User talk:Rockpocket/Archive 25

Hey!
Hey Rockpocket, I just wanted to tell you that I was editing again, and I'm considering tracking you down and forcing you to start editing again :D. You were the best adopter ever; you helped me a lot when I was completely lost half the time, and I just wanted to thank you for that.-- daniel folsom  19:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Daniel. Its good to see you back! I'm still around, albeit only editing intermittently. Feel free to drop me an email if there is anything I can help you with. Rockpock  e  t  06:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk:86.42.119.12 trolling
Can you look at this his talk page? He removed my Warnings headings to him, and a warning comment by somebody else too (here) This IP is treating British Isles like a playground (he made a way-too-personal section called 'Matt Lewis' at BI - which I removed to my talk and warned him about) and I don't really want my hard work scrolled out of view by a party-time IP. He's flirting with Sarah (see his talk - funny in a way) - but it's all a recipe for disaster. We have to try and keep this serious.--Matt Lewis (talk) 02:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I also had a problem with him a week or so ago. He randomly picked the page of someone named Sean (Sean Lennon) to POV-push his argument that the name should be spelled and pronounced the way he wanted it spelled and pronounced, not the way the parents spell or pronounce it. The actual issue of spelling and pronunciation is beside the point, of course. I was trying to get him to understand that talk pages are not for making arguments that have nothing to do with the article, but he would have none of it and began accusing me of violating Wikipedia policy. He's shaping up into quite a POV-pusher. Thanks for your help. Ward3001 (talk) 02:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * For better or worse, he is permitted to remove whatever he wants from his talk page (although should not misrepresent others by editing their comments). I do think his contributions to the British Isles debate are driven by a political POV, rather than a concern for out policies and processes. That shows in his politicizing of the discussion, casting the debate in terms of British Imperialism vs Irish nationalism. I have asked him to refrain from that, and if he continues then I will remove future soapboxing comments. If he can drop the rhetoric, then he has as much right to discuss this as anyone else. If he can't then he will be restricted from contributing.
 * Frankly, though, he can only carry on this sort of debate if people engage with him. My advice would be to address the policy or process issue only, and simply ignore all the political nonsense. The article is not going to get moved because the term offends some Irish people. Period. The nature of this situation is that we are never going to have an end of these sorts of discussions, so lets just deal with them as the come about. Pin down exactly what he is proposing, then oppose or support it depending on whether it is policy compliant, and move on without getting involved in political discussions. Eventually he will get bored when he realizes that he is not going to get what he wants and move on himself. I wouldn't let him get to you.
 * I note also that he has formed a habit of using talk pages for general discussion on the subjects, rather than about improving the articles. I can try and have a word with him about that, but I'm not particularly confident that it would do much good. I'll keep and eye on things for a while, and if his future contributions prove to be non-constructive then perhaps something more can be done. I'm probably not the best person to ask to use tools on this, though, as I've withdrawn from an administrative role in relation to this subject. It simply isn't worth, ahem, The Troubles it causes. Rockpock  e  t  02:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This guy is not going to get bored and run off, that much is certain: he is almost certainly a sock account. He helped get this article locked again by edit warring, and will do so again in the future.

Was what he said about me on the BI talk page really acceptable? ("Trust me, any satisfaction you find on wikipedia will be ephemeral if you have achieved little in the real world on your own merits. That is undoubtedly your real problem, and your disproportionate anger here reflects that real-world situation.") - I moved it to my talk to reply to: he placed it in a section with my name on it in BI talk. I'm not that sensitive to comments like that - but from a 'party time' IP I don't like it at all. He didn't swear - but it was very 'under the skin'. He's no idea what I do or don't do in the 'real world' - and he seems to not like me personally (I'm sure he's a sock).

PS I've spent a lot of my time on trying to unlock this article - it's a bit, er, galling to be told it's not worth the trouble. That's attitude (which many share) is why it is in the flipping mess it is! --Matt Lewis (talk) 03:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know if it is a sock account. I doubt you would be able to get an CU, unless you have a very good idea who it is, but you could always try Alison - she has experience of similar troublemakers.
 * I don't think that comment is acceptable and I think you did the right thing in removing it to your talk page (personally, I would have removed it entirely). Its aim was very likely to get under your skin, which is the very reason why you shouldn't let it get under your skin. But you are right, this sort of personal attack is extremely nonconstructive, and should not be tolerated. If he does it again, got to AN and request action. I'm sure there will be a taker.
 * Finally, I meant it was not worth the trouble that this subject has caused for me, personally, and my family (the threats of violence, the posting of personal details, the off-wiki abuse etc.) for me to continue to volunteer my time keeping the warring parties apart anymore. Its great that you wish to improve this article, but I'm afraid I, personally, am no longer willing to use my tools under such risk. Especially when its clear that the community and its elected leaders abjectly fail to support those admins who reap the real-life whirlwind by unwittingly blocking a crazy stalker. I'm sorry you find that galling, but thats how I feel, and with very good reason. Rockpock  e  t  04:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * But that said, against my better judgment, I'll try and have a word with the editor to see if we can give him a few pointers on how to be a more effective editor. Rockpock  e  t  04:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't connect your last line with the one before it, I'm afraid - and I had no idea you had been through all that! I'll go somewhere else if I need to - so you don't have to deal with him, and if he's a sock I'll get him sooner or later. I'm willing to get only a couple of hours sleep to do things like that! I have a feeling that citing WP (though it always needs to be done) will be a bit of a waste of time with this one. --Matt Lewis (talk) 05:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I have done the AGF thing and pointed out what is, and is not cool. I guess we will see how serious the IP is about contributing by his response to some friendly advice. I'd ask you give him a chance to take this on board, but if we continue to see more of the same then I think that Requests for arbitration/The Troubles might be an appropriate first step. I think the his obvious British/Irish political take on things makes him an appropriate candidate for this probation. Rockpock  e  t  05:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That seemed fair enough - cheers. I've not heard of the probation (I generally don't edit in Ireland itself as such (the whole island), but have felt a bit forced to go there recently, largely over naming issues) - I'll follow the link.--Matt Lewis (talk) 05:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * To help things out at British Isles and at the IP page? I shall cease communicating with the IP, Rock. Sometimes my not taking it seriously approach hurts (rather then helps) the situation. I'm putting away my Groucho glasses, nose & mustache. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll try and avoid this article until I have something new on it. If you have been through that personal stuff on this issue, perhaps you can understand how I feel by comparing me to what you may have felt yourself, before. What I don't want is to be told its six of one and half a dozen of the other! I have put a lot of work into this: WP:BITASK (which is on hold due to issue surrounding this: WP:IDTF). Ultimately, 'British Isles' is the core article, and if it can't be dealt with properly before a BI guideline goes through the ratifying process, I'll take it as high as I posibly can. All my eggs will be in one basket - but I'm willing to do it. I've resigned from Wikipedia for a month over this issue (during that so-called "Dave Souza" proposal - an off-shoot of my own - which a line up of dissenters voting for no change). - if anything is able to defeat an honest editor it is this singularly lawless article.--Matt Lewis (talk) 10:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said, I do appreciate how frustrating it can be. The problem is that by getting annoyed and arguing back in those terms, you are simply moving further away from constructive editing. The more personal it becomes, the less objective you can be.
 * I have now removed a further example of soapboxing by an IP. If he continues along those lines, turning every section into a screed about Irish oppression, I will recommend he be placed on ArbCom restriction from commenting on that page. However, if you are there calling people "cowards" there is every likelihood you would be restricted too. So my advice is if you find yourself getting worked up over this, take a break and edit somewhere else for a while. It will still be here when you have cooled off a bit. Rockpock  e  t  00:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

He seems to be at it again Rockpocket. Look at the bottom section of the talk page and his latest rants, including what looks like PAs against annother editor (I don't read gaelic, but the tone and placement of the words doesn't give me good feelings) -- Narson ~  Talk  • 17:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If I now know who he is, then unquestionably Rockpocket does. I can't wait to leave this place - it's a bloody wreckage. I'm crawling on 1% AGF - it will take me to October and I'm FREEEE!!!! --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Matthew, Are you physically chained to wikipedia's Irish pages until October? You are saying quite peculiar things, and being extraordinarily paranoid. If I were chained to this discussion I would be quite disturbed by your behaviour. You do not know who I am. I do not know who I am. Somebody suggested elsewhere that you should take a break. You would take a weight off yourself if you took that advice. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 10:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've lost 'all patients' with IP.86 and IP.79 (over their refusal to sign-in) as seen at British Isles. I no longer choose to respond to them (until they sign-in). GoodDay (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

My RFA
You must be extremely sick of me right? 2 failed RFA attempts - yikes; I'm very sorry that you (seemingly pointlessly) voted support for me in both of them, but I want you to know that I really appreciate it. You were a great adopter and you're a great friend, so I really appreciate any feedback, positive or negative, that you've ever given - it has undoubtably shaped who I am as a Wikipedian more than any other event or person. Thank you so much, and I wish you the best, -- daniel folsom  03:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Daniel. I have been rather disenchanted with Wikipedia recently, but have been unable to withdraw completely so instead have been lurking around, editing anonymously in obscure articles miles away from the politics and egos of wiki-management. That certainly put adminship in perspective.
 * I think you should take a lot of positives from your RfA. A lot of the neutrals and opposes indicated that time is likely all they need before being able to support. I would suggest you take some time to reflect on the advice offered and then continue doing what you are doing: good editing. At some point in the not too distant future someone will re-evaluate your potential and nominate you again. Rockpock  e  t  03:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome
While I am not sure you are having any fun, given that you seem to have been seduced back to troubled waters, it is reassuring to see your name pop up again. ៛ Bielle (talk) 03:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. On the BI talk page.  Do people have to continue being insulted and attacked by this Matt Lewis character? Is that how the page is being allowed to work? 89.129.143.60 (talk) 10:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Bielle. Yes, I've been drawn back - for a while. Oh, and thanks for your spelling correction over there. I though you may work it out, but not that quickly! Rockpock  e  t  00:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Never underestimate old women, especially those who have spent a lot of years reading a lot of books! ៛ Bielle (talk) 04:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Words of wisdom are always welcome. The Thunderer (talk) 19:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

sorry to hear
Thought you were always: concerned, thoughtful, sharp as a knife, and pretty well the most helpful admin on the board. Hope I can squeeze out just an ounce of help. I've got a simple one for you. A medical contributor is seeking to shape an article. Many of the edits have been good. The sticking point is that he only wants to let medical peer reviewed info to be used as references. I've cited to the Mayo clinic for the adhd article and he won't allow that or the info that was in the article. A lot of good work could be done if we were on the same page. Right now it's getting silly. Is there a straightforward link here that explains web page based info and citations? Help would be appreciated but I understand if none comes.--scuro (talk) 03:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

IP accounts
Hello Rockpocket. Excuse my blowing off steam 'tis morning, but IP.86 & IP.79 deliberately choosing to remain anons, is annoying the heck out of me. Therefore, I'm choosing to ignore them (and will now ignore IP.62) - when & only when they sign-in, will I recognize them in such heated discussion like those at British Isles & Republic of Ireland. -- GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually Rock, the more I think about it? I think I shall leave those discussions at Republic of Ireland & British Isles - unless of course, those IP accounts sign-in. PS- going by the mood I'm in? it's best that I do leave those discussion. GoodDay (talk) 18:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have an issue with communicating with editors editing from static IPs. Thats their choice, and our current policies permit them to do so unless they are signing out from an account just to comment anonymously. If that is going on, then we should be able to deduce who the people are by looks at contribs. But I've yet to hear too much in the way of constructive dialogue from IP.86 recently. Until he starts addressing issues about articles, rather than using talk pages to vent his personal opinion about geo-politics, there is little to be gained by responding to him, either as an IP or under an account name. If you are getting annoyed by it, then walking away for a while is probably the best course of action. I assure you, the same arguments will being going on whenever you choose to return. Rockpock  e  t  18:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My choice of ignoring the veteran IPs in question. Is it permissable for me to answer them (in future) with sign-in first & I'll respond? GoodDay (talk) 18:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, if you want. But it is also permissible for them to point you towards Welcome anonymous editing in return. Rockpock  e  t  18:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A grudge match, to be sure. I'll follow your cooling off advice. Thanks for letting me growl & grumble (here). GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. Kinda scary the way that Matt Lewis follows people around, eh?  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABritish_Isles&diff=239836769&oldid=239831435  79.155.245.81 (talk) 22:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow. Isn't that page where you have been engaging with him all the time? Rockpock  e  t  01:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe that he's trying to bait me and to figure out who I am, which is not allowed - AFAIK. He's trying to use IP addresses to figure things out.  Good luck to him!  79.155.245.81 (talk) 07:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Is that what the rather cryptic reference to a dog is all about? If it bothers you that someone is trying to identify you from an IP address, there is an obvious solution.... create an account! Otherwise just ignore the references to other accounts. If you aren't don't anything wrong, policy wise, then there is nothing to be concerned about. Rockpock  e  t  23:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

British Isles
I support your compromise at British Isles, Rock. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I applaud your bravery, linking Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 23:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, is that likely to be controversial? Seems rather obvious to me that the article on the island of Ireland should be linked to while referring to the island of Ireland? Who do you predict will have a problem with that? Rockpock  e  t  23:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Those who argue against the name British Isles, would rather Ireland being removed. PS- I hope I'm wrong about possible reverting of the link. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * How tiresome. As if removing links is going to change anything! Its irredentism gone mad. Rockpock  e  t  23:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, have you noticed at the article Ireland, there's no mention of it being the second largest island of the British Isles. I'm one fellow, who ain't gonna add it. GoodDay (talk) 23:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Very wise G'Day as that would be silly and blatantly provocative. In fact the term "British Isles" used to include "Ireland" is a prime example of irredentism gone mad. Sarah777 (talk) 14:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. The British Isles article could (again) use some admin oversight.  TharkunColl has returned and immediately started an edit-war.  79.155.245.81 (talk) 09:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear me. I missed all the fun. Still, it makes a nice change that, this time, the complaint is over Anti-British POV instead of Anti-Irish. All seems to be well again, until 3 October anyway. Rockpock  e  t  21:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Domer
Rock (I have left this on both Fozzie and Alisons pages as they seem involved but both appear to be adopting a "don't reply" policy). I want to draw your attention to what I believe  is a an abusive attack on Domer48. His has had his ability to talk on his own page removed for spurious reasons; he has had a punitive block imposed on the outrageous charge of "template abuse". So, yet another Irish editor who is seeking to remove British pov from Ireland-related articles is being silenced? Is this how Wiki generates "consensus"? Block all the dissenting voices? (Are you still an Admin, btw?) Sarah777 (talk) 14:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think protecting Domer's page was particularly clever to be honest, but its expired now anyway. I expect he is just taking as break. As far as I can tell he was blocked for another WP:3RR violation, not "template abuse", so there isn't much reason to think it was aimed at silencing an Irish editor. I still have admin buttons, yes, but choose not to advertise the fact since some editors see it as license to abuse. Rockpock  e  t  22:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rock, back later, talk then. -- Domer48 'fenian'  07:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Lordy Rock - I hope you aren't suggesting I'd abuse you more because you're an Admin??? Sarah777 (talk) 19:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I wasn't referring to you. Rockpock  e  t  19:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

More of it
I have returned after a 48 hour gap to hear that I'm placed under discretionary sanctions for a month. No reason given except "edit warring" (which I haven't done). I was asked  to comment on the Domer case which I did and apparently then get "punished" for doing so. What are discretionary sanctions? Sarah777 (talk) 09:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, this Tznkai chap has certainly has some cojones. Dealing out blanket sanctions to warring Irish/British editors and the having temerity to block Giano all in the same day. Talk about a death wish. And true to form Giano was unblocked pronto and his harpies are already sharpening their knives to enact revenge. Good to know it is situation normal on Wikipedia.


 * Discretionary sanctions are those that an uninvolved admin are allowed to impose per the Troubles ArbCom ruling, if they think editors are engaging in editing patterns that that ruling was meant to stop. Such as the edit-warring over at Ulster Defence Regiment. It does seem somewhat odd that you got dragged into this, what edits exactly is your inclusion based based on? I would advise you get that information from Tznkai, since if you don't know what edits he considers problematic, its not clear how you can make sure you don't repeat them.


 * Ultimately, I think Tznkai is trying to resolve a real problem with the best of intentions. He isn't the first admin to try this blanket approach and I doubt he will be the last, but I don't think it will have the outcome he hopes. I'm not sure what process you would invoke to remove these sanctions, perhaps a consensus of editors agreeing that it is unjustified might work. Unfortunately for you, you don't have the sycophantic hordes to do your bidding for you, so generating such a consensus may be a problem. Alternatively, just keep your head down for a month and let this expire.
 * Still (notwithstanding the fact that sanctions should be properly justified) I don't think 1RR is a bad road to go down when editing Troubles related articles. I too spent some time editing the Ulster Defence Regiment article recently. While I seem to have escaped the sanctions, I wouldn't really have a problem with adhering to 1RR, especially if it made the other editors appreciate that reverting is not a constructive way to resolve disagreement. Sometimes you have to take one for the team. Rockpock  e  t  02:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah Rockpocket - "Harpies""!!! finally succumbing to the urge to assume bad faith again "Giano was unblocked pronto and his harpies are already sharpening their knives to enact revenge. " I see no-one trying to exact revenge, if you feel it is fine for a clueless Admin to strut about the site blocking here, there and everywhere not even knowing how to work the software, then so be it, but I am certainly not calling for revenge, as I feel Wikipedia has the Admins it deserves - speaking of which are you still one? Giano (talk) 07:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * One doesn't have to assume when one has had firsthand experience of it. Since attracting the attention of the aforementioned attack dogs, I have made every effort to avoid you and your fiefdom. Please afford me the same courtesy and stay away from my talk page, as I have in interest in interacting with you after your shameful behaviour a few months back. Rockpock  e  t  17:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Rock, I would almost have to agree (well, maybe 'almost' is a bit of an understatement!) on the generality of Admins. Please see my talkpage for details on this Tznkai person; he was edit warring himself even as he blocked me !!! for...eh..something. He isn't quite sure. My past record, preemption, my general demeanor - something, anything. Could you block him for edit warring? Or remove his asinine probation he imposed on me? "Heads down" isn't really an option; what I see is more and more Admins disgracing themselves as this drags out. Regards Sarah777 (talk) 08:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I didn't actually breach 1RR, that is the irony of this; I was sanctioned for (maybe) 1RR - when I was under no such restriction. I am open to any suggestion for the future , so long as it applies to everyone. But this current probation must be removed unconditionally. A grovelling apology by T might also help (though personally I don't reckon he's fit to be an Admin. Believe me I'm no fan of some of those "Harpies" (the drone who unblocked Giano wants me banned for life because I wrote a reply to an essay he wrote); but seriously Rock, in this case if something isn't done about my "probation" (and preferably about T)...well..... Sarah777 (talk) 08:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I can't block him for edit-warring because as far as I am aware that article is not under general sanction. I'll try and read through the diffs and the discussion on your talk page and then have a word with Tznkai to see whether these sanctions are justified. If, after reading though everything, I don't agree with his reasoning, then I'll be happy to express that opinion on the relevant pages, but I don't think I can unilaterally lift that sanction. There needs to be some agreement to do so. In the meantime, try and stay cool. I understand unfair sanctions are galling, but if you haven't been edit-warring and have no intention of edit warring, then 1RR should have no appreciable effect on your editing. Rockpock  e  t  17:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Sarah777 et al
My report for Sarah777 is reasonably complete User:Tznkai/desk/Reports/The_Troubles_9-30-08_Sanctions. Please read, and feel free to ask me any questions you find necessary. Off wiki through IRC communication is faster, and is available, but my rationale for laying sanctions on Sarah777 is there. The report has been exhausting, and I apologize for the lack of speed with which it is coming.--Tznkai (talk)


 * I apologize for the lack of speed - Tznkai. Why not apologise for a lack ot rationality? Or a lack of any defensible reason to sanction me? Speed wasn't a problem when you demanded a reply and sanctioned me before I could reply. Speed wasn't a problem when you posted pathetic self-justifications. Recant or resign; I'll leave the choice to you. Sarah777 (talk) 23:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You are certainly thorough,Tznkai, I'll give you that. I don't dispute the examples of less-than-harmonious editing you cite with regards to Sarah or any of the others. However, I don't particularly see the combined weight of them as sufficiently convincing to merit sanctions, at least in Dunc and Sarah's case. Sarah wasn't edit warring, so imposing 1RR on her seems entirely arbitrary. Most of the issues you take with her are based on her propensity to discuss pretty much anything Wiki-related in a geo-political context. I don't see merit in that POV, and have told Sarah that many times, but how does a 1RR sanction resolve this? It doesn't, but what it does do is add fuel to her considerable fire.
 * As for BigDunc (and perhaps to some extent, Domer), both had acknowledged that there editing patterns had been seen as problematic in the past, and both has taken distinct steps to address that. I realise you were probably not aware if that, but I can provide you the emails we exchanged discussing this. There has been progress here and while I also realise that there are still issues they need to work on, I think sanctions now will probably hinder rather than help that.
 * That all said, I excused myself from administrative duties with regards to the Troubles because I realised you cannot win. No matter what you do in good faith to help, someone will be there to criticize and undermine you. I don't want to be part of that process any more, so I'm content to have expressed my opinion, mainly because 1RR is good practice on such contentious articles, and having editors adhere to that can only improve the stability of articles. On the anticipation that these sanctions stick, I'm going to advise the parties to move forward and demonstrate to you that they are no longer needed and can be lifted in the not too distant future. I hope they can convince you of that. (Oh, and I removed Giano's further attempt to stir the pot, if he can't express his displeasure politely, he can do it elsewhere. One thing I do agree with him is on using IRC for conducting wiki-business. I'm afraid I don't use it.) Rockpock  e  t  23:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Rock, we disagree, I think (and hope) respectfully. But this sanction must be lifted; I am fed up of the cumulative affect - each sanction then used to justify the next one (as seen in Tznkai's rationalisation). Just look at Fozzie (who knows me well) talking about 3RR!! J-Zeus-K! I NEVER did a 3RR in 27,000 edits bar one effing error! And even Fozzie doesn't realise that. That is why I cannot and will not let this sanction pass. Sarah777 (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm hopeful Tznkai will reflect upon this after digesting the opinions being offered, Sarah. I do think there is a growing number of voices expressing concern over your involvement. Tznkai has shown himself to be methodical and thorough, and I'm sure he will take the comments onboard. Patience may prove to to be a virtue here. Rockpock  e  t  23:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * And btw, Giano isn't "windiing me up". The sheer injustice of this situation is winding me up. I don't need any help to get wound up. Sarah777 (talk) 23:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I'll take five and do a stub on the Rxxx Road. Respect Rock. :) Sarah777 (talk) 23:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Good idea, if that doesn't calm you down, nothing will. I was referring to him stirring the IRC issue into the mix, not trying to stir you up. Giano et al like to spread the meme that all admins use IRC to operate a conspiracy against those special people that write outstanding articles on old houses, Russian history or some other terribly important subject. Well, he can espouse that nonsense with his buddies on his own page, but with them having, ridiculously, tried to pin that on me in the past, it is not welcome here. Rockpock  e  t  00:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I added a pic to Timahoe instead. I find it oddly calming........Sarah777 (talk) 00:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent)I apologize for not getting back to you sooner. As for communications methods, I try to be flexible as possible, and IRC provides speed, and I'm willing to provide logs (with all parties involved permission) if transparency is an issue, but whatever medium you prefer. As to the rest: my report on Sarah777 is essentially complete, as is my rationale, and as surprising or galling as this may be to some people: I stand by my reasoning. I do not stand behind my atrocious grammar, but I am tired, and still have a great deal more thoroughness to complete. In as plain text as I can manage: including Sarah777 was a borderline case. Her various behaviors said that she was likely to cause a ruckus, but she wasn't involved in most of the edit wars themselves. I believe based what attitudes on proper on wiki behavior Sarah777 has displayed, that edit warring was likely in the future. Looking forward, I intend to finish the report while discussion continues on what is proper, and if my decision is overturned, thats fine too. I've made my position known, and I will not wheel war. I do not intend however, to overturn my own decision as the conversation continues. Hopefully more voices will chime in with solutions. If someone disagrees with that there is no clear consensus, I have no intention of perusing the issue further.--Tznkai (talk) 00:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You were certainly thorough in making your reasoning clear; I guess we simply draw different conclusions. Which is fine. Its appears now that a modified version of your proposal is drawing wide support, so this discussion is now perhaps redundant. But thanks for your prompt responses and good luck to you. Rockpock  e  t  23:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggested 1RR across Troubles articles
Taking a break from the troubles above.. I'm curious to see what you think of my proposal on AE for placing the articles themselves under 1 RR, and requiring more civility. The problem is that new editors get pulled into it, and we need to break EVERYONE of the habit of edit-warring. The first thing they should do when they get reverted from now on should be to seek a WP:30, no matter how unjustified the revert seems... I'm tired of seeing the constant battles. This will also snare some of the newer members as they get involved, at some point it probably seems like a game to some of them, new accounts get a unfair advantage over existing editors with regards to restrictions. SirFozzie (talk) 23:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've addressed that Foz; but the issue of Tznkai won't go away. What are you doing about his "sanction" of me? What are you doing about him? Sarah777 (talk) 23:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Making sure Rock saw it. I've made my suggestion to Tznkai (Twice now actually, via IRC when he asked me my thoughts on the whole thing, and on AE). I would say, Sarah that there doesn't seem to be consensus for the probation of you, but I sincerely HOPE that you won't take it as a charge that you can now get away with 3 reverts, or referring to opposing editors in colorful terms. SirFozzie (talk) 23:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I ever did three reverts once in my entire time on Wiki, and that was accidental. As for editors; if they are abusing towards me, and appear immune to any sanction from "the Community", I'll produce the full rainbow. Sarah777 (talk) 23:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I do think that is a good idea, Foz. In fact, I suggested something similar myself with regards to the UDR article . When I tried WP:30 with Domer and The Thunderer, we seemed to make some progress, particularly when I was online and able to douse the sparks as they were forming. The problem came when I wasn't around, and they wound each other up with revert warring and there was no third opinion to calm things down. Perhaps a 1RR restriction on specific articles would be sufficient to stop those sparks forming, and force the participants to cool off while waiting for a third opinion. It may also curb the worrying number of IPs and new editors that have appeared recently and immediately got stuck into old battles. Rockpock  e  t  23:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Help needed
Rock, see this mess! The correct name is M1 motorway (Republic of Ireland) but the redirects are back-to-front. Sarah777 (talk) 21:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, forget it! The dab pages are all wrong now; I'll fix it myself! Sarah777 (talk) 21:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The Photographer
The gentle voice of Rockpocket might be very helpful with this enthusiastic newcomer. I answered a question he put on the Ref Desk Reference desk/Humanities about his new form. I think he is in the wrong place, if for no other reason than he will not like the terms under which he would need to release any images he uploaded. If you have a moment, perhaps you might guide him. If not, someone will, though possibly with less finesse. ៛ Bielle (talk) 05:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello Bielle. I feel rather bad for neglecting our correspondence recently, I'll send you an email soon. I promise. In the meantime, I've re-iterated your advice to our intrepid photographer. Rockpock  e  t  07:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi there, Rockpocket! Not a problem about the correspondence. Doubtless I have more free time than you do. Don't make responding yet another chore. Write when you get work. ៛ Bielle (talk) 18:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

AAU reminder notice

 * Notice delivery by xenobot  14:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Nationality
Thanks for your input Rock it was badly needed, and I see your point about the link. BigDunc Talk 22:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Ashley Todd
You edit conflicted by revert. So I agree with reverting the blanking. However, the blanker gave a good faith (if mistaken) reason, and was entitled to a reasoned revert. Please don't machine rollback good faith actions. This is liable to be heated enough.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 21:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The "blanker" is an editor with over 3 years and 11,000+ edits of experience. He is also a contributor to deletion discussions, and therefore its very safe to assume he is perfectly aware that we do not blank whole articles that are sourced when they are under going deletion discussions. I explained the reasoning for the revert on his talk page (which you completely misrepresent, by the way. I didn't make a "extreme assumtion of bad faith" in making an "accusation of vandalism". I said, it "will be considered vandalism should you continue". Big difference). Great job in turning down the heat. Rockpock  e  t  21:49, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrongly considered vandalism. (And considered by whom? You?) Good faith edits, no matter how erroneous, are NOT vandalism. And roll-back is only for vandalism, or uncontroversial reverting - otherwise the privilege gets removed. Look this is a heated debate, and you have to learn to strongly disagree whilst assuming good faith.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 21:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, me. When someone continues to blank a page after being warned not to by an administrator, and provided a clear explanation as to why they should not continue, it will eventually be considered it vandalism. It is no longer a good faith edit when its clearly not made in good faith. I'm aware this is a heated debate, and you are not helping much either, by suggesting people are making "extreme assumtion[s] of bad faith" based on a mistaken reading of the warning. Rockpock  e  t  21:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You used a rollback ability that is generally supposed to be reserved for vandalism, and then posted to the user's page suggesting that he might be considered a vandal. Is it not better to revert with a note that you disagreed with the reasons for reversal, and then, assuming good faith, discuss with the editor where you think he misjudged? Anyway, you are right that us barking at each other isn't helpful. I'm only asking that you reflect on how you handled this (and I think your revert was certainly correct, indeed I reverted him too). If you don't accept my criticism, then I'll leave it at that. I will read any reply you make, but please don't think me rude if I don't post to you on this matter again. I do have a nasty habit of seeking the last word, and I will resist today.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The reason I did so was because page blanking is unacceptable vandalism 99% of the time and its perfectly obvious to everyone why the edit gets rolled back. Only after I had reverted what appeared to be a standard blanking, I noticed it was probably a misguided attempt at a dealing with a BLP issue. And precisely because the edit summary did not justify the revert, I then went to his page and explained that blanking is not appropriate and warned him not to continue it. In retrospect "disruptive" would have been a better term to use than "vandalism", true. I'll keep that in mind for future. Rockpock  e  t  22:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Rock, thanks for deleting the comments left on my talk page by my "friends". Those IPs really annoy me. They hide behind their anonymity and launch their attacks. They are really obsessed with me,LOL. Thanks again.--jeanne (talk) 08:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Illegitimate move of controversial title
Rock, please take a look at this decision. Can a 6-4 result in an area covered by the Arbcom "Troubles" rulings was used by an English Admin to move an article just like that? When there was no consultation with editors who'd have been known to be interested? Is there any reason I should not simply move the article back? Sarah777 (talk) 00:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually there is a proposal to reverse the move; and it currently has support of 23 - 13 votes. (I realise that the prevailing Anglo-POV regards majoritarianism as being "consensus" only when it favours Anglo-POV - so we'll get a lot of nonsense about the "weight of the argument" from folk who couldn't argue a point in a neutral enviornment to save their lives) - but surely this is a time when yourself or Ali or Fozzie should jump in and restore the status quo before the appaling decision by your fellow Admin? Fozzie is especially good at jumping in betimes. Go for it Rock - restore some credibility to the cabal. Sarah777 (talk) 00:45, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't foresee "weight of the argument" being made by those who favour the status quo on the article name. In my humble opinion, this argument belongs to those who believe it should be changed. In fact, I'm so humble I've surprised myself by giving this opinion! Titch Tucker (talk) 00:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The "status quo" being which version? Sarah777 (talk) 02:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry - I see you only joined Wiki two days ago so how would you know? Silly me. I see you have managed one edit to an article out of your 60 edits so far, congrats. Sarah777 (talk) 02:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to be rude to Titch Tucker, Sarah. I know experience encourages us to be wary of new editors in this sphere, but we must also remember WP:BITE. You are right, Titch Tucker. The onus is on those favoring change to convince us why that is better than the status quo. For that reason, being able to claim the status quo is a valuable strategic position, which is probably why we are in this situation. Anyway, let me welcome you to Wikipedia. My welcoming advice to you is to go and edit some of the other 2 million odd articles for a while before getting too involved in this area. It tends to bring the worst out in us Wikipedians and is likely to give you a poor perspective of how Wikipedia can work. I guarantee the same arguments will be going on at any given time in the future! Rockpock  e  t  05:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. I'm going to take your advice and stay away from this for a good while. The funny thing is, my argument was to change the article to Flag of Ireland and I voted and commented on that at the talk page concerned. I have already replied to Sarah on her own talk page. Thanks again. Titch Tucker (talk) 05:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Your welcome, and feel free to drop by if you ever need some help. I'm sure Sarah will offer a slightly warmer welcome herself when she reads through your contribs more thoroughly. Rockpock  e  t  05:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The (first) move seems a bit hasty to me too. The reason you shouldn't move the article back, Sarah, is because there is currently a discussion going on about rectifying the action. The reason I can't close that discussion and make the decision to move it back is because I have already offered an opinion and therefore I am not sufficiently uninvolved. I'd suggest giving it another day or two, then asking for an uninvolved admin to close. Rockpock  e  t  04:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep Rock and Titch; I took a quick peep at the record and assumed "sock". And we all know what the first three letters in "assumed" spell! Sorry TT. Sarah777 (talk) 09:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have forgotten it already. I never have been the type that storms off feeling all offended over a few words. I shall leave you now to create a literary masterpiece never before witnessed by mere mortals. Alternatively, to avoid being shouted at, I shall play dumb and pretend I am an illiterate fool who doesn,t know his apostrophe,s from his comma,s. Time will tell. ;) Titch Tucker (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sarah said sorry to someone?  Nurse! - my medication please ;) Thunderer (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thunderer, please rest assured you are in very little danger of catching anything similar :) Sarah777 (talk) 17:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You'll have to forgive me for the lack of a smart comment in reply. It was rather a deep swoon. ;) Thunderer (talk) 17:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:AE
I've proposed modifications to Domer, Dunc, and Thunderers' topic ban here please comment.--Tznkai (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Any Admins out there?
Setanta747 appears not to be watched as closely by the "Admin Community" as some of us are. Sarah777 (talk) 02:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

AE page for Irish topics
Hiya Rockpocket. Am I allowed to comment at that place? seeing as I'm neither an Administrator or a sanctioned editor? Hope I'm not overstepping bounds. GoodDay (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2008 (UTC) Nevermind. Obviously if I weren't allowed, I would've been informed, long ago. GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The "Republic of Ireland" flag
I note Rock this is still open and the admin who eliminated the status quo is still acting in a blatantly partisan manner and has not recused himself from the debate. Please do something. Sarah777 (talk) 00:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)