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