You are among the people who assume I am wrong all of the time. You (singular) aren't alone in this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive... visible there are many examples of people who go out of their way to attack me and defend the indef blocked guy. You (plural) show no understanding whatsoever. That is why I pay attention to you (plural) as little as possible. I told you (plural) many times to stop pursuing me and stop stirring a nonexistent controversy in every time I am seeking a resolution. That should hardly be normal. Along the people who have relentlessly pursued me in the past included users like Essjay and Kelly Martin who assumed the role of being my nemesis. Both were trusted users who were arbitrators and checkusers. At least one was a bureaucrat. So I am rather familiar with being unjustly prosecuted. It wont work any more though. I do not seek adminship on en.wikipedia so there is no reason for me to care about my "wiki-charisma". You cannot ruin something I do not care about.
I do not seek battles. I did not ask Davenbelle to stalk me. I do not have an interest in conflict. I go out of my way not to escalate disputes. I patiently wait, wait, wait and wait. I have been waiting arbcom to make up their freaking mind since early may only to be ignored (case was removed yet again over inactivity). Hence why I feel arbcom is quite useless.
If I am participating in a conversation, I only seek to correct what I see is wrong in the system. We call this consensus seeking or discussion. You call it a battle.
I have been dealing with the same user for the past there years. This user has had four accounts so far. The only reason I went to arbcom was to deal with him as a last resort. I have been around arbcom a total of five times. In each and every instance this user was involved. I am tired of being blamed of his conduct.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Think of it in a different way. I am on a dynamic IP range. I have advanced technical knowledge. I know the flaws and vulnerabilities of Mediawiki. It takes me a touch of a button to pick a new wiki-identity. I am trying to find a way out on the mailing lists rather than engage in battles. Is that the conduct of a person seeking battles? If it is, then this must be the most peaceful war ever imagined.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This post was never about arbcoms general structure. I was complaining about the absence of a dispute resolution system on wikipedia. [[WP:DR]] is not capable of resolving anything.
-- White Cat
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 5:11 AM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
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.
-- geni
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l