Making lots of edits isn't manipulative. That's a ridiculous statement. A person who has lots to say makes lots of edits. A person who has less to say says less. It's a matter of choice. You started this discussion with a gross misstatement of my views, which I corrected. I apologise to the community for not leaving it there, but being sucked into a pointless discussion.
Has anyone seen another case which went for so long with no ArbCom activity whatsoever? What's going on here? Have they been actively working other cases besides this one?
I could not understand what the hell the case was about when it was requested and was surprised that Arbcom accepted it. I think that a wiser group probably would not have accepted it. I think they probably realize that now.
If anyone can attempt to explain the point of this arbitration, what could be resolved, and why it's so important to the functioning of an encyclopedia, I'd be happy to read it.
Looks like Tony Sidaway is trying his best to turn it into a giant clusterfuck. When will someone make a Tony Sidaway Drama Queen Barnstar to carry over the proud Usenet tradition? Perhaps we should have a design contest for it.
When I returned yesterday from a week away from the Internet I was a little surprised to see that no proposed decision has been started yet. But, no big deal. I like the summarized version of the Workshop page that Rocksanddirt put together: