This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Template

1) The Article Great Irish Famine is placed on Article Probation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Suggested. This is a contentious article, and probably deserves more scrutiny then usual. SirFozzie 16:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I do not consider the Article to be contentious, but the actions of editors. Information which is reliably sourced, verifiable and referenced is being questioned. Editors being Bold is being used as an argument against them. Unreferenced material is left alone and referenced material challenged. The 3 revert rule is being abused and used as a tool to lock the article. I agree with SirFozzie though on one thing, the article should be supervised, to prevent these types of actions. --Domer48 18:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Great Irish Famine

1) No party shall edit the article Great Irish Famine during the course of this arbitration, and shall not solicit proxies to edit the article for them. Any party or proxy who edits the article during this arbitration may be blocked for an appropriate amount of time.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

User:MarkThomas, amongst his latest actions, has basically backed all the recent changes to the Great Irish Famine article, and I have asked User:Domer48 not to respond to it, but it might be a good idea to try to head off editwars without protecting the article while the arbitration proceeds. SirFozzie 16:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I disagree with a temporary injunction as what dose it actually serve. There is a problem with editors on this article, and it is the role of Administration to ensure that policies are adhered to. A strict adherence to policies will challenge editors, as they have to comply with those policies. --Domer48 18:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Halting edits for the time being would be fine. Domer made extensive changes to the article, after this Request was opened, despite know that a content dispute existed. Mark, in fairness, limited his actions only to reverting those edits on the basis that "This article is under Arbcom review." --sony-youth^pléigh 19:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Halting edits for the time being would suit some editors. While a "Request" was made, no discission was reached. This Request has now been cited as an agreed position.

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Wikipedia is not a battleground

1) Wikipedia is a reference work. Use of the site for political struggle accompanied by harassment of opponents is extremely disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Mackensen (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agreed:--Domer48 08:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Wikipedia is not a soapbox

2) The use of Wikipedia for political propaganda is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Mackensen (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agreed:--Domer48 08:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Courtesy

3) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their dealings with other users. Insulting and intimidating other users harms the community by creating a hostile environment. Personal attacks are not acceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Mackensen (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agreed:--Domer48 08:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Editors expected to keep their cool

iv) Editors are expected to keep their cool when editing. Uncivil behavior by others should not be returned in kind. Casual allegations of poor Wikiquette are considered harmful. Such concerns should be brought up in appropriate forums, if at all.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agreed: --Domer48 08:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Neutral point of view

4) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, requires that articles regarding controversial subjects shall in a conservative sober manner set forth all significant points of view regarding the subject.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Mackensen (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agreed:--Domer48 08:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC) Note: I object to Irish related articles being described as "controversial." It is the opinions of some editors which create this impression, and how they express that opinion. Wiki policies exist to address this problem, but are being abused. Mackensen has restated thoses policies, and all credit due, nice one![reply]

Comment by others:

Verifiable information from reliable sources

5) Wikipedia:Attribution, requires that information included in an article on a subject be limited to verifiable information from reliable sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Mackensen (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agreed:--Domer48 08:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Original research

6) Wikipedia:Attribution prohibits original research; editors may not synthesize viewpoints or draw conclusions of their own from primary sources or other raw data. Instead, Wikipedia documents what reliable sources state about their subjects.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Mackensen (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agreed:--Domer48 08:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

7) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Domer48 edited disruptively

1) Domer48 (talk · contribs) has edited disruptively on Great Irish Famine, including insertions of original research (improper synthesis of material) [1] [2] and the usage of tendentious edit summaries [3].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Mackensen (talk) 12:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Based on Wikipedia:No original research, I would dispute both points one and two i.e. origional research. Point three, is based on an accumalation of disruptive editing and comments.

Just on the points of original research. I checked and verified that a) the author was notable, and b) that the information was reliable sourced and verifiable.

These are just some of the examples to illustrate the point.

• Point 1:*[4] [5] [6] [7] *[8]
• Point 2: [9] [10] 5. WHILE UNDER BRITISH COLONIAL RULE, MILLIONS STARVED IN BENGAL, INDIA [11] [12]
• Point 3 Requires no elucidation

Comment by others:

Sarah777 engaged in original research

2) Sarah777 (talk · contribs) engaged in original research on Great Irish Famine over the usage of the term "genocide." [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Mackensen (talk) 12:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

With regard to Sarah, it was me who brought Sarah into this discussion [20]. If not for that, Sarah would not be here. All that followed was down to me. It is my opinion that there was a constant baiting of Sarah, and my actions only assisted this, and as a result, Sarah has ended up here. Any santion of Sarah would have to be in all fairness imposed on me. Thanks --Domer48 08:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Sarah777 has been incivil

3) Sarah777 (talk · contribs) was the subject of a request for comment on the subject of her incivility and repeated anti-British remarks, including allegations that the British Government committed genocide in Ireland (c.f. [21] [22]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Important for context. Mackensen (talk) 12:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

MarkThomas has been incivil

4) MarkThomas (talk · contribs) has made incivil remarks towards other editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed, based on accumulated evidence. I doubt he'd disagree. Mackensen (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(To SirFozzie). That could be said of most of the parties involved. I think understatement serves the cause best. Mackensen (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I would put it as "at times, grossly uncivil", but yeah, I agree. SirFozzie

Comment by others:

I consider the case to answer is more than just incivil. --Domer48 09:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

5) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

6) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

7) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

8) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Mentorship

1) The article Great Irish Famine is placed under the mentorship of three to five administrators to be named later. All content reversions on this page must be discussed on the article talk page. The mentors are to have a free hand, do not have veto over each other's actions, will be communicating closely and will generally trust each other's judgement. Any mentor, upon good cause shown, may ban any user from editing Great Irish Famine or a related page. All bans shall be posted on the affected user's talk page and at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Great Irish Famine#Documentation_of_bans. When possible, mentors should favor article bans over page protection. The mentorship arrangement will be reviewed in one month. If, at that time, the mentors agree that the article has demonstrated the ability to grow without strife, the mentorship may be ended and this remedy declared void.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Adapted from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Neuro-linguistic programming. Mackensen (talk) 14:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agree:--Domer48 18:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

MarkThomas

2) MarkThomas' editing privileges are revoked for a period of 90 days.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too long. Mackensen (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Sarah777

3) Sarah777's editing privileges are revoked for a period of 30 days.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

With regard to Sarah, it was me who brought Sarah into this discussion [23]. If not for that, Sarah would not be here. All that followed was down to me. It is my opinion that there was a constant baiting of Sarah, and my actions only assisted this, and as a result, Sarah has ended up here. Any santion of Sarah would have to be in all fairness imposed on me. Thanks --Domer48 08:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

4) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

5) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

6) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

7) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

8) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

9) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Enforcement by block

1) If a user banned from editing under this decision does so, they may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeat offenses. After 5 blocks the maximum block shall increase to one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Enforcement for remedy #1. Mackensen (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Agree: --Domer48 18:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

5) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: