On 1/20/06, Sean Barrett sean@epoptic.org wrote:
geni, I wish you'd drop the straw-man arguments. As you know full well, those seeking and being denied link exchange are not comparable to million-selling authors whose internationally-published works are being falsely accused of being vanity printings.
True there isn't a template for million selling authors. I wasn't being entirly serious in that part of the text.
Complaints about being reverted are not so easily dismissed -- by you or me. The same nasty personalities who are delighted by calling a renowed scientist a quack or a best-selling author a hack are just as delighted by reverting well-intentioned edits with hateful personal attacks. So: yes, we should have a committee to oversee on-article personal attacks.
Who said anything about personal attacks? For the most part the emails are along the lines of "my contribution was reverted. Why?".
I think we should call it something like ... the "Arbitration Committee" or something like that. I'll be one of the first to volunteer to serve on it, and I'll even accept a three-year hitch. And furthermore, I'll bet you that I'll serve one of the longest spans in office of any Arbiter.
I can't at short notice think of an arbcom case where a newbie sucessfuly complained about the behaviour of a slightly more long term editor.
-- geni