Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine/Proposed decision

Arbitrators active on this case

 * Blnguyen
 * Charles Matthews
 * FloNight
 * Fred Bauder
 * Jdforrester
 * Jpgordon
 * Kirill Lokshin
 * Mackensen
 * Matthew Brown (Morven)
 * Paul August
 * SimonP
 * UninvitedCompany

Away/inactive:
 * Flcelloguy
 * Neutrality (Ben)
 * Raul654

Sarah777
As a practical matter, is apparently gone until mid-August; it might make sense to hold off closure until then. Mackensen (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no problems with that. Kirill 23:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sarah777 has returned. Rockpock  e  t  02:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I noticed and have left her a note suggesting that she participate here. Mackensen (talk) 02:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Gaimhreadhan is no longer able to post messages himself. I am one of the executors of his estate. He specifically left us instructions to "...support Sarah. Her heart's in the right place...".
 * I've examined her contribution record in non-controversial areas. I find the proposed remedy of a one year block is draconian and disproportionate to the remedy suggested for Domer48.
 * The one year "remedy" will only fuel perceptions of a "British Agenda" (I'm German).
 * A judicious judgement would be to block Sarah777 from a specific list of articles only as per his proposals for User:Vintagekits (see whole discussion: ) W. Frank ✉ 10:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

General comments
This mostly relates to Irish nationalists such as User:Domer48 and User:Padraig and User:Sarah777 and User:Vintagekits with User:MarkThomas thrown in for balance. First you cannot penalise Sarah in her absence and must give her time to defend herself. Second it should be recognised that the comments are on talk pages which is less bad than main pages. Many are provoked. The remedies suggested are too long, draconian and uneven. Vintagekits for example has veered from indefinitely banned to let's give him a chance. This needs much less selectivity and a lot more thought. - Pharrar 08:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This mostly relates to people who have edited Great Irish Famine; this is not the great settlement of the Anglo-Irish dispute, and if it were the first thing I'd insist upon is everyone taking their socks off. Mackensen (talk) 10:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I know you are just trying to relax people but I am not very relaxed today with one of my oldest friends dying.
 * A small correction: this dispute is really between editors, some of whom have no respect for the contributions of their colleagues and revert because of emotions and primaeval feelings of warfare rather than logic and Wikipedia guidelines. Nationality may influence the tribal affiliations of the warring parties here (although at least one of the parties to the arbcom have not decalred whether they are "Irish" or "Anglo"). The continuing of the great "Anglo-Irish dispute" on WP is essentially between those individual conscientous editors who follow our rules and policies and make up their own minds and edits, and "team editors" who typically edit from single purpose accounts. This will probably be the last edit I make here. As explained in the section above, I only visited here again to make my friend's last wishes clear. Goodbye. W. Frank ✉ 15:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record, and because a number of people have confused this, Vintagekits was not indefinitely banned. He was indefinitely blocked. And indefinite is different from infinite. It simply means the length of the block is not defined, not that was purposely issued to be permanent. There is no "veering" to unblock Vk under parole conditions, that is quite normal. Nevertheless, I think a similar subject-specific ban is a much more appropriate remedy for Sarah, compared with a project wide ban.  Rockpock  e  t  17:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Is this an admin only page or are us "mere mortals" allowed to post? I apologise if it's admin only, I honestly don't know. Anyway I think any suggestion of a ban for Sarah777 is outrageous and the mere thought of one as severe as a whole year is beyond my compreshension. She has created many god articles on WP and as she says hardly ever edits controversial ones. Admittingly I haven't went through the edit history very thoroughly, but at first glance I can't quite see what she's done wrong. Again apologies if I'm not allowed to post hereDerry Boi 20:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I think we might take this comment as representative; granted, Sarah has since backed down on realizing that I actually opposed the measure in question, but the nature of the initial response leaves me uneasy. That's a vicious and unjustified personal attack on another editor, based entirely on false suppositions of national identity. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and I'm neither British nor a Nazi. While we don't agree on remedies, four of us do contend that Sarah "has repeatedly engaged in anti-British invective in an attempt to use Wikipedia as a battleground along national lines," and for me that comment is indicative. Mackensen (talk) 23:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * In Sarah's defence (not of the Nazi repeated comparisons, those really are beyond the pale), her problem appears to be with the neutrality of what we, as a project, consider to be reliable sources in articles dealing with British and Irish political history. As she rightly points out, her contributions to these sorts of controversial subjects are a small minority of her edits. If would suggest if ArbCom is unable to agree on a remedy of a project ban, then perhaps a remedy focused on her contributions to these few problem articles could be considered. I believe this is what Gaimhreadhan suggested (above) and would certainly be an option that would better benefit Wikipedia (in that Alison's good work on Irish geography would be uneffected). Just a thought.  Rockpock  e  t  08:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)