Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:33, 20 June 2014

User:Black Kite/Nav

This user may only be available sporadically due to real life. If you have an urgent issue it may be better to contact another administrator.

filed, for what its worth

--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 22:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

• Hmm, that's not an SPI, that's a fishing expedition. Black Kite kite (talk) 09:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Right you are. My understanding of that process was flawed.

On the other hand, in light of the substantial amount of disruption in the RS/N thread, is there anything short of an Arbcom case to resolve the sourcing issues?

Aside from the editor that deleted all of their comments from the thread (is that permissible?), leaving a lot of comments without context, there are other forms of obstruction (IDHT, soapboxing, etc) impeding the consensus building process. Here is one diff, for example, of an editor completely ignoring all preceding discussion of the relevant guideline and policy, and accusing me of making some sort of arbitrary assertion when exactly the opposite is the case. I don't seem to meet with much success at AN/I, and I don't want to waste any more time and effort there, either. One more diff is this comment on user conduct, which seems to be against the statement at the top of the page that, "This is not the place to discuss other issues, such as editor conduct.".

I could list more diffs, but am not sure of the propriety of even discussing this here to begin with. If you have time to go through that thread, any suggestions would be welcome.

And if you can restore the edits deleted (shouldn't they have been struck through?), that would be helpful. Thanks.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 12:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course I (and everyone else) are not saying "this is definitely not a sock", we are saying there's no convincing evidence either way. Without that, the AN/I thread is simply a content dispute, and the SPI is pointless. I will have a look again at that thread, though. Black Kite kite (talk) 12:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I decided to try this approach , which may prove to be more productive, though that thread is still going strong.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 04:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't mean to burden you with this, but since you are somewhat familiar with the scenario, I'm going to ask you a couple more questions, about the RfC.

First, is the wording biased to a degree that makes it problematic? I've made minor adjustments, but could do more if necessary.

Second, two editors have tried to squelch the RfC, in what appears to me to be a disruptive manner here and here. The first editor has also accused me of canvassing at your talk page.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 12:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Note that not only was my edit not "disruptive" it addressed the precise issue at hand succinctly and accurately. I would prefer that my edits not be inaccurately categorized as being something they are not. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you should have posted that here, because this is not the proper forum if you have a complaint about my conduct, but you compel me to make some response. For the record, you stated

This is an "RfC of the Absurd"... It is ill-framed and argumentative. The discussion at RS/N is clear... not a reason for this RfC

You were out of line trying to dismiss the RfC, and I consider that to be disruptive. Perhaps there would have been a better forum to attempt to do that, too, if you had a complaint you could substantiate.

I came here seeking advice, bringing up both the assertions about the wording of the RfC as well as the dismissive comments.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 14:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)