User talk:Sarah

Wikipedia ads	file info – #46

Archives (index)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Query

Hi, I'm just wondering what an appropriate course of action might be if a user gives the title of a Wikipedia essay, as opposed to a guideline, in an edit summary for an edit which is non-trivial (and not vandalism). Thanks in advance. :) --Muna (talk) 00:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey Muna. Well, it depends on the circumstances. Is there a specific case you're concerned about or are you asking generally? People can give whatever reason they like in their edit summaries and they can refer to essays if they want to, but it doesn't trump policy, so if their edit conforms with an essay but violates policy then the edit likely isn't appropriate. But it really depends on the circumstances and the essay they're referring to. I'm quite happy to take a look if you have a specific case you're concerned about. Cheers, Sarah 00:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

BobDay account

Thanks for your message. Yes please go ahead with giving me the BobDay account as you suggest. I'd appreciate if you could email office@sa.familyfirst.org.au regarding the Bob Day article, and I will reply via that. TemporaryBobDay (talk) 04:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Reminder about Islam and children

You are receiving this message because you are listed as the protecting admin for Islam and children. The page has been semiprotected for longer than 2 months without an expiry date set. Because Wikipedia relies on contributers to make the encyclopedia, I'm asking you to review your decision and either

• Unprotect the page if protection is no longer needed, or
• set a reasonable expiry date for the protection instead of leaving it on forever

I hope that you will do one of the two in order to reduce the backlog of pages that have been semiprotected for very long period of time. Thank you. -Royalguard11(T) 19:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC) Why am I receiving this message?

Recall criteria

You will notice that I have restored myself to the recall category. My criteria page has been online since January,[1] but I was unsure about it, so I was not "advertising". Jehochman ^Talk 00:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't really want you to be in the category unless you really want to be in it. I just didn't think it was fair to assume that Elonka's criteria hadn't changed since her RfA when you yourself had changed your own. I don't like recall myself because I think it is too prone to drama and misuse and I can't imagine ever adding myself to the category so I would not hold it against anyone if they changed their mind about it. I don't want to fight with you Jonathan and I'm sorry if I have said things that have been hurtful or felt like personal attacks as that has not been my intention at all. I'm just very concerned about what has been happening. Sarah 01:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm in for now. Don't worry, you can say whatever you want to me. I'd rather hear it and have a chance to reply. Jehochman ^Talk 01:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This probably was not intentional on your part, but it is rude to talk about somebody in a forum where they can't respond. I left a note for you at Elonka's talk page requesting that you move the entire conversation elsewhere. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 13:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I'm not going to move or refactor my posts. I feel what I have said there is very relevant to the discussion so I shall be leaving everything as it stands though I don't really have any intention of pursuing things further there unless I have to. Thanks. Sarah 16:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine, but please understand that I may respond on any page of this project where my integrity is questioned, notwithstanding any other agreements in place. Hey, have you seen this? [2] Jehochman ^Talk 16:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Howard lock / block

Sarah, I wish to protest about your locking of the Howard article, and the blocking of user:MickMacNee who was only one party in the ensuing edit war. The locking of the article is not appropriate when there are only 2 parties involved in this current edit war. Also, you have only blocked one of the waring parties, whilst showing leniancy to the other party whom you have had a long history of agreeing with on content matters concerning John Howard over the past year. You are as involved in the content of that article as anyone else, and there needs to be more of a separation between administrive decisions and content. --Lester 11:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it is appropriate. As Gnangarra said on the talk page, this is the third edit war in the last week or so. Enough now. MickMacNee violated 3RR, reverting four times against two different users, a block was appropriate. Peter did not revert four times and I've disagreed with him many times on many subjects and I supported and helped with enforcement of his arbitration sanctions when he was banned. I really find your "suggestions" about me offensive, Lester. You lot can go and sort out whatever you want in or out on the talk page first. I'm as involved with the content as anyone else? That's just rubbish. I haven't edited the article since last year! And other than commenting on you using of the talk page to co-ordinate a user RFC a few months ago I don't think I've been on talk page for months either. That's not "involved".Sarah 11:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm just wondering why MickMacNee was just blocked for 48 hours and not longer since it seems they have a past history (Infact I would say that they're close to a indef ban)? Peter did the right thing (in away) as the content was just one source that didn't support the content but should have sorted help from an Admin. Bidgee (talk) 12:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

My opinions only, as always, but - while I disagree with Skyring's reasoning, and would note that calling something BLP and using that as a reason to revert isn't appropriate behaviour, I support the text in question's temporary redaction just because the section of the article in question already looks like one of those snowmen that's been constructed from throwing random snowballs at a single point and calling what stands a snowman, and this particular addition, which had escaped scrutiny owing to the ICC business, stood out like a sore thumb. I think it will be reincluded as soon as we can figure out how to do that. I'd additionally support Sarah in saying that she has not been involved in the article or its poisonous editing environment. I would have to admit I myself am now involved, although I came in as a neutral party earlier this year. In answer to Bidgee: as an admin I would feel uncomfortable making a decision that is really the community's to make, he's not a vandal or SPA and he has been of value on the project, and blocks are intended to prevent damage rather than punish the user. Any significant action would need the support of the community, on the basis of whether the risks/problems outweigh the benefits, and if it's felt that is needed, somebody should draft it. I am not sure that I would support it, though. Orderinchaos 17:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

• I would suggest strongly that you are not an uninvolved administrator given your commentary at WP:ANI and WP:AN and should have left the block and the page protection to absolutely uninvolved administrators. Although you note at User talk:Skyring The only reason I'm not right now is that he was edit warring against two of you and reverted four times, but another admin might decide that you should be blocked too. I don't see how that material violates BLP so I don't think you were reverting under that protection. Given that you did the block, there is no apparent report at WP:3RR there is no reason for an uninvolved admin to even be aware of the case. Skyring asserts he It's still a 3RR vio, and I'll hand it over to the admin cadre for action. but did not report (and nor did he necessarily need to). You may be within your rights to perform admin actions but your assertion So I have not been involved with these content disputes but I have been watching it at WP:AN is disingenuous in my view. you cannot watch, comment on WP:AN and ANI on it and not be involved - you have strong views and have expressed them as is your right but thereby become "involved" .
  You suggested that I share Orderinchaos's concerns about some of Matilda's actions on this page. ... I am quite concerned that she has become so involved that she has compromised herself and should not be using her tools at all in regard to this page or any of these users. - I suggest you look at your own actions and reconsider whether you are uninvolved. That applies to any admin who has been watching the dispute and has formed a view. I call again for uninvolved admins - not pseudo-uninvolved. --Matilda ^talk 23:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It was reported to RPP so of course there was reason for administrators to be aware. I reject completely the suggestion that I'm "involved" with that page and therefore cannot protect it when necessary. I would like to respond further to a couple of things you've said but I'm just on my way out for the rest of the day. Maybe tonight. But seriously, you hardblocked the account being used to write an RFC about you... Sarah 00:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)