User talk:Sarah777/Archive 31

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Sarah777. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Layout adjusted with replacement infobox and the photo moved, I think an improvement. It is very difficult to keep left aligned photos from interfering with the flow of text, making it a chore to read. I left the gallery for you to zap if you are so inclined. A good peaceful shot under the bridge, where the water flows and hypertension melts. I really don't want you to get uber banned so to speak; before you complain that you take no prisoners nor advice, trust me I do know that. I think you enjoy spending time here and making it better.

You wrote above, sometimes simple is best. Will you try not to change so much of the world all at once and just take a step back? There's venturing to those flag waving talk pages, but there are also exemplary talents you might share. So you could swear off the first a while, give it a break without losing your commitment. It's understood. Aughrim, County Wicklow. Peace. Sswonk (talk) 05:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

HJ, while I'm not a fan of flame wars per se, there is the heavily vetted article British Isles naming dispute which shows there is shared objection to the term at the highest levels of government, let alone by a lone Wikipedia editor using the spare "(sic)"[8] now and again. Reading the section below taken from that article may remind you that everyday people and leaders alike, yes in 2011 in spite of the "disbelief" of one of Sarah's foils, disapprove of the term. So, if that "pointiness" is one reason you seem to ask for a public apology, I must object and state that it is not a valid one. Sswonk (talk) 01:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

According to the edit restrictions in the Great Irish Famine arbcom case from 2007 you can be banned from any UK related article you start disrupting.

I am inclined based on your recent edits to impose that sanction on a couple of articles which were mentioned in Mick's complaint above, if you do not intend to voluntarily significantly tone down your behavior there now. I urge you to curb your own behavior and address the concerns on ANI in a serious manner. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• As a note, since this (the issue raised on ANi) seems to have spilled over from the British Isles naming dispute topic area - it is also covered by British Isles Topic Probation. So, if I see this kind of rhetoric from you again Sarah777, or see further instances of it brought to AN, ANI, WQA, etc, in any dispute/contact with other editors related to Britain or Ireland or any of the associated naming disputes (or articles that link to them) you will be sanctioned as appopriate under the terms of the British Isles Topic Probation--Cailil ^talk 16:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what you are on about - I have not systematically either removed of added "British Isles" from any articles. Any diffs? Sarah777 (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Under the arbcom case ruling, you are article banned for a month from the template. Article ban expires midnight GMT June 8, 2011. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Not under any Arbcom ruling. Under your piss poor judgement. (Excuse the Hiberno-English). A template isn't an article, btw. Look it up. Sarah777 (talk) 21:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, is it not, that in the extract above, the Prime Minister of Ireland specifically stated that use of the term "British Isles" would cause offense to most Irish people yet an Irish editor of five years standing, 45,000 edits and hundreds of articles created and thousands of images added is now blocked for trying to resist the imposition of just such offensive pov. And blocked on the grounds that explaining why such pov is objectionable is itself objectionable. Sarah777 (talk) 21:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy you posted "Prime Minister of Ireland" GoodDay (talk) 22:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

So the monolingual gobshites would understand. No other reason. Sarah777 (talk) 22:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

You've pushed too far, Sarah. You are clearly incapable of editing in an environment driven by collaboration and consensus. You have used this project to push your personal point of view, which is borderline racist. While you're nwelcome to such opinions, they have no place on this project. Your continued personal attacks against editors who question you or disagree with you and with administrators who sanction you, even while you're blocked show me that your removal from this community will be of benefit both to it and probably to you. As such, I have blocked you indefinitely. While in most cases indenite does not mean infinite, in this case it does. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:41, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Judging from my preliminary, somewhat superficial reading of what happened, I doubt it, HJ Mitchell. But I will have a closer look tomorrow. Hans Adler 23:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I do too, but there isn't a 'forever' option in the block interface, just 'indefinite' and I wanted to make it clear that this wa intended as the former. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

This Mitchell bloke appears to be some sort of English nationalist judging by the flags plastered over his pages - I mean is this appropriate for an admin? Can an admin who parades his nationality like this fairly judge the actions of what I am assuming is an Irish nationalist editor. I won't say he is anti-Irish but the indefinite blocking of this editor seems unreasonable. I am also concerned about the fact that the Admin has blocked or re-blocked over 5000 editors in just over 12 months - this seems a bit over the top to me. I mean where does he find the time to properly review an average of over 100 editors a week? His user boxes seem to indicate that he rejoices in the ability to "ban" editors. This statement Impeccable timing, I just found a vandal in need of a block. from the discussion on his talk page seems a bit on the triumphalist side. Silent Billy (talk) 00:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The Arbcom ruling is clear that If a user banned from editing under this decision does so, they may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. Since Sarah77 was previously banned in 2008, and the ruling clearly states that one week is in the event of repeat offenses, can someone please readjust the block to use the correct Arbcom ruling? I'd say the original one week ban is probably the maximum in the spirit of this 4 year old Arbcom ruling. --HighKing (talk) 00:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Without doubt this has got to be the most ill-judged and arrogant admin decision I've seen for months. It appears 're-mopping' has resulted in a surge of blood to someone's head. RashersTierney (talk) 01:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• I have posted my disagreement with this indefinite block at the AN/I thread. I intend to look into what happened. If you were able to post an account of what happened just before these edits for which you have been blocked, with diffs, that would help me. Take your time. --John (talk) 01:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I peeked at your edits of May 8, 2011, in the infobox at British Isles. You must've known that replacing Dublin, Ireland with Belfast, Northern Ireland wasn't gonna last (and it didn't). GoodDay (talk) 03:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• It appeatrs that what I said has caused some confusion. This is a normal indefinite block, that is a block of no fixed duration, subject to the same rules as any other indefinite block. However, given your recent comments and your very long history of disruption and toxicity, I sincerely hope it is an infinite block, but sadly there's sweet FA I can do to prevent any other admin unblocking you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

In the leadup to this, you made this edit to British Isles which changed the text in a quote from a book.

Were you aware at the time that it was in fact a reference quote, and not normal content text, when you made that change?

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:26, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Nope, I hadn't spotted that GeorgeWillHerb. My bad. What's with this English Mitchell <redacted> being given power to goose-step across Irl Proj and Irish editors? How can such a person be an Admin? Don't tell me....I know Sarah777 (talk) 06:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:IMG2MileN8 4811w.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Sarah, if you wish to comment on the FFD, make your comments here and I or somebody else will copy them over. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I rotated the image to make it useful to someone. ww2censor (talk) 16:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I've stumbled on you comment in bold font at Template_talk:British_English#Flag. Hmmm, maybe we both need to get a life. I usually support removing flags and maps as a way to make the nationalism troll hungry. It might appear though as if you are commenting on contributors and not on contributions. Do you believe that everybody would see that as constructive? Cheers, AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

PS. I got edit conflict while commiting, originally this was supposed to be a section of its own and now it is under Very Strange. Yep after the merge, it appears not everybody see the bold as constructive. Stay well. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Please stop 'digging' Sarah. It's only tightening the gordian knot, whatever its questionable merit. RashersTierney (talk) 11:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

It's also difficult to see how someone can interpret the comment as a "racist attack". Even the Wikipedia definition states that "The British (also known as Britons, informally Brits, or archaically Britishers) are citizens of the United Kingdom, of the Isle of Man, any of the Channel Islands, or of any of the British overseas territories, and their descendants". Not a race or an ethnic group. Unlike the Irish which are an ethnic group. --HighKing (talk) 12:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Thryduulf, if anything is completely unacceptable, then it is your apparent claim that "British" is a race. If that is not what you meant, then please explain what it is you meant. Hans Adler 12:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I've struck the word "racist" in my above description of the edit in question as it is apparently proving divisive. The remainder of the warning stands. Thryduulf (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe telling it like it is would be better. Mo ainm~Talk 16:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Very much agree!--Domer48_'fenian' 17:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I can't resist (I got no dog in this fight overall): this site is for nothing else and nothing else will be tolerated - says the guy with two articles created and only 25% of his edits to actual articles (as opposed to Sara's 54% and 449 articles). You know, the things that an encyclopedia actually consists of. Are you sure that the purpose of this site isn't a social networking site or a space for one group of people to lord it over another group?Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Any complicated community like this needs ultimate arbiters of good behaviour - that's what admins are and most do a good job, including the ones mentioned here. They are bound to have high social space counts in the stats because all admins spend a great deal of time discussing by the nature of the job. Sadly, editing contact with a lot of articles or sheer volume of editing proves little; it's the quality that counts, not the quantity. Defending the sort of abusiveness that's gone on here to a logical conclusion would simply render Wikipedia unviable. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll see your logical conclusion (actually, not really logical, but not illogical either) and raise you one - if everyone ran around just arbitratin' good behavior in others, no articles would get written and you wouldn't have an encyclopedia to play with in the first place. Sure, if a content creator gets uncivil, after a certain point an admin has a right and perhaps even a duty to block them. They DON'T have the right to show up on their talk page and lecture them about "what the encyclopedia is about" or engage in other forms of sanctimonious caged-bear-poking.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

If that's what was happening - what I see above is more editors attempting to justify and "join in" with the behaviour so imnsho the admin is correct to come and warn. Perhaps your comments about time wasting on social spaces would be better directed at editors who feel a burning need to chip in to battling than admins who attempt to put out the fire. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I am referring to this "I would also strongly suggest that this Mitchell pov-warrior withdraw his "borderline racist" charge. "British" is not a race - it is an institution with a history of genocide, not least in Ireland", as it is the diff provided, nothing racist about that or is it an attack. I have made no comment on anything else she has said as I don't know what she has said. Mo ainm~Talk 20:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sarah, I've raised an issue which concerns you at ANI. Seems strange to me. --Domer48_'fenian' 18:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Remarkable that Sarah is blocked for attacking the English by an English admin. She uses strong wording, agreed, but this looks more on a personal POV-revenge. Eddylandzaat (talk) 15:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, attacking the british but blocked by an English admin (see his userpage). Eddylandzaat (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Sarah ignore the troll. Mo ainm~Talk 16:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The troll is gone...though I notice none of the baiters are attracting any sanction at all from our self-regarding Admins. Sarah777 (talk) 19:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to do some Sarah. A lot of eds. would like to see you back here editing constructively. RashersTierney (talk) 21:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

A bridge to what?

A minor point; there is a (very occasional) Wiki-editor who resides in this house who is now, de facto, also blocked "infinitely". He has committed no sin yet is unable to edit the "encyclopedia anyone can edit". Unless he moves house. But what's another Irish editor blocked from Wiki?

If I am not allowed to explain why the imposition of British pov, flags etc on Irish articles is so offensive - what's the point? The refusal to allow the obvious and valid analogy is not enforcement of civility - it is naked political censorship.

There is a pink box from the British editor, HJ Mitchell, that states:

00:35, 10 May 2011 HJ Mitchell ( changed block settings for Sarah777 with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked) ‎ (racism, battleground behaviour and total failure to adhere to the most basic principles of editing in a collaborative environment continuing even during a block.) Now, manifestly, I have never said anything that could reasonably be deemed "racist" - not remotely - yet that still stands on the top of my page. And instead of censoring this editor for far worse than "incivility" the Admins do nothing (except pile in here in support of this person).

I rest my case.

Sarah777 (talk) 00:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

We, the Wikimedia Foundation Board, believe that the continued health of our project communities is crucial to fulfilling our mission. The Wikimedia projects are founded in the culture of openness, participation, and quality that has created one of the world's great repositories of human knowledge. But while Wikimedia's readers and supporters are growing around the world, recent studies of editor trends show a steady decline in the participation and retention of new editors.

Lmao! Have you ever considered that might be because you have empowered a vast host of Admins to take-out editors they don't like?

Seriously - you couldn't make this stuff up! Sarah777 (talk) 23:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

This editor made a rather rude and thoughtless (contra WP:CIVIL) edit above. I can't even see his user page. It seem protected by some layer even from reading it. Could some Admin ask him to stop making thoughtless remarks on this page as I obviously cannot? Sarah777 (talk) 00:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

May I ask the editor Off2riorob, who seems to be an Admin, and who is obviously watching this page, why he left the "racist" tag on my page for several days till I had to ask that it be removed? Or was that "none of my business" either? Sarah777 (talk) 00:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob's user page consists only of a redirect to his talk page. There is nothing else there to see, but if you wish to look at the redirect wikicode, you may do so by clicking here. Rklawton (talk) 00:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Come on, aren't you supposed to be informing Sarah that off2riorob is not an admin? (mercifully in my own opinion)? And neither, it appears, are you. Editors behaving like admin-in-training do rub salt in in these occasions - my message to them is "move on" yourselves. Sarah is obviously openly cynical of administrators, and that's one thing she has a right to be imo. She probably goes to far when she's got herself in trouble knowing her, but you probably don't know that she has a decent amount of wiki respect, even from a number of admin, who I expect will support a block lift under terms at some point when they feel she's got the message.

Sarah, if you've been at us wiki-battered Brits again (WP is no place to redress the past!) I'm not going to defend that obviously, but I may be able to offer help if you've been wound up, or perhaps in general. I'm sure the block can be dropped if you agree to New Behaviour, the terms of which will probably not be unreasonable in the scale of things. It may be the case that if you have to help cut through the 'racism' ambiguity (mud you will get stuck in I'm afraid), and just admit that in the past you've gone too far slagging of "the British", and after a long period (I expect?), you've simply slipped again. I honestly thought you got all that crap out of your system mud wrestling with me (a couple of years ago now), and accepted in the end that people like me are British in the heart, and do at times take offence. Forget the 'racism' stuff - ambiguous words and Wikipedia simply do not work - Cultures like the British have a present and a future as well as a past: look at the Germans etc - a collection of Lander it could be insisted, but still very much Germanic and German despite the nationalism-gone-insane of WW2. You wouldn't slag off 'Germans' in the way you've done with 'British' would you? If your in the heat of an argument, you've got to step back from stepping over.

I'm back on here tonight, it looks like SSwonk has written something useful and involved as well (I'll look at that later too). I really don't want to spend any time on UK/IRE issues though - I've got a completely unrelated article I promised I'd edit about a month ago and I can't seem to get round to it. But if you do an appeal or something I'll offer support, as I'm sure will many others. Matt Lewis (talk) 10:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob is not an admin, and in fact is somewhat contentious around here and has suffered nearly as many controversies as you. I am not sure what he is doing here on your page, maybe trying to help in a sardonic way.

If I can, I would like to show appreciation for Rklawton taking the time to help Sarah understand this situation.

Sarah. In regard to the Calvin Klein block, I would first like to say, loudly, Don't Reply To This Post! Rklawton has laid out the ground rules, and I think you understand them but I don't want to encourage you or accidentally influence you to violate those rules. He wrote above, and from any vantage point I think is very serious in what he wrote, that the only comments from you that will be acceptable from now on until your block might be lifted will be in the form of a formal unblock request posted by you.

Short version: this is "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", but it is private, and is run by a private group who are treating us like you would treat a guest in your house, and they are now reporting to you that they are one step away from kicking you out permanently. You have got to abide by their request.

What I suggest is that you read completely the entire AN/I discussion and the remedies that were suggested there. Mitchell and Fozzie want a lot of fences put up around you. I think mostly you will have to stay away from British Isles and a few other areas, permanently. It has gotten to the point where you have to end it there; everyone with half a brain knows you don't like Ireland being called one of the British Isles and why. Let others who have more patience get that message across. I grew up not using the phrase "British Isles", but unfortunately you are battling with a legacy term that several hundreds of millions of people, who have yet to see any reason not to, use in a natural way. You can not win that battle here the way you want to, and your edits that led to this latest shouting match which got you indef'd were particularly sarcastic and frankly looked wiki-suicidal to me as I reviewed them. So, you will have to write about how you feel regarding those terms on a blog or website other than this one. As Rashers has pointed out, the bridges have been razed. Here is the link to the entire, now archived, discussion surrounding your block: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive694#Sarah777. I don't think you have any choice but to read that closely from beginning to end, and use the {{Unblock}} template to ask your way back, agreeing that you understand and accept some of those topic-ban measures. I absolutely do not think you will have to grovel or massage anyone's ego, just take a breath and write as you did above about seeing the wrong part of your actions, that should be enough. Use your long history of good contributions as leverage, and be sincere and serious.

You know many people including some admins are in general agreement with your concerns about the current nature of site governance and the potential for abuse in the "admin for life" system. Set all of that aside for the time being, however; harping on it is only going to get you completely banned.

You have had your say about viewing the whole situation as "blatant political censorship", I don't think that is a completely fair assessment. Some of it has to do with your obdurate refusal to avoid trying to end debates by professing that you are a martyr. What other result can you—or anyone—expect if that is always your final stance?

In my opinion, the greatest fault of this site is its poor representation of women among the editing corps. That is what I see as a majoritarianism, the secret-yet-obvious problem with this place. There are a lot of jerk-offs who have given themselves power, and have pushed you before, it isn't always strictly political as you like to see it. This is not as real-world as it may seem, yet their reactions are what your experience has given you to reference and it shapes your responses. In a way, you are inside a bubble as well. You were asking about the "move-along" comment, and I am hopeful that this very specific set of comments I am making will give you a picture of what you might do, and help you see that you are appreciated. Humour is a great quality of yours, but it will likely be the last time any of us get to enjoy it if you don't take that one formal step of making an unblock request first. Sswonk (talk) 06:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I think most people would second this. The martyr thing happens because there is no way to win with the position you hold: it's like an irrevocable conclusion you find yourself in, but it doesn't have to be that way. Get yourself unbanned first off, then help me write a disam page for British Isles that briefly explains the Irish issue and offers a multi-meaning non-partisan diagram - providing links to the various articles - so we can get rid of the silly BI article (with all its forked history and stuff - doesn't Wikipedia abhor a vacuum?) and create a sensible guideline of use, which will limit the term as much as you are ever going to see it limited. Admin will have something to hang their hats on then. Those who cry "You are censoring my freedom of speech!" (ie to use the term wherever they can) can cry in the dark. All encyclopedias need 'our guidelines of use..' for the sake of article uniformity alone, esp on multi-meaning technical terms. It's going to have to be a solid guideline - article-sensitive templates and the like are never going to wash.

Wikipedia can never call itself a true encyclopedia until it takes responsibility on these matters. On so many national issues WP is still just a repository of stuff: it needs to grow up on issues of identity and stop pretending they are unsolvable. It's like a major newspaper without any editors sometimes - perpetual anarchy. Let's do BI first, then get onto the Ireland disam page when it's done. I have a new concept to float too - that Wikipedia should be well-written, and that the 'writing style' itself (on top of accepted principles) can solve all number of issues. Matt Lewis (talk) 18:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the editor with whom you reside, if they have an account that they are unable to use due to your block (if that account is not also blocked then afaict they should be able to) then Wikipedia:IP block exemption should (if I have understood it correctly) be able to fix this. As your block is not of an IP address/range but of a registered account I don't think this will be an issue. If they do not have an account but want one, then they will not currently be able to create one themselves but Wikipedia:Request an account allows one to be created on their behalf. They should not use your account to edit from, regardless of whether you are blocked or not. Thryduulf (talk)

I have just asked my...associate to log in - no problem. So it's not the IP - just me? Why does that not really make me feel any better? Sarah777 (talk) 23:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

What business is it of yours to ask your associates to log in? None at all. - Your account is indefinitely blocked - please do not ask anyone to do anything at all - deal with your restriction only. Off2riorob (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I thought he was blocked because I was. he assumed the same thing. So I asked him to log-in under his usual name/password to see if what Thryduulf said was correct. I feel this is absolutely my business as this person lives with me. You have a problem with that? Sarah777 (talk) 00:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Your an indefinitely blocked account asking anyone to do anything is not your business - either add an unblock request or move along. Off2riorob (talk) 00:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Just saw this. These remarks are in extremely bad taste and reflect very poorly on Off2riorob. Hans Adler 10:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I asked them to see if they could still log-on! What do you mean by "move-along"? Sarah777 (talk) 00:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Move along - you are indefinitely blocked - either request unblocking and explain why you won't repeat your actions again or you have nothing to do here - . Off2riorob (talk) 00:27, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

But this page isn't blocked - and I can't post anywhere else! So what do you mean by "move along"? Sarah777 (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

What Off2riorob is trying to tell you is that the only reason you aren't blocked from editing this page is so that you can request an unblock. If you wish to use this page for other purposes, you will be blocked from editing even this. Rklawton (talk) 00:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It is perfectly normal for blocked established editors to have a general discussion with the community about circumstances surrounding the block, widely construed. The only reason this doesn't happen every day is that this kind of block doesn't happen every day. This immature baiting of an indefinitely blocked editor is over now or I will take it to ANI. Hans Adler 10:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Sarah: regarding your objection, I and others have also objected to the implications of this block on the grounds of "racism". Independent of your post I have posted the "pink box" at my request extending your request (or at minimum your objection, you wrote "yet that still stands on the top of my page") to have the words changed. As of this writing, the clock is still ticking at 57 hours, 25+ minutes and the credibility of the leadership of this project to police its own and maintain a truly neutral point of view continues to erode. Dust is looking more viable than "the pillars" at this point. Sswonk (talk) 09:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• I've removed the word "racism" from your block rationale. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Pity the Admin "HJ Mitchell" didn't have either the grace or judgement to remove it himself. I think we can agree on the quality of his "infinite" block in the light of this. Thanks Sswonk. Excellent edit comment btw. Sarah777 (talk) 18:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Re. the note up top, hopefully not 'till infinity and beyond :- ) RashersTierney (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I from HERE that Mick-mac-Paddy-whack appreciates my gallows humour. And there was me thinking he didn't like me. Sarah777 (talk) 23:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Should we take it then that you believe your behavior is acceptable and there's no need to change? Rklawton (talk) 23:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

No. I acknowledge some failings - maybe not the same ones you have in mind. Battling-edits are wrong. If I could take them back I would. It's my Italian-Irish temprement - or something. Trying to explain why certain things are at odds with WP:NPOV by use of analogy, and getting blocked for that I regard as simple majoritarianism (rather than the rule of law) - and in my case blatant political censorship. Sarah777 (talk) 23:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Any chance of it? Please don't answer flippantly. This could be 'the final curtain' as a legit editor. RashersTierney (talk) 00:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I am thinking about this seriously. However I don't wish to give the community undertakings I cannot live up to and I must reflect on what restrictions are tolerable to me. I am not taking this lightly. Regards Sarah777 (talk) 00:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

If any of us can help, just ask --Snowded ^TALK 05:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

OK. I want to make an "unblock" request. How do I do that? Sarah777 (talk) 01:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

use the {{unblock}} template. Thryduulf (talk) 01:07, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on File:IMG-Dubhaille.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

This file is/was not mine. Sarah777 (talk) 06:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

It's your username that was attached to the upload, and you were the only human editor of the page (other than Sven Manguard above who placed the speedy deletion tag): 02:50, 18 March 2007 . . Sarah777 (talk | contribs | block) 2,118×1,582 (686,091 bytes) (Dualla Tourist Sign )

It appears to be a "you are here" map entitled "Bóthar Leathan - Dubhaille" and "Boherlahan - Dualla" showing walks, roads, places of interest, etc. Does that ring any bells? I know I can't remember everything I've uploaded from half as long ago as that! Thryduulf (talk) 08:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

It does now - but someone has changed the file name. Sarah777 (talk) 17:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

It was also an image that had been transferred to Commons with a revised name: Commons:File:OCDuallaSign_031c.jpg. It had been on this site, unchallenged, for four years, and has been on Commons for seven months. Google has the now-deleted en.wikipedia page cached. Check the timestamp in the metadata at bottom; it is the same image. Thus, I question the back-and-forth between Sven Manguard and Moriori on Sven's talk. After Moriori chides Sven for treating Sarah like a newbie, Sven claims it is just a generic Twinkle template, and then asserts: "if an editor has 44,000+ edits and is uploading images that are copyright violations, there are disturbing implications." Sven, that upload occurred when Sarah was in her first months as an editor, and at that time she even noted taking the photo at an angle in an attempt to avoid copyright issues. There are no disturbing implications and given the ongoing situation here I would call for you to retract your apparent assumption of bad faith in that statement. Use available tools, such as Popups, to check the edit count and length of service of fellow editors and compare that to upload times, then you won't make such errors. Someone calling Sarah's motives as a photographic contributor into question is a sad event, she has done exemplary work in that area and does not deserve this poor treatment. Sswonk (talk) 13:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Under Irish law, these images are not copyrighted in any case (permanent display in a public place), so it probably is a moot point. --HighKing (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

"if an editor has 44,000+ edits and is uploading images that are copyright violations, there are disturbing implications." Yeah, indeed. I doubt I had 4,000 edits when I uploaded that four years ago; I also doubt it is a copyright violation. As it is a rubbish picture I don't care; just noting the construction being put on a four-year-old upload. Sarah777 (talk) 17:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Ireland has Freedom of Panorama; like HighKing says, they are not copyrighted. Just like all the murals in Northern Ireland are free.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Freedom of Panorama certainly exists in the UK and Ireland for 3D works, such as statues and buildings. 2D works are different and more complicated. Commons:Freedom of panorama#United Kingdom notes that maps and murals are not covered, "graphic works - defined [...] as any painting, drawing, diagram, map, chart or plan, any engraving, etching, lithograph, woodcut or similar work. The freedom provided by Section 62 does not apply to graphic works - such as a mural or poster - even if they are permanently located in a public place." Under the section of that page for Ireland, it makes no mention of 2D works but does say that "Irish law is in this respect modeled on UK law, and in the absence of any specific case law to the contrary it is reasonable to assume that the rules will be identical". I'm no lawyer, let alone and Irish one, so I have no idea if there is any case law or not. To be on the safe side though I'd recommend getting the opinion of someone who knows about Irish copyright law in this regard. I'm going to start a discussion over on Commons as (1) that's where they're most likely to be found, and (2) Sarah's en.wp talk page is not the best place to hold a copyright discussion about an image on Commons. I'll place a link to the discussion here when I've started it. Thryduulf (talk) 18:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is at commons:Commons talk:Licensing#Freedom of panorama for 2D works in Ireland. I'm not sure if that's the right place though so it might get moved. Sarah, you don't appear to be blocked on Commons so you can participate in the discussion there if you want. Thryduulf (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I have just noticed that Users Logan, Chester Markel, and Rklawton have all blanked my user page using the tag-team technique. Why did they do that? The blanking was reverted but I don't see any sign of any sanction. Sarah777 (talk) 00:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I have posted to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents about this request since the block was discussed in length there. Mtking (talk) 02:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Sarah, can you possibly refactor your unblock request; per WP:NOTTHEM, it should mainly focus on the aspects of your own behavior you intend to improve. If you wish to cite HJM's nationality as a contributing factor to your feeling that this is an unfair block (and it's been pretty thoroughly discussed at AN/I), or as an antecedent to further stuff you did, you need to accept that it cuts both ways and there is no fight without two people prepared to make bad assumptions about each other, rather as ZScarpia says below. I look forward to working with you if your unblock request is granted. I personally support it. --John (talk) 02:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. Sarah777 (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

From the unblock request, Given the history of Ireland v England etc it is hard for someone English to be neutral on the subject of Irish nationalists. And hard for Irish nationalists to be neutral on the subject of England and the English?     ←   ZScarpia   02:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I was prepared to decline the unblock based on the WP:NOTTHEM above, even though this is being discussed at WP:ANI. I have never seen HJ introduce anything remotely related to nationalism into his admin actions, and that's a pretty disgusting accusation, and one that just shows how people will take their nationalistic battles with them wherever they go, rather than finally just getting along. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with Sarah there too - in my opinion it's only hard if you feel nationalistic (etc) in a particular kind of may way, and most English don't feel that at all. But I also feel strongly that this is simply an opinion Sarah in entitled to: the main thing is she stops accusing people according to it, or spreading the idea of it (which probably should be asked for). I've actually heard a not entirely dissimilar "nobody can be neutral on this" opinion expressed by a number of admin over the years, typically when backing out of the area (though I can't blame them that when least they got involved.)

So whatever you do, don't punish Sarah for her opinions (even as a factor of her behaviour) - it's all about about the actual behaviour at the end of the day. The opinions people harbour are obviously out of WP's jurisdiction, as long as they aren't expressed here in an offensive way (which in some cases can simply mean expressing them to much, and in extreme cases actually expressing them at all). Matt Lewis (talk) 09:59, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you've expressed that idea very well Matt, but... Nobody is saying the Sarah can't express her opinions. We are all entitled to our own opinions and that stops the world being grey. What's being said is that she shouldn't attribute nationalistic agendas on other editors, or attribute motives and opinions on other editors based on race, nationality, religion, whatever. --HighKing (talk) 13:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure you get the two specific points I'm making here. I'm saying that the ruling admin need to make sure they don't factor-in Sarah's opinions at all when they make their decision. It's like in court when the jury is not allowed to take something into account. I think it can be difficult at times, but the people who judge on this have to take Sarah's opinions totally out of the mix: just as they would if she was into white supremacy, say.

Also, I think they need to clarify to her that she shouldn't spread the idea that there is a "British POV on Wikipedia" (she always has done this HK). I know it's her opinion that there is, but I think it's both totally wrong and really bad for the place too. That's pretty much all they have to do as far as I'm concerned. I wouldn't personal topic ban her at all (or even block her any longer) - just simply say that the "British bias on Wikipedia" line has been ruled offensive because it negatively tars innocent people, and is impossible to prove. Stop that, and stop equating 'the British' (as oppose to periods of historical or even-modern Briain) with Nazism or anything offensive like that. It's all that's needed. Matt Lewis (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

So long as those opinions don't stray into soaboxing and gratuitous, incivil personal comments, that is (though, I have to say, I think that a bit of gentle national tail-tweaking — something which is boring if done in excess and something which the compulsion to do, like a fascination with fart gags, should diminish with age — is good for people).     ←   ZScarpia   15:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

In real life - yeah, fine. I've seen so much of it now on Wikipedia though that I'm absolutely sick of it. People have too much power at their finger tips in the whole area – all because there is no guideline that respects sovereignty – so nationalism and sovereignty end-up being crammed into the same leading lines. What kind of place does consensus (even compromised ones) outweigh actual national sovereignty? Wikipedia will remain a nut house until it does something about it. Matt Lewis (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

My experience is that the vast majority of English people really don't care one way or the other about Ireland, but a large proportion of Irish people have strong feelings on England/Ireland relationships, and tend to mistakenly assume that English people do too. Of course there are some English nationalists around, but they are a tiny minority. I have also never seen any evidence that HJ Mitchell is a nationalist, nor that he is ever swayed by prejudice of any sort in exercising his administrative role. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you're looking at things the wrong way round. Better to state that the vast majority of English people care a very good deal about England, and would be very quick to defend England against anti-English sentiment, etc. --HighKing (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh come on. I'm always sticking up for English people on Wikipedia because of their tendency to ignore all the slurs! It's almost a national trait, though they are getting a bit prouder of recent years - all those white and red flags etc. Look how long Sarah has been talking like this - most of it has been completely ignored by the English Brits (one assumes the largest majority of us all here), and that probably hasn't helped. Matt Lewis (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Plenty of self-identifying Irish people live in the UK and all over the world - in total they outweigh the population of Ireland. It's sometimes said that many of the more vocal nationalists live outside of the country. On the other hand, the Irish people I tend to meet like to travel and experience things, and none of them as far as I can see particularly care about creating (or ruminating over) national divisions. I believe Ireland is full of people like that too, which is why I so object to this obsession on Wikipedia to try and quantify nationalistic matters at every opportunity - even if just to say "many people in Ireland object to etc". Most of the time the point can be perfectly made without the extreme and pejorative language. The Queens recent visit there was an interesting example of Ireland's attitude to the English. Matt Lewis (talk) 15:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there is a good deal of truth in what you say. The vast majority of Irish people I have known have not exhibited anti-English prejudice, and I certainly didn't intend what I wrote above to be read as suggesting that all Irish people thought the same way, which would be as stupid as suggesting that all English people think the same way. However, I do think that there is a very vocal minority of Irish people who (a) have a deep-seated prejudice against anyone they perceive as English, and (b) assume that most if not all English people are deeply prejudiced against anyone Irish. I also think that in fact the number of English people who have strong anti-Irish feelings is tiny, and that those Irish people who think in the way I've described are mistaken. Most English people, as I said, really don't have much opinion about Ireland one way or the other. Having said all that, since Sarah thinks that anyone English is likely to be prejudiced against her, it would probably be better if no English administrator declines her unblock request, on the principal that justice must be not only done but also seen to be done. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)!! Maureen Dowd in today's New York Times makes an odd statement: "The truism that the Irish never forget and the English never remember was put to rest when the queen laid a wreath and bowed her head at the Garden of Remembrance"; … I have trouble following how a "truism" (attributed to Gladstone [9]) can be put to rest, but that's what Mo wrote. Sswonk (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It was more of a pithy aphorism really, not really a 'truism' - that's why it seems odd. Putting it to rest in the garden of remembrance was a neat metaphor for it though. The important thing is that memories are about the past - and most people recognise that the present isn't the past. It is actually possible to handle them both - and remembrance is intended for just that. What remains really upsetting is the undercurrent of extremist both in the real world and on it's surreal mirror, Wikipedia. Would anyone dare to say that Wikipedia could actually have some bearing on reality? Does Wikipedia actually influence those who read it? Now there's a study for someone brave enough. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

IMHO, an indef-block is needed for compulsive vandalizers & sockers, of which Sarah777 is not. Cyber-world political correctness, just doesn't effect me. I'm just not that easily offended on Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 00:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

So you're saying that because you were not offended, nobody was offended, and therefore all is right with the world? I think it's pretty clear from all this discussion that some people were offended by some of Sarah's comments. Whether or not you believe such comments justify an indefinite ban, saying that they don't because they weren't offensive to you is a trifle egocentric don't you think? Thryduulf (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

This is the cyber world, not the real world. Sarah777's anglophobic posts are only effective if editors are offended by them. Remember - Never be concerned about anybody who holds themselves hostage. GoodDay (talk) 02:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

To ignore or not to ignore: What's with this English Mitchell <redacted> being given power to goose-step across Irl Proj and Irish editors?     ←   ZScarpia   02:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

The reality is that Sarah777 is a serious long-term contributor, and, whatever we think about nationalisms, they are a part of European culture and some jagged edges will take decades to smooth down. A lot of the bases of English nationalism are taken in from birth in the UK, and so it is in Ireland. Accept that reality and give Sarah777 some wiggle room please.Red Hurley (talk) 07:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

That's a bit of a double standard isn't it, unless you apply that logic to all nationalities? You might want to look up the arbitration committee sanctions that landed on a shed load of editors for their nationalism before suggesting such nonsensical proposals. Quite a number of serious long term editors were topic banned, 1 year banned, interaction banned and some were even community banned. The last thing we need is to allow editors "wiggle room" for their nationalism. --Blackmane (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Too much nationalism is wrong, and bad manners are unacceptable on wikipedia, but nationalism with its jagged edges is a fact of human life around the world. You will also come across degrees of intellectual perfection that belong somewhere on Gilliam Asperger's Disorder Scale.Red Hurley (talk) 17:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it exists. That's not an excuse for allowing it to cloud the discussion, nor should we be lenient on something that's going to drive a wedge between editors so clearly. We don't tolerate racism either, and there's no "wiggle room" there. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:12, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't tolerate racism either, but I would be a fool to deny that it exists, and to deny that racist people have their own weird priorities. Some Irish nationalists genuinely hold views that most of us Irish have shed decades ago. I balance Sarah777's many good edits favourably against her (maybe his?) intolerance, in the hope that s/he will become more tolerant in time.Red Hurley (talk) 14:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sarah, I have left a generous proposal that you should consider if you are to be re-admitted into the community here. Please read it at WP:ANI and get back to me. Thanks in advance, Calthorp (talk) 23:24, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I have commented that I hope this proposal is a joke. If you read it, Sarah, may I suggest that you ask John to vet any response, aside from laughter, you might be tempted to make? Bielle (talk) 23:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Not only was it clearly meant to be a joke, but in view of the editing history of the editor in question, I can only regard it as vandalism. The "proposal" has been removed. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Sarah, none of the "proposals" are reasonable. Be faithful to the truth as you see it - always. So useless are the proceedings and proposals there and writings on this page. Less than honorable people are wanting to put you in a straightjacket and muzzle you like you are a dog. On your own talk page you have to read, "I think they need to clarify to her that she shouldn't spread the idea that there is a "British POV on Wikipedia" (she always has done this HK). I know it's her opinion that there is, but I think it's both totally wrong and really bad for the place too." In other words, move to the dark side. I repeat: Be faithful to the truth as you see it - always.

I am shifting my position and what some people might call "advice" to let you know I don't support your unblock if it has anything remotely to do with controls placed on you by the crew that calls you "racist" and dissects you as if you are a social experiment, a rat in a cage. In metaphorical terms, I don't want to see the Sex Pistols wearing Beatle suits, unable to use fuck or piss in their lyrics. It's pointless. I am done "defending" you over at AN/I, they are exactly as you described and not worth dealing with. You might as well have Masem mentoring. You had cut your editing back to a great degree, prior to March 17, in this case with what is being offered I would simply walk away. It is beneath your dignity to continue here under that regime. Sswonk (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

As the author of one of the proposals I obviously disagree with your sentiments. The purpose of the restrictions is to allow Sarah to contribute to the encyclopaedia in areas where her presence should be uncontroversial - both Wikipedia and Sarah will benefit from these contributions, this is why I have explicitly commented that "Ireland related articles" is far too broad a restrictions. At the same time she is not allowed to contribute to areas where either she has previously engaged in behaviour that the community regards as unacceptable, or where her presence would be controversial because of this behaviour. If Sarah accepts the restrictions and abides by them them, then after a period of time the restrictions will probably be gradually loosened. It doesn't matter what Sarah's opinions on anything are as long as she can constructively work with other editors who have different opinions. If she can demonstrate this on the articles she is not restricted from then everybody benefits, and if she can demonstrate that she can do this on other Wikis then this may influence other editors here to support removing or relaxing restrictions in the long term. Thryduulf (talk) 14:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The 'relax over time' angle is one approach for sure, but I personallythink it's better just to simply say "no more anti-British comments". I'm trying to formulate a good way of saying it (ie which dosn't stop her from discussing history etc) - then I'll put it to the ANI. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

From What Wikipedia is not:

• Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages.

From The five pillars of Wikipedia:

• Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources ...
• Wikipedians should interact in a respectful and civil manner. Respect and be polite to your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree. Apply Wikipedia etiquette, and avoid personal attacks. Find consensus, avoid edit wars, and remember that there are 3,643,285 articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss. Act in good faith, never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and assume good faith on the part of others.

Sswonk, you tell Sarah: Be faithful to the truth as you see it - always. In principle, Wikipedia has no interest in editors' views of the truth, only what it can be shown that reliable sources say.

    ←   ZScarpia   16:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

You forgot don't template the regulars with stuff they already know. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

A: I didn't template anyone, regular or otherwise. B: I think that the comment, "Be faithful to the truth as you see it", deserves a reminder that Wikipedia is about what reliable sources say (not what editors believe to be true), that soapboxing is frowned on anywhere in Wikipedia and that there are rules on civility which may preclude the expression of truths.     ←   ZScarpia   23:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Sswonk, you quote me like I'm trying to restrict some kind of beautiful animal. But this is not some kind of late night French movie! As I've said, I don't believe any kind of block or topic ban is necessary at all - but she does need a couple of simple restrictive "don't say" rules obviously. I've made it clear above (and will make it clear shortly at the ANI) that Sarah's opinions should not be part of the decision - only her future behaviour. She's not going to get out of this one scott-free, and she knows that obviously - she's not daft. Isn't it better that she can edit on what she wants to and just lay off a couples of things that course offence? Sarah's just a person like you and me, and she's entitled to adapt-from her restrictive "truth as you see it line" - which really only means "be honest to yourself". You've got to remember though that it is a human quality to change and adapt too. And even to play by the rules sometimes. You can't be a punk rocker all your life. Not if you've got a shitty day job anyway hey. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

She's had years to adapt. She hasn't. It's time for her to be gone. Rklawton (talk) 19:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

In the light of the long and complex discussion which has taken place here, I have absolutely no intention of acting unilaterally. We have seen here at different times many editors, from various countries, with a political axe to grind. Few have as much experience and skill as Sarah, and even fewer are prepared to accept that their behaviour could benefit from counselling and/or mentoring. I would support the unblock request above, under the conditions contained therein, with the additional proviso that any admin is able to re-impose an indefinite block immediately, in the event of any violation of the conditions as specified. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I have, however, removed the notice at the top of the page stating that the editor was blocked for eternity. Censure me if you will, but that seemed to be a gloat rather than a meaningful contribution. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Anthony, I put that there! I thought I was merely being realistic; being blocked is not something I desire. Sarah777 (talk) 22:26, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Easy mistake to make though, considering some of the odd posts here lately. RashersTierney (talk) 22:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the references in the previous paragraphs to "my" writing "Be faithful to the truth as you see it - always.": the source of the phrase is hiding in plain sight on the top of Sarah's user page, and has been since August 2007, except for brief periods when vandals removed content. Sswonk (talk) 13:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I think everyone who knows Sarah knows that's been up there! It's her motto for sure. I urge you to look at the proposal I put together at ANI. I can't imagine anything less restrictive happening - and even this will probably need some concerted support (perhaps even to get attention?). But that's just the situation she's in. I do agree with you that a of people seem to want to be too punitive with Sarah - but that isn't supposed to be what these things are about: it's supposed to be about how she can edit again, in a way that suits both her and everyone else. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

To illustrate, if there was, say, an editor who was an anti-Irish bigot, I doubt that that editor trying to be faithful to the truth as they saw it would be very popular here. Editors being faithful to the truth as they see it isn't what Wikipedia is about.     ←   ZScarpia   14:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

A question was asked at the AN/I board about circumstances when it would be acceptable to compare the policies of the British government with those of Nazi Germany. Shouldn't the answer be that it is acceptable when the contents of a reliable source which makes the comparison are being discussed, but that when an editor has felt called to express their own opinions they have chosen the wrong venue?     ←   ZScarpia   23:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Please come back without any restrictions at all! ðarkuncoll 23:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

@Sarah, I'm just about to put a proposal for you up at ANI which involves no topic ban nor mentor (I managed to miss the ANI link at first and I don't want to leave it any longer). I've also just said I'd ask you here, to what degree you actually wanted a Troubles topic ban, and indeed a mentor too? It strikes me that you may actually desire these, as you may find not transgressing hard - or you may have suggested them as things you are willing to accept to get editing again, rather than readily want. Could you clarify here? Matt Lewis (talk) 00:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Matt, in an ideal world I'd not want any bans or mentors at all. But this isn't an ideal world :) Sarah777 (talk) 01:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

When you read the proposal (Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Less_punitive_but_more_to-the-point_proposal), can you give me feedback on the wording? Especially the second bullet point. I personally think that this really has escalated a little too fast, and I want to make the proposed (and quite drastic) topic bans a written-in 'next stage' so to speak - assuming you don't actually wish for them now that is. Obviously I'd need your help with this. Can you comment here as soon as you're ready? Matt Lewis (talk) 12:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Matt, I just read the latest at ANI and I'd certainly support your proposal. (Though I seem to be in a minority on this). Thanks Matt Sarah777 (talk) 01:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

What are your feelings on the mentor issue? Do you actually wish for one? (eg John, who's willing to do it). It could have some bearing on the final decision, as mentoring is resource-hungry to a degreee. When you answer I'll try and prompt a resolution. Matt Lewis (talk) 11:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm just browsing around various pages here, mainly concerning users with whom I've had a recent interaction, and I've come across this. I'm wondering why such an effort is being made by several editors to get this user reinstated. Is this normal for users who have been blocked for gross incivility? Sarah herself doesn't seem that bothered about it and hasn't even requested to be unblocked. WizOfOz (talk) 18:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Wiz look at the page before you comment and unblock request is a few paragraphs up. Mo ainm~Talk 18:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, missed it. So, why has it not been actioned then? It appears to have been filed at least 4 days ago. If someone would act on it, one way or the other, all this pointless debate could be avoided. WizOfOz (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

And having now read her request I'd be inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt. WizOfOz (talk) 18:18, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

It hasn't been actioned one way or the other yet because there is still ongoing discussion about under what terms she will be unblocked. I strongly encourage you to read this page, follow one of the clear links to the AN/I discussion and read that before commenting further. Thryduulf (talk) 19:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) Most people would I think. It's just finding the right way to move forward from that. Sarah needs to get back in touch and talk about John monitoring her, and whether she wants a topic ban or not. To a degree I think it is her choice, as my proposal - which actually includes neither - should logically suffice (and if it doesn't then bring in a topic ban). One of the problems I think was quite a speedy escalation from the outset (from Sarah too), which led to a lot of hard comments, and I think people needed time to step back. Hopefully Sarah can check in today. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I just buzzed over there. Crikey! I'm not reading that lot. Amazing! Did I say something about pointless debate? Just unblock here and monitor her edits. Simple as. WizOfOz (talk) 19:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

If you do not wish to educate yourself about the background to this, then please could you refrain from offering suggestions. Uninformed comments are neither helpful nor constructive, and in some cases may actually hinder progress. If you did understand the history then you would understand that there are many reasons why simply unblocking with no restrictions is not going to happen. Thryduulf (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Will do. Just thought I'd offer a bit of an outside view. WizOfOz (talk) 19:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Matt Lewis. I read your proposal and the comments. As an example of why Sarah, who is not there to defend herself, should not accept the proposals at that page, I offer the line from the lead contributing administrator who will I am sure have plenty of equivocation to add to my denunciation: Thryduulf wrote: "To borrow an analogy made by someone else in a different context, if Hitler were alive today he would be welcomed as a Wikipedia editor if he stayed clear of articles related to Judaism and homosexuality and spent time writing high quality articles about vegetarianism (and before anyone misunderstand the analogy, this is not comparing Sarah to Hitler nor her actions with his)." Quick rebuttal: Hitler is one of the most hated and denounced individuals to have lived. He would not be allowed to edit Wikipedia because if he existed, he would be quickly killed or else completely isolated from society by society for his crimes. The analogy, like a lot of what passes for wisdom among the people who are passing judgement on this editor, is false and the premise to it can not even remotely be taken seriously by someone who should have the right to pass judgement on her.

Considering and proposing an analogy that uses the possibility that Hitler be welcomed anywhere is a brilliant example of one of the actual demonstrable heights of incivility which exist here. I have always been in agreement with this editor, that sort of thing should constantly be pointed out and fought tooth and nail. She recognizes complete foolishness for what it is, and malfeasance and dereliction of duty for what they are and has repeatedly, effectively and with high morality called these people into question in the past. No one should have to listen to this crap from people who are supposed to be operating this site. Yet they are the ones calling her a "racist" without evidence? They are the ones pillorying someone with honest bones and aggressively attacking that person as in- or uncivil? That example sums it up: Hitler is welcome as long as he complies with our policies, someone who is honest and speaks out about her emotionally charged views of what can be found offensive to some is not.

Why in any universe would you find having those people pass judgement on her acceptable? It was a terribly flawed block. Wrong administrator, wrong reason and wrong length. Do you think they will ever admit that? No, they continue to find it correct and defend their own. That apparently is of the highest importance, not understanding some of the excellent points about personalities and work ethic that you made. I might be able to support some of what you wrote, but add to it that the administrators responsible for their matter-of-fact attempts at demolition of a personality at the expense of some system that supposedly is here to welcome (not just "people like" but the actual piece of shit himself!) Hitler needs to accept a great amount of restrictions on itself. That group must profess its own regret at what it has said and published about her before anything approaching acceptable happens out of this. Go back there and look at how they have responded to Hans Adler, and me in some cases, when this sort of assumption of the worst, not just ABF but the assumption of the worst faith, is called in to question. They shrug. Sarah, I repeat this process that is pursuing the creation of a robot Sarah with a painted smile who toes that group's line is wrong. Their proposed restrictions on you are beneath your dignity. Only if they make full retractions of the infinite block on grounds of "racism", and apologize for their continued arguments in support of its reasoning should you return. I regret having suggested that you make an unblock request, based on what has transpired since. Sswonk (talk) 01:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Steve, remember, I've been through this once before. The blocking editor at the time was one of the better Admins; but in the four years (or whatever) since then neither he nor any other Admin has conceded the point. It seems that avoiding "wheel wars" is the absolute number one priority in the Admin community. Might as well wish water flowed uphill as protest the amorality of that. (The indefinite block in question was related me reversing the deletion a series of "years in Ireland" articles - which I assumed was vandalism when in fact there was an obscure "consensus" formed, without my knowledge, to delete the articles). It was a simple mistake totally unrelated to anything British. Though the requirement for unblock was to agree to the Arbcom "no anti-British remarks" ruling. That's life.

In this case the block was for making "anti-British" edits etc; I have not denied that I made anti-British comments in the sense of the institution of the British State. (the charge of 'racism' is offensive nonsense).

As has been pointed out I hardly actually ever edit on the British Isles article - but my resolution failed following the template appearing and there is no way back without re-affirming what I had already agreed to. Three or four years ago. For this reason I find Matt's solution acceptable; it places no more de-facto restrictions than already existed. The key is with me - to find the consistency to avoid another relapse (knowing that there are a huge number of unfriendly eyes trained on everything I do here should help).

Though I thought the decision on banning a specific class of remark was wrong (it de-facto prevents any discussion of national bias among Wiki-editors in favour of the absurd pretense that there isn't any!); it was the Arbcom decision.

In the end, I got myself into this mess for breaching that Arbcom ruling.Sarah777 (talk) 02:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I accept what you write, that the key is indeed with you, and recognize that hoping you get the apologies I am seeking for you is probably done in vain. It needed to be said. If you want to come back, and working with John (I think that is probably unavoidable, not suggesting that you really need it but you appear to view the prospect as helpful) via Matt's reasoning is acceptable to you, I support you in that effort. Sswonk (talk) 13:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And with that wall of text you [Sswonk] have demonstrated that you have completely misunderstood the analogy, possibly because I missed out that if Hitler were alive today and editing anonymously (my apologies for this, although apparently accusing me of comparing Sarah's actions to Hitler's when I explicitly said I wasn't is a bit rich). The point was that even if you have strong opinions about something that you cannot leave at the door, then you can still contribute to Wikipedia if you stay clear of those areas where your views are likely to get you into conflict.

To try and put it a different way, there are, broadly speaking, two types of editor on Wikipedia - those who can edit with civility and neutrality and those that cannot. These can be subdivided to give a total of four narrower but still broad, categories - (1) those that can edit collegiately all or almost all the time and need nothing more than the occasional slap on the wrist; (2) those that can generally edit in a civilised manner but occasionally need stronger action to keep them on the straight and narrow; (3) those than can remain civil and professional when dealing with some topic areas but not with others; and (4) those that cannot work harmoniously with other editors regardless of the subject.

Editors in the first category need no special handling, they're model Wikipedians.

Editors in category 2 are probably best described as Wikipedians with rough edges - they might have had a few short term blocks, have an interaction ban, or be on civility patrol or something like that.

Topic bans are one tool that generally works well for editors in the third category - if user:Example strongly and passionately believes that Microsoft is in league with the devil and that Steve Jobs can do no wrong, but also does excellent work on articles about mid-20th century computing will likely be topic banned from articles about Microsoft, Apple and possibly (post 1980) operating systems. This recognises that they are a valuable contributor to the history of computing while unbiased editors to work on the Microsoft and Apple articles without drama. Sometimes short to medium term blocks are needed to enforce the topic bans and make sure a lesson is learned.

Category 4 users are the ones who are blocked long term, they've shown that they can't work with other Wikipedians and so the encyclopaedia is better off without them.

The categories are not fixed - people can change and can move between them. This is why arbcom blocks for all but the absolute worst behaviour (and many other remedies) are rarely more than one year in duration. User:Example could come to realise that although he still holds his extreme views, Wikipedia is not a place to proselytise and gradually work towards becoming acceptable again And these are also very broad

From the comments I've read there are people here who would place Sarah into each of those four categories, although most people seem to put her in 2 or 3. Personally would say Sarah is a category 3 editor on this scale - outside the few problematic topics she is a valuable editor that it would be a shame to lose. Thryduulf (talk) 02:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I have begun to read your response, and within the first few words I ran into to the retort that I thought I might receive, the "you are misapprehending my meaning, I am not comparing Sarah to Hitler" diversion. I wrote nothing of the sort. I wrote that any person who begins an argument with an analogy that assumes Hitler would be welcome in any social setting should have that argument rejected out of hand and the person should be told in no uncertain terms to take their garbage rhetoric elsewhere. I will continue to read your reply, but do so assuming it is more of the same, since you are diverting attention from the gross incivility of your premise by suggesting I thought you were comparing Sarah to Hitler (I thought nothing of the sort and did not write anything which says I did), rather than answering the assertion that your premise is completely false and unacceptable in its use by a person responsible for passing judgement. Hans, reread what I wrote, I have noticed you were swayed by the diversion which follows, even as I have not finished reading it. Sswonk (talk) 13:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I am only responding to the "Hitler" nonsense. Although it's generally not advisable to use such extreme examples when concrete other people are concerned and some people might draw analogies too far, I agree that Sswonk shouldn't have attacked that in this way. However, it is very illuminating to compare this case with WP:ANI#Is this a personal attack?. Taking your comment and Treasury Tag's together, and comparing the respective reactions, it's obvious how civility policing is used as an instrument of mob rule. Hans Adler 08:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your final sentence. If I can avoid "wall of text"-ing it, I will add that incivility is in the eye of the beholder. To me, civility that is claimed simply by cloaking what is really disdain and dismissal with "collegial responses", bluelinks to policy, short summations rather than well reasoned but lengthy argument, etc. is often times more uncivil than honest denunciations like "the gobshite jackboots who police this site" or the like. But, to many admins and wannabes, it is like the filthy rich not seeing that filth means what it means and living in an extravagant manner can be viewed as insulting and crude. Somehow using proper grammar and avoiding strong but "un-collegial" words is mistaken for rectitude and wisdom. Sswonk (talk) 13:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Sarah - I asked you another question above. Matt Lewis (talk) 11:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Matt - missed that. I have no problem with John as mentor; I crossed swords with him in the early days but he proved a to be a rather bright member of the amoral Admin Caste. I admire smart people who don't live on the Dark Side :) Sarah777 (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not quite what I asked, but never mind: I didn't see your just-above comment where you said "in a perfect world", and so I'm assuming - putting the two comments together - that you could live without a mentor, but are resigned to having one. It's probably best if you do anyway, assuming they go with my proposal (having a mentor is a complete waste of time if they topic-ban you of course). I'll try and encourage it towards a conclusion now, as it is won't help anyone I think if this goes on too long. Matt Lewis (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

And while I don't fully agree with his latest contribution I am most thankful to Sswonk for his input and support. Many thanks Steve. Sarah777 (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It is truly, sincerely a pleasure to know you Sarah. It starts and ends with all the laughs. And try not to go "ape-shit" in the future you fiery green meatball. I had half a panini, lightly pressed on a grill with basil, tomatoes, provolone cheese, salami, mortadella, ham and Bermuda onions, with half-and-half for lunch. Not half-and-half the cream and milk mix, but the lemonade and iced tea. The M50 starts at the DPT. An HJ Mitchell is writing to you. This all means something, though I am not sure what. :) Sswonk (talk) 01:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)