User talk:Ddstretch/Archives/2014/November

Precious again
  Cheshire

Thank you, researching, composing, gardening user, for quality articles on the Portal:Cheshire that you created and maintain, such as Ancient parishes of Cheshire, and for using your professional command of language to speak up for, and for how , - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (22 February 2009, 17 May 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC) A year ago, you were the 660th recipient of my  Pumpkin Sky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you also for your insight leading to "beg ... to leave with some dignity", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Postings
I have made two or three lone edits on the arbcom page but if there are replies to my comments in some cases nasty ones of course I am going to reply. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * People are normally advised to walk away from perpetuating drama on wikipedia. Indeed, this is one reason why people think Eric Corbett should be sanctioned. I suggest you stop making so many comments and walk away from the discussions if you see anything you don't like. After all, you must have other thyings to do on wikipedia or in real life that it is a waste of time dealing with all of this and perpetuating the drama. Also, a response to what you think of as an attack along the lines of another attack is not good: it is, again, what people say Eric Corbett should not do and so avoid problematic behaviour. "Two wrongs don't make a right" and all that. If you feel this way, then why not consider the baiting that Eric Corbett feels has happened to him, and that I and others have seen happen to him, and ask yourself why those who are baiting seem to escape any sanctions?  DDStretch    (talk)  03:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I am going to focus on other things as you are right Eric's comments as well as others have distracted me to where I am drawn in. The whole idea of Eric being an untouchable editor somehow just makes me upset seeing how much he has gotton away with as well as those who praise him almost like a god of wikipedia. Look I understand he is a good editor but the amount of kissing up is just sickening to watch. Dont Wikipedia values apply to everyone? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I want to add that I am a bit worried as well, the big question that really needs to be asked is are some editors above the rules here on Wikipedia? Think of it, it is so easy to befriend admins here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I disagree that Eric Corbett is untouchable, since he has been sanctuoned before, and blocks are still blocks, even if they are overturned before their time. The last one, however, did stick. I think the idea that he is untouchable is overblown and it has the effect of turning even more people against him. That is why he feels so embattled. The biggest untouchable editor is James Wales, who has certainly made attacking comments that he has not withdrawn and not justified when asked to do so. If "untouchable" applies anywhere, it applies to him, and I don't think he can claim privileged position to undermine other editors in the weay he has done (for example, by adding "alleged" as a qualifier to the comment about good or featured articles that Eric Corbett has been involved in). This is far more undermining than a crude insult that shouldn't, often, have been made. Good luck with the other activities, all this drama and fighting doesn't do anyone, including ourselves, any good.  DDStretch    (talk)  03:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I really could care less about Jimbo, he does his own thing I do my own. The thing about Jimbo is most of his edits are on his talkpage so in order to make these alleged attacks the comments have to first come from the editors who post on his talkpage. Maybe if Jimbo is pulled into something he will edit something regarding Wikipedia policies but for the most part from what I have seen it is talkpage material. Have there been any attacks that were unprovoked with him just ranting in general? I would like to know more about it so I can get a better understanding here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Most of the edits in which Eric Corbett is accused of incivility also occur on his talk pages as well. Though there are others as well. The issue of provocation seems to not matter, because those who wish to see action against Eric Corbett often dismiss the issue of provocation that goad Eric Corbett.  DDStretch    (talk)  04:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * For the most part yes Eric responds to other's comments on his talkpage but those comments are from editors that goad other editors and he agrees with them. In some cases he even starts the provocation by posting first in threads he makes on his talkpage take these edits as examples: "I invite everyone to join me in a one week boycott of editing any WP articles, in protest against Jimbo Wales' new "moral ambitiousness" campaign and the completely incompetent WMF and its software developers. Eric Corbett 00:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)" "I'm a white, male, graduate European and apparently therefore worth nothing to the WMF. Easily replaceable. Doesn't bother me though, because my opinion of the WMF is that it's even more easily replaceable by a tribe of monkeys. Eric Corbett 20:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Neither of those are personal insults, and neither goad anyone else into making insulting responses! The comment about WMF is not directed against any persons, but an organisation. It is nowhere near the personally-directed comments by James Wales, to which Eric was replying after being provoked. Look, we are getting nowhere with this, may be we both have something else we should be getting on with now.  DDStretch    (talk)  04:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me for butting in, and I'll make this my only comment. Knowledgekid87, ddstretch is sensible in suggesting that you back off. I'd extend that advice to all the various drama areas for a while, not just the Arbcom case, because you are creating an image for yourself that is likely to boomerang on you. Other than Arbcom themselves, it is rare to find someone who seems to have irritated everyone but you are managing that feat at the moment. You are obviously passionately concerned about various issues; that is fine but you're not doing yourself many favours with the way that you are demonstrating your passion. Sometimes, less is more.

As for I really could care less about Jimbo, he does his own thing I do my own, well, you seem to be applying double-standards here. Based on your opinion, you should have no problem with Eric or me or indeed anyone. commentary regarding many contributors is an absolute pestilence and sooner or later he is going to get sanctioned for it, not merely because they are repeated personal attacks but also because he is effectively abusing his position. Like it or not, his position here is not that of any other contributor and he needs to recognise that fact. It seems that at least some arbcom members are already aware of the problematic nature of his words, which is a start of sorts.

ddstretch, please don't feel discouraged. - Sitush (talk) 06:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry
Misclicked rollback. Apologies. Tutelary (talk) 02:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)


 * No problem! We all make mistakes. Don't fret about it, and thanks for the message!  DDStretch    (talk)  02:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed decision phase in arbitration cases
In some arbitration cases, the arbitrators have made use of the workshop phase to work out wording of principles, findings, and remedies, and this typically helps make the proposed decision phase go more smoothly. I'm not sure if it would have made a difference in this case, given the difficult considerations being weighed, though. isaacl (talk) 02:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)