User talk:Sarah777

Archives

1,2,3,4,5,6

Sarah is away on holidays and won't be back until later this week, but noticed this question. Try this link showing the precise geographical location, so it would seem to be correct. Cheers ww2censor 13:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi folks....I'm back now! wassup?!!(Sarah777 15:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC))

They're threatening to ban you for an entire bloody year at Arbcom. Absolutely f**k*** outrageous!

Show them your article creation list, Sarah, I think you probably have the record.

Sure you lose your rag from time to time - but don't we all, especially when faced with extreme provocation and wind-up merchnats....Gaimhreadhan ^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} talk • 17:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ireland Wiki State of Play - Aug 16

Ireland articles		Importance
		Top	High	Mid	Low	None	Total
Quality
	FA					4	4
	A
	GA					5	5
	B	5	2	7	3	39	56
	Start	2	3	25	122	237	389
	Stub			8	160	317	485
	Assessed	7	5	40	285	602	939
	Unassessed	0	0	0	1	286	287
	Total	7	5	40	286	888	1226

Category:Ireland articles by quality

[edit] Leave Ye any Messages and Quibbles hereunder

[edit] N21/Adare Bypass

Hi Sarah777: No, I feel that the Adare bypass article would best remain seperate from the N21 page. I created it as an aside to the Adare page and, if anything, should be merged into that. The bypass is going to impact on Archaeology and the economy of Adare (including property rights) during the construction phase. When the road is completed then I would support merging it into the N21 page. rubensni

[edit] Vandalism at Clonmel

I've tried to fix the intrusion as I believe you have too. Could you have another look please at Other People Of Note . My attempts to edit seem to delete whole tracts. Thanks.RashersTierney (talk) 23:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Tweaked it a bit and removed the vandalism....it seems OK now. Sarah777 (talk) 23:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks ! Personally, I'm not so cracked about that flappin' bird though RashersTierney (talk) 00:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It flaps meaningfully....Sarah777 (talk) 00:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't we all...RashersTierney (talk) 00:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] British Isles

Hello Sarah. Normally I have a sense of humour about such anon-editors as 86. But, his interesting suggestion at BI? was a bit overboard. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello there, never really involved myself in the debate over the British Isles, my opinion is the same as yours, but I don't think the ip's suggestion to GoodDay helps your side of the argument. --Jack forbes (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting it was helpful - the injunction was obviously in breach of WP:CIVIL - but the observation re British Nationalists (though I think it wasn't aimed at G'Day) struck me as being consistent with the facts. G'Day isn't a British Nationalist, I assume? (Mind you, I've never seen anyone admit to being a British nationalist on Wiki - but then that is hardly surprising, is it?). Sarah777 (talk) 06:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm a Canadian Nationalist. GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Very good - Republican or Royalist? Sarah777 (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Republican; the people should have the choice as to who their Head of State will be. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

G'day - you seem to be a sturdy free-minded citizen rather than a subject. (But I've had great difficulty getting any references to subjects into the UK or "BI" articles. Oddly enough when you think about it. I'll be re-visiting that issue when I get the energy to muster a few references!)

[edit] "temp" in the Infobox for Rosenallis

What does "temp" mean in the infobox for Rosenallis? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It means I don't know the Irish version of the name! Sarah777 (talk) 06:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Courage

Hello Sarah, I looked for the first time at the Great Britain and Ireland page and noted you saying that you doubt that Scotland would have the courage to break away from the UK. I think you are underestimating the Scottish people! Scots have, I assure you the courage to go it alone. There are plenty of people like myself who want independence, and in one of the latest opinion polls as many people wanted independence as those who did'nt. The longer the SNP are in power the more popular it becomes, so please don't assume the Scots don't have enough courage! --Jack forbes (talk) 00:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That is news to brighten my day! I guess I've become frustrated at seeing the Scots dip their toes in the Waters of Freedom so many times down the years only to pull back from the edge every time! As we Irish have discovered - it is a whole lot better outside the cage....Sarah777 (talk) 09:05, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zenit

Like I said there, Sarah, I sympathize with the fact you are frustrated with certain elements of wikipedia. I in the past have had similar frustrations. But English football's small problem with racism and the bigger Hiberno-Scottish problem with sectarianism have absolutely no bearing on Zenit, nor on the truth of claims in some of the media that Zenit have racist fans. If you wanna accuse any of the media of hypocrisy related to the state in which they work, that's an argument you should have with the individual journalists or else vent about it on a forum or among your friends. But it's not relevant to the content of this article, which is what its talk page is for. You'd also be better not appearing to seize every opportunity to bash the "British", as it is unlikely to make your editing experience more fulfilling nor to the point make anyone else's And just so I'm clear, this is not an admin warning or anything. Just counsel from a fellow editor! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW, Dbachmann is an admin and actually one of the best. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that but I fear I disagree with almost everything you've said here.

• I don't regard British football racism as merely a "small problem" - it is a large problem.
• My comments have everything to do with the Zenit article; we must be consistent about what is put into such articles, whether Russian or British.
• I don't "seize every opportunity to bash the British" - but seek out and try to remove British or American POV that isn't consistent with WP:NPOV; which is what we should all do, surely? (And British pov is rather a greater problem on English Wiki than Russian pov, for example. For obvious reasons).
• If certain people conditioned by a lifetime of living the Anglo-American paradigm choose to interpret elimination of British pov as anti-Britishness rather than anti-pov and support for WP:NPOV then all I can do is try to educate them.
• "If you wanna accuse any of the media of hypocrisy related to the state in which they work, that's an argument you should have with the individual journalists". Hardly, when some folk are trying to use their propaganda to insert claims of racism selectively into only "foreign" clubs.

Again, thanks for your concern - but I'd ask you to try and look at this issue from a neutral pov. Your downplaying of British racism signals to me that you are not really able to adopt a neutral position in this case. Sarah777 (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if D-man is one of the best it confirms my worst fears about the Admin class. Sarah777 (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't regard British football racism as merely a "small problem" - it is a large problem.

All racism I guess is a large problem, but most of the worst racism is gone from English football and England is not regarded as a problem country.

Reply - Clearly, as stated, that is not a view I'd share or which I believe is based on the facts.

My comments have everything to do with the Zenit article; we must be consistent about what is put into such articles, whether Russian or British.

Think you should read the journalism concerned. Zenit's alleged problem is of a different degree than anything any western European countries have had in my adult lifetime. Pointing out that English clubs have had or have some racism problems is irrelevant. All western European clubs with large fan-bases have racists. Making it "British" versus "Russian" misunderstands the context, ignoring the subtleties (this appears in the French and German media, as well as in Russia!) and ignoring the fact that UEFA actually commented on it. As far as I know, Swizerland is not in Britain and UEFA is not run by a bunch of English nationalists. You see, this is where such a conversation would lead, Russia good/bad, "Britain" good/bad. Not helpful.

Reply - Lots of things about Rangers supporters appeared in the media after they trashed Manchester and stabbed a Russian. I guess it suits your pov to downplay the British racist and hooligan problem.

I don't "seize every opportunity to bash the British" - but seek out and try to remove British or American POV that isn't consistent with WP:NPOV; which is what we should all do, surely? (And British pov is rather a greater problem on English Wiki than Russian pov, for example. For obvious reasons).

I don't think you can honestly deny that you appear to do this. There are better ways to balance different "national" perspectives, where you allege they exist, than by bashing everyone with a certain passport, which you appear [by implication] to do.

Reply - If there are "better ways" why is Wiki such a cesspit of British pov? That wasn't my doing. So I guess the "better ways" don't work.

If certain people conditioned by a lifetime of living the Anglo-American paradigm choose to interpret elimination of British pov as anti-Britishness rather than anti-pov and support for WP:NPOV then all I can do is try to educate them.

What you call the "Anglo-American paradigm" is the middle ground of "moderation" upon which the social order of English wikipedia is based. Calling it that may decrease your respect for it, but it is nevertheless essential. Thing is, if everyone believed they were the sole bearer of the truth and went around going against the discourse community, there'd be no way for this place to function. Wikipedia is not the place to challenge or change usage in the English language or move the middle ground of mainstream society. This is an encyclopedia. There are a number of things in this paradigm that are annoying, the British Isles maybe for you and many other Irish people, other things for me, but you need to reach a certain level of acceptance - or rather, tolerance - in order to function here as a good editor. This is a community of humans. You depart from the mainstream far enough and often enough, you'll get ostracized. This is natural. But don't glorify too much in this, happens to the nuts as well as the prophets. ;)

Reply - What I call the "Anglo-American paradigm" is anything but a "moderation"!!!. It is a middle ground amongst the 4% of global population that make up the UK and America. Classic example of parochialism and conditioning! And Wiki isn't a "community"; it is many communities at best. "You depart from the mainstream far enough and often enough, you'll get ostracized." As I said, I am the mainstream.

If certain people conditioned by a lifetime of living the Anglo-American paradigm choose to interpret elimination of British pov as anti-Britishness rather than anti-pov and support for WP:NPOV then all I can do is try to educate them.

I don't know if people call that anti-Britishness, so can't comment.

Reply - You called it anti-Britishness! (Amlong with lots of Anglophiles).

Hardly, when some folk are trying to use their propaganda to insert claims of racism selectively into only "foreign" clubs.

People are people. We can suspect those motivations, but in this case they have an excuse. The job of good editors is to decide in that context if the material is reliable and if so if it puts undue weight on certain negative elements. But you got the wrong end of the stick here. If all those stories were true (I suspect here they are based on truth but exaggerated), it would actually be notable, as no other European club has been noted as having such a serious problem ... hence why the Zenit fan there is annoyed by it. Think of it this way, there are probably Basque speakers in every EU country, but in Spain and France, there are a higher proportion of them so that it is sufficiently notable to be mentioned in the Spain article. Not in the Ireland or Scotland article though.

Reply - Refer to the cover of Ranger's British fans in the global media as I have mentioned. I recall the San Francisco Chronicle (fairly typical) said lots about British football thugs and zilch about racist Russian ones. To give but one example.

Well, if D-man is one of the best it confirms my worst fears about the Admin class

I doubt this approach is ever gonna yield results for you. Seriously! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

That rather depends on what results I am striving to achieve, dunnit? But of course as improving the project is my only goal I would calculate some minor achievements already. Sarah777 (talk) 02:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

. I guess it suits your pov to downplay the British racist and hooligan problem.

Lol. You really don't know me.

It is a middle ground amongst the 4% of global population that make up the UK and America. Classic example of parochialism and conditioning!

You've chosen to lump two states together (I assume you're not putting other English-speaking countries like Australia, Ireland, etc in this) and call anything you don't like "Anglo-American paradigm". I have not done this, so dunno why you'd continue to forward an argument to be based on it. I think the absurdity of this construct would come across more if you ever tried to illustrate it with a concrete example.

Lots of things about Rangers supporters appeared in the media after they trashed Manchester and stabbed a Russian.

Yes, Sarah, once again, your point? It has an article, 2008_UEFA_Cup_Final_riots.

You called it anti-Britishness!

Not in this universe I haven't.

As I said, I am the mainstream.

Well, you'll discover yourself the truth of that eventually.

Refer to the cover of Ranger's British fans in the global media as I have mentioned. I recall the San Francisco Chronicle (fairly typical) said lots about British football thugs and zilch about racist Russian ones. To give but one example

You've missed the point entirely! I think you probably have to read my comments more carefully. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, I completely agree with you that the allegations of racism against Zenit do not appear to be well founded and should not be inserted in the article. On the other hand a long discussion about treatment of the religious minorities in the Great Britain is not needed on the talk page of a Russian football club. It does not help much and easily deteriorate into personal attacks and incivility. I have archived the discussion please do not continue it there. Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Cool Alex - just watch them though. Now Deacon, (see Alex agrees with me and he's an Admin) I think YOU have missed the point entirely. It is that to the world outside, British football is far more identified with hooliganism and racism than Russian football is. The irony of this appears to have escaped both yourself and the British meeja hacks. As for "you'll discover yourself the truth of that eventually" - I've got news for you - I already have. And I'd include most Australians, Canadians and NZ folk - but not most in Ireland. We are the only country where the natives regained control - hence our better perspective. Sarah777 (talk) 02:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zenit 2

Alex did well to archive it. Anyways, I don't know what you think I'm arguing, Sarah. You are not correctly identifying where I am coming from. I don't care about "British hooliganism" nor do I have any real opinion on the prevalence of racism at Zenit, just interested that the article holds to WP:UNDUE and verifiability, and (here in practice) trying to get you to stop introducing disruptive irrelevancies onto talk pages. BTW, I have not found Irish people to have any perspective on the world greatly divergent from the rest of the English-speaking world, except on the issue of naming the British Isles of course (and I am far from convinced this is mainstream even in Ireland). The factory workers of China, the Yanomamo horticulturalists and pygmies of the Congo forests probably don't have anything to say on it at all. And btw, Scotland is not identified with hooliganism (consistently awarded by UEFA and FIFA for its good behaviour), England might be (as is Holland and Germany to lesser extents), a point very well known to people who actually follow football and a point you seem to have missed in desire to go at this in this way. And as I said to the user who brought it up, Scottish journalists weren't reporting this. For your information, for all your love of making things "British", the amount of overlap in football journalism between Scotland and England is virtually non-existent (because of separate newspapers and separate leagues and national teams), except the websites of certain UK wide media organizations (who normally cover separately in paper and tv but not online) ... which is another reason the conspiracy and media stuff is just absurd. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Why do you keep referring to a "conspiracy" when I have never claimed there is any such thing? Monkeys don't need to conspire to swing from the trees - they just do 'cos they are monkeys! That's how these things work. You seem to be questioning the existence of a nation called Britain - or a thing called Britishness - which I find interesting. (I guess would too if I had to live in the place!) So I don't "know where you are coming from"? - it doesn't really matter - I deal with arguments not motives; though I may of course note motivation. I'd also have to quibble with your characterisation of Irish pov; everyone has different views on everything but opinion polls clearly show huge differences between Ireland and the Anglo-world re for example, the invasion of Iraq where we were at the far "anti" end of thew Western spectrum and the Australians, Americans and British were part of the invader-force. Despite all the marches etc when the war started a very large majority of British people supported the murderous aggression; it was opposed by 85% of the Irish. A difference of perspective borne of the experience of the transcendental evil of British Imperialism. And, of course, in that we were at one with the mainstream, moderate international opinion. (Though I know Anglo-hacks often define the "International Community" to mean the Anglosphere plus a few hangers-on - but in the real world it isn't - its the mainstream of the other 6 billion). Sarah777 (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, I think the reason there is such a divergence Between Irish and "British" opinion on the Iraqi invasion is the pravda like reporting in the media, and that includes the Scottish media. You have heard the saying "don't believe everything you read in the press"? Well, I'm afraid there are a sizeable amount of people that do. The Pravda like reporting in the Scottish press is so bad you would have to see it to believe it. Just one small example, before the elections, Alex Salmond and the Scottish Labour leader Jack McConnell had a debate on tv in which Salmond won every argument and had McConnell tied up in knots. What happens? Next day the press report that Jack won hands down! A blatant lie that would have made the Pravda editors proud. They would'nt know the truth if it fell on them, or rather they do but it does not jibe with their own politics. What actually astonishes me is that the SNP got into power withought a single newspaper backing them, which restores a little faith in me for the Scottish people. Can you imagine what would happen if they had a couple of newspapers backing them? You may be reading this thinking, my god, he's rambling on about Scotland again! Sorry, can't help it! :> Jack forbes (talk) 14:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Jack, I have the utmost respect for Scots who distance themselves and want no part of the British State. But as in NI - you are either Irish or British; I guess in Scotland there is a similar choice - Scottish/British - you can't really be both. To my mind if you don't support an Ireland independent of the British Crown you are not Irish. You are culturally British, even if you happen to live on this island. At least our Northern Unionists have the honesty to be clear about that. I sympathize with your difficulty with the British press; but it merely reflects where power and majority opinion lies in the British state and until Scotland leaves that state you'll be stuck with its establishment. Of course Deek here thinks the Scottish Press is totally different to the English but then I guess he only reads the sports pages! Sarah777 (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, you are seriously misguided if you think all "British" people supported the Iraqi invasion. Generalizing based on "nation" (or states in this case) is just intellectually flawed, especially drawing distinctions between 4 countries, England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland, that are pretty much identical in culture as far as any outsider is concerned. You heard plenty of people there giving self-righteous rants similar to yours, though not being Irish they attributed their presumed moral superiority to things other than Irishness or "not being an Anglo". As for Britain being a "nation", well, that's up to the individuals as such. Plenty of "sources" claim "Britain" is not a nation, so it's a POV thing. But some people, like yourself, think it is a nation. For my own POV, nations are just made up ways of classifying human beings and pretty daft ones at that, though that doesn't stop me, irrational as I am, being proud of being Scottish and Irish. Nonetheless, nations are one of the banes of every good historian's existence, and nationalists with no respect for wikipedia's neutrality standards are the banes of the good editor here. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear - I never said "all British people supported the Iraqi invasion". In fact I went to some length to explain exactly what I mean. The people in the UK were in favour of butchery in Iraq by a substantial majority - as was their Parliament; the people of Ireland were massively opposed. Fact. Live with it. Reality bites.

"pretty much identical in culture as far as any outsider is concerned." So what? I'm pointing out that contrary to the pov of British and other "outsiders" it isn't, in fact, the same - there are significant political differences based on historical experience. That's why 70% Brits supported (initially) the murder in Iraq and 85% of Irish opposed it.

And don't be so presumptive of the ignorance of these "outsiders" - see the vast number of countries where folks attitude changes when you explain that you are Irish, 'not British - it ain't just the Irish detest British Imperialism.

I take it from your piffle about "plenty of people there giving self-righteous rants similar to yours" that you are one of the large majority of British folk who supported the invasion; just as I was one of the overwhelming number of Irish people opposed. It's the "British" thing that puts warmongers in a large majority in the UK and in a tiny minority in Ireland. Cultural difference you see. In fact it is a cultural chasm, as the disputes here over attempts by good editors to remove the pov of British and American Nationalist editors, with no respect for wikipedia's neutrality standards, clearly demonstrates. Sarah777 (talk) 18:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Listen, Sarah, if you wanna preach divisive inflammatory rhetoric, doing it to me is a complete waste of your energy. In the 21st century among an educated audience, it is probably a complete waste of your energy more generally. Basically, because I object to and am trying to improve your reasoning and your methods, you've been consistently labeling me everything at the opposite end of the political spectrum from yourself (Deacon must believe in black if he denies white [or even if he doesn't embrace white with an immediate flourish of emotive verbiage]), and profiling yourself as a tendentious editor on some kind of crusade. You need to be more sophisticated than that, and recognize what wikipedia is about. You've guessed my background and opinion correctly on no occasion. If you wanna see the whole world divided neatly into the imperialists and the oppressed, perpetrators and victims, Irish and Anglo-blah-blah, there's little I can do about it other than try to guide you away, but you're gonna have to take this on board for yourself through your own intellectual growth. And btw, if there is anything like a trend, and there are a bulk of exceptions, it's that people tend more often than not to follow the leadership of their governments, and that the UK has to manage its diplomatic interests more pro-actively, esp. with regard to its status and its relationship with the USA. I would regard the idea that Tony Blair and such conducted that war for the sake of imperialism as slightly childish, though I admit I'm not psychic. The idea you have, that there is some special difference because the Irish people have a more developed glorification of historical victimhood may or may not be correct, but that's too dodgy an assertion to be made without being fully fleshed out in a paper or a book. Off the top of my head, it certainly doesn't make sense of the regional statistics within the UK, nor why Poland (actual historical victim country of imperialism), but say not France (historical perpetrator of imperialism) supported the war. However if "evil British" and "saintly Irish" is as prominent as a duality in your own thought process as it is in your public assertions, it doesn't surprise me that you would think like that. Sorry, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Fond of straw men, aren't you. I never said the Irish were "saintly". I said they had a different perspective based on history - not a very radical notion; more stating the bleedin' obvious. You obviously like to pretend that facts which don't fit your confusion must be denied! Despite your denials I reckon I got you sussed - y'know - if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck etc. Regardless, your statements are soaked in Anglo-conditioning. And don't flatter yourself - my interest in converting or convincing you is less than zero. I am merely trying to get you to stop inserting British Nationalist POV into Wiki articles about Ireland.

Another straw man: "The idea you have, that there is some special difference because the Irish people have a more developed glorification of historical victimhood" This puerile psychobabble inclines me to think you are somewhat out of your depth here. So, for the last time (to you) I will repeat:

I said the Irish had a different perspective based on history. If you are unable to read simple English I see little point in continuing this. Sarah777 (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read what I've said; it doesn't sound like you've read anything from my text but your own prejudices. I am interested in trying to help you become a good user, though maybe I need to learn how to do it better or when not to attempt the impossible. But thanks, I'll add "British nationalist" to "Scottish nationalist", "Irish nationalist", "Russian nationalist", "Lithuanian nationalist", "Greek nationalist" and all the other such things "patriotic" editors of various national allegiances have called me over my time here. 'Tis an honour! Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:55, 18 May 2008

(UTC)

Add whatever you like to whatever you like Deek. You're inability to address the points I make and your focus on straw men you invent means you are getting rather boring. Zzzzzz....... Sarah777 (talk) 21:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thought this was over! Are you adding this to convince me, or yourself? If you wanna convince me you need to do more than just make assertions! Your standard of argument here is below what I'd normally respond to, only interest is trying to help you become a good user. Appears success is a long way off! :D Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.............Sarah777 (talk) 22:11, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

All we are saying, is give peace a chance; a song by John Lennon, who was a UKer with Irish roots (I think). GoodDay (talk) 22:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. But as in life we need the criminal to repent, the abuser to confess before there is closure. Instead they are still at the denial stage. Sarah777 (talk) 22:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps; but it's also important, to put behind the scars of yesteryear. Cheers. GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

And we can all walk off into the sunset together! :) If only it were that simple. Jack forbes (talk) 22:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Imagine, all the people..., someday Jack, someday. GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is everything ok?

Sarah, I noticed this edit which I thought was a bit strange, especially the summary you used. Why would you add an old AfD tag to an article rather than to its talk page, and why would you mention vandalism in the summary? Let me know if you need any help or advice; I'd hate to see you getting blocked for incivility again, but it definitely looks like you're heading in that direction. Please take this as a friendly comment rather than a threat. Best wishes, --John (talk) 15:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't see any incivility - but there was no formal closure of the discussion which was hijacked by edit-warriors. I put the tag on the page to remind some Admins what a formal decision looks like; and that a previous attempt to delete this failed only 3 months ago. So I take it that we can all get stuck into new rounds of voting every 10 weeks or so? I certainly think a vote on renaming "The British Isles" is way overdue by that measure. And no; before you ask - I refuse to treat each article in isolation when they are linked to the same British/Irish dispute with much the same British pov-pushers pushers of British pov involved in each case. Sarah777 (talk) 09:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello Sarah. Why were you changing islands to countries at Great Britain and Ireland? GB & IRLD are islands, not countries. Also, you seem to be getting agitated lately; what's up? GoodDay (talk) 13:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm fed up having to remain civil in the face of pushers of British pov in Ireland-related articles. Sarah777 (talk) 01:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 14:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 619 in Ireland

[edit] AfD nomination of 619 in Ireland

I am happy to withdraw if you can find some other event to put in place, I couldn't find any other deaths or births though. Tim! (talk) 17:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't be so petty. Tim! (talk) 16:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I see you have removed the AFD notice tag at the top of 619 in Ireland. I have reverted you because it is inappropriate to remove an AfD tag for a discussion already underway. If you delete the tag, it does nothing, because Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/619 in Ireland will still be there. If you do not want the article to be deleted, then go to the AfD page and voice your opinion there. However, while the discussion is ongoing, the AfD header HAS to be on the article. The administrator who closes the discussion in a few days will remove the AfD header. So please, stop removing this tag. If you have questions about this, feel free to contact me. -Andrew c ^[talk] 00:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TRAGIC NEWS!

It's turkey twizzlers for me!

Ireland kicked out of the Eurovision song contest - Irish glove puppet dumped from Eurovision song contest!

I blame John and the rest of the wiki-Anglocentrics. Is there no end to their villainy? Bloody Pooters! --Major Bonkers (talk) 21:36, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

RTE were always a crowd of puppets IMHO; so they live down to their reputation. How did Poland do? Sarah777 (talk) 00:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I saw your question and wondered about who had done well myself. This is what the Telegraph’s article [1] says:

Other nations that were dropped included Andorra, Armenia, Estonia, Moldova, Montenegro, The Netherlands, Poland, San Marino and Slovenia, to the disappointment of fans who had travelled from the former Yugoslav republic.

The countries going through to Saturday's final included favourites like Bosnia, Greece, Romania and Russia. The others were Armenia, Azerbaijan, Finland, Israel, Norway and Poland.

Unless countries are permitted more than one entry, Poland and Armenia are both in and out of the contest now. Are you any the wiser now? I'm not. ៛ Bielle (talk) 02:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me butting in, but I saw my name mentioned above. You know, we should give ourselves a pat on the back sometimes; for all its flaws and problems, our editorial process is very, very good. I see brain-dead writing and copy-editing like this all the time, even on supposedly reputable organizations like the BBC, the Guardian and so on. I always used to write to the latter to tell them when they got the Britain/England and Wales thing wrong. The last time I did so (wrt the latest teachers' strike in E & W, which they had called "national"), I rather snarkily mentioned that I would not expect to get away with such lazy writing on Wikipedia. They did not reply. I wonder why? --John (talk) 03:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

There's something very strange about Dustin the Turkey's beak to me; it looks as though it's been made out of a lady's comforter, complete with two spherical objects for his eyes. That probably made the song a bit of a hard sell. On the other hand, he could make an alternative career as a gigolo! --Major Bonkers (talk) 04:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Giggle, giggle. GoodDay (talk) 14:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmmmm. Ladies comforter....that would be a hot water bottle - I just can't see the resemblance - Mind, he's handsomer than some of the fellas I've seen off in my salad days!! Sarah777 (talk) 02:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

More kneeslappers, ha ha ha. GoodDay (talk) 17:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] N72 road

Nice picture of the N72 you got there. The part in your picture is probably one of the smoothest parts of it before Fermoy anyway. do you travel down its path often? Towel401 (talk) 00:25, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Very rarely - I read it is listed by some Euro-survey as one of the top 10 Irish roads needing upgrading - not altogether surprised! Sarah777 (talk) 01:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changes at 619 in Ireland

Please do not call obviously good-faith edits "vandalism"--it's insulting. Also, do not remove AFD tags from articles before the AFD discussion is complete. As an established editor, you should know as much. Mangostar (talk) 03:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Please don't delete 20 separate articles without any discussion. That is vandalism. Sarah777 (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, you have now been adequately warned that AfD tags must not be removed for any reason as long as the debate is in progress. If I see you doing it again, I will block you for a lengthy period of time.  Sandstein  22:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 2008

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to 619 in Ireland, without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 00:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Please be advised this is being discussed here. Toddst1 (talk) 01:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Note to Administrators

If you are an Admin please make that clear when you chose to leave messages on my page. I am not clairvoyant - and any unidentified messages that I regard as in the least bit aggressive or threatening are likely to be removed on sight without further engagement. Some Admins take this personally and then abuse their blocking powers. Don't YOU become an abuser. Sarah777 (talk) 01:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, please stop digging yourself deeper at AN/I. At least consider that you may be wrong. If nothing else, just step away from the computer for a few minutes. Note that I have never blocked you and have no plans to. But if you continue to flout policy like this, it's likely that someone else will. I know how it feels to have your stuff deleted or reverted, but it happens, and those of us who've been here a while have learned that you have to take the crunchy with the smooth, as my hero Billy Bragg once said. Please take this as a kind word from someone who wants to help, rather than an abusive Brit POV-warrior abusive admin, if you can. Best wishes, --John (talk) 02:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry John; where have I sinned against what? No incivility; I have argued my case - is that now verboten? Sarah777 (talk) 03:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, I do not have time to discuss this at length, nor debate the rights or wrongs, because I am working to a very tight deadline at the moment. However, my very strong advice to you, is to not write another word on that ANI thread or about the subject of it. Removing AFD templates is verboten. It says so very clearly on the template and someone of your experience should be aware of that. Arguing the toss is not going to get you anywhere except blocked, and then restricted from pages that you would rather not be restricted from. When the ArbCom remedy gets quoted on ANI, it is not going to work out in your favour. Rockpocket 04:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, John and Rockpocket give you sage advice. Removing AfD tags while an article is up for AfD is a blockable matter. Full stop. Regardless of whatever reason you think you have. (and the article IS up for AfD... that's not debatable) Argue the case at the AfD page but do not disrupt (yes, I said disrupt... again, removing legitimate tags is disruption, sorry but it is). So don't do that again or you may well be blocked to prevent disruption to the project. Walk away, find another way to contribute. (admin) ++Lar: t/c 12:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

OK - it seems you are technically correct on the AfD tag; but how the heck does someone delete twenty articles without any consultation; debate - anything. That took away hours of work; took twenty minutes to revert - but it isn't disruptive! Instead all we get are confused rationalisations from B Kite etc - but no censure. Something is rotten in the state of Wiki; there seems to be no relationship to crime and punishment. I have now ceased removing the tag but not defending myself at ANI; even at the risk of being shot; is a bridge too far. No can do. (Though I thank you both, and John, for what I know are genuine attempts to help someone whose actions and words you don't always 100% agree with). Also, bizarre though it will seem to you folks, I want to go to Arbcom and have the "anti-British" restriction removed. If was wrong in the first place and as enforced or threatened amounts to a bounty on my little head). How do I start that process? Sarah777 (talk) 21:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't honestly know how one would go about doing that. I don't think there is an automatic right of appeal, but I would suggest that emailing the ArbCom list with your request would be the way to start. I have to say though, I think they are unlikely to agree to it. The point of the restriction was to defuse the persistent tension that results from expressing an critical, nationalist perspective (or responding to other's edits in that framework). Even a cursory glance at your recent contribs would reveal that is still happening. So that may argue that the remedy is in effective and thus should be lifted., However it may argue that it simply isn't being enforced, or that a tougher remedy may be required. These would not be favorable outcomes for you. Do you really want do place yourself in the centre of the ArbCom radar, considering you are right in the middle of a number of Irish/British POV wars? Rockpocket 22:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Judging by the way the ANI is being conducted I don't see any alternative, frankly. Sarah777 (talk) 04:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Note from an Administrator

merges are something which is a content dispute and don't require any admin action - User:Black Kite

So there you have it folks - merge to your hearts content; no discussion needed, no consultation, no consensus - if it feels good - merge it!! Sarah777 (talk) 02:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

My comment meant that nothing to do with the merges required immediate action at WP:ANI. Black Kite 03:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well maybe you should have said that? Sarah777 (talk) 03:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Years in Ireland

Hi. I like your work for years in Ireland but can I ask you to use full references such as under Template:Cite book? 625 in Ireland for example only provides title and author for The Chronology of the Irish Annals and Irish Kings and High-Kings. We need year and publisher and hopefully city if you can provide it and even ISBN would be nice. Thanks. gren グレン 09:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

So far all the content is based on existing Wiki-articles; no Original Research involved! Sometimes the refs are not in-line and it is unclear which of several books refer to exactly which event. That's why I always link the original articles. But the referencing could obviously be vastly improved as you say - but its a huge body of work to be done for articles that appear to be targeted for extinction every few months. Sarah777 (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Sarah I was going to support your 619 in Ireland article but I noticed that the only item you've listed is also listed as 618. Can you give me something which might influence my decision to support the keeping of the article?GDD1000 (talk) 13:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Ignore my above. I've lent my support.GDD1000 (talk) 13:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep there is one or two like that where two different dates are given in the sources for a birth or death. 619 in Ireland isn't the easiest one to defend when taken in isolation (and in isolation I'd let it go without much resistance) - but my big worry is that it's fate is going to be then applied to all the other "Years in" articles; see recent deletions by Mango (which apparently weren't deletions at all - they just looked that way!!) This isn't the first attack on this series either. I'm off now to look for a cliff off which to jump....Sarah777 (talk) 13:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

And thanks! Sarah777 (talk) 13:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I've found it very frustrating too. I've been accused of having a COI, just because I know a bit about the subject matter. Do you know what would really help that article though? If you could fins something else which happened that year. I'm reading a book at the minute which is dealing with the origins of Irish Nationalism and I'm just in the early stages between initial colonisation and the invasion by the Anglo/French. I'll have a wee swipe through it later and see if I can find anything which might help. I think it would be such a shame to have spent so much time working on all this chronology to have the work trashed.GDD1000 (talk) 14:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll search - this is where an encyclopedic entry about "619 in Ireland" would come in handy! Sarah777 (talk) 14:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Aye but where would you find one of those?GDD1000 (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I once, long ago, thought Wiki might be such a place......Sarah777 (talk) 14:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Nah, you have to find a place where you're allowed to edit ;)GDD1000 (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Go take a wee look now ;)GDD1000 (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh! I want to remove all diacritics from Wikipedia (particullary the Ice Hockey articles), but the chances of that occuring is slim (at best). So, I've a choice - do I A) Get angry & accuse a bunch of editors of being Foreign Language Pushers? or B) Go with the flow & accept I'm in the minority. Accusing others of Political PoV pushing, is only gonna irritate matters & make it more difficult, to get what ya want. It's a give & take world we live in. GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

On the matters of concern to me, elimination of POV - especially in relation to Irish-related articles, there isn't any such option. Interesting article on the nature of one of Wiki's most reliable sources. Sarah777 (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I've never really believed there was such a thing as a reliable source. The world is full of political POV whether that's individuals or newspapers. That's why you have such a hard time with the British Isles article, there are more British pov attitudes in the world media, so you are up against it as far as quantity of sources are concerned Jack forbes (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

'Tis a tough road. But ya gotta remember, Sarah - for every editor you suspect & accuse of being a British PoV pushers; there are editors who'll suspect & accuse you of being a Irish PoV pusher. GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

They would wouldn't they! But that isn't really central to my argument except as support for my central proposition. I'm not sure you little interjections are really....constructive here G'day. (Sez she, menacingly).Sarah777 (talk) 20:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie, Sarah. GoodDay (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Tell me about it Jack!! This was a key issue in a long dispute at "List of Massacres" that went on for months (years actually, but I stumbled into it via an Irish "massacre"). However while the problem is recognised centrally (kind of) Wiki takes no measures to try and produce WP:NPOV and instead gives vast power to hordes of Admins imbued with Anglo-American POV to enforce their worldview to the exclusion of more moderate and globally representative opinion. If you want to see this in action check Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents - read and be amazed. But don't comment there - as just about anything you say can and will be taken down and used against you. And everything you say will be characterised as disruptive and incivil. Especially if some editor/Admin says "F u" and you are provoked into responding "You too". Sarah777 (talk) 20:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there not some kind of saying at wikipedia that goes something like " wikipedia is not about the truth, it's about verifying a fact" or some such nonsense? Where do I find the truth? help!! Jack forbes (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep. No less than Jimbo himself said the truth isn't important; all Wiki does is record what imagined "verifiable sources" say. Trouble is "verifiable sources" include such as the organ I linked above and are determined article by article by pov-imbued Anglophiles and defined in such a way as to make (Truth=Editorial view of the British/America corporate media). As this pov coincides with mainstream Anglosphere pov any other view, even if held by 80% of the global population, is defined as "incredibly extreme". (Again - see the musings of the Admins at ANI) Sarah777 (talk) 21:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/260 in Ireland is unlikely to bring a smile to your lips. Still, has to be done. What can't be mended needs to be merged or deleted, and a timeline of the 4th century of Ireland, let alone the 3rd, 2nd or 1st, would never do. Cormac mac Airt, being a fictional person, is as alive today as ever he was and certainly didn't die in 260 AD. Toodle pip, Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Not really one of mine; I like to start with real folk even if their details are a bit hazy. It's after circa 450 I am interested in; or maybe 500. (I do notice that some editors have taken material from the annals, happily writing articles and quoting dates as if they had historical validity - only to renounce them when the incidents are extracted and added to a "Years in Ireland" article. Odd beheaviour that. Sarah777 (talk) 02:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the record will show that the main cause of the current dispute is the manner in which one editor took it upon himself to delete twenty articles from the 7th Century. Indeed, many of these dates and material extracted from articles you wrote or helped write. Where there was a quibble about the date or reality of the 'person' I generally left it out; bar old St Patrick. I added him in to rid Wiki of the snakes. Sarah777 (talk) 03:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Essay

Further to the ANI discussion, I think it could be helpful to create an essay that explains some of the points you are making. I've made a start at wp:nationalism and would appreciate your input. PhilKnight (talk) 14:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd be delighted to, but I'm not really a great writer I'm afraid! But I will certainly give it a go. I'm not so much a Nationalist as an anti-Imperialist; my views on Ireland's history of occupation and especially the systematic cultural and physical genocide - I have the same perspective on victims of Imperialism across the globe. And Imperialism itself is nearly always merely Nationalism turned cancerous; is a form of hyper-Nationalism whether German, British, Russian, French or American. This self-realisation seems to be largely missing in the mainstream Anglosphere worldview. Sarah777 (talk) 17:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, I'm making one more plea. Discontinue making Political PoV charges & perhaps the ANI will be lenient. The way things are looking now, you're heading towards (at least) a British/Irish Topic Ban. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I was asked to comment. I responded. I am being charged with political pov least you missed that!! (Not with making allegations of it). Sarah777 (talk) 19:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me giving you a little advice. You should try and hold back expressing your opinions on British POV, even though you are right in many cases. If you get blocked from Irish topics or given a total ban who is going to fight it. You have sometimes got to learn and fight your corner with a smile on your face even if inside your furious. Give your opinions in a civil manner, believe me, that will piss them off more because they will have no reason to go crying foul. Jack forbes (talk) 20:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Oddly, I'm not really furious. I feel like Jesus felt on the cross - y'now "I forgive them for they know not what they do" (Oooops, now I've offended the fundies!!) Sarah777 (talk) 21:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

You are accurate in saying you are mostly anti-Imperialist. The point is this is not the moment to go to war when a bunch of people are trying to save you. MilkFloat 23:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not "going to war" with anyone. I am speaking openly and honestly - which is the only real way to indicate respect for people. When people criticise me me - (and on ANI it appears to be open season with WP:CIVIL suspended when I'm the target) - I respond by debate. Not by calling for blocks and bans. But as I said, I'm more than willing to reasonably compromise on a list of named articles - all other Wiki activities I must be allowed the same freedom as my detractors enjoy. I sincerely wish to remain on Wiki - but not at any price. Thanks for your concern, and to G'Day etc. I'm not being hostile - just as honest as I can be. As I have one block for accidental 3RR, have never vandalised articles, never threatened anyone, never used IP contributions, not being any more uncivil than many Admins casually are, explained my reasoning behind my edits, contributed a lot and never used puppets of any stripe I have rather strong views on the fact that a Community Ban is even being discussed. But if I were too open about my feelings in that regard I'd have to include my P45 with the message! Sarah777 (talk) 08:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

And by "P45", you of course mean a pink slip. We'll have none of your Anglo-Irishisms around here, milady. Don't you ever learn? Rockpocket 09:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

See - we all tend to regard our norms as the real norm! Actually isn't it a UB40 across the (small) pond? Sarah777 (talk) 12:13, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope. The Unemployment Benefit, Form 40 is what you fill in when you are unemployed and looking for government assistance. Brits devised the P45 first, and then imperialistically imposed its tax documentation system on you guys. Rockpocket 21:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

And we didn't even change the name?!! Sarah777 (talk) 21:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Oddly enough, a 'pink slip' (or 'pink ticket') in the British armed services means a certificate awarding leave. By extension, it then comes to mean a license to do something naughty, eg: The wife's away this week-end, so I've got a pink slip to visit Spearmint Rhino. Dunno about UB40. I'll mentor you, if you like Sarah - I think we'd have a lot of fun together! --Major Bonkers (talk) 15:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't doubt that we would Bonk, but I'd be concerned you'd drop me in it as a practical joke! Sarah777 (talk) 15:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Do not edit closed AfDs.

Make your comments somewhere else, please. The instructions on the AfD page are quite simple.  Sandstein  22:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Where else do I make them? I stayed outside the box. You have suggested that editors should feel free to delete articles that were not subject to the Afd. How else do I warn them not to proceed as suggested? Sarah777 (talk) 22:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You could edit the talk page of the AFD, rather than the AFD itself. ➪HiDrNick! 22:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Either the AFD or its talkpage are a bit pointless anyway, to be honest; if there's somewhere where your comments aren't going to be read, it's on a closed AFD. You'd be better off on the talkpage of 7th century in Ireland, or more generally at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland. Black Kite 22:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

OK - but I put it up top because I don't really want to have to do 95 reverts. I didn't even oppose this deletion, but it was exactly such extrapolation that led to me being hammered at ANI; (for deleting an AfD tag in the first instance; then they chucked in everything including the kitchen sink). 7th Century talkpage will be too late if someone starts deleting the articles again. Sarah777 (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyone out there like to protect 95 articles???? Sarah777 (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You may have been told this already, but if anyone does anything to these year articles, it will be merging them, as per the consensus apparent from the AfD, not deleting them. There's a big difference.  Sandstein  23:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please point me to the consensus to merge all individual year articles into "century" articles please? I see a discussion on an AfD about one article, but that's it. Even then, it wasn't discussing a wider merge, so I would say that it's a slight stretch to say that a consensus was reached. Also, this issue might well should have been raised on Wikiproject Ireland or somewhere else related for a fuller discussion, to test if a new consensus had formed, involving a wider and more knowledgeable audience? Not saying the decision would be different....but at least due process would have been followed... --Bardcom (talk) 10:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The AfD was for deletion. If it was about merging I would have contributed. There is absolutely no decision to delete 95 articles. It isn't nerging anyway because all content has not been preserved. Sarah777 (talk) 23:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, where there are only one or two pieces of information in a year article, I think the 7th century in Ireland format is better - you can just scan the page for the information you want, rather than having to click on all the links to try to find what you want. Obviously, where there is a considerable amount of information, such as in 666 in Ireland, then a separate page is reasonable. Black Kite 23:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

That is a matter for proper debate and decision. In the meantime, someone is deleting all the articles again. Would someone please warn him to stop? Sarah777 (talk) 23:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, the AfD was about the deletion of one article, but incidentally, it also provided a consensus that this sort of content should not be organised in per-year articles. Again: No one proposes right now to delete the other articles, people just want to merge them. Do you understand the concept of merging?  Sandstein  23:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Then someone should propose a merge; tag the articles etc. Due process. Sarah777 (talk) 23:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

No, per WP:MERGE, "merging is a normal editing action, something any editor can do, and as such does not need to be proposed and processed."  Sandstein  23:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This is deletion and the deleting editor never proposed merge/delete. This is simply outrageous. Sarah777 (talk) 23:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

No, this is not deletion, because nothing is being deleted. The articles are being merged, which means that the histories of the individual articles will remain visible. If you disagree with the outcome of an AFD, you can obviously also request a deletion review. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Listen, Sarah, you've been here a long time, and I'm sure you've contributed much to Wikipedia, but if you make a habit of pretending not to listen to people who explain very basic aspects of our normal editing procedure to you – such as not deleting AfD tags, not editing closed AfDs or the difference between mergers and deletions – then your remaining time with this project is likely to be brief and unpleasant. Oh, and stop that reverting spree right now, please, or I will block you for edit warring.  Sandstein  23:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked indefinitely

What the bloody blue blazes do you think you were doing Sarah? Even if you were right, which I'm pretty sure you're not.. going on a revert spree when you're already under everyone's eye is bloody dumb, if you ask me. I've blocked you indefintely (which does not mean permanently, mind you), but I suggest anyone who looks to unblock puts you under conditions to cut this behavior out. I expected more from you. SirFozzie (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

To any passing administrator, please note WP:ANI#619 in Ireland and WP:ANI#Can someone block Sarah777?. seicer | talk | contribs 23:45, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is Mangostar not blocked - anyone bother to check what he did? (Sarah777) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.15.158.59 (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, you can still edit this page whilst logged in as yourself, even when blocked. This is so that you can request unblocking, if you wish to do so. (The format for this is {{unblock|reason for unblocking}}). Black Kite 00:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I bothered, he was just fixing what he could say he reasonably saw as simple vandalism, as redir will not redirect. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, you can still edit this page while signed in. That is preferable than logging out and editing elsewhere. Rockpocket 00:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I give up. You guys win - what's the point; someone is deleting my IPs - that I've used here - is that a crime now? How else can I talk here? 123.242.230.157 (talk) 00:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

By logging in as yourself - you can still edit this page (and only this page) whilst logged in. Black Kite 00:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

So I can! Last time I was blocked from here too. So I need only use IPs on other talkpages? Look folks, this has nothing to do with Britain v Ireland - some drone is deleting nearly 100 articles that I spent countless hours building up. Nobody asked me anything; nobody left any message saying we are going to merge/delete 100 of your articles; no "merge" tag were placed and now I find folk are conflating all real and imagined sins from the POV issue to the Afd to this. I may be a bit combative - but this isn't right. Sarah777 (talk) 00:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

No, because using IP addresses on other pages is a violation of blocking policy, and any such attempt to evade the block will result in the IP addresses being blocked on sight. To add, no article was deleted; they were merged, and you have been made well aware of that many times already. seicer | talk | contribs 00:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

That is complete rubbish. Sarah777 (talk) 00:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, I suggest you either (a) submit an unblock request (see below), or (b) don't comment further or this page will be locked as well. Black Kite 00:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• As I mentioned above, if you wish to request unblock, use {{unblock|your reason for unblock}} on this talk page. Incidentally, using IPs on other pages at the moment would be avoiding a block, and is unlikely to go down too well if you're considering requesting an unblock. Black Kite 00:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

  I suggest you wait a couple of weeks, come back and then post an unblock message. I am sure at that point you will get some support, at the moment that is much less likely. Indef may mean until you can persuade the community you are ready to return. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

See RFCU for a pending case. Comment here regarding the case Sarah777, if you wish. seicer | talk | contribs 01:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Very funny. Without using an IP I can't comment on that page. Sarah777 (talk) 01:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that was me. The clue is in the "Sarah777" that I signed. Thought that even yer average Admin could follow that! Brilliant dectective work! Sarah777 (talk) 01:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

G'night all. Me off to bed. Sarah777 (talk) 01:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

For your info, the RFCU case has now been Declined - Alison ^❤ 05:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

There was a lot of chat at the ole RCFU about whether or not I might be a "tor". If someone tells me what that is I'll tell you whether I am or am'nt. Sarah777 (talk) 14:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey Sarah, they were wondering if you were using a TOR proxy to bypass your block. Tor (anonymity network). The problem with TOR IP addresses on Wikipedia is that they're GENERALLY (not totally, just generally) used by long term problem users to vandalize and/or continue the behavior that got them banned/blocked. I was sure you weren't, and said so, so at least on this part, I think we can just write that bit off. SirFozzie (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. I thought it meant something...eh...uncivil! Sarah777 (talk) 15:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] With all due respect...

...I think we need to get a sense of proportion here. It obviously is a bloody nuisance when one's work is summarily deleted, especially if the deletionist hasn't had the courtesy to notify the author on their Talk page. I see a number of issues here - wiki-Anglocentricism, rudeness, misunderstood remarks which are taken as rudeness, and the preservation of one's own work - which really ought to be seperated out and commented upon individually. Looking at the present morass, from Sarah's viewpoint it must look very much like a witch-hunt; I'm astonished and alarmed that from a relatively minor spark we now have an indefinite block, and this on a constructive editor. We're in danger of throwing the baby out with the bath-water, driving away good editors.

Suggestion: please can the block either be lifted or (at least) a limit be put on it, with Sarah put on a parole for the moment? The point's been made, the lesson learned. --Major Bonkers (talk) 08:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Bonk. I do still find it astonishing that 100 articles can be deleted under the guise of a merge when there hasn't even been such a proposal. I'd discuss this further on your page but it appears that would be "block evasion" and as you can see we have some serious control freaks loose hereabouts. Sarah777 (talk) 14:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. And, with lots of respect, I agree with Sarah777's point that an AfD to delete one "year" article is not the right forum to for (I was going to say gerrymander) a "consensus" that all "year" articles are to be replaced with a "century" article. First off, being reasonable, I don't see how a consensus can be tested in such a short time, and secondly, I don't see where the consensus was tested with "knowledgable" editors. Again with respect, while Sarah777's reaction to revert those articles seems OOT, think of it as a cry for help and attention, seeing as most admins were admonishing her aggressive attitude and incivility rather than trying to follow due process. --Bardcom (talk) 10:11, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree. I don't see this barring, blocking, tarring-and-feathering or whatever for Sarah to be a useful outcome at all. I tend to see this as tribal reactionary behaviour by the wikigentsia more than any anti-Irish Cabal, but when comments are posted like, '[comments-like] "Anglo-American pov trumps the stated policy of WP:NPOV every time" is completely beyond the pale', that's a pretty unhelpful and politically ignorant turn of phrase to have randomly picked out of the ether - you do begin to wonder. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually Andy; I have stopped wondering. What we have here is an unholy alliance I fear. Sarah777 (talk) 14:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems that Major Bonkers, Bardcom and Andy Dingley are expressing this dissatisfaction with the turn of events which seem to have happened way too quickly and while some admins seem to just go for the jugular instead of being constructive. Deletions without any notification is unacceptable and you will notice that there are no links in any of the recent Sarah discussions to those deleted article that I can find. Sarah is generally a constructive editor and though strong minded she does loads of good word, so an indefinite block is way out of line, especially where there are many more destructive editors who get away with much less punishment. While I don't see eye-to-eye with her on everything, we need to avoid driving away hard working editors. ww2censor (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The block is not indefinite as in permanent, it's a "Cut the You-Know-What" block. Considering that there was general support to impose some kind of sanction previously on Sarah in a thread that was winding down previously on ANI, to do what she did is spectacularly unwise. Hopefully, we can work out a set of restrictions/compromises that will allow us to unblock Sarah and get back to productive editing. SirFozzie (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not expressing dissatisfaction with turn of events (it's complicated, I haven't had time to follow it all) so much as with a community that can react to a politically sensitive issue with a crass knee-jerk, then accuse Sarah of being the one causing everything. I mean, catch yourself on woman! you're hardly innocent here, but this tango has plenty more than two people dancing it. As advice to Sarah, stick scrupulously to the rules because they'll whip you for it otherwise, but that doesn't mean I think peppering pages with AfDs is helping anything. What's the problem with 619 for goodness sake? It might not be needed (As the BBC once put it, "Today there was no news") but it has never been harmful. Treating it as worse than deliberate vandalism (are we suddenly running short of that?) just cannot be seen as even-handed, even if particular editors have a history. How would you the reader have reacted to this? I know how I would, and it would be a lot louder than Sarah. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Per Foz above, I'm willing to unblock but we need to work on some sort of conditions, else we'll be right back here again. Sarah, there are enough people on here who want you gone for good. Neither myself nor Foz want that. However, it's that meet-half-way thing again, and you need to do something to allay community concerns. What do you suggest happen here? - Alison ^❤ 15:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - again...

Fozzie/Ali; is anyone going to make any comment on the "process" leading to the second deletion of 100 articles in a week? I find it ironic that I'm bombarded by folk quoting rules at me who seem to have scant regard for rules themselves. I'm not appealing the block at this stage because I'm seriously considering what point there is adding stuff that gets deleted for no good reason. I'm thinking of supplying the full list of (non "years in") articles I created to assist the deletionists in their efforts. I may put one especially tiny one up for AfD and if that succeeds I'll delete the rest myself using the current logic. Then we'll all be happy as pigs in s**t. I'm starting to not care. I'd fight the pov issue to the bitter end - but this latest issue is just depressing. Which may well be the point of it. Sarah777 (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I'd have to use an IP to nominate the articles and then the nomination would be deemed invalid and my IP would be zapped. Life is tough.....Sarah777 (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

← (multiple e/c) SirFozzie, I stated at ANI that a 1RR editing restriction, and a possible topic ban would be workable in this instance. Mentoring is pretty much out of the question, given Sarah's total reluctance of any mentorship, indicated by her ANI comments. But given the strong consensus to block at ANI, we really need Sarah to work with us here -- what are you willing to do to change your behavior? What restrictions are you willing to work with? seicer | talk | contribs 15:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, the information you provided has in the vast majority NOT been deleted, but merged into the various decade article. I've read the output of the Articles for Deletion debate. (I'm going to copy it here, ok?)

The result was delete but allow restoration on request for the purpose of a merger to an appropriate article (which does not seem to exist yet). After discounting some particularly inane comments ("All hail my Anglo-American pov!", "The year in question clearly occurred", "like the potato famine", "Lets start a new guideline", etc.), consensus is that events in this country and era should be covered at the century level for now (or possibly at the decade level once WP:SS requires it), due to the apparent scarcity of verifiable exact dates or even verifiable events. As soon as someone creates an article such as 7th century in Ireland, we can undelete and merge the contents there. Sandstein 22:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I overlooked that work on 7th century in Ireland has already begun, but it was a redirect at the time of the closure. Feel free to undelete 619 in Ireland and merge the contents to the century article, to the extent that consensus there allows. Sandstein 22:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the AfD debate, that's clearly the consensus here. If you have issues where information wasn't merged into the decade articles, fine, let me know, or Ali know (or post a polite request on AN/ANI, if we're asleep, like I'm supposed to be at this time of day (grr), and we'll see what we can do to help you with that. That was the right way to go about things. Instead, you decide that you're right, despite the overwhelming consensus that there's just not enough on a per year basis for separate articles and just go willy-nilly reverting, something that quite frankly was the worst thing you could do with all the discussion that had happened around you previously. SirFozzie (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC) (signing for previous note)

SirFozzie, I already asked the question above. What consensus? What process? The AfD shows a lot of different opinions, most of which are valid, but only commented on 619 in Ireland, not on every article of it's type. And given that there were lots of different opinions, what makes one opinion into a consensus over another on 100's of articles? It's not a vote count, and no discussion or form of compromising took place, which is a key test for consensus. At all. The AfD was about a single article, not trying to form a consensus or policy about 100's of articles. This decision is very seriously flawed and I can understand why Sarah777 is upset. This is a form of bullying and railroading. And asking Sarah777 to "take a break" is just a form of trying to sweep the issue under the carpet and hope it goes away. Can I suggest a reasonable compromise to show proper process. Make a proper and specific proposal for this issue, allow a discussion to take place and allow consensus to be tested with knowledgeable editors, and then make a decision. --Bardcom (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Bardcom, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_February_18 for a related decision on this. As for the community discussion, see this discussion on ANI and This discussion of the block I issued. I suggested a break for Sarah because I want to keep her editing at WP, but I don't want her to say something in the heat of the moment that will shut that possibility down. Even her most fervent supporters in all the discussions realize that Sarah has to bend, at least a bit here. See Alison up above? She attempted to offer mediation to try to allay the community's concerns, only to have Sarah say that she had done nothing wrong and didn't see any value in it. SirFozzie (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks SirFozzie. My fault for mixing two topics - the block and the consensus - let's keep them separate. Regarding consensus - I would request that you address my points on due process above and the reasonable compromise. I withdraw the remark about sweeping under the carpet above. Thank you. --Bardcom (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

We've already requested compromises previously, such as editing restrictions, 1RR and mentorship. The latter was rejected soundly by Sarah777 despite two administrators who were willing to be mentors, and the former two were inconclusive in consensus. If there are any more, we are all open ears at this point. seicer | talk | contribs 17:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Seicer, again, my fault for mixing topics. This is not a request for a reasonable compromise on Sarah777's block. This is a request to test consensus on the creation of a century-level article to replace individual articles. To save repeating, my points are above. --Bardcom (talk) 17:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

←This probably needs to be brought up at a more generalized forum, maybe AN to test consensus. That's all fine by me. seicer | talk | contribs 17:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

May I make a suggestion? Take a break from WP. not long term, maybe 48-72 hours. Don't even load up WP's main page. Let's get past the situation and then when the black mood passes, come back and we can see if we can hammer something out that allays the community's concerns and get you back to editing productively? SirFozzie (talk) 15:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'm gone for 24 hours - I always make quick decisions. Not sure what "the community" is but I'll catalog my photos on Commons or something - unless Commons is verboten too??? Sarah777 (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to Commons, I left you a note there.Finn Rindahl (talk) 11:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, blocks on English Wikipedia do not carry over to Commons. Just a suggestion, your wikibreak thing at the top of the page isn't helpful to the situation, would you please remove it? SirFozzie (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Suggestion for going forward once Sarah returns

Seems like we're having a bit of an impasse, from the AfD, many people think that the years articles "X In Ireland" should be merged into Decade or Century articles, and of course, Sarah and several others here have stated their vocal disagreement with this solution (or don't see the consensus to deal with these as such in the AfD).

Well, we can settle both of these at one go, can't we? Once Sarah works out terms for an unblock (as Alison said further up, Sarah has to make a bit of a concession to allay the concerns of the folks who spoke on the ANI threads, and we can discuss what those are when she comes back). Let's do it simple, RfC style perhaps. See what the will of the community is, once and for all on this.

Would folks be amenable to this as a solution, going forward? SirFozzie (talk) 22:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm good with this. It's not that Sarah doesn't have genuine concerns; she does, but it's a huge convoluted mess and quite a number of people are now embroiled in it. The problem is that 1) maybe she's not totally aware of some of the rules around AfD, merges, etc and 2) she tends to react badly when things go awry and takes the law into her own hands. Sarah - I'm really trying to sort something out here but please, give me something to work with here, rather than just pushing it back onto me ... - Alison ^❤ 22:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I was going to ask to parallel the actions, but I since Sarah would probably like to participate in the RfC, I understand why asking wouldn't make sense. I agree with the suggestion. Thank you. --Bardcom (talk) 23:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Foz, can I go back to mentorship again here and make the suggestion (actually someone else suggested in email :) ) that a neutral editor be chosen/volunteer who has good knowledge of the background, and of the relevant policies but isn't "tainted" by Troubles/Great Famine matters. Thoughts? - Alison ^❤ 23:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, works for me. SirFozzie (talk) 23:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest Tyrenius. - Berks911 (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest not. Ty 00:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

(edited out) a neutral Checkuser has set my mind at ease that this is NOT GH. So I'm sorry, Berks, and I apologize for insinuating it's GH. SirFozzie (talk) 00:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - I really must interrupt my own absence here: I am absolutely not GH and am rather upset at the mere suggestion to be honest given what it appears has been going on there. I will verify my identity, address, etc to Ali if there is any residual doubt in anybody's mind on that score. All other matters are being worked over in my tiny mind and I'm extending my absence till the week-end - but I really have to react to the GH suspicion. I have never ever ever ever ever threatened anybody - in RL or online. Sarah777 (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

No No No, Sarah, I was NOT referring to you, I was referring to another user in the discussion, I have already apologized to them for that suspicion. :) SirFozzie (talk) 23:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh - apologies - I misread. (I knew I shouldn't have let curiosity get the better of me and checked in - I'm not even going to peep at this again till Saturday! Sarah777 (talk) 23:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me just say for the record here that there's absolutely no possible way at all that Sarah777 has anything to do with banned editor, Gold Heart. Absolutely not. And for officialness, that's ----> Unrelated <--- per checkuser. Sarah, I know you're not! - Alison ^❤ 00:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If Sarah accepts mentorship -- and note that she rejected it here and at ANI -- and editing restrictions, then that would be sufficient. seicer | talk | contribs 00:59, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I just read through this whole mess - all this over someone reverting a bunch of merges? o_O naerii - talk 02:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sarah777 (talk • contribs • count • logs • page moves • block log • summary)

I am not in favour of an indefinite block defined as not a permanent block, (and if I had seen this debate earlier would have said so earlier) because what is Sarah777 meant to do? Is she to poll here every so often asking user:SirFozzie to reconsider? What is there to consider in the future that can not be considered now? I suggest that the block is reduced to a specific length of time.

I would be in favour of a block measured in weeks, but would not protest a ban of months. Following the block I would suggest that she should be placed on a one revert per article per week for a month (Obvious vandalism excepted from the revert limit), and then a one revert per article per day for two months. -- The reason for all articles and not just Irish ones is because she can get involved and embroiled in articles such as List of massacres where she perceives (not without reason) a WP:BIAS -- I also think that there should be a predefined minimum block for a violation revert rule (perhaps a two week ban) and an automatic extension of the revert rule for an additional month if the revert rule is breached. Hopefully such a restriction on editing the article page would encourage her to be more polite on the talk pages as her confrontational style is unlikely to persuade an editor who reverts her edits to reconsider his/her position and co-operate with her.

If after such a period under restrictions, she then causes what other think unreasonable disruption then a longer block up to an indefinite one can be considered.

So that other editors know that such an edit restriction is in place a notice stating that such restrictions are in place should be displayed in a box at the top of this talk page. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually Phillip, the thing is, previously that such things were mooted (see the ANI threads before this where mentoring was suggested reviously, as well as a general 1 RR parole). Sarah's still frustrated for the whole thing so is taking a break, but she doesn't need to poll me or other admins every so often.. when she gets back from her minibreak, we'll work on those conditions. I dare say there's no consensus to unblock UNLESS we come up with a fairly strict set of conditions, so in that way its permanent. SirFozzie (talk) 13:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you SirFozzie, I had read the ANI threads. The matter of unblocking her or changing the duration of the block is not really down to a consensus it is down to your judgement, although you presumably would consider others opinions which is why I voiced mine here. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Any discussion of restrictions and unblocking needs to take place at WP:AN, which many (most?) admins watch, and not Sarah's talk page, which I assume few admins watch. It is unfair to the community which (obviously) has strong feelings about this issue for it to be discussed in a low-profile location, especially as I imagine many people would be surprised that an unblock is being discussed already. Sarah can arrange to have what she has to say transferred from this page or from e-mail, as is standard. I respectfully submit that any further discussion on this topic that is not a direct and exclusive address to Sarah be moved to the proper forum. Regards - Revolving Bugbear 16:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

What is Bugbear doing here? I thought this block was for restoring deleted articles, not for what was being discussed at ANI? Sarah777 (talk) 23:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Conversations on WP:AN and WP:ANI are ephemeral (thanks to auto archiving) so there is little point discussing Sarah777 case there until Sarah777 is engaged in a conversation here and is willing to accept a compromise. I did not suggest that I am in favour of an immediate unblock, but that the block should be of a specific period. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Bugbear that substantive discussions on restrictions should be carried out at AN or ANI, but I have to disagree that that is what is happening here at the moment. I can't see a reason not to continue discussions of "what if" scenarios and the bouncing of ideas on how to resolve the situation. While we are still in the realm of speculation - "talks about talks" to coin a phrase - there is no reason to not to discuss them here; honestly I think it is more appropriate to keep them off the noticeboards.

For example, as Alison pointed out above, she got an e-mail (from me, for the record) suggesting mentorship from an uninvolved editor. (Granted it was late in the proceedings, but I was offline for much of last week, and only found out what had happened over the weekend, and was offline until Tuesday for various reasons; as I was following the ANI discussion in time-lapse, it had a rather unpleasant strobe effect.). Actually I had a particular non-admin editor in mind, on the grounds that he is generally uninvolved in the specific articles that cause a problem, but I think would be generally acknowledged as being wise in the ways of the Wiki; however, seeing as I don't think anyone, including myself, has raised the issue with him, it would be premature to bring it up in more official channels.

Of course, all that said, once the actual formaldiscussion of Sarah's situation resumes, more cogent arguments and reasons that arise from here, or anywhere else, need to presented, preferably with the underlying logic. E-mail, user talk pages, IRC or carrier pigeon are useful ways to float ideas, but they aren't a substitute for on-wiki discussion in the proper forum. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Answers: Sarah -- I have the talk pages of a very large number of Wikipedians watchlisted. Something you were involved in discussing with another Wikipedian with whom I have had contact caught my eye some time ago, and I watchlisted your talk page and never bothered to unwatch it. I noticed this conversation completely coincidentally. Regardless, your status is a matter the community has a right to weigh in on, irrespective of what you were blocked for.

Philip: You did not say you were in favor of an immediate unblock, but you did offer a very detailed structure of what you thought an unblock might look like, which looks very concrete. That is a discussion for the community.

Flowerpotman: I disagree entirely. Proposals should be discussed within the community before being floated to Sarah, not the other way around. Both the mentorship idea and the 1RR idea have already been floated and elicited very particular responses -- I do not feel that it is appropriate to float these ideas again out of view of editors who expressed feelings about these ideas previously. If you want to have private conversations with Sarah via e-mail or carrier pigeon, that's fine, and no one will begrudge you that. But floating these ideas in a very low-profile place less than 24 hours after a very complex conversation about them was archived from ANI appears, to be frank, inappropriate. - Revolving Bugbear 00:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with everything you have said - maybe you'd keep any further thoughts on some other page? Sarah777 (talk) 00:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of 80 in Ireland

Yeah, I'd love to discuss this and edit the article.......I notice you are suggesting that Irish history pre-400 be included in an article called Roman Ireland (to make it sit more harmoniously with Roman Britain?) - never heard of such a place; I think Pre-Christian Ireland would be the more common name or even Ireland 1 - 400 AD. Sarah777 (talk) 22:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you misread that. Roman Ireland, which I have no plans to write, would be about the Romans in Ireland. Your library will likely be able to get Martino's book of the same name, but you'd be better off with Raftery's Pagan Celtic Ireland which they should have as well. The article to correspond with Roman Britain, if we ever get that far, would be Iron Age Ireland. I'm not sure how the Iron Age is subdivided in Irish archaeology - it varies a lot from region to region - but however Irish archaeologists do it, that's the way we should/would. We're an awful long way from worrying about that when we don't even have an Early Christian Ireland article. I have four big books on that, totalling several thousand pages, so I don't have much excuse for not getting on with it. But I haven't got very far yet. I am not really getting my head round writing about archaeology. Must try harder, Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Angus - as you see I'm a wee bit distracted at the moment! Sarah777 (talk) 22:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

"Distracted? Why is that?", he asked disingenuously. Oh, that? Let's start by confirming the obvious: once you are a fixture at the noticeboards, and been blocked several times, and made lots of special friends among wikipedia's administrators, it may feel like you're living in a goldfish bowl. So, yes, if you think that you would be or have been blocked for things that other editors, less (in)famous, could do without anyone even noticing, you'll likely be right. But it's not just you, and how could it be otherwise?

Still, you don't need to do all that much differently to disappear from the administrators' noticeboards. Because there's been so much written already, I'll keep this short. Edit-warring? Stick with bold-revert-discuss and there won't be any edit-wars. Miss Manners and her guide to civility? Don't reply when you are angry, hit preview more often, read what you're writing, don't feel obliged to reply to everything, think how you'd feel if someone wrote a similar reply to one of your comments; you had no problem back when you were collecting barnstars, so you can fix this easy enough. Conspiracies? Well, even if there were such a thing, Wikipedia is not a battleground for you to slug it out with the evil Anglo-American conspiracy. The bottom line is that appearances are all that matter. A little genteel hypocrisy goes a long way. If you pretend to be calm and reasonable, that's not really any different from being calm and reasonable, however you may actually feel. If you can't assume good faith, keep that to yourself and nobody will likely be any the wiser. Nobody expects you to drink the kool-aid and change what you believe, only to change what you do.

That's a bit of a sermon, so you might want to finish it by reading Luke 15:7, changing the gender if you think that's appropriate. Tioradh! Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, looks like I'll just have to repeat this again - I have never said there was an "evil Anglo-American conspiracy"; or even a non-evil one! What I have said, and can't ignore out of politeness, is that there is massive Anglo-American bias which leads to an overall Anglo-American Nationalist perspective that isn't consistent with WP:NPOV. Many of those most biased and most imbued with this Nationalism are seemingly totally unaware of it. Or so WP:AGF would have me assume! Sarah777 (talk) 17:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there's such a thing as "an Anglo-American Nationalist perspective". Really. Pointing out that an English-language project on the internet has an Anglophone - on weight of numbers, American - bias is only stating the obvious. I'm guessing every Wikipedia project has an anthropocentric bias too, what with most of the editors being humans, and no doubt we'll can find more systemic biases if only we look. So what? Being right won't help you, getting along with people will. Like I said, a little hypocrisy would help enormously. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I dunno Angus. I see a lot of hypocrisy here and all it does is facilitate the promulgation of Anglo-American Nationalist bias. I've long ago conceded that I assume many other projects have anthropocentric bias; but as we say here on EN:Wiki just because he ignores WP:NPOV doesn't mean you can. Of course you have doubts (though they appear slight enough given your plea re other Wikis) - didn't I say folk were mostly unaware of their Nationalist bias? And of course you wouldn't characterise the bias as "nationalist" - 'cos that what the Anglo-American nationalists call those with a perspective favouring other nations. But just because anthropocentric/Anglo-Nationalist bias is rampant on EN:Wiki is hardly a reason to ignore it! Are you suggesting that it it were only a tiny problem it would be appropriate to address it? The way that the "Community" is addressing, say, perceived Irish Nationalism? Sarah777 (talk) 08:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I must say I feel at this stage that keeping me pinned here is becoming a total disgrace. I cannot vote for members of the Board of Trustees. Sarah777 (talk) 09:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually - I think I can vote via my membership of Commons.....Sarah777 (talk) 11:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Unfortunate Block

So Ali; what conditions do you want to impose before you lift this block? I've already clearly stated what I'll agree to. If you find them unacceptable you really would help it you could say what is missing from them in your opinion? Sarah777 (talk) 22:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess, Sarah, the community wishes is to have a situation where what they see as problematic behaviour will not be recapitulated. I appreciate that you do not agree that there is a problem (or that if there is, the root if it lies elsewhere), but irrespective of who really is at fault, it becomes your prerogative to ensure that it is not repeated if you wish to be unblocked. So with that in mind, my interpretation of the community feeling is as follows.

Firstly you have to request to be unblocked, and in doing that you have to acknowledge that it is no longer needed as a preventative measure (i.e. that you will not continue the the mass reversion of the articles.)

Then there appears to be support for some system that will assist you from getting into problematic situations (again, in the eyes of the community). This has two parts to it. On one hand the community wants to see that you understand what they are talking about. You don't have to agree with them, but you do have to see what they are saying so you can avoid the same situation in future. At this point we are not getting that from you. If you are willing to move forward on that basis, then we could provide you with a mentor that could assist you. The second part is some sort of physical restriction, be it a topic ban or xRR restriction. That would probably have to be discussed further, but until you fulfill the first criteria I'm not sure there is much enthusiasm to have it. Its my opinion that the more willingness you display towards appreciating the concerns of the community, the less likely they would be to impose restrictions. It follows therefore that unless you are enthusiastic about altering your editing style yourself, the community will impose those changes on you (or maybe even leave you blocked). So rather than request what do I have to put up with to get unblocked, the onus is on you to show the community that you will not get into a situation again that they deem unacceptable. So to turn the question around: what do we need to do to ensure that we don't end up back here? Rockpocket 23:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

and "get rid of the Anglo-American influence on Wikipedia" is not the answer I'm looking for; Rockpocket 23:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmmm. I don't really see why we need such exceptionalism for an unblock. The "mass reversion" was a single incident for which I have now been blocked for a week. That would be pretty excessive by the normal standards I've observed here. And of course, as I keep pointing out, there is no such thing as "The Community". what do I have to put up with to get unblocked is the best, perhaps only, way to approach this - I fully understand what certain elements of "the community" want - I can supply the diffs - so the Community can be totally assured that I understand exactly what they are saying; all their diverse and often contradictory views. Understand 'im all. Sarah777 (talk) 08:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

"get rid of the utterly dominent Anglo-American bias on Wikipedia" is what I'd actually reply, btw; Sarah777 (talk) 08:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

And while I think of it would someone please warn HalfShadow for breaching WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA on this very page? Now that you've reminded me of the 'community'). Sarah777 (talk) 08:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 10:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, it would be helpful if you could articulate for yourself what the concerns are, why you think you were blocked, and further, what you would do differently if you were to be unblocked. --Elonka 20:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Well Elonka (Hi again!) - were I to articulate why I think I was blocked I'd breach WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF on a stellar scale! Can't see that helping very much. What would I do differently? I wouldn't delete AfD tags or revert mass deletions of articles I wrote. And if folk warned me to cease doing something I'd sure as hell check if they were Admins or not before ignoring them. Sarah777 (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sarah. The above looks good, and I'm happy to go back to the WP:AN and suggest an unblock based on that, although I suggest that you rephrase "And if folk warned me to cease doing something I'd sure as hell check if they were Admins or not before ignoring them" first. ANY warning should be heeded (or discussed with the person issuing it) - admin status shouldn't change the way you react to such a message. After all, you're just as likely to be blocked for ignoring a non-admin's set of warnings since they can simply report any behaviour they see as disruptive to WP:AN/I (or, in obvious/severe cases, to WP:AIV). Also, it is important that you understand that the block was necessary to stop disruption to the project. It's unfortunate that the blocking admin was someone you've had a run-in with before, but we really must AGF on that since the block was discussed and endorsed by a host of other admins. Hope this helps. Waggers (talk) 09:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The roof overhead!

Thanks Waggers for that constructive input. You are right about the warnings - I issue then betimes myself and report it if they are repeatedly ignored. As for the block I actually find no major fault with Fozzie this time (bar the 'indefinite' bit) - I was far more annoyed with his earlier "incivility" block. I accept that warring is warring even if I didn't actually regard myself as warring at the time but in hindsight I admit it looks like a bit of bolshie beheaviour. However I've made my point about the mass deletions and I'm definitely finished with the "years in" series because they are going to be the subject of endless attack so all the work would be wasted in any case. I'm in and out a bit - it's Bank Holiday here in Ireland and the weather is blistering - myself and me laptop are deep in the shade of a spreading chestnut tree! Sarah777 (talk) 11:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't know how glad I am to see the paragraph above, Sarah :), I think we're going to be able to move forward in the short term here, (not immediate, but if things continue, shan't be too long before you're back and better then ever). And BTW, enjoy your holiday.. Wish I had the day off too (intstead, off to bed soon and getting ready for another week of "fun" evening shifts :)) Enjoy the sunshine for me, wouldya? :) SirFozzie (talk) 11:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice picture, Sarah :) In response to your edit summary, yes, I DEFINITELY would know if you were angry with me, and I appreciate that you're not, but what I meant is.. I want you back contibuting. When you aren't making my life difficult *grins, just teasing*, you are a good editor (seriously), and Wikipedia needs all the good editors it can get its hands on. Happy Monday to ya, if there is such a thing. (Ugh, forgot to sign, too tired to stay awake, too awake to go to sleep!) SirFozzie (talk) 12:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

X X X Foz :) Sarah777 (talk)

That would be helpful. Its important to remember that Fozzie didn't issue the block to punish you for the reversions. It was to stop you from continuing to revert. Looking above, you will remember that you were asked numerous times to stop, then warned you would be blocked if you didn't stop. Neither worked, so you were therefore blocked as a preventative measure to stop it continuing. Since you continue to point out that you were right to revert, there remains the risk that on unblocking you will continue to use those tactics. If can't can't appreciate that that is seen as disruptive, what is to stop you doing so again? That is why the block remains, and that is why I told you before an review will be considered you need to request to be unblocked (the {{unblock}} template is how to do this) and make it clear that you will not continue to revert in that manner.

So you understand what the "community" feeling (or if you don't like that word, the consensus of those individuals that have commented). Therefore you will you will appreciate what is required. You are a woman if your word, Sarah, I think everyone would agree with that. So what the community wants is your word that you will henceforth abide by the ArbCom ruling that concerns you, that you will avoid attributing geo-political motives to editors on talk-pages, and that you will stop revert-warring as a mechanism of editing. If you cannot give your word to do these things voluntarily, then the only way you are going to be unblocked is under conditions that will restrict you. So again, the ball is in your court. Are you going to formally request to be unblocked and convince us it is no longer needed? That has to happen first. Then we need your opinion on how many restrictions the community needs to impose to make sure you are not going to be blocked again. Rockpocket 20:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Rock, obviously I would leave my (WP:OWN) "years in Ireland" to be annihilated because I cannot save them anyway. (On the AGF thingy; notice the century of articles deleted, the 600s, was the very one I had completed and was the most comprehensive set between the Year Dot and the 1600s - it was also the one I had devoted 90% of my "YEARS IN" work to). Coincidence I'm obliged to assume - it seems. Now as for "abide by the ArbCom ruling that concerns you" - I do and always have done, even though I think it is illogical, daft, oppressive and....I better stop now. But abide by it I did. Sarah777 (talk) 22:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason I'm reluctant to request an unblock formally is that it would open the floodgates to another explosion of personal attacks etc which I'm restricted from adequately replying to and which you folk (yes Rock, I'm including you) are prepared to tolerate from fellow Admins who regard WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF as being "for the little people". Had enough of that tyvm! (And thanks Schambo, btw - pity is I had to ask). And thanks Rock for acknowledging that if I were to agree to something I'd certainly stick to it - which is why I'm very thoughtful and careful about what I can agree to in Good Faith. Note: I never agreed to the Arbcom ruling - it was imposed and announced even though I wasn't actually involved in the dispute it was ostensibly concerned with. Sarah777 (talk) 22:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I admit that that a discussion on ANI about the behaviour of an editor can be a problem. We say we comment on the edits, not the editor. But when the whole point of the discussion is about an editor's behaviour, it gets very difficult to do that. So in that sense, yes, ANI is a forum where editors (usually admins) get to say things that might otherwise be ill-advised. Nevertheless, that doesn't give anyone an excuse to be incivil or make personal attacks. One can offer their opinion on an editor without crossing that line and I'll do my best to ensure that happens. But ultimately, if you wish to be unblocked, you don't have much choice. Regarding the "years in Ireland" articles. There appears to be some valid questions about the process of using one AfD closure as a precedent for mass merges. That perhaps should be clarified, and there are mechanisms to do that. What wasn't clever was to revert them all, because in addition to getting yourself blocked for disruption all you have done is move the focus away from that issue onto your behaviour. If you want to "save" those articles, then the best thing you can do is allay the fears about your behaviour and then proceed to address this through the proper channels. Rockpocket 00:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Rock, I no longer have any interest in saving my (WP:OWN) "Years in" articles. The 600s was the decade most comprehensively covered between the Year Dot and the 1500s - and that was the one chosen to merge/delete. And it happened that nearly all those stubs were created by me and that they represented perhaps 80% of the work I've put into the "Years in" series. All coincidence of course. Regardless of the outcome of this block business I'll never add another dot to any "years in" article - and let's see how long it takes them to get another pre-1100 century covered to such an extent. So there is no need for me to address the years-in series through any channels - I've lost all interest in it. Totally. It has been under constant attack from certain editors for a long time (remember User:Ardfern got blocked for reverting an earlier attack and I got two or three of my block collection for protesting about his block!). Sarah777 (talk) 17:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] We're talking about you again

Thought I'd start new thread instead of carrying on halfway through the previous one - that was getting confusing! Anyway, as promised I've suggested an unblock at WP:AN#Unblock of User:Sarah777?. I'm telling you this as a courtesy but my advice is not to go there and read the thread yet as it'll probably just wind you up and spoil your bank holiday! (Having said that, I know that curiosity would get the better of me...) Anyway, we'll make sure you know as soon as any decision is made. Waggers (talk) 12:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ha! My curiosity level is at an all time low....Sarah777 (talk) 12:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Argh... I just remembered she can't respond there. Maybe that is probably why unblocks don't go to AN. Probably should've just been a note there, telling people to come here. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 12:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, as I'm deciding whether or not to endorse your unblock, my question is this: If/when unblocked, will you promise to be civil to everyone, regardless of whether or not you think that they deserve it? I'm not looking for a yes/no here, I'd actually like to see you put things into your own words. Thanks, Elonka 15:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Heck - I thought I was being pretty civil! My latest bother arose from my deleting an AfD tag (which went to ANI and resulted in all manner of previous issues being resuscitated) and then making a series of merge/deletion reverts - not for incivility. My level of civility is now at its highest ever and (I must say) somewhat higher than many of those attacking me at ANI - and here (though I deleted those). Do you not see that there is hardly anything that could seriously be described as uncivil in my record of the past few months? And why on Earth would I start being uncivil all over again if I got back - of course I wouldn't. Obviously from now on I will not:

• Be uncivil.
• Delete AfD templates.
• Engage in mass reversions.

Sarah777 (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Sarah, that's the kind of thing I want to hear.  :) However, I still have concerns that my definition of "civil", and yours, may be lightyears apart. For example, the banner at the top of your talkpage, and the wording that you have in it now, and have been changing in it over the last week or two... Is it your opinion that that is civil? --Elonka 16:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it is humourous, but perhaps it is not humorous? Sarah one of the problems with the Internet is that many people don't recognise irony unless it has a smiley attached, so it is usually better not to use it with people outside one's own culture . --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Elonka - you should have seen the version that Sir Fozzie removed! But no, really, I can't see the banner as a civility issue. It isn't aimed at anyone; it is a joke and contains a hint of irony. To be honest, and mindful that I have told Rock that I'll not agree to anything that I don't fully intend to adhere to I will have to say that I cannot guarantee that everything I say will be interpreted as civil by everybody - there is no objective measure and context is everything - in dispute situations folk can find incivility where normal people wouldn't see any. Just look at some of the diffs that were used in the ANI for example. I can answer for my own behaviour and predict how most folk will react in most situations, but in the end I can't control other peoples motives and perceptions. Elonka, if you think the banner (current version) is uncivil in any serious way then I'm doomed. No point in pretending. Regards Sarah777 (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me too many people have overly sensitive natures. They sound like people who get pushed around in real life and use their adminship to get their own back. I've had one editor who has accused me of pro-nationalist POV a few times when I have disagreed with him, do I go crying to admins, of course not! Some people should grow up! :) I've added a smiley face just in case. Jack forbes (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, okay, let me be a bit more specific. You do seem to be quick to accuse others of being uncivil, for example with your edit summaries here,[2][3] though to be honest I didn't see those comments as so egregious as to warrant immediate deletion as incivility. Then again, it's your talkpage, so you are welcome to delete what you want.  :) However, in your own comments, you seem to have used language which was far worse than those comments that you labeled as uncivil. Specifically, you have used terms such as "ongoing persecution", "happy as pigs in s**t", "unholy alliance", and "control freaks". It is that difference in perception (or perhaps double standard would be a better term?) which still causes concern for me. --Elonka 22:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess I've helped you as much as I honestly can Elonka. The reason I have attacked incivility against me is because the Admins, like yourself, never seem to see anything uncivil when it is addressed to me. So I must point it out.

• "ongoing persecution" may be lots of things, but uncivil isn't one of them!
• "happy as pigs in s**t" is a common rural Irish phrase and is unrelated to civility in any way.
• "unholy alliance" was expressing my point of view and as wasn't uncivil in any meaningful way.
• "control freaks" may border on incivility depending on whether it is aimed at specific persons or just a generalised observation.

On the other hand the remarks you "didn't see as so egregious as to warrant immediate deletion as incivility" were both deliberately provocative and uncivil without a shred of doubt, IMHO. Assuming Good Faith I'll put this down to a difference in perception (and won't even suggest that perhaps double standard would be a better term?). Sarah777 (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you please explain why you think that this comment[4] was "uncivil without a shred of doubt"? --Elonka 23:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, Elonka, because that was the second one-liner this editor had left in the middle of this discussion with no apparent purpose other then attempted provocation. (IMO). Rather than reply and risk incivility I thought removal was the best option. Please note that an Admin agreed with my assessment and warned that editor for incivility. Sarah777 (talk) 08:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you please provide a diff of that warning, or name the admin? Thanks, Elonka 11:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's the warning, although it wasn't made by an administrator and was subsequently called into question. Waggers (talk) 12:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

From a Hiberno-English perspective, "Happy as a pig in shite" should in no way be considered offensive. Had to say that! - Alison ^❤ 00:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The devil in me can't help point out that the term "British Isles" is a common Anglophone phrase and should in no way be considered offensive. Yet. Funny how perspective skews interpretation. Rockpocket 00:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly Rock. But then I'm not trying to get the term "pigs in" into a Wiki-article describing the geographical situation of anyone - much less naming an article thus. All my alleged incivility has occurred in the talkpages - not in article titles :) Sarah777 (talk) 08:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Update

Hi Sarah. I'm afraid things aren't looking good at WP:AN - the consensus seems to be that the block should remain. The main arguments seem to be that now is "too soon" and that there should be "certain conditions" applied to any unblock. That all sounds a bit vague to me, so I'm hoping there'll be some clarity around what exactly you need to agree to, and when would be an appropriate time for an unblock. There is also an outside chance that the block might become a permanent ban, but I think the risk of that is fairly low. Waggers (talk) 09:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just curious

Hello Sarah. What's the 777 stand for, in your User name? GoodDay (talk) 13:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

'Sarah' was taken - so I added a number. Sarah777 (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

So, it's just a random number, cool. GoodDay (talk) 13:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, why did you pick 'Sarah'? Is that your name?  :-) You don't have to answer - I just don't want to make too many assumptions... --Bardcom (talk) 17:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[5] Rockpocket 17:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ty --Bardcom (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep - I was six months down the line before I read the advice that "you shouldn't pick an identity that reveals anything about your real life". But I reckon I'm not alone in that! (I've read autobiographies on userpages). Sarah777 (talk) 18:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

When I become WP:Notable I'll write an article about myself and fight the deletionists to the bitter end! Sarah777 (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there such as thing as WP:NOTORIOUS maybe?  :-) --Bardcom (talk) 23:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. GoodDay (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bizarre?

Relax, turn off your mind and float downstream.......

I note the unblock discussion and might just say that I find it bizarre that I've agreed to a string of things and yet they won't unblock until I agree to other restrictions but they won't say what they are. Sarah777 (talk) 09:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

:Respect? You're lucky I bothered to acknowlege your existence. I don't have to comment and I didn't. That's my prerogitive. And I think you'll find that the opinions of anyone other than an admin really mean nothing to me, unless I decide to see value in them. HalfShadow 16:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

An example of what the Admin community regard as "civil"???? Sarah777 (talk) 22:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

And how does this square with my being told that warnings by any editor must be heeded? Sarah777 (talk) 22:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Where was that posted, Sarah? Rockpocket 23:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

"ANY warning should be heeded (or discussed with the person issuing it) - admin status shouldn't change the way you react to such a message."

The Venerable Waggers; on this page above. Sarah777 (talk) 00:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean where was my quote posted? - sorry. It was on the page of User talk:Schcambo after he warned the editor who left deliberately provocative remarks on my page for breach of WP:CIVIL. I now realise that Schambo isn't in fact an Admin. Which in hindsight I should have realised. Sarah777 (talk) 00:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ty Fozzie. Sarah777 (talk) 23:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That image quote, is from the The Beatles song 'Tommorow Never Knows'. Lay down all thoughts, surrender to the void.... GoodDay (talk) 23:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You got it! Sarah777 (talk) 00:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, the above statement that you quoted from HalfShadow, is indeed uncivil, but it was from someone else's talkpage,[6] so I'm not sure how it relates to your own behavior? --Elonka 23:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, I merely note that none of those who have said that editor's comments on my page were not uncivil and have claimed that I was, saw any need to react to any of that editors incivility. I guess I expect that "double standards" are not being applied. Sarah777 (talk) 00:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

There is incivility all over Wikipedia, all the time. Just because someone isn't warned, is not an indication that the incivility is being ignored. Speaking for myself, I try to let occasional lapses go without immediate reaction, but I do make a mental note of it, and if I see someone being repeatedly uncivil, then I speak up. Then I advise, then I caution. And if nothing else works, I block. If you want proof of that, I could give you plenty of diffs. --Elonka 03:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, excuse me for being a bit self-absorbed but I was really thinking specifically of incivility directed at me in the course of this discussion. Sarah777 (talk) 06:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks Philip B Shearer

I can't reply there but we crossed swords for weeks on "List of Massacres"; your civility and kindness was matched by your indefatigableness! No matter how "thick" folk (including me) got with you, you never lost your cool - I just wish I could be like that!! Sarah777 (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

While I'm at it I guess I must say I'm not much taken with User:John's patronising remarks. I apologise if I'm wrong - unlike very many others I've encountered here. I'm curious to know what might constitute "genuine evidence of growth and learning" in John's view. This Kafkaesque "trial" is leaving me somewhat in the dark. Sarah777 (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Gosh Sarah, I was coming here to make a suggestion or two to help you, but you've just crystallized for me there exactly where you are still going wrong, so I'll instead answer your question. "Genuine evidence of growth and learning", for me, would be if you were able to demonstrate that you fully understand that, far from your situation being Kafkaesque (Kafka's protagonist, if you recall, never learns the details of the charges brought against him), you were blocked for continuing with disruptive and uncivil behavior after three admins warned you to stop. "Genuine evidence of growth and learning" would be if you were able to extend your specific apologies directed to individuals like me, Philip and so on, to a realization that your whole approach to editing here needs to change in certain ways. As I suggested at the central discussion, you could do worse than to take User:Vintagekits as an exemplar. Think about it, and take all the time you need. --John (talk) 02:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

John, could you formulate that into specific proposals? "you were blocked for continuing with disruptive and uncivil behavior after three admins warned you to stop." That was 10 days ago John and I've explained the context (not addressed btw) and said I'd not do it again. So, as my view on the rights and wrongs on this whole process isn't going to change I can only change what I do. Yet nobody will say what that should be. "Stop being uncivil". While I'd really like some folk who feel most strongly about this to practice what they preach, I think there is sufficient variation in what commentators in this case regard as "incivility" to make such broad, unspecific injunctions almost impossible to interpret. Reviewing the case it seems to me that just about anything I say can be interpreted as "uncivil" by those hostile to my position. Recognition of that fact by such as yourself John might be reasonably expected. As would some specifics. (No doubt someone will quote bits of this reply as further evidence of "incivility". As I said - Kafkaesque). Sarah777 (talk) 06:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I've watched this and occasionally commented, but this highlights for me why specific warning must be issued for specific incidents. Otherwise we end up with vagueness, and nobody able to point to an incident leading to a warning. Sarah777, retrospectively, I could point to a dozen comments in the past 2 weeks. Nearly everybody here is assuming that you are fully aware of what constitutes incivility. Is there a gap between the assumptions and your understanding, really? But putting that aside, in the absence of specific warnings, it is valid for you to claim that you have no idea what people are talking about. It might appear a little unbelievable to some editors and admins, depending on how much they are assuming, but the gap has to be closed somehow. Either you hold you hands up and confess that you're bright enough to realize when you're being uncivil, or you hold you hands up and state that you require specific warnings for each incident, and the community imposes a block after every three or four warnings with the block being extended each time. Obviously we'd all prefer the first option.... --Bardcom (talk) 09:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello all. I wonder if I can't help to break the log-jam here. Firstly, Sarah isn't the worst example of rudeness on Wikipedia; see Guy's crude abuse and almost anything by Giano (no-one's too keen to grasp that particular nettle, despite him allegedly being on civility parole); what I have seen from Sarah is the occasional sharp retort, usually expressed with some intelligence and wit (which probably isn't a good idea when you're dealing with people who aren't sure how to respond). The guiding principle which Sarah needs to sign up to is this one: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes/Proposed decision#Decorum (at least, as I understand it).

As I say above, I am concerned about how, from a relatively minor spat, the opportunity has been taken - and I explicitly exclude John from this analysis - to pile in and, I suspect, settle some old scores. Like David Lauder, an established editor with a generally good record of adding content has had a bit of a brainstorm and is now suffering a de facto ban. (I know it's not, but that's how it's coming across.)

In an effort to get the process moving: Sarah, would you accept the principles of the 'Decorum' link, above? Would you voluntarily accept to abide by them strictly for three months? Might this be enough to get some movement? --Major Bonkers (talk) 13:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I would indeed Bonk - but I don't think that's gonna do the trick here! Bard, I don't want specific warnings for each incident; I've never claimed I'm always civil and I'm more than able to know when I've been uncivil - which is about 20% of the time that my detractors see incivility in my responses. That, I think, is where the problem lies (apart from my edit-warring, tag deletion, mass reverts etc) Sarah777 (talk) 22:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No. The elephant in the room here is Sarah’s anti-Imperialist Republican NPOV. - Berks911 (talk) 22:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. There is nothing wrong with having a particular POV, and Wikipedia benefits from having editors with a range of opinions on subjects, as long as they are able to edit harmoniously. If you can agree to follow Major Bonkers' suggestion, and convince people that you are sincere, that would be a way forwards. You'll need to stop holding yourself up to the worst of other people's behavior too; it is always possible to find examples of other people misbehaving but that is not the issue here. If you can improve your own behavior here, you would be welcome to edit again (though clearly this is not just up to me). Would you reconsider mentorship? That could also offer a useful way out of this impasse in my opinion. --John (talk) 23:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Sarah you have to agree to be civil that is not negotiable, and although you may not want a warning for every incident, if you do not apologise quickly on you own volition, you ought be be warned and blocked for a time if in the opinion of administrators you are disregarding the warnings. If prove to be incorrigible then you should be banned permanently. Civility is not something for limited period, but just the usual for Wikipedia editing. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Are we all then, tentatively, agreed (apart from Berks911)? Might Rockpocket still be prepared to act as a mentor?

In response to Berks911: I rather come to the British Empire with the same attitude as you: by and large, it was a force for good. There were conspicuous failures - Ireland, the loss of the American colonies, and the extermination of the Tasmanian aboriginies (in no particular order); there were also conspicuous successes - the treatment of the American Indians in Canada; the extension of free trade; the (generally) peaceful dismantling of Empire. The subject is big enough to stand on its own feet and, to mix my metaphors, the record, which is all historical nowadays, anyway, speaks for itself, without having to be attacked or defended on a partisan basis. --Major Bonkers (talk) 15:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Ahem - We would have to disagree about that over a Polish vodka and lime or two! Re civility I've no big issue with mentoring but as I'm obviously on a different planet from some folk here on what constitutes incivility I'd reckon the mentor should point any infractions and give me a chance to retract - else frankly we'll be back here in a week. I'm a bit surprised folk doubt my sincerity as I have really never said other than what I think! If I find the mentoring is too excessive I'll withdraw and resign from Wiki voluntarily; no drama required. As to who the mentor is I'm not really picky - so long as it isn't one of those who have called for me to be banned forever. Sarah777 (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Just on a point of order Mr Chairman; I don't think I ever rejected mentorship. Did not Alison withdraw her offer because I was a bit wary of some other conditions? Ali or Rock will do fine btw. Even John or Philip. Or Fozzie. If it doesn't work I'll go quietly and won't throw any rocks at the mentor. That I can promise. Major, I'd even include you but your last comments must make one question your judgment - perhaps even your sanity :) Sarah777 (talk) 23:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Message left on Rockpocket's Talk page asking him please to drop by; if he signs up as a mentor, are we all agreed? Is there anything else?

I'm afraid, Sarah, that many people have questioned my sanity over the years; but despite obviously disagreeing in our opinions, we're at least able to do so without telling each other to F– Off, refering to each other as racists, and leaving messages on Admin's Talk pages asking for the other to be blocked! --Major Bonkers (talk) 06:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

PS - a bit early in the morning for the vodka; you might like this advertisment; the tag-line is, 'It's good to sit with a zubr' (which means a European bison, but is also the name of a brand of beer).

Since the editor you're trolling isn't here to defend himself, I will. ONIH has made 12253 mainspace edits and written 1 featured article and 5 good articles. You have made 346 mainspace edits and written how many featured or good articles? None isn't it? When you've accomplished anything close to what ONIH maybe then you can talk, until then it's looking like nothing but petty jealousy because you and your Tory friends aren't anywhere remotely close to being the editor he was. Domer48 (talk) 12:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you look in the archives of my Talk page, you'll find that One Night In Hackney and I enjoyed a reasonably cordial, if guarded, relationship. Besides, what's wrong with being a Tory - itself an Irish word? Perhaps Sarah counts as one of my 'Tory friends'! --Major Bonkers (talk) 13:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

LoL! Maybe in the original "outlaw" sense but in the modern sense I ain't no Tory! I'm not sure how ONIH came into this but while we had some minor spats he was both a gentleman and a very good editor. On the edit-count issue, as I wrote to Ali one of the Admins who was calling for me to be banished from Wiki had 2,000 edits in mainspace in 4 years (to my 13,000 in less than 2 years); had become an Admin a few months after his first edit in 2005 and has issued 350 blocks - nearly as many blocks as edits. And this guy reckoned the project would be better off without me!!! Major, I don't see any sign of activity from the eh...."community"...so I guess nobody is listening here. Would you ask someone to unblock me as obviously I can't. Sarah777 (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Major Bonkers, I feel you're being a bit hasty here with the "we are all agreed" statements, as I am most definitely not on the bandwagon. Sarah777 may have agreed to mentorship, but I have not seen her agree to be civil, and neither have I seen any acknowledgment from her that her previous statements were out of line. Instead, she continues to maintain that most of her behavior was just fine, and she (and you, Bonkers) are making claims that there was just increased scrutiny to "settle old scores" is making charges of "Anglo-American bias", while you Bonkers are claiming that people are speaking up just to "settle old scores".[7] I strongly disagree with this assessment. Sarah's behavior was extremely disruptive, and until she can acknowledge that she understands this and will promise to change her ways, she should not be let back in to Wikipedia. --Elonka 16:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[Sarah] claims that there was just increased scrutiny to "settle old scores". Could you show that diff please Elonka? Sarah777 (talk) 16:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Major or Domer you'd ask some Admin who isn't manifestly hostile to me to unblock on the basis that I have clearly and repeatedly stated what I have done and also have agreed to several different measures as long as a week ago. Thanks. Sarah777 (talk) 16:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to Bonkers' statement here.[8] As for your own comments, Sarah, I am referring to your multiple claims of Anglo-American bias. --Elonka 16:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, given that it was Major Bonkers who made the statement about "settling old scores" and (unless you have another diff to provide) not Sarah, would you not please consider at least rewriting your claim so that it is clear she has not done so. Sarah is certainly responsible for what she says, and has never denied that, though she is often more than a little perplexed at the conclusions others draw from what she has said. However, she is certainly not responsible for what others say, even if it may be in support of her position. ៛ Bielle (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I tweaked my post a bit for accuracy. --Elonka 19:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Tweaking for accuracy is always a civil action to take. Thank you. ៛ Bielle (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Famine

Hi, Sarah. There's a straw poll at Talk:The Great Hunger#Move Proposal - Straw Poll 2 that you've probably seen. If you want to vote I'll be happy to post it on your behalf. I don't think that would contravene any rules. Scolaire (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd not bother - this is another example of what I've been trying to tell people about; Anglo-pov run riot subconsciously imposed by Good Faith editors. And I think voting on my behalf would get you into trouble! Thanks anyway; I'd support Option 4 or totally oppose a move. (Btw, this is my POV; and my talkpage and isn't intended to be "uncivil" to anyone. I simply cannot pretend what I don't feel that there is a subliminal influence at work here. So staying away is the best option in order not to annoy all and sundry). Sarah777 (talk) 23:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The result of the proposal was no consensus on destination of article. JPG-GR (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess I am surprised that no Admin has questioned the validity or appropriateness of reopening this issue a few days after the last move request was rejected. Rather I find some Admins actually participating in the new proposal. I suspect if you or I were to do that with say the Republic of Ireland article it just might be interpreted as "disruptive". I seem to recall being told that by someone after reopening a "move proposal" after about three months. Sarah777 (talk) 00:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, Sarah. I won't register your vote, then. I have my own misgivings about this poll, which aren't to do with timing, and I'll be taking them up on the talk page. But I'll leave you in peace :-) Scolaire (talk) 06:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This needs to end ...

... one way or another. This constant limbo is simply unfair to Sarah, as well as the fact that this is turning into a forum for people to have a go at her. That's not what we're at here. Yeah, I withdrew my offer of mentorship back when Sarah wasn't into it. Now, she's agreed to just about everything, far as I can see, including mentoring. In that case, I'll gladly offer again if Rocky can't/won't.

To be brutally honest, Sarah has a lot of pride and honour. She doesn't do 'bow and scrape' all that well, nor should she, and to me it sometimes seems that people are trying to strip her of her dignity here. Let's not do that.

Given the conversation of the previous thread, and what Sarah has basically agreed to, I'm willing to unblock given her nod to the above. I think this is probably the best conclusion we can have here. Enough people have gone around in circles for long enough, including Sarah. We need to end this and move on - Alison ^❤ 23:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm nodding vigorously here......still....I'm just afraid my head might drop off from all the nodding :) Sarah777 (talk) 23:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Guys. I'm living it up in Vegas at the moment - and will not have regular internet access until later this week. When I get back I'll be happy to help however I can, perhaps Allie and I could share the responsibility? Rockpocket 00:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I hope Sarah will be unblocked soon. I miss her on the British/Irish pages; we need all the colorful editors we can get. Holy smokes, if every editor at Wikipedia were like 'me'? it would be a boring place (to say the least). GoodDay (talk) 00:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

And I apologize if my comments above were in any way readable as contributing to any loss of dignity; that was not my intention. Those who do "bow and scrape" well are frequently insincere. I support Alison's proposal. ៛ Bielle (talk) 00:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Just one thought: Rockpocket and Alison are in the same time zone, and it is not Sarah's by a working day. Sarah has asked for Admin assistance before and the time difference was against her. Do Sarah, Alison or Rockpocket see this as a concern? If yes, is there an Admin acceptable to Sarah, and willing to be involved, who lives in a similar time zone to Sarah's? ៛ Bielle (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, we are not talking about an editor who was casually rude and then got jumped on, we are talking about an editor who has already been through the process of an ArbCom case, where she was specifically restricted from making "Anti-British remarks". And yet even now, while blocked, Sarah777 continues to rail about an "Anglo-American bias", she continues to lash out at those who disagree with her. If she cannot even control her own behavior while blocked, she should absolutely not be let back into the community.

I have re-read the thread at AN, and my opinion on the consensus is that Sarah777 should be kept blocked for a certain period of time (I am suggesting 30 days), at the end of which she can request an unblock. If the consensus at that point is that she is no longer likely to be a disruptive element, she can be unblocked. However, I think it would be wise to also place an additional topic ban on her for 30-90 days, during which she cannot edit any Britain or Ireland-related articles. If at the end of that time her behavior is still positive, then we could lift the topic ban and see how things go from there. How does that sound? --Elonka 00:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[Sarah] continues to lash out at those who disagree with her. Could you provide the diffs to show this "lashing out" please Elonka? Sarah777 (talk) 12:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

(reset) I'd like to give this a month before making another case. We had three threads on Sarah in a matter of a week, and it was all relating to the same instance, and it began to test the patience of many administrators and editors involved because we were having to rehash out the same arguments that pretty much ended in consensus towards an indefinate block. Now, while that may have changed, with Sarah agreeing to mentorship and the like, I'd like to point out that the ad-homiem jabs against Britain have not ceased. A month, then another review. seicer | talk | contribs 01:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

With respect, is it possible to have an ad hominen attack against Britain? I thought this policy was against individual editors. "Down with Britain and all that" hardly counts, or "There's an definite Anglo-American slant on Wikipedia" either. Maybe uncomfortable, and impolite, sometimes downright rude. But not an ad-hominen attack. --Bardcom (talk) 11:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a couple of things; I think having Rocky on board as co-mentor would be great, and if we had a European admin get involved that folks (including Sarah) are okay with, that would be even better. I cannot agree, though, to a 30-day block as it doesn't really fall within the rules, IMO; it's more punitive than preventative. And a topic ban of 30-90 days on Irish and/or British articles would be a de facto site ban, given Sarah's areas in which she edits. To be honest, on most Irish articles, she's an excellent editor. Her knowledge of Irish geography is exemplary and her Irish history is good (given her POV :) ). It's just a narrow range of issues that triggers her and I think most of us - at least myself and Rockpocket - know where those triggers are. So, I'm not in favour of a 30-day block right now, nor a broad topic ban that would completely tie her hands behind her back. She's "done enough time" already and is more than aware of what the issues are here and what she needs to do - Alison ^❤ 01:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Alison, with all due respect, a block here is absolutely preventative. We have a user here who despite multiple warnings, is unable or unwilling to moderate her behavior. I appreciate that you want to give her another chance, but it's not enough that Sarah is "aware" of the issues, she needs to actively demonstrate that she can implement this awareness in her actions. So far she cannot even do this on her own talkpage, so I see no reason to let her back into the community. --Elonka 02:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I strongly support unblocking Sarah. If we cannot handle her it just reflects badly on us. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Elonka, much of what Sarah has been saying here has come from her deep frustration, at this stage. I disagree that she is "unable or unwilling to moderate her behaviour" given that she's basically agreed to do so. Her talk page isn't exactly the forum to demonstrate that she can demonstrate reform; main space is for that. Sarah more than knows at this stage that she's in the last chance saloon and that she's barely escaping this time. So please, we need to make a decision on this and, IMO, it's not going to be unanimous whichever way it goes. I'm certainly willing to unblock, given the conditions, and it appears that a number of others concur. So where do we go from here? - Alison ^❤ 02:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

(after ec but posting anyway, as this is depressing) The reasons were given above ("she's an excellent editor. Her knowledge of Irish geography is exemplary and her Irish history is good"). Which hoops does she need to jump through on her talk page in order to satisfy the need for active demonstration that she can implement this awareness in her actions? Please be specific. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is the ArbCom statement for block: "If a user banned from editing under this decision does so, they may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year."

ArbCom's statement was from September 2007, and she has had five blocks since then, taking into account the latest block which was for indefinite. Do we give Sarah another chance? Or do we block for one year, per ArbCom? And do we need to bring this back up to ArbCom's attention, that Sarah is willing to be moderated through mediation? If Sarah is willing to go through the hoops with two administrators who are openingly willing to mediate, I think that the block can be reduced to time served with the exception that, if there are any further instances, that an immediate one-year block be enforced per ArbCom. seicer | talk | contribs 02:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Seicer, "If a user banned from editing under this decision does so, they may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year." Can you show me the diffs to where I was "banned from editing"? she has had five blocks since then - 5 blocks under the Arbcom ruling? Really? Maybe you'd show those diffs too? an immediate one-year block be enforced per ArbCom; Arbcom only refers to "aggressive editing" and "anti-British remarks". I've not had five blocks for those things; one perhaps. Sarah777 (talk) 12:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Seicer, I'm okay on that, too. And I recall saying on WP:AN that any blocks should really come from me, if I'm mentoring. In practice, that's not going to work and any admin should be able to block. However ... they should at least attempt to consult with an active mentor if possible, unless it's a dire emergency. Just wanted to clarify that - Alison ^❤ 02:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

So far, I'm seeing a majority of people in favour of unblocking Sarah given the existing conditions, plus mentorship. Let's agree to let this run for another 12 hours and if there isn't any major dissent, I'll proceed to unblock - Alison ^❤ 04:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Put me down for major dissent. --Elonka 05:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

To clarify; when I talk about 'major', it relates to the dissent of many, not the degree of dissent of one. Anyways - Alison ^❤ 05:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to unblocking. I do see signs that Sarah is moving on. Alison's mentorship will make a decisive difference in my view. I do hope I am right. --John (talk) 05:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I will hop on and support the conditional unblock. I have been watching the situation for a while now and think it is in the best interst of the project to allow Sarah to continue to edit with the proposed oversight, as long as she understands that any further incidents regarding civility will result in a permanent block. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 07:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

In deference to Elonka's comment on my talk page, let's extend this to 24 hours to be fair to all. Also, I'd like others' opinions on her concern regarding my nationality and mentorship - Alison ^❤ 08:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Irony abounds! If I were to suggest there was something amiss about a "British editor unblocking another British editor" some folk here might suggest that remark fell under the Arbcom Troubles ruling. I believe that folk can be "enjoined" into "the troubles" ruling if they involve themselves in areas/issues covered by it. Can anyone clarify that for me? (After all I wasn't involved in the actual dispute that triggered the Arbcom, I was 'tagged on' afterwards. Sarah777 (talk) 11:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I support unconditional unblocking, but I'd like to see a policy of "official" warnings being used for specific incidents, especially for ad-hominen attacks and anti-British remarks, etc. One of the big problems I have with this specific case is that it seems a small incident can release an explosion of pent-up, but unmarked, frustrations. Better to measure the incidents as we go, and it gives everybody visibility on the current status. It also means that very quickly, editors will learn to engage without getting personal or insulting. --Bardcom (talk) 11:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I certainly agree. WHILE NOT DENYING THAT I HAVE BEEN UNCIVIL ON OCCASIONS (important point) I think a problem now is that normal exchange and just about anything I say is being interpreted as uncivil by editors who, for whatever reason, don't want me around. (It seems my views on nature and extent of the problem of Anglo-American systematic bias is being interpreted as (a) uncivil, regardless of how expressed and (b) in breach of the ArbCom ruling, no matter what context. This why I'd support any mentor who has a reasonably balanced approach to interpreting remarks in terms of context and who they are addressed to etc. Sarah777 (talk) 12:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I´m with Elonka here, who was doing good service to the community in this, in opposing the unblock. I do not agree any unblock should take place untıl (if at all) restrıctıons come ınto place that protect Sarah and the communıty. Sarah has serıous problems whıch clearly aren´t goıng to go away, but can be managed (possıbly). Thıs was the consensus on the AN/I threads, and, pardon me, brıngıng thıs up every other day on Sarah´s talk page and waıtıng for three supports ın a row to unblock ısn´t faır to the rest of the communıty. Forget thıs unfaır to Sarah stuff ... edıtıng wıkıpedıa ıs not a rıght, and as normal wıkıpedıans aren´t hıred socıal workers nor on wıkıpedıa for that purpose, ıt´s far more unfaır to foıst Sarah back on the communıty. Sorry ıf I don´t have a short memory, but seven blocks, an arbcom and an indef block! Unblockıng lıke thıs makes no sense. Her word to behave, not that thıs has been gıven anyways, ıs demonstrably unrelıable, so no decent decısıon-makıng body anywhere else would take ıt serıously. The 'communıty´ should set terms, lıke 1rr, cıvılıty and restatıng the arbcom rulıng. If she agrees to them, good, ıf she doesn´t, then ba bye. I think this has been stated before, so rest assurred if this is brought up in another 2 days I'll probably be of the same opinion then as the other multiple occassions when I stated this. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Question - Do you think it is OK to state on a users Talk page that Sarah has serious problems which clearly aren't going to go away? For what it's worth, if you were talking about me like this, I'd put a warning on your Talk page to mark the incident and to ensure that you knew exactly why I was warning you to not make personal comments. Wikipedia appears to tolerate this behaviour, but I would expect admins to both give good advice and to act as a good example. --Bardcom (talk) 13:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Bardcom, there might be a few civility warnings issued at this stage! I also note that some hostile commentators come onto this page, completely ignore the points I've made and simply repeat their calls for banishment. And I'm wondering if that doesn't breach the civility rules? Sarah777 (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No, and your continued push for this is wearing my good faith thin. In reply to above, if you want to know how many blocks after the ArbCom ruling you have, check your block log. seicer | talk | contribs 13:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

My continued push for what? Actually, I don't want to know my block-score as I already know it. What I said was the blocks were not for breach of the Arbcom ruling as you clearly implied, and I asked you for diff. Are you withdrawing that charge? Sarah777 (talk) 14:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed the log anyway and of the 5 it appears that none of them were for anything related to the Arbcom ruling. I think seicer you should withdraw your remarks as they appear to be misleading. Sarah777 (talk) 14:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Seicer, I've read your comments on this issue over the past weeks and it is obvious that you do not believe that Sarah777 should be unblocked. That's your opinion, and you're perfectly entitled to it. Making threats about wearing your good faith thin makes me curious as to what would change exactly? I've yet to see any move on your part to allow Sarah to return to editting...

As to your comments on the ArbCom ruling and the blocks, you must not allow your own personal opinions become unfair to Sarah777. Your interpretation of the ArbCom ruling and the blocking is incorrect to the point of being very unfair (and also makes me scratch my head on your good faith wearing thin. How thin is it now, exactly?). The ArbCom ruling was specific, and Sarah777 has not been blocked 5 times for breaches of the ArbCom rulings. --Bardcom (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You must have missed my comments above, in regards to unblocking, where I offered a compromise to which Allison agreed to (as a mentor for Sarah). Please review those comments before making personal inteperations of my comments. We are spending way too much time on this. seicer | talk | contribs 14:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I certainly agree with that seicer - we are spending way too much time on this! So let's just move on to the mentorship arrangement? (I think, though, that you should remove your remarks inaccurately implying I was blocked for breaching the Arbcom ruling - to set the record straight). Sarah777 (talk) 14:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Back to the Europe-based deputy mentor thing, I'm happy to step in if that's deemed necessary and acceptable. There are a couple of disadvantages though - I go to bed way before Sarah does and so we're effectively in different time zones anyway, and I know that Sarah and I have had disagreements in the past so Sarah might not find me an acceptable candidate (I won't be offended if that's the case, Sarah!) I'll also take this opportunity to add my voice (again) to those supporting an unblock. Sarah was blocked in order to prevent a particular type of editing that she has now agreed not to continue with. There is absolutely no basis for this block to continue, it makes a farce out of everything Wikipedia stands for. Waggers (talk) 19:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick comment - I've no problem with you whatever Waggers as the/one of the mentors. Sarah777 (talk) 20:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to ensure that unblocking Sarah777 is a genuine community decision, and I don't feel that just discussing things here on her talkpage is the best course of action because it is a very limited audience. Starting another ANI thread is an option, but I think a better venue here, especially since ArbCom restrictions are involved, is to take it to Arbitration Enforcement. So as a courtesy note, I'm letting folks know that I'm working on a draft post for WP:AE right now. When it's up, I'll post the link. FYI, Elonka 19:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, I am highly disappointed that you have chosen to do this, especially given this is the closest we've got to consensus and resolution yet. I believe this is inappropriate because, 1) Sarah, being blocked, is unable to reply there, 2) This is not an arbitration enforcement issue, IMO, 3) All the major players re. Sarah are already on the page here, from all sides, 4) It smacks of forum shopping and 5) We need to end this nonsense, and soon, in deference to just about everyone and bringing this to WP:AE will prolong the mayhem and drahmaz for weeks, with a bit of effort. None of this is fair to Sarah, and bringing it to AE will just get people involved who have absolutely no idea as to the background to this matter, nor to the efforts that so many other people have put in to having this issue resolved. Please reconsider this action - Alison ^❤ 20:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I have been following this page but not voicing an opinion to this point; I don't particularly have a position on whether or not Sarah777 should be unblocked, and things appeared to be progressing smoothly, with reasonable restrictions and administrators willing to accept the responsibility of mentorship. It is clear that Sarah777's block has no relationship to the Troubles arbcom decision; therefore, I cannot see why it should be discussed at WP:AE. Please reconsider, Elonka. That board is busy enough as it is, and I am pretty sure that those who regularly watch it would appreciate it if all matters coming there are clearly related to Arbcom enforcement. Risker (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Support unblock. I'm an uninvolved editor both regarding Sarah777 and the related topics - not sure how I stumbled across this discussion, but when I read it I got interested and reviewed the history. I support unblocking in consideration of Sarah's willingness to accept a mentor relationship. There are editors who are so disruptive that they can never be trusted again, and there are editors who disrupt without adding value to the encyclopedia. Sarah777 appears to be neither of those. It's clear this block got her attention and she won't want it repeated. If problems recur, action can be quick - especially since there will be mentorship in place. There's much to gain and little to lose by giving her another chance. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: Gave SirFozzie the heads-up on the latest updates regarding a growing consensus towards an unblock with restriction. seicer | talk | contribs 20:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI, Alison and I are talking this over, off-wiki. We've agreed to hold off on things for a bit -- she won't unblock yet, and I won't file the AE thread. Hopefully we can reach a compromise.  :) Stay tuned... --Elonka 21:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

At Bardcom, I'd remove such a warning as the trolling unhelpfulness that it would be. At Elonka, keep going ... your involvement has been by far the most useful so far. My running concerns about Sarah is the time she wastes in good editors and her tendency to inflame and polarize the various "discussion" pages she posts on. If you can get something that stops that while allowing her to be actually productive writing articles on Irish villages or some such then that'd be great, and I would - wiki being wiki - support it. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Deek, I take it that you see no problem with the comment then? Is that correct? Please clarify (and not dodge the question as you've done above). In addition, for a bonus point, what's the difference between your comments and the ones you object to coming from Sarah777 (leaving aside wit and pith) with regards to ad hominen attacks? --Bardcom (talk) 09:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you think it is OK to state on a users Talk page that Sarah has serious problems which clearly aren't going to go away? No Bardcom, I don't. And I think characterising your civil course of action as "trolling" is yet another breach of WP:CIVIL. Any reader wishing to get some context for Deacons rather unhelpful input here should read the exchange on this page. Also note that the "Zzzzzzz" was then taken out of that exchange and presented at ANI as telling evidence of my "serious problems". Sarah777 (talk) 07:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested reading

Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias might be a useful essay to read for those who see reference to "Anglophone/Anglo-American" bias as inherently 'uncivil' or 'anti-British'. Sarah777 (talk) 12:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My two pesos

My block of her was not indefinite as in permanent, it was indefinite until change was affected, I see that Sarah has agreed to change, so I'm happy to see an unblock SirFozzie (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Update 5 June

Ireland articles		Importance
		Top	High	Mid	Low	None	Total
Quality
	FA	5	6	10	5		26
	A	1					1
	GA	5	4	16	8		33
	B	29	166	254	290		739
	Start	17	302	1543	5412	1	7275
	Stub		29	817	11887	5	12738
	List		10	73	359		442
	Assessed	57	517	2713	17961	6	21254
	Unassessed		2	1		7	10
	Total	57	519	2714	17961	13	21264

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Ireland articles by quality log for details of latest changes. Sarah777 (talk) 21:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)