User talk:Ddstretch/Archives/2013/October

Chorlton-cum-Hardy

A few days ago you commented on a message of mine about defining Chorlton-cum-Hardy for the purpose of the WP article. During most of the history of the article there has been no definition and now the content which has been included is being disputed without a preliminary discussion which would provide guidelines to work to from then on. Both Chorlton and Hardy are known to have existed in Anglo-Saxon times (from the etymology of those names); from Norman times to 1642 the township of Chorlton was one of several within the manor of Withington (itself a sub-manor of the manor of Manchester) and Stretford was another township (both were within the ancient parish of Manchester which was not divided until the 1840s. The southeast quarter of Chorlton township (Houghend) was then removed from it and so Withington township was enlarged. These boundaries can be verified by the maps John Lloyd includes in his two books on C-c-H (1972) and (1985). In 1904 the existing township (together with the rest of Withington Urban District) was amalgated with the City of Manchester. Based on current usage the two wards of Chorlton and Chorlton Park would be the best way of defining the subject of the article. However for the history keeping rigidly to those boundaries would not work very well. The local authority (Manchester City Council) does not define the electoral wards; this only happens when parliamentary constituency boundaries go through a process of revision since the wards can only be in one constituency. Articles on other south Manchester wards seem to work to the present ward boundaries but C-c-H is more complicated (e.g. Whalley Range's history begins in the 1830s/40s).--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 10:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

hello, and thanks for the message. I think there will be many places that are difficult to tie ndown with any certainty, but a good discussion that lays bare all the facts on the talk page is certainly the way to go. I can't really join in with much hard useful information, because I am in China now, and the relevant local history books I have are stuck in the UK because of problems to do with transporting them here during the summer. The book I would tend to turn to to initially get an idea would be Youngs, F. A. (1991), Guide to the local administrative units of England. (Volume 1: Northern England), London: Royal Historical Society, ISBN 0-86193-127-0 But, of course, if you get it, that will not give any maps to help. However, it will point to the relevant parts of the London Gazette in which all boundary changes,like the ones under discussion, are supposed to be listed. I'm not sure how detailed they will be. This source may be the basic one the others have called upon, so it may give details the others have omitted which are needed here. Of course, all this will only inform people about one of the issues that I think is causing the problem: at a certain level, it is difficult to tie down boundaries because the legal situation does not always correspond with the local received position or assumption, and these are usually not given in ways that fits in neatly with wikipedia's idea of reliable sources. I think that is why it is particularly important to discuss all these openly on the talk page to get people to try to reach a compromise (or "consensus") opinion.That way, everyone who is acting in good faith can resist the edits of people who may be well-intentioned, but unimformed, as well as those who are merely malicious or disruptive. A brief and succinct description of the complications you mention may actually be worth-while including in a relevant section of the article. may that's worth a thought?  DDStretch  (talk) 11:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

This analysis is too simple. For most of their history the hamlets of Chorlton and Hardy were quite separate, and Chorlton-cum-Hardy didn't appear in any record until the beginning of the 18th century. So one might reasonably argue that the extent of Chorlton-cum-Hardy is the extent Chorlton and Hardy had when the name Chorlton-cum-Hardy first appeared. Eric Corbett 13:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I will probably bow to your superior knowledge, but then, should the account of Chorlton and Hardy be placed into a History section (and may be some redirections created that point to the relevant places in the Chorlton-cum-Hardy article)? This is why I suggested that the Youngs book should be consulted, because he usually does a very good job of documenting the history of various administrative changes, etc. The later works that are derivative of it often, in my opinion, exclude information that is often useful to include.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

It's certainly true I think that the current article doesn't make it clear enough when it's talking about Chorlton, Hardy, or Chorlton-cum-Hardy, but that's no doing of J3Mrs or me. We're still trying to work on the thing, which isn't being being made any easier by the continual griping and abuse. Instead of asking questions and getting the hump because much of his beloved trivia has been removed, why doesn't Felix come up with some potential answers? Eric Corbett 13:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok. How about this for a possible strategy to include the relevant information as clearly as possible. It will probably need to be modified to fit in with your's and J3Mrs' work so far: (a) in the section where any history of the place is dealt with, you point out that CcH has (administratively?) existed only since 17??, and that before then, there were two identifiably separate places: C and H. (b) This then allows 3 sub-sections: C, pre 17??' H, pre 17??, and CcH, post 17??. (c) Suitable redirects or links on disambiguation pages can then list Chorlton (meaning pre 17??) and link to that sub-section. Similarly with Hardy. (e) Then, at least, there is a division of the whole issue into three rationally-defined and discreet entities, with Chorlton and Hardy being the predecessors of CcH. (f) If there were boundary changes that can be documented in the ideal way for wikipedia for any of these three entities, then they can be placed in the relevant sub-section.Could this be a way of making things a little bit clearer? Try to ignore issues that get clouded by other things.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The distinction between Chorlton and Hardy is touched upon in the Toponymy section now, but that's clearly inadequate and we need to do something along the lines you suggest in the History section. To be honest though there's so much that needs work it's not yet been one of our priorities. For instance, there wasn't even a Geography section when we started. Eric Corbett 14:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) Addendum: It may not be sensible to do the big fusion between Chorlton and hardy that yields CcH in 17??, because other dates may be more significant, but the point I'm trying to make is that there does seem to be a need to separate out Chorlton (alone), and Hardy (alone) from Chorlton-cum-Hardy. I would find out the certain dates when various things happened, and choose the one you agree is most rational. For myself, I would tend to go with any adminsitrative fusing of the two predecessors with CcH, though it still may not be too clear. I think you could mention, perhaps in footnotes, how difficult it is to untangle the whole issue.Finally, should this discussion be on Chorlton-cum-hardy's talk page?  DDStretch  (talk) 14:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

It probably should, but I've drawn it to J3Mrs's attention, and we're the only ones doing any serious work on this article. Eric Corbett 14:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I must apologize for not doing more, but all my sources are back in the UK. Additionally, my entire Internet link is very unreliable, partly because of various national blocks that stop people looking at things others don't want them to, and the changing nature of these. Wikipedia is often blocked for me, and the present respite will be a small rest because of certain events that will happen here tomorrow. If I use my VPN, it is now becoming unacceptable to these bodies, so that if I then look at otherwise unavailable pages, my own Internet link, like others who do this, becomes more unreliable or even crashes for periods of up to one day. About one third of the BBC News Website crashes my browser at the moment if I try to access it, and this has been confirmed by friends of mine using their machines. So, I am sorry for being a complete bystander. If you can suggest simple things I can do, I will try to do them.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The thing that most struck me about the article is there was no definition of exactly where the article was about. I think if a definition of its scope is made early on then nothing so complicated is required. Today Eric and I discussed a definition that includes the ancient township boundary and the two current MCC wards. Hardy can be dealt with in a sentence or two (it was farms and a few cottages) and a section could be made for Hough End, and its important hall. Dates for Chorlton or Hardy are in short supply but there are dates for Barlow Hall, a manor house that wasn't mentioned and Hough End which historically was in Withington but is now in a Chorlton ward. Getting to where we are now has been like unravelling fog. I have already created an article for the church that needs a lot of work and Eric has been the target for IPs. The editors who have maintained this article in the state it was in have had their chance, Eric and I are doing the best we can. It would have been easier to start from scratch.J3Mrs (talk) 14:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

For dates, I really recommend you try to look at the Youngs book I mentioned, above. He is usually very comprehensive about dates changes were made, but I do know that sometimes, they defeat even him. You may have to use some inspired work using Ecclesiastical parishes, but you may get somewhere using that book.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I was in no way meaning to be critical of you; I understand the difficulties you must have in China. What would be a great help would be if you could access the ONS stats for the wards of Chorlton and Chorlton Park and knock something up for the missing Economy and Demographics sections based on their combined figures. But if you can't, no worries, we'll get around to it. Eric Corbett 14:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I realised you probably weren't criticising me, but I felt I needed to say something about my silence on the editing front. Let me see what the situation is after Sunday, and if you don't hear from me for a few days, expect that something has happened to my access. If I do, I'll document my work on the article's talk page so that if I get cut-off mid-stream, someone may be able to take up the reins when they are able to, if I haven't already done so.Now, it is bedtime here.  DDStretch  (talk) 14:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me for eavesdropping but this talk page is on my watchlist from times past. I have the Youngs book (about two feet away from me) and I'm happy to transcribe the relevant section with footnotes either here or over on Talk:Chorlton-cum-Hardy.Lozleader (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

That would be great. We obviously need to make a clear and definitive statement about Chorlton/Hardy/Chorlton-cum-Hardy. Eric Corbett 15:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, anything about CcH or Hough End would be much appreciated. PS the VCH says Hardy does not occur separately.J3Mrs (talk) 15:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I have put the Youngs stuff over on the relevant talk page. Some of the gazette entries talk about maps but sadly they are not reproduced in the publication.Lozleader (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

N.B. FFS has recently resigned from WikiProject:Greater Manchester because of the regrettable disputes over this page. It is already full of reliable sources which should not be ignored. --Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 17:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

It was full of crap, and you know it. Eric Corbett 18:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake, it was awful and the more it is examined the worse it gets. Nothing of note is being ignored and more sources and information have been added and cited. J3Mrs (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

To which I'll add that in many cases FFS has gone way beyond what the sources actually say. For instance, the Toponomy section says this: "The name was adopted by Victorian property developers who arrived in the wake of the coming of the railway in 1880, to distinguish this Chorlton from Chorlton-upon-Medlock." Where does the source cited say that? Eric Corbett 18:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

That statement was not added by me but by one of the other editors who have been busy adding unreferenced information to the article. no-one is obliged to process what other editors have chosen to add. Some of it badly needed copy editing so that is what I did to it and added occasionally in case they had a reliable source which could be added.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 14:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

But neither was it removed by you, which is rather the point really, and is why this article needed and still needs so much work. Eric Corbett 17:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Ruth Porat

If you look at the article on Ruth Porat, you will see that it says that she was born in Sale. It also says she moved to America when young. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.215.180 (talk) 10:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot be used as a reliable source. If the claim in Ruth Porat is backed up by a reliable source, then if you think it is notable enough, you should reference the claim using that reliable source when you add it to the article about Sale.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

See http://www.cfr.org/experts/world/ruth-porat/b19354 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.215.180 (talk) 09:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Fine! So, having found a reliable source, you can then go and add the fact to the Sale article and reference it in an appropriate way by using the source if you feel it should be added! Have fun.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

PS: You reallly need to begin signing your messages. You do this by adding four tildes at the enmd of your message like this: ~~~~. Please begin to do this, as you have been advised to do it before.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Although she was born in Sale I don't think her brief time there would be a good reason for including her in the Sale article but might make a good link in her article. Settlement articles shouldn't become a directory of people who had nothing to do with the place other than being born there or lived there briefly. Just an opinion. J3Mrs (talk) 09:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, your point is a good one.The reference definitely needs putting in Ruth Porat, but whether it should go in Sale, Greater Manchester is another issue.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Civility

An uncivil remark can escalate spirited discussion into a personal argument that no longer focuses objectively on the problem at hand. Such exchanges waste our efforts and undermine a positive, productive working environment. Resolve differences of opinion through civil discussion; disagree without being disagreeable. Discussion of other editors should be limited to polite discourse about their actions. Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, to refrain from making personal attacks, to work within the scope of policies, and to be responsive to good-faith questions. Try to treat your fellow editors as respected colleagues with whom you are working on an important project.

More attention should be paid to this in discussing Chorlton-cum-Hardy.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I look forward to you doing so. In the meantime perhaps someone ought to consider writing WP:SULKING. Eric Corbett 19:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand why FFS has chosen this page to snipe at Eric and me other than I think he hoped DDStretch would sort us out in some administrative way or other. He's done the same at Nev1's page too. Civility is a two way street and being talked about on someone else's page is hardly civil. Eric certainly knows how to write a settlement article and I have some experience. Perhaps he could visit my page to address actual issues, not to take a broad swipe along the lines of I don't like that. Sorry DDStretch. J3Mrs (talk) 09:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok. My problem is that I am not going to take any action at all. That is not because I favour any particular "side" in all of this, but because in a more general way, I am "involved". I wish this dispute would be restricted to the article's talk page. But I suggest that "forum-shopping" one's complaints is not looked upon as being a good strategy if it escalates. I suggest that more work should be done to add good content to wikipedia than is being used in complaints here.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. J3Mrs (talk) 09:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Let me now make a statement about what I can see as a main feature of this dispute. Then I will shut up. The original state of the article Chorlton-cum-Hardy struck me as being overlong and rambling, with no clear structure and no sense of any adherence to main points and structure as suggested in WP:UKCITIES. Eric and J3Mrs began the task of cleaning it up. Both these editors have a history of doing good work, and Eric has been active in promoting many articles to at least good article status. At the same time, there was some baiting and sniping of Eric (which happens) from an anonymous IP editor. Roughly the same time, Felix Folio Secundus complained that many of his/her edits had been removed or otherwise changed. This happens. It has happened to me more times than I care to mention. However, Felix Folio Secundus was so displeased about this that he/she asked for his/her name to be removed from WP:GM and appeared to withdraw. I use "appeared" because it is very puzzling to me that there has been a continued number of new messages complaining about Eris and J3Mrs in a number of places on wikipedia from him/her. It's puzzling because if what they were doing was sufficiently awful for one to withdraw from a project, then one should show evidence of withdrawal! Continuing to post complaints, in a variety of places etc, is not only tiring, but shows that the withdrawal has not happened! Complaining that some poor aspects of the article was not up to them, so complaints about one's actions are mis-directed really scores an own-goal, because the issue then becomes "if you thought they were bad, why didn't YOU do something about it before Eric and J3Mrs did!", which gets us back to strengthen the need for Eric and J3Mrs' involvement now. All of this doesn't really add up, you see. So, my advice is: if you are upset and want to withdraw from a project and the articles it oversees, then do so: unsubscribe from the project and remove articles it concerns itself with from your watchlist because anything other than that seems to show either continued involvement, or that the withdrawal could have been just a form of "grandstanding". I earnestly advise Felix Folio Secundus to either really withdraw (because it isn't doing him or wikipedia any favours the way it is), or get involved again, and just accept that you will get criticism and things you thought good reverted. In fact, some good advice I read (possible from Earnest Hemmingway or Mark Twain) is that if you produce a passage you particularly like, you should immediately suspect it is useless and almost certainly strike it out or otherwise revise it, because we, as humans, are subject to too many biases about ourselves

I have a far more relaxed approach to what others pounce on as a lack of civility, and I think there can come a point when one has to drop a pretence of civility which is in accordance with some editors' expectations because they are or have become a little over-sensitive, and one then strays into an area where any kind of criticism is immediately thought of as some dastardly attack on someone else's reputation and general character. In many cases it isn't as clear-cut as that, and, in some cases, an accusation of "you've behaved like an absolute idiot bereft of brain or ability" might be justified (I'm using that just as a theoretical example).I know I've behaved like an idiot in the past, and I hope some friend would point that out to me bluntly rather than let me perpetuate my stupidity to others' view. It may not be my style to do it nyself, but I refuse to hold others up to my own standards when there is flexibility and ambiguity to allow a range of possible approaches and standards in our discourse. In particular, if one is advising someone about their conduct, then it cannot be anything other than a series of ad hominem comments, and these are clearly allowed on wikipedia, or else there would be no warnings about vandalism, no ArbCom sanctions, and no RFA debates at all. The issue is who is allowed to make them and in what situations? That is never openly discussed, and yet it needs to be, otherwise the selective application of seemingly blanket rules becomes even more hypocritical to many. In many cases (but not all), I suggest that the best option is to try to swallow any anger or displeasure you might have to try to see why any apparent critical comments about yourself have been made. Usually, you will learn something about yourself when you do this, and so your accuser has done you a service. It's all part of a community of editors working together, and with all the minor frictions and abrasiveness that comes with it. Not some idealistic and unobtainable nirvana of sweetness and light.

Ok. I'll shut up now.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The bottom line for me is this. I think the civility card is played way too often here on WP, and criticism is way too often perceived as incivility. I know how to write a decent settlement article having written a few of them now, and so does J3Mrs. FFS doesn't. If he wants to get involved in the article's ongoing development towards something that conforms to WP:UKCITIES then he should join the discussions on the article's talk page. If he doesn't then he should shut the fuck up. Eric Corbett 10:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

My opinion is that the civility card is now too often used as a weapon to settle apparently old scores, and as such it has become utterly devalued. I make no comment or assumption about whether it ever had any value or not when I say this, by the way. Those who jump to use it bring the whole area into even more disrepute, especially when they take a one-sided stance in dealing with a reaction to obvious baiting.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Response

Re: ::My opinion is that the civility card is now too often used as a weapon to settle apparently old scores, and as such it has become utterly devalued. I make no comment or assumption about whether it ever had any value or not when I say this, by the way. Those who jump to use it bring the whole area into even more disrepute, especially when they take a one-sided stance in dealing with a reaction to obvious baiting.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I apologise to User:DDStretch for the discussion which has been going on here; however there was no need for User:Eric Corbett to follow me first to User:Nevi's talk page when I requested removal from the list of participants in the Greater Manchester WikiProject and then here when I made a comment about defining Chorlton-cum-Hardy. Surely being an experienced writer of settlement articles does not release User:Eric Corbett from the obligation to follow norms of behaviour which are required of all editors. I have already made it clear that I will not contribute to the Chorlton-cum-Hardy article again. Describing a request for "civility" as "baiting" seems very unjust. From the time I began to contribute to the Chorlton-cum-Hardy article there was minimal interest shown in it by other editors until an anonymous editor who had worked on the Whalley Range article transferred his attentions to Chorlton-cum-Hardy (however these contributions never had reliable sources and were often contradicted by other historical writers on the township).--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 12:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not agree with your comment that I should have remained engaged with User:Eric Corbett and User:J3Mrs. From previous experience they are inclined to just impose their will on any article which interests them rather than having reasonable discussions about it. Also anyone is allowed to contribute to articles about Greater Manchester topics whether or not they belong to the Greater Manchester wikiproject and anyone is allowed to abandon such a project if they prefer to work elsewhere in Wikipedia. As all time spent here is freely given it is counterproductive to its aims to persist in personal criticism such as appears above. Every editor is going to have somewhat different ideas of what is worth adding to articles and in the case of Chorlton-cum-Hardy much of what I added was about that place but not particularly interesting to me. Of the four editors who have done most of the work on Chorlton-cum-Hardy in the last few years User:Eric Corbett and User:J3Mrs think it was until recently a very poor article but myself and probably the anonymous IP do not agree with them. If you accept User:Eric Corbett and User:J3Mrs's view I should have devoted unlimited time to writing a better Chorlton-cum-Hardy article; instead I preferred to make contributions to various topics which are nothing to do with Greater Manchester.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 09:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Martinvl

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, and I do hope you have notified everyone who was involved with this, because I sense that gaming and wikilawyering may figure greatly in what now happens. It is actually for these reasons that I am extremely reluctant to get dragged into a dispute, particularly at WP:AN/I because my intervention on Talk:United Kingdom led me to believe that any further interactions on this subject would not be conducive to the general rules concerning WP:AGF and other forms of polite interaction. This is mainly because of the ease with which unjustified insults and accusations start to be flung around, so that one feels any debate over what is a rather small matter becomes full of unnecessary drama and then things can get nasty. It would be far better that everyone just went on their way and began to edit for content in articles than become obsessed with some administrative or bureaucratic game. If it becomes particularly contentious, I may be forced to contribute, but if it is a free choice on my part with no consequences for myself or many others, I, for one, wish to decline to get involved. In cases of doubt, I always say that a good baseline position is to go for no change to current rules or their implementation. Sorry, this may not be what you want to hear, but I feel it the best option for myself. I also think anyone involved in the exchanges on Talk:United Kingdom should also carefully consider whether they should simply demonstrate their ultimate good faith by declining to pursue any of the positions they favour (We are all, in a very general sense, "damaged goods" when it comes to that debate. Let others carry it forward, but let us remain dignified by becoming silent on the matter now, apart from just implementing the rules as given in WP:MOSNUM as they are or as they become). Additionally, my link from China to wikipedia is very fragile at the moment, and this also means it would be best not to begin getting involved with some issue where quick responses are necessary to avoid some undesirable actions happening.)  DDStretch  (talk) 16:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh I totally understand, I really am fed up with the whole business and didn't want to be dragged into it again. I felt I had little choice after User:Martinvl stated again in the RFC I was disputing the edit, when time and again I have stated I will not get into a dispute over something so trivial. I will take the comments about remaining silent on the matter to heart. For info, no I didn't notify everyone, I have now, as I felt that like you the editors who made a token comment, really wouldn't wish to be involved. But as you astutely noted, this was used for unnecessary drama with a claim of selectively notifying. I have learned a salutary lesson. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I feel I have now been obliged to post a message there, because something needs to be done about his appalling behaviour on AN/I both on the board itself, and in related posts on his talk page about the 48 hour block.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks!

It's a slightly sad statement on the encyclopedia that you felt it necessary to thank me for considering your point of view, but I do appreciate the thanks! I'd really like to see a solution that works going forward, and that both sides can vaguely agree on. Worm^TT(talk) 11:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome! I think too much entrenchment can happen in this matter, so what some may think of as small words of thanks are useful to keep things as open and flexible as possible. It isn't in my own nature to swear as Eric does, but my problem is that I think there are important issues to do with the civility policy and how us admins apply it that need to be considered, because any action may cause bigger issues. I like Eric, and I can really appreciate his frustrations with people who often just don't seem to get it, and who then react badly which provokes Eric more. All I will say is that in my academic life, I have been threatened with violence once at a talk I was giving by someone who disagreed with what I was saying; and was given a merciless personal attack from another person at a different event over some claims that really did not stand up to scrutiny. So, even in academia, these things happen, and I didn't think the people who did this should have been banned or blocked from any academic debate as a result. Perhaps there is some who seem sometimes to be too easily offended by a "fuck off" that really just means "go away and do not bother me again" (which is how I might word it if I ever felt I had to say that.) I think implications about people's characters (like accusations of hypocrisy and so on) are possibly much worse than the use of a rather extreme "bad word" as a reaction (like "you c**t" - I can't even bring myself to use the word!)

I think we might sometimes not be careful enough in the way the civility constraints are applied. Admins are not, I suggest, supposed just to react to a list of "bad words", because the context needs to be taken into account. They must exercise more judgement and critical thinking about how, when, and if they apply any sanctions, otherwise we may just as well replace them by some automatic expert system piece of software. Some admin actions seem to be too much like knee-jerk reactions, and one way around that is to expect a full justification of the reasoning used if someone suspects a knee-jerk happened. However, that itself is capable of being gamed! I really want to see Eric remain, if possible, because he is a fantastic resource to Wikipedia, and the pokers are often not. The problem is the perceived lack of even-handedness in the past, and I really do not know how to tackle that now, because it seems to have gone on for too long. I agree with SandyGeorgia's points that she has made in various places about this, but I sadly see that some just don't get it at all.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

You are certainly right, thanks and other small gestures are always helpful - I do try to use them where I can. I too like Eric, he's helped on articles I've worked on in the past and can see the talent and the benefit he brings to the encyclopedia. I certainly don't want to see him leave. However, he certainly does have a history of inappropriate behaviour. We just need a solution so that people can get on and do what needs to be done to write the encyclopedia. Now, there's a lot of people who are calling for his head and a community ban is a solution, but not a good one as we lose Eric. Just letting him carry on like this isn't a solution either, as there are people who do not deserve the tirade they get.

As for the past, I thought the new name would help, and I think it did for a while. Eric's certainly been better over the past few months. The really annoying thing is that so many comments are being made on both sides without any actual evidence. No matter what is said, we can't break that deadlock until evidence is put forward by both sides is there to be debunked. Worm^TT(talk) 11:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)