Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Henri Coanda
|
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) Case clerk: AlexandrDmitri (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Newyorkbrad (Talk) & Jclemens (Talk) |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Comment by uninvolved Fut.Perf.
[edit]I still can't see why the Arbcom would want to waste their time on this. See my previous comments to NYB. There is nothing to resolve here. There is apparently a consensus on the article shared by everybody except one single agenda-pusher. The agenda-pusher was blocked for edit-warring and then warned off to stop editing disruptively. Since then, he has in fact stopped editing, so in the eyes of everybody but himself, the case has been solved. In his own perspective, of course, it hasn't, but that's because ever since that last admin warning he hasn't even tried. Not a single edit addressing the actual dispute (rather than mere procedural matters) since 13 January [1]. So, the choice is all his: either he continues to heed the warning and stays off the article, then all is fine. Or he continues to heed the warning but returns to the article displaying a new, more constructive approach, then all is fine too. Or he returns to his old ways and resumes pushing his agenda, then he will simply be blocked, and everything will be fine again. What more does Arbcom expect to achieve here? Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)