User talk:Sarah777/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Duleek

Hi, Sarah. How pronounce the second letter "U". Like "U" in "United" or like "ОО" in "Pool". (Прон) (87.126.214.103 (talk) 12:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC))

As in "oo". Sarah777 (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! (Прон).(87.126.214.103 (talk) 06:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC))

POV

Removed agressive nonsense. Sarah777 (talk) 22:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Removing WP:HARASS by Traditional unionist Sarah777 (talk) 22:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Civility? Fairness?

I have now notified 5 Admins, four of whom have either blocked me or threatened me in the recent past, of the insertion of pov; edit warring and breach of WP:3RR by TU. The contrast between the speed with which several of them pile in on my alleged "incivility" and the complete nil response (apart from Sir Foz who reacted in a manner confirming his unfitness for office) is noted. Sarah777 (talk) 00:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, Sarah. Notwithstanding BHG's tantrums, I'll bite. What is the problem, exactly? Rockpocket 00:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

So I had a look and no-one has violated WP:3RR (yet), though both you and TU are very close to it. That doesn't mean to say that you both haven't been edit-warring, though. I don't really see what in these comments constitute "harassment," [1] [2] but as GoodDay said, once the accusations of "POV" emerge, things tend to go downhill quickly. If you wish to remove such comments, then absolutely do so. But counter-accusations are likely to inflame, rather than defuse tensions.

For what its worth, my opinion on the content dispute is as follows: this is a new low. I really can't believe so much effort has gone into arguing over whether the adjective "occupying" should precede "British Forces". Really. Who the hell cares? Rockpocket 00:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, obviously TU who started the warring does. I object to you describing BHG's support for me as a "tantrum" btw. Seriously. Sarah777 (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

And note the number of editors who have joined this "lame" edit war. I suggest Rock, that you just don't get it re British history in Ireland, do you? Sarah777 (talk) 01:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Its not her support of you I was referring to. It was her attack on my attempts to defuse a situation by discussion. I fear how she will represent my comments here. I guess I don't get it, but whatever history there is, it must be incredibly important to justify warring over a single adjective that makes almost no difference to the point of the sentence in an obscure article on an online encyclopaedia. Rockpocket 01:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Can't speak for her obviously but I'd be very surprised if BHG made anything of all this - not really her style. She's a "move on" kinda gal - what I try to be but can't really do! Sarah777 (talk) 02:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Pro-Unionist? Me?

Hello Sarah. I'm apolitical when it comes to editing on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry G'Day - your record over a wide range indicates a pro-British viewpoint. Nothing wrong with that so long as you keep it away from your editing. Sarah777 (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I've no pro-British PoV to hide? If I were por-Unionist/British, I'd be opposing Republic of Ireland being moved to Ireland (state). I haven't accused you of being pro-Irish in your edits? Have I? GoodDay (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That would be a compliment, not an accusation. Why do you imagine it would be a negative? And I can't see how that would colour your views on the RoI misnomer issue in either case. Sarah777 (talk) 00:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

In Wikipedia - political PoV edits are frowned upon. That's why as a Canadian republican, I don't protest Elizabeth II being in Stephen Harper's Infobox content or dispute the existance of the articles Monarchy of Canada, List of Canadian monarchs etc. GoodDay (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you should? All that is required for the bad guys to thrive is for the good guys to hide as Edmund Burke (member of the collaborationist class) said. Sarah777 (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Nah! I'd rather stick with facts. What I want & what is, are totally different things. GoodDay (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I feel your pain. Fortunately I'm not in that position. Sarah777 (talk) 00:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That's quite alright. I just don't want to see you getting into trouble. Rightly or wrongly, the Administrators may be watching. It's all about reputation Sarah, if you get a bad rep with the Admins, it can come back to haunt you. GoodDay (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Think I don't appreciate Admin bias?!! But surrender to the Bad Guys is prohibited by my genetic code. Unlike, say, the Italians (barring Giano of course). Sarah777 (talk) 01:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, just be careful. I don't want to loose you. GoodDay (talk) 01:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

comments to sirfozzie

Regarding this edit - please leave comments on users' talk pages rather than their user pages--Cailil ^talk 01:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey - why don't you try leaving a comment on his talk page! You'll find there are technical issues. Sarah777 (talk) 01:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, please think about this. If you wish to communicate with Fozzie, then use email, but editing the user page of someone who has made it clear that they do not welcome your comments is probably not a good idea. Fozzie is having a rather stressful time at the moment. I'd just give him some space and I'm sure he will talk with you at a suitable time. Rockpocket 01:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

OK Rock - just for you. Sarah777 (talk) 01:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Sarah. I appreciate it. Going to admins for advice when you have an issue like this is a good thing to do. I assure you, I will always attempt to give any concerns you have the exact same attention as I would when there are concerns about you. It seems there there may be some compromise on the issue under dispute, so it looks like everyone can move forward. Rockpocket 01:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Already done. I will leave the Foz strictly alone (though I don't think I was excessive). Sarah777 (talk) 01:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't you, Sarah, trust me. It was just the very last straw on some issues regarding burnout. I'm tired of all of it. ALL of it. I'll unprotect the talk page when I log back in, whenever that is (if that is). (Yes, This Is the Real Fozzie) 71.245.236.176 (talk) 02:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey Foz! Leave the page protected as long as you need - I was too self-absorbed in my latest spat to notice anything else. Sarah777 (talk) 02:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Your note to Fozzie

Hi Sarah, I noticed you posted to Fozzie's user's page. It's clear that he's already seen your message. If he doesn't want to get involved, please respect that, and give him space. There are lots of other admins, and you should try someone else. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 01:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

See above - message received. Sorry to hear Foz is stressed - don't want to worsen that. Sarah777 (talk) 01:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. Crum375 (talk) 01:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

No prob. I actually like Foz! Sarah777 (talk) 01:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Just missed the party

Just got the post, seems to have been resolved. Take care, --Domer48 (talk) 13:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Just touching base, I hope you didn't thought that me going ranty-ravey over on TER/AE was in anyway aimed at you. I'm completely burned out on this whole thing, trying to keep two sides from tearing each other apart and getting abused for it. I was hoping a long wikibreak would allow me to no longer react angrily to the usual suspects acting in the usual way, but obviously I'm not as good at the de-stressing part as I am at the stressing up part :P :) SirFozzie (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No...I just get annoyed (surprise!) that folk keep referring to the recent flurry of blocks as being related to The Troubles, when they had nothing to do with "The Troubles" or the Arbcom case (which I wasn't involved in) - it was about being blocked by Admins with whom one was in dispute and my reaction to same which was deemed "uncivil" by other Admins. It is too easy to characterise my blocks as just part of the ongoing tribal war that is being sorted out by long-suffering neutral Admins when it was about something totally different.

Sarah777 (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Your post

Re. TU and harass. Sorry for the delay in replying. I've been away. These are not however issues I intend to get involved with now. Ty 02:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Giano

Hi Sarah, regarding your comments on Giano's talk page. Remember that admins are asked to enforce our policies. WP:BAN is pretty explicit and, were we to follow your dicta, then we would be in direct conflict with it. Surely you are not suggesting an admin abuses our policies?

I'm not saying that this policy is good or even effective, but it is established. If you have an issue with that, then you should attempt to change the message, not shoot the messenger. If you can generate consensus to change that policy then all the admins will fall into line behind your proposals, like the dutiful servants that we are. I'm assuming that is the goal here, right? Rockpocket 07:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm certainly not implying that Admins should make up policy - far from it. But I've seen enough variation in approach in matters such as my own personal favourite, civility, to realise that de facto Admins interpret the law and when they make an error the instinctive reaction of the rest is to support the miscreant Admin. In one memorable (to me anyway) case I was blocked by R Fiend; it was conceded by the reviewing Admin the block was bad but I was left blocked anyway on vague civility grounds.

Y'know, it could be down to this Anglo-American mindset v the freedom-loving people. In America they love their lawmen to lock people up (over 1% of the entire population!!) and/or kill them; in the UK polls show that they are the most enthusiastic of all Europeans for Capital Punishment; consistently 80% or more in favour. In Eire, this land of advanced civilization, support for judicial murder is very much a minority thing confined to the intellectually challenged and (not necessarily the same thing) Unionists.

So what looks to some folk like "just following orders" looks to us from a different culture as enjoyment of inflicting punishment.

So yes, the rules should be changed - but as you know they won't be. We need far more continental Europeans here, especially Italians, Spaniards and French. Maybe some Bulgarians as well. Sarah777 (talk) 10:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Could be, Sarah. Except BHG is, unless I'm mistaken, a daughter of one of those enlightened civilizations and she appears to appreciate the merits of WP:BAN. So I'm not sure your analysis holds up. Rockpocket 16:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey! You can supply the horse with water; you can't make him drink. Sarah777 (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

49% actually, but don't let the facts get in the way. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Bad enough at 49%....but obviously the civilising influence of the Emerald Isle and the Continent is starting to have an effect 'cos for years it was around the 80% mark. Still the overwhelming support for massive incarceration and death in the Anglo-Saxon world stands up fine. Does America not have the highest proportion of its population in prison in the developed (and probably the whole) world? Is the figure not greater than 1% of the population as announced a few days ago? The greatest Gulag Archipelago in the modern world is the US Prison System. Is the UK not the worst in Europe? Stop quibbling - them is facts. Instead of defending the indefensible y'all should reflect and repent. Sarah777 (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

But if you had to live among the Nazi-colonialists every day, perhaps you would support the death penalty too. Don't judge them unless you have walked a day in their jackboots. Besides, I have a developed some respect for the US Prison system, it keeps the hedge rows and pavements outside my place of work nice and tidy. Chain gangs are great. Just think how amusing it would have been to have them in Ireland during the Troubles. They could have made them white wash the murals. Rockpocket 17:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, why not bring back slavery and public flogging. At least then you could no longer maintain the illusion that America is morally superior to the Taliban. Fortunately I don't have to live (yet) in a country that reckons either hand-chopping or child-frying is a form of justice! Sarah777 (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Nah, tar and feathers is the Irish way isn't it? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Y'know ONIH, I am becoming increasingly less surprised by remarks like that from you. Compared to bombing Baghdad "tarring and feathering" is indeed small beer - and very targeted; unlike the indiscriminate mass murder by B52 that your countrymen are currently engaged in. Sarah777 (talk) 23:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

And, on all sides, extrajudicial shooting, and plenty of bombs, and punishment beatings and kindnappings and internment-without-trial. Ireland has had quite enough brutal violence of its own to merit a little caution in claiming too much moral superiority over other parts of the world when it comes to human rights. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Luv these discussions. GoodDay (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Public flogging would not keep our hedgerows tidy, so I wouldn't support that. But one this I have learned living in countries across 4 continents is that almost everyone thinks their country is morally superior to everyone elses. Ireland may be judicially progressive, and if that floats your ethical boat then you can feel justifiably smug in a wiki full of Anglo Americans (but would be embarrassed should a Swede wander it). But if secularism is your moral bag, then your country would be jostling with the Taliban (and the Midwest) in the naughty corner of religious indoctrination. Nationalism is a funny thing. Well, it makes me laugh anyway. Rockpocket 19:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

ONIH etc, without meaning to be uncivil; yer full of it! The Irish State does not endorse knee-capping or "extrajudicial shooting, and plenty of bombs, and punishment beatings and kindnappings and internment-without-trial." In the same way "The West" claims (endlessly) moral superiority over China, the Muslim world, Communist States etc etc etc I thing Eire (and many other European countries) can indeed claim substantial moral superiority over other Western countries; most specifically the US and UK. Which isn't to say Eire is innocent; but in the real world all things are relative. And Rock, really - secularism! This is 2008 - if you go back some years all countries were dominated by religious nutters. And re "Nationalism" - that makes me laugh too - not least because of the pathetic belief by the vast majority of Britons and Americans that they stand for some political and moral principles when the rest of the world see, yes, grotesque nationalism and mind-boggling hypocrisy and double-standards tailored to national self-interest. Sarah777 (talk) 23:21, 11 March

2008 (UTC)

Good rule of thumb for you guys as you obviously can't figure it out for yerselves:

• Nationalism opposed to Imperialism - good.
• Nationalism that is Imperialistic - evil.

OK, that is a massive simplification; but I reckon I'm dealing with the remedial class! Sarah777 (talk) 23:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

So it's just fine and dandy to tar and feather or kneecap someone as long as it's in a good cause? *scratches head* One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Rather depends doesn't it? In war situations the "law" is not to deliberately kill innocents. No head scratching required. Next you'll be claiming that there is something wrong with suicide bombings per se - rather than how they are targeted!!! Jeez, spare me! Sarah777 (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

"The Irish State (sic) does not endorse... punishment beatings and kindnappings and internment-without-trial." Hmm. The anti-war protestors at Shannon may disagree with you there - not to mention those who've travelled through Shannon in a private jet on their way to Cuba... Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 00:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said - these things are relative. Personally, I'd tar and feather all those who secretly facilitate rendition flights and transporting US troops to Iraq. Sarah777 (talk) 00:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Though it is a matter of some pride that a jury refused to convict people who attacked a US warplane at Shannon. Sarah777 (talk) 00:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh, indeed :-) Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 12:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, I notice two strange facts: in the 19h. century, a lot of Irishmen emigrate to America; in the 21t. century, America locks up more of its population than any other country. Hmmmm... it makes you think!--Major Bonkers (talk) 10:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Bonkers, anything that makes you think can only be a good thing. Sarah777 (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Miaooow!  :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Just love you're new hair colour! Sarah777 (talk) 09:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! When I changed my actual hair colour to a similar shade, a 13yo friend asked "if you were going to go to the trouble of changing it, why didn't you choose a nice colour?" --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ha, ha - that's a very good response, Sarah! Meanwhile, I'm very concerned at this newspaper article that reports that the Irish colonists and imperialists in America have been banned from singing their favourite English ballard. Such cruelty clearly deserves a penal sanction!--Major Bonkers (talk) 08:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Was Winston Churchill really anti-Semitic? Dunno. But as for Danny Boy I rather like it - it is only depressing in the sense of "The Fields of Athenry". I read that another bar in Manhatten is going to have his patrons sing Danny Boy 1,000 times over two days on Paddy's week-end. So if you want to give those English tonsils a good work-out hop on a plane! Sarah777 (talk) 09:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

N51 road Page

Have a look and tell me if this is good. I got the idea from the Australia road pages. Limbo-Messiah (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice! The font looks great; is the green background a bit too lime-green and not enough blue-green; should it be a bit darker? Sign is great - is the road lenght correct? Sarah777 (talk) 21:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The Colour is hard to get correct. It depends on individual monitors. Also, when you print it's different again. The Traffic Signs Manual 1996 doesn't prescribe any specific Green Yellow or Blue. It just says Green Yellow and Blue. The distances are as good as I can get them. Until the NRA make their Chainages available or publish any stats, we won't know. It's a bit tricky for some roads. Where to start measuring because of Ring Roads, like the M50 and the Cork Ring Road. I believe that the National Routes will eventually be downgraded to Regional Routes pretty soon inside ring roads. So I measure from it's routes junction with the ring road. For interurbans that are part National Route and part Motorway, humm, don't know what to do yet. Anyway i thought it would make Irish Road pages look a bit more classy. Must say, this (right) looks magnificent in the routeboxLimbo-Messiah (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Certainly looks classy! I wonder - if we put the destination list plus shield in the box (as you did for N51) do we need a shield over at the top left? Does it look cluttered; duplication? Sarah777 (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's better with both - can't make my mind up. Sarah777 (talk) 22:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well atleast noone can stick in (X mi) after the distances in brackets.Limbo-Messiah (talk) 09:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

And there is a handy translation of the Irish name provided! Sarah777 (talk) 09:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Massacres

Hello Sarah777:

I don't have a position to take, political or otherwise, with respect to the article of various titles, now currently called List of events named massacres. I do keep it watchlisted just because it is a fascinating exercise in trying to force an emotional description into a logical construct. I noticed your recent deletion and wondered if you had seen the new set of criteria for the list as it appears here [[3]] in the pink drop-down menu at the top of the page. Your edit summary seemed to suggest that you might not have seen it. My thought was that you would be more likely to be adding events under these guidelines than deleting them, but I may have misunderstood them, and you. If I am in error, please excuse my presumption in commenting here. ៛ Bielle (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope - didn't see that; I thought the new criterion was that a "massacre" must have a Wiki-article which includes "massacre" in the title. That was the compromise I supported, very reluctantly. And I'm not sure any of the sources quoted count as "reliable" under the conditions listed. As for adding; I have no intention of expanding an article I think is bizarre other than for the specific purpose of balancing POV - to achieve NPOV. Sarah777 (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Not having any way to asess the sources, my comment wasn't about whether the deletion was right or wrong; it was only the edit summary that drew my attention. I voted to delete the article, myself. ៛ Bielle (talk) 22:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, thank you for saving me a lot of time by proving that wikipedia can't work. There are just too many people like yourself with very little knowledge but plenty of time on their hands. However, just for your future benefit; when writing about history you might like to consider that there are in fact objective facts and not just competing povs. For example to answer your question and about massacres, the events of 1641 - the killings of civilians and prisoners were massacres. Now since you don't know anything about this period, I'll give you some more recent examples.

In the war of independence period, the executions of 1916 were massacres because they occurred within a judicial context. This does not make them any more moral. It's an analytical definition, which you just don't seem to appreciate. On the other hand, the events in Croke Park on Bloody Sunday 1920 can be called a 'massacre' because they were a deliberate targetting of unarmed civilians. Likewise the Dunmanway massacre, or MacMahon murders (Belfast 1922, look it up) of 1922, likewise the ballyseedy massacre of 1923.

I know you're not actually interested in any of this because you prefer to waste eveyone's time putting spelling mistakes and ill-informed rants, but hey that's wikipedia.

Ciao. Jdorney (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

If you chose to leave because you cannot freely insert pov into historical articles that is your choice. Your rather limited appreciation of the nature of spurious "legality" limits your ability to adequately interpret the voluminous facts you have absorbed. But "massacre" is a loaded word, like terrorism, pure and simple. If you cannot appreciate that then it isn't surprising that you cannot understand the nature of the "facts" you study. Perhaps you are simply out of your depth here? Sarah777 (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Irish Rebellion of 1641

Sarah777 you wrote on my talk page:

Sorry Philip, the fact that you have put something on a different article page does not justify reinstating POV again. I am going to ignore your protection as the work of a biased Admin currently involved in edit-warring on the article. Do not be tempted to abuse your blocking tools. Sarah777 (talk) 12:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The block only applies to IP addresses and new users. It does not apply to you. As to POV. I restored a version to one before edit warring started. Why not discuss you changes before making them and reach a consensus first as you initial bold changes were reverted by another editor? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed very clear examples of non-neutral language as per Wiki guidelines. I'm not sure there is anything to discuss. Sarah777 (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Listowel

Hi, Sarah! How pronounce in the name town Listowel 2 letter "OW". Like in "Tow" or like in "Towel". (Прон) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.126.214.103 (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Hope you dont mind me jumping in but in Dublin we pronounce it like LIS TOE EL might be different in other parts of Ireland. BigDunc (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, BigDunc. (Прон) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.126.214.103 (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

God only knows why I'm here but you seem to have a very dramatic wikipedia life :D I'm from Clare and it's LIS-toe-L here too, that's all. Have fun with your fun filled escapades! Paul5121 (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Year in country articles

Is there a wikiproject for these? I noticed 848_in_Ireland (etc) while doing some work on nonexistent categories. —Random832 16:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I guess Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland covers it, though it is really the work of about four or five editors. Sarah777 (talk) 21:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

848 in Ireland is now a better year than most, but I'm not sufficiently taken with the idea of year articles to go and look for stuff to add to them, or to add it as I write things. I might feel more inclined to flesh out timelines. Yes, that is a feeble attempt at blackmail. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what a timeline looks like - except one of those wall-charts. btw - a lot of red links in 848 - have you got some readables on all those stiffs? Sarah777 (talk) 22:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I already have Ólchobar done in my head, and I'll do Tigernach. Timelinefrog is plodding through Kings of Connacht and Leinster, so I'll leave those two for him. If you've got a name and date and a genealogy and one or two events, that works out to a couple of hundred words by the time it's all done. Add in a curiosity of some sort - an interesting byname, subject of a poem, being an abbot as well as a king like Ólchobar, living on a crannog in Loch Gabhair for Tigernach - and the world's your oyster.

A timeline would just be a decade or a century on a page. Someone has created a Timeline of British history (1000-1499) (O RLY?), or, less controversially, there's Timeline of 7th century Muslim history. Just merge all the years - they wouldn't get deleted, just redirected to the timeline. To make the redirects work the pages would best to include HTML anchors, so that the redirect jumps to the right part of the page. You can use the section titles (like User talk:Sarah777#Year in country articles should jump to this section), but if they get renamed it doesn't work any more. Anyway, I'll do one and let you see it. I wouldn't expect anybody to buy a pig in a poke. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. As you can well imagine I have a very open mind! Sarah777 (talk) 11:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sara, I have seen too the 848_in_Ireland, and I have seen that it's the only article on the 848 in Europe and in 848 by country categories. Maybe all the 84x years could be merged on a 840s decade in Ireland article so we don't have so many mini-articles, since a per-decade granularity is probably enough for most countries and decades, and specially relevant years can get their own article if necessary On the other hand, I'll wait some time to see if this initiative grows and becomes an useful resource for wikipedia. *If* it becomes a unholy mess of difficult-to-navigate smallish articles (I hope that it doesn't), *then* I'll complain again and suggest that it is merged on per-decade articles and work towards that. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

P.D.:I was objecting because most per-year-per-country articles are just an enumeration of facts already on the per-year article, like Category:1016_in_England. The ones for Ireland are a bit more complete, but I still find they would be better on a article coverig a whole decade --Enric Naval (talk) 12:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

A timeline article already exists - Timeline of Irish history. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

So, hum, it appears that 848 in ireland is not linked there, actually, no "in ireland" article from 795 to 980 is listed since "852" is linked to the year [[852]] :( Also, if someone was to link the year and then detail the event too, you get a mix of info repeated on both the timeline and the article, items that appear on one of the articles and don't appear on the other, like on 980_in_Ireland, and items that don't appear on neither the 980 page nor the timeline..... --Enric Naval (talk) 14:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

John

Hi Sarah, I'm not sure if we've interacted much before, so I hope you'll accept my comments as those of an "uninvolved" admin. I've taken a quick look through your contribs, and overall I'm really impressed with all the work that you do. It does seem that you're definitely "in the fray" on some of the messier disputes, especially as involving Ireland-related matters, which I know are a real quagmire at the moment. So I'd like to give you as much allowance as possible, since you're definitely out there on the front lines. I do understand that when someone is dealing with POV-pushers, patience can run a bit thin.

My attention was mainly drawn to this, because I've been watching a couple other talkpages (not related to you) where I was asked to help out with a dispute. John was peripherally involved with that, which is how I noticed your comments.

I have no great desire to wade into the Ireland mess, though if you think that the attention of an uninvolved admin on any particular page might help de-escalate things, I'd be willing to take a look.

Regarding your own comments to John, I'll freely admit that I haven't dug into the whole history. So please, just take this as a comment from someone who's getting a "snapshot" of the current situation, and is offering a third-party view. And I have to say I'm a bit disappointed by the behavior from both of you. A comment like this,[4] though it may flow into an older pattern of communications with which I'm not aware, does kind of tend to make you look bad. And then edit-warring on his talkpage about it, seems a bit bizarre. Though I agree that his "trolling" comment in an edit summary was uncalled for. But then this message just seems like it's going to further escalate things.[5] Rather than continuing to spiral, do you think it would be possible to calm things down, just a hair? Or even better, maybe deleting any comments which you may have thought better of, now that the original moment of frustration has passed? I think it would help a lot in de-escalating things.

Thanks, and I hope you are able to take my comments as being made in good faith. It's obvious that you do a lot of great work on Wikipedia, and that you really care about the project. I look forward to getting to know you better.  :) --Elonka 02:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Elonka - it appears I made a tiny wee mistake in the sense that John never actually said what I thought he did. I have recanted and removed the remarks from Rock's page. But re the comment from Oscar Wilde I never regarded John as an enemy! Annoying at times, but if I used that standard the whole world would qualify from time to time! Sarah777 (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikibreakia

Well, chickens - have you all been behaving the past few days while I was away on a (very) brief sojourn in Trier? Any rows to get stuck into? Any pov to be reverted? I really must cadge one of those Wiki-buttons that says "I'm currently in rehab and they won't give me a keyboard". Now, to work. Sarah777 (talk) 12:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No keyboard is no big deal, but if they start taking all the sharp objects away and giving you edible crayons - I wonder what they taste like? are the red ones cherry flavoured and the green ones lime? - to write with, that's when you need to start worrying. I liked Trier, so I hope you did too. To get to the point, I am looking for an opinion, and you've usually got one to spare. Would you have time to look at Flann Sinna and let me know which bits are wrong, unreadable, confusing or otherwise no good? The pictures aren't so wonderful, but what can you expect with someone who has been dead for nearly 1100 years? Thanks and welcome back, Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey! You really should ask someone who knows - I just link and collate the stuff I find here on Wiki in relation to our sturdy warlike cattle-raiding forbears. I suggest Angusmclellan who is one of a group of editors who appear to have actually studied the various Annals and Chronicles. Having said that the article looks pretty good - a B if the facts are more or less an accurate reflection of the sources; the photos are not that poor either, maybe a bit big. And Trier (been there a few times - family) is beautiful; full of Roman remains - pity I only had 48 hours there. And the old € goes a wee bit further than it does in Free Ireland! Sarah777 (talk) 13:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

That Angusmclellan? If you ask me he's a useless bluffer who just copies stuff out of books without necessarily understanding it. Can hardly read a word of Irish. If it were up to me, I'd sooner have somebody who knew what they were doing write the stuff. Anyway, he was the first person I asked, but as usual the answer didn't tell me anything I didn't already know.

OK, fair enough, I'm winding you up. Is my signature really that confusing? The trouble with asking someone who knows, or more likely thinks they do, is that they'll fill in any gaps while they're reading. If you do get a chance to pick over it, let me know. I'm thinking of sending it off to WP:FAC once I've gone through all the things Mike Christie listed on the talk page and added the few bits and pieces I've found since I last worked on it. Toodle Pip! Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Golly Gosh! Small world - never spotted the similarity :) Rushing to catch up - I'll read it with a forensic eye - even more carefully than I read your signature. Sarah777 (talk) 14:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I helped fill-in some of those (Year) in Ireland articles, with the passings of Irish monarchs. GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks G'Day - as we all know the only good Monarch is a dead one. Sarah777 (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Most of Ireland did the right thing, in becoming a Republic. GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Why did you remove those Kings & Queens of Ireland?? I'd think a country's monarchs death would be notable. You accepted my edits & now you reject them, Why? GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I thought you meant Irish K & Qs. You were talking foreign. Sarah777 (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, I thought by hiding the titles of King/Queen of England & King/Queen of Scotland? You would've accepted their entries more eagerly. I was attempting to respect the 'Kingdom of Ireland' as an independant Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't independent, sadly. The title misses the aspect of occupation and dispossession which were intrinsic to the Royal roles. So I'm happy to go with the common title without the pipe. Sarah777 (talk) 21:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

And surely as G 1 was German we should let our readers know that - another editor reversed my edit citing some list of incomprehensible numbers and letters. Let it all hang out re the chinless wonders, I say . Sarah777 (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

What was the purpose of the 1801 Act of Union, if the Kingdom of Ireland wasn't seperate (1542-1800)? GoodDay (talk) 22:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The British aristocracy infighting, basically, is what it was. Sarah777 (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Remember the Fianna Fail slogan from the 1930s? "Burn everything British except their trolls" Sarah777 (☎) 22:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I still think the Kingdom of Ireland was seperate (1542-1800). But, that doesn't effect those entries, so? cool. GoodDay (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes but what about the German King? Was the Dook of Brunswick-Lüneburg not German???? Sarah777 (talk) 22:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite follow you. GoodDay (talk) 22:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least you don't demonstrate the damned dog-eared ingratitude of Mr Counter-Revolutionary! Sarah777 (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I've explained things a little, at CRs page. GoodDay (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Sniper at work

Hi, Sarah. A fair-use pic of the roadsign was already added by John to the South Armagh Sniper article. Thanks to him. Regards.DagosNavy 12:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. I wonder if ONIH will be able to concoct some spurious reason to delete it? Sarah777 (talk) 12:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he can't claim any "misrepresentation" in this case:).DagosNavy 16:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

British Isles

If that 'term' gets omitted from Wikipedia? I'll be stretched out flatter then paint on a plate, after fainting. GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, we can always hope. Sarah777 (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

question about irish/gaelic

Hello, I think that you can write gaelic. Can you please look at this edit and tell me if it is correct? [6] --Enric Naval (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Lá na Máithreacha would be my guess, but I'm no expert. Sarah777 (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, thank you very much. This should be enough for now --Enric Naval (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Script

If you want I can tell you what is needed. I use it to assess more than just the Irish project pages. Have a great Easter. Just had a Skype call with both my sons, their wives and my one-year-old grandson. We talked about when I will get to the Glen of Imaal next - soon I hope. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The Glen is a spot very close to my heart - and that article needs some photos! Good to hear that all is well - and that there is a third generation of Censors! Sarah777 (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Lol !!. Maybe I can get some Glen shots when I get there next. If not perhaps a pint in Fenton's will have to do. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Template:Irish states since 1171

Hi Sarah, I see a slow revert war going on at Template:Irish states since 1171. You haven't formally broken WP:3RR at this point, but you are still in danger of being done for edit-warring. Please could you discuss it on the talk page instead? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Lemme think about it - I assume the people reverting my corrections would also be done for edit-warring? Though I do note that one of my "opponents" has actually broken 3RR and nobody seems the least bit perturbed. The Irish v British thing again I guess. Sarah777 (talk) 10:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. I have thought about it for a millisecond and as I (mostly) heed your advice I'm recusing myself from the Great Template War. Sarah777 (talk) 10:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ooops!

I just rolled back one of your edits by the slip of my mouse sorry. I restored your work immediately. Just wanted to make you aware that no malice was intended. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Which one? Sarah777 (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It was at WP:UKNATIONALS. I don't know how I did it (I thought I was clicking elsewhere), but fixed it anyway. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That one. I was going to add a para on "use of the term 'British Isles' is discouraged as it isn't accepted in Ireland and may lead to edit-warring" - it seems some people are deliberately creating articles with "British Isles" in the title as a provocation - but that would probably lead to an edit-war. However it needs to be discussed. Sarah777 (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't possibly comment on that (!). I notice there is an open discussion at British Isles though, so I think it would be wise to hang back on that one. UKNATIONALS is for use on the UK too so I don't think anything about Ireland adds much in terms of its purpose.

On the "British Isles" debate, I'm actually torn on the issue myself. There's strong debate from each "camp" and trust a sensible way forwards will come out of discussion at some point down the line. Finger's crossed. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Incivility

Hi there, I was reading Rockpocket's userpage and think you need to be more careful with what you are labeling incivility. A comment about a specific person "You are silly because you believe in unicorns" may be rude and not civil. However, saying "Believing in unicorns is silly." is a comment on a particular argument, not a comment directed at a specific editor. If you find general arguments insulting and they make you angry, then take a deep breath and walk away from the computer for a while. You need to criticise the assumptions and logic of the argument, rather than saying that the person making such an argument is not being civil.

Sometimes people do make such arguments in the knowledge that they will probably make the person they are arguing with angry, in a deliberate attempt to make you lose your cool. The only effective way of dealing with such people is to refuse to take their bait and reply to their comments calmly. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Tim, I've been accused of incivility by Wiki Admins (including Rock) often enough to know what I'm talking about. Reciprocity is a two-way street. In my opinion. Your prompt intervention is noted. Sarah777 (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

And it was the argument I said was uncivil I said "that is uncivil" not "you are uncivil". So what could the problem be? Sarah777 (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless of course you reckon that (you believe in unicorns) + (that is a silly belief) = (you are silly). But that would make your initial comments silly. All so confusing. Sarah777 (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Donededed

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland/Assessment#It.27s_empty. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:IMG 0212w.JPG

I noticed you've uploaded Image:IMG 0212w.JPG and I thought I should turn your attention to a common error.
Please give uploaded images meaningful names. Otherwise they are difficult to track and it is hard to tell what the image is about without actually looking at it. You may want to rename your image with an intuitive name that describes the image itself. Thanks, and happy editing! Stifle (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Apologies - I name them, nearly always, but the occasional time I forget. I will redouble my efforts to give meaningful names to all uploads as I obviously appreciate the utility of the practice. Regards Sarah777 (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Eh...just realised I don't know how to rename the image! Feel free to do so - it should be called "Ballaly Luas Stop". Sarah777 (talk) 22:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You need to re-upload it and assign it your wanted name at that time, then tag the original for deletion. BTW, if they are PD images why not upload to the commons? AFAIK there is no easy way to rename. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 02:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep Ww - for the past several months I'm uploading all new photos to Commons; but there are over 800 earlier ones and I'm waiting for a technical solution. Sarah777 (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

{{subst:movetocommons}} will do it Sarah. Some more detailed advice here. Hope that helps. --John (talk) 23:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

What they feed the kids...

These days it'll be fish fingers, chicken nuggets and those bloody awful oven chips I think. And to think I might be moving back soon. Still, the pound is doing pretty bad. Since the last time I checked it means that house prices fell by 10% in real money. Now if only they'd go down in monopoly money values as well, I'd be a happy bunny indeed.

Just a teensy weensy suggestion: ignore Tharkun Coll. Not easy I know, but probably better if you do. I'm thinking he'll be joining VK and DL on the bench soon enough, and he surely deserves it more than either of them. The "google hits say" guy you might as well ignore too. I'm sure you've been through that argument endlessly before. And it's not like they're going to be able to do a sneaky move to Irish Potato Famine or whatever. I think quite a few people would notice that and put it back where it is.

How are you doing with collecting barnstars? If that's not going so great, how about trying featured pictures? User:Durova is apparently the woman to talk to if you fancy a go at that. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes Angus - I can resist anything except temptation as my maternal granny used to say (a lot!) - the blighters know they can rise me - though I certainly note that I am by no means their only target - just the easiest maybe. Barnstar collection is in the region of one-ish, but I feel I have a bit of momentum going. I was expecting a joint one from John and Rock for civility but it is a bit slow coming - like the number 44 bus on a wet morning. House prices are falling here too but only from totally mind-bogglingly ridiculous to grossly mind-bogglingly ridiculous; they'd need to halve in price to get to simply mind-bogglingly ridiculous (excuse all the technical economic jargon but I've been studying "liquidity puts" and "tertiary debt leverage"). Sarah777 (talk) 20:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for restoring the pic, ever picture is worth a thousand words (or references). --Domer48 (talk) 21:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. I was just looking at it from a layout/appearance perspective - maybe we could leave out the one top right; or create a gallery (though I don't much like those)? Sarah777 (talk) 21:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I see we are being held up as exmples of a precived conspiricy? --Domer48 (talk) 08:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Indeed. What was his block for? I have a certain sympathy as my blocks (bar one) were for harrassment - of the blockers!! Don't think I've been anywhere near either of the articles mentioned in your link. Thank God. Sarah777 (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This is your rap sheet they are citing. --Domer48 (talk) 20:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes - every one a bum rap - in most cases by warring Admins. Note they are nearly all for incivilty; usually to tool-abusing edit-warring Admins.

• 01:07, 28 February 2008 Tyrenius (Talk | contribs) blocked "Sarah777 (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours ‎ (Attempting to harass other users: Derogatory comments after extensive warnings)
• 16:36, 23 February 2008 Alison (Talk | contribs) blocked "Sarah777 (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Gross incivility)
• 22:27, 25 January 2008 Ioeth (Talk | contribs) blocked "Sarah777 (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Attempting to harass other users: Multiple violations of civility on User Talk:Alison and User talk:Ioeth)
• 22:18, 25 January 2008 SirFozzie (Talk | contribs) blocked "Sarah777 (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 3 hours ‎ (Multiple violations of civility on User Talk:Alison)
• 07:48, 22 December 2007 Rklawton (Talk | contribs) blocked "Sarah777 (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 31 hours ‎ (Disruption: 3RR; POV pushing; tendentious editing))
• 03:32, 3 June 2007 Swatjester (Talk | contribs) blocked "Sarah777 (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (harassment.)
• 03:42, 30 May 2007 BrendelSignature (Talk | contribs) blocked "Sarah777 (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Three-revert rule violation: Edit warring)

BrendelSignature, Swatjester, Rklawton, SirFozzie, Ioeth, Tyrenius, Alison - the Legion of Shame. I may forgive but I'll never forget any one of them. Thay are all just a little bit special. Sarah777 (talk) 21:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Special Fred

Thanks very much for that wonderful piece of humor on your last revert on article Brendan. lol --HJKeats (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a song! Can't get the tune outta my head - 'cos it's just a little bit special:) Sarah777 (talk) 22:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It's very un-PC of course. But I think most of our Admins here are just a little bit special too! Sarah777 (talk) 22:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Humor is never un-PC!!! Never heard the tune, it sounds like something a popular group from this little part of the world would have in their repertoire. Do you have that tune in mp3 format, I have an extensive collection of music (last count 15,000+), and I'm still collecting! --HJKeats (talk) 23:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I hear it on some young persons i-Pod around here - I'm told that it can be found on U-Tube. (Mr Lynch has some rather blasphemous stuff as well). This is a link &%^£!Sarah777 (talk) 00:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sarah; I nearly bust-a-gut listening to it :), a few people I knew went through my mind as I was listening to the lyrics... Thanks for sending me the link. From your user page I gather you are from Ireland, are you still living there? I'm from Newfoundland; we have a tremendous Irish heritage in this province. Thanks again, --HJKeats (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, for my sins I'm still rooted in the old sod (or re-potted more like!) - Newfoundland and Quebec are two places I am determined to visit if the Lord spares me! Never been to Canada except once by accident :) Sarah777 (talk) 10:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Help (if you have the time)

Sarah, if you have the time I'd like your help. I've recently been accused of being a vandal by an admin called Waggers over my editting. I was in the process of reviewing every use of the term British Isles and making changes to those places where the term was used in a non-geographical way. I see that you've recently reverted one of Wagger's edits to one of the changes I made. Can you please look at my talk page to see the current status, reviewmny edits and Waggers reverts, and give me advice on how to proceed or what to do. If you don't have the time, don't worry. Thank you. Bardcom (talk) 21:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Can't do it just now but the revert I made (to Waggers revert of your edit) was because no reason was given for a seemingly irrational revert. I'll check out his other reverts later. Be careful btw; he's an Admin. Regards Sarah777 (talk) 22:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

That's no problem. I'm keeping my head down. You're an admin though ... Thanks. Bardcom (talk) 23:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Good God I'm not!!! Sarah777 (talk) 23:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Giggle, giggle. GoodDay (talk) 23:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

lol - I'd love to see the Rfa though :-) Bardcom (talk) 00:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I could even rely on my own vote for me as Admin! Sarah777 (talk) 14:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I dunno - deffo more good than harm I would say, and a lot of valuable contributions. But the admins you've p*ssed off - my oh my, that's a powerful list. BTW, Waggers reverted your edit on the Act of Settlement, but I finally found references and the article is now corrected. Bardcom (talk) 14:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Regrets, they've been a few. But then again too few to mention. Sarah777 (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Followup

Could you please give me some examples of where you think that the civility rule has been misapplied? --Elonka 23:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Check my blocks above. But like all arbitrary abuse the incivility that is not punished is as important as that which is. I would suggest that nobody should ever be blocked for "retaliatory" incivility unless the other party is also blocked. Simply doesn't happen - and never happens if the other party is an Admin. Sarah777 (talk) 23:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sarah.  :) Since I'm not familiar with the surroundings, could you walk me through one? Pick one clear unambiguous example of a case where you feel that a block was issued for incivility that was either wrong, or was unfair since it punished one party in an argument, while ignoring equally uncivil comments by another party in the argument. A couple specific diffs would be great, thank you. --Elonka 23:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this one is a case in point:

• 22:18, 25 January 2008 SirFozzie (Talk | contribs) blocked "Sarah777 (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 3 hours ‎ (Multiple violations of civility on User Talk:Alison)
• An editor called "Waggers" made a rather sneering remark on Alison's page after I'd reported him there - I responded - and zap! Fozzie blocked me. (All this from memory. I'll root out the diffs if you can't find them tomorrow - they would all be archived by now. (Again from memory, the next block followed directly as a consequence of this one). Sarah777 (talk) 23:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Not dodging this - I'll give a blow-by-blow tomorrow - but I turn into a pumpkin at midnight! Sarah777 (talk) 23:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Was it the thread with these comments of yours? SirFozzie told both you and Waggers to stop, and then blocked you?[7][8][9][10]

The other party, Waggers, said [11] on Alison's talkpage, though I haven't looked to see other comments on other pages yet. --Elonka 00:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Please Categorize Your Photos on the Commons

If you don't, then people looking for a picture of The Mountain or wherever won't be able to find it. I've just categorized the ones that needed it. Soe were really good so have the

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		For some beautiful and useful pictures of Ireland Simon Speed (talk) 01:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

. I believe you can move your barnstars to your user page if you want. --Simon Speed (talk) 01:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much Simon. But they'd crowd out my userpage - I have nearly two of them at thus stage!! Still waiting for the Enniskerry omnibus and I'm trying to save space for it 'cos it's gotta be MONSTER!! Sarah777 (talk) 09:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW; I'll look at categorising the pics on Commons - I presume it is easy to do?! Sarah777 (talk) 10:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Same nonsense as here: most of the bother is finding the categories, but commons has a better search engine for some reason. Yes, I do have plans for Mór, but I have plans for lots of things. Getting things don tends to be more of a problem. Two barnstars! So, next up, featured picture? Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh I'd settle for three! Sarah777 (talk) 02:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Greater Dublin population

Hi Sarah, I reverted your edit to Dublin#Population, because while the closest chunk of the border is less than 100km from Dublin, the population figures are plausible only when viewed against the total population of the Republic, not against the whole population of the island. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you are probably right. I was not really sure - I was applying the precautionary principle whereas I really should have just checked the figures. Feelin' lazy today.....Sarah777 (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It's scary, it is, the population all crowding itself round Dublin like that. If it continues, the island will capsize to starboard, and Bertietown will be blowing up bubbles in the radioactive Irish Sea. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on! On the other side of the Sea of Manx there are 10 million within 100k of Liverpool Town Hall and it ain't sinking.......is it???? Sarah777 (talk) 01:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That's cos they have a sparsely-populated Wales as an outrigger to stop the place tipping over. Mind you, that might not be enough when the refugees from start pouring in from Doubling. Many of them have already been buying their liferafts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

I see the date on that is 27 April 2006 - anyone who put their dosh in British Property back then will certainly need a liferaft - if they can afford one after converting their losses back into real money - the €! Sarah777 (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

?

What did I do to deserve your growl today? --sony-youth^pléigh 20:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing really - just the thought of you wielding Admin powers fills me with dark foreboding ;) Sarah777 (talk) 21:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Y'd be suprised, Sony'd make a great admin. Sarah, I know he'd get your no 1. Watch out, your enemy can become your greatest friend, watch out! -78.19.179.195 (talk) 22:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps! Sarah777 (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Ya know I've been doing some thinking (thus the reason for my headache), perhaps you & Giano II, should try for Administrators. Think of it this way - if you can't beat'm? join'm. GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, Giano tried to skip the training pool and dive straight into the deep-end at Arbcom! Got a heck of a vote too - even disallowing some of our favourite socks. Sarah777 (talk) 02:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

A sad story of cultural misunderstanding

here. --Major Bonkers (talk) 14:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure which part you find sad; with a name like "Bonkers" I'd guess you were closer to the Polish President than those..eh...fine young newlyweds! But that is merely a disagreement within the same culture - not between cultures. Sarah777 (talk) 12:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm writing this from Warsaw! I just wonder which one wears the trousers in the marriage. I guess the one on the right because the one on the left seems a bit weedy.

From my own observations (NB: not experience), Poland has just as many homosexuals as anywhere else; the only difference being that they don't shout about it and lecture everyone else on the joys of their particular enthusiasm.--Major Bonkers (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for "live and let live" - though I guess this is one issue I'm unlikely to get blocked for having strong feelings about! Hope you are enjoying your stay in Poland. Sarah777 (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the photo, it is no wonder a social conservative used them to represent all that is wrong in the world. They represent the ultimate destruction of the traditional marriage roles: two men tie the knot and neither are wearing the trousers. Rockpocket 21:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Well spotted! Hadn't noticed that...it isn't just your tongue is sharp then? :-) Sarah777 (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hang on - that was my joke - which one wears the trousers - kilts - geddit? Sarah's running a bit slow not to get it! The kilt, incidentally, is supposed to be an Irish invention, appropriated by the Scots; the ancient Highlanders wearing their plaid rather like a toga, and unwrapping it to use as a blanket at night. Anyway, this story is big news over here; much ribald comment directed at the fact that the author of the remarks is himself 'a confirmed batchelor' (though not, of course, a kilt-lifter)! --Major Bonkers (talk) 17:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I did wonder, but your second comment about one being "a bit weedy" gave the impression you were playing it straight (if you'll excuse the pun). My tongue isn't sharp at all Sarah, I'm a big softy really. Rockpocket 17:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I was playing it straight; but Sarah needs to keep up with us! I strongly suspect that you have eloped with Clio the Muse, by the way! --Major Bonkers (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The Waggers/Fozzie/Ioeth/Alison/TY Abuse cases

I'm not too handy at archive rooting but this is a core sequence: I went to Ali's page after Waggers got me banned based on a bizarre Arbcom ruling that was an open invitation to trolls and partisans to to suppress Free speech. I took my case to Alison's page:

• Hi Ali; that smug dip***t "Waggers" (whataname eh?) has managed to get me "banned" for "anti-British remarks". This is utterly ridiculous. Please tell me how I go about asking for an end to the Arbcom ruling that facilitates twits like him? What is the procedure? Sarah777 (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• My top 3 suggestions, for what they're worth:

1. Stop using playground behaviour such as petty name-calling and aggressive remarks

2. Stop using playground behaviour such as petty name-calling and aggressive remarks

3. Stop using playground behaviour such as petty name-calling and aggressive remarks

If you seriously have a problem with my attitude, come and talk to me about it on my talk page rather than "asking the other parent" and calling me names behind my back. Waggers (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Sod off Waggers you smug git. Howzat? Sarah777 (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• And you really do flatter yourself by calling yourself "the other parent". I dislike being patronised even more than I dislike threats. Btw, wouldn't you reckon that running to an Admin to get me "banned" was a bit 'running to Mommy-ish"? Sarah777 (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Alright, Waggers, Sarah, back to your corners. Sarah, one comment like that and I will block you, understand? SirFozzie (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• I think SirFozzie meant "one more comment" ;) 74.133.9.95 (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• I think Fozzie is confused; he made no threat to Waggers for his sneering remarks above. Admin solidarity or something? Are they all precious? Sarah777 (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• • At this stage Fozzie blocks me in a clear abuse of Admin power 'cos of comments I made about his double standards

• Actually, I never got a chance to warn Waggers. However, I did warn you that one more comment like that would merit a block. (goes to put notice on Sarah's page) And I'm not sure who the IP is here, but um.. please don't stir things up. Thanks. SirFozzie (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• • (Note: Waggers was in fact neither blocked nor warned by Sir Foz as it transpired)
  • Response by innocent IP to Fozzies intemperate attack on said IP

• Umm wow you call that stirring things up? Does AGF mean nothing to you? Or does it only apply to named editors that you know? My apologies to Alison, for this is not the page to discuss this but that was a straight smack in the face. Baseless accusations of stirring things up, simply because I mentioned that I thought you meant "one more comment" rather than "one comment". Or was it my informing you that the rumbling grumbling disruption was still on going? Now that is laughable, or disgraceful or maybe both. 74.133.9.95 (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

In the ensuing row the Admin cabal blocked me once more - Ioeth did a (typical Admin) knee-jerk refusal to unblock and then himself blocked me for (yes, incivility towards an Admin) - I'll need to do some more rooting. Sarah777 (talk) 10:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Note: To be fair Waggers was instrumental in starting the ball rolling here but it is important to point out that he has never abused his Admin powers to my knowledge; so I've removed the reference to "abuse" in his case. Alison is a marginal call but as she is not communicating with me (unrelated matter) I don't feel the pangs of guilt gnawing at my innards for leaving her on the list. Sarah777 (talk) 10:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pulling that together. Had you had previous interactions with Fozzie? Because I'm not seeing his block as an abuse. Indeed, it's fairly typical. The pattern usually goes like this:

• User "John Doe" does something that violates policy
• Admin "Mary" cautions John that he needs to stop the behavior
• John Doe then unloads on Mary, questioning her judgment, and often also her parentage, intelligence, and sexual habits
• Mary then blocks John for policy violations
• John then insists that the block was inappropriate because Mary wasn't an "uninvolved admin"

ArbCom is pretty clear on these though, that just because an admin offers a warning and engages in a conversation with the policy-violating user, doesn't make them "involved" with that user. Instead, "involved" is typically defined as an admin using their tools to further their own position in a content dispute of some type. The key is whether or not the admin is neutral in the dispute, or whether they're gaining a personal advantage in what they're doing, as opposed to just being the janitor that's cleaning up a mess.

And, to be honest, your comments really were uncivil.  :/ Calling someone a dips**t is not any better than spelling the word out in its entirety. It may be a masked vulgarity, but it's still a vulgarity.

Do you have any other examples of where you feel that the civility policy was not implemented properly? --Elonka 21:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Assessment of the assessor

I think, Elonka, we need to get a better perspective on the case above before going anywhere else.

• I was blocked (by Fozzie) for (ironically) saying (about Fozzie) Admin solidarity or something? Are they all precious? (Let's focus on that; I will deal with my remarks to Waggers separately).
• I'm not seeing his block as an abuse. Indeed, it's fairly typical. you say.
• That is exactly the problem re the implementation of the "civility" code on Wiki. That is fairly typical. Exactly why I said that having 1,500 Admins with such tools should be suspended forthwith pending a clear definition of incivility and how the rule is to be applied. It cannot be left to the whim of 1,500 anonymous Admins.
• It is complete nonsense to suggest or claim that a remark Admin solidarity or something? Are they all precious? amounts to incivility meriting a block. Unless we are to regard Admins as some sort of Little Gods.
• A block is a much bigger deal than any insult or incivility (real or imagined) - it is a form of violence; an assault. And like all police violence there must be very good and clearly defined reason for it; Admins hitting the "block" button in response to remarks as mild as those above directed at them is totally OTT and unacceptable.
• If you can't clearly see that there is little point in extending this conversation. Seriously. Sarah777 (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you look [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sarah777/Archive_5#Banned_from_British_Isles_for_7_days Here you'll see a bit more. The facts of the matter was that Sarah was warned that another personal attack would lead to a block, told Waggers,"Sod off Waggers you smug git. Howzat?", and was caught in the middle of a block storm. I only blocked for three hours, another administrator, Ioeth, decided the personal attacks (if you see the section I linked to for examples) required a 24 hour block, and we got caught between things. He edited the block to 24 hours.

At that point, I've disengaged from Sarah's page up till now, because it's obvious to one and all that she holds a grudge against me for this action, so in the interests of keeping her focused on the encyclopedia, instead of her grudges. This was 2 months ago now, and she is still upset. There's nothing I can do about it now, but wish she would focus her energy on editing civilly and improving the encyclopedia. SirFozzie (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Fozzie - I am not upset with you. Far from it. This isn't about you; as Elonka points out your actions were typical. This is a point of principle with me and I regret you trivialise it to merely a "grudge". I have deliberately isolated the precise, immediate reason for your block in order to focus Elonka on the core issue of rules and clarity. (Of course I believe your block was wrong but surely that doesn't = 'holding a grudge'? I respect you greatly, btw - that has not changed. Sarah777 (talk) 22:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Another example?

Bullshit, and off topic. You were blocked because of your approach. If you want to the thorn in the side of arbcom, by all means to so, but if you want support you need to act appropriately. John Vandenberg (talk) 14:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Lemme see.....Bullshit, and off topic v. Admin solidarity or something? Are they all precious? As a civilian I'd call that a draw. So I reckon that's a block for John Vandenberg then, surely? Sarah777 (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well golly gosh - it appears not!! How very surprising. Sarah777 (talk) 22:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Read on, it was explained exactly why a block was not issued in that case. Rockpocket 22:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah Rock - that "explanation" is about as convincing as the patter of yer average snake-oil salesperson. (Arb sanctions were not involved in the Fozzie block either, btw). Sarah777 (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The difference was one of immediacy and "evidence of a persistent problem." Your two preceding comments were incivil and you continued after being warned to stop. By comparing them out of context, that is lost.

If as you note above, its a point of principle. Why don't you focus your attentions on the principle, that WP:CIV, and how we interpret and deal with it is flawed and faulty, rather than focus on the people who are charged with ensuring the community follows those policies. The reason it is typical is because that is the community consensus for civility standards. Ultimately, and Giano has run into the same problem, if you have a different opinion on civility in Wikipedia from the rest of the community, what you should do is convince the rest of the community that we should change it (by proposing new policy or amending existing policy). I don't think persistently naming and shaming specific admins is going to do much apart from convince everyone else you are holding a personal grudge. Rockpocket 23:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of incivility, that is utter nonsense Rock. My previous remarks also had a context (incivility against me which was ignored by the Admin) - and were not the reason for the block - the reason for the block by Fozzie was my remarks to Fozzie. And while it is "typical" it is by no means universal. The Admins (people) are a very big part of the problem. I have heard your views on the futility of expecting reasonable standards of beheaviour from Admins several times now Rock and I will continue to call abuse when I see it. I certainly realise that Admins often don't like being called to task by mere mortals - that is my very point! And there is no "community" on Wiki; there is a majority view that is imposed by vote and dictat by a certain majority. Societies cannot operate without laws that are the same for everyone; no civilized country would ever give their police the vast and near unaccountable discretion (arbitrary power) that Wiki gives its Admins. Sarah777 (talk) 23:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Bottom line Rock - I should NEVER have been blocked (or come anywhere near being blocked) for saying Admin solidarity or something - Are they all precious? utterly regardless of context. If you can't see that then I guess you are part of the problem. Sarah777 (talk) 23:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Whether you should have been blocked for that (assuming that you were blocked for that alone, I suspect Fozzie would offer a different opinion) is somewhat beside the point. Whether I can see that is also beside the point (and just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't make them a problem). It happened. What is to be gained by referring to it at least once a day? You can't change it, so what is being achieved? There are things that you perhaps can change and here is how you do them:

• Open a RfC on Fozzie and explain why you think he abused his tools. Then you may sample what others think and, perhaps will see that your opinion on the exchange is (or is not) shared by other users.
• Open a RfC on any of the other admins you name.
• Draft policy restricting, or even guiding, admins in interpreting civility in an attempt to standarise enforcement. Admins are only human, in the absence of policy dictating exactly how to keep the project a civil and pleasant place to edit, they use their judgment. You can't blame a volunteer who are selected to use their judgment for doing just that.
• Become an admin yourself or run for ArbCom, then you would be in a position to directly influence these "injustices" (and appreciate the impossible position we are put in by other editors. As an admin, you can't please all the people all of the time, there is almost always someone who feels wronged in a dispute. One of those people moaning that you abused your tools means very little, since if you did the opposite the other person would be moaning.)

To be blunt: bitching about how bad things are will not change them. Even if Wikipedia is akin to a police state, making the point in barbed asides as often as you can will not stop it from being so. So the question is, are you willing to put your money where you mouth is and do something constructive about it? Rockpocket 00:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope. No interest in becoming an Admin - because I love writing/editing etc and wouldn't have the time. No point in opening a process to figure how the majority think - you forget I'm rather experienced in all that - same reason I couldn't be bothered going through any of the processes you mention - I've seen how they work too. So, all there is left is to express my opinion in the hope that like minded folk are listening. And by God will I bitch if I am treated unfairly (by my own reckoning)! (And there is no point in getting thick with me Rock - I know and like you too well to get roused:)Sarah777 (talk) 00:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Community dispute resolution processes are there for a reason, and being unwilling to use them, because you think your perspective will not be supported by wider opinion, is all but admitting that you have no respect for our community norms. Rightly or wrongly, majority (or, more typically, super majority) opinion does determine policies and processes. Sucks for you if your opinion does not concur with the majority, but such is life. You don't have to respect our policies and processes, but you do have to abide by them. But you can't just say label everyone else as the problem and continue to forge you own path here. It simply doesn't work that way.

I'm not saying this to rile you or even argue with you. I'm not saying you are wrong, either. There is no absolute right or wrong, just opinions. Its just that I have been around here long enough, and made my way far enough up the greasy pole, to appreciate how things work. I'm telling you this because I know you cannot tame the beast with your current strategy and it will eventually eat you if you continue to poke at it. To some extent you have been fortuitous, because the beasts you are poking currently are actually quite gentle (albeit somewhat hammy fisted, I'm told), but at some point you are going to run into a more feral specimen...

I really hope you'll rethink and either let the past go and start afresh, to try to work within the framework to address whatever issues you have. We may have to agree to disagree (whats new there?) and I'll still offer my assistance where I can. But at least I feel I have done my best to pre-warn you. Rockpocket 02:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't think I ain't got the measure of the beast. I've seen it work - up close and from a distance. I've seen what it can do to an editor that got 400 votes from serious, productive, talented editors. It is NOT a 'community' worth any respect - it is a base majority in a cultural ghetto. And this I know; just as in the case of Imperialism it cannot thrive without it's willing fools, It tries, not least with these civility 'rules' - to create an atmosphere of fear - and it hates those it cannot control. I'm lucky? Nah - don't think so. The beast has been very lucky with it's victims I'd reckon. Sarah777 (talk) 03:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

So I will repeat: I should NEVER have been blocked (or come anywhere near being blocked) for saying "Admin solidarity or something - Are they all precious?" utterly regardless of context. There is no need to look any further than that. Sarah777 (talk) 03:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you should consider the position Giano find himself in, because I see parallels with his campaign against ArbCom. I don't think its going to work out all the great for him, to be honest. Which is sad, but ultimately his own doing. I'll leave it at that. Be nice and, hopefully, I'll find you still putting the world to rights when I get back in May. Rockpocket 03:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Good health and happiness whatever you are going Rock. (btw - I don't have a 'campaign against Arbcom'!)Sarah777 (talk) 03:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm a bit sorry that I even brought this up, but let's see it through. I spent a couple hours really digging through histories and contribs. I'm taking a look at this as uninvolved admin, since I didn't even know about the dispute at the time. But, here's how I see things, from your batch of contribs on January 25, 2008:[12]

Context:

• 02:06, you said the "British Isles ceased to exist" when Ireland won independence.[13]

• 02:22, you issued a really blatant attack on another editor at the British Isles talkpage.[14]

• 08:37 Waggers refers to your commentary as "harping" and tells you to "grow up".[15]

• 09:00, Waggers informed you that he had filed a complaint (at 08:57) at WP:AE.[16] (archived AE thread)

• 10:26, Waggers says that "British Isles" is a "stupid name".[17]

• 13:44 Ioeth informs you (Sarah777) that you are topic-banned for a week.[18]

• 19:39 Sarah777 edit summary: "uncle tom speak"[19]

• 20:11 Waggers: "Stop using playground behavior".[20]

• 21:07 Sarah777: "sod off" [21]

• 21:09 SirFozzie tells both of you "back to your corners" and tells you (Sarah) "one more comment" and you will be blocked.[22]

• 21:14 Sarah777: "running to Mommy-ish" comment [23]

• 21:16 Sarah777: "Fozzie is confused"[24]

• 21:18, SirFozzie blocked you for three hours

• 21:18 Ioeth said he was blocking you for 24 hours, though he evidently ran into a block conflict with SirFozzie, and SirFozzie's was the one that took effect.[25]

Your comments then further escalated:

• 21:21 "abuse of admin powers"[26]

• 21:22 You file an unblock request, citing "gross abuse" of admin powers.[27]
• 21:25, Yamla declines your unblock

• 21:27, Ioeth, seeing that there had been a block conflict, finishes extending the 3-hour block, to a 24-hour block

• 21:27 You commented about a "whining rationale"

• 21:28 Yamla protects your talkpage for 24 hours

• 21:35 Waggers says he's not going to respond, and refers to your comments as "trolling"[28]

• The next day, January 26, 23:26. You are still unrepentant.[29] and continue to complain about the block."total garbage""admin bullying""power-crazed"

I'm really scratching my head here. Is it your honest opinion that you did nothing wrong, that you were completely civil, and that admins were just harassing you for no reason? --Elonka 07:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any sane people do anything for "no reason". But then I didn't say that. And what is more, read my comments to Rock - "Fozzie is confused"[30], that is what led to the initial block and it was NOT even REMOTELY justified. All the other remarks were a consequence of that block or were earlier responses to Waggers completely unchecked incivility towards me (which you don't highlight I notice). My comments to the post-block Admins were fully justified and I'd not hesitate for an instant to repeat them if I become victim of a similar utterly arbitrary, abusing and unjustified block. Look, I know Admins don't like hearing the reality of widespread abuse of Admin power being discussed (as we can see from above) - but the "Fozzie is confused" post, regardless of any context (and I think you have provided very selective bits for your context - my own record above is much better), was NOT incivility remotely justifying a block. Not even close. Period. Case closed. Sarah777 (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you please provide some diffs of Waggers' unchecked incivility? I'll take another look. --Elonka 19:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added every diff of Waggers' on January 25 that could even remotely be considered out of line. Do you know of any others that I missed? --Elonka 19:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, unless you concede that Fozzies block was utterly wrong there is little point in continuing this exchange, as I said. Sarah777 (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you notice that both SirFozzie and Ioeth were trying to block you at the exact same moment? So are you saying that you feel that SirFozzie's block was improper, but Ioeth's was reasonable? Or do you disagree with the reasoning of both of them? --Elonka 02:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

"Disagree" is milder than I'd use but, yes, they were all "typical" (and wrong) - which brings me back to square one and the need for more explicit rules and much less personal discretion. Note that both yourself and Rock also agree with your fellow Admins here; Rock interprets that as a sign of "rightness" and "community standards" - I have a rather different explanation for the "hive mind" (not meaning to be uncivil). Sarah777 (talk) 02:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Am I blowing my chance of another Barnstar here, btw? Sarah777 (talk) 02:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it does seem that there is a mismatch in perception here. My summary is as follows:

On this one particular incident, your account was blocked by Administrator SirFozzie, at the same moment as Administrator Ioeth was attempting to issue a block. You requested an unblock review, and Administrator Yamla reviewed the situation, and declined your request. Administrator Rockpocket has also weighed in, saying that the block was appropriate. And now, I, an administrator a couple months after the fact, and about as uninvolved as you can get (and also starting with a very positive impression of you) have also reviewed the block. My opinion is, quite simply, that your comments on that date were in clear violation of Wikipedia policies. An administrator told you to stop. You didn't. He blocked you. Appropriately. You then continued with the uncivil comments, to the point that your own user talkpage had to be protected to keep you from continuing to use it as a platform for attacks. And even now, despite five completely different administrators reviewing the block and saying that it was appropriate, you still continue to argue it.

I've gotta be honest, Sarah, after I've dug into your history, not only do I think that the block was appropriate, but I'm kind of stunned that you haven't been blocked more often. I think that enormous leniency has been shown to you, in large part because when you are civil, you are amazingly productive. You've done some really excellent work on Wikipedia. However, just because you do good things for Wikipedia, does not mean that you can simultaneously antagonize other editors. I find it extremely concerning that you do not see some of your past behavior as uncivil. Unless you can learn to understand and voluntarily adapt your behavior to the norms that the community expects, Wikipedia may not be the right place for you. In short, whether or not you agree with it, WP:CIVIL is policy, and you have to abide by it. If you don't understand it, I and others will gladly discuss things with you to make it clear. But if you refuse to abide by it, for lack of understanding or any other reason, I am afraid that there will be more blocks in your future. You can cry "admin abuse" all you want, but your voice doesn't have weight unless other people agree with you. Wikipedia works on consensus, and the current consensus is, "Civility is required." As Rockpocket mentioned above, you are welcome to try and build a consensus to change that policy. But while civility is policy, you still need to follow it. Do you think that you will be able to do so? --Elonka 04:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Only time will tell I guess. The Fozzie block was totally wrong - that remark came nowhere near meriting a block - I refuse to get defocused on that. All I can do is to keep repeating that there is a major problem with the lack of clarity re civility which allows its use as a means of personal power (and maybe corporate abuse) by Admins. Line up 50 more Admins to repeat what you and Rock have said (and all it is is repetition) - that won't change the facts. And also I don't believe that Wiki is in any real sense a global "community" - only a very limited strain of Anglo-American community. And unless I'm banned I'll decide whether Wiki is "the place for me" or not. Sarah777 (talk) 04:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry that you feel that way. Though for what it's worth, I think that you are lucky that the Wikipedia standards are currently formatted the way that they are. I'm an admin here on Wikipedia, but I am also an admin in many other large online communities as well. In most where I participate, someone who was doing what you've been doing (being rude to other editors, and then refusing to admit that you were rude, or that your access should be blocked), would be given 2 or 3 "free pass" warnings and blocks, and then you would simply be blocked, permanently, until you agreed to abide by policy. If you couldn't do that, you wouldn't be let back in, simple as that. But here on Wikipedia, there is this optimistic "hope for reform" system. Disruptive editors are blocked for steadily increasing amounts of time, and we keep letting them back into the project, even though the person causing the problem, may never be willing to admit that there's a problem, and even worse, sometimes the person indicates that they're going to keep on causing problems! But for some reason on Wikipedia we still let the block expire, and the person comes right back in. I disagree strongly with this approach, but, when I became an admin, I also agreed that I would support Wikipedia policies as they existed, not as I thought they should be. I understand that others have suggested the "Keep 'em blocked 'til they say they'll behave" approach, but it has not been able to achieve consensus. Maybe someday that'll change, I don't know. In the meantime, we keep on with the revolving door. Enjoy it while you've got it.  :) --Elonka 07:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

End of the exchange

Just a technical quibble - I cannot "admit" something that I haven't done! Other large online communities are not like Wiki - this project needs special attention. And I guess that someone who feels they aren't causing problems can hardly hardly indicate that they will continue to cause problems. And may I say that I find it a bit out of tune with WP:Civil that you keep repeating on my page that someone who was doing what been doing, being rude to other editors, and then refusing to admit that you were rude when I have repeated over and over that the comment to Fozzie was not in breach of civility and did not merit a block. Regardless of context. Period. No argument. And a final point; based on what you've said above - for some reason on Wikipedia we still let the block expire, and the person comes right back in. I disagree strongly with this approach - I am glad that you have not got even more power than the standard Admin ones. It also makes me unwilling to continue this exchange any longer and I ask you, politely, please, do not return to this page. Thanks. Sarah777 (talk) 14:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)