Misplaced Pages

User talk:Black Kite

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Collect (talk | contribs) at 13:52, 20 June 2014 (→filed, for what its worth: calling an edit "disruptive" may, in fact, be a "personal attack"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 13:52, 20 June 2014 by Collect (talk | contribs) (→filed, for what its worth: calling an edit "disruptive" may, in fact, be a "personal attack")(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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)

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)