Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine

Case Opened on 16:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Case Closed on 21:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Case Amended by motion on 02:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the as needed, but closed cases should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Requests for arbitration.

Involved parties

 * (initiating party)

Statement by SirFozzie
This is a subset of the ongoing issues with Northern Ireland/Ireland related articles, that has recently turned nasty. During the RfC, which pretty much degenerated into the two sides (including the wider Ireland/Northern Ireland conflict) sniping at each other, User:MarkThomas was blocked for 24 hours for violations of WP:NPA and WP:Civil. Shortly after the RfC pretty much ground to a halt, Domer48 listed this edit detailing why he could not work with User:sony-youth on the issues at hand. User:MarkThomas then brought the case to ANI here, and continued sniping at User:Domer48 on his talk page, stating that he wanted Domer48 blocked.

Several Administrators have tried to cool the ill will between the two groups (amongst them User:SWATJester and User:Alison, however, it has become obvious that the issues behind this case will not be settled unless ArbCom looks at it. SirFozzie 13:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Statement by sony-youth
My issue rests with the use of the following citation from Donnelly, JS, 2005, The Great Irish Potato Famine, Sutton Publishing Limited: England:


 * Since those chapters were written, the amount of scholarly attention devoted to the Great Famine has expanded enormously, mostly as a result of the impetus given by the official sesquicentennial commemoration of the famine in the years 1995—7. Along with numerous other scholars, I made contributions to the extraordinary surge of publication associated with the commemoration. As I argue in the introduction to this book, the flowering of famine scholarship during the 1990s has given academic respectability to certain key nationalist perspectives on the famine, and on the issue of British government responsibility, that were previously out of fashion among professional historians, especially those working in Ireland itself.

This citation was used by Domer48 to support the following text in the Great Irish Famine article (diff):


 *  This view [that most historians find it impossible to sustain the charge of deliberate genocide] though its self has changed since 1996. Professor James Donnelly states that the amount of scholarly attention dedicated to the Great Famine has “expanded enormously,” since the official sesquicentennial commemoration of the famine in the years 1995—7. As a result of this impetus with numerous other scholars, he made contributions to the “extraordinary surge” of publications. The “flowering of famine scholarship” he says, has given “academic respectability” to certain “key nationalist perspectives on the famine.” 

I commented out use of the citation (diff) on the basis that it does not refer to the claim of genocide and posted a message to the talk page explaining why I had done so (diff).

Several reverts ensued, including one by myself. In one of these Sarah777 changed the text of the relevent part to read (diff):


 * Professor James Donnelly states that the amount of scholarly attention dedicated to the Great Famine has expanded enormously, since the official sesquicentennial commemoration of the famine in the years 1995—7. As a result of this impetus with numerous other scholars, he made contributions to the “extraordinary surge” of publications. The “flowering of famine scholarship” he maintains has given academic respectability to the view that the famine was genocide. 

Shortly after this edit, the article was locked. During the reverts, I missed Sarah's edit and mistakenly thought that Domer48 had made the above change. Having already posted my concerns about this interpretation being implied, I said that changing the text to explicitly make the claim after I had raised concerns about it "makes it very hard to assume good faith." Upon recieveing an angry response, asking if I was assuming bad faith in (mistakenly) Domer, I posted "Damn right, I'm assuming bad faith." It was after this, with some effort (which included Domer48 first saying that I hadn't "a wit of cop on" and then calling me a "slow learner"), that Domer48 explained that it was Sarah777 that had changed the section after my concerns had been raised. I appologised for my accusation of bad faith ("It was Sarah who changed it, not you, and so I retract all that I said about bad faith.") and continued to try to resolve my concerns about the use of the citation.

That was five days ago. A fairly reasonsed, abeit sometimes heated and quite wandering, discussion followed with Domer48's argument being that by "key nationalist perspectives" Donnell means the genocide claim. Domer says that this is further supported by Donnell's reference to these perspectives being ones that were "previously out of fashion". Mine is that it could mean any number of perspectives that are key to nationalist interpretations of the famine, none of which include the genocie claim, and that many nationalist perspectives were previously "out of fashion". The discussion presently stands at deadlock.

Statement by Domer48
I consider myself harassed, and my edits frustrated by User:MarkThomas who wish to push a POV. I consider the conditions placed on me by some editors, are in excess of what they would expect for themselves. The frustration and exasperation this has caused has resulted in my being here. I consider some of the actions of both User:MarkThomas and user:sony-youth to be manipulative and disruptive and designed to stifle my efforts. Regards --Domer48 17:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Sarah777
Not entirely sure why I'm in this one. I agree with Domer's perception that he is being unfairly treated by editors who fail to recognise their own POV. I openly admit to mine, and seek to keep it out of articles. But countering "opposing" pov is taken by certain editors as pushing my own. (Also, I don't think this is serious enough or anywhere near enough to a "last resort" to be here in Arbcom. Sorry Sir Fozzie). (Sarah777 20:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC))


 * I find the suggestion of a ONE YEAR BAN to be contemptible and completely OTT - and bizarre. So much over the top that I REFUSE to participate in this charade until the suggestion/threat is withdrawn. I have instigated over 300 articles and made over 7,600 edits in one year on Wiki; all on geographical topics. NOT ONE (from memory) related in any way to the issue of British Imperialism. Unlike Sony and some others, involvement in the "controversial" articles is but a tiny part of my Wiki activity. But I am not by nature inclined to grovel, apologise or bend the knee (where such is manifestly not merited). (Sarah777 02:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC))


 * Reading the case against me it appears the ONE YEAR BAN is proposed on an active and productive editor because:


 * Sarah777 engaged in original research
 * Sarah777 was uncivil (in heated argument with other uncivil folk)
 * Sarah777 [made] repeated anti-British remarks, including allegations that the British Government committed genocide in Ireland.

That's it! One year ban! Obviously stating the simple FACT that the British Government committed genocide in Ireland (in context, and only in discussion) is too painful for some people to hear; but the talk pages are cluttered with comments referring to Irish "terrorists" etc and - hey! - that's OK. (Sarah777 18:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC))

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/0/0)

 * Accept to consider user conduct. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Accept. SimonP 13:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Accept. Mackensen (talk) 11:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Accept. Kirill 17:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)
=Final decision = All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

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.


 * Passed 7 to 0, 21:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox
2) The use of Wikipedia for political propaganda is prohibited.


 * Passed 7 to 0, 21:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

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.


 * Passed 7 to 0, 21:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Editors expected to keep their cool
4) 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.


 * Passed 7 to 0, 21:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutral point of view
5) 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.


 * Passed 7 to 0, 21:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Verifiable information from reliable sources
6) Attribution requires that information included in an article on a subject be limited to verifiable information from reliable sources.


 * Passed 7 to 0, 21:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Original research
7) 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.


 * Passed 7 to 0, 21:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Domer48 edited disruptively
1) has edited disruptively on Great Irish Famine, including insertions of original research (improper synthesis of material)   and the usage of tendentious edit summaries.


 * Passed 7 to 0, 21:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Sarah777 engaged in original research
2) engaged in original research on Great Irish Famine over the usage of the term "genocide.".


 * Passed 7 to 0, 21:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Sarah777
3.1) has repeatedly engaged in anti-British invective in an attempt to use Wikipedia as a battleground along national lines.


 * Passed 7 to 0, 21:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

MarkThomas has been incivil
4) has made incivil remarks towards other editors (,,.


 * Passed 7 to 0, 21:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Remedies
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
1.1) 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 Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine. When possible, mentors should favor article bans over page protection. The Committee will review the mentorship arrangement in approximately one month upon request of any involved editor and again at future points if warranted. If a review reveals that the mentors agree that the article has demonstrated the ability to grow without strife, the mentorship may be ended. Otherwise, the mentorship will continue for one year.


 * Passed 7 to 0, 21:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Superseded by motion. The article, now at Great Famine (Ireland), is within the scope of the discretionary sanctions authorised under The Troubles. Passed 9 to 0, 02:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Sarah777 restricted
2.2) Sarah777 may be banned from editing any page which she disrupts by engaging in aggressive biased editing or by making anti-British remarks. All bans are to be logged at Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine.


 * Passed 7 to 0, 21:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

MarkThomas on civility supervision
3) is placed on standard civility supervision for one year. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then he may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat offenses.


 * Passed 7 to 0, 21:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

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.


 * Passed 7 to 0, 21:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Log of blocks, bans, and enforcements
Log any block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

Enforcement
The committee has appointed, , and as mentors to Great Irish Famine in fulfillment on Remedy 1.1. Originally posted to RfAr by Mackensen. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 18:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * now blocked indefinitely by uninvolved admin, User:Jreferee per Suspected sock puppets/MarkThomas and evidence summary provided by same admin - A l is o n  ❤ 19:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * banned from editing article page only for ten days, starting 00:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC), for revert-warring after warning. Article reverted to version when enforcement began to prevent martyrdom.  Daniel  00:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * banned from editing British Isles, its talk, or any subpages for a period of 7 days for disruptive and aggressive behavior. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 13:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * , banned from editing The Great Hunger for one week, that is, until 15:00 UTC 2008-06-13. Continued edit warring after warning, i.e. this edit. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 15:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * blocked 72 hours for violation above-noted article ban (see edit). Daniel (talk) 22:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * blocked from editing for 31 hours, or until an apology is offered, whichever is less, by myself, for repeatedly referring to another editor as a liar or as lying:, , . Angus McLellan  (Talk) 16:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * page banned and Domer 48 notified of page bans. Article ban expires 2008-08-23 12:00 UTC, talk page ban expires 2008-07-23 12:00 CET. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * blocked for 55 hours for edit-warring on Great Famine (Ireland). Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * is article banned from Template:British English for 1 month. Article ban expires midnight GMT June 8, 2011.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
 * additionally indef-banned from WikiProject Ireland and from British Isles (including talkpages), per ; cf. ANI discussion . Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)