|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | The support there with HiLo was much appreciated and hopefully taken in good spirit. I was always told to count to 10 before replying, but it doesn't actually work, if anything it just gave me time to think of something worse to say. Thanks again '''[[User:Jenova20|ツ <span style="color:red;font-family:comic sans ms">Je<font color="gold">no</font><font color="blue">va</font></span>]]<font color="purple">[[User_talk:Jenova20|20]]</font> <sup>([[Special:EmailUser/Jenova20|email]])</sup>''' 11:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | The support there with HiLo was much appreciated and hopefully taken in good spirit. I was always told to count to 10 before replying, but it doesn't actually work, if anything it just gave me time to think of something worse to say. Thanks again '''[[User:Jenova20|ツ <span style="color:red;font-family:comic sans ms">Je<font color="gold">no</font><font color="blue">va</font></span>]]<font color="purple">[[User_talk:Jenova20|20]]</font> <sup>([[Special:EmailUser/Jenova20|email]])</sup>''' 11:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
|}
|}
== FIY ==
Just to be on the safe side: Here's my last contrib to the discussion! [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Psychoanalysis&curid=195261&diff=525683759&oldid=525679883] Please add a NPOV-Box while the discussion is ongoing. --[[User:Widescreen|<span style="color:#00008B">WSC</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Widescreen| <span style="color:#FF3030"> ® </span> ]]</sup> 11:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Talk archives can be seen here
You can email me from this link but in the interests of Wiki-transparency, please message me on this page unless there are pressing reasons to do otherwise.
Blocks
Hello, Kim Dent-Brown. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
This has gone byond being a topic for my talk page. Please take any further discussion to a wider forum.Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 14:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
What's the procedure to re-open this ? Mtking (edits) 05:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the procedure would be to open a new RfC in the same way as the last one (with appropriate diffs etc for new material) and with a clear link to the old RfC embedded in it. For what it's worth, I have warned Agent 00f] that I consider the editing style being used at the AfDs is disruptive. I won't hesitate to block if the disruption continues and will ask WP:AN/I to review any block I do make. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 13:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: It should be noted that they've still been primarily editing the non-article spaces, which was latched onto as a primary and significant cause of concern in regard to the "building an encyclopedia" discussion. Hasteur (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since I left the warning I linked to above, Agent00f has only made 5 more edits and while none of these were to article space, none of them were remotely tendentious or disruptive. If Agent00f goes on and on asking why the page/s were deleted after receiving full and detailed answers that would be another thing. If he (I'm guessing it's a he) starts accusing others of lying or bad faith that would also be an issue. But thus far I don;t think anything egregious has happened and I prefer to think least said, soonest mended. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 21:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like he did just that, and continues his talk page behavior.Mtking (edits) 00:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's discuss what happened. MtKing linked a couple long FIA docs (which more or less directly refute his own claims) in a seeming attempt to intimidate another editor, ie assuming they wouldn't bother to look into the details. This is not in dispute. My choices here are to keep refuting these rather disingenuous statements (given this is hardly new behavior) which seems unreasonable given the low cost of repeating them. Or I can ask for the editor to stop this behavior, which seems rather more fair. Perhaps I can be convinced to keep doing the former, but on the surface at least it appears the latter is the more appropriate approach. Agent00f (talk) 09:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, I was informed that Hasteur decided to do an unofficial quasi-AMA on reddit, perhaps based on the reference to /r/mma in the brief chat with Kim on my talk page. The link to it on /r/mma itself apparently stayed front page there for quite a while. Though I didn't bother to comment, the reddit mods have contacted me for possible AMA of my own. So depending on how things shake out, we can be internet 15min famous. Also noteworthy is that the replies' prose seems rather opposite of the stereotype of "MMA fanboys" some have tried to construct. Agent00f (talk) 10:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How is my trying to extend an olive branch valid to this discussion? Please feel free to reconsider your deliberately disruptive post above and do the right thing by striking the entire post. Hasteur (talk) 11:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I felt it was worth the heads up since it's born of a previous chat involving the talk page owner; it's not really an invitation for other parties to elaborate esp if they're already aware of its existence. Agent00f (talk) 13:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Folks, this extending thread is not really what my talk page is for. Please take this discussion elsewhere or (ideally) just stop having the discussion and use the established Wikipedia processes to resolve your differences. As an administrator, I have no view on what level of detail is appropriate for MMA articles or what constitutes a reliable source. But I DO have a view on disruptive behaviour and its effect on Wikipedia. Disagreeing with someone is not disruptive. Ad hominem attacks, incivility and repeated failure to AGF are all disruptive. I'm happy to receive requests to judge whether or not disruption is occurring, but I can't decide the editorial question of what level of detail is appropriate so don't ask me. If this thread lengthens much more I'll hat it. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 12:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do have a quite serious question about what you consider behavior "disruptive" to wiki. For example on the face of it it seems that abusing a rather asymetric AfD process very much disrupts wiki content. Namely, if AfDs were systematically filled one by one against a large cohesive set of articles, it's at the very least an effective waste of other editors' time and even more disruptive should any of them succeed. From the start I naively assume it's the role of administrative staff to use their better judgement to close any such abusive loopholes in the system, rather than focus attention on those seeking to end this massive disruption to a topic, but the former never happened. This is a very real concern to me, and I'd definitely appreciate your perspective.
I'm also skeptical that pointing out bad behavior (and I consider dishonesty bad behavior) much like you do at times constitutes a de jure or even de facto violation of anything. As I understand it, policy asks us to assume good faith when evidence is lacking, and this is most assuredly sound policy. However, when assumption is unnecessary in clear view of history and facts, it seems rather disingenuous to keep assuming something which is false. Again, this greatly puzzles someone from my background, so any explanation to clear up this confusion would be excellent. Agent00f (talk) 13:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't really a topic for my talk page. If it's a discussion worth having it needs to be somewhere more visible so I'm closing this after my reply here. My rule of thumb is that the kind of behaviour I want to see more of is a collaborative, give-and-take, mutual respect kind of thing. I regard behaviour that's confrontational, my-way-or-the-highway and attacking or aggressive to be at best unproductive and at worst disruptive. At its very worst, it may merit a block to stop the disruption at source. In your case I think you sometimes stray towards the edge of what's tolerable - eg accusing other people of being shameless liars is just not on. Even if you firmly believe this to be true other people may not put the same construction on the same set of facts. You spend almost all your time on talk page arguments and my advice would be to spend more time improving the articles you wish to defend so that there is no reason to delete them. Please note that I would have the same critical things to say of those opposing you in this debate, should they start slinging accusations around in turn. On the larger issue of whether WP admins have one set of rules for MMA articles and another for articles on other sports, this can't be resolved here. You'll need to open up a discussion - eg on WP:AN - with some very good diffs to make your case. Please can we leave this discussion now. I'll delete any further contributions from any quarter on this general topic. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 14:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.
No problems! Thanks for letting me know. Was a little anxious until I saw the quote then I realised it had been one of my sensible moments.... Will watch discussion with interest! Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 09:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Crickets chirping
Hi, Kim Dent-Brown. Regarding this discussion, I noticed that you requested at least one participant to stand down and "leave the AN/I field free . . . for other editors to respond". I think that was a very reasonable request, but it needs following up. It's now more than 48 hours later—an eternity in ANI time—and the only other editors who have responded have made unconstructive comments, some of them reckless and hurtful. I have to say that in all my years of editing Wikipedia, this is one of the worst situations I have ever seen. It's already doing damage to editor morale, and the longer it stays open, the more damage it's liable to do. If no admin is going to take the time to wade through the wall of text and make a reasoned, evidence-based finding of fact soon, then may I suggest the thread should simply be closed? I dread an Arbcom case, but at least the clerks there would, I hope, rein in the worst of the worst. Rivertorch (talk) 05:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's going nowhere and the likeliest outcome is a closure with no decision. But I have declared a preferred option so I can't close. Another editor has filed a request for closure so hopefully someone will be long soon... Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 08:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I wasn't suggesting you close it personally. I don't disagree with your prediction, but I rather hope that the closer will be able to filter out the noise and find the substance. A no-decision closure will just be delaying the inevitable. Rivertorch (talk) 08:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The page is stuck at the same point it was months ago, and user "ThorLives" has done nothing else than continuing the removal of any source or sentence which does not fit his point of view. This situation must finish, and the article has to be rewritten. Reliable sources have been found and listed in the talkpage. Please take a look. --Bhlegkorbh (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
talk page delete
I'm thinking you deleted the wrong talk page for North8000? That is, you deleted the archive version not the redirect? NE Ent 11:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh bugger. I deleted the talk page which the interface invited me to delete I deleted the project page you had CSD'd. I'll go back and check what I did and see if I can sort it out....Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 11:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks for the redlink which is now blue! Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 11:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bats
Those two are completely (and skirting personal attacks here) obsessed. They have a long-running and extensive (even by internet feuding standards) disagreement off-wiki. I would prefer the letter of policy is adhered to because I have no doubt one or the other will use the proffered rope, and at that point there will not even be the appearence of impropriety to prevent an extended vacation from WP (or at the minimum, WP-Bat-related issues). I have no issues at all with the blocks you placed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. You're quite right in suggesting we stick to the letter of policy here. This does appear to be, as you say, an extraordinary feud and not one to be pursued on Wikipedia! Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 14:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Psychoanalysis
Hi Kim Dent-Brown, are you still interested in the evaluation paragraph? I saw your edits today. --WSC ® 19:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, you don't have to answer! I think your behavior is really impolite. --WSC ® 05:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We're all volunteers here and no, I don't have to answer. This is not my job. Yes I am interested in the article - can we please discuss edits at the talk page so others can see and participate? I will reply when I can but please don't expect me to hold to a timetable. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk) 08:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say its forbidden. I said its impolite. I've also limited time. Its no problem when you answer: it takes time to answer --WSC ® 15:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)j[reply]
Thanks
The support there with HiLo was much appreciated and hopefully taken in good spirit. I was always told to count to 10 before replying, but it doesn't actually work, if anything it just gave me time to think of something worse to say. Thanks again ツ Jenova20(email) 11:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FIY
Just to be on the safe side: Here's my last contrib to the discussion! [1] Please add a NPOV-Box while the discussion is ongoing. --WSC ® 11:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
