Ned Scott wrote:
It's really not fair to say that such users are unable to work together. TTN, everyone, and myself, have continued to follow advice about making more time for discussion and trying to help users understand why these articles are being removed, rather than just forcing the issue. This is one reason I didn't think the case needed to be accepted. The real reason this was an arbcom case was because of the very large amount of articles that were being redirected, and that resulting in a lot of different people getting mad. That's very different than trying different means of resolving the dispute.
You make an error that is common among politicians. It's a belief that more people would find a position acceptable if only you could explain it better. This seems to ignore the possibility that people are rejecting the position because they feel it's wrong.
Ec