User talk:Sarah777/Archive 10

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)

[1] 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)

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,[2] 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)

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)

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".[3] 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.[4] 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)

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)

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)

Unblock now. Unless the intention is to make a block permament, I think all blocks should be for a descrete period. Given that Sarah has accepted mentorship I think she should be unblocked (the initial reasons given for the of the indefinite block cuts both ways, and they were conditional on Sarah behaving herself, so why prolong it?). I think it is useful for the editing of Wikipedia that there are polite gadflies around to remind the majority of editors that there is a "systemic bias that naturally grows from its contributors' demographic groups, manifesting as imbalanced coverage of a subject." --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Timbre

Hi Elonka, I notice you are working on the Muhammad al-Durrah, I wish you the best in attaining a resolution as it is a difficult issue, and I have some experience in those quarters:). Pardon me to give you a bit of "nudge nudge", and a tip. Try not to use the "race card" in your correspondence with other editors, as you did here[5]. Racial remarks can be very off-putting, making editors a tad uneasy, especially if it comes from an admin. It would be much more congruous that matters be discussed in a collegial and edifying manner. I hope you don't take this personally, as it's not intended so, and I think that generally you are a good admin. Thank you:).. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.141.207.13 (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. Muhammad al-Durrah? "I'm tasked by ArbCom with investigating ethnic and cultural edit wars" . That comment tickled my ivories! Lol! Sarah777 (talk) 20:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

Agreed. Berks911 (talk) 21:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Unblocking discussion

Please can someone tell me what's going on here? Has the discussion moved off-Wiki to an exchange between Alison and Elonka?--Major Bonkers (talk) 13:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

PS - a traditional Irish welcome mat (it says here)

I rather like that mat....but as for your question it seems nothing is going on. Maybe they've forgotten about me? Sarah777 (talk) 16:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe the Administrators are discussing your fate, behind closed doors (i.e. via their e-mails). GoodDay (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmmm. Curious. Anyone got a head-scratching smiley? Sarah777 (talk) 18:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

As one of the admins thats (kind of) involved, I haven't received any emails! I'll check with SirFozzie again; if he has no objections (and he's said as much a couple of times now) I'll unblock you. Waggers (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's SirFozzie's call. If he wants to lift the block, that is his choice to make (even if I disagree with it). --Elonka 20:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey!

Thanks everyone - a editing I will go! Sorry for causing all that hassle; I'll count to 324,795 in future before going on a revert binge! Thanks again :-) Sarah777 (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

1,2, Many, Lots, Many Lots, 324,795? :D (Sorry, Sarah, couldn't resist!) SirFozzie (talk) 22:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Images in Irish Roads

Sarah, what is happening to all the images I created, is someone changing them, cos now the M50 article looks strange. Some of the Exit numbers have gone huge. And when I look at an older version of the article, the images are missing. Limbo-Messiah (talk) 10:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Limbo, no idea....I certainly didn't touch them! I'll check it out and get back to you. Sarah777 (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

They all seem to be different sizes but nobody seems to have changed the article text. Did you move them to commons or did someone else? They have a tag about converting the format and moving them - all very puzzling...Sarah777 (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked

Sarah, since you have agreed to the mentoring, and change your behavior...I have unblocked you. I'm hoping this is the beginning of a new day, and we can go forward from here. If you need help, my talk page and email is always open. Good luck! :) SirFozzie (talk) 20:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I totally, absolutely and unequivocally endorse this unblock. Welcome back, Sarah :) - Alison ^❤ 20:37, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Welcome back Sarah. Don't forget, if you feel yourself getting hot under the collar, do come and give Alison, Rockpocket or me a nudge and we'll try to advise. Remember, everything can be undone on Wikipedia (including deletions, merges, etc.) so there's never a hurry. Oh, and on behalf of the community I'm very sorry that this was such a long and drawn out process. You didn't deserve to be put through that and have conducted yourself well, and been very patient. It shows your commitment to the project, and I think we should all be grateful for that. Waggers (talk) 20:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back also. PhilKnight (talk) 21:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Imagine all the people, living life in peace.... Welcome back, from those who luv ya. GoodDay (talk) 22:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Well ... I wish you the best of luck now you are unblocked. (Deacon signed out) 85.130.13.215 (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Limbo signs

Pl note (and keep cool!) I have removed a series of these tags......

This image needs to be converted to the SVG format. Once that is done, it should be moved to the Wikimedia Commons in accordance with Wikipedia's image policy. Once the image is improved, see moving images to the Commons for information on how to proceed.

......from image-pages of road-signs that Limbo-Messiah has created and uploaded. The Commons versions don't fit in the articles and reverting is impossible because as per the tag the originals get deleted by the "image-tidy-up community" as quick as you can say Holy Mess Batman!

Is there any (polite) way to stop good faith catastrophes like this from happening?? Sarah777 (talk) 00:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Heyo. As near as I can tell, there's no way to stop the eventual conversion of the images to the SVG format. The SVG replacement images are 10 times smaller (download size, not dimensions) than the original images that they replaced, and are always preferred for illustrations and icons. If the image replacement is causing formating problems, you can change the image size parameters in the image tags. Reverting the tagging is unlikely to help, since the images will be converted sooner or later anyway, with tags or without. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 23:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. So they'll have to be resized in the text....I'll pass the news to Limbo. Thanks. Sarah777 (talk) 13:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back

From somebody who would have backed you up , but my opinions really would not have helped you, welcome back. Jack forbes (talk) 23:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Good to see you back. The quality of your editing doesn't go unnoticed.
--Yumegusa (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Great to have you back! It's good to see an editor who bothers about content. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks folks - now the trick is to stay back! Sarah777 (talk) 13:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool head, loose trousers! Good to see you around again. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 14:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Sarah. Good to see you back. I'm not sure of what the ultimate resolution was in your unblocking - I certainly wasn't involved in any off-wiki discussions - as I was in Las Vegas for a while. Anyway, I'm back now and my offer of mentorship assistance remains. If there is any specific parole conditions then do let me know, otherwise just drop me a note when you need help. I'll try and keep an eye on things as much as possible and attempt to head off trouble at the pass. Rockpocket 22:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Dunno Rock, it seems I'm being kinda generally mentored - I suggested you, John, Fozzie, Alison, Waggers and a host of others as being acceptable - so please go ahead! Not sure how mentorship works actually - is it like having a Guardian Angel? Sarah777 (talk) 22:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps more like having a parent. Anyway, good luck in staying unblocked. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Think of it more like a helpful big brother (but not a Big Brother). From my own experience, I'd advise you think ahead during situations where problems may arise and ask advice how to proceed in advance rather than get stuck in, and asking for help in the middle of an argument. Also, if one or more of the mentors offers some advice, its probably a good idea to heed it. Finally, my advice is to think about what constructive purpose talk-page comments may serve. Its often tempting to make a wider political or philosophical point on a talk page or get drawn into debate, but if its purpose is not to improve the article directly then its often better off left unsaid. Keep those things in mind and you should be fine. Rockpocket 22:53, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll do it!--Vintagekits (talk) 00:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually don't see it as a big brother at all (having been one twice but never had one), well parents set boundaries, its totally different. I actually like the idea of VK mentoring Sarah. I, on the other hand, would be completely useless, although I want to see a successful Sarah, and a successful VK too. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I herewith accept Vk's kind offer :)Sarah777 (talk) 11:14, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Errr....I withdraw the offer - I'm washing my hair that night, soz!--Vintagekits (talk) 19:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back, Sarah.

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 04:59, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I was away for a few days. Really glad to see you're back. Don't reform too much though... --Bardcom (talk) 20:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Everything in moderation is my motto Bard. Including reform ;) Sarah777 (talk) 21:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Council Housing

Sigh. How interesting that you go on a "controversial" edit spree the day after you're released from the playpen.

It was nearly a week actually. Thanks for your interest though.

What would help convince you that Shanganagh Park, Shanganagh Cliffs and Rathsallagh were BUILT by the Council?

http://www.dlrcoco.ie/PressReleases/shanganagh_house_june08.html

Where did I say that they were not built by the Council???

"The Fields family left the house in the late 1950s and Dublin **County Council** acquired it and the surrounding estate on which they built the Shanganagh **Housing Estate.**"

This means it's a County Council built Housing Estate. It doesn't matter if some or all of the houses are in private ownership, before you trot that one out. By that rationale if there were a few council owned houses in a private estate, the whole lot would be a council estate. This is not POV, it's not snobbery, 'irredentism' (you need to misuse at least one word a day, I see), it's just the application of a factual description, in what is supposed to be a fact based encyclopedia.

That was a reference to the bit about Shankhill including Rathmichael; you obviously must misread at least one edit per day, I see.

At a push I'll settle for "Local Authority Housing", if that salves your social guilt, or whatever it is that drives you to revisit this point frequently.

79.97.100.94 (talk) 09:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I revisit in order to remove weasel words that seem to keep getting re-inserted. I'd (at a push) settle for "housing", unadorned by any unnecessary weasel words. He he! Did you think I wouldn't be back? You should know better by now!! Sarah777 (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The Great Hunger: the "favourite hate" name poll

You participated in a recent straw poll at Talk:The Great Hunger on a possible name change. This is a friendly notice that I have opened another straw poll, this time to find the names that editors are most opposed to. If you know of anybody who did not vote in the last straw poll, but who has an interest in the name debate, please feel free to pass this on. Scolaire (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I know a few - but most of them are blocked or banned for their attempts to remove POV from Ireland-related articles! Sarah777 (talk) 20:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

lol Scolaire (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Years in Ireland

A quick comment on the recent extended block I got for restoring deleted articles: I notice that a month later the 500s and 600s (the period I put all my effort into) remain the only centuries to have all the individual articles deleted. All other periods before and after are untouched despite the claimed consensus of the "community" that the single deletion of "619" was license for anyone to delete 100 other articles. Assuming Good Faith is nigh impossible in this case I fear. Sarah777 (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking at List of years in Ireland, the 3rd century and before are largely cleared out. People who should know better decided to keep 76 and 80 - but those will be nominated again. We'll get there yet. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Risking the wrath of the "community" I'm suggesting someone would have got there long ago if those years had been my work. Just 'cos folk say they are out to get you doesn't mean they aren't! Sarah777 (talk) 10:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Responding to incivility

I think you could have responded appropriately by not making use of words like "smug" and "facetious" in your first message to the inappropriate one by Bastun. I think one way would be to respond with the aim of "rising above" the incivility, and that means by not inflaming the situation any further. Of course, I appreciate that there is an issue of not wanting others to appear to "get away with it" when others don't, and so if you feel the need to respond, one way might be to take on board what child experts advise parents to do if faced with naughty children (though we aren't dealing with naughty children, the general principle could apply to dealing with unfortunate behaviour in adults as well): be sad about what has happened. However, try not to do it in a demeaning or patronising way. I know it is tough, but the advice to grit your teeth and walk away (or ignore it) is still there if you feel you can do that. If you are worried, though, find a friendly administrator and ask for advice on what to do. I certainly think any attempt by others to draw you into a dispute, given the unfortunate recent events, needs to be dealt with quickly and firmly, which is why, when I read the exchange, I felt I should act. Does that help at all?  DDStretch  (talk) 11:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It did indeed help, thanks. You stopped the snowball rolling any further down the hill and for that you have my gratitude! I think I forgot to count to 300,000 or whatever the number was - regards Sarah777 (talk) 12:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Sarah777, check your email --Bardcom (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

@DDStretch - for the record, my post was most certainly not an attempt to draw Sarah into a dispute. If I'd wanted her community banned, I wouldn't have voted against such a sanction on ANI. @Sarah - replying in a min on User talk:Rockpocket. Regards, Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 13:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Bastun for explaining your position. In future if I feel offended at any of your comments I'll reply "Ėġáḍβś₮ŭŃ!" which will be our very own secret code for "I feel, with the greatest of respect, that the wording you used there might just have been a shade different". Sarah777 (talk) 06:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Then while I shall endeavour never to provoke you, I'll especially try never to do so when you've indicated on your userpage that you're travelling, because trying to find those character combinations on an unfamiliar keyboard could take half the day! Regards, Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

ROI table

Thanks for checking that out. I saw those changes being made and was wondering about them, but decided to AGF until I had time to fact-check. Dppowell (talk) 00:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of British Isles (archipelago)

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. NuclearWarfare (talk) 00:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yikes! That was speedy. Sarah777 (talk) 00:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It sure was; even constituent country lasted longer at Scotland, before getting reverted. GoodDay (talk) 00:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I've asked them to leave it for 24 hours but more in hope than expectation! Sarah777 (talk) 00:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah; I don't think it's gonna make it. You'll need a consensus for it's creation, first. GoodDay (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey - it patently obviously isn't an article - just an example. Btw I seem to have moved the tag to the talkpage but speedily moved it back! Sarah777 (talk) 00:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank goodness (concerning the Tag), we don't want you getting into trouble. GoodDay (talk) 00:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

A slight cold sweat did break out when I realised what had happened :) Sarah777 (talk) 00:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Sure you can create a red link. But what earthly justification was there to create a dummy article? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Red links are less illustrative - what's wrong with a dummy article? Sarah777 (talk) 11:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow Roger! - you are one scary lookin' dude :) Sarah777 (talk) 11:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Ridiculous. Either colour is perfectly illustrative. A dummy creates a blue link and thus conceals the need for an article. It also makes a proposed move on to the title more difficult. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

ĖġáḍŔòğĕŘ! - that was what I thought and I don't think ridiculous thoughts. Preferring pink to blue is a matter of opinion and taste; not of factuality. What do you think of the idea of a dab page, btw? Sarah777 (talk) 11:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• There is no need for a dab page. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 14:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Belfast City Airport

Right, I was getting a wee bit exasperated at certain users deleting "Aerfort George Best Chathair Bhéal Feirste", and have decided that the debate really needs to be closed once and for all. The crux of the argument I have put forward is that, whilst the airport does not have an offical Irish language version, nowhere in Northern Ireland does - thus if people insist upon removing "Aerfort George Best Chathair Bhéal Feirste", then they must also (try to) put forward EXACTLY the same argument with regards the great majority of placenames in Northern Ireland - as none of them are officially recognised. I haven't been active on this site for about a month now, but having finnished my exams I have slightly more time to dedicate to this subject. You said that would would be willing to help defend the Irish language translation in this instance. I would be very thankful if you were able to do so. The same thing has also happened, might I add, in the case of all NI airports, with the exception of Derry City and Newtownards. Dúirt tú fhéin roinnt ama ó shin go raibh tú sásta cuidiú liom sa chás seo. Cuirim fáilte roimh chomhfheagras i nGaeilge i gcónaí. Míle buíochas leat! D.de.loinsigh (talk) 12:00, 22 June 2008

Are you sure it was me? I don't recall ever encountering Belfast City Airport before in any context. But I think the Irish names in NI is an Irish Manual of style issue so I'm not sure why that wouldn't apply to the Airport. I'll look into it. Sarah777 (talk) 11:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Goodbye Old Friend

Sibusiso Zuma is going home to South Africa. May the road rise to meet you old buddy! Sarah777 (talk) 11:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Stick to you guns

Hey Sarah. You don't really know me, but I have to tell you to stick to your guns, stick to your principles no matter what. Don't let them tell you what to think, because that's what there trying to do when they are making restrictions on your opinions. To hell with them! Jack forbes (talk) 00:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I am Jack - but obviously I have to play on the steeply sloping uphill pitch the community have created. The treatment of User:Domer48 takes the breath away! Read the thread at The Great Hunger talkpage and figure out how they singled Domer out for blocking!!! Unreal. (Btw, you'll be IP checked now just to make sure you ain't me, no doubt. As you say, I haven't a clue who you are). Sarah777 (talk) 00:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Check me out Sarah, I've already burnt my bridges! Jack forbes (talk) 00:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit slow Jack, but it seems you were aggravated by an apparent sock called User:Fonez4mii - but the police didn't agree - so you retired. You say you 'blew out' after a few drinks - but I can't see where! I reckon you'll be OK in the morning :) ! Sarah777 (talk) 00:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Aint gonna happen Sarah, I'm happy to have burnt my bridges! Do me a favour will you , only if you have time , take a look at the sockpuppet case against the arsehole and tell me what you think. You obviously don't have to, but it would be a small favour to someone you don't know. Jack forbes (talk) 01:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I'm sorry, I shouldn't have brought my anger to your page, it was wrong, and I had no right. Let me deal with it myself, maybe I need to see someone about it. :) Jack forbes (talk) 01:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, he's certainly not going to be checkusered by me, if that's what you're suggesting. It would be highly inappropriate, given that there's no reason to whatsoever - Alison ^❤ 01:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Ooops...didn't mean you Ali - I got carried away in all the excitement ;) Sarah777 (talk) 09:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Sokay :) It's all good! - Alison ^❤ 20:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Famine Talk

Since RyanPostlewait barred IPs from the above mentioned page, can I point out the most obvious Google search [6]. Nearly 2,000,000 hits. 93.107.131.190 (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Ryan did that? Why? Anyway I know name is the commonest just astounded at how many folk seem unable to concede the point. Sarah777 (talk) 22:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Sandyford Industrial Estate

Thanks for the heads up - This would appear to be a browser bug, (That or the 'wrong version' got saved in updating the gecode.

Thanks for the revert. The amended geo-coding's been put back to the correct version (i.e the one with your updates) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. It seems to work fine on all the other articles I've seen it convert. Sarah777 (talk) 19:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Update 30 June

Ireland articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA	6	3	26	29			64
FL			2	6			8
GA	1	10	61	167			239
B	29	191	421	780			1,421
C	28	205	905	4,223			5,361
Start	2	210	2,290	27,666		5	30,173
Stub		3	430	26,426	6	100	26,965
List		28	315	2,923	9		3,275
Category			1	5	25,882		25,888
Disambig			1	2	176		179
File					175		175
Portal					26		26
Project		1			19		20
Redirect		8	57	943	1,468		2,476
Template				1	3,148		3,149
NA					1		1
Other					83		83
Assessed	66	659	4,509	63,171	30,993	105	99,503
Unassessed				1		175	176
Total	66	659	4,509	63,172	30,993	280	99,679
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 338,804			Ω = 5.28

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Ireland articles by quality log for details of latest changes. Sarah777 (talk) 22:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Fenit merge

I have gathered the data together on this sandbox page. If you like to help out please do so, as there is still a lot of duplication and it is still a mess but I am getting there but will appreciate any help you can give. Could also do with one or two more images. Want to take a trip? Actually there are a good few here.Cheers ww2censor (talk) 05:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ww - it looks good enough to me to come out of the sandbox. I don't have any images of Fenit in my collection and of course I refuse to have anything to do with the British Isles geograph project for the reason which the coverage map for the project brilliantly illustrates! Sarah777 (talk) 20:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That article *is* a nice bit of work. Nice to see both of you on WP:IMAR, too :) There are a bunch of really nice, properly licensed photos up on Flickr, including pics of the Jeanie Johnston in the harbour. I'll snag 'em later and copy them to Commons - Alison ^❤ 04:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll do some more polishing tomorrow, especially on the harbour, and look at the photos Alison uploads. Please leave a link here if poss. Then I'll upload and delete merge tags. BTW there is still lifeboat and the Samphire lighthouse to add. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 05:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I got a few nice shots and pointed the upload bot at them. See commons:Category:Fenit and commons:Category:Jeanie Johnston. If I find any more, I'll let yiz know - Alison ^❤ 08:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done - comments please on the talk page, but could still do with inline citations. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 04:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent job! And you used some of the new pics, too :) I'll see if I can dig out some cites and maybe start the Samphire Lighthouse article. Pity Clem is on wikibreak - Alison ^❤ 05:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

That looks great Ww, nice work! I was thinking that maybe the Sandyford Industrial Estate should be merged into Sandyford - this has made up my mind for me. Sarah777 (talk) 13:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Sandyford Industrial Estate seems like a good example of many Irish stubs or short related articles that could be merged into much better, more comprehensive ones with some effort. Who has enough of that? Good example Sarah though, go for it. It looks easier than Fenit. BTW Ali, is it worth while starting a new article for the lighthouse alone? I would just use a redirect, unless it gets too big which I doubt. There is barely one page in The Lighthouses of Ireland by Richard Taylor (2004) and some of that is reminiscences. Cheers both of you. ww2censor (talk) 14:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Thanks for the C-class comment. ww2censor (talk) 15:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

hiya

I saw you asking for a clinical application of NPOV in discussing things on wiki (re Vintagekits, in this case). NPOV only applies to article space, you are misunderstanding that policy. 86.44.16.82 (talk) 02:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Vk is currently being attacked for what he said on his talkpage - my point exactly. Sarah777 (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Much of the discussion is to do with Vk's comments vis a vis the terms of his restrictions; there is no attack in that whatsoever. Furthermore, we can as individuals and as a community find comments outside article space distasteful, offensive and/or disruptive: NPOV has nothing to do with that. As an aside to that point, please don't take it on yourself to ascribe objections to the nature of Vk's comments as an application of anglo POV, thereby implying your POV on them is the "hiberno" one. Dehumanization of the other in connection to their "extermination" is a feature common to ethnic conflict—the Balkans and Rwanda give but recent examples—and one need not be "anglo" to find it objectionable. You can WHOIS me for a case in point. In this context, the fact that Wright was a vicious sectarian killer of innocents, or that Vk's comments were wordplay on the "King Rat" sobriquet, do not assuage the grim and nasty nature of those comments, in my opinion. 86.44.16.82 (talk) 22:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to your opinion. As for "please don't take it on yourself to ascribe objections to the nature of Vk's comments as an application of anglo POV" - it the cap fits....quite obviously much of it is exactly that. I don't see "Hiberno" as the opposite of Anglo btw; you'll have to explain that mental contortion for me! Calling Vk a supporter of "terrorists", "murderers" etc is also "dehumanization" - in fact the most virulent modern form of it - which leads to one million Iraqi dead, Guantanamo, the siege of Gaza, devastation in Somalia for example. So I don't really need lectures on the topic. Finding Vk's remarks "distasteful, offensive and/or disruptive" is PURE pov. The clue is in the first word you use...."taste". (I assume you are a regular editor 'undercover' btw - my very own CheckUser would indicate that). Sarah777 (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I've never had an account, just a series of 86.44.x.x type IPs. I regret the suspicion that editing as an IP sometimes quite naturally causes.

Yes it is pov, that is my point. We can investigate which statements of opinion are better left off-wiki, and we must obviously use our own opinions to do so. No, the cap doesn't fit (I'm a Dubliner, as your checkuser must have ascertained), that is also my point. I never called Vk those things, so that's a side-issue unrelated to my post... (though I and presumably you would certainly say that Vk was supporting a killer—whether we call it "execution" or "murder" and the nature and ramifications of such terms is a deeper issue—and that this is not dehumanizing, certainly not in the literal sense of referring to the extermination of people as if they were cockroaches or vermin, as in Rwanda, the Balkans, and, yes, Vk's edit. I am sorry you interpret my alluding to this as lecturing you, that was not my intention; rather I wanted to point out a salient facet of what was objectionable about it, and one quite unconcerned with an "anglo pov").

If you are Irish and you ascribe a pov that differ from your own as anglo, you imply that yours is the "hiberno" (or post-colonial, or anti-imperialist or whatever extensions you may wish to ascribe to being Irish) pov. I have sought to demonstrate that this is not so in this case. Perhaps this is tortured language on my part, but the logic is ok, i think. 86.44.16.82 (talk) 00:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You are perfectly clear and perfectly logical. I accept you find (I surmise) expressing support for any killer offensive. I'm indifferent myself in this case but it depends on the circumstances. In the case of Vk, parity of treatment is my concern and I'm pointing out that folk who will casually express support for killers dressed in, say, police or Army uniforms are in no position to critisise Vk (but I will not give specific examples as that will land me in trouble with the Law around here). However, I do feel your are a bit Utopian and your pov, if carried to it's conclusion and applied across the board, would end most of what passes for normal debate in human society. Maybe that would be a good thing - but I just can't see it happening this side of Armageddon. Sarah777 (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh and I must point out that my "CheckUser" is code for "taking a wild guess"! Trying to find the real identity of folk is a mortlar in the wacky world of Wiki. Sarah777 (talk) 01:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we can agree there's not much chance of Wikipedia being confused with normal society any time soon! ;) 86.44.16.82 (talk) 06:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Indubitably! Sarah777 (talk) 09:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Just as a note, the above anon has been blocked for disruption and probable sockpuppetry. See User talk:86.44.16.82‎ for details. --Elonka 16:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, are these all over the wiki? That is *grimaces intensely* unfortunate. 86.44.16.82 (talk) 22:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

OK Elonka - I thought said IP was pretty reasonable, but I admit that I have always favoured full registration - apart from anything else it would curtail the relentless petty vandalism of articles. Sarah777 (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought you were pretty reasonable too, Sarah, 'twas a pleasure to converse, in fact, but i must tut-tut most vehemently now: It's a wiki! :) 86.44.16.82 (talk) 22:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm - I see that block is really cramping your style :) Sarah777 (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Different views

2 of my great living heroes are Ian Paisley and Martin McGuiness, because in spite of their different views they worked together for a common good. If people like Bonkers, CR, Lauder, Kitty and I cannot work with the likes of you, ONIH and VK I think less of encyclopedia for it, and that the fault is in wikipedia not us, and that wikipedia needs to change and stop using indef blocks so recklessly. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

No disagreement from me Squeak - I think you'll find I have never called for someone to be blocked or banned for what they said here - even when they say nasty things about me! Sarah777 (talk) 16:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify - Lauder is Sussexman. GoodDay (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Folks - I wasn't really following that dispute. Never heard of "Sussexman" till the other day. My main concern was that one of the best Admins, Rockpocket (with whom I've had numerous rows btw), seems to be getting it in the neck over this whole rthing. The guy apologised; time to forgive and forget. No way is he dishonest, IMHO. Sarah777 (talk) 16:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The fellow you'll have to convince to forgive Rock, is Giano II. PS- I too, believe Rock is getting unfairly roughed up. GoodDay (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I hope you won't take it rude that I butted in on the AE page, but you seem to be getting (understandably) upset, and I do not want to see you borrowing trouble for yourself. I just wanted to make it clear that I meant no offense by it and apologise if I came off as arrogant or offensive. Narson (talk) 12:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Lord no! I didn't see anything remotely "offensive" about your intervention - no need to apologise at all :) Regards Sarah777 (talk) 12:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I must say, this whole drama is why I stay away from troubles articles (That and I don't really care much about how one set of grandparents went about killing or repressing the other set). Hopefully it will all be sorted out for the best and we can get VK back to editing Boxing rticles, either by your preferred route or mine. Narson (talk) 12:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I suspect the issue with Vk is that it wasn't his grandparents were involved but his friends and neighbours. Sarah777 (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Aye, though being close and having passion is a good thing, but when you have two sets of passionate people, you have to keep a tight rein on yourself, god knows I couldn't. He seems to be incredibly good when it comes to the boxing articles, I must admit annother area I don't go into (I'll stick to Formula One) which is his saving grace IMO. I've only ever run into vintagekits on tangents (Falklands War articles) and it didn't leave me with a great impression of him, but when I look at his boxing and other contributions, it is like a completely different (and quite amazing) editor. Oh well, prhaps not being an admin or having dealt with the troubles gives me an overly naive and foolish view of things. I'll stop rambling on your talk page now, have a good summer and please don't think that all Englishmen think ill of the Irish or have some bugbear. Some of us are asses in entirely different ways. :) Narson (talk) 13:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Never did think that (believe it or not)! Sarah777 (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Vk maybe re-instated afterall, I knew that 'Condition #8' needed clarity. PS- I still think a man's/woman's Userpage is his/her own castle. GoodDay (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I hope your support vote at Vk's AE hearing was accidently deleted. If not??? GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It was Bastsun - so I doubt it was intentional. (Unless, of course, he reckoned my support would harm Vk's case - in which case could we fault his judgement?!!Sarah777 (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You mean like, your Wiki reputation is damaged? It's not with me. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Giano II

I fear Giano is going down, guns a blazing. GoodDay (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

My fears are answered. GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The comment above is too kind! You could be right about Giano but God I know how he feels......provocative remarks are dismissed as "nothing" and replies are hyped up into serious crimes. We REALLY need some objective measures in the "incivility" area to avoid the potential for gross, massive and widespread abuse of sanctions. Sarah777 (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way - anyone know why he's called Giano II? Sarah777 (talk) 20:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Suppose asking him now, wouldn't be a good time, eh? GoodDay (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so. Sarah777 (talk) 20:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)His original account was Giano (talk · contribs) but he scrambled his password and left in anger. That was ages ago - before my time - and I can't recall what the issue was back then - an arbcom case again, I think. - Alison ^❤ 20:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah hah! His page has just been blocked. GoodDay (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Jeez G'Day - don't sound so happy! Sarah777 (talk) 21:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not happy; Ah hah! meaning I've just discovered. GoodDay (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, Basically, Giano did said something like "pedophiles should die" and someone blocked him for "hate speech". That someone was de-sysoped and Giano's block log was wiped clean (only time that has ever happened). That person was later given his sysop bit back in a very controversial decision and Giano scrambled his password as Alison says above. Here is an arbcom case that deals with a lot of the fallout. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano Tex (talk) 21:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Giano's page has been unprotected; phew! it's difficult to keep up. GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep - I'm like a ping-pong ball! Sarah777 (talk)

Civility

I'm rather baffled as to how you can see [7] as anything other than blatantly uncivil. Can you explain? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you see the comment just above his that he was responding to? It sure looked like two people were joking around with each other to me. But then again, I like to assume good faith of people, so what do I know? Tex (talk) 20:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

William M. Connolley; I fail to see how you can consider it uncivil given the comment he was responding to! If you can't see something so obvious what can I do to "explain"? Sarah777 (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I was joking, Giano wasn't. Avruch 21:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe...but can't you see that in the mix of people and cultures we have here these things are not really "callable"? (I speak as someone who's had jokes/playfulness taken out of context, recycled and used against me at an RfC, Arbcob and ANI block-discussion - each feeding the other). I could see you were doing a bit of parody of Giano's views - but could Giano? I'm not at all sure. To be honest, if you'd made those remarks to me I'd have simply told you to P*** off - but I wouldn't then have expected to be hauled before the authorities! Sarah777 (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, there is obviously a gray area associated with civility. Lots of times I've seen civility warnings or complaints (and, once in awhile, blocks) about comments that I wouldn't at all consider uncivil. There is some complexity to applying the policy - comments in the gray area are usually (and rightfully) ignored. But - calling three people in the space of a day ignorant and stupid is going too far. Avruch 21:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well it's not wise but it ain't murder either! Sarah777 (talk) 21:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

True, true, but neither is a 3 hour block execution or life imprisonment ;) Avruch 21:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Touchè! Sarah777 (talk) 21:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)