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)
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]
