User talk:Ddstretch/Archives/2015/February

Lewis Carroll

Hello. I thought I had cracked the edit war problem on the Lewis Carroll article by taking outside advice and quoting and naming the experts in the BBC programme. I made a proposal, that was on the Talk page for days before I was allowed to put it in. Yet, after a short time, my whole edit has been deleted again. I have put most of it back in. Myrvin (talk) 15:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Please try to not start an edit-war again. May be a formal proposal with people agreeing or disagreeing with your proposal might work as a last stage before going to mroe formal mediation?  DDStretch  (talk) 16:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I am trying very hard to achieve consensus. We have come some way from the idea that no mention should be made of LC's possible paedophilia. However, there is a faction that believes that no mention should ever be made of a TV documentary, which makes the inclusion of the newly discovered photograph difficult. I have tried moving the text to the Photography section. Myrvin (talk) 17:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

good call

no complaints from me. — Ched :  ?  15:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

FYI

I am warning you now, if I see you do this again, then you may find yourself blocked...I think RO would be well advised to move away from that article, since it might appear to others that it was chosen just because Eric edited it in a major way (because of the history between the two).

FWIW, she should be blocked now, not later. She was warned a week ago to stop engaging in this exact behavior in regards to other users.[1] She also acknowledged that it was bad behavior a week ago.[2] And yet, here we see her doing the exact same thing a week later. Viriditas (talk) 04:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Viriditas:: Thanks for the message. I wasn't fully aware of that past incident, but it does point to a worrying pattern of behaviour. I think we should probably le it go by this time, but if it happens again, she should be blocked forthwith until she gives an undertaking to stop this Attention does need to be clearly and immediately drawn to further occurrences if they happen so that action can be taken.  DDStretch  (talk) 05:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Ddstretch, you blocked Rationalobserver? (I just came from the AE page.) If so, I suppose a "thank you" is in order--I hate saying that, and I don't want to seem to be gloating (and I'm not), but I think this was long overdue. I also hate being called an enabler. Eric knows what I think about that comment, and the funny thing is, if I were to block someone in this mess, say Rationalobserver or Knowledgekid (who has, or had, a long history of baiting the bear) I'd be dragged off to ANI in a heartbeat for making an "involved block", and I get bitched at by the same crowd for not blocking Eric, even though I'm just as invooolved on that side. Lose-lose. Anyway, I appreciate someone taking action here. (Look, Viriditas, we're in the same thread--and not in disagreement! How about it!) Drmies (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Drmies: Thank you, though it obviously is not an issue to gloat about, more something to be sad that such things happen and seem necessary. Anyway, the block of RO lasted all of 9 hours, and was reversed by the admin who then blocked Eric and closed the AE. I don't think he looked into the history enough, and neither did at least one other editor, but I doubt its helpful to pursue this.  DDStretch  (talk) 19:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)