The people doing this either refuse to enable relationship viewing, or are not related to me, or the ancestor at all.
I'm not sure exactly what you are seeing, but part of it sounds like when you have made a change to something and entered a "Reason this information is correct" text and then subsequent people making changes appear to be entering that same text.
If this is the case, then you are seeing part of the schizophrenic effect of those reason statements. See:
Those reason fields should be blank for every new change that is made. Instead, they simply bring the previous person's comments forward. If they don't delete or change the text, then that text will be assigned to THEIR name on that change.
This is a result of FS trying to use those reason fields for two opposing functions at the same time. As a result there are several undesired side effects such as what you appear to be asking about.
See the link I gave above for more information on this.
Yes, I've often thought, "That's exactly how I would have expressed that comment!" then realised it was me that wrote it, only a user with the same interest has subsequently opened the box, following which the comments have been accredited to him.
I am often reluctant to make a minor change / addition to a reason statement because (without a remark about exactly what I have amended) it appears - after clicking on "Save" - that I have written the whole statement. So, when I send a message to another user, I usually qualify any (polite) criticism of "their" entry by saying I accept it might not be them who made the input / error, but another user! The change log should help in clarifying this, but neither does the detail in the change log always present too clear a picture of the history of different users' inputs.
No, this does not work very well, but I can't see any solution to overcome the confusion.
(BTW - I just found that just hitting the space bar, after I've opened a Reason Statement field, brings up the "Save" option - clicking on which will make the statement appear as if it had been written by me.)
Yea. Another bizarre effect of this implementation is seen when a change war starts. In the change history, you see when the first change was made with all the reasons for it documented. Then someone changes it back (or to some other value) without touching the reason field. Now you have a change where the documented "reason" for it is proof that the change should NOT have been made!
Since it is really a "reason the change is being made" type field, it should be blank when starting every new change.