I'm not sure I understand what the problem is here. Is there really a problem that would require us to go to Arbitration over this?

Arbitration is, or ought to be, our "last resort". I envision it being used primarily only for people who are entirely unwilling to act with good faith. A mere editing dispute, so long as it's done in a spirit of willingness to compromise and seek mutual ground, ought not to be the sort of case that gets escalated.

So I'd like to appeal to 168 and Mav to set a good example, to try to show people how this can be done, to show how love for knowledge, love for our big picture goals, and yes, love for each other, and be used to resolve an issue.

During the course of this discussion, I see both parties editing the text of the other in an attempt to find some sort of common ground. Surely we could do better at this, but this isn't a case where there is just clearcut abuse on one side or the other.

The strange thing to me about the whole thing is that I do not really understand what is at stake here.

When we're arguing about Palestine and Israel, I get it. People are dying. The future of millions of people is at stake. Historical forces of 3 major religions are in play, and where Islam, Judaism, and Christianity meet, we have this horrible ongoing situation with so few prospects for a happy conclusion.

So, I get it that people have a hard time reaching peace on such issues.

But, uh, take a look at some diffs here. It's all about whether one sentence or the other is too wordy? About whether to use words like 'gene' or 'nucleaic acid'?

Can someone try to make this dispute meaningful to me? Can I be persuaded that this is worth fighting over?

--Jimbo