Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine

Statements made before the case was accepted

Statement by Swatjester

I don't consider myself an involved party, since all I did was warn a few people to stop using the RfC incorrectly, and then blocked MarkThomas in particular for it. However, I feel 100% that this belongs in arbitration. A) Mediation would never work on this. B) It's not over the article content, it's over the editing practices involved. C) This is a subject that for some people is as touchy as the israeli-palestinian conflict and needs ArbCom's guidance. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 13:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Goldheart

Although I don't see myself directly involved, I did have an interest in having a balanced inclusive objectivity woven into the article. I don't believe that there is any POV being pushed here, I believe it is more of a clash of EGOS, than an actual content dispute, and whose style is going to dominate in the editing. I believe Domer48 and Sony-youth are two worthy editors, but this ani and rfa etc is very wearying, and will deter future editors and input. User:MarkThomas has been particularly disruptive in the talk page, and has even attacked me for no reason whatsoever, on another related issue, on my talk page, Archive2/Reply.Gold♥ 18:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holidays

I will be away on holidays until July 15. So may not be able to participate. I'd appreciate if any decision regarding me was held off before then. --sony-youth^pléigh 22:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the usual pace of arbitration cases, this is unlikely to be a problem. Have a good trip. Newyorkbrad 23:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fyi - I'll be gone from July 16th to August 8th (sunny Italy!); so if I fail to reply don't shoot me in absentia! Regards (Sarah777 21:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Enjoy your holidays, ye both and think of us sloshing around at home!...Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 20:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional evidence

Hi. Upon suggestion from two editors after I made a wikiquette and rfc about MarkThomas (who is involved in this case) I have added evidence to the /Evidence page. Hughsheehy 15:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1 year proposed ban of User:Sarah777

I'm not a party to this Arb case so I'm not submitting evidence. However, I'd just like to comment that I personally feel that a 1-year ban on Sarah777 to be somewhat draconian, given the broader picture. Sarah has strong feelings about the famine situation and the whole genocide thing but has issues keeping her POV in check. This often manifests itself as frustration & she can be incivil, rude and disruptive. However, she's also an excellent and prolific contributor to Irish geographical articles[1] (one of the best, IMO) and is a great asset to the project. From a personal perspective, she would be sorely missed if a blanket ban is imposed and I respectfully request that all other avenues be explored before this drastic remedy is endorsed - Alison ☺ 19:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mentors

Archived here from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification. Picaroon (t) 04:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remedy 1.1 of the case calls for 3~5 administrators to serve as mentors... However, almost two months since the decision of the case, and no mentors have been chosen for the article. Could we do something about this? - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 23:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who just began editing Great Irish Famine a few days ago and immediately ran into problems that the earlier case was meant to address, I'd like to second Penwhale's call for action. Dppowell 03:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mackensen made a request for volunteers at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Great Irish Famine. Problem is finding volunteers 3-5. Maybe we can get the current election candidates to do it? Picaroon (t) 04:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be somewhat problematic, as the Arbitrators (which some of the candidates will presumably become) have traditionally avoided enforcing case decisions personally. I'd prefer to avoid setting up a situation where we'd need replacement mentors come January. Kirill 00:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've emailed Mackensen offering to be a mentor, I personally think the mentors need to get cracking ASAP - the articles locked now and after scanning through it, there seems to be quite a bit of disruption on the page. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The committee has appointed Daniel (talk · contribs), Ryan Postlethwaite (talk · contribs), and Angusmclellan (talk · contribs) as mentors to Great Irish Famine in fulfillment on Remedy 1.1. For the committee, Mackensen (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: Great Irish Famine (November 2018)

Original discussion

Resolved. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 08:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Amorymeltzer at 18:36, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected: Great Irish Famine arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Amorymeltzer (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
Deacon Vorbis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Amorymeltzer

Who can unprotect Great Famine (Ireland)?

This is a little weird and more than a little old, but this query started when I saw a request at RFUP by Deacon Vorbis that Great Famine (Ireland) be unprotected. He noted that the earliest protection log there is Tiptoety unprotecting the page, seeing no reason in the log, then reprotecting Per ArbCom mentorship. In fact, the original protection log is under The Great Hunger, where the page was indefinitely protected linking to this message on the talkpage explaining the reasons.

In short, GIF remedy 1.1 put the page under the mentorship of three to five editors for at least one year in September 2007, and established a triumvirate in October 2007 (talkpage notice). The mentors then put the page under indefinite semiprotection (as noted above) June 2008 (specifically Angusmclellan).

I have been unable to determine what, if anything, happened to the mentorship group, in particular how it was ended. I think it safe to assume it has ended; only Angusmclellan has been recently active, but as a former mentor I would assume they don't have any extra authority. Regardless, it is unclear to me who can undo a former and temporary group's indefinite actions: does it revert to the Committee or the Community? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:36, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note:

I've only listed and notified two people here as parties, given the age of it. If desired, I can notify the other two mentors as well as the original parties to the original case; one is active, one is semi-active, two are inactive, and one is blocked.
This is so old that Newyorkbrad was a clerk.

~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:36, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Deacon Vorbis

Statement by Angusmclellan

Statement by Floq

If I tried to cut through the bureaucracy and simply unprotected the page, would anyone attempt to have me sanctioned? Although maybe ArbCom is bored these days, and we should give them a chance to do something and make them pass a motion... --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps, it seems to me the wording of the remedy that Amorymeltzer linked above implies the mentorship expired after one year. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:00, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I move that Bishonen be sanctioned. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bishonen

I'm sorry, I realize I'm curtailing the fun, but I've unprotected, mainly per Brad. Bishonen | talk 20:14, 1 November 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by EdJohnston

Occasionally Arbcom gets in the mood of tidying up old decisions. Let's hope they will conserve their energy and let this one sink back into obscurity without a new omnibus motion. There is one tiny issue as to whether the Famine page might fall under WP:TROUBLES, by current standards. If that question needs to be reviewed, my guess is that WP:AE may be sufficient, at least as a first step. EdJohnston (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Great Irish Famine: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Great Irish Famine: Arbitrator views and discussion

Some historical background as to how the remedy from the 2007 case worked out would be interesting, but there can't possibly be anything that happened in 2007-2008 that would control whether the page should remain protected today. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bishonen has gone ahead and removed it, with no fanfare. I think we're done here, except for the object lesson that it's probably a good thing we don't do these kinds of remedies anymore. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:15, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, move along, nothing to see here. Doug Weller talk 08:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.