Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Sarah777

Section 1

Being unfamiliar with these types of processes I was unsure were to make a comment. This would appear to be the best of place, since I do not fully agree with the outsider view. If I were to confine my comment to two words, they would be pot and kettle! If this is too cryptic for anybody, this is a case of "the pot calling the kettle black". The section on Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute is trite! This RfC was in preparation since March we are told, therefore these attempts at a resolution, are what we in Ireland call Felon Setting. Regards --Domer48 20:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I understand. Nobody, including Sarah777, has ever accused me of being uncivil to anyone, which is the reason for the RfC against this user - so the pot-kettle analogy doesn't, as far as I'm concerned, apply. I had no idea who Sarah777 was in March. The first direct contact I had with Sarah777 was the attempt at resolution seen on the project page and I had had no argument with her before then, nor has there been very much contact since then. I've edited the same pages though and I'm unhappy at her conduct. Sony suffered abusive comments and responded in an appropriate way. His edits are attempts at resolution - as are those of several other users that can be seen on Sarah's talk page who could easily be contacted. The account does stress that this is long term incivility so I'm not sure how the existence of an earlier RfC that was never enacted detracts from this one. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 21:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, everyone is entitled to act with some measure of incivility sometimes. We've all got to blow off steam, if we didn't it wouldn't be natural, but it cannot be a long-term pattern of how we approach other editors. The pots and kettles metaphor only works when there are equal numbers of pots as there are kettles. In this case, we have many pots calling one kettle black, and saying that she's been black for a very long time. You can see that the issue was here in March. It was here in February, and its still here in June. As for trying and failing to resolve the dispute, Sarah has been pleaded with, shouted at, begged, and given out to. She's been warned formally, casually, warmly, coldly, and yet still there seem to be no end to it. In this pot's opinion, and the opinion of others, the kettle is black. --sony-youth^pléigh 00:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the Sarah777 user is that "she" tends to run on auto-pilot in most Britain/Ireland related articles - the talk pages are covered in her "points" which mostly consist of either (a) abusive remarks aimed at editors who attempt to discuss points sensibly or otherwise and (b) prolonged rants of a Republican nature. Not that there's any law against the latter, but clearly this isn't a user who is remotely interested in actual discussion on those pages. All attempts to get her to moderate her tone appear to have failed. The problem is analagous to a spam-bot on old Usenet and I do wonder actually to be honest if we are dealing with just one person as well on this account - the sheer persistence of it plus apparent sleeplessness make me suspect this is a fully-personed account. The aim appears to be to spread a particular form of Republican propaganda, which is hardly in keeping with Wikipedia. I propose that given all the previous warnings and attempts made, and the way these have been totally ignored (even laughably on her own homepage saying that she "used to be a troll") the account be perma-blocked. MarkThomas 10:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, given the sleeplessness and the statement on the userpage:

"Sarah/Eoghan...our MISSION - to OBLITERATE the RED LINKS in Irish Geography!"

it may well be a multi-user account.

Also diffs like this make it very hard to assume good faith. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 14:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that. Shared accounts are usually blocked. Sarah, if you're reading this would you care to explain? Is this account being used by 2 or more people? --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 15:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not; I have an assistant who takes some of the photos and does a bit of research. He's barely literate!! What is a a fully-personed account? What are we doing on this page....and what about addressing my question about organising my defence? (Sarah777 23:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC))

I see sleeplessness is now part of my crimes! You guys are, frankly, hard to take seriously. No disrespect. (Sarah777 23:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC))

Candidate page

This is still listed as a "candidate page" at RfC. The two person threshold has presumably been met so who exactly approves it?--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 21:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

In response to Sarah777

Firstly, these diffs only really provide a taste of Sarah777's incivility in Britain-Ireland politics pages. I've no doubt Sarah777 can give reasons why she believes every case of incivility and trolling was absolutely essential. This doesn't however detract from the incivility of such edits. As the evidence on the project page shows, Sarah777 is an excessively and consistently aggressive editor who treats talk pages like a soapbox. Regarding her refutals specifically, her explanations contain a number of inaccuracies:

• This diff[1] should really be read in full to be appreciated and seen in its context - it is in no way in direct response to a question about why something is offensive, (nor are the other three) as Sarah777 claims. It was an angry response to another editor's assertion about Anglo-Irish relations in World War II.
• Of the five diffs that Sarah claims were in response to Sony's comment, the first two actually precede it chronologically and address other editors while the last is several weeks later. The two others seem to address editors in general who disagree with Sarah777.
• Sarah777 does not attempt to provide justification for the incivility of this edit[2]. The fact is that she regularly broke into rants about her hatred of the word "British" without asserting any connection to the article, as can be seen throughout the talk page. This caused several editors to call for her to stop using the article as a general soapbox or discussion forum. Sarah777's assertion that she has not initiated discussion of the name is not accurate either.[3]

Sarah777's response on the talk page: "British editors peppering the BI talkpage with "warnings" despite being repeatedly informed...", is pretty typical of the dismissive way in which Sarah777 deals with British editors. In fact most of those she has disagreed with have been Irish but when encountering British editors Sarah777 felt it necessary to point out their nationality, something that should not have been relevant, as if this should be treated as evidence of biased editing. I wish I could endorse Swatjester's comments but Sarah777 is well aware of WP:OWN, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT - in fact she believes a large section of the Wikipedia community to be guilty of the first two and that's part of the problem - a classic case of MPOV. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 00:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. Now we have misrepresentation.

These were direct explanations to other editors who asked WHY the term "British" is so offensive (applied to Ireland); or why the ingrained assumption that there is something to apologise for or to be slightly ashamed about re Irish Neutrality was wrong; or why attempts to "appease" this pov by pretending Ireland wasn't really neutral was objectionable.

That is what I said of the 5 comments; they were either A or B or C. I didn't say comment 1 was B; comment 2 was A - etc. As I related it it was accurate. As you misrepresented it it appeared otherwise. I won't further address specific misrepresentation; I'll just point it out. regards (Sarah777 00:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC))

I'll leave others to judge the accuracy of my response. Sarah777, see here for advice on your question. Can't see much evidence of canvassing from those responsible for the RfC though.--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 00:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

MPOV - never saw that before; it's right on the money. --sony-youth^pléigh 00:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

"The section on Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute is trite!" Domer48 got that spot on. What is called "trying and failing to resolve the dispute" by the prosecution in fact was little more than calling on me to surrender my pov in favour of theirs! Ha Ha Sony, very funny. But if I said that, in that tone, you'd be pasting a WP:CIVIL immediately after my comment, wouldn't you?

Now you folk have spent, by your own admission, months preparing this case - so I'm having to do a bit of research myself. Somewhere in the citation I was accused of (paraphrase - need look-up the ref) "appearing all over the talkpages" of some articles. So I counted the number of times I posted on the current (rather long) BI talkpage; 97 times. A lot. But Sony managed 101. And given our relative level of contributions that must be a much heftier proportion of his total effort that is is of mine during the past few months. The pot/kettle thing again! (Sarah777 00:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC))

I admit to not counting and checking every one of those edits, but I think you'll find the main difference Sarah777 is that if Sony's 101 edits, most were mild, helpful or contained some sort of reasoned argument. Of your 99, most contained some sort of flame, minor or major insult or rant. I think I speak for most editors when I say that I prefer the former. No offence of course. :-) Seriously though, do you think that any of us are fooled for one minute by the defensive line you're taking? Wouldn't it be better for you to apologise and moderate your behaviour? MarkThomas 08:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry? "fooled for one minute by the defensive line you're taking". What does that mean? That because I am disputing the allegations against me I am trying to fool someone? Perhaps you preferred the AfD process where they hang the defendant without telling him about the the trial? Mark, I haven't got to the final part of my defence which will include a substantial collection of remarks made to me by several of my accusers here. What I do observe here is that none of my assailants are making any attempt at all to listen to my point of view, but are simply demanding unconditional capitulation to accusations I reckon are 90% false or exaggerated. If I post, as I did seriously, warning Sony of WP:NPOV, WP:CIVIL and WP:STALK and that is called "harassment yet Sony's campaign against me, his knee-jerk reversal of my edits, his sneering, ridiculing etcetera is merely "letting off a bit of steam". I won't be doing any global apology - but I am as tired of all this as anyone and I'd reach a mutual agreement policed by a neutral Admin (Swatjester qualifies, despite my previous spat - his post was reasonably balanced, for which I thank him) as to how myself and Sony edit on another and address one another. (Sarah777 10:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC))

It isn't up to you Sarah777 to dictate what admins do or don't do and to determine if they are neutral enough to satisfy you, and it isn't up to you to determine which rules on Wikipedia you want to obey and not obey. You are bound by the rules of WP as we all are, part of which is admin decisions. Incidentally, it also seems that we need to point out to you that Wikipedia is not a battle-ground, you do not have "assailants" as you describe them and there is no "capitulation". Viewing it in this antagonistic way seems to be at the heart of your difficulties. It isn't a warzone for conflicting propagandas. MarkThomas 08:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sarah, this is not about 'you and me.' There is no 'you and me,' despite what you may think or claim. I am just one amongst many who are concerned about your conduct. I am just one amongst many that you abuse and harass. I am just one among many that you troll and bring the worst out in. When you appeared on the British Isles, I contacted you privately and in a friendly manner because, having seen you in action before, I knew you meant trouble. When the trouble began, I contacted you privately and in a friendly manner again, but you have thrown it back in my face, just as you have thrown it back in the face of every other editor that has pleaded with you. Yet, still, no matter how much you abuse me, do not think that that you can make this about 'you and me.' I am just one amongst many who want you to stop, think and change your ways. --sony-youth^pléigh 10:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Sony; the case against me is a tissue of nonsense. There are issues between us - you have done everything you accuse me of yourself. Citing perfectly acceptable arguments and common pov (as you do) as examples of trolling (pointed out by Hughsheehy) shows, to me that you either don't understand what trolling actually is or you are indeed campaigning against me. (Sarah777 11:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC))

MarkThomas, just for the record, you do not “speak for most editors,” on this page you speak for yourself. Sony seems to have got the same problem, who speaks on behalf of “many.” And a defence of editors “bringing out the worst in you” as some sort of justification for being uncivil is no excuse! In my opinion, some edits are designed to provoke a reaction! The results of this provocative editing has now being introduced as illustrations of Sara being uncivil, when they were just the responses they were designed to provoke! This is felon setting, and the pious and benign posturing of some editors is nothing short of mocking contempt for the intelligence of editors! The “Pots” in case you have not noticed, are also “black!” And one more metaphor for the road, “let ye who are without sin, cast the first stone.” Sermon over, go in “peace” Regards --Domer48 11:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conclit, reply to Sarah) I suppose the others who have endorsed the basis of the dispute are similarly misled and are also campaigning against you? As stated, your politics are not at issue - as many Irish editors (who share your POV, myself included) are unhappy with your conduct as are British one. Why do you keep pointing to me? 10 editors (at last count) have endored the basis of the issue. Pick on them, don't waste all of your energy on me. --sony-youth^pléigh 11:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Sony; I didn't say it was "only" you. And as for "Why do you keep pointing to me?"!!! The manifest disingenuousness of that question speaks for itself. (Sarah777 12:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC))

Outside View by Sherzo

"Sarah777 edits seems all to push an Irish POV,and many of her comments seem at the least Anglophobic, particular the godwin's comparisons of the British and Nazis. Sherzo 10:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)"

I would strongly disagree that Sarah777's edits "push an Irish POV" - that would imply her extreme anti-British views were in a majority in Ireland. While certainly they would be shared by some Irish people, it is certainly not a majority! Far from it! Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It actually doesn't matter much that she has any particular POV, extreme or otherwise. The issue here is her behaviour in repeatedly breaching WP:CIVIL by insulting and abusing other editors, which she has repeatedly done and appears to be determined to continue with. MarkThomas 10:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Her politics are of no interest. Its her approach that's at fault. --sony-youth^pléigh 10:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

While yes, WP:CIVIL is indeed the issue in this RFC, when other editors can read her contributions and assume they're typical of Irish editors, as User:Sherzo seems to have done, then that's a problem too. As an Irish editor, I do not want to be tarred with the same brush as Sarah777. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

100% agree. It quite frightens me. --sony-youth^pléigh 11:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

What frightens you Sony? I think someone else has already pointed out that my pov is irrelevant here; that what Sherzo refers to as "Godwinism" (paraphrase); is in fact a widely held view of the British Empire strongly supported by the known facts. Not much I can do if some editors find the simple truth frightening, or pretend to. And Bastun, I too would worry that anyone would think you're typical of Irish editing standards. As you seem unable to distinguish between pov and incivility. (Sarah777 21:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC))

You appear to have misread. As Mark said, "It actually doesn't matter much that she has any particular POV, extreme or otherwise." As I said, "Her politics are of no interest. Its her approach that's at fault." As Bastun said, "As an Irish editor, I do not want to be tarred with the same brush as Sarah777." --sony-youth^pléigh 21:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Misread? How? And what has Bastun's "not wanting to be tarred with the same brush as Sarah777" got to do with anything here? Seems utterly irrelevant to me; bit like his concern about my "sleeplessness". Sure I might as well add that Bastun, in my judgement, harassed User:Gold heart into leaving. You also, in my judgement, addressed her aggressively, threateningly and uncivilly in your exchanges with her. Let's stay on topic shall we? It's a sign of a weak case when you have to keep piling irrelevancies onto the charge sheet. (Sarah777 22:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC))

We are on topic, Sarah. The fear is that as a result of incivility such as yours, those of us who share your perspective will have our concerns dismissed simply as pushing "an Irish POV" (i.e. we will be "tarred with the same brush as Sarah777.") --sony-youth^pléigh 22:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, do let's stay on topic. Namely, your civility, not other editors' interactions with each other. Sure, User:Gold heart and I had our differences (brought about by one of your contributions on BI:talk), but as is clear from her and my talk pages, we parted on good terms, and her leaving had nothing to do with me.

The "sleeplessness", the "Sarah/Eoghan" comment on your userpage, and the statement above where it was raised are also relevant. Does more than one person use the Sarah777 account, or nor? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Regarding Gold Heart, I was of the understanding that she had "great regard for [me], and [believed] that [I am] a very fine editor." On the other hand, she was "concerned [about?] 'you know who' too." --sony-youth^pléigh 22:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

So, we are all agreed that we should stay on topic. Good. But if a concern about how some third parties may regard Bastun and Sony as a result of my pov can be considered on-topic then I humbly submit that serious breaches of WP:CIVIL by editors who are organising a campaign against me on the basis of breaching WP:CIVIL must also be considered on-topic. (And on a point re Goldheart; if you check you will find that DJegan said, at the time, that his reducing his Wiki input was not specifically related to me; contrary to an allegation that forms part of your referral). I would be concerned that the aggressive defence of embedded pov in certain articles by yourself and Bastun are scaring better Irish editors away from the topics or cowing them completely from "being bold". This "show trial" you are conducting here won't do much to attract them. (And on a separate but on-topic note; I doubt very much that you "share my pov" Sony. The evidence would suggest otherwise). In the case of Goldheart there was a clear attempt (in my view) to scare her off taking my side in the issue under discussion. (Sarah777 23:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC))

RE: DJ - I only quoted the man. In any case he would appear to agree with me since he certified the basis for this dispute. --sony-youth^pléigh 23:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)--sony-youth^pléigh 23:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he did certify - but he also made a point of saying that there was a whole raft of issues over many months that led to his decision. Maybe he was just being kind??! (Sarah777 23:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC))

Short comment

Although I endorsed this comment by Sherzo, as an Irishman I'd like to point out that I feel much of Sarah777's attitude has been rather anti-Irish. Given the complexity and the limited scope of understanding of the intricacies of nomenclature however, I'd say this was a pretty fair assessment. --Mal 00:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Outside View by hughsheehy

"her political views on the contribution, or otherwise, of the British Empire to human history are not grounds for complaint on WP, and if that ground is removed the whole basis for complaining of trolling goes away. Whether one agrees or not, or finds those views insulting or not, her views are not particularly uncommon and have been expressed by many more prominent than Sarah777 in contexts often far removed from British/Irish issues. Also, the tone of discussion on the BI page and the inability of many editors on the page to stick to civil discussion and NPOV is frequently frustrating and provocative. Insult and incivility are unfortunately common on that page. Sarah777 is perhaps the most passionate but certainly does not come across as calculating, unlike some others."

I think this rather fairly describes the situation. The RfC is supposed to be civility ; being pushed by editors several of whom are not themselves very civil, including especially, Sony. But now we are discussing irrelevancies like sleeplessness, anglophobia, my view of the British Empire, my good faith, megalomania and so forth. I guess if I were to brand all this as being in breach of WP:CIVIL then I'd get harassment added to the charge sheet. As I said at the start of this process; in view of the provocative nature of many of my accusers here, but especially Sony - I am prepared to have my comments on British - related political articles supervised by a NEUTRAL admin provided Sony does likewise. (Sarah777 21:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC))

Sarah I accept you're not running a shared account, though I think I had reasonable grounds to ask the question. I maintain that all of the diffs provided are appropriate evidence and that in spite of HughSheehy's comments, long Anglophobic rants that make no mention of the article's content are uncivil. Sony's comment reproduced on the RfC is perhaps regretable though if the writing were all the same size I don't think it would seem nearly as passionate. With this exception I don't think Sony can be called uncivil. Nevertheless Sarah there may be some mileage in what you say. If an admin would be willing, supervisation could apply to other concerned parties (I would be happy to be bound by an agreement too) - not just to Sarah and Sony. I suggest the following terms:

1. That nobody make an allegation of bias, incivility or personal attack on the talk page articles and that before doing so on a user page they involve the supervising admin.

2. That the various parties agree to remove or reword any comment they should make that the supervising admin should find uncivil - even if they disagree with his view.

3. What seems like an agressive rant to some people might seem far less so if its relevance to article content is clearly asserted and explained. Editors, when writing about something they feel passionate about should strive to explain the connection with the article's content - especially if replying to the comments of another editor with which they disgree. It is not necessary to win an argument if doing so will have no impact on the article.

4. That it be understood that terms like "garbage", when used to describe others' opinions are likely to provoke hostility - even if this is not expressed on the talk page - and present an obstacle to civility and the assumption of good faith. They will be avoided in future.--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 17:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

provoke a reaction

Trying to provoke a reaction, are we Mark,[4] what do you mean by Republican? You seem to treat it in such a derogatory way? Regards--Domer48 11:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Mark has a long-term and reasoned (albeit one at least equally-well argued against and one I don't hold myself) view of the number of deaths caused by the Cromwellian campaign, and its aftermath, in Ireland. That comment is inline with others I've seen as long ago as March and in dialog with several other editors. See Talk:Oliver_Cromwell#Petty_.2F_Down_Survey and subsequent talk page entries. Its his view, strongly held, whether this RfC was ongoing or not, he would had made it clear. --sony-youth^pléigh 12:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Whats with the comment i.e. REPUBLICAN? and it has notting to do with this [5] at all? Regards --Domer48 12:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That's correct. It has nothing to do with that, and (as I explained above) I doubt that it has anything to do with this RfC. Marks view is that the numbers killed by the Cromwellian campaign has been exaggerated by some historians sympathetic to Irish Republicanism - as explained in the edit comment and on the Oliver Cromwelltalk page. --sony-youth^pléigh 12:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well as one who lives in a Republic, and who’s Government profess themselves to be Republican, would I be right to assume that we are referring to Irish historians? Or pro-Irish historians, or simply those who are not revisionist in outlook? --Domer48 13:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No, that would not be assuming good faith. As a fellow citizen of the Republic, I'm sure you're just as aware as I am of the distinction drawn between Republicanism and Nationalism in the context of Irish history and the Troubles, but we've taken this to the limit of what I can offer you. Why don't you ask Mark, on his talk page or on the Irish Famine talk page, what he meant by "Republician-minded historians". You can point out the irony of the phrase when speaking about Cromwell. I'm certain that he will be happy to answer all of your questions. --sony-youth^pléigh 13:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Thats ok, I got what I wanted "the irony of the phrase", thanks, Regards--Domer48 13:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't intend any irony with the phrase and neither did I mean it in an insulting sense; I would have thought it's fairly obvious that the alleged "Cromwell genocide" is a cause-celebre amongst historians of that persuasion; sadly, it is not factually supported by any scientific evidence. What is well known and widely attested is that very many people in Ireland, as elsewhere in the (then) three kingdoms, died of famine and disease during those years. Deliberate genocide? Not many serious historians agree. Most would point to it as at worst "accidental" genocide, and the product of war, in much the same way that mass-death ocurred in all combat zones in WW2, intended or otherwise. However, none of this sadly has the least thing to do with this particular RfC and I do object to having my comments in other talk pages taken out of context and used in this way. Can we please get back to the subject at hand? MarkThomas 16:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

“Historians of that persuasion,” as opposed to “serious historians,”! Oh Please! No scientific evidence, surly you mean historical evidence? The “product of war,” now how would I phrase that, No Quarter Given, butcher men, women and children? And the best in a long time “accidental” genocide! A bit like 1845, and the Great “Famine,” was that too an “accident,” was there no serious scientific evidence then either! It all came as a bit of a surprise heh, this “Famine,” even though since the act of union, there had been 114 commissions of inquire and no less than 61 Special commissions, and all waved big red flags saying pending disaster, and it all came as a surprise? Why am I not surprised by you answer. As to your “objection,” well you were being provocative, that was the context in which I made the edit, but in the interest of fairness, I will assume good fate! Regards--Domer48 17:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

What does any of that have to do with this discussion? MarkThomas 18:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Some editors conflating the "Republican POV" with "incivility" has everything got to do with this RfC, I would humbly suggest. (Sarah777 23:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC))

I, for one, would disagree. As, I believe, would Bastun and Lo2u as well, who made explicit their concerns at those adding outside views who conflate the two. --sony-youth^pléigh 06:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's clear that sarah777 is trying to muddle her uncivil statements with the political debate in an effort to confuse. This RfC is about the uncivil statements and unfortunately there is really a considerable body of evidence to support that. I am actually quite impressed that sarah777 has somehow avoided long blocks as a result previously, especially given that some admins dish out such blocks for much more trivial offences. Evidently the deliberate muddling works to some extent. MarkThomas 07:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Mark, I am defending myself against ridiculous allegations that in some cases don't distinguish between pov and incivility. Your increasingly aggressive attacks on me are becoming irritating and I call on you to stop them. Your post above is a clear and unambiguous breach of WP:CIVIL; please take this as a formal warning. (Sarah777 08:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC))

I don't usually get irritated by trolling on Wikipedia these days, but the above nonsense really highlights what we are all up against with this user. MarkThomas 17:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The statement of the dispute is explicit that this RfC is not about your POV; "It should be noted that in each case Sarah's politics are not at issue - of the first two editors certifying the basis for this dispute, one is English and the other an Irish nationalist." If a contributor to this RfC believe that it is, I would be grateful if you would correct them, Sarah. --sony-youth^pléigh 09:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That, Sony, is exactly what I am trying to do! (Sarah777 09:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC))

No, Sarah, you said, that you were "defending [yourself] against ridiculous allegations that in some cases don't distinguish between pov and incivility." The distinction is clear, "[your] politics are not at issue." --sony-youth^pléigh 09:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

If a contributor to this RfC believe that it is, I would be grateful if you would correct them, Sarah. That, Sony, is exactly what I am trying to do! I am here on the talk page responding to what is written here. Is that allowed? (Sarah777 09:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC))

Thank you. I must have been mistaken. It appeared as if your comments on Hugh's view were that the basis of this dispute was about opposition to your perspective on British-Irish history/politics. That, as we both know, would be rediculious since half of those who endoresed this RfC share your perspetive. --sony-youth^pléigh 09:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Outside View by One Night In Hackney

A deep sigh from an editor who really has an outside view on this. I've been editing at wikipedia in norwegian since February. I early realised that while no: had a Featured Article on Scottish history, there was close to nil on Irish, so I choose to make some contributions there. That lead on to the geography of Ireland. Only later I discovered why articles with any relation to Ireland have such low quality in most wikiprojects. There's too many editors spending too much time arguing, and the assume good faith principle seem to be permanently disregarded when it comes to any articles regarding [whatever-these-topics-related-to-this-particular-island-could-be-called-without-offending-anyone].

I noticed this comment from Sarah on talk:Great-Irish-Potato-Whatever

Yeah OK guys; I'm heading into 3RR country here; so I'll pack it up for now. To think I could have written perhaps three Irish geo-stubs if it weren't for my addiction to the TRUTH and the ELIMINATION of POV!

Wikipedia would have been a better project if she had written those three stubs, and even better if others from both sides (for lack of a better word) had done the same. I mean no disrespect, and I'm well aware that a name in it self gives an interpretation of history, and that for people living with and within the history interpretations har more than academic significance. But I assume that all editors contribute out of a concern to make wikipedia a better project, and the constant suspicions, POV-pushings and accusations of POV-poshing isn't doing any good. I can only speak for myself, saying that I have been "scared off from these premises", I'm leaving "Ireland" and finding myself an area for future contributions where the climate is more hospitable. At least I finished no:Irlands geografi before I left. Finnrind 10:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well, sadly Finnrind, that is their aim. This is one of my suspicions about the Sarah777 account; it is apparently capable of spewing forth attacks and accusations round the clock and can be wheeled into any Irish-related dispute page at a moment's notice 24/7. Hence really it should be blocked on the grounds of defending Wikipedia, precisely because it puts serious-minded editors such as yourself off. MarkThomas 17:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Mark, I think he was talking about you. "and even better if others" - had desisted. Now Mark, I've warned you about personal attacks and incivility, and frankly I'm disappointed that Sony et al haven't had the fairness to chide you. So: for the last time - one more personal attack and you will be referred. This is your last warning. (Sarah777 20:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC))

<personal attacks redacted>

Stop the personal attacks. You guys are here partially because of them. Given the fact that you're conducting yourselves like children on an RFC, and this warning, I will consider this a final warning. See WP:NPA. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

<end personal attacks redacted>

I believe the consensus reached was that it be known as a North Atlantic Breakfast, with precise ingredients to be overseen by the North Atlantic Breakfast Organisation. The only remaining difficulty being where to site NABO - possibly this is now deadlocked between Dún Laoghaire and Scunthorpe... MarkThomas 11:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Shut up, Mark! You'll open my stitches! ...Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 09:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair Enough

"Redacted" - that word does not mean what you seem to think it means. Unless of course you mean censor for politial reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.43.141 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 21 June 2007

Outside view by Swatjester

I'd just like to make a short comment on this outside view. I am not particularly aware of Sarah777's contributions to Wikipedia other than a lot of the trouble she seems to stir up, as I have not examined her contributions list. If she is a "good editor" (at other times) then perhaps this should be taken into account.

Other than that, I'd be almost willing to endorse Swatjester's pov. --Mal 00:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yet again, please stop

Mark, I notice that despite repeated requests, you continue to breach WP:NPA. You have now accused me of "blatant Anglophobia and hostility bordering on racism" on another editors talkpage User talk:Gold heart. This is clearly an abusive attack and is completely untrue. The irony - that all this abuse is coming while I'm defending allegations of incivility (which you support) - is amazing. Please stop it now. Right now. (Sarah777 15:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC))

Nope, the statements you made are listed on the RfC page and they are very characteristic of the comments I made, which I fully stand by. The question is - will you withdraw them? MarkThomas 18:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MarkThomas"

This page was last modified 19:07, June 22, 2007. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.) Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a US-registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.

Mark, will you please cite the Wiki policy outlawing my use of "GNU Free Documentation" or any policy that suggests you own the contents of your talkpage before you continue your edit war? I "cut and pasted" this because I felt it was important the people were aware of the nature of your attacks. Why should you wish to hide it? And , for the 5th time I ask you, please desist from breaching WP:NPA and indulging in personal attacks on me.(Sarah777 21:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC))

We've seen this type of harassing conduct by Sarah777 multiple times before - it's what happens when anybody has the temerity to disagree with any assertion of hers. I tend to think this RfC should be broadened from incivility to harassment. MarkThomas 21:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Latest misconduct by user Sarah777

Sarah777 is now taking a cut and paste of a discussion and placing it in here in a deliberate attempt to discredit me and without my permission. When I have protested, she has immediately reverted. I simply repeated in my own talk page the assertion already made on the main page overleaf that many of her comments appear to be anglophobic to the point of racism. She has refused to apologise for this and has instead apparently embarked on a campaign of harrasment against me, something she was temporarily banned for not very long ago. I hope that she will desist but in the meantime this is yet more evidence of her misconduct. MarkThomas 19:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

MarkThomas you do not need Sarah777 to attempt to discredit you, your doing fine all by yourself. I hope that you will desist but in the meantime this is yet more evidence of your misconduct. Provocation, entrapment, prevarication and pontificating. Snap out of that holier than thou, meek, mild mannered and injured tone, you are acting ridiculous. This Rfc has descended into farce, and I have quite frankley had enough of it. --Domer48 19:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Nobody entrapped anybody. I was having a perfectly straightforward discussion about it on my talk page and Sarah777 took it upon herself to paste it all here. There is no farce, this RfC is about her misconduct and this is yet another example I'm afraid. MarkThomas 19:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I see Mark, that you have taken it upon yourself to delete comments I made here (but NOT on your page) Please explain that beheaviour? (Sarah777 21:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC))

The comment you deleted: Sorry Mark, the more immediate question is whether you are going to cease your personal attacks. And I mean that. The statements I made are completely legitimate pov (they were talk statements btw; not material I put into articles). For the last time, I ask you, please stop your personal attacks; they are a clear and unambiguous and repeated breach of WP:NPA Also please note: you don't OWN your talkpage. Nobody asked me for permission to lift text for this RfC from MY talkpage. Please don't revert this again. What are you ashamed of? Sarah777 18:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC))

Actually there is no such thing on Wikipedia as "legitimate POV" if you mean in an article, since it's supposed to be NPOV. As to the boring repetitive threat of your alleged complaint, why not just complain rather than keep going on about it. Actually my talk page is not my property, true, but it's impolite and incivil of you to just copy tracts out of it and dump them in the RfC that is discussing your incivility, which seems at best odd behaviour on your part. As to my comments, on the main RfC page a number of editors assent to the statement that Sarah777 edits seems all to push an Irish POV,and many of her comments seem at the least Anglophobic, particular the godwin's comparisons of the British and Nazis so I don't think it's just me who has this opinion. MarkThomas 21:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Mark, you have been told repeatedly that the pov referred to was in the talk pages. A very valid pov. (Sarah777 21:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC))

Stop this immediately. Sarah777 has every right to quote Mark's comments on this page: he gave her that right when he published them under the GFDL. If you have a problem, respond to it appropriately, not by reverting her comments here, which is a gross violation of policy. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 21:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Outcome?

So - many users have expressed reservations over Sarah's behaviour, to one degree or other. And she's now said she's not going to look at the page anymore - as far as she's concerned, its "over". So - what happens now? Genuine question, I'm not familiar with the RFC process. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)