2008/5/30 White Cat wikipedia.kawaii.neko@gmail.com:
Enough for what? I won't be silenced. Do not bother to try.
- White Cat
A response hardly consistent with your claim not to seek battles. Majorly is hardly going to try and censor you not really his style and yet in one interaction you are heading for battle (I mean I could understand if it was one interaction we me but Majorly?). But the claim of not seeking battles was never credible.
See while editors who do not actively seek battles may stumble into them from time to time it is uncommon and for the most part they have little trouble withdrawing.
Other editors are indifferent to conflict if it happens it happens. If it doesn't it doesn't
There are a few who actively seek out conflict this may or may not be a problem.
You get involved in far far to many battles to fall into the first group. The second is again not credible since a higher than expected percentage of your interactions seem to end in conflict. So that leaves us with the third. You do seek battles.
Now this in itself may not be a bad thing. I suspect a fair number of our vandal hunters are driven by the desire for conflict. While certain of our colleagues may detest them for this they are useful. Others who try and keep NPOV in place in certain areas I suspect have a certain desire for conflict but this is again useful.
But the useful ones tend to have an important trait. They can keep the conflict localized. This means both the obvious that they generally fight things out on talk pages viewing escalation to arbcom and the like as an absolute last resort but also tend to be fairly self contained. If arbcom judges against them they simply shrug and move on. They deal with the conflicts themselves rather than trying to drag in other unwilling participants. Taken to far this can itself cause problems but less so than the alternative.
You do no have this trait. Your first instinct when faced with conflict appears to be to escalate. To try and get others to fight the battles you engage in for you. You do do quite a good line in passive aggressiveness to support this.
To the actual case. So en arbcom want to have some level of control over the arbitration process? Is that a completely insane idea? Because anything less and no one is really going to be looking to oppose them. Particularly not senior people who quite rightly recognize that arbcom act as a useful shield between them and large amounts of stupid conflict. Your only other option would be to build an onwiki group of at least 100 people which isn't going to happen. You cannot win this fight. So would you please stop wasting time by going on about it and if possible reconsider your wider behavior.