> I question your suitability for the role of arbitrator based on your
> condescention towards those who want the wikipedia policies enforced.

You told me to work to have the policy changed; I tell you to work to
have me removed. Jimbo appointed me; convince him to remove me. As
an alternative, if a simple majority of my fellow arbiters ask me to
step down, I will.

> The only argument you have given
> against enforcing such rules is that your time is too precious.

I haven't even given that argument, and I don't intend to give any
arguments. I simply refuse to be compelled to arbitrate the way you
think I should.

> So would it be correct to conclude that you either you think that nobody will
> be driven away by personal attacks, or it is not worth your time to retain
> these contributors?

Conclude what you like. I am a free man. You cannot compel me to
rule on a case I don't choose to rule on. I encourage you, however,
to work on impeaching me from the arbitration committee.

> I will also put to you my opinion that in cases where
> there has been a gross violation of policies such as "no personal attacks",
> all the arbitration committee will have to do is the following:

And I suspect that in cases where there has been a gross violation of
the "no personal attacks" policy, there will be contemporaneous
violations such as edit warring, which I agree rise to a level
requiring arbitration.

> Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

Don't forget to inform the arbitration committee of my dereliction of
duty, and impress upon Jimbo the urgency of appointing arbiters who
will always rule the way you tell them to.

--
Sean Barrett | To bite off your shadow is neither easy
sean@epoptic.com | nor painless. It demands a single-mindedness
| that is almost unknown in this day.