:Mr Lama, nice to hear from you! :) I was just thinking of you a couple of days ago. I found your business card and I thought, "Hmm, I wonder how the lama is, haven't seen him around much latey." The DoS looks fantastic, well done to all involved (and nice picture of you :)). Volunteering for OTRS is quite easy, just go [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS/volunteering here] and add your name to the list. There are instuctions at the top of the page. About IRC, I'm afraid I'm with you on that boat. Daniel very patiently helped me get onto IRC the other night but I haven't been brave enough to venture beyond the WMA channel yet. :) I shall add you to the WMA press list. Radio/TV/newspaper in NSW? It's just an informal list of people who don't mind being contacted but it doesn't obligate you to actually do anything. I started it when I handled the request from Channel 10 for someone to go on "9 am with David & Kim" as we stuffed them around a bit with Angela agreeing to do it but then having to pull out when she and Tim moved up your way. It was then really difficult to find someone else willing to step in. So I started the press list as a starting base for future requests. If you need help with anything you can always email me or ping me on gtalk, sarahewart at gmail dot com and I'll try to help. Take care, [[User talk:Sarah|Sarah]] 00:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC) PS I'm going to put my meetup pictures up soon. [[User talk:Sarah|Sarah]] 00:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
:Mr Lama, nice to hear from you! :) I was just thinking of you a couple of days ago. I found your business card and I thought, "Hmm, I wonder how the lama is, haven't seen him around much latey." The DoS looks fantastic, well done to all involved (and nice picture of you :)). Volunteering for OTRS is quite easy, just go [http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS/volunteering here] and add your name to the list. There are instuctions at the top of the page. About IRC, I'm afraid I'm with you on that boat. Daniel very patiently helped me get onto IRC the other night but I haven't been brave enough to venture beyond the WMA channel yet. :) I shall add you to the WMA press list. Radio/TV/newspaper in NSW? It's just an informal list of people who don't mind being contacted but it doesn't obligate you to actually do anything. I started it when I handled the request from Channel 10 for someone to go on "9 am with David & Kim" as we stuffed them around a bit with Angela agreeing to do it but then having to pull out when she and Tim moved up your way. It was then really difficult to find someone else willing to step in. So I started the press list as a starting base for future requests. If you need help with anything you can always email me or ping me on gtalk, sarahewart at gmail dot com and I'll try to help. Take care, [[User talk:Sarah|Sarah]] 00:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC) PS I'm going to put my meetup pictures up soon. [[User talk:Sarah|Sarah]] 00:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
==Re: Offensive allegations==
I have responded on [[User talk:Chovain#Offensive allegations|my talk page]], where I will continue to respond. -- [[User:Chovain|Mark]] [[User talk:Chovain|Chovain]] 02:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Revision as of 03:37, 19 March 2008
This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 4 days are automatically archived to User talk:Sarah/Archive16. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
I think it might be time for an RFC on a certain self-proclaimed Scholar from New York. If you were to start one, I'm sure at least two others would be willing to certify it. The tendency to obsfucate and not accept responsibility for his/her actions is frustrating to many people. Pairadox (talk) 03:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, yeah, I'm not interested in writing an RfC myself but Pairadox, if you want to start one, go for it. I'd probably make a comment on it if you did write one, but I'm too busy with other things and I've spent way too much time on that issue as it is. Sorry mate, Sarah05:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your reaction to that thread is puzzling. I relayed a blind request in a neutral manner and was surprised to see a response from you that basically calls me a dupe. When I post politely to say I wasn't duped, you make a long follow-up stating you're straining to assume good faith about several things that I never posted in the context of that thread. You're inferring negative elements that simply aren't in my words. The impression that gives is not one of good faith but of prejudice and hostility. I hope this is simple crossed wires. DurovaCharge!02:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say I was straining to AGF. I was, however, trying to give you the benefit of the doubt and hoping that you were manipulated and/or not fully aware of the facts surrounding that person because otherwise I have to question your judgement in being prepared to post messages from a person who has just been banned with those sorts of comments from the CUs and then forwarding emails on their behalf. You might not be supporting their unblock yourself but your willingness to do this does reflect on you. Surely it would be better to tell such users who have just been banned and shown no practical willingness or ability to abide by our policies to send their own emails to people they want to email and to follow WP:BLOCK and WP:BAN for appeals. Sarah03:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well frankly I'd had nothing to do with the case and the Willy on Wheels business was before my time anyway. It was a little surprising to get that message and I expected either a swift "gaming the system" response or a careful weighing of the merits of forgiving an old vandal, without explicit doubts about my judgement. It's simply quicker and more productive to post the darn thing spend quality time restoring an 1873 albumen print for WP:FAC. DurovaCharge!04:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for letting me know. I've blocked that sock and I've added the film he's fixating on to protected titles so it can't be recreated. I'll have to remove it eventually but I should be able to keep it there for a couple of weeks. I've also started the category Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Gerald Gonzalez. Please let me know if you notice anymore socks. Cheers, Sarah23:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dan. I agree that does look like Gerald. *sigh* I'll keep an eye on the account but let me know if you become more certain. Cheers, Sarah07:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you remove the "subject has edited this page" tag that I added to the talk page for this article? Isn't it appropriate to note such CoI issues? If he had not tinkered with his own article, I would have left the tag off, but autobiographical issues should be highlighted. Horologium(talk)14:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Until such time as its confirmed that he's actually the same person to imply that the subject is editing the article has the potential to do more harm Gnangarra14:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Horologium, I asked the person to prove his identity to OTRS, and while he has contacted us, he has failed to provide any proof whatsoever that he is who he claims to be. Further, the current feeling among admins who have reviewed the account is that there are serious concerns about the account, so I referred the matter to Checkusers. Because of the concern that he may be impersonating a living person, I've blocked the account and removed the posts that person made claiming to be the actor Jason Smith. If they prove their identity to the foundation the edits can easily be restored. Thanks for asking me. Cheers, Sarah14:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rollback only works on the last edit (or continuous set of edits from one user), so if I rolledback that article, I'd just be reverting your last edit. Also, I'm not really sure what you're suggesting...do you mean the article needs to be moved back to List of Presidents of Latvia? If so, it might be best if you post a message on the article's talk page explaining why it should be moved back. I don't really know much about this article and don't want to stumble into the middle of something and make an arbitrary decision. Also, I'm not really sure why you're asking me this (not that I mind or anything) but if it's because of the "rollback request" box on my userpage, that just means that people who want to have "rollback" switched on for their account can ask me to do so. It doesn't mean that I'm taking requests to use rollback for people...again, not that I mind you asking! Cheers, Sarah14:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rushing around trying to support Sandy in between work and, well, you're quite right - copy pasted that sock message without looking more closely. Appreciate your adjustment and you for being there.--VStalk06:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No probs. I was rather disappointed to read that Glitter was wasting our time and playing games when everyone went out of the way to AGF and help her. Thanks for backing Sandy up and helping her with the CU etc. You're a good guy, Steve. :) Cheers, Sarah06:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am partly your prodigy - "spawned" by your good work - and thanks for the compliment. Been meaning to ask - was there a Melbourne meet-up recently? Did you go? Are there photos?--VStalk06:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there was a recent meetup and I took some pics but haven't uploaded them yet. Shall get around to doing that soon. When I do upload them I shall add them to my userpage with the others. You'll have to co-ordinate your next trip to Melbourne with one of our meetups, they're a lot of fun! Sarah07:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I will if at all possible - actually I was in Melbourne on the last meet up day (I think) for a short while but was caught up with work. Besides would like to see what your and other smiling faces look like behind the user name. Looking forward to the photographs.--VStalk08:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My patience is being tested, I am happy to calm down but time shift put a snide remark about 2min after I posted my response. I have behaved but he isn't. It is hard to be civil when he is disruptive. can you block him for a day GaryGazza (talk) 22:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really a good idea to ask for Timeshift to be blocked when you have both been behaving badly because you're likely to find that you've been blocked along with him. It's kinda like dealing with squabbling kids. I think most administrators would look at the edit warring and childish bickering and decide to block both of you. If you have a serious proposal to make regarding the article, I suggest you make it. But I think it would be in your interests to stop talking about Timeshift. If you don't like him or whatever the problem is, then just ignore him: don't talk to or about him. But seriously, if you continue like this your time on Wikipedia is going to be very short and very unpleasant because it is just a matter of time before we indefinitely block you. So if you're here to contribute constructively to the article, then get on with it, and if you're just here to troll then please find something else to do. Sarah23:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Sarah, I am assuming good faith. I have put forward my proposal for comment and provided a number of online sources in addition to the book I have quoted. Timeshift and Orderinchaos are not treating the discussion fairly. They are not making an effort to read my sources and are sending me quite inflamitory messages. Orderinchaos is saying that 5years is a long time for the Roxon family to be in Italy on the way to Australia and disputing my comments. This is sourced in the book and online. It also reflects common historical opinion. I can't contribute to discussion if prople don't read my source or provide reasons why my sources are wrong. Is there any way a non-biased person can take a look. The same source is used in the Lillian Roxon article and was added by another user. It is valid, I read it too. GaryGazza (talk) 09:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Due to your concern over the List of Governors of Straits Settlements page. I had successfully restored to its original relevant page. User:Ivan Bogdanov changed whole page including the contents and title is totally ridiculous. Because the page is about the Governors of Straits Settlements rather than the List of colonial heads of Singapore, because it's too Singapore centric (it's also part of Malaysia), maybe he/she should make another page with that title of his own. I hope you could do something regarding this matter. User:Andrew Kidman (talk) 10:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Signpost updated for February 18th and 25th, 2008.
Hi Sarah - I had reason to start an ANI today here but I felt at the time at a bit of a loss as to whether that was the right place for it. Another editor suggested reporting it to the foundation and perhaps that is correct - but I would appreciate your opinion. (PS I may not see your reply until late tomorrow as I have a meeting in Canberra tomorrow and will close early tonight ready for the early departure).--VStalk09:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(after ec)Hmm, interesting. I hope he removes those claims himself, voluntarily, but if he doesn't I think we should quickly pass it onto the office. But really, I'm hoping that Igor removes those claims himself. If he is here on Wikipedia in good faith then he should do so voluntarily. Have a safe trip, Steve. Sarah10:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you come back to here if you have the time or interest please. I need to get some more views on what I think continues to be a complex case of conflict of interest by this editor - and whether this should just got to the Wikipedia Foundation now rather than us trying to deliberate it further. Thank you.--VStalk10:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Steve. Did you hear the great news (see my userpage if not). Sure, I'm around now and available to help - what did you want me to do? Sarah10:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Sarah - that is bloody great news - wow. What great work. In terms of this I was asked by Igor to consider his changes to his websites but could not in all honesty support the changes - especially after reading another editor's comments. In considering I also came across what appears to be some more undeclared conflict of interest editing. I have written to all editors who have come to the ANI thread - I think I am just wanting other input because I don't want to appear as if I am gunning for Igor when in fact I am just trying to do my job. --VStalk10:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, Steve. I got called away from my laptop and then got sidetracked irl. I'm going to have a look at ANI now but I may have to wait until the morning to comment because I'm really tired. Sorry, mate. Sarah13:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey that's no problem at all Sarah. I sort have closed the discussion (well from my point). Have been dealing with the problematic edits of Igorberger for some time now and have come to some unfortunate conclusions about him. I have posted a request at his talk page to remove all of wikipedia.org comments on his websites and I will see how he responds. If in the negative I will post a report to the foundation. I would appreciate any help you can give with contact points for such a report? At the very least there are a lot of other editors looking at his contributions and the way that he is contributing. I hope you got/are getting a good night's rest. Best dreams.20:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Sarah - that will be helpful. I am away travelling to Melbourne tomorrow but will deal with this matter when I get back. Cheers.--VStalk10:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks mate, much appreciated but I really didn't do anything. Brian is the one who deserves most of the credit - he sort of grabbed us by the scruff of the neck and dragged us over the line. :) Cheers, Sarah11:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I noticed that you removed my notice of the Rfc User Conduct concerning Skyring from the John Howard Talk Page. I am a bit perplexed by this as I was careful to consider what would be the best way to notify any involved editors of the Rfc while staying within the principles of WP:CANVASS. It seemed to me that posting to individual users to let them know about the Rfc would have been much more liable to critisism of being partisan. Posting to a wider audience through, for example, the Australian Notice Board or similar would be less likely to be noticed by involved parties. With this in mind I was wondering if you could let me know if you were guided by any particular part of Policies and Guidelines in removing the notice and what would be a more appropriate way for me to notify involved parties? Thanks. Wm (talk) 08:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't appropriate to post something like that to an article talk page. Article talk pages are provided to discuss article content, not editors. If you're looking for "involved editors" well, you can pretty much count them on one hand and they are all the usual suspects that turned up at your RfC. I seriously doubt anyone would have invoked canvass if you'd notified the limited involved users directly - canvass is essentially about aggressive cross-spamming, not about informing involved parties. As for which policy/guideline I used to I remove the notice, try anything from WP:COMMON SENSE to Wikipedia:TALK#Others.27_comments: "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:...Deleting material not relevant to improving the article (per the above subsection #How to use article talk pages)." Article talk pages are provided for discussing article content, they're not there for co-ordinating moves against a particular editor or even for discussing others. Sarah10:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I am interested in your view but am sorry that I can't accept your arguments completely without further discussion but I reckon we might both consider that we have better things to do than further discuss this now rather moot point. Thanks for the reply though. Wm (talk) 11:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. No, that absolutely was not me. Thanks for catching that - muchly appreciated. I've actually removed the whole message since it's someone impersonating and mocking John So. Cheers, Sarah09:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's him alright. There's absolutely no doubt about it. We've heard the stories about the user being banned before - see the comment Lar made to the ANI about the long term games we're dealing with here. This is *long term, serious abuse*. There are people from the foundation who have said these are the kids behind a lot of the Willie on Wheels vandalism. Sarah10:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Please keep an eye on the user because I can pretty much guarantee you it's SunStar Net/Solumerias. We've had the checkuser on that IP address confirmed across multiple projects. For the record, this is the ANI [1], particularly, "This behaviour (good hand/bad hand, protestations of innocence, claims that the IP is now OK although yes it was a source of bad edits before ("it was my little brother", "it's a library", "It's a school", "my roommates did it but I've spoken to them", etc), unwarranted and keen interest in CUs and the process of CUing and other people who have been CUed, vandalism of admin pages after an admin takes action (often on other wikis), creating impersonator accounts, offers to be a CU/crat/admin/steward on one of their personal wikis, and a host of other things too long and bizarre to mention in detail here unless it's necessary) is not confined to en:wp... This user is a frequent topic of discussion on the CU mailing list and has been blocked on and off under various guises on many many wikis to the point that it's almost a running joke (as in "what has he come up with THIS time??"), so it strikes me that it's time to permanently block the IP, with account creation disabled, on en:wp at the very least. (I am aware this will probably get me some angry protestations of innocence in my mail, and possibly some vandalism of some of my pages somewhere). Note also that this IP and its accounts are poster children for bugzilla bug: 8707 Support global blocking ++Lar: t/c 13:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)" Thanks for reblocking the IP. Much appreciated. Sarah11:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an ugly affair... The user wanted to pass you a message saying "Please tell Sarah that the IP is a shared one, and that the user Solumeiras was a friend of mine who used a PC of mine via remote desktop access, but I banned him from the network for misusing it as file storage and for falsely claiming to be affiliated with my website ... I've warned Steve who used the login Solumeiras that it's not acceptable to use my network for spam, or abuse of websites ... Steve falsely claimed to be affiliated with my website, and used its name as a Wikipedia login name" Unfortunately this is "very" similar to lar's comment. —Dark(talk)11:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, more messages being passed on. Solumerias did the same thing with Durova - emailed her as Solumerias/SunStar Net and asked her to pass messages on to me. *Smacks head* There is no doubt in my mind that this is Solumerias. Sarah11:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well it seems I was blind :) He was using proxies on IRC and I didn't even know it. Blocked indef. Sorry for the trouble. —Dark(talk)11:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, no problems. He's pretty relentless with this and nearly snookered Yamla into creating an account for him on unblock-en-l last month. Thanks for letting me know. Sarah11:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure this article's name should be Mortal wound, as opposed to Mortal Wound. If I'm correct, would you mind changing it? :) --Muna (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sarah, remember several months ago when I commented about the your RfA/RfB table on your userpage? Well, I thought you might like to know that there are two options available for RfB reports now: User:SQL/RfX Report for both RfAs and RfBs, and Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/RfB Report for just RfBs. I don't know if you want either of them, but I thought you'd want to know of them. :) Best wishes. Acalamari02:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks Acalamari. I like SQL's one, I find it annoying when RfBs and RfAs aren't included together in the bot reports. Thanks again.:) Cheers, Sarah02:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As User:CeruleanFilms so cleverly deduced, I work for the Templar Illuminati of Zurich, and the Federal Reserve Bank. On their behalf I thank you for helping us keep Topp Seekrit the membership of our front organisation, which had been exposed in that flagship of online journalism, the Sonoma County Free Press (which would surely have won a Pulitzer Prize, except for the fact that the Pulitzer committee are on our payroll too). A small token of our appreciation has been deposited into a Swiss bank account on your behalf. It remains for you only to discover the number; a small task which we feel confident in within your skillz. -- Zsero (talk) 08:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hehehe Thanks! I'm off now to track down my super sekrit Swiss bank account! I do hope it was a generous small token! :D Cheers, Sarah08:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey GR. I'm pretty well certain that user is Neutralizer. But that doesn't mean that it's not Arthur Ellis. Back in 2006 a couple of people raised the suspicion that Arthur Ellis was in fact a Neutralizer sock, but both were banned independently within a month or so of each other and I don't know think anyone followed through with looking at it further. Personally, I think it's quite likely. There's certainly a lot of things the two personas have in common. You don't happen to know anything about Arthur Ellis's IPs? For the last three or so years Neutralizer has been coming in on the same Bell Sympatico ranges. He came back last year using European open proxies but once I accused him of being Neutralizer, he gave up the OPs and began using Bell Sympatico again. Range blocks are very effective, but unfortunately he comes in on three different ranges and while the blocks wipe him out, they also cause a fair bit of collateral damage. I'd be interested to know if Arthur Ellis also used Bell Sympatico and if so, if he was on the same ranges. Anyway, I think we're requesting checkuser of the Kurt Turkulney account but I'm pretty much as certain as I can be that it is Neutralizer but it could also be Arthur Ellis. :) Cheers, Sarah01:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, I see on the Arbitration case that Arthur Ellis openly admitted that he was a Bell Sympatico user. I know it's a pretty big ISP, so it doesn't really prove anything but it's just another piece of the puzzle. Sarah01:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I see the checkuser results are in and the block is now indefinite. I don't know the IPs, but Ellis has had 17 checkuser requests, regularly resulting sock blocks. There might be data in his RFCUs. GRBerry01:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bduke2
Hi, Sarah. Thanks for tagging his user and talk page. I should have done it as he has clearly dropped in and then done a runner. --Bduke (talk) 01:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries Brian. I was a little bit concerned about it, that maybe it should be blocked under the Username Policy, but it looks like it isn't necessary since he never came back. Take care, Sarah01:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to personally thank you, Sarah, for your support in my recent RfB. I am thankful and appreciative that you feel that I am worthy of the trust the community requires of its bureaucrats, and I hope to continue to behave in a way that maintains your trust in me and my actions. I have heard the community's voice that they require more of a presence at RfA's of prospective bureaucrats, and I will do my best over the near future to demonstrate such a presence and allow the community to see my philosophy and practices in action. I hope I can continue to count on your support when I decide to once again undergo an RfB. If you have any suggestions, comments, or constructive criticisms, please let me know via talkpage or e-mail., and I look forward to continuing to work with you on m:OTRS. Thank you again. -- Avi (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, not at all. This was just a special case where a serial copyright violator was caught with some images which were demonstrably copyvios (some were found on other websites) so we needed to purge images which we had good cause to believe were copyvios (not all his images were deleted) and I just used I9 in the dropdown log as the closest criteria. I don't think that as a general rule, though, images with funny metadata should be deleted unless we have good reason to think they are copyvios and even then it should be done via the noticeboard for transparency and oversight by others. Cheers, Sarah14:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted Article - "M.G.S. Fives"
Hi - an article that I authored - M.G.S. Fives was recently deleted. Although this was an hoax, it so amused the MGS school archivists that they have requested a copy of the article as it existed immediately prior to deletion. Since you are listed on the list of admins who can provide a deleted article to a userpage, I was wondering if you would be able to do that for me? Many thanks. Sonsoftheowl (talk) 10:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Without wishing to be rude, the MGS school archivists are two former members of staff who curate the history of Manchester Grammar School, as the school is almost 500 years old this is a sizeable responsibility. I would ask them to email you themselves, but as they are both at least in their seventies their use of technology is somewhat limited. I would also appreciate it if you were less flippant in future. Sonsoftheowl (talk) 12:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know, it might help if you started with article name and description of edit before you launch into an accusation that someone has violated 3RR. Looking at your recent edits I can only assume this has something to do with YWAM. I'm afraid that you are sadly mistaken. My edit in no way violated 3RR. I didn't even know there was a dispute on that page until approximately one minute ago. I saw the article on my watchlist, looked at the edit, saw it was the addition of a red link and removed it. I can't possibly imagine why you lot are edit warring over a redlink and frankly I care nothing about it and want nothing to do with it. I simply saw what I considered - and still consider - a bad and pointless addition of a link to a non-existent article so I removed it. just because I happen to agree with your opponent, an opinion I reached entirely on my own without even realising a dispute existed, does not place me in 3RR jeopardy. I am not responsible or restricted by the other person's edits and neither them by mine so their edits do not count as mine for 3RR purposes unless I nefariously asked them to revert for me...*blinks* Sarah12:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not particularly. I have a Dip Min in youth work and thus a general interest in youth outreach programs and ministries. I have many of them on my watchlist but I don't make a lot of edits to such articles except for removing spam and vandalism, correcting typos etc, and if I'd known I was stumbling into a content dispute over a redlink I wouldn't have touched the page. Sarah12:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It goes like this. After the Matthew Murray incident, I included criticisms of YWAM of a secular nature after I had found the main theological arguments had "disappeared." Once I got done sourcing the criticisms, people of course complained about the neutrality of the article--which is best remedied by adding positives. So YWAMers have been dumping old good articles about YWAM at the talk page, which I've been sourcing in the article, since no one else was. The next big positive for the article is The Athens Three, a Freedom of Religion legal case where Greece exhonorated three YWAM missionaries--who other Christians perceive as brave evangelists. I was basically trying to keep that redlink to point out how to further balance the article. ClaudeReigns (talk) 21:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey guys, I think this was just a misunderstanding. Saying to someone "I won't 3RR you" says to me, in my regional dialect of English, "I won't report you for 3RR". But as I understand, Claude meant "I won't breach 3RR myself by reverting you". I think this is just a difference in English dialects. I was a bit irritated at first because I thought Claude was accusing me of breaching 3RR or of proxying for the other guy in a dispute that I didn't even know existed, but I'm pretty sure that s/he was talking about him/herself being in 3RR jeopardy if s/he reverted me. I didn't realise there was a editorial dispute over the link and if I had known I wouldn't have removed it without posting a comment to the talk page. Anyway no hard feelings or anything. Have a nice weekend everyone. :) Cheers, Sarah00:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi sarah I just had article removed and wanted to know how I can change it as the reason were not clear. Can you let me know of what do I need to do put it back on line?
I didn't interpret J Bar's comment as speculating on any editor's location. J Bar has been accusing the other editor of ownership issues on the article in question. I interpreted it as a repeat of that accusation, not a suggestion that another editor (who was not even named in the post), lived there. -- MarkChovain04:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's speculating on an editor's location! It is perfectly obvious to anyone who then clicks on the link provided in that comment exactly who J Bar is referring to when he talks about where another editor lives. He is outing what he believes is another editor's location, completely unacceptable on Wikipedia and people get blocked for it. And yes, I'm aware of the bogus accusations of OWNership, but that is completely irrelevant to the issue of speculating about other editor's personal information. Removing poor quality material, poor quality images of numerous shop fronts, information that is a blatant copyright violation, incorrect or not supported by the sources cited isn't a sign of ownership. We're better off having short decent articles than long pieces of crap jammed with copyright vios and poor quality material. Sarah04:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm - I hadn't noticed that you were involved in the dispute with J Bar until just then. I have two issues here:
I don't think it's appropriate that you raise the specifics of the Mosman dispute as rationale for a rather stern warning you have issued as an administrator for a perceived privacy violation. You are either wearing your administrator's hat, or your editor's hat. It's not right to wear them both at the same time. I'm certainly not condoning or condemning J Bar's edits on that article (although I have obvious [opinions on his talk page behaviour): I don't see it as relevant to this particular issue.
If it was so inappropriate for J Bar to make the comment, why is it okay for you to reinsert the comment on this page. On my talk page, it was not framed as anything but blowing off steam. On your page, it is clearly framed as a privacy violation.
To the casual observer (which I think I am - I have no reason for taking sides here), it could appear that you are using a block threat to push an editor with an opposing view out of a debate in which you are both involved. I think it's really important that administrators raise these kind of issues with other administrators to take appropriate action. If you see a privacy violation, by all means delete the revision (or just edit it out as I have), but it should be done with the oversight of other administrators if a conflict of interest exists. -- MarkChovain05:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a conflict of interest in relation to the Mosman article or J Bar. If I see someone out another editor's suspected personal information, I will act immediately regardless of your opinions of conflicts of interest. Outing other editors is completely and utterly unacceptable on this site, they need to be dealt with immediately and people who out other editors generally get immediately blocked. J Bar was lucky he was not blocked no questions asked. I'm not sure what you mean by, "the specifics of the Mosman dispute as rationale for a rather stern warning you have issued" - the Mosman article has nothing to do with my warning and most certainly was not part of any rationale. My warning is solely in regard to posting of speculated private information. Just because I disagree with J Bar spamming dozens of his images of shops into articles and then revert warring with other editors to keep them there, to the point of pushing a 3RR block, does not mean that I have a universal conflict of interest regarding J Bar and am disqualified from responding to other concerns regarding the same editor. I'm also not sure what you mean by "why is it okay for you to reinsert the comment on this page" but I posted that quote in response to your clearly false claim that J Bar did not post speculation about another editor's suspected location. This is plainly untrue. What I posted above does not link to the other editor directly or indirectly as J Bar did, but if you think that is a "privacy violation" then I shall remove it.
I reject all of what you have written above but I thank you for raising your concerns. Thankyou and good night. Sarah06:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed the contributions in question and concluded the same as Sarah - speculation on real world information about Wikipedians is considered to be harassment and in particular is a violation of WP:OUTING. There have been several well known cases where contributors have been indefinitely blocked in the past for such behaviour, and I would encourage J Bar to not continue to do so. Even so, it's not particularly useful to speculate, as it is essentially an ad hominem attack - as the old saying goes, play the ball, not the man. Orderinchaos06:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting that the content should not have been removed, as it could be interpreted as privacy violation. I'm suggesting that the warning was too harsh given that it was most likely not his intention. He believes the other editor is "owning" the article. The veracity of that claim does not affect how his intentions should be interpreted. You clearly have a problem with this editor. You are barely able to go 2 sentences without bringing up claims of "spamming" in what you've described as an "editorial issue" is the past. I just feel that the warning should have been issued by an uninvolved administrator. -- MarkChovain07:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hehehe. Of course it was his intention to post that information. Another administrator has looked at it and reached the same conclusion as I. I think you're very confused Mark and you seem to be confusing various different issues. Spamming is not simply an "editorial issue" and if you think I said such a thing I would urge you to go back and look at the context, because spamming is largely an administrative issue. I did say that issue of selection of images was an editorial decision but spamming is something else altogether and I believe that you are profoundly muddled. Please stop posting on my talk page as you are not adding any light but rather confusion and incorrect information, right from your very first sentence in this section in which you claimed incorrectly that J Bar had not posted speculation regarding another editor's location. Thank you kindly. Sarah07:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G'Day Sarah. I have never intended to intimidate or harass anyone on wikipedia and if I have then I apologise. I have made many, many contributions on other Sydney suburb articles over the last couple of years and if you have a look, you would see that my contributions have always been positive. I have spent a lot of time and effort trying to remove vandalism from so many articles. I became frustrated by the constant reverts and deleted contributions from all other editors on that particular article. As I said, no offence or harassment was ever intended and I regret that this situation has got out of hand because it prevents other editors from making a contribution. Cheers. J Bar (talk) 21:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I accept what you've said but please be careful that you dont ever speculate about other people's personal information, even if you see it posted somewhere by someone else. This really has nothing to do with the Mosman article or any other article and the idea that you are a "thorn in my side" is utterly ludicrous given that we rarely edit the same pages. I was contacted as an Australian admin by someone who had seen your post and I was asked to review it. People have been blocked straight away for posting speculated personal information, so please be careful in future. Sarah22:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the Sydney Journal
Hi there,
Just thought I'd drop you, and others from the recent meetup, a line and mention that the first edition of the Dictionary of Sydney's online, peer-reviewed journal is now live.
The Sydney Journal is the first (and most academically rigorous) "product" of the Dictionary. It will be a quarterly publication with a variety of texts from upcoming Dictionary articles and is hosted by UTS E-press. This edition features 4 thematic articles, 6 ethnicities and 5 suburbs - all specifically related to Sydney.
I hope you find it useful and interesting - If nothing else it's essays are eminently referenceable for their corresponding articles here on WP.
On a separate note, I had a look at adding my name to the OTRS system but it looks dauntingly complex... Perhaps it is not so bad but I don't want to break anything :-) I'm very into WMF stuff (can you tell?!) but I'm not a techie at heart - I can't even use IRC or the mailing list properly. Nevertheless, I'm very keen to be able to help out with WM-australia stuff or to be on the press-contact list or whatever. I can prove academic and professional credentials if necessary *cough*essjay*cough*. Could you advise on the best course of action?
Mr Lama, nice to hear from you! :) I was just thinking of you a couple of days ago. I found your business card and I thought, "Hmm, I wonder how the lama is, haven't seen him around much latey." The DoS looks fantastic, well done to all involved (and nice picture of you :)). Volunteering for OTRS is quite easy, just go here and add your name to the list. There are instuctions at the top of the page. About IRC, I'm afraid I'm with you on that boat. Daniel very patiently helped me get onto IRC the other night but I haven't been brave enough to venture beyond the WMA channel yet. :) I shall add you to the WMA press list. Radio/TV/newspaper in NSW? It's just an informal list of people who don't mind being contacted but it doesn't obligate you to actually do anything. I started it when I handled the request from Channel 10 for someone to go on "9 am with David & Kim" as we stuffed them around a bit with Angela agreeing to do it but then having to pull out when she and Tim moved up your way. It was then really difficult to find someone else willing to step in. So I started the press list as a starting base for future requests. If you need help with anything you can always email me or ping me on gtalk, sarahewart at gmail dot com and I'll try to help. Take care, Sarah 00:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC) PS I'm going to put my meetup pictures up soon. Sarah00:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
