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)
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-youth pléigh 08:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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 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)
A new account (one edit only) made major changes last night - diff, and the edit summary is blatantly incorrect: (Added unused source J. C. Beckett in the introduction). 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)
I'll take a look at it. Note that the proposed restriction was only on editors IN the GIF ArbCom.. If this account is reverting back to either side's preferred version then it would be considered a proxy.. if it's significant changes, I'm not sure what to do to be quite honest, but I'll take a look at it sometime today. SirFozzie 14:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Removing the edits of 5 editors is grossly uncivil. Should you continue you will be reported on the administrators notice board. -- Domer48 12:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Sony you are making allegations against me, and I suggest you stop now! In addition, I’m not barred from editing any article! A proposal was made that was it, no decision was taken. It is you Sony who requested the check user, so go ahead and make the request officially. There is no suspicion on me! So make the request or let it drop! That is all I have to say on the subject! -- Domer48 13:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I've open a check user request to see if Pappin76 or SeaOfTranquility are puppets of anyone involved in the current ArbCom case. -- sony-youth pléigh 14:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Finally, please stop posting comments such as "This is all part of a campaign of Harassment" in response to my post. I am not harassing you. Why on earth would I harass you? -- sony-youth pléigh 20:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) There now appears to be another SPA/newly created account who has found its way very quickly to this article. After Domer and it (SeaofTranquility) were both given 3RR warnings by me, its been reverted to Domer's version by GoldHeart. Can I at this stage plea for calm and a moratorium on edits until Arbcom look at this? In any case, I've gone ahead and requested full page protection. Regards, Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 14:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I would just like to take this opportunity to thank everyone for the genuinely touching welcome, did I just say touching? What I meant to say was, hostile, intimidating and accusatory. Having submitted my first edit 2 day ago, I have been the subject, of what in my opinion is some sort of concerted effort to intimidate me off WP. At least that's how it feels to me, firstly I was accused of being "Blatantly Incorrect" in my edit summary by Bastun, secondly sony-youth calls for some sort of checkuser, which I understand to be a type of 'get that guys address' or IP address at least but the sentiment is the same, thirdly Domer48 seems to have some sort of problem with my choice of Beckett as a reference and finally on the second day I stand accussed of being some kind of puppet who according to sony-youth couldn't possibly have the ability to edit a page, which I find very patronising and insulting, as editing a page is hardly rocket science. By the way for those interested I have confirmed my IP address with WP so again thank you all for the fine welcome, maybe the next time a new user does something that displeases you guys, you might consider reaching out to the person on their talk page and offer advice before being so judgemental. By the way I will be notiyfing Admin about this horribly unwelcoming reception fraught with suspicion and allegation -- Pappin76 22:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
The only content dispute on this article is the content some editors don’t like. They consider the worst material added is that which is referenced. If it’s wrong and has a citation tag, the only problem is the tag. Now until such a time as an administrator steps in and challenges this it is going to continue. This is not a contentious article, for anyone to suggest it is, is missing the whole point. It’s the editors who make it contentious. I suggest one rule, back up everything you add with a reference, source citation. That will put a stop to the trumpeted up little POV merchants, who like to have lock pages. So is there any Administrator out there who wants to put this article on their watch list. Review what been added place it on Article Probation. If not, locking it is a poor excuse. -- Domer48 08:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that the only concensus that editors on this page want is that Domer48 and Pappin76 do not make any more "referenced edits" in favour of sony-youth and MarkThomas or page will be reverted and then blocked from further edits,or is it until two mentioned get what they want since I have began watching this page it is the 2nd time it has been locked. BigDunc 12:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
While I consider BigDunc's opinion on the concencus to be close to the mark! Why not find out what is it they want concencus on? Is it 1) No referenced quotes, 2)No sources they do not like, 3) Only cite anti-Irish authors, 4)Nothing to be added to article untill approved by who ever they decide. 5)Opinion carrires more weight than fact. 6)Only selected editors on this Article. 7)Balance dictates no Irish sources (always biased) 9)NPOV, dictates no Irish sources 10)Failure to meet theses demands means Article lock. I may have missed some in my eagerness to get it right. Lets see how editors feel? -- Domer48 21:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
My apologies Sony, I see by your opening line that you will accept that offer. It’s just when I seen the tome you’d written I viewed it through distracted eyes. Sorry about that. -- Domer48 13:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I've asked User:Bastun to request to have the article unlocked. -- Domer48 13:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
So Sony, Is it agreed we unblock the article?-- Domer48 17:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Also note that without waiting, Domer48 and just informed SirFozzie that Domer48 and Sony-youth have agreed to the page being unlocked, which is a deliberate and bare-faced lie and attempt to deceive by Domer48. MarkThomas 17:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Unless there is agreement on how to continue without edit warring I don't see how unprotecting the article is useful. -- sony-youth pléigh 18:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Domer48 you constantly accuse anyone who disagrees with you of "bad faith". There is no such term in Wikipedia - it is abusive and it is incivil. Please stop doing it. People are allowed to disagree with you. If you took the time and effort to discuss your edits sensibly in advance, this article would not be locked. Stop insulting people and scheming and manouvering and start behaving reasonably and you might get somewhere. MarkThomas 19:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
{{editprotected}} I would like to replace this edit:
Suggestions of Genocide (point 4)
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.
With this edit: (Note I have included the reference)
"England’s oppression of Ireland began with the Anglo-Norman invasion of 1169. There followed centuries of rebellion by the Irish and further genocidal campaigns by English rulers—none more savage than that launched by Oliver Cromwell. The Great Rebellion of 1798, the Fenian uprising after the famine in the 1840s, the Easter rebellion of 1916, and the courage of hunger strikers like Terence MacSwiney in 1920 and Bobby Sands in 1981 have shown the strength of Irish resistance." [1]
As was agreed with Sony,
[123]. That is the issue between us resolved.
Should Sony Agree, I would like to add this one also. If they do not they can let me know why? But remove the agreed reference regardless.
"In the long catalogue of British crimes against Ireland, the deliberate starvation and virtual forced emigration of a large section of the Irish population in the middle years of the last century must stand out as one of the most abominable atrocities ever committed by one nation against another."
[2]
-- Domer48 20:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I asking Sony “…are you now going to accept this offer [124], a simple yes or no will suffice.”
Sony’s reply “That's all I was ever interested in…”
I’m a bit slow on the uptake so I said “Ye, Ye are you finished twisting; the question was yes or no!” (Sony gave a long winded answer)
Sony replied “You really do have problems. Yes. Take out the misquote of Donnell. How many different ways do I have to say that?”
And I said “My apologies Sony, I see by your opening line that you will accept that offer. It’s just when I seen the tome you’d written I viewed it through distracted eyes. Sorry about that.”
End of Conversation until Mark entered the fray. Sony did not intervene to point out the error of Marks ways, mark said it did not matter anyway!
Unlike most stories there was no happy ending. -- Domer48 22:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
See below: And the truth shall set you free! -- Domer48 22:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Done. —
Scien
tizzle
21:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Please delete the fourth bullet in the section Suggestions of Genocide ("Professor James Donnelly states ..."), as agreed with Domer48 (and reiterated by Domer in the section above). -- sony-youth pléigh 22:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Now tell you buddy Mark to keep is babbling rants and fairy tales to himself. Ask for the page to be unblocked and let the referenced information do the talking! Do not use Mark as an excuse! There will be no edit war! Plenthy of discussion though!-- Domer48 22:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
This matter came to arbitration some time ago, but has stalled from seeming indifference. I say seeming because there's obvious interest in the matter, but perhaps not in that setting. I come here then with some questions and perhaps a way forward. What are the primary issues of contention, insofar as the content of the article is concerned--what is keeping this page protected? Would editors here be prepared to accept the mediation of an uninvolved third party group composed of content editors to arbitrate, as it were, on the content itself? Finally, are editors here ready, or at least willing, to try and cast aside past grievances to work on this article in a spirit of collaboration? Mackensen (talk) 02:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I hesitate to ask this, but it is encyclopaedic...
I do some research in old London magazines and so on. In one, a humour magazine from ~1860 (I'll have to dig it out) there's the most shocking bit of supposed comedy about Irish and rotten potatoes.
Do you think this would make a good sidebar, to help illustrate the English callousness, or would that be unnecessarily controversial? Adam Cuerden talk 06:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Would editors here be prepared to accept the mediation of an uninvolved third party group composed of content editors to arbitrate, as it were, on the content itself?
A necessary precondition of unlocking the page is a sense that edit-warring would not resume. My feeling is that we would start with it locked; the group could unlock once the spirit of collaborative editing was restored. Another necessary precondition is that everybody chills out and stops viewing this as a struggle. Mackensen (talk) 12:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Mackensen has made the following suggestion "Would editors here be prepared to accept the mediation of an uninvolved third party group composed of content editors to arbitrate, as it were, on the content itself?" Could editors sign that they agree or disagree ONLY
Mackensen has made the following suggestion "Would editors here be prepared to accept the mediation of an uninvolved third party group composed of content editors to arbitrate, as it were, on the content itself?" Could editors sign that they agree or disagree ONLY ONE WORD ANSWER: AGREE or DISAGREE
These sections appear to be multiplying. Mackensen (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to get in a section not started by Domer. MarkThomas 14:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Done. —
Scien
tizzle
21:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Request the following in Reactions be changed 'charge with sedition, but this charged was dropped' to 'charged with sedition, but this charge was dropped' Journey Back To The Darkside 14:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Please go away. Journey Back To The Darkside 15:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Apologies Mark Thomas it was unnecessary of me to bite,I take it someone from the other side of the Atlantic will now decide if the change is necessary. Journey Back To The Darkside 15:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
It seems reading this page that MarkThomas is a bit on the paranoid side is the whole world against you Mark maybe this user is Domer too and we are all coming to get you and ruin your little page with "lies" it starting to feel like a scene from Spartacus I am Domer no I am Domer. Come on Mark think about the things your saying starting to sound very silly.-- BigDunc 18:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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-youth pléigh 08:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
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 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)
A new account (one edit only) made major changes last night - diff, and the edit summary is blatantly incorrect: (Added unused source J. C. Beckett in the introduction). 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)
I'll take a look at it. Note that the proposed restriction was only on editors IN the GIF ArbCom.. If this account is reverting back to either side's preferred version then it would be considered a proxy.. if it's significant changes, I'm not sure what to do to be quite honest, but I'll take a look at it sometime today. SirFozzie 14:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Removing the edits of 5 editors is grossly uncivil. Should you continue you will be reported on the administrators notice board. -- Domer48 12:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Sony you are making allegations against me, and I suggest you stop now! In addition, I’m not barred from editing any article! A proposal was made that was it, no decision was taken. It is you Sony who requested the check user, so go ahead and make the request officially. There is no suspicion on me! So make the request or let it drop! That is all I have to say on the subject! -- Domer48 13:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I've open a check user request to see if Pappin76 or SeaOfTranquility are puppets of anyone involved in the current ArbCom case. -- sony-youth pléigh 14:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Finally, please stop posting comments such as "This is all part of a campaign of Harassment" in response to my post. I am not harassing you. Why on earth would I harass you? -- sony-youth pléigh 20:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) There now appears to be another SPA/newly created account who has found its way very quickly to this article. After Domer and it (SeaofTranquility) were both given 3RR warnings by me, its been reverted to Domer's version by GoldHeart. Can I at this stage plea for calm and a moratorium on edits until Arbcom look at this? In any case, I've gone ahead and requested full page protection. Regards, Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 14:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I would just like to take this opportunity to thank everyone for the genuinely touching welcome, did I just say touching? What I meant to say was, hostile, intimidating and accusatory. Having submitted my first edit 2 day ago, I have been the subject, of what in my opinion is some sort of concerted effort to intimidate me off WP. At least that's how it feels to me, firstly I was accused of being "Blatantly Incorrect" in my edit summary by Bastun, secondly sony-youth calls for some sort of checkuser, which I understand to be a type of 'get that guys address' or IP address at least but the sentiment is the same, thirdly Domer48 seems to have some sort of problem with my choice of Beckett as a reference and finally on the second day I stand accussed of being some kind of puppet who according to sony-youth couldn't possibly have the ability to edit a page, which I find very patronising and insulting, as editing a page is hardly rocket science. By the way for those interested I have confirmed my IP address with WP so again thank you all for the fine welcome, maybe the next time a new user does something that displeases you guys, you might consider reaching out to the person on their talk page and offer advice before being so judgemental. By the way I will be notiyfing Admin about this horribly unwelcoming reception fraught with suspicion and allegation -- Pappin76 22:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
The only content dispute on this article is the content some editors don’t like. They consider the worst material added is that which is referenced. If it’s wrong and has a citation tag, the only problem is the tag. Now until such a time as an administrator steps in and challenges this it is going to continue. This is not a contentious article, for anyone to suggest it is, is missing the whole point. It’s the editors who make it contentious. I suggest one rule, back up everything you add with a reference, source citation. That will put a stop to the trumpeted up little POV merchants, who like to have lock pages. So is there any Administrator out there who wants to put this article on their watch list. Review what been added place it on Article Probation. If not, locking it is a poor excuse. -- Domer48 08:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that the only concensus that editors on this page want is that Domer48 and Pappin76 do not make any more "referenced edits" in favour of sony-youth and MarkThomas or page will be reverted and then blocked from further edits,or is it until two mentioned get what they want since I have began watching this page it is the 2nd time it has been locked. BigDunc 12:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
While I consider BigDunc's opinion on the concencus to be close to the mark! Why not find out what is it they want concencus on? Is it 1) No referenced quotes, 2)No sources they do not like, 3) Only cite anti-Irish authors, 4)Nothing to be added to article untill approved by who ever they decide. 5)Opinion carrires more weight than fact. 6)Only selected editors on this Article. 7)Balance dictates no Irish sources (always biased) 9)NPOV, dictates no Irish sources 10)Failure to meet theses demands means Article lock. I may have missed some in my eagerness to get it right. Lets see how editors feel? -- Domer48 21:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
My apologies Sony, I see by your opening line that you will accept that offer. It’s just when I seen the tome you’d written I viewed it through distracted eyes. Sorry about that. -- Domer48 13:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I've asked User:Bastun to request to have the article unlocked. -- Domer48 13:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
So Sony, Is it agreed we unblock the article?-- Domer48 17:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Also note that without waiting, Domer48 and just informed SirFozzie that Domer48 and Sony-youth have agreed to the page being unlocked, which is a deliberate and bare-faced lie and attempt to deceive by Domer48. MarkThomas 17:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Unless there is agreement on how to continue without edit warring I don't see how unprotecting the article is useful. -- sony-youth pléigh 18:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Domer48 you constantly accuse anyone who disagrees with you of "bad faith". There is no such term in Wikipedia - it is abusive and it is incivil. Please stop doing it. People are allowed to disagree with you. If you took the time and effort to discuss your edits sensibly in advance, this article would not be locked. Stop insulting people and scheming and manouvering and start behaving reasonably and you might get somewhere. MarkThomas 19:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
{{editprotected}} I would like to replace this edit:
Suggestions of Genocide (point 4)
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.
With this edit: (Note I have included the reference)
"England’s oppression of Ireland began with the Anglo-Norman invasion of 1169. There followed centuries of rebellion by the Irish and further genocidal campaigns by English rulers—none more savage than that launched by Oliver Cromwell. The Great Rebellion of 1798, the Fenian uprising after the famine in the 1840s, the Easter rebellion of 1916, and the courage of hunger strikers like Terence MacSwiney in 1920 and Bobby Sands in 1981 have shown the strength of Irish resistance." [1]
As was agreed with Sony,
[123]. That is the issue between us resolved.
Should Sony Agree, I would like to add this one also. If they do not they can let me know why? But remove the agreed reference regardless.
"In the long catalogue of British crimes against Ireland, the deliberate starvation and virtual forced emigration of a large section of the Irish population in the middle years of the last century must stand out as one of the most abominable atrocities ever committed by one nation against another."
[2]
-- Domer48 20:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I asking Sony “…are you now going to accept this offer [124], a simple yes or no will suffice.”
Sony’s reply “That's all I was ever interested in…”
I’m a bit slow on the uptake so I said “Ye, Ye are you finished twisting; the question was yes or no!” (Sony gave a long winded answer)
Sony replied “You really do have problems. Yes. Take out the misquote of Donnell. How many different ways do I have to say that?”
And I said “My apologies Sony, I see by your opening line that you will accept that offer. It’s just when I seen the tome you’d written I viewed it through distracted eyes. Sorry about that.”
End of Conversation until Mark entered the fray. Sony did not intervene to point out the error of Marks ways, mark said it did not matter anyway!
Unlike most stories there was no happy ending. -- Domer48 22:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
See below: And the truth shall set you free! -- Domer48 22:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Done. —
Scien
tizzle
21:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Please delete the fourth bullet in the section Suggestions of Genocide ("Professor James Donnelly states ..."), as agreed with Domer48 (and reiterated by Domer in the section above). -- sony-youth pléigh 22:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Now tell you buddy Mark to keep is babbling rants and fairy tales to himself. Ask for the page to be unblocked and let the referenced information do the talking! Do not use Mark as an excuse! There will be no edit war! Plenthy of discussion though!-- Domer48 22:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
This matter came to arbitration some time ago, but has stalled from seeming indifference. I say seeming because there's obvious interest in the matter, but perhaps not in that setting. I come here then with some questions and perhaps a way forward. What are the primary issues of contention, insofar as the content of the article is concerned--what is keeping this page protected? Would editors here be prepared to accept the mediation of an uninvolved third party group composed of content editors to arbitrate, as it were, on the content itself? Finally, are editors here ready, or at least willing, to try and cast aside past grievances to work on this article in a spirit of collaboration? Mackensen (talk) 02:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I hesitate to ask this, but it is encyclopaedic...
I do some research in old London magazines and so on. In one, a humour magazine from ~1860 (I'll have to dig it out) there's the most shocking bit of supposed comedy about Irish and rotten potatoes.
Do you think this would make a good sidebar, to help illustrate the English callousness, or would that be unnecessarily controversial? Adam Cuerden talk 06:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Would editors here be prepared to accept the mediation of an uninvolved third party group composed of content editors to arbitrate, as it were, on the content itself?
A necessary precondition of unlocking the page is a sense that edit-warring would not resume. My feeling is that we would start with it locked; the group could unlock once the spirit of collaborative editing was restored. Another necessary precondition is that everybody chills out and stops viewing this as a struggle. Mackensen (talk) 12:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Mackensen has made the following suggestion "Would editors here be prepared to accept the mediation of an uninvolved third party group composed of content editors to arbitrate, as it were, on the content itself?" Could editors sign that they agree or disagree ONLY
Mackensen has made the following suggestion "Would editors here be prepared to accept the mediation of an uninvolved third party group composed of content editors to arbitrate, as it were, on the content itself?" Could editors sign that they agree or disagree ONLY ONE WORD ANSWER: AGREE or DISAGREE
These sections appear to be multiplying. Mackensen (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to get in a section not started by Domer. MarkThomas 14:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
Done. —
Scien
tizzle
21:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Request the following in Reactions be changed 'charge with sedition, but this charged was dropped' to 'charged with sedition, but this charge was dropped' Journey Back To The Darkside 14:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Please go away. Journey Back To The Darkside 15:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Apologies Mark Thomas it was unnecessary of me to bite,I take it someone from the other side of the Atlantic will now decide if the change is necessary. Journey Back To The Darkside 15:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
It seems reading this page that MarkThomas is a bit on the paranoid side is the whole world against you Mark maybe this user is Domer too and we are all coming to get you and ruin your little page with "lies" it starting to feel like a scene from Spartacus I am Domer no I am Domer. Come on Mark think about the things your saying starting to sound very silly.-- BigDunc 18:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)