Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Corbridge

RfC/Corbridge

Response to KeptSouth's concerns

While I certainly disagree that the case has been "presented poorly" as you stated, I do agree that the sanctions I'm talking about are probably much more mild than what's called for. I intended for this to be a starting point for dealing with this user; not the last word on the matter. It was sincerely (and perhaps naively) my hope that Corbridge would respond to this RfC in good faith and agree to discuss and modify his behavior. Unfortunately, that seems to not be the case, as he responded first by making accusations on my talk page and then by ignoring our concerns entirely.

That being said, you're welcome to add any diffs, edit summaries or general concerns you have about Corbridge to this RfC/U. I don't own it, and merely wanted to get the ball rolling. Thanks for taking the time to wade through this, as well as for the often intensely frustrating work of attempting to collaborate with Corbridge. Arbor8 (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

My view is that there are way too many diffs in the present RfC, and that if you have further problems with Corbridge, you could start a new one. By the time anyone might get to reading additional more persuasive diffs that could be added to the present RfC, they would have already concluded--on the basis of the earlier diffs--that there were few or no grounds for the complaint.

Nothing personal was intended by my remark that the case was presented poorly, and I apologize for any offense you may taken.--RegardsKeptSouth (talk) 19:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry, no offense taken. This is my first time doing one of these, so it's not surprising that I probably didn't do a great job. If you would like, we can put a tighter summary of the problems up top. However, upon further review of the case I'm pretty sure that a sockpuppet investigation is more appropriate than an RfC/U, so I'm not going to focus much more energy here. Arbor8 (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI

This issue was resolved at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Corbridge/Archive Arbor8 (talk) 15:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)