Sarah, would you like me (or someone else) to start a block review thread at AN or ANI? You should decide that, since it has a theoretical chance of backfiring, and since you might be pursuing things by email already. [[User:Hans Adler|Hans]] [[User talk:Hans Adler|Adler]] 17:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Sarah, would you like me (or someone else) to start a block review thread at AN or ANI? You should decide that, since it has a theoretical chance of backfiring, and since you might be pursuing things by email already. [[User:Hans Adler|Hans]] [[User talk:Hans Adler|Adler]] 17:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
: It seems as though she is sitting it out, otherwise she would of done something many hours ago. It likely to get nasty when she returns though. [[User:BritishWatcher|BritishWatcher]] ([[User talk:BritishWatcher|talk]]) 17:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
:: It should go to ANI review, one of the basic rules is that an admin who is a participant in a debate should not be blocking someone on the other side. --[[User:Snowded|<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">'''Snowded'''</font>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Snowded#top|<font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK</font>]]</sup></small> 20:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
:: It should go to ANI review, one of the basic rules is that an admin who is a participant in a debate should not be blocking someone on the other side. --[[User:Snowded|<font color="#801818" face="Papyrus">'''Snowded'''</font>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Snowded#top|<font color="#708090" face="Baskerville">TALK</font>]]</sup></small> 20:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
:::Agreed. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 20:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
:::Agreed. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 20:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
::::She's blocked off her Talk page so she can't respond. A very bad day all round. --[[User:HighKing|HighKing]] ([[User talk:HighKing|talk]]) 20:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
::::She's blocked off her Talk page so she can't respond. A very bad day all round. --[[User:HighKing|HighKing]] ([[User talk:HighKing|talk]]) 20:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::Yikes. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 20:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
*Actually guidelines on [[WP:ADMINABUSE|this]] say to use normal dispute resolution, and then if that fails take on to a request for comment on use of admin tools, or to ANI. However at this point (she's unblocked) ANI would not be appropriate as there's nothing that would require immediate intervention by others admins', ie unblocking. Thus use discussion with the blocking admin, and if there were to fail use the [[WP:DR|dispute resolution process]]. Cheers. [[User:Nja247|<em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">'''''Nja'''''</em>]]<sup>[[User talk:Nja247|<em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">'''''247'''''</em>]]</sup> 09:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
*Actually guidelines on [[WP:ADMINABUSE|this]] say to use normal dispute resolution, and then if that fails take on to a request for comment on use of admin tools, or to ANI. However at this point (she's unblocked) ANI would not be appropriate as there's nothing that would require immediate intervention by others admins', ie unblocking. Thus use discussion with the blocking admin, and if there were to fail use the [[WP:DR|dispute resolution process]]. Cheers. [[User:Nja247|<em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">'''''Nja'''''</em>]]<sup>[[User talk:Nja247|<em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">'''''247'''''</em>]]</sup> 09:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
They're threatening to ban you for an entire bloody year at Arbcom. Absolutely f**k*** outrageous!
Show them your article creation list, Sarah, I think you probably have the record.
Sure you lose your rag from time to time - but don't we all, especially when faced with extreme provocation and wind-up merchnats....Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 17:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was aiming for 23:00 on 29th - to allow for the vagaries of International Time. Sometimes Wiki-time seems to be an hour ahead of real time - sometimes not. I guess Wiki sets it's clock according to concensus. Sarah777 (talk) 22:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm..another backronym? My Position Statement is in Position. On the button; as per my internal clock. Read it and weep.....Sarah777 (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah, I asked your question on the project talk page. Consensus is anyone can endorse a statement. I've linked your position under the 'Alternative perspectives' section of my statement, and likewise linked to mine from your statement. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!09:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Sarah. Just saw this on your user page. Does that mean it's your Birthday today? If it does, then, Happy Birthday! If not, well, Happy Birthday whenever it is. Jack forbes (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Holy Cow Rock! The quality of the editing here is awesome. I tried to find a stray comma or a misplaced colon but I gave up. Sarah777 (talk) 08:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heeeeeeeeellllllp!!
SOS. I went into the archives of this page looking for a photo only to discover that everything archived since November 2008 seems to have vanished! Obviously they are going to get me - one way or another. (I'm not sure the post November 2008 stuff was ever there as this is the first time in years I peeked into the archive). Sarah777 (talk) 08:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a bit screwed up. I've added links to the "missing" archives above. The counter is set to 23 so it has still been archiving, but it appears to have screwed up the numbering between Archive 13 and Archive 20. --HighKing (talk) 11:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sarah. You're right that I'm quibbling but (I hope) it's not about what you imply. I completely agree that the sources that survive on the 1641 rebellion are overwhelmingly mediated by an English and/or Protestant perspective. I wasn't trying to disagree with the current state of the article or condone the sources quoted on that particular sentence, and actually I would agree 100% that the rebellion wasn't an attempt at genocide. It was just that in the context of a NPOV article, "thought of by" seemed to do the job much better than "ironically claimed by". Greycap (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are 100% correct Greycap! The phrase I inserted was not encyclopedic. No problem. It is important to keep an eye on me:) Regards Sarah777 (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Population template
Hi Sarah, What is your opinion on the ongoing application of this template under different user names across the project. Seems a clear case of WP:DIS to me, due to the shotgun approach being taken by the ed. and his/her determination not to reply to questions or generally give a damn. To me this 'data' amounts to WP:OR and is more problematic than it might casually appear. I've asked for general comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#Historical populations template. Regards. RashersTierney (talk) 11:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the information is very interesting if it can be integrated into the layout without ruining the articles. I'm not up to speed on the history of how they were added/by who; I came across a few of them but never looked into who was adding them or how. Even though I personally find them interesting I certainly agree such widespread additions must be discussed at IrlProj and some rules about how, where and when they are added should be drawn up. Sarah777 (talk) 23:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sarah. Please clarify if you would like the summary by your name to read "in favour of option C, A, B, D and E, against option F" or only "against option F". Many thanks! -- Evertype·✆14:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt you do but your position statement doesn't say what it is or why (only "...continue on down the list omitting only the 'Republic of Ireland'). It is the contents of your position statement that is being described by that tag line, not your preference (or so I thought at least).
In any case, are you sure it is option C you prefer first ("A general "all-Ireland" topic at Ireland. The island at Ireland (island). The state at Ireland (state).")? I thought it was D ("The island at Ireland. The state at Ireland (state)"). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a question of what I prefer and what to vote for. Clearly, the major problem is calling the state "RoI" as if that is it's name. Simply not acceptable. After that I might think Ireland (state) will get the most support but I'd prefer one article for one Ireland. Also Ireland (Republic) was dropped over my protestations (which were simply ignored), something to which we may need to return in due course. Sarah777 (talk) 18:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Sarah, you can profile me as Cookie Monster. Seriously though, I think people are over-reacting, as there's no 100% way to find out if one's British, Irish, Russian etc. GoodDay (talk) 20:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where is your tally? If you must put a category for me, put Finland. I am not a British subject nor an Irish citizen, nor do I have any loyalty to the Queen or the Irish President. The "F" in my user name stands for Finland. User F203 (talk) 23:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah, I hope you don't mind me giving you a wee piece of friendly advice. I think you should wait until the arbcom case finishes before putting this here. You don't want to give them any more ammunition. Jack forbes (talk) 23:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jack; as I said - this has nothing to do with any Arbcom case. The stats are becoming rather damning of the "we are all neutral Wikipedians" bilge; aren't they? Sarah777 (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jacks right Sarah, and so are you. Highlighting preferences on the basis of nationality is not going to diminish that tendency. Less said the better. RashersTierney (talk) 00:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am under no illusion that it will "diminish" the bias. (That might, in fact, be construed as "intimidation"!). What I seek to do here is illustrate it; quantitatively. So that denial becomes futile and the absurdity of claiming that there isn't any (per Masem) is exposed for what it is. Sarah777 (talk) 00:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's no longer about whether Wiki can deal with it or not. The consensus is that Wiki doesn't want profiling to occur, anywhere, while the vote is in progress. And it doesn't matter that you can argue that consensus is swayed by all those British editors, this place is run the way it is run, and that means you obey consensus. Perhaps had this table been on your Talk page all along, it could be argued that it couldn't influence votes, etc, but we're past that point now. This topic can hopefully be revisited when the vote is over. --HighKing (talk) 00:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nah. I'm with big Dunc on this. We are the targets of attempted bullying and intimidation (it obviously works in some cases). The vote has no legitimacy if my analysis (what you call "profiling) is censored. Regardless of any imagined "consensus" (can you show me the vote?) - or do you mean Masem? Facts don't change 'cos a few Wiki editors agree that they should be different. If you want to be part of a charade, off with you. I won't be following. Sarah777 (talk) 00:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your poll actually seems to show that as editing nations, Irish editor's votes are given ten times more weight on English Wikipedia than British editors, compared to in real life (20 Irish and 29 Brits in the poll, compared to 4 million Irish and 60 million Brits in the world), and that within their respective Wikipedia nationalist voting blocks, the Irish are much more biased than the British (14 out of 20 Irish tow the party line, compared to just 18 out of 29 Brits). So I'd say that your analysis shows this is actually a pretty fair fight, if looked at simply from a Anglo/Irish nationality POV. MickMacNee (talk) 01:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seriously thinking of following the lead of Dunc, Domer and other Irish editors and withdrawing my own vote, actually. Censorship is the enemy of democracy. And @Mick, I'd not describe objecting to calling a sovereign state article by a description, in a manner that implies the description is the actual name, "towing a line". I'd maybe call it "drawing a line". Sarah777 (talk) 11:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So what about people who are both? I'm not saying you are right with Irish, and I'm not saying you are wrong, and I'm not saying I'm both or neither either (sheesh that was a mouthful.) Canterbury Tailtalk20:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CT, anyone else from NI I'd have classed as British unless they had a disclaimer on their page! But rather than a disclaimer such folk usually say "I'm an Irish Citizen from Ulster (the whole Provence)". Irish nationalists from NI almost never self-identify as British or even Northern Irish. If they do, without a disclaimer, I have classed them as British. Except you. Sarah777 (talk) 20:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I thought "profiling" was a bit strong for what I was doing and couldn't see how it violated Arbcom. But will Masem ever forgive me? He seems to have taken it personally but it absolutely wasn't. Sarah777 (talk) 22:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I don't believe Masem has taken it personally, and I'd say on reflection, he's now more aware than previously of the tactics used by some editors to deliberately create a drama. He needed to preserve the integrity of the vote, and at one stage with people withdrawing votes and calling for your head, he also needed to move swiftly. Perhaps IMO he was too quick to bring an Arbcom case, but he did what he believed was right, impersonally and without malice. --HighKing (talk) 09:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just voted for F, and would not have known about the poll at all were it not for the kerfuffle about your pointy spreadsheet. Good luck determining my nationality, and ethnicity. --StaniStani 22:59, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest in it. But I note that you have voted "F" for spiteful reasons that have nothing to do with the issues. All this info will be useful in the final analysis. Sarah777 (talk) 23:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How have you identified the nationality of editors? And, given, that many editors are likely to be both Irish and British, how have you attributed such editors using this binary classification? Mooretwin (talk) 14:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I go by what they say on their own page. If they claim to be British and Irish (unusual occurance actually I've noted) then I go by where they say they live (if they say). NI=Br; Sovereign Ireland = Ir. Sarah777 (talk) 14:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's quite offensive that you disregard Irish people from Northern Ireland. How have you classified me, and why is this information not made public? Mooretwin (talk) 15:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lmao so when counting Irish people, its only counting those from the Republic of Ireland not the whole island of Ireland... rather misleading :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 15:03, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're getting a picture of why Sarah sees no problem in using "Ireland" to mean only the Republic! NI can just be disregarded as not Irish! Mooretwin (talk) 15:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now now, BigDunc. Just because Sarah is summarily dismissing half the population of Northern Ireland's claim to Irishness, that doesn't necessarily mean she's a defender of the British Empire. You'd really need a citation for that... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!15:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't. If a NI editor makes clear it isn't British (as many do) they count, obviously. It is, after all, British bias I am exposing so effectively. Which I know annoys you 'cos it shows much of your waffle to be just that. Sarah777 (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Sarah. I've been reading over your recent adventures in Wikiland, precipitated by this analysis. I'm Sorry I missed all the fun as it happened, but I was actually in Britain on some business (and am pleased to confirm that they are not all Nazi imperialists ;).
As someone who analyzes data for a living, I have to say I find your methodology slightly skewed. The whole point of a STV is to get away from enforcing individuals to make dichotomic choices and instead permit a more nuanced way of expressing preference or objection. Ignoring that data in your analysis makes its real value rather limited. Of course, doing it this way will maximize the differences between your groups of choice while minimizing the similarities. This is the point of doing it, I expect, given the analysis is to further a position, rather than test a hypothesis. Nevertheless, taken at face value (and with the caveat that the sampling is hardly rigorous) it is interesting that there does appear to be a increased primary preference for ROI among mainland British nationals compared with Irish nationals. What I find most interesting, though, is that you explain that difference as a "bias". On that basis, there is an argument to be made that the Irish aversion to ROI could also be a result of a "bias" since both deviate from the non-Irish/British group (though the n is currently too low to make any significant claims about the relative extents of deviation). Since the British group is most likely larger, their "bias" will have a relatively greater effect on the overall outcome, but your analysis missed the key statistic completely.
The real issue is not about F vs Not-F, its about F vs A,B,C,D or E. If you really want to determine whether a "bias" in either direction is going to effect the outcome of this, check what the proportion of the non-Irish/British vote is for each of the other options. Given there are currently 18 votes to be distributed among 5 options, I suspect that F may still be the easy winner (with 12). If that is the case, then its difficult to argue that British (or Irish) "bias" has any real effect on the outcome, statistically speaking. We'll have to wait and see, of course, but my feeling is that these "biases" will not change the overall order of preference from "neutrals", only the relative proportions. Ironically enough, it will probably be the Irish "bias" that counterbalances the British "bias" enough to ensure that doesn't happen. Rockpocket02:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rock. You may be shocked to learn, but I'm a reasonably competent statistician in RL! As the data is limited and not set up in an experimental template I am testing something I observed within months of arriving at Wiki in the Summer of 2006. The last real Summer we had in Ireland. There is a real hypothesis here - this is not plundering the variables to find a difference. I'm glad you survived your trip to the neighbouring island, but would like to remind you that I never said, ever, that all Britons were Nazis. Best to be clear about that, what with Arbom n'all. I must quibble that the real issue isn't F v Not F. The poll does not test that directly; but that is the real issue.
And yes, the results indicate that editors residing in sovereign Ireland are biased against RoI compared to the "other/unknows" but I think it reasonable that citizens of the country would be rather better informed about the problem with presenting RoI as a name, as En:Wiki does. It seems the Moderator, for one, was unaware of the problem. (The centrality of the position of the "Irish non-British" editors in all of this is shown by the contortions of obfuscation and illogicality by the prime defenders of the status quo - you'll note that they still can't bring themselves to admit what you clearly observed).
If we exclude British votes for F; it falls. There are a lot of tactical plonkers for F and I'd argue the status quo has an impossible advantage without a two-stage process so long as the British bias supports it.
A "reasonably competent statistician" would not be totally unaware of the importance of weighting raw data when trying to reach the neutral point of view. Especially if your aim is to prove a net effect of alleged bias on the poll, rather than simply claiming you have made a shocking discovery with your mathematical fumbling - that Irish editors and British editors have differing views over what 'Ireland' means. When this is the quality of the factual basis of your complaint, it is not surprising nobody listens to the non-factual allegations / accusations / theories / assumptions that always come with it. And please, do not confuse people giving you attention as them 'being scared of The Truth', I personally am merely concerned with stopping other editors being taken in by your borked analysis which is being used to back up your blatant POV agenda and belies your total lack of true objectivity. I am fully behind any initiative that gives the communtiy a chance to see your arguments/analysis in the full glare of publicity, complete with counter arguments, and your frequently absent/irrelevant responses to such. I like the tactical plonkers bit though, maybe as a side project you can do some more fumbling and help me understand which nationalities would vote for both B and D or vice versa, if their aim was to get Wikipedia to show definitively there is a primary use of the term Ireland as either a state or an island (I won't repeat your fallacy that Wikipedia article titles are always equivalent to official names). FYI, you voted D C A B E at last check. MickMacNee (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See below. The analysis of B, D etc is totally irrelevant to the problem of "RoI" as a name. And again your inability to analyse things logically leads to you creating Straw men - I never said that Irish editors and British editors have differing views over what 'Ireland' means. Let me repeat for slower folk in the British pov camp: Implying RoI is the name of the sovereign country is offensive, wrong and contrary to WP:NPOV. The name is maintained by the numerical preponderance of British voters and the fact that they heavily support imposing "F" as the article title. Maybe try reading that v.e.r.y s.l.o.w.l.y and see if that helps your comprehension? Sarah777 (talk) 20:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we exclude British votes for F; it falls. Problem is, Sarah, we exclude British votes for any of the other options, I'll bet they fall too. By the looks of things, F appears to be still the most popular option among those offered. There may well be a systemic bias by British editors, but there is no evidence here that this bias would impact this process. Rockpocket16:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Not C" has no relevance to the problem with RoI as a name. And I'm interested in your tally only in that if confirms that the preponderance of British votes going for "F" is imposing British pov on the title of the article about my country. Against the clear wishes of Irish editors. As it has since the start. Sarah777 (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...click the link, Sarah. Against the clear wishes of Irish editors? Click the link :-) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are becoming tedious (well, TBH, you always were since your hysterical referrals to me for RFCs etc). There are not 32 non-British Irish editors voting. This is not about what Unionists in NI would like to call the South - that is part of the British pov problem. Now, I have to get back to work so I'm accepting no further comments on this page about the poll for one week - they will be deleted with extreme prejudice (since I'm censored on the poll pages). I will update the facts; all chat will take place elsewhere. I realise that editors who only turn up to defend the British pov on a number of Ireland related articles have endless time to give to this; but I have real Wiki-work to do. Sarah777 (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing that maintains "RoI" is helping things, IMHO. It being British pov imposed on the article about my country by weight of numbers of British editors. As proven. Sarah777 (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're never gonna get a poll or discussion setup on Wikipedia, that 'excludes' British editors. Also, the current Poll is only a week old, things might change bye September -give it a chance-. GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't want that. What I want is that the clear evidence of pov imposition be taken on board, now that it is so graphically demonstrated (both by this poll and the non-use of the offensive RoI by a huge majority of other Wikis) be taken on board and WP:NPOV by upheld by the authorities. Sarah777 (talk) 20:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV tends to be in the eye of the beholder. What you perceive as British PoV, is viewed as NPoV by others. Also, what you consider NPoV, may be perceived as Irish PoV by others. How shall my preference be viewed by others? Canadian PoV? if so, then wouldn't that also be a problem? GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm accepting no further comments on this page about the poll for one week - they will be deleted with extreme prejudice (since I'm censored on the poll pages). I will update the facts; all chat will take place elsewhere. Starting now. Sarah777 (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LoL! As we know "British Isles" is another Anglo imposition; different part of the problem that is so graphically being illustrated here. Sarah777 (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I must correct you: didn't you know that per the defenders of British pov, Isles does not = islands? How can you not understand that?! Sarah777 (talk) 21:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Naw, British and Faeroe Isles wouldn't work. You see, Denmark reckons that the Faroes are not part of the continent of Europe - its its own mini-continent - which includes Rockall - which is why Denmark owns Rockall and we don't ClemMcGann (talk) 22:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now that you mention it, I have an 1836 British Encyclopedia. In its entry for the Falklands it has a governor appointed by Buenos Aires. However lets not open that lid ClemMcGann (talk) 23:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And to think that a British Nationalist of this ilk and ra, Bastun and DJ are in lock-step in imposing Britsh pov on Irish articles! Could we throw them out of IrlProj for "conduct unbecoming"?! Sarah777 (talk) 23:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That article appears to be about the British Isles, one editor earlier made changes to a couple of articles removing the term British Isles. I simply restored the previous wording. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No justification was given for the removal of the British Isles from the text, the same editor made exactly the same removal of the term on another article which was reverted by someone else. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that the official name is Eire in Gaelic or Ireland in English by the constitution, but plenty of Irish people, books, newspapers, etc. use Republic of Ireland, and that's how the country is generally known worldwide, not just by we Brits. Do you have any sources for the name Republic of Ireland causing significant offense? I did find a letter to a psychiatry journal noting that Eire shouldn't be used in English, and noting disapproval of Irish authors using the name "Republic of Ireland",[3] but they didn't seem offended by the use, rather they were being a stickler for strict accuracy by my reading. Fences&Windows00:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Context is everything. RoI is used as a dab in certain contexts, though it is by no means the most common one. In Ireland (south) itself, "The South" and "The North" are perhaps the commonest; even when the "RoI" is referenced people will usually say and write "The Republic" rather than RoI. Looking at the international media I can't agree; most MSM outlets refer to "Ireland" to mean either the island or the country and use "Nothern Ireland" as the main dab. The phrase the "island of Ireland" is also pretty common to mean the whole island. Regard soccer, the one area where RoI is used as an official title the newspapers in the country will often talk about games between Ireland and Northern Ireland. The background to the POV is that before the Good Friday Agreement, British legislation and Governmant had "RoI" as the legal name of the State despite the fact that an Irish Act explicitly stated that "RoI" was a description, not a name. As time progressed the simple term Ireland was assumed to mean the State over here but in Britain till the GFA it was steadfastly referred to as RoI. Sarah777 (talk) 01:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The South" and "The North" are colloquialisms, and I've heard that the phrase "Southern Ireland" isn't well accepted, and it's also inaccurate as parts of the Irish state are in Ulster and are more northerly than Northern Ireland... I had a look for recent news coverage using the term "Republic of Ireland", trying to exclude football. See [4]. The British press uses it, such as the BBC, Guardian, Independent, and many US sources use it too. On a quick search, I found a couple of Belfast Telegraph stories - I realise Belfast isn't in the Republic - and a couple of RTE stories. On a search of RTE, again excluding football, there are plenty of stories using "Republic of Ireland":[5]. In contrast, the Irish Times seems to have very few references:[6]
The Republic of Ireland Act 1948 says the state will be known as the "Republic of Ireland",[7] so it has been an official description and not one that caused any offence at the time, and it certainly wasn't imposed by a British point of view. The difference between a name and a description would seem semantic, and to rest on the fact that the act would have had to be a constitutional amendment to officially change the name. I think there's no dispute that the strict legal name of the state is "Ireland", but Wikipedia goes by the name commonly used internationally and not what a state rules, e.g. see Union of Myanmar.
I'd like to point out another motivation for British editors to be interested in Ireland other than nationalism, racism or imperialism: many British people feel a kinship to the Irish. Many of us have Irish ancestors, family, and friends, the Welsh, Scots and Cornish have a shared Gaelic heritage with the Irish, UK citizens don't need a passport to enter Ireland, and Irish citizens can even vote in UK general elections! We share a lot with the Irish, unfortunately including a shameful history of tramping over you for a few hundred years. Fences&Windows16:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My Little Spreadsheet
This is currently censored on the IrlProj pages:
It is a tally of #1 votes only. Keeping on eye the systematic bias angle: 149 votes so far. There are 56 users whose nationality is not identified on their their user page.
Some additional facts from the poll (latest update)
To confound some of the disinformation on the talk pages (where my analysis is censored) I have examined the entire list of ALL preferences, without weighting, by (non-British) Irish editors, of whom so far 21 have voted who self-identify as such on their page:
(This section is no longer meaningful as a quarter of the currently active Irish editors have pulled out of the process. Examination of the non-Irish votes may continue, if I can be bothered enough. The case is already proven on so many fronts).
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
Would somebody get this clown to remove his block? He is a participant in the debate" on the Ireland talk-page and has silenced an opponent. Sarah777 (talk) 10:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is so outrageous that I have no intention of playing games, If I use the "unblock" text some random Admin comes along, reads the statement cited, says "good block" and goes off to the next case. What I will be doing is seeking to get DrKiernan desysoped for monumental abuse of Admin powers. There are dozens of cases on the page in question of me being called everything under the sun - no intervention. I respond, an an active disputant blocks. Sarah777 (talk) 11:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) I hope this can be seen (rather quickly) to be a hasty block. Sarah was blocked for this comment with a block reason given as (Personal attacks or harassment: Accusing other editors of "lies". I've gathered together some examples of comments made where accusations of lies were made from the same pages.
A number of editors have made remarks using the word "lies" and in fact, some are rather more pointed that Sarah's!:
in light of the past use of the comment (it's nearly become a catchphrase ffs)
in light of DrKiernan not providing any warning to Sarah to stop using the phrase
in light of the fact that Sarah appears to be singled out from among a ton of editors
in light of the fact that DrKiernan, the blocking admin, is an involved editor
in light of the fact that far worse comments were made, and that Sarah had called attention to the fact that she was being called a liar, and still she ends up with the block.
Thank you HK - but I'd not ask Kiernan for a rope if I was drowning. I think if the clown doesn't lift this attack on the polling process of his own volition, he becomes part of the problem. Clearly the validity of any result is fading with every second the various watching Admins allow this politically motivated block to continue. Sarah777 (talk) 12:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Come back when you lift the block Chillum. Kiernan, F supporter, is attacking the poll, not just me. He is engaged in trying to intimidate Irish editors who oppose his POV. BW; pl stay away. Sarah777 (talk) 13:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support unblock per HighKing. Instead, warn her, BritishWatcher and me to be more civil (R.A. has already become more careful with his language), because we've all used the term "in anger". BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!13:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c)(outdent)I received a response to my request for DrKiernan to reconsider on DrKiernan's Talk page. It's clear he is not willing to reconsider rescinding the block. It's also clear that (as per Sarah777's comment above) an admin (Chillum), appears to be hanging around ready to pounce to endorse the block (as his comment already, in effect, does).
The comments from Chillum and DrKiernan point out that Sarah has called DrKiernan a clown, but this event occurred after the block. Quoting it as a reason for the block doesn't make sense.
DrKiernan states that he is not an involved editor in this, but it has been pointed out that he has responded twice to comments made by Sarah, and has his own subpage of poll results, so it seems to me that DrKiernan is involved.
DrKiernan says that The previous breaches all occurred in the past. It is against policy to block editors for breaches which occurred more than 24 hours ago. I wasn't aware it was against policy - nice to know - but my examples above were to demonstrate how the phrase "lies and misinformation" had practically become a catchphrase on the Talk page, and wasn't an exhaustive list of all mentions of the word "lie".
Less that 24 hours earlier BritishWatcher stated in response to Sarah but less than 10 minutes later you were continuing ur crap that Republic of Ireland is British POV. thats a lie and ClemMcGann replied with Please refrain from using the word "lie".
I can also produce a number of examples from the same talkpage of recent name calling: for example being called "mere bullyboys". Or is there really a difference between using "lies" and stating you continue to say misleading things? Or referring to some editors opinions as catering to the personal hang-ups of editors? So it's also clear that the 24 hours excuse doesn't wash either.
Ah! I see Chillum found an excuse to step in. I suppose if I called Chillum a clown I'd get away with it because I'm not Sarah, right? Chillum, your latest block shows you to belong to the same merry band of clowns, in the same merry circus, as DrKiernan. Your block below makes a farce of what admin tools are for. --HighKing (talk) 14:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually HighKing I did not block Sarah, I adjusted an existing block to prevent her from getting her block extended through her behavior. Any further comments to me can be done on my talk page, not Sarah's thank you. Chillum14:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that blocking this page before a single unblock request has been filed makes this a farce and abuse of admin tools. --HighKing (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm ... as comments go that one seemed fairly innocuous in the stream of things. Sarah's behavior may have be far from stellar on that page but that comment in particular is a fairly dud reason for a block. Also I don't think that a block is in the spirit of a fair vote unless someone complained about something. Also, DrKiernan was a contributor to WP:IECOLL, he/she is not an uninvolved admin. I think Masem should be the only admin with privilege to police that page. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because you have chosen to ignore my warnings not to use this page for personal attacks while blocked or any other time and decided to continue doing so, I have removed your ability to edit this page.
You will regain the ability when you block has expired. If you continue engaging in personal attacks after your block you will receive another block. Further warnings to you are not needed as you are fully aware of these policies now.
Any criticisms on the actions of the blocking admin can be made by discussing the facts, personal attacks are not needed to get the scrutiny you desire and they are not tolerated either. Chillum14:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a laugh, especially the bit about personal attacks not being tolerated. Take a look at the list I posted above to see how well personal attacks are tolerated. It has been suggested on my Talk page to file at ANI. Is that what is required to get this looked at, especially considering that Sarah hasn't even been allowed the opportunity to file a single unblock request. --HighKing (talk) 14:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah knows how to ask for an unblock through e-mail, this has been demonstrated. She is not being denied review, just the ability to engage in personal attacks on Wikipedia. Thank you. Chillum15:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't there ample precedent of not counting post-block insults against the blocking admin as effecting a block? I'm sure I've seen it cited it lots of times before, and in fact seen it described as something to be expected and ignored. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!15:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the original 24 hour block was unfair considering all the comments on that page although considering her previous blocks, her actions on the poll talk page could long ago of been considered disruptive and had her stopped from posting on the talk page of the poll. I dont consider stopping Sarah from making offensive comments by calling people clowns unfair, she didnt just do it once and there is no justification for it. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blocking the use of a talkpage and use of emails makes matters worse - increases frustration and adds fuel to the fire. Please end it.--Vintagekits (talk) 08:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Block review?
Sarah, would you like me (or someone else) to start a block review thread at AN or ANI? You should decide that, since it has a theoretical chance of backfiring, and since you might be pursuing things by email already. HansAdler17:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It should go to ANI review, one of the basic rules is that an admin who is a participant in a debate should not be blocking someone on the other side. --SnowdedTALK20:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually guidelines on this say to use normal dispute resolution, and then if that fails take on to a request for comment on use of admin tools, or to ANI. However at this point (she's unblocked) ANI would not be appropriate as there's nothing that would require immediate intervention by others admins', ie unblocking. Thus use discussion with the blocking admin, and if there were to fail use the dispute resolution process. Cheers. Nja24709:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response to your e-mails
Hi Sarah. I prefer to communicate on wiki so that there is a public record. I will gladly receive e-mails, but unless there are privacy issues I prefer not to respond by e-mail. Once your block has expired you are welcome on my talk page to discuss the issues surrounding this block or anything else. Chillum00:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm attempting to understand Chillum. I can't locate the RfA for Chillum. Is there one? If not: who appointed him? and why? This might explain his arrogance ClemMcGann (talk) 02:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to speak with me post a message on my talk page. I am not about to have a discussion with people on a talk page of a person who is blocked and cannot edit it. Chillum02:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Block Log
03:42, 30 May 2007 – blocked for 3RR which turned out not to be.
03:32, 3 June 2007 – blocked by Admin with whom I was in dispute . Used the formal appeal box to explain that block was a mistake only for an Admin to summarily reject it without explanation. Dispute with him followed and he then blocked me for posting a comment on his page.
07:48, 22 December 2007 – blocked by a warring Admin with whom I was in dispute on “List of Massacres” who was subsequently blocked for his warring by another Admin!
22:18, 25 January 2008 – blocked by Admin with whom I was in dispute
22:27, 25 January 2008 – not a separate block; a variation of the one below due to some sort of edit conflict.
16:36, 23 February 2008 – blocked for comment “sod off” in dispute with an Admin (by other Admin)
01:07, 28 February 2008 – blocked by Admin with whom I was in dispute
00:24, 27 May 2008 – this was for “edit warring” on the “Years in Ireland” series, though I was restoring articles that I has created and had been removed without any process. This led to about a month block, for, essentially nothing.
11:46, 11 August 2009 – political block; in dispute with the blocker
So, we have eight separate blocks; the first a mistaken 3RR after I'd been a year here. Four of the next five were by Admins I was in dispute with and one by an uninvolved Admin for saying "sod off" to another Admin. The next block was bizarre; I was restoring a set of articles I had worked on for months which were deleted without process and got an indefinite block which lasted for a month. And now we have another block by a Admin in dispute. So one mistaken block for 3RR in May 2007 is built upon by warring Admins, each citing the earlier bad blocks. No edit warring. No disruption of articles. Nothing except a refusal to surrender to abuse random "civility" blocks by editors in dispute with me. From about the third block forward Admins started to justify their abuse by citing "the block record". I demand that this record of harassment and intimidation be purged.
I would like to express my appreciation for all the support I got during my recent quietness. Especially to Bastun, who despite being so utterly wrong on issues of nomenclature is a pretty sound bloke. Sarah777 (talk) 10:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The process
I'd like to remind editors that the ArbCom ruling does *not* result in an article title lockdown for 2 years, but instead is to agree a "process" whereby agreement is reached. A vote for "F", in my view", is a vote to *not* agree a compromise, and a vote to *not* solve the problem.
I'd like to endorse this statement from High King.
