User talk:Ddstretch/Archives/2009/March

Questionnaire
In an effort to assess the progress of Wikiproject Cheshire, it has been decided to send a questionnaire to members. To answer, please copy this questionnaire and paste your answers on the answer page. While participation is, of course, not compulsory, thoughtful answers will help the project to develop and improve. Thank you.


 * 1. The project is always looking for new members, so we want to find out which ways of attracting and approaching potential members work best. Do you remember how and why you joined?
 * Answer:


 * 2. How would you describe your involvement in the project? What activities do you undertake and how often do you edit Cheshire-related article?
 * Answer:


 * 3. Do you feel like you receive adequate support/contact from project members?
 * Answer:


 * 4. The project talk page is intended to be the hub of the project, where members discuss articles and help each other improving them. Until very recently it has been almost inactive, but do you check the project talk page?
 * Answer:


 * 4a. If the talk page was more active, would you get involved in discussions there?
 * Answer:


 * 5. When viewing Cheshire-related articles, are there any issues that have stood out as needing attention or frustrated you? (Traditional counties POV, poor coverage about a particular subject, vandalism going unnoticed etc)
 * Answer:


 * 6. Maintaining the Cheshire portal is one of the Cheshire WikiProject's main aims, providing a display of the best and most up to date articles that are part of the project. There is currently a drive to promote it to featured status, but input from a wide range of members is needed. Do you have the portal on your watchlist?
 * Answer:


 * 7. Would you be interesting in subscribing to a newsletter covering North West England, with details of work done by WikiProjects representing Cheshire, Greater Manchester, and Merseyside?
 * Answer:


 * 8. Finally, are there any improvements or initiatives you'd like to see WP:CHES undertake, or general comments you'd like to make?
 * Answer:

Ireland naming question
You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names, a procedure has been developed at WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:WHEEL
Isn't unblocking without discussion a violation of WP:WHEEL? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is. I am reblocking.  If you disagree with the block, then you are required to discuss this with the blocking admin or raise consensus through discussion in a suitable forum.  Do not remove the block again.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 00:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You unblocked because the blocker was slightly involved? Wow. Daniel (talk) 00:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict: Thank you Coren). Daniel (talk) 00:45, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I ask you to revert yourself immediately. You did not even give me the time to provide a rationale. After I finished writing it, I noticed you had already overturned. Also, I ask you to withdraw your false accusation of being involved and having interacted with the editor in question — I am neither involved nor have I ever interacted with them. —  Aitias  // discussion 00:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * He appears to have been reblocked, so I cannot revert myself. It seems a bit rich given the comments about lack of discussion. It is all a mess, and I still consider the length of time excessive and that you were not the best person to block, given your interactions with Malleus. Better to have left it to other admins who shared your view. You did no6t provide a rationale for at least 5 minutes as far as I can see, and I am always careful to prepare a reason so that I can add it immediately now.  DDStretch    (talk)  00:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you please provide evidence for your untruthful accusations? I have asked you to do so above already, but you failed to do so. I have never (literally!) interacted with them. Provide evidence or withdraw them. —  Aitias  // discussion 00:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, there's section 17 of Malleus' talk page which happened well before you issued the block, in which he made disparaging comments about yourself, and one is advised to not then block editors, but to seek to get a different admin to do it, and that is what I was referring to.  DDStretch    (talk)  00:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you point me to these "disparaging comments about" myself please? Please provide diff-links. Thanks. —  Aitias  // discussion 00:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you can see them for yourseld. As for me, I am off to bed now.  DDStretch    (talk)  01:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I can not see them. Provide them. If you do not, I will bring you to WP:RFAR. —  Aitias  // discussion 01:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I have read the section again, and I am astounded that I have made a mistake. My apologies for this. I will post a suitable apology to WP:AN/I immediately.  DDStretch    (talk)  01:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Daniel (talk) 01:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Please reconsider this. We are all human, and there is nothing in WP:ADMIN that says admins need to be perfect. Risker (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, please don't resign. J.delanoy gabs adds  02:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I would generally agree with Risker that a single bad unblock is not desysop-worthy. Sleep on it and come back tomorrow.  MBisanz  talk 02:18, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We all make mistakes. Don't dwell upon them. Just learn your lesson and move on.  bibliomaniac 1  5  02:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't do anything you wouldn't recommend to another in your place.--Tznkai (talk) 02:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Resignation as administrator
Please remove me as an administrator. My reasons for asking this may be obvious if anyone knows me well, but I will give a brief outline of some of them here, not because I think they will have any impact in any way, but merely to be a matter of public record. First, I should disabuse anyone that this resignation is because I made a mistake in unblocking User:Malleus Fatuorum recently: far from it, although I made a mistake which I quickly apologised for, and which did not negate my unblocking of Malleus, I still consider the major mistake was in the administrator who blocked with dubious justification, to the apparent satisfaction of people who had axes to grind against Malleus, and the very dubious manner in which my unblocking was reverted. So, the reason is not a mistake I made, but mistakes that administrators made which, with a few notable (and noble) exceptions by others, went by uncommented on. The distaste I find in this was merely increased by the baiting that subsequently went on on his talk page that led to his talk page being protected. A case of uncommented on administrator abuse. Remaining silent when knowing about this is tantamount to collusion in what I honestly consider is an abuse of administrator abilities. Second, the more general inconsistent and abusive manner in which some administrators conduct themselves means I no longer wish to associate myself with the administration of wikipedia. Whether or not that changes in the future depends on whether real and lasting changes are made to address the matter of real accountability on their part, not the weak token methods that seem to in operation and which are heavily biased in favour of the administrators at the moment: if having the tools is "no big deal" as it so often trotted out as some kind of means of attempting to silent criticisms, then why do people fight tooth and nail and resist all sensible attempts to remove these "no big deal" tools when they are clearly being abused? In this respect, I wish User:Tony1's attempts with AdminWatch well, but I do not see it succeeding at all. There is too great an inbuilt inertia for any real change happening, because power in reality in this matter rests with those whose behaviour makes such regulatory mechanisms necessary. It would also help if largely silent administrators who seem to do little once their status has been grahted, would actually try to do well what they had been expected to do when they were made administrators. Third, I have found myself slipping into the kind of mindset and actions which I consider, on reflection, bad. This is almost like a result of being tainted by association with the kinds of behaviour in administrators which I have mentioned above. Clearly, I need to go to stop me sinking more into such bad practices, and I apologise unreservedly to any ordinary editors for any poor decisions using the administrators tools that I have made. Fourth, although the notion of wikipedia still seems good, its actual state now seems to me to be almost fatally flawed because of its large, unwieldy structure that makes real effective change impossible. This is largely because there appears to be no one at a high enough level who is willing to make the tough decisions necessary to improve it, perhaps because of a too-sentimental clinging on to principles that are now counter-productive. So, we have the curse of nationalism that causes endless disputes that should simply be stamped on (see the whole swathe of problems brought by problems to do with Ireland-related issues as one example), small highly vocal pressure groups that cause disruption (like the ongoing Arbcom case to do with Ayn Rand), and a failure to take a principled stand in matters of Fringe Science and other areas when advocates of fringe views use arguments that one might call "argumentuum ad attrition" (to mangle poor Latin) to wear the opposition down. A similar war is carried out on UK articles when advocates of pressure group positions try to add highly misleading information regarding "traditional" or "historic" counties to articles that ends up sometimes being bolstered by poorly thought-out administrator action (I am thinking of one specific occasion where legitimate action taken against an editor for telling a new editor that they should go against established guidelines and policies should be done, which would have resulted in clearly incorrect information being added to one or more articles: an administrator who took action against this clear disruption had the actions reversed and was criticised for taking the action.) So, I can continue no longer. I have no illusions: the above points will merely disappear and be forgotten. Or else they will be labelled as biased (as a convenient way of not really considering them carefully), perhaps even conveniently using my comment about my slipping into bad behaviour as an apparent (and in this case, phony) justification for dismissing my points, and the careless slip-shod way of behaving by others will carry on regardless after a few minutes. However, for those of you who understand, I hope you can see why I consider it a matter of personal integrity why I cannot continue. Change in these circumstances needs to happen and probably can only happen if it comes from the top, and for a variety of reasons, the top seems either unwilling or unable to have the courage to do it. My deepest apologies to members of the Cheshire Wikiproject, which I have greatly enjoyed working on: there was much I wanted to do, and some remains incomplete in my various sandboxes, if you feel able to continue, it would be good if this work could be carried forwards in some way. Farewell. DDStretch   (talk)  09:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks to everyone for the messages. Please could I ask that no other messages are posted here for now. Any additional messages are liable to be removed without notice. Thanks.  DDStretch    (talk)  22:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been drawn back to editing in a limited way because of a series of messages from one editor which distort and attack me over the nature of my resignation on various article's talk pages. It remains to be seen whether this return is permanent or whether my editing will widen its scope.  DDStretch    (talk)  15:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Ayn Rand
The above-linked Arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published.


 * is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.
 * and are banned from editing  and related articles (broadly construed), including talk pages, for one year.
 * is banned from editing Ayn Rand and related articles (broadly construed), including talk pages, for six months. is banned from editing Ayn Rand and related articles (broadly construed) for six months, but is free to constructively contribute to talk page discussions.
 * and are banned from editing Ayn Rand and related articles (broadly construed) for three months, but are free to constructively contribute to talk page discussions.
 * is reminded that article talk pages are for content discussion and encouraged to broaden his content contributions.

In the event that any user mentioned by name in this decision engages in further disruptive editing on Ayn Rand or any related article or page (one year from the date of this decision or one year from the expiration of any topic ban applied to the user in this decision, whichever is later), the user may be banned from that page or from the entire topic of Ayn Rand for an appropriate length of time by any uninvolved administrator or have any other remedy reasonably tailored to the circumstances imposed, such as a revert limitation. Similarly, an uninvolved administrator may impose a topic ban, revert limitation, or other appropriate sanction against any other editor who edits Ayn Rand or related articles or pages disruptively, provided that a warning has first been given with a link to this decision.

Both experienced and new editors on articles related to Ayn Rand are cautioned that this topic has previously been the subject of disruptive editing by both admirers and critics of Rand's writings and philosophy. Editors are reminded that when working on highly contentious topics like this one, it is all the more important that all editors adhere to fundamental Wikipedia policies. They are encouraged to make use of the dispute resolution process, including mediation assistance from Mediation Cabal or the Mediation Committee, in connection with any ongoing disputes or when serious disputes arise that cannot be resolved through the ordinary editing process.

For the Arbitration Committee, Mailer Diablo 03:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

An eyeopener
Out of interest I read the resignation letter above and have to say I am amazed at the injustices that are taking place right under our noses. It, sadly, does not suprise me that those with power choose to abuse it. Yet, they will probably never be named and shamed for many people out of fear, for Ddstretch out of modesty. I feel almost mislead by the Wikipedia Administrators and their biased groups although I suspect it is only a minority, it is none the less wrong. Anyway, I thought I should show you that there will be people out there who, like me, will understand you. When I decided to reply, at first I thought I should make it anonymous but now I believe I should be proud to respond named and uncowardly! 95jb14 (talk) 19:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)