Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine/Evidence

message: I'll reply here to SirFozzie's, "Quite frankly, there it is in a nutshell." My comment was not endorsing that WP be used as a battle ground, but to point to what I think is a naivety on your part with regard to the deep-seededness of the conflict. If you think it can be solved by comments such as "they need to be made to understand" then it is unlikely that you're making any progress in getting past that naivety. People do understand, but they don't see that they are breaching any rules - its the other person. --sony-youthpléigh 22:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Nutshell" 

message: Fozzie, the favouritism I was referring to was not when you blocked Mark, he should have had more sense than to do that, it was all of those times when you didn't block Domer. You left a post on the Famine talk page on July 13 saying, "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." A day later Gaimhreadhan asked the pertinent question, "You're an admin, so is there a way of enforcing your recommendation ... ?" Well? Aren't you an admin? Was there no way of enforcing your recommendations? Here we had an edit war with an obvious the main belligerent - edit warring with Mark, refusing to properly discuss the article with me, making an extensive rewrite after the 1st unlock, edit-warring again, rv'ing after you warned him to stop, edit warring all over again ... it just went on and on and you did nothing to stop him. Meanwhile, it looked like you were warning Mark left-right-and-centre for what was nothing more than being foolish enough to react to a belligerent editor.
I got the feeling from the start that you got suckered in way too quickly by Domer's list of complaints. Did you even read them? They were ludicrous! It looks like Domer just went through Marks contribs, linked to each diff in succession and pasted some random accusation beside it. It should have set-off an alarm bell in your head not to take them as face value, which I believe you did, or at best far too sympathetically. --sony-youthpléigh 23:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for this Sony-youth. To set the record straight, I do accept that I have behaved badly, got steamed up, said things I shouldn't have and generally been a pain. Sorry! In my own defence, I was considerably provoked, not that you should respond to provocation. On this process; Domer48's tactics and "Nameless User"'s tactics overleaf and in the Arbcom and original talk pages leave me nowhere to go; I simply don't have the time he or she apparently has to go through all of my edits labelling them "bad faith" or "vandalism" or whatever to counter this nonsense. Yet the arbcom people obviously expect me to have to do just that, rather than reading back to look at the context of the original supposed offences. Note that Domer48 is apparently lined up for, er, no punishment whatever. Thanks Mackenson for saying my intended punishment was too harsh, but could you possibly take a look at Talk:Great Irish Famine and the Domer48 criticisms there and consider if I was in fact provoked by a lot of complete nonsense? Thanks. Again, apologies for my own misbehaviours. MarkThomas 07:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SirFozzie and favouritism