User talk:Sarah777/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 13

Is everything ok?

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

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

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

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

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

N72 road

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

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

AfD nomination of 619 in Ireland

An article that you have been involved in editing, 619 in Ireland, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/619 in Ireland. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice?

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

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

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

May 2008

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

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

Note from an Administrator

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

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

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

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

TRAGIC NEWS!

It's turkey twizzlers for me!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note to Administrators

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Years in Ireland

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changes at 619 in Ireland

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

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

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

Essay

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do not edit closed AfDs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blocked indefinitely

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With all due respect...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(edit conflict) - again...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Suggestion for going forward once Sarah returns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sarah777 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log · edit summaries)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AfD nomination of 80 in Ireland

I have nominated 80 in Ireland, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/80 in Ireland. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Unfortunate Block

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The roof overhead!

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

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

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

X X X Foz :) Sarah777 (talk)

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

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

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

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

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

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

We're talking about you again

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Update

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