On Jan 20, 2006, at 4:17 PM, Sean Barrett wrote:
Since the statement you attribute to me has absolutely
no resemblance
to
anything I actually wrote, it's clear that you are only seeking to fan
the partisan flames here.
Excuse me? My quote is a *direct quote* from your earlier e-mail.
Unaltered and unedited. Are you now retracting your statement?
You wrote: "I would like to think that -- really I would -- but two
years on the ArbComm have turned me into a bitter, cynical, twisted
shadow of my former cheery, optimistic, happy-go-lucky self. Have
nominations painlessly canceled, with no repercussions at all, would
make the deletionists /more/ likely to nominate stuff for deletion, not
less."
You proposed to form a committee whose sole purpose would be to punish
"deletionists" by banning them from deletion pages. That is inarguably
a hostile act that will do nothing but embitter those you target and
make them more determined to oppose *anything* you present as being the
work of, as you said, a "bitter, cynical, twisted" person. You could
have made a rational suggestion, like geni's "So your article has been
nominated for deletion" page, which I have already worked to improve,
or kat's call for more speedy keeps. Those are both rational, logical
ideas. Creating an anti-deletionist bureaucracy is nothing but spite.
-FCYTravis