Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Sarah777

message: 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)
thread_title:  Candidate page 

message: 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)
thread_title: Short comment

message: Trying to provoke a reaction, are we Mark, what do you mean by Republican? You seem to treat it in such a derogatory way? Regards--Domer48 11:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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-youthpléigh 12:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whats with the comment i.e. REPUBLICAN? and it has notting to do with this  at all? Regards --Domer48 12:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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-youthpléigh 12:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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-youthpléigh 13:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thats ok, I got what I wanted "the irony of the phrase", thanks, Regards--Domer48 13:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: “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)

text: What does any of that have to do with this discussion? MarkThomas 18:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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-youthpléigh 06:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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-youthpléigh 09:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That, Sony, is exactly what I am trying to do! (Sarah777 09:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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-youthpléigh 09:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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-youthpléigh 09:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: provoke a reaction

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Shut up, Mark! You'll open my stitches! ...Gaimhreadhan(kiwiexile at DMOZ)  • 09:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outside View by One Night In Hackney 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Outside view by Swatjester 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Yet again, please stop

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Latest misconduct by user Sarah777

message: 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. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 23:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outcome?