Talk:Great Famine (Ireland)

Where are the suggestions? (Sarah777 02:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC))

An event mentioned in this article is a June 27 selected anniversary

---

Past entries in this famous discussion are archived in:

.1 , .2 , .3 , .4 , .5 , .6 , .7 , .8 , .9 , .10 (empty) , .11 (empty)...

Manipulating and disruptive editing

I consider it only right to clarify a couple of points in order to address any misunderstanding that may arise from the recent discussion. Sony has made a number of allegations and I feel they should not go unremarked. Sony has brought manipulation and misrepresentation to an unprecedented level, and can be illuminated thus: Having made an accusation against me [1], I replied in a like manner, suggesting they take another look, [2] at the edits and see the mistake they were making. Obviously unable to cop their mistake, they replied, [3]. Left with no alternative, I had to spell it out slowly and step by step, [4]. Still not the brightest, the alternative being just disingenuousness, I stated it straight out, [5]. I then became a bit more direct, [6], not liking people who prevaricate. Finially I got the answer, long winded, but an answer, and they concluded with a retraction, [7]. Conciliatory messages all round, from me, [8], from them, [9]. And move on! Not so, another discussion, and what do they bring up, the quote, [10]. A bit miffed, but I keep it cool, [11], and I get another apology, [12], with of course some self justification thrown in for good measure, Sony clearly states and addresses Sarah on the quote. I step in to put this to rest and hope that is the end of it, [13], but that would have been the end of it! Full blown discussion, ignored my offer, and yacked on and on! And then slips the quote in again, directed at me and a totally unrelated subject [14]. First I dismiss it and let it go, but hey its not me, I have a pop, [15]. And they makes the same accusation again [16]. I’m at this stage not having it and make it known, [17]. And all you get is the same crap again, [18]. I have been patient, tried tact, got annoyed, all to no avail. Sony is argumentative, manipulative, disrupting, and provocative and is a self-perpetuating rambler. Unless they are challenged, their clearly established pov pushing agenda will lose wiki some good editors. Now having set the record straight, I’m done with this conversation, and this editor!--Domer48 11:43, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I must say Domer, I know exactly how you feel. (Sarah777 12:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC))

Domer, this has got out of hand. My posts to the talk page were always in relation to the O'Donnell quote. I have 
no reason to want to keep discussion of the genocide claim out of the article. I want the case to be made strongly 
and clearly so readers can appreicate the extent and impact of the famine on Ireland, and how it relates to the 
national question and the history of relations between Britain and Ireland. The O'Donnell quote is misrepresented, 
but don't mix up my opposition to it being used in the way that it is with opposition to discussion of the genocide 
claim. There is plenty to support the argument but I would like it copper-fastened against the basic criticisms of 
the view. The famine is taught as genocide, alongside genocides, in a number of American states. See here for 
suggested curriculum material from New Jersey (or here for the same source listed it alongside the Holocaust, 
Cambodia, Native American genocide, Armenia and the Ukraine). There's lots of supporting material for the view, 
my only concern at the moment is the O'Donnell quote. I'm not harking back to it - its simply the only thing that I 
object to. --sony-youthpléigh 08:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The above was originally posted to User_talk:Domer48 and was posted here by Domer48. --sony-youth^pléigh 19:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

And what if I did post it here? This is were the discussion is! You are lying again, and anyone who reads my post, will notice that you can not stand over your accusation and therefore change the subject of the complaint. You accused me of changing a quote to suit my alleged POV. Now, no more BS! --Domer48 19:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Manipulating and disruptive editing II

User:MarkThomas, the editor who had this article locked, has had nothing but a disruptive influence on this article. They have created the conditions which gave rise to a number of disputes. In addition, they have continually baited editors, one of whom is the subject of a Rfc. That it is not just this article is evident, and forms a clear pattern of disruption. They refuse to contribute referenced material, preferring to add opinion, which they consider as good as, if not better than any reference. Any reference they dislike and which dose not reflect there opinion, is either Republican in origin, therefore biased, a minority view, folklore, or one which is only held by extreme nationalists. They have also abused the 3rr policy by baiting editors with malicious edits. In addition, playing the victim, and using Add min’s in a calculating way has been common practice. If this is to continue, Wikipedia will lose any decent editors they have, and discourage any potential editors. I consider that the lock on the article was inspired and perpetuated by this editor. Below are just some examples, and this is only three articles!

The Great Famine Article

Removed information which they accepted, but removed, with comment and no reference, [19] Baiting and abusive comment, removed referenced information, [20] First contact, questioning source, no problem, [21] Unqualified comments, and opinion, [22] Baiting an editor, [23] Baiting comments, Re anti British, [24] Baiting editor, [25] Baiting the same editor, [26], notice edit comment. Baiting editor, [27] Argumentative, baiting editor on Rfc, [28] Baiting editor on Rfc, [29] Baiting editor on Rfc, [30] Having provoked a reaction, wants apology. [31] Baiting editor on Rfc, [32] Argumentative, and suggesting POV, [33] Accepts things one minute, [34] Unreferenced comment, questioning referenced ones, [35] As before, [36] Blocked for baiting editor, [37] Unreferenced comment, [38] Referenced of the net, [39], very contentious issue, I left it alone. Insinuation and bad faith comment, [40] Questioning, but not referencing concerns, just comment, [41] Accepts a source, questions same source, build an uncivil case [42] Contradicting themselves, and questioning source again, POV suggestion, [43] POV pushing, questioning source they agreed with, [44] Analysis, comment, opinion, no references, [45] Baiting, argumentative, [46] Bad faith edit, baiting, [47] Argumentative [48] Bad faith edit, POV, Baiting, [49] Assertions, Opinion, argumentative, [50] Baiting, [51] Adding unreferenced opinion, [52] Baiting, [53] Questioning sources previously accepted, POV pushing, [54] Reasonable, [55] Baiting, POV pushing, [56] Argumentative, Baiting [57] POV Pushing, Baiting, [58] Baiting, the trap is closing, [59] Baiting, provoking, harassment, [60] Now the victim, [61] In goes the report, [62] Notification, abrupt, [63] I make my point, [64] We love to play the victim, [65] Making a point that has noting to do with them, [66] Other editors get involved, [67] Argumentative, baiting, [68] Clearly lying, [69] Argument, [70] He’s now asking for references, [71] Another lie, [72] Comment, opinion, cites no sources, he’s words enough, [73] Peddling the bait, [74] Comment, opinion, cites no sources, he’s words enough, [75] A bogus report about me, [76] Constructive at last, [77] Inculcate editors, [78] Go with any point if it contradicts Sarah, [79] Rambling comments, opinion, [80] Baiting, [81] No citation, no references, [82] Start another RV battle, [83] Opinion, no reference, [84] Needs back up, POV pushing, [85] Out to wind up, baiting, [86] Playing the victim, [87] Baiting, [88] The trap opens, [89] Wider, [90] Added opinion, baiting, [91] Removed referenced quote, [92] Helpful, [93] Victim again, [94] Trap failed, put on a block, [95] Victim, still wants a block on me, [96] Victim, hurt, wounded, [97] Needs back up, accusation, [98] Vindication, at last, [99] Defence of backup, [100]

Oliver Cromwell Article, is next for a lockdown! Inappropriate statement, [101], “Republican History,” no references, just comment. Argumentative POV, [102] A total rewrite, [103] Baiting, [104] Opinion added to article, baiting, [105]

British Isles Suggestions of anti-British [106] Baiting Editor: [107] Suggested statement of fact, no reference: [108], i.e. . “no serious scholar” Use of the term “extreme view” [109] to have an alternative view. Removed unreferenced material, [110], backed up with unreferenced comments. Removed a tag, they felt unnecessary, [111] Unreferenced comment, [112] Changing a referenced quote[113] no substantiated with a reference. Argumentative edit, [114] Comment, POV, Opinion, [115] Baiting editor, [116] More opinion, [117] Getting references, still waiting, [118]

Regards--Domer48 17:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Excellent research Domer. I was preparing to do something on those lines myself in my response to the RfC, but when the process was reduced to a forum for trolling, abuse and was been taken as a green light to launch personal attacks on me I had to call a halt. One of the editors you mentioned had to be blocked for repeated personal attacks, despite numerous warnings; and I noticed the total refusal of one of the instigators of the RfC to condemn the abuse I was getting. He "couldn't see any abuse"; thankfully an Admin had better eye-sight. (Sarah777 19:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC))

The above represents a large number of quite unjustified accusations of bad faith editing, repeatedly breaching WP:AGF and amounting to a campaign of personal abuse and vilification directed against myself. I have (again - for the last time) requested an apology from Domer48. Nearly all of the "allegations" above are false, misleading or downright malicious or trolling, or combinations of these. MarkThomas 15:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this remark above by Domer48 accusing me of "Bad faith edit, POV, Baiting" on diff no 57, which refers to a small (and correctly referenced) change is solid evidence that Domer48 (and by agreeing with this above, Sarah777 by inference) regard any content disagreement as evidence of bad faith. MarkThomas 15:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Accusations at Talk:Great_Irish_Famine#Manipulating_and_disruptive_editing_II

You are repeatedly accusing me of bad faith editing at the above-mentioned talk page location. This is against Wikipedia policies, specifically WP:AGF. I have repeatedly asked you not to do this. Please apologise and retract the statements. Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors; instead, assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia.

Note that this last pasted edit above was done by Domer48 and is pasted content that I originally placed privately on his talk page in an effort to politely request an apology without involving others. Thanks. MarkThomas 17:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Mark, it has already been pointed out that there is no such thing as posting privately on a Wiki talk page. You have been corrected on this point before.

(Sarah777 22:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC))

It was posted unsigned; I was explaining who had posted it. As regards the correction, I stand by the basic point that it isn't usual to do this. MarkThomas

Man, ya'll need to take it easy.

I tend to doubt anyone on this talk page is a truly bad person, as is insinuated over and over, so maybe if you treated each other with a little respect you'd get the same in return. What you should be doing is workshopping these POV/Baiting/Bad Faith edits on this talk page before editing the article itself. Al1encas1no 02:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur ...Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 19:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

I strongly recommend that none of the parties in the GIF ArbCom case edit this article any further while the ArbCom case is active. We do not need to have the article locked down. SirFozzie 16:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur but with caveats:

1. You're an admin, so is there a way of enforcing your recommendation if it is ignored by one or more of the parties to "the GIF ArbCom case"?
2. Could you provide a clickable internal link to the "GIF ArbCom case" so that we can read what it's about?

...Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 19:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

From my talk:

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 16:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

--sony-youth^pléigh 19:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Sony. You really are a star!...Gaimhreadhan^{(kiwiexile at DMOZ)} • 20:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh no! He's back a day early. Like Jason sneaking into town on October 30th. (Sarah777 22:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC))

Wah-ha-ha-ha! Got to keep you on your toes, Sarah! --sony-youth^pléigh 23:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Last night's SPA edit

A new account (one edit only) made major changes last night - diff, and the edit summary is blatantly incorrect. I've not been following the history of this article properly for the last few weeks what with holidays, so I've no idea which is the "correct" version to be left in place while ArbCom is looking at this. Perhaps an interested admin could take a look and revert if necessary? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)