Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine

Case Opened on 16:24, 6 July 2007 (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 #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but closed cases should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification.

Involved parties

• SirFozzie (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiating party)
• Domer48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sarah777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• sony-youth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MarkThomas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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 6,000 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) - least of all to folk whose primary areas of interest are such as "the British peerage". That being akin to having a "primary interest" in the membership of the Nazi Party in my, very legitimate and well supported (by the FACTS) point of view. Don't DARE accuse me of personal attacks while indulging in exactly the same under a self-delusional fog of spurious "legality". Don't turn Wiki into an organ for Anglo-Saxon propaganda - realise that there are other world-views. If you cannot debate the issues of freedom of expression and REAL reporting of FACTS per NPOV without recourse to bullying, threats and intimidation, then you are not fit to judge me. (Sarah777 02:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC))

Preliminary decisions

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)

Final decision (none yet)

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

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.

Log of blocks and bans

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.