On 9/25/05, Oskar Sigvardsson oskarsigvardsson@gmail.com wrote:
Even so, you really should have tried to communicate with him before taking it too the list. I agree that the decision is totally absurd, but you should let him defend himself first. And if he does, as you suggest he will, ignore/blank you, you will have more ammo for a discussion.
Ammo for discussion? What's wrong with simply discussing the issue rather than gathering "ammo"?
Look at it from my point of view: an arbitrator/administrator rebuffed my attempts to communicate with him. An RfC was started, and it went nowhere, apparently because so many people refused to believe the RfC was about refusal to communicate, instead choosing to believe it was that he nominated articles en masse to VfD.
If I had any reason to believe I would get a good faith answer from the person in question, I would post on his talk page. However, not only have I not been given reason to believe that he'll communicate, I've seen the opposite because shortly after the last time, he added a somewhat hostile "policy" to his talk page which seems to be meant to justify his capriciousness.
I'm not one to go banging my head against brick walls. I don't like to waste my time, and I don't like the headaches. Ignore me if you so choose, but I prefer to discuss this in the open with several other reasonalbe users rather than try to start a conversation with a single user who's already proven unresponsive to myself and several others on this exact issue.
-- Michael Turley User:Unfocused