Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sarah777

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 08.53, 14 June 2007), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute
The issue of Sarah777 is a long-standing one of WP:CIVIL. On the whole her contibutions are positive, but when it comes to the area of British-Irish politics, she appears to be pathologically unable to engage respectfully with editors who hold a different point of view. She flatly says that she will ignore policies and consensus in the persuit of eliminitating opposing views, and engages in campaigns against consensus and other editors in order to achieve this. The result is disruptive to work on these articles and discoruaging to those contributing to them. This effect was succintly summed up in February (showing how long the issue is running) by one long-term editor, who said about her behaviour, "Note to serious editors: get out while you can."

Desired outcome
Its hard to know what we would like to happen to Sarah777. We would like her to start behaving civilly towards other editors - but, in honesty, over the last six months, we have lost faith that that is likely to happen. We need assurances of some kind that she will, whether that means that her posts will be moderated or chaperoned in some way. For now, without wanting to sound melodramatic, we dread seeing her name in our watchlists for fear of what kind of provocation it will contain this time. We have had enough.

Description
The following is a telling of events following a clash with Sarah. Those who have had dealings with her will, we're sure, have their own stories. Here we will relate sony-youth's most recent engagement with Sarah. While the story lasts less than a week it should be known that there was already history between them and it cannot to subtracted from the long-term interaction. Instead, it is a snap-shot in time of her behaviour. It is meant as evidience, as part of a continual attitude towards others, for how difficult it is to work with her:


 * "This phase followed an AfD of an article she created as a POV fork of British Isles. Following that, she blamed me and promised to another user to hold a grudge against me. (This diff is a particularly humorous example of her choice of attitude towards me, as is this one.) In a subsequent banning (for attacking the admin that blocked her for 3RRing the AfD'd article), she was released from the block on agreeing to "even forgive Sony" and removed what she called "anti-sony-ism" (and what she called "sony's anti-sarah-ism") from her talk page.


 * "From then until after the weekend (5 days), I did not edit wikipedia. Upon returning, I made some posts to Talk:British Isles (in exchange with another user). Sarah replied to these saying that my objection to her fork ruined my credibility. I removed this as a personal attack, and she reposted it in a more civil tone. I responded saying that the AfD has been decided by WP:SNOW and that it had been a "universal" decision. She took objection to this and warned me that "We Irish didn't gain our FREEDOM by forgetting injustice." While I was away, a proposal to move the Irish Potato Famine article had been made. This had been by Sarah - however, as I do object to the move, I voted as such. A moment later, Sarah moved the article citing WP:SNOW and "universal" consensus, a clear reference to our exchange just previous. When other editors told her that this was inappropriate, she said that the rules "ALWAYS appear to favour the holocaust deniers like Sony." Subsequent posts in agreement with me were responded by her naming me as part of a cabal against her. She responded to my posts by attempting to blacken them as sarcasm and incivility and stalking. Aside from being untrue, in these posts she took the approach of quoting policy - a cause of annoyance to her during the build up to her creating the fork that was AfD'd - a factitious means of undermining my posts while also referring to conflicts that led to the fork of the British Isles (a provocation).


 * "I warned her twice (here and here). The last of these she removed as "vindictive nonsense" and placed a similar notice on my talk page then went to User:Gaillimh claiming that I was threatening her. (I saw this only while going through her contribs. while collecting diffs for here.)"

Evidence of disputed behavior
Below is a sample of some of the posts Sarah made to the British Isles page. It should be noted that in each case Sarah's politics are not at issue - of the first two editors certifying the basis for this dispute, one is English and the other an Irish nationalist. These posts mix trolling, with abuse, with genuine discussion to improve the article. In their tone, and their approach to others, these comments are overtly provocative and aggressive, as such any improvement they may have brought to the article is negated by the effect they have on other contributors.


 * "The British Empire was responsible for genocide on a scale that dwarfed Hitlers efforts. ... - it is the SAME British State that has the blood of a million dead Iraqis on its hands, TODAY."
 * "... fortunately for us Gas Chamber technology didn't exist at the time. The only serious effort the British State made was to ensure food exports continued under armed guard while the natives starved."
 * "You are more than welcome to keep the word. it has been irredeemably sullied by the Empire; bit like what the Third Reich did for the ancient symbol, the Swastika."
 * "I think you will find that is it the political entity, "The British Empire" I accurately contrasted unfavourably with the Third Reich."
 * "And as I have indicated, the only way we can improve this article is to give it an acceptable name. As for changing the name - it took 800 years to get the Brutish out of Ireland."
 * "This happened in a kangaroo court, without my knowledge, in the space of two hours! We Irish didn't gain our FREEDOM by forgetting injustice."
 * "This is where indulging British Imperial myopia leads; POV uber alles."
 * "DO NOT strike out my comments. This is typical of the sort of arrogance that causes these disputes ... Is that clear enough?"
 * "Your arrogance is breathtaking. ... This isn't NPOV - this is a travesty.
 * "Also, don't TOUCH the article till we get a more balanced view of the matter."
 * "... it seems some editors are incapable of keeping it civil; the screaming hysterics above are outrageous. It seems that some editors think they OWN Wikipedia."
 * "... your hysterical reaction to an attempt to solve this problem by writing an article that doesn't reflect British pov rather ruins your credibility in this matter."
 * "I note that certain British contributors are still in denial of the fact the "British" Isles is a political term; the constant whine "what has this got to do with improving the article" is, frankly, getting rather irritating"
 * "... the constant quoting of Wiki policies is also irritating; especially as they would, ironically, be more appropriately directed at those who usually cite them."
 * "It speaks volume that some editors here are more intransigent than Mr Paisley and his Party."

As part of an RfC that I prepared in March (but decided against inacting on the basis that Sarah's behaviour appeared to be improving), I collected the following diffs. While these are old and scattred, they remain examples of the style of behavior that is still the cause of concern:


 * As most of Sarah777's disruptive behavior must be seen in context to be understood, especially in her manipulation of arguments and obfuscation. Diffs provide only a taste of the way she behaves on talk pages. That said, Sarah777 has made 127 edits to Ireland-related talk pages. Out of these, 44 (35%) are cited below as evidence of her uncivil behaviour. By far the majority of these since January 2007.
 * Aggressive/uncivil post
 * Accusation of a cabal
 * Bringing up old issue/refusal to accept consensus
 * Saying that "foreign" editors should not contribute to a straw poll
 * Refusing to discuss her edits
 * Trolling
 * Personal attack/Accusation of POV

Applicable policies and guidelines

 * WP:CIVIL

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
Three recent attempts (alongside on-going pleads for calm):
 * Lo2u - 18 May 2007
 * sony-youth: 25 April 2007
 * sony-youth: 12 June 2007
 * sony-youth: 13 June 2007

As part of the prepared (but never enacted) RfC in March, the following diffs were collected as evidience of attempting to contact Sarah:
 * Djegan - 13 February 2007
 * Ww2censor - 18 February 2007
 * Djegan - 19 February 2007
 * Djegan - 20 February 2007
 * Djegan - 20 February 2007
 * Djegan - 26 February 2007 (Discussion)
 * Sony-youth - 26 February 2007
 * Sony-youth - 10 March 2007
 * Setanta747 - 11 March 2007

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}


 * sony-youth pléigh 08:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Lo2u (T • C) 00:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Djegan 10:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 10:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Guliolopez 11:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Evertype·✆ 19:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * MarkThomas 15:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * SqueakBox 18:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * DPeterson talk 20:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * dave souza, talk 21:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ben W Bell talk  11:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ras52 16:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * -- Mal 00:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * beano 21:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Andrwsc 17:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Response
''This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.'' ''

Response Part One
Such is the voluminous nature of the "evidence" here that I will tackle it bit by bit, in order of appearance.
 * "The British Empire was responsible for genocide on a scale that dwarfed Hitlers efforts. ... - it is the SAME British State that has the blood of a million dead Iraqis on its hands, TODAY."
 * "... fortunately for us Gas Chamber technology didn't exist at the time. The only serious effort the British State made was to ensure food exports continued under armed guard while the natives starved."
 * "You are more than welcome to keep the word. it has been irredeemably sullied by the Empire; bit like what the Third Reich did for the ancient symbol, the Swastika."
 * "I think you will find that is it the political entity, "The British Empire" I accurately contrasted unfavourably with the Third Reich."

These were direct explanations to other editors who asked WHY the term "British" is so offensive (applied to Ireland); or why the ingrained assumption that there is something to apologise for or to be slightly ashamed about re Irish Neutrality was wrong; or why attempts to "appease" this pov by pretending Ireland wasn't really neutral was objectionable. They are truthful; they were posted in the talkpage, not the article as they are clearly pov; they explained my position in response to questions.


 * "This happened in a kangaroo court, without my knowledge, in the space of two hours! We Irish didn't gain our FREEDOM by forgetting injustice."

This was on a totally different subject; the article I created "British Isles and Ireland" was first proposed for a merger; I was responding to that when it was deleted, the merger proposal having been changed. I was not notified of any of this even thought I had created the article; and the thing was taken under WP:SNOW after about 4 or 5 mainly like-minded editors agreed amongst themselves. This led me to think the delete was a breach of the MERGER rules and led to me revert 3 times what I assumed was vandalism by SqueakBox. (And, sorry, but I cannot help noticing that many of the editors involved in that are listed above). It was extremely poor collective over-reaction to an established editor; as several people since, involved and not, have conceded. And the reaction was caused in part, I believe by a hysterical outburst by Sony-Youth:



'   STRONGLY OBJECT    ' Blantat POV pushing, using wikipedia make a point, demonstrating contempt for consensus, fellow editors and the ambitions of this project. DELETE IMMEDIATELY - there is no need to even mark is for speedly deletion. Get it off this encyclopedia now. The editor responsible should be ashamed, admonished, chasten, punished. --sony-youth pléigh 14:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The following block of "evidence" was in direct response to that piece of moderate discussion by Sony:


 * "DO NOT strike out my comments. This is typical of the sort of arrogance that causes these disputes ... Is that clear enough?"
 * "Your arrogance is breathtaking. ... This isn't NPOV - this is a travesty.
 * "Also, don't TOUCH the article till we get a more balanced view of the matter."
 * "... it seems some editors are incapable of keeping it civil; the screaming hysterics above are outrageous. It seems that some editors think they OWN Wikipedia."
 * "... your hysterical reaction to an attempt to solve this problem by writing an article that doesn't reflect British pov rather ruins your credibility in this matter."

And then we have yet another different issue:
 * "I note that certain British contributors are still in denial of the fact the "British" Isles is a political term; the constant whine "what has this got to do with improving the article" is, frankly, getting rather irritating"

This in response to British editors peppering the BI talkpage with "warnings" despite being repeatedly informed that changing the name was the most immediate and important improvement available. (In every case, after the first instance in February, I did not start a debate about the name and only become involved as yet another Irish editor discovered the BI article and raised the issue of the name. (It's happened again, btw, just yesterday. Ironically, some of the British editors who have posted these warnings are first in to defend the "British Isles" name).

I will rest this for now as I want to do something more productive for the next hour. However I intend to refute every scintilla of "evidence" and then to focus on the actions, civility and behaviour of my main accuser and several "endorsers" - to provide a bit of context. Also, as the committee organising this case appear to be trawling around Talkpages and canvassing Users they know to be hostile I would like some ruling/clarity as to whether I can organise my defence in the same manner. Some guidance on this - please. (Sarah777 22:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC))

What is going on here?
As this was going on for four days without being certified I added the date (which I noticed had gone missing) of the lodging of this RFC by Sony, with the comment that it appeared the time had expired. Then some user called "Cryptic" "certified" it; two days late by my calculation. User 'Cryptic' does not seem to exist. Could someone please tell me what is going on?

''Uncertified user RfCs

Requests for comment which do not meet the minimum requirements 48 hours after creation are considered "uncertified" and will be de-listed. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Request comment on users for the minimum requirements. The subject RFC page will also be deleted, unless the subject has explicitly requested it to be retained.''

This "subject" certainly made no such request. (Sarah777 08:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC))


 * Cryptic has been around since June '05. To be certified, two editors must: "... provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page..." "If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 08.53, 14 June 2007), the page will be deleted." Three users had done so within 26 hours. Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 09:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The fact that Cryptic has been around since 2005 doesn't give me any clue as to what he/she/it is. What "power" does it have to certify; is it a person? What? And there was no legitimate certification; as has been pointed out the "evidence" is trite. (Sarah777 21:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC))

Response Part Two

 * Aggressive/uncivil post

I have read this "evidence" and trite is overly kind to it. "Civility" is at the core; these quotes are in many cases mirror images of uncivil remarks made to me; or part of an ongoing exchange in which there was a generality level of incivility. The notion that I just introduced incivility into an other wise civil debate is manifest nonsense. And some of these quotes are not uncivil at all!.

Points #48, 49, 51 (an obvious joke) and 52 could not reasonably be construed as being in breach of WP:CIVIL by any reasonable standards. Points #47, 50 and 53 are not one bit more uncivil than the comments they are addressing.

As my alleged offence is breaching WP:CIVIL surely the accusers should be able to demonstrate that the accused was more uncivil than they themselves commonly are? What we have here is what a recent contributor accurately identified as "felon setting". (And it's still going on, I might add). X calls Y a "biased thicko". Y responds with "so are you". The thought police arrest Y.

(Sarah777 10:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC))

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by Swatjester
From the diffs provided, it does appear that Sarah777 has been uncivil. However, Sarah777 has also shown herself to be otherwise a good editor. Everyone gets a little uncivil at times. Sarah777 should take this to heart, and try calming down and backing off of those articles for a bit. Also, it appears that Sarah777 has an anti-British point of view. Sarah777 should not let that degenerate into her editing and would do well to remember WP:OWN, WP:NPOV and WP:NOT a battleground. &rArr;  SWAT  Jester    Denny Crane.  19:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) &rArr;   SWAT  Jester    Denny Crane.  19:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) --Vintagekits 15:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Sarah777 10:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Ben W Bell talk  12:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup, basically a good editor, who would be more influential if arguments were expressed dispassionately. Addhoc 21:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Productive, hardworking and competent editor (like her antagonists). I've found her generally tolerant, perceptive and with a wry sense of humour.... Gaimhreadhan [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]](kiwiexile at DMOZ) • 09:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) I always found Sarah77 refreshing, to the point, and always civil. If Wikipedia is not a bit controversial at times, then it is nothing, and maybe, to avoid controversy, it should be handed over to the "bots". All of the editors on this page are of excellent pedigree, and they do edit controversial pages at times. Sometimes it goes with the territory, I'm afraid. Move on ;)  Gold♥  12:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Agreed. She's a fine editor but sometimes needs to keep her POV in check (as we all do) - A l is o n  ☺ 03:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Outside View by hughsheehy
It seems that Sarah777 is guilty of excessive passion and mild incivility. However, her political views on the contribution, or otherwise, of the British Empire to human history are not grounds for complaint on WP, and if that ground is removed the whole basis for complaining of trolling goes away. Whether one agrees or not, or finds those views insulting or not, her views are not particularly uncommon and have been expressed by many more prominent than Sarah777 in contexts often far removed from British/Irish issues. Also, the tone of discussion on the BI page and the inability of many editors on the page to stick to civil discussion and NPOV is frequently frustrating and provocative. Insult and incivility are unfortunately common on that page. Sarah777 is perhaps the most passionate but certainly does not come across as calculating, unlike some others. She should calm down and tone down and work harder to stick to verifiability and NPOV in the articles (she can continue to believe whatever she likes). She´d find more success in changing articles as well as improving the tone. Hughsheehy 10:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:


 * 1) Domer48
 * 2) --Vintagekits 12:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) --Barryob   Vigeur de dessus  19:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) --Pconlon 23.55, 18 June 2007 (GMT)
 * 5) Lapsed Pacifist 17:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Sarah777 23:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Petri Krohn 23:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Addhoc 21:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) --padraig3uk 22:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 10)  Gold♥  23:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) ... Gaimhreadhan [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]](kiwiexile at DMOZ)  • 00:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) -  A l is o n  ☺ 03:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) -  FlowerpotmaN  (t &middot; c) 03:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Outside View by One Night In Hackney
There's far too much conflict around Ireland related articles, and arguably British related ones too for that matter. The Brits are all land stealing oppressors, the Irish are all Fenian terrorists blah blah blah. Everyone should leave their politics and POV at the front door and write from what sources say. One Night In Hackney 303  12:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1)  FlowerpotmaN  (t &middot; c) 22:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Sarah777 23:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) --Vintagekits 12:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) --Domer48 21:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) --Finnrind 09:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) --padraig3uk 22:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) --... Gaimhreadhan [[Image:Map of Ireland's capitals.png|15px]](kiwiexile at DMOZ)  • 09:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 8)  Gold♥  23:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Totally -  A l is o n  ☺ 03:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) ~  Wi <font color="#3DD0F5">ki <font color="#6EDCF7">her <font color="#9EE8FA">mit  01:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Outside View by Sherzo
Sarah777 edits seems all to push an Irish POV,and many of her comments seem at the least Anglophobic, particular the godwin's comparisons of the British and Nazis. Sherzo 10:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) -- Mal 08:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) --Djegan 22:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) - Kittybrewster   (talk) 05:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) -- MarkThomas 08:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) beano 21:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.