I'm going to be honest here. I filed the request for arbitration against the group for several reasons:

1. The staggering incivility on Giggy's RFA;
2. I saw a serious problem which I felt could not be dealt with by the community;
3. I wanted to blow the whistle on the problem which some people were unaware of.

And it worked. The RfAr was one of the best things that happened because it allowed people who were too scared to speak out to do so with few reprecussions. I knew I might take a reputation hit, but I felt that my reputation would've recovered anyway. And while the request for arbitration was denied, it served to alert them that the community is now aware of the incivility, canvassing, anti-Christian-science editing, cabalism done by members of the group, and will think very poorly of it.

The "ID cabal" still maintain that they are innocent on all four, citing the fact we should assume good faith. But as KillerChihuahua herself says, "AGF is not a suicide pact". I have no reason to assume good faith, because of the following:

1. Incivility: RFAR/Orangemarlin, with its wellspoken evidence (even though the process was bad);
2. Canvassing: Filll's email, and KC using the IRC admin channel to canvass against giggy (I verified this with two admins, one of which forwarded a log to AC);
3. POV pushing: Jim62sch's comment that "we need to knock [Christian scientists] off their pedastals on Talk:Rosalind Picard;
4. Cabalism: Naerii's RFA voting analysis on the RFAr, and my own AFD experiences.

I also stand by the viewpoint that they are, by the dictionary definition of the word, being hypocrites. They all ask for good faith, even though they themselves do not show it (most visible on the Krimpet AN thread). Filll is one of the worst editors in this respect for his AGF challenge (which I nevertheless filled in, before the RFAR).

I know editing Wikipedia can be stressful, and some people might be afforded leniency if they're editing just to forget their bereavements (for example, Jeffpw is understandably upset because his parter died). But when you come across as snappy, condescending, or dickish nearly all the time, you really need to think about how and why editing Wikipedia. I know I had a problem with this earlier this year - my reason was that I was slowly becoming disenchanted with Wikipedia. It took a snowballing RFA to readjust my attitude.

I'm feeling a bit more disenchanted now, so I think it's best to recuse from over-criticism - DanT, Giano, and MONGO are proof that constant criticism gets annoying and polarizing. I'm going to go back to writing articles (and when I get the broadband switched, reverting vandalism) because it's a more enjoyable activity. But at the same time, the experience has mostly taught me to be a lot more critical of the group, and to learn to have the confidence to speak up on Wikipedia where there is a problem being sugarcoated. I think it's making me more mature as both a Wikipedian and a real person - a success story for Wikipedia, and the best I'll get because I'm not as lucky as Shanel and Pathoschild when it comes to inter-Wikipedian romance.

Thanks for reading.

So does this mean you're going to disengage?

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Does it mean what Filll thinks it means?

I think I have a better grasp of the definition than some others. ^

Heh. Maybe the Princess Bride references are no longer immediately understood. Inconceivable.

Would anyone like a peanut?

(I got it)

The only line from Princess Bride I know...

Haha. Ah, see. I'm a 25 year old chick. I think I saw most of that movie once a few years ago. Isn't it more of a guy flick?

We watched that in english class once in high school.