy says, then go back to ANI and stop clouding this discussion. I'm talking about the article going forward. You're still stuck in the past. Get over it. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Irrespective of the merits of this content dispute I have blocked Niteshift36 for the leg-humping comment at AN/I. For the article to be unprotected I would need to see evidence that there is an agreement among the disputants about what it should say. Is there? --John (talk) 10:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

There is a lot more to this dispute than a single paragraph regarding the murder of Michael Goucher. The fundamental problem is that the article was created by User:AnnerTown (original subject of the ANI thread), who clearly doesn't understand Misplaced Pages policy on original research, synthesis, proper sourcing, and above all WP:BLP regarding such basic issues as the presumption of innocence. This in an article describing murders and other serious criminal offences allegedly carried out by 'Juggalos' - fans of the Insane Clown Posse, some of whom are alleged to be members of organised gangs. My initial run-in with Niteshift36 was over the still unresolved issue of much of the article being cited to material supposedly derived from law enforcement agencies, but in practice being unverifiable documents anonymously hosted on filehosting websites. Niteshift36 has claimed that the documents are genuine, and published, but has repeatedly failed to provide proper publication details (see Talk:Juggalos (gang) for the latest non-appearance of the supposed citation details). I forget how exactly I got involved, but it has always been my position that an article on such a serious topic ought to be properly sourced, and compliant with Misplaced Pages policy. That is all that I've asked. I've got no particular interest in 'Juggalos', gang members or otherwise, and if I've ever heard the Insane Clown Posse's music I've no recollection of it. Were it not for the fact that WP:BLP policy has been flagrantly disregarded in the article, I'd never have got involved in the first place. The article needs serious attention from someone prepared to deal with the sourcing issues properly, and treat the subject with the attention it deserves, with due regard to neutrality, and avoiding the sensationalist trawling of the web for every mention of alleged criminality involving supposed 'Juggalos' - not least because there is (or was, last I heard) an ongoing legal case between representatives of the 'Posse' and the FBI over the portrayal of innocent music fans as criminals. It seems clear that there are organised gangs calling themselves 'Juggalos', and that such gangs have engaged in serious criminality, but that doesn't justify the indiscriminate Google-mining, synthesis and misrepresentation of sources which has gone on to construct the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey John

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How is this edit, not completely uncivil? I really don't want to go around in circles with this and I think as I said above we should remain on topic but part of that is keeping things civil here, looking at things logically and desisting from comments that could be interpreted purely as being hostile towards one side of the argument here--Orestes1984 (talk) 11:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Part of getting along here is learning when to ignore people who are saying things you don't like. I wish you and HiLo48 could do that more. Please, let's focus on the solution, not look for reasons to fight. --John (talk) 11:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The bickering is the problem

You gave a FINAL warning. It was breached. Providing no follow-up guarantees that the bickering will continue. How can I have faith in a process where YOUR words don't mean what they say? HiLo48 (talk) 20:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

You need to trust me here. I am not going to block for that. I am sorry if you don't like that. See the section just above; bickering, once established, is a hard habit to break. Try to ignore minor incivility. --John (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Why should I trust you? I WAS putting my faith in you to sort this out. You gave a FINAL warning. You won't follow up. Again, why should I trust you? What on earth does FINAL mean? HiLo48 (talk) 21:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I have been showing good faith here. What have I got in return? More insults and weak administration? Do try to put yourself in my position. I have not breached any rules or instructions. I have got nothing in return. I have lost faith in this process. It's becoming much harder to be constructive. Did you note the brevity of my most recent response above? You are not supporting me. Do you think I can be bothered trying harder? HiLo48 (talk) 21:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry you are upset. It is up to you if you want to withdraw from the process. If you see more insults, please ping me. --John (talk) 21:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

If you're still watching though, what were the three RfCs you mentioned above? --John (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

This type of behaviour is exactly why so many editors have ongoing problems with HiLo48... I have been stating this for long enough, and if HiLo is going to complain about my 2 blocks in the last 8 years vs. his countless LONG infractions because he simply will not listen to the directive of administrators around here, he's going to wind up blocked again. This is exactly the type of behaviour that leads me consistently to being fed up with this editor and this place... I'm sick of acting passively while we have a 300lb gorilla in the room John... Even when I do act passively I get put in a position where I am charged with falsely offensive behaviour... This has gone on for more than long enough... --Orestes1984 (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)