User talk:Sarah/Archive17

Kelly kettle

The author has recreated the article. It has been tagged again by a different editor. Harry the Dog WOOF 15:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I know, I noticed that in my log but thought I might leave it to another admin so there are multiple admins who have reviewed it and we can then protect it from recreation if they keep at it. I don't really know why people just turn around and repost straight after its been deleted and think not one will notice. Cheers for letting me know, Sarah 15:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for your comment on my RFA. When I read your comment, I decided to change it on my userpage, which I am about to do. I didn't think that the making CEO angry part was bad, but now I see is. I will try to think of something else to change it to, hehe. As for your other comments, I will work on them the best I can. :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 19:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

warning

respectfully, thats patent bull. the article in question uses youtube as a source dozens of times and the claims in question are represented in a video from the article's subject that he made and posted on youtube. it was the only source i had and its the only source for all the other videos besides "Leave Brittany Alone". I asked on the administrators reporting page and they said the warning was unwarranted. i don't think anything i claimed was controversial with regarads the to behavior and "art" that this individual is reported on in the context of this article or his life. see the video for yourself [1] if a video is not a reliable source for the subject at hand i don't know what is.Myheartinchile (talk) 02:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read the administrator's noticeboard Wikipedia:ANI#warning_removal - I was one of the admins who responded to you and none of us have said the warning was unwarranted. We have only said that you may remove the messages if you want to, which is something that all users on Wikipedia are allowed to do on their own talk page so long as they don't do it in a disruptive manner. No one on ANI has told you the warning was unwarranted. YouTube is not a reliable source, again, please read - reliable sources, verifiability and Biographies of Living People. Links to YouTube are used to link to the videos in question but they are not suitable to use as reliable sources for a blp and most certainly not for controversial claims like asserting that someone is in an incestuous relationship with their brother. If you want to make controversial claims, you need to find reliable sources as defined by Wikipedia and if you don't you are going to end up being the blocked. That's the bottom line, really. You can think it's "patent bull" if you wish but you've been warned by multiple admins now and if you continue to make such comments about living people without reliable sources (again, as defined by Wikipedia, not by your own opinion) then you will be blocked. Sarah 02:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

well how can i talk about it then, how can i ask about it, if i'm not allowed to.?Myheartinchile (talk) 02:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Myheartinchile, as I've stated a few times now, it was the semantics and tone that got you into trouble. Your statement was that Crocker was is a incestuous relationship, instead you can simple link to the source (video in this case) and ask something like, this seems likes it's worth mentioning, anyone else agree or have seen it before? You could even state he seems to be in an incestuous relationship - is that true? It allows other editors to check the source and likely someone will respond with the correct info, in this case that it was a hoax. Banjeboi 03:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As explained by others, you need to be careful with how you phrase comments on biographies. That question you asked was phrased as though it were a statement of fact and that is a large part of the problem. The other thing is that if it is something likely to be considered controversial or something that might be considered libelous, then you need to have a link to a source. Also, remember that article talk pages are for discussing the article only, not for discussing gossip so it's really not the place to go to to ask if something is true or not. Sarah 04:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough about the "is this true or not" concept, in this case the subject of the article posted a hoax video so some confusion is understandable. Banjeboi 20:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Ping

--VS ^talk 06:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Madison de Rozario

Thanks for your advice on db-author, and the advice on underage stuff. However, the reason I said that I had to take it down (on behalf of Harshana S. my classmate) was because once in the library he was showing me that he made his first wikipedia page, and the librarian passed by and said we must get consent. We told her that we can't delete pages, so we'd blank them (at that time I didn't know you could do xFDs and other deletion tagging). So we blanked the page, but a few days ago I tagged it for deletion. Thanks anyway, but I'm still going to avoid doing bios on others (even notable) for wikipedia without the parent permission (we're all underage...)! Thanks! juggernaut0102^(talk) 09:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Username change to capital A

Thanks for the help - it looks like Dan has managed it! πιππίνυ δ - (dica) 22:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Bloody merbabhu

Set last night off by editing the art - I am and never will be a new years day - the last time i checked i was a human being :) SatuSuro 23:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Your comment on 27 November 2007

Sarah: "Sorry but no, absolutely not; your unblock request is denied. I just checked the deleted comments you posted on Nick's page and they gave me chills down my spine. That sort crap is unacceptable and we should not have to explain this to you. I really don't see how could possibly think it was alright to investigate another editor in real life and then post a bizarre gloating comment about how you are "capable of finding [him]". How on earth could you possible think that was within the realms of acceptable behaviour? That you clearly don't get it and state above that you "said nothing wrong" only highlights that you desperately need to be blocked from editing Wikipedia."[2]

Nice comment, madam!

Here is the reason why I attacked Nick Graves:

In June-July 2008, Nick Graves & I communicated through e-mail. During that time, Nick Graves threatened to reveal my nationality on Wikipedia. Do you consider this to be an acceptable behavior? I live in a poor country. I’ve suffered discrimination from westerners in the past because of my nationality. Nick Graves revealed my nationality on Wikipedia. Tell me- How can you consider this to be an acceptable behavior? Shouldn’t Nick Graves be punished for revealing my nationality on Wikipedia? I attacked Nick Graves because of this. If he were to keep quite about my nationality, I would have never attacked him.

You should have checked my behavior with other editors. I have never said anything wrong about anybody. I have attacked only one person- Nick Graves. I would also like you to see my contributions in the past. It will give you an idea whether I should be desperately need to be blocked from editing or not. Thank you. RS1900 12:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, I am not making excuse for my behavior. I shouldn't have made those comments on the talk page of Nick Graves. It was my mistake. I will never make such comments in future. Thank you. RS1900 12:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

(after multipled edit conflicts)I checked your behaviour and your contributions myself at the time, as did numerous other admins who reviewed your edits and the block and it was subject of extensive discussion on and off-site so your suggestion that I should have checked with others is silly. You violated Wikipedia's policies and were blocked rightly for it; you've been given a second chance and instead of being productive you come here to moan about a comment I made more than six months ago, that I still stand by, and to pursue your now year-old vendetta against Nick? Sarah 13:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You *are* trying to excuse it. You just told me you did what you did because of some off-Wiki dispute and that you've never done anything wrong (yet the block log, the histories of your accounts, the ANI discussions and unblock list threads totally belies that claim. I strongly suggest you use this opportunity to make a new start and leave the past in the past. If you are simply here to pursue revenge or "punishment" for Nick then you are going to be very disappointed because we don't do "punishments" here, particularly not for some private and off Wikipedia dispute. Now, if Nick posts personal information about you, *then* we will have something to talk about but at this point you're asking me to take your word for what happened in some private dispute and take administrative action based on it? Also, you say this happened in "June-July 2008" yet we are only just in June 2008 right now, so I can only assume that you are talking about June-July 2007, i.e a year ago? If that's the case, then just get over it already! Please! No admin is going to "punish" Nick for some stupid thing he said but didn't actually do 12 months ago; sorry but that just isn't going to happen. You need to learn to leave your off-Wiki disputes off-wiki. This isn't a battlefield and it isn't a venue to pursue revenge or a vendetta. If you are here to contribute to building this encyclopedia, then please go and edit the encyclopedia productively; but if you are just here to pursue revenge then you need to go and find something else to do elsewhere. Sarah 13:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, I am not saying that I have never done anything wrong. I have done some terrible things and I admit my mistakes. I am embarrassed about those mistakes. I will try to be a constructive editor again. Thank you. RS1900 13:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)well, I am glad that you intend being a constructive editor again. I think you would get off to a better start, however, if you left one year old incidents in the past and just resumed editing instead of pursuing each administrator who participated in the discussion last year and pressing for "punishment" for Nick for a one year old off-wikipedia dispute. This seems to me to be a very bad way to resume editing as it is just going to bring unfavourable attention on yourself but as you wish. Thanks, Sarah 14:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not trying to spamming all the administrators and editors who participated in the discussion more than six months ago. I just posted messages on your talk page and the talk page of User:Philippe‎. RS1900 13:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see. I'm glad that you have stopped because it seems a bad way to return to editing Wikipedia. The facts are that we don't block to "punish" here, we block to prevent disruption. Thus there is no justification for blocking Nick for something he said to you off-site a year ago. Nick was instrumental in getting your account unblocked and if it wasn't for him pressing for a second chance for you, it is likely you would still be blocked, so I think you should also put your past disputes aside. I can only urge you to go back to editing the mainspace and forget trying to pursue admins to get punishment for Nick because it's just not going to happen and you will wind up being blocked for disruption again. Specially with the various records of your previous accounts. Please consider going and making useful edits to the mainspace. thanks. Sarah 14:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Orderinchaos

Hi the admin User:Orderinchaos has locked article Joe Hockey for over two weeks now. I feel the anti-Hockey election propaganda on his page is POV and not appropriate for a BLP because it contains a caricature of Hockey. Rather than support this, User:Orderinchaos has locked the article with the image still in it. Am I being unreasonable, or is this unfair use of admin powers? --Surturz (talk) 07:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you are assuming bad faith of another user. Orderinchaos is quite a reasonable fellow in my opinion and I'm sure if you were to go and discuss your concerns with him in a reasonable and calm manner he would be most receptive. I'm not willing to overturn his action myself when you have present your case with an accusatory tone and this underlying sense that he has abused his tools or done something wrong when he has not from what I can see. AGF will get you much further around these parts. Sarah 08:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks for the welcome back Sarah. Its all good. Moondyne 05:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 24	9 June 2008	About the Signpost

Board elections continue	WikiWorld: "Triskaidekaphobia"
News and notes: Military media mention, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Main page day	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Laming

It was protected after one IP edit for a reason. I would suggest to speak to Orderinchaos as i'm not at liberty to discuss such things here. Timeshift (talk) 06:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I have already sent him multiple emails about it. I'm responding to OTRS tickets about the page and I agree it is suffering from UNDUE-weight. About 2/3s of the article is about one dispute and much of that information wasn't even about Laning but about other people. Sarah 07:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Well the issue was only this big until anon IPs (QLD liberal staffers to be precise) came and waged war. OIC then expanded on the issue which I would say that indeed inadvertent undue weight is now an issue. Timeshift (talk) 07:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks for that info. It's a shame but sadly not surprising that people have been using it for political purposes. I think I know who made the edit yesterday and I have asked them to refrain from making edits to the article while we try to sort it out. Sarah 07:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Note that I only *semi*-protected it - I noted it was a Gold Coast iPrimus IP before doing so, which was consistent with earlier editing on it. A few months ago, we had rashes of IP vandalism which turned out to be related to opponents of Laming's faction within the party - some of them attempted to implicate an unrelated Queensland Liberal in the situation. The end result of that was my rewrite of the section. Definitely bits of it can be reviewed as time goes on, as I was trying for a full and balanced account, but that may not be as necessary as it was. The problem with these disputes is that I researched only the one part - if the article covered more of his pre-parliamentary and parliamentary career, it wouldn't be 2/3 of the article. Orderinchaos 07:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I know you only semi'd it but it had only been edited once in a couple of months and that edit was arguably good faith rather than vandalism and the WP:SEMI policy doesn't provide for that kind of protection. It actually explicitly forbids using semi-protection pre-emptively. We're supposed to be "the encyclopedia anyone can edit, yes anyone! Right now and without waiting to be auto-confirmed!" As far as the article goes, the problem I see is not with documenting what happened but with the weighting of it. If this was a regular biography, I would think this warranted two sentences - "He was investigated. He wasn't charged." But the political aspects of it makes it more noteworthy and I personally don't see why it should cover more than say a paragraph sectioned in with other stuff he has done in his career. Surely he has done more than be elected and be investigated by the police. Anyway, I think Gnang's edits have been a great improvement and hopefully we'll be able to work more on it and make the article more rounded. Sarah 08:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Where did you find the image? Timeshift (talk) 11:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't find it; I sent an email to him at his office and asked him to consider releasing under a free licence an image of equal or greater quality to what we had and that's the one he gave me. Sarah 12:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Just dropped in to say thanks and hello: [3] --Bhadani (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I have more chocolates, if you want them for you or for your friends, please tell me immediately as other Wikipedians are keenly watching all the moves! :) --Bhadani (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

So you all have finished more than 50% of the bears bars :) Very good. --Bhadani (talk) 15:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Crichton-Browne

Sarah, I'd appreciate an explanation for your response to my efforts in regard to the above article on its talk page. You appear to have simply made a subjective edit without offering any substantiation. If you check my contribs, you will discover that I am a good-faith editor. I don't appreciate being slagged in edit summaries with expressions such as "shockingly appalling". Anyone can write garbage of that sort. I can just as easily revert you with the same language. Retarius | Talk 03:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't "slag" you off; I made a comment about the article, which is a completely different thing. The article did not conform to WP:NPOV or WP:V, amongst other policies and guidelines. I have indeed looked at your contributions after I was alerted to some concerns and I noticed a problem of injecting editorial commentary into articles which is not acceptable on Wikipedia and these articles are going to have to be cleaned up. I would write more about this but I have a list of other jobs I must do right now and so it will have to wait until later. Thanks, Sarah 03:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Apparently you believe that the civility rules don't apply in edit summaries. I reject your allegation that I insert "editorial comments" into articles. Retarius | Talk 04:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what the "related accounts" are that you are referring to in your last post or what the concerns are or who raised them. Perhaps you could be specific and allow me to address these issues. There's not much point in speaking in incomprehensible vagaries. Further, how is one revert an "edit war"? Anyway, since OIC politely specified the objections I'd already decided not to edit any further on that article. Retarius | Talk 06:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

You have taken the trouble to make some allegation, the gist of which I don't get, about "related accounts". Please tell me what these "accounts" are and what the serious allegations are. I am perfectly willing to work this out reasonably with you if you'll treat me fairly. You don't have to specify the source at this point. Has it occurred to you that this "private information" may simply not be true? Retarius | Talk 07:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Retreat and stay calm Retarius - Sarah has given you her answer saying that she will not reveal anything further. You putting in some barb (at your talk page) about a concern that she would now abuse her admin role is not only absurd but rude. Pushing further and further is not going to assist this matter, and Hesperian and SatuSuro's good advice should be taken. Go and do some other edits and this will wash clean from your mind before you know it.--VS ^talk

Thanks Steve. I think everything is resolved here. Anyway, I'm going to send you an email soonish. :) Sarah 12:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, since yesterday I have received an explanation of your remarks about "related accounts". I also am now aware of the cause of the allegations you referred to. I'd like to separate this into two clear issues. The first is the issue of POV, as it's called. If you read what I've written to SatuSuro you know my position on that. I can only say that I was acting in good faith and that's all I can say. I genuinely thought I was doing a good job and couldn't understand what the problem was. I can see now that some of what I wrote was in contravention of BLP. I just never could get into all that sufficiently to understand the degree of the restrictions.

The other is to do with the episode involving the blocked user and other matters in April 2008. After reviewing the history, I can see why a certain conclusion might be drawn concerning "sock-puppetting" and I'd like to clear the air about that if you're willing to hear me. Retarius | Talk 08:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe you made those edits with good intentions but you have to understand on Wikipedia we only report what reliable independent third party sources have already published. A lot of what I've read in your writing would be okay if you found proper sources to reference the material to, but you can't put Wikipedia in the position of making these statements ourselves as the 'primary voice'. As for your comments about wanting to clear the air about the blocked accounts and socking, I'm all ears and would be very interested in what you have to say about those issues. Sarah 08:59, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou for your civil reply. I was very upset yesterday because I usually like to think I'm one of the "Good Guys" (of course..."Ben Linus" keeps saying that too, doesn't he?) and I was rather stunned to find myself wearing the black shirt of the other team. I don't want to put fuel on any old fires, so I'll email the other stuff. Retarius | Talk 09:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Pats1

[[4]]. Thanks for your comments on the Pats1/chrisjnelson issue. You are one who really understood the ramification of this incident. I realize I am hopelessly outnumbered and in a postion where I can no longer fight back. If I do I will be blocked for edit warring. I swear an all that I know that all I wanted was to be treated farily. If I knew that Pats1 would defend chrisjnelson in this way I would have never reported chrisjnelson in the first place. It is not worth it. chrisjnelson got blocked for two weeks and even while he was blocked he insulted me. Even from a postion of being blocked he has caused chaos and disruption. I am at a loss for words but I wish to thank you. You came in, you saw, you evaluated and were fair. In this world that is rare.72.0.36.36 (talk) 15:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why

...but User talk:Sarah/Archive16 is currently in C:CSD. Any ideas? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

fixed found it [5] there was a hongon template in there Gnangarra 18:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah thanks, I looked up and down that ridiculously long talkpage for a db or hangon, didn't see it. Thanks Gnanarra, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

(after ec)Oh Keeper, I have no idea! I just no wiki'd the whole page as it's nearly 5 am here and I'm desperate to get some sleep, or rather, I'm desperate for sleep that involves a bed and doesn't involve waking up with my neck twisted and my finger making page after page of "aaaaaaaaaaaa..."! So I have 'no wiki'd' the page for now and will try to find the problem in the morning. I just archived a bunch of stuff before, so it's possible that it was something to do with that. My apologies for the inconvenience and many thanks for the heads up. Cheers, Sarah 18:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, one of my knights in shinning armour has rescued me once again. Many thanks, Gnang. :) Sarah 18:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sleep well! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Greetings, DD.

Hi Sarah. Thanks for the respectful heads-up (not much respect on the internet, in my (vast) experience on it). Yeah, I intended to do you a favor by removing that section, because it annoys me when MY talk page is plastered with month-old finished discussions. (unfortunately, I'm not a Wikipedian, so my discussions happened to all revolve around that Webby Awards dispute. I don't have anything fancy yet... and 100% likely never will) I was reminded of the section's existence because my website was receiving hits from your talk page... lol. One last note: you mentioned that my saying the dispute was resolved in my favor was "frankly dishonest"... I don't understand. My whole struggle was simply to get a Criticism section up (regardless of the wording, which is what the second half of the dispute was about - the weight issue), and if you look at the Webby's page now, there's a criticism section, covering everything I wanted covered. I wrote the whole thing, and was quite happy with it... in fact, the other editors wanted it to be longer, but I said no, and that if they wanted to expand on it, they could do it themselves. I think you assume I'm trying to "be right", and parade around in a victory dance, but I'm not that kind of person. I quite literally wrote "the book" on what it means to be a high-quality, completely thought-out self-perfectionist (if you're a reader, and ever terribly bored, read this book: http://www.deefrag.com/faceless.htm ...it's downloadable for free on Lulu.com) Just thought I'd let you know while I'm between things. Cheers! ...and kudos for ever ceasing to derail your humanism into animalistic mud-slinging, like almost everyone else.--Dario D. (talk) 00:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Merbabu and Jakarta International School

I didn't want to bring this up. We're all busy people and have much better things to do. However, I'm getting to the point where trying to improve Jakarta International School is becoming slightly hostile and distasteful thanks to User:Merbabu. Expectations that every word must be sourced is an expectation of a GA-class article, not a start. Regardless, I've accepted that criterion. However, Merbabu's refusal to expend any effort to actually improve the article and focus on deleting the work of others is disturbing. This is in addition to edit comments which have bordered on being uncivil. The fact is, the curriculum of Jakarta International School does have a strong international focus. The United States Department of State says so. [6] Meeting the needs and interests of expatriate students is exactly why the school was founded. We can't get around these aspects of the school, nor can we get around the fact that the United States Department of State considers the school "one of the best college preparatory schools overseas." [7] I haven't even added that last line. But these are important, legitimate facts promoted by third-party sources. If I'm mis-reading this situation, please let me know. But frankly, my patience is wearing thin on a subject outside my expertise or interest. Best, --Jh12 (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for letting me know. I will go back and check out what's been going on as soon as I get time, but I'm really snowed under right now so it may not be today. Cheers, Sarah 01:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks and please take your time. I might be jumping the gun, but I'd appreciate an outside perspective. I just feel like every word is under more scrutiny than any school article on Wikipedia.--Jh12 (talk) 02:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, I think I'll just forget about it; this isn't a big deal and not worth worrying about. I'd rather work on something that isn't under Merbabu's microscope. Best wishes, --Jh12 (talk) 00:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay no worries. Just so you know, I did start looking at this and I sent Merbabu a private message yesterday saying that I don't think school articles have to be as rigidly sourced as bios. It's very, very difficult to find reliable third party sources that don't originate with the school itself and I think we have to be realistic about non-controversial material or do away with school articles altogether. Regarding the addition: "and has a strong international focus", I think it would be okay to report that the US Department of State says it has a strong international focus, but I'm not really comfortable with the way that sentence was worded originally as a statement of fact. I am going to add that back in with the source you found but worded slightly differently. Thanks and apologies for the delay responding. I understand if you don't want to return to the article but I think it would be a shame to lose editors from a page that gets very little attention. Cheers, Sarah 01:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 23 and 26, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 25	23 June 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor
Board elections completed; results forthcoming	WikiWorld: "John Hodgman"
News and notes: Military media mention, milestones	Dispatches: How Wikipedia's 1.0 assessment scale has evolved
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 26	26 June 2008	About the Signpost

Ting Chen wins 2008 Board Election	ArbCom's BLP "special enforcement" remedy proves controversial
Global group discussions in progress	WikiWorld: "Raining animals"
News and notes: Foundation hires, milestones	Dispatches: Reliable sources in content review processes
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Indonesian killings of 1965–66

Could you please explain? thanks. --Merbabu (talk) 02:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hang on. That's a mistake (obviously). I have no idea how that happened...I haven't deleted anything for days. All I did with that article was remove that slab of plagiarised text and I really don't know how that happened, as you have to go through two screens to delete something so it's not like it's easy to do accidentally. I'm restoring it right now. I'm very, very sorry about that, Merbabu. Sarah 03:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

phew! I can relax - i spent weeks on that! Thanks, no probs, - in a rush, will message you again later. --Merbabu (talk) 03:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi!

No problem, you should have bugged me earlier ;-). I've been editing again for a while, but mostly developing (some global stuff, abuse filter, all that jazz). Hopefully, I'll annoy you at an Australian wikimeet sometime (I finish school in a few months, and I'm sure I'll get around to a few of them). Take care — Werdna talk 01:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 30, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 27	30 June 2008	About the Signpost

Private arbitration case criticized, vacated	Other ArbCom announcements reviewed in wake of controversy
Statistical model identifies potential RfA candidates	WikiWorld: "Mike Birbiglia and the Perils of Sleepwalking"
News and notes: Board votes released, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Dispatches: Sources in biology and medicine	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you so much for the advice, Sarah! I do not want to leave Wikipedia, I just regret having chosen my full name as my user name. --Nick 15:31, 12 Jun. 2008 (UTC)

Community Ban/Indef Block

Given that the definition of a Community ban is that no Admin is at present prepared to unblock, are we not playing semantics here?

ALL community bans exist on exactly the same basis, and would cease to exist as community bans if an admin was prepared to unblock at some future date. Mayalld (talk) 12:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, Mayalld. To clarify, I don't think a discussion should be closed with a declaration that a person is community banned when there are admins vocally opposed to the ban and have indicated a willingness to unblock under certain circumstances. Personally, I would rather say she is banned as that was my own position in that discussion, but I don't believe it is right to declare a person banned and add them to the list of "banned users" when there is only a demonstrable consensus to block, not ban. Sarah 12:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I still think we are trying to invent a whole new terminology, but at the end of the day, if Carol isn't doing more harm today, then it isn't worth worrying about! Mayalld (talk) 12:58, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd also point out that decision to "ban" was taken over a short period of time, where as XfD takes 5 days min, RfA/RfB take 7 day. ARBCOM decision take considerably longer. While it may have been appropriate to block Carol, given her contributions to other WMF projects and pass contributions I would consider unblocking her. Gnangarra 13:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there was a decision to ban; there was a strong consensus to block, with only one person opposing such a block. But several people who endorsed the block expressed reservations about a ban, thus I do not consider there was any decision to ban. That last ANI discussion lasted about 50 hours which I agree is fairly quick when compared to other types of discussions that have a fixed duration, but it was closed early out of consideration for Carol -- who was angry and upset and digging a deeper whole by continuing to make attacks from her talk page -- and it really isn't that unusual for community sanction discussions to close after a couple of days, especially when it is a follow on discussion as was the case here. The full discussion from Durova's original ban proposal through to the final indefinite block spanned at least three different ANI discussions, an RfC and lasted for about 16 days, so I think the discussion has actually been quite extensive. As for unblocking her, I think it would be a big mistake to unblock her without a consensus when the consensus to block her is so strong and it would probably result in a ticket straight to Arb Com, especially in this current climate. I don't think Carol is banned, but she is under a community-based sanction and if she is to be unblocked then it should be after a new community discussion. So I do hope that no one unilaterally overturns it without a new consensus and I don't think there will be a consensus to unblock until she makes a few undertakings. Sarah 17:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Mayalld, I find that our 'Wikipedia language' is the biggest problem that new people seem to have trouble following - not just all our acronyms but our novel use of words like notable, consensus, editor etc. Anyway, I don't know if you know or not, but when people are banned, they get added here: Wikipedia:List_of_banned_users and that is the list that we use to find out if someone is banned or not and I have seen discussions run off the rails and become very confused when that list is not accurate. That's why I changed the closure. As much as I would like to say that Carol is banned, I really don't think that was the consensus. You're absolutely correct that the immediate effect is the same and the important thing is that the disruption is contained. Cheers, Sarah 17:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

"The people who have spent the last two weeks cleaning up her copyvios and incorrect information she added to articles should be commended and supported, not blamed."

I only made the list and have caught some of the newest disasters, but the editors removing the garbage, copyvios, misplaced mountain ranges, wrong continents, wild guesses that if two plants have flowers, they're exactly alike in all ways, are taking too many fecies about this for all the work they're doing. One of them isn't even a botany editor! --Blechnic (talk) 20:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record

As I have said on the ANI thread, if it is the case that you would prefer me not to comment further then it would be helpful if you agree with me that we have both put our views across on whether I should or should not have commented in the first place et al, and that nothing more needs to be said on the matter. I hope that's ok with you. John Smith's (talk) 12:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

John, I don't have a problem with you commenting in the first instance because you've had interaction with him and have a right to your opinion regarding the ban. What I'm objecting to is your heavy input to that thread and your adding him to the banned user list. There's no urgency for that list to be updated and it could well have waited until someone uninvolved did it. I think this ban has been on the cards for a long time and I'm kind of surprised it has taken this long to come to pass so I'm certainly not trying to defend him and I know from experience exactly what he's like. I just don't like seeing community ban discussions develop a sense of politics and that's what this one started looking like. Sure, if it helps I agree that we've both expressed our opinions and nothing else needs to be said. Sarah 12:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I agreed with J-Man that it wasn't important to restore his name to the list. I may sound pernickity but I didn't see restoration as the same as adding, which is why I said anything on that. If people take a decision I don't see why I can't undo bad reversions. Anyway, never mind on that - we live and learn.

You appeared earlier to be saying that I shouldn't have been on the thread, so thank you for clarifying that point. I do often query comments made, whereas some people will make a comment and then leave. That's my style as opposed to others. People might misunderstand that.

I didn't see where you were coming from on the politics thing. As I said on the thread as a final comment (I had a lengthier response and then cut it) I thought Giovanni could change - the arb comm case is so far away in the past to me now.

If you would like to cut or modify any of the comments we've made on the thread in that little chain let me know. It doesn't look too bad and nothing was said that one would regret, but I think we got the wrong impression about each other's views. I don't mind either way. John Smith's (talk) 13:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you John. I don't think there is anything that needs to be removed from the thread and I'm happy to let it be archived as is. Normally I would agree that it is perfectly okay to revert a 'bad edit' and generally I wouldn't have any problem with you restoring someone's name to the banned user list if a community ban was passed and someone removed them for no valid reason. It was only in this instance that I had concerns about it because I consider you and Giovanni have been combatants and your involvement with 'leading' (sorry, I know you don't think of it as leading but I can't think of a better word to use) the discussion, contacting users and asking them to clarify their support comments, restoring his name and so on just didn't seem right to me. But anyway, I don't have any on-going issues with you about it or anything else and I'm quite happy to leave things as they are. Thank you for contacting me, though. I appreciate your desire to resolve things face-to-face as it were. Cheers, Sarah 15:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Rollbackery

Hello Sarah!

I saw your name on the list of Wikipedia administrators willing to grant rollback requests and was wondering if I could request permission for rollback. I've been trying to get more involved with stopping vandalism lately and think this would be helpful. Thanks either way! FlyingToaster (talk) 16:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Madingogo is back.

Indef banned user Madingogo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back under a new sock Pricklyshark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) since it's following the same patten as the indef user. Bidgee (talk) 15:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've indef'd that one too. Cheers Bidgee, Sarah 15:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Also should we add the template like whats been done on Prester John (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) user and talk page? Bidgee (talk) 15:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I just went and added sockblock templates to all the talk pages. Maybe wait until the checkuser comes back so we can add checkuser confirmed tags to the userpages. Sarah 15:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Some how I don't think it's going to be the last we see of this person. We will just not back down and just hope they get sick of it. Bidgee (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

3RR

Being an administrator does not mean that you can violating WP:LOP at whim or will. You are deleting my posts and my material from my filing at WP:AN/I and violating both the spirit and the letter of WP:3RR. I suggest that you stay out of this one. Your previous involvement made my life miserable for weeks. Please accept the fact that you are not a neutral observer and please recognize that, despite being an administrator, you are subject to the same WP:LOP as every other Wikipedia user. This really does appear to me to be an abuse of administrative privileges, such as they are: see WP:ANOT. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 01:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't deleted anything and I most certainly have not violated 3RR. When you make a report to ANi, it's out of your hands and you have no right or ability to control it. I changed the header to a more descriptive one for people scanning the page. I'm sorry but if I have comments to make then I will make them. Once again, if you're unable to deal with others then you need to stop editing Wikipedia until you are able. Thank you. Sarah 01:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, I might add that your suggestion I've abused administrative privileges is another ludicrous allegation from you. Please show where I have used administrative tools. Please stop posting false information about other users. Thank you kindly. Sarah 01:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - strong claims require strong evidence. Orderinchaos 09:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Response to 3RR and other accusations by NYScholar

In the above section, NYScholar (talk · contribs) accuses me of committing a variety of heinous offences, including "violating both the spirit and the letter of WP:3RR". NYScholar presents no evidence in support of his allegations but I am not prepared to let this user's repeated false allegations go without a proper response in case it appears to anyone ever reviewing my pages and archives that the allegations might be true. And so I present here the diffs for the posts made to WP:ANI which resulted in NYScholar's 3RR warning to me and his bizarre and ludicrous allegation that I am somehow "violating WP:LOP [List of Policies] at whim or will."

• Yesterday, NYScholar started an ANi section titled "User:Stuthomas4;User talk:Stuthomas4" where he makes accusations against other editors of the article The Dark Knight (film).
• Upon review, it quickly became apparent that there were two sides to this story and that NYScholar had been engaging in the same disruptive and antagonistic editing practices that numerous editors have complained about since before NYScholar was taken to Arbitration in April, 2007. Most users who read the arbitration statements at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/NYScholar will no doubt recognise that NYscholar's combative behaviour and disruptive hyper-editing have not changed in the 15 months since the arbitration case. After several editors had commented about NYScholar's disruptive behaviour, I felt that it was appropriate to change the section heading to something more encompassing of the fact that the ANI had developed into more than a mere complaint about Stuthomas4. And so I changed the section heading to "{{Userlinks|Stuthomas4}} and {{Userlinks|NYScholar}}" which can be seen in this diff here.
• In a stunning display of ownership, four minutes later, NYScholar removed his name from the heading and added a comment to the top of the page immediately under the section heading, stating: "That was not my heading; Sarah needs to recuse herself and to stop inserting her views in this manner. Thank you. I posted this AN/I, not she.". This can be seen in this diff here and the location of his comment immediately under the section header is of note.
• I did not revert NYScholar's edit but changed the section heading again to something else entirely that I thought he might find more agreeable but was also an adequate description for admins and editors scanning the contents: "Stuthomas4, NYScholar and others", all unlinked, and I placed the userlinks for both Stuthomas4 and NYScholar immediately under the section heading for the convenience of other administrators and editors who may review the situation. I also responded to NYScholar's comment which he had posted at the very top of that section, and in doing so, I did not in any way edit or delete any of his comments nor did I refactor them to follow the chronological order of that section. My edits were made in one single edit, seen here.
• These were my only edits to this section of ANI between 11:01 and NYScholar's 3RR warning on this page at 11:46 (local time).
• At 11:40 (my time), NyScholar made this post to ANI where he uses the edit summary to accuse me of deleting his comments and disrupting the order of his comments. However, as anyone can see, the post he complains about was in exactly the place he placed it himself, immediately under the section heading as was noted above in the third point.
• One minute later NYScholar edited my comment to remove my signature, his userlinks and "NYScholar and others" from the section header with the edit summary, "I am issuing a 3RR warning to Sarah et al. not to keep changing my posts" This in spite of the fact that I had not changed any of his posts, had made zero reversions and was therefore not in 3RR jeopardy. Two minutes later, Shell Kinney reverted NYScholar with the edit summary, "Reverted to revision 225134352 by Sarcasticidealist; sorry, but the thread has obviously become about you as well - please leave the information."
• Five minutes after NYScholar edited my own post, deleted my signature and edited the section heading, he came here to my talk page to give me a 3RR warning and accuse me of abusing administrative privileges (despite the fact I have never used administrative tools in relation to him), of "violating both the spirit and the letter of WP:3RR" (despite the fact that I had not) and of violating the List of Policies "at whim or will" (despite the fact he has been unable to present any diffs in support of his bizarre accusation).
• I believe it is quite clear that NYScholar's allegations are utterly baseless in this particular instance and typically baseless in general and users should carefully investigate his accusations before accepting them as factual. I was not in 3RR jeopardy, had not deleted his comments, had not used administrative tools, or done anything else he has accused me of doing. NYScholar must cease carelessly making false accusations against other editors and must present diffs as evidence when he does make accusations. His editing practices are disruptive, particularly in the area of inter-personal communication which is a mandatory aspect of a collaborative project. It is by no mere coincidence that he repeatedly ends up in exactly the same conflicts and disputes with numerous different people. Since these issues are not a one-off but rather are chronic, long term and on-going and the same disputes occur over and over with different people, I feel the community should consider implementing community sanctions, such as a restriction on archiving talk pages in less than 24 hours after the last edit to the section, and a blanket prohibition on making accusations without presenting evidence. I intend asking a couple of administrators to review the above and confirm NYScholar's 3RR allegation and other accusations are untrue and utterly baseless. Sarah 13:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been asked to review this, and reading the edit history of the AN/I page, I believe the above is a reasonable summary of what occurred. There's certainly no evidence that Sarah "edit-warred" - the original heading was a mischaracterisation of the situation and its locus, and Sarah's efforts appear to have gone towards presenting a more neutral summary to administrators. Given the high volume of business and the low signal to noise ratio on AN/I, fixing headings is an important part of housekeeping on the page. This is both normal and encouraged, as many headings are irrelevant or vague to the matters they raise, or are troublesome in nature. I have found no evidence whatsoever that Sarah deleted NYScholar's edits. It's interesting because on 15 February 2008, NYScholar accused Sarah of the exact same thing (see User talk:NYScholar/Archive 19). Due to the user's rather odd practice of immediately archiving their talk page making accountability impossible, which continues to this day and is at the focus of the dispute with Stuthomas4 (see history of User talk:NYScholar), some of it is duplicated at the end of User talk:NYScholar/Archive 18. On that page, NYScholar made repeated claims against Sarah suggesting she had "refactored" NYScholar's talk page or removed edits by the user. These were then found to be untrue. Furthermore, in editing Sarah's comment on AN/I, it appears that NYScholar violated the editing guideline relating to editing other people's comments themselves. I believe that at an absolute minimum, NYScholar should be sanctioned - in particular, with regard to archiving posts on User talk:NYScholar and from making allegations of this nature against other contributors. Orderinchaos 14:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I responded on my own talk page and explained again that I do not want to have to take any more time responding to the AN/I in which Sarah changed my heading. Regarding Sarah's own most recent posting above (which she had copied on my talk page, and which I have now linked to there): In turn, I would say to her and others: "Please read the civility policy and I would specifically draw your attention to Wikipedia:Civility#Engaging_in_incivility as I believe you are in breach of it on a number of points in regard to your repeated false accusations. Thank you for your consideration."

• I do not think that there are "a number of points" in which I am "in breach of it"; however, I think that there have been "a number of points" in which Sarah and others have been "in breach of it" in Wikipedia:Civility#Engaging_in_incivility both in the past (see my talk archive pages) and in the current AN/I.
• In relation to Sarah's reference to her saying that she did not attempt to have me blocked in February 2008 (which is what I am referring to in the AN/I in response to her there), it was she who issued the "Block warning" (User talk:NYScholar/Archive 19#Block warning which led to Hesperian blocking me (I was referring to her attempt to have me blocked, as she is doing now with her requests for blocks and/or sanctions now).
• It was Sandstein who unblocked it on the basis that it was "unwarranted" (See subsequent part of archived talk page 19).
• In relation to what Orderinchaos states above: the full record of Orderinchaos's previous comments with my responses to them and my attempts to straighten out the many misinterpretations that I perceived in Sarah's and others' statements about my editing history in a matter dating back to November 2007 is in User talk:NYScholar/Archive 19 and earlier pages of my talk archive.
• As I have already stated in the current AN/I, which I initiated, in that AN/I I have no intention of "re-living" the nightmare that I went through as a result of Sarah's involvement in February 2008. I have posted the relevant links in the current AN/I, and I will not be posting any more "diffs."
• In terms of recurrent "incivilities" (as per Wikipedia:Civility#Engaging_in_incivility) in the current AN/I in which Sarah and others are criticizing me, the record is their own words.
• It is not my further responsibility to document them. They can examine their own past and present words and see the incivilities that they use themselves.
• The matter that Sarah refers to occurred initially in November 2007, and, as I have already documented, was an inadvertent error for which I directly apologized, and it was resolved both at that time (Nov. 2007/Dec. 2007) and later again in February 2008, when she brought it up again. That Sarah has decided to dredge it up first in February 2008 and again, in the AN/I that I posted about the behavior of another user (see the AN/I) led and is leading to many further misinterpretations of the record, resulting again in further wasting of my time and the time of others.
• I have no desire to waste any more of my own time on this matter.
• The record is archived in my own archived talk pages or in the current AN/I.
• I suggest that administrators and all other users of Wikipedia pay closer attention to how they themselves are abiding by the policies and guidelines that they are directing me to consider. I have considered them, and, as a result, I have posted this reply here.
• As I state in my current talk page (updated due to Sarah's continuing to post there despite my requests to desist), I will not be commenting on the current AN/I matter any further.
• (Note: Because this section appeared in colors used in archive boxes, I initially thought this section of Sarah's current talk page is archived; but the section below is the same color, so I guess that is not the case. This is the section that I have linked to in my current talk page, in response to Sarah's message there. I will not reply to her any further in my current talk page or elsewhere. If there are typographical errors here, please excuse them; I am tired and going back offline.) --NYScholar (talk) 00:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stop making multiple edits to my talk page. Please use the preview button. Every time you tweak your post again, I get another orange bar. If you can't post in one or two comments then please go and post on your own page first and tweak it there until you're happy with it so I don't have to be disturbed by four orange bars for all your tweaks. Please learn to use the preview button, for God's sake ! Sarah 00:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again (for the upteenth time): I do use the preview function in Wikipedia; sometimes I miss my own errors while previewing, and I fix them if they are important. I think that you can handle a few orange bars; I see orange bars when you have added comments to my talk page. I do not criticize people for correcting their own typographical errors in the spirit of clarity. Please excuse any remaining typographical errors in my previous response. Sarah knows that I use the preview feature; I have told her that enough times! She chooses to ignore my explanations and to continue to claim that I do not use it. I use it. (Previewed.) --NYScholar (talk) 00:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I do NOT know that you use preview. How could I possibly know that? Do you think I can see into your computer and watch what you're doing? All I know is that every time you post, you need to make numerous edits to tweak and correct your comments and if you were using preview properly, you shouldn't need to do this. It's bad enough when you do it on a noticeboard that others are posting to but when it's on someone's talk page and they repeatedly get disturbed with "new messages" banners for every one of your tweaks, it's incredibly frustrating. Again, I suggest that you post comments on your own talk page and tweak them there to your heart desires and then copy and paste them to wherever you're posting when you're finished tweaking and are happy with the result.

In regard to the above comments, yes, I gave you a block warning, so what? Administrators give lots of block warnings. Doesn't mean that I am responsible for the eventual block or that the unblock somehow reflected on me as you repeatedly insist that I tried to block you but was overturned on "administrative review". This is just not true; one administrator unblocked a block placed by another administrator. The unblocking administrator had no more standing than any other administrator and your repeated claims of "administrative reviews" are utterly ridiculous. Sandstein's comment was his personal opinion of the block, not of my warning to you, so you're trying to connect dots that do not connect when you try to tie his comment to me. The actual administrative review on ANI brought a great deal of support for the block and several administrators endorsed community bans, longer and indefinite blocks, etc and I will also note that while Sandstein unblocked you, he did so without waiting for the blocking administrator to respond (something that would receive a strong rebuke these days) and without full knowledge of the block rationale and when he did have full knowledge, he endorsed making changes to the userpage policy in response to your editing practices.[8]

I think your violations of the Civility policy are perfectly clear and they include your constant false accusations and your rude manner of dealing with other editors who want to discuss content with you. Your groundless accusations against others also show you seem to be operating in a permanent state of an assumption of bad faith and you have an endless stream of violations of WP:AGF. Please consider whether any of your interactions with other editors are grounded in an assumption of good faith - I will leave that between you and your own conscience. I suggest you think about adopting this recommendation from the Civility policy: "Treat your fellow editor as a respected and admired colleague, who is working in collaboration with you on an important project."

Finally, I suggest to you that you mea culpa and promise to stop your instant archiving practices, promise to stop making false accusations or accusations without evidence, and to work on creating a more congenial collaborative atmosphere and improving your interactions with other editors. Your constant defence of your behaviour and your refusal to acknowledge that, after these issues repeatedly come up in your interactions with numerous different people on numerous different articles, the fault may lie with you and your communication practices, are only demonstrating the need for sanctions. I think if you demonstrated an understanding that your editing practices and your combative style of interacting was at the heart of this issue you would find other editors more willing to give you a chance to adjust your practices. You complain that people are not focusing on Stuthomas4, this is because he has recognised his mistakes and apologised and pledged to try to do better. If you likewise recognised your own fault and pledged some strategy for the future - such as stopping your instant archiving, stopping the groundless and false accusations, stopping accusations without evidence, pledged to work on your interpersonal communication etc - you would find people would be willing to give you another chance but if you continue in this manner, you are going to find that you are subject to formal community-based editing restrictions. Currently on ANI it is clear that people are not supporting your editing style and everyone has endorsed some sort of sanctions from blocks to editing parole and so forth. I think you need to take that on board. As I said, I think if there was some sign that you were taking this feedback on board and recognising some of your own failings, instead of trying to blame everything on me you would find that people would be less inclined to pursue sanctions against you. Please consider. Sarah 03:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Phew. Abtract (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

And thank you. ThuranX (talk) 02:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Now we just need a neutral admin brave enough to wade in and close the discussion. :) Sarah 02:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I actually read the whole thing. The TL;DR was for everyone else. I read it as "resigning" not re-signing. As I read it, the person bitched and moaned needlessly for 90kb and was retiring. Sounds resolved to me. Beam 01:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying your comment. I appreciate that as I really did read the "tl;dr" as being that you had only read the last comment where he said he was "resigning". Anyway, we seem to have reached a conclusion now so it's all good. Thanks again for your clarification. Cheers, Sarah 02:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I'm not as big of a jerk as I seem! I have followed NYScohlar the last few days at the noticeboard, making a complete fool out of himself. When I read that he was resigning, I tried to will him to do it by closing it right away. I figured that the best way to summarize that LONG, LONG, LONG bullshit whine-fest was "TL;DR." Just because me and you cared enough to read it, someone passing by reading the Resolved note wouldn't. And I honestly read him as finally retiring. Maybe I was just so happy he was resigning that I wanted him to be resigned. Beam 03:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think you were being a jerk or anything, I just thought you were mistaken. :) I've seen people get confused by the whole "resign" thing before so I realised straight away that you were thrown by that comment. Beam, please do be careful with regard to civility, especially on my talk page. Warning people about civility really isn't my 'thing' and it is something that I have hardly ever done except for in extreme cases, but given the circumstances and my involvement in the case I'm really not comfortable with some of those comments. None of my interactions with NYScholar have been positive but I was quite serious when I said that I don't want him banned or defacto banned or pushed out the backdoor. I understand people reacting badly to him when he behaves as he does and I find him incredibly frustrating, but I do believe that he has sincere intentions and I don't want to see him pushed out the backdoor. I really just want him to collaboratively and congenially with other editors. He is a good content contributor but not very good with the interpersonal stuff but I find that not overly uncommon with academics. I have a cousin who is a professor and has spent most of his life studying and teaching and he is similar in manner but not as bad and so I have some empathy for him. Anyway, thanks again for trying to help out and for dropping by to clarify your closure comments and I'm sorry for misunderstanding your resolved comment. Cheers, Sarah 14:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Good comment

		The Special Barnstar
		Bless your heart.[9] Quite a few discussions could use more gentle guidance like that. Vassyana (talk) 02:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Vassyana! Muchly appreciated. :) Cheers, Sarah 02:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 7, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 28	7 July 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: Transparency
Wikimedia releases 2008-2009 Annual Plan	Defamation case against Wikimedia dismissed
WikiWorld: "Charles Lane"	News and notes: Adminbots, abuse filter, ArbCom, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Dispatches: Style guide and policy changes, June
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

E-mail

As the header title suggests, you have been sent one. :) Acalamari 00:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, checking now. :) Sarah 00:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The Deletion of Lion's Choice

I haven't been on in awhile, but I've just seen the notice on my talk page that the article Lion's Choice was being (and has now since been) speedily deleted for being a blatant advertisement. I know that the version I created was certainly not an advertisement. (It was nothing more than a few sentence stub!) Apparently it was subsequently filled in with substandard copy. Should I go ahead and re-create the article, or could one of my earlier revisions be restored? I certainly wouldn't want it to just get deleted again; thus I ask. If it would help the article to remain, I could expand upon it a bit as well. Kamoranakrre T. Eyaelitenan (talk) 16:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I just went back and checked that article and an IP added three paragraphs which included information about the "quality product" and the "clean, quick and courteous manner" of service and then proceeded to list menu items - "real roasted beef sandwiches, ham sandwiches, french fries, cole slaw, potato chips, soft drinks and soft serve ice cream products.". I'm quite happy to give you a copy of the article as you wrote it but before you put it back in the mainspace, I would suggest you add at least a sentence or two explaining how/why this restaurant is notable because I think if it were reposted as is there is a good chance it will be deleted as lacking an assertion of notability. Cheers, Sarah 00:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

That'd be handy; thanks! I'll see what I can do with it. Kamoranakrre T. Eyaelitenan (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay then. I will leave a copy of it in your userspace and leave a link to it on your talk page. Just give me a few minutes. Sarah 14:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Per user talk:Orderinchaos

Although I've not really done this successfully, contacting people/organisations/whatever about releasing media has been of some interest to me, and as I've mused on Orderinchaos' talk, I wonder if a co-ordinated effort might make it easier for people to be involved, and more successful. I've seen a few users be successful on their own; User:AnonEMouse and User:Videmus Omnia have both done well, and Omnia has some good advices. A reservoir of template messages, responses to common concerns, access to OTRSers to help you ferry things through and so forth might make a real difference. I've not much experience with Wikiprojects, but if a few interested parties could be gathered, I'd be game to try this. If you're interested, let me know. WilyD 13:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Wily. I don't have a lot of experience with asking for images but I did obtain the image on Andrew Laming by emailing Mr Laming at his office and asking him to release an image under a free license as the images we had were from Flickr and weren't professional looking and I thought he would prefer to donate his own image rather than leaving them up and he took me up on the offer. I really think most other MPs would be willing to donate an image if given the opportunity as it really is in their best interest to have a decent image on their biographies rather than having us dig through flickr for casual images that might not be very complimentary. I'm certainly willing to ask people for images but I think we need a central list so we can co-ordinate requests and make sure we don't irritate people by doubling up and sending multiple requests. I'm not really sure where the best place to do this would be but I might start a sub-page in my userspace to start with which can be moved elsewhere if necessary. I have OTRS access, so I would be able to help with that end of it, too. Thanks for your message. Cheers, Sarah 01:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The more I think about this the more I think it could be a good idea. There's a few "how to"s floating around, but no real place to get assistence or whatnot. I think the same formalism of a Wikiproject makes sense, though I've never really been a member of an active one, so I might be wrong. I'd be happy to help flush out a couple pages before any move to the mainspace, maybe advertise the creation to get a few hands. Userspace makes sense to me to create a skeleton before going live. WilyD 17:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sarah...

NYScholar (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Before I log out again, I would like to leave you with a smile and to say that I do apologize to you for all the past misunderstandings and miscommunications characterizing our interactions. I hope that you understand that I have tried my best throughout these various episodes (though it may differ from that of others) and that my intentions have actually been sincere and honorable. I do appreciate your recent attempts at conciliation and possibly even eventually reconciliation, and I think it important that you (and others) know that. I will be away from Wikipedia; the wikibreak will also be others' (from me). So please let us try to put this behind us and leave it all in the archives, where it (or much of it) now belongs. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk)

Thank you, NYScholar, I appreciate that very much and I, too, am sorry for any way that I may have contributed to misunderstandings or hurt feelings as that has certainly never been my intention. I'm glad to see that you have been unblocked and I think the bot archiving is a very good step forward that will hopefully prevent any further misunderstandings and concerns about that issue. Thank you again for your message. I do appreciate it and I hope you have a good break. Sarah 00:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Socks of Prester John

In the category Wikipedia sockpuppets of Prester John, the entries show as talk pages. Possibly the tags need to be placed on the uesr pages? Lester 18:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Nah, it doesn't matter as long as either the talk or the user page is tagged and there's no point tagging both as you end up doubled-up. Sarah 22:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

They have made a return under these IP's to do the samething again.

166.190.32.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

166.190.49.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

166.190.79.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

166.190.118.225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

166.190.138.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

166.190.156.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

166.190.241.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). and no doubt there are more.Bidgee (talk) 05:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

and more :(

166.191.27.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

166.191.86.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

166.191.76.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

166.191.126.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

166.191.206.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Bidgee (talk) 06:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No point blocking them though as they're most likely allocated randomly upon each re-connection for each user by his ISP. Timeshift (talk) 06:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

but could be added to the sock puppet page as IP's used. Though something needs to be done to stop it. I've request temp full protection for some pages. Bidgee (talk) 06:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Timeshift (talk) 06:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Bidgee for all that, that's great. We've range blocked 166.190.32.161/24 and 166.191.32.161/24, so hopefully that will take him out for the rest of the night. Cheers, Sarah 09:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

User talk:207.47.96.26 seems to have made edits very similar to these sock puppets. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I think he moved operations to a Hotel Sofitel! Nunquam Dormio (talk) 19:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Possible sock puppet Hypopostumus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Also someone just posted on Matilda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s talkpage another possible sock is Putz removal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Bidgee (talk) 04:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the IP pattern, the regular base is in Oakland, California. However, last weekend he appeared to book into a hotel in LA to do his vandalism. On Monday it appears was back in San Francisco, just over the bay from his base in Oakland, though it may have still been Oakland (IP trance may not be that accurate) --Lester 05:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Always difficult to tell - recently we had a trace to Wollongong which turned out to be close to Newcastle instead. Depends on the reliability of the IP provider's geolocation, or even whether they geolocate beyond a certain level. Orderinchaos 06:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

32.158.27.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - now he is in in Florida. he he. PJ would have us believe he is a married man. lol. --Merbabu (talk) 06:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

And always called others trolls when is showing classic behaviour now - of well WP:DUCK territory - clearly gets off on watching us try to keep up with his childishness

32.157.8.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

32.157.119.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) SatuSuro 06:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well, my own previous ISP assigned IP used to geolocate to a town in Queensland when I and my ISP are (and always have been) in Melbourne. Also, a friend of mine, an admin, owns several proxy IP addresses that they use to access sites they consider to be unsafe and the IPs geolocate to a country different to where this person lives. It is possible that PJ has access to proxies, too. I don't think people should be reading anything into his location, lifestyle or marital status as a result of the IP addresses he accesses. It's prolly better not to even discuss any of this on-site other than to note any accounts or IP addresses that need blocking because you can be assured that he is monitoring what we discuss, particularly Lester and I think he will be encouraged by and get off on Lester's reaction. Best to revert, block and ignore, IMO. And if anything needs to be discussed beyond "please block xyz," I think it's best to do so privately via email. Sarah 09:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Can't sleep so popped on here and looks like his back. Two more to that list,

32.162.32.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

32.162.64.150‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

32.162.120.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

32.162.181.234‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

166.194.162.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Bidgee (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Well expressed and what we all should take careful note of SatuSuro 10:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

On an aside - there is something similar occuring with a Davkal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in the Altmed area of WP. If you find a solution to PJ, then we would appreciate a heads up to implement something similar with Davkal. Thanks Shot info (talk) 07:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't think there is any solution other than block and revert. Sarah 09:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sarah I am not sure why you blocked I Wake Up Screaming (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a scokpuppet. I didn't see an obvious pattern of edits that confirmed him as a sockpuppet but I am not familiar with all his topics of interest. --Matilda ^talk 06:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was one that Dan identified at RFCU as a CU suggestion and I discussed the results of that CU privately with OIC as the results were suggested accounts to look at, rather than probable/possible/etc and we both felt that the edit summaries in particular and the subject areas (PJ also edited Energy policy of Australia and some related pages) looked like PJ. However, if you think it's an error you're welcome to unblock it. Sarah 06:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The user hasn't objected and I just wanted to check there was a reason. I feel as though there is some hysteria going on - perhaps it is justified and I certianly will block at first sight anyone who starts reverting Lester or Merbubu as has been the recent PJ sockpuppet pattern but I am concerned that others may be being identified as sockpuppets with insufficient justification - for example Seendcleeve (talk · contribs) - and there may indeed be justification for him I just don't know. This user didn't seem to be reverting Lester or anyone else so I couldn't see why he had been identified. I am not familiar enough with PJ's editing pattern but if others think it matches then I am OK with that. A question has arisen though on the checkuser talk page as to an article that that user created with a request that it be deleted. Others have since edited the article so I think deletion a bit yucky. Regards --Matilda ^talk 07:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I must admit that I'm not overly comfortable with deleting that article. I was asked to delete another article started by a PJ sock a few days ago and I've actually been thinking about restoring it. The problem here is that that G5 only applies to "Pages created by banned users in violation of their ban, with no substantial edits by others." A small but important distinction is that PJ is not banned. He is simply indefinitely blocked and while it is highly unlikely an admin would consider unblocking him, at least while he continues socking and stalking people's contribs, he isn't banned under any criteria from the banning policy. So I really don't think it's a good idea to start deleting articles possibly created by his socks unless there's another over-riding reason (like vandalism, attack pages etc) because G5 really doesn't apply. I can't understand why Seendcleeve is a suspected sock and the comments that account made on Timeshift's page don't sound like PJ to me - where has that been reported? I wouldn't feel at all comfortable blocking that account without a CU or some other evidence. I do agree with your concerns about misidentifying accounts. I think it's better to leave accounts unblocked if you aren't really convinced and just keep an eye on them. Sarah 08:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Sarah!

... for creating an account on my behalf! I really appreciate it. --JanKokular (talk) 20:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure, Jan! I'm glad to see you're able to edit now and welcome to En. :) Sarah 00:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Colbran

Request the George Colbran article be reinstated, as it was actively being discussed, and actively being modified at the time of the deletion.--Lester 02:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Enough discussion was entered in to. I'm sorry but he is not noteable. Timeshift (talk) 02:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I actually didn't realise that it was being edited when I deleted it, sorry about that, but it was on AFD for seven days and AFDs only last for "up to five days" so I think the discussion was open for a generous amount of time. As well, there had only been one edit since July 16. Sarah 02:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for George Colbran

An editor has asked for a deletion review of George Colbran. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Lester 05:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Hi I noticed that you said that this article doesn't appear to be over the bar of WP:BIO#Politicians, however I did make a point of saying that he does meet Wikipedia:Notability (people) and that the page should be edited to show all the other things that he is known for in the area and around Queensland but it is now deleted....would it be OK if I was to start the page again about George himself and the award's and honor's etc that he has been given, he is far better known here for his community work and resturants than a politician.

Thanks look forward to your reply. Thuringowacityrep (talk) 05:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you think you can write a version that gets over the notability bar, you can write a new version in your userspace, say here: User talk:Thuringowacityrep/George Colbran. Then when you're satisfied with it, you might ask the admins involved in the AFD, (me, Orderinchaos, Matilda) to review it and give you feedback and if it meets notability, then move it into the article space. I don't recommend you start writing it in the article space though as it will most likely just get speedy deleted as a repost, but you should be okay to work on it in a subpage of your userspace if you want to. Sarah 12:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Padding up the article won't do much, and I don't think there is anything else remotely worthy of a mention aside from what was already in the article. As for the OAM, I concur with Orderinchaos when he goes at the deletion review: "OAM isn't terribly notable. Look at the example they give on the page (some guy who helped young mothers at a high school). The higher orders such as AO or AC are genuinely notable (see for example Anthony Mason (judge))" By all means create a draft and submit, but unless additional noteability can be established there is virtually no chance of it being recreated. Timeshift (talk) 12:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

subst:adw|Violet Blue (author)}} Brohans Dude (talk) 17:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Summer Bishil

I know that I'm just a plebe but I'd like to thank you for working out the OTRS situation concerning the Summer Bishil article. If the anons would just cite sources instead of changing info while staying mute, it would help a lot! Sorry for bothering you, Dismas|^(talk) 04:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hehe we're all plebes! :) It was a bit tricky because the article we cited had mistakes in it, so I had to go onto Factiva to find alternate sources as there didn't seem to be anything much on Google. I think the problem with the anon in this case is they're just not a Wiki person and so they didn't know what to do or how to fix the mistake. Anyway, I think it's right now but I'll see what they say once they've checked my edit! Cheers, Sarah 05:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

MNC Entertainment

Was both speedied and deleted by some considerate eds yesterday - I need a copy as there was hardly a time to spit the dummy (no one helps out at the Indonesian project for maintenance anymore) so its basically open game for the deletionsists who have a very limited understanding of the Indonesian project and its whizzy editors :( - I need a copy of the article to reinstate it as I have hardly time to scratch mysefl let alone find refs to chase the xxx's away - cheers SatuSuro 08:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let me have a look...Sarah 11:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Sent to you, Sats. Sarah 11:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

ta and thanks mybe i should keep the libel down of others over such a useless article - but hey thanks SatuSuro 11:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Bedford

Don't mention it. The less chauvinism, the better. It's a good thing that I found out about it, to be honest. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Last I checked, men don't have a menstrual cycle, so they, by extension, can't get PMS. Or is it just me? :/ Sceptre ^(talk) 01:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Your small feet may help you reach the stove better :). And is it just me, or is "hate" "feminist" bandied around too much these days? Sceptre ^(talk) 01:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Reckon it's worth filing a request for arbitration to get him emergency desysopped? His actions might be considered to be putting the project into disrepute. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Tony is a case in his own. The rumour about him cybersexing as a woman, for instance, is well known. But in general, you know what girl is an acronym for online: "guy in real life". Then again, this is Wikipedia - I've often joked that all editors are either LGBT, mentally ill, Canadian, or female. Or a combination of the few. But I digress. I agree we need more guys to comment. That's why I requested it on ANI, for the same reason you've just told me. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 14 and 21, 2008.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 4, Issue 29	14 July 2008	About the Signpost

From the editor: Transparency
WikiWorld: "Goregrind"	Dispatches: Interview with botmaster Rick Block
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Volume 4, Issue 30	21 July 2008	About the Signpost

WikiWorld: "Cartoon physics"	News and notes: New Board Chair, compromised accounts
Dispatches: History of the featured article process	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

E-mail

Sarah, I have to say something in private. Please see your e-mail. Thank you. RS1900 12:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Banned user

Could you fill me in on this? Please feel free to email me if private correspondence is desired or necessary. Vassyana (talk) 02:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It's User:Premier who has been a long-term disruption of indigenous Australian pages and most recently reincarnated as User:Steakknife and then when that sock was blocked he immediately reappeared as User:PWBotha. The other night he was edit warring over the Indig Australians page and kept adding "Nigger" into the article. When his various socks were blocked he returned as that IP, an IP he has been known to use previously. If you want more info, you might contact User talk:Orderinchaos who has dealt with more of his socks than I have. Sarah 02:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for such a quick reply! That's really all I needed to know. Thanks again. Vassyana (talk) 04:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcoming

Hello, just letting you know that you welcomed User:MUFC1000 after making only a single test edit. Thanks! --Porqin (talk) 12:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey there Porqin, thanks for your message. Actually, you might notice that I welcomed that user three days before they made that edit. This is because I'm a moderator of unblock-en-l@wikimedia.org and I created their account for them. (see the account creation log) It is quite standard to welcome people whose account you create, in fact there is even a bot that does this for you if you work on WP:ACC. FWIW, I'm pretty sure that edit would have been a mistake rather than anything malicious. Sarah 13:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I now see that you welcomed them beforehand. I too agree that they didn't intentionally try to vandalize Wikipedia, but making them aware of their edit (being only one) will hopefully prevent mistakes from happening in the future. Thanks again! --Porqin (talk) 13:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, they're just a newbie but I think they will be fine once they work out how things work. :) Thanks for letting me know, anyway. I've watchlisted their page and will keep an eye out for any further problems. Cheers, Sarah 13:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Thank you for all the great Admin work you do... Johnfos (talk) 01:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)