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