User talk:Ddstretch/Archives/2015/March

A suggestion
The more people who get involved with what is happening the bigger the issue will grow, something is going to give for the issue to be resolved which I doubt is going to happen even after the unblocks and dust settles. What would you do or can do being an admin to help end things here and put all of this behind? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * First thing is, much of this is driven by cultural differences between the USA and the UK, so I would consider a fork between the two English language wikis.This may not be feasible, and many would probably object to it.. However, a much more important problem concerns the role and relationship between admins and the rest. I have never felt easy being an admin, because my sympathies almost always lie with the ordinary editors. I think an urgent review into the manner and role of managing things on wikipedia is needed, and I think that perhaps all admins, if that position survives, should put themselves up for re-appointment. I would not stand again, and I suspect this would anyway be more difficult to manage, because turkeys don't want to vote for Christmas, and too many admins like to wield their power over others. That will do for a start.  DDStretch    (talk)  06:44, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * So, I gave you an even more general answer to the one you asked. In the present situation, a radical solution, like making everyone write content and withdraw from the drama boards, might be worth some consideration, but the drama will still happen, I guess. You could have a system where you have to write so many words of content before you can contribute 100 words to the drama boards, unless you are directly involved in an issue, but I think that could be almost impossible. However, getting a concentration on writing more CONTENT and COLLABORATING at doing so is worth almost forcing people to do.  DDStretch    (talk)  06:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The way I see it is that admin could only be friends with admin here or else the system collapses, its sympathies that lie with the ordinary editors that get editors and admin alike tangled into trouble. The common editor should be focused on improving Wikipedia's articles and not spending half their time on WP:ANI or commenting about editors behind their backs on talk-pages like I foolishly did. Cultural differences is an easy front to blame as I know friendships are being formed all the time between Americans and English, Irish, Scottish, ect... people alike. You have some good suggestions which I feel wouldn't hurt to take to the WP:PUMP its a long shot but it at least shows someone is trying to change things, just my thoughts here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Blocks/unblock
I generally avoid AN/I etc and, most of the time, try to avoid controversy but could I ask a couple of quick questions, please? Rationalobserver was unblocked after giving an assurance they would change their behaviour yet within a few hours they were back on AN/I commenting about 'Giano and his friends' - I see Knowledgekid87 has also rescinded on their similar undertaking - why are their blocks not being re-instated as both have almost immediately returned to the same behaviour? SagaciousPhil - Chat 06:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Im not commenting on anyone, I supported Coffee as a good admin and am asking for Ddstretch's take on things here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't know anything about Knowledgekid87's action on the drama boards. I have already raised the issue of Rationalobserver going back on their word on AN/I. I think it would be better if a different admin blocked her, but I would certainly support a block for getting unblocked on apparently false pretences. I would hope that this could be raised to strengthen my point, and that a responsible admin will take action.  DDStretch    (talk)  08:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Here is the relevant link to what I say on AN/I. I think it is a grey area whether I should issue a block myself, but I would want it discussed before I did so on AN/I or another relevant place.  DDStretch    (talk)  08:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide the diffs that illustrate a return to bad behaviour? The diffs must show clear evidence of being disruptive I have commented on the one made by Rationalobsever already on AN/I, but there may be more. DDStretch   (talk)  08:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm sorry, I only saw your comment after I posted here; my internet connection is appalling, which is another reason why keeping up with heated AN/I discussions causes me problems. I did realise that a re-blocking by yourself may be considered as 'wheel warring' (if I have that right?) so wasn't expecting you to do it. As to diffs, it's really just the almost immediate return to AN/I with the comment about 'Giano and his friends' which I feel however you try to look at it, is an oblique reference to Eric Corbett and a demonstration that despite any assurances given and several warnings, the behaviour is still the same. It feels as if the concerns, and myself are raising are just being ignored.  SagaciousPhil  - Chat 08:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know and accept what you say. I am also surprised that other admins have not realised this and brought it up. I am writing something for a separate sub-section in that horror of a thread in A/I. My own connection, here in China, is also a bit flaky, and that, together with the 8 hour difference between the UK and bigger differences between China and the USA is making it also tricky for me to reply and respond quickly.  DDStretch    (talk)  08:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

See this. DDStretch   (talk)  08:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

FWIW
I think your work here is extremely impressive. — Ched : ?  13:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. But I am not convinced that I do anything to a level that I feel I should do. It is the same when I do teaching: people say I do it well, but I am always dissatisfied with it.  DDStretch    (talk)  13:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

apology
I'm sorry for anything I posted yesterday at ANI regarding my highlighted statements by Coffee that could be interpreted as allegations about your motives. That wasn't my intent at all but I can see how my words could be seen that way. What I meant was to describe my observations only. My comment: "Everyone knows that DDStretch isn't going to call foul" was wrong and I regret it. I don't know you and I shouldn't have generalised in that manner about you. Please accept my apologies. EChastain (talk) 15:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello . Apology accepted and really no hard feelings: things got heated in that thread, and when things like that happen, we all have a risk of misunderstanding things. May be that thread should have been ended before it was, but I still think the problem may return. However, I guess that anyone sensible will see that many more editors and admins have their attention drawn to them and they will be more careful in future. I still can't help thinking that, in some way, we have all been played by some person hiding behind identities... But best not to spend too much time on that thought.  DDStretch    (talk)  09:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that we're being played and the behaviour will most likely continue. Her subsequent posts to Victoriaearle, whose page she should leave alone, seem to continue the disruption. For some reason, it appears to me disruption is what turns the editor on, and her article writing, recently begun, seems to me at least, being done to prove a point about GA and FAC editors more than the motivation to contribute to the encyclopaedia. Pity because she appears to have the skills to be a good editor if she concentrated on article writing while avoiding "revenge" editing of certain articles. Perhaps the pleasure is in all the resulting attention. If you look back to her beginning edits, you'll see that she started this type of persistent and attention-getting editing in October and November of last year,  shortly after she started editing. EChastain (talk) 16:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)