User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-5692737-20180206150757/@comment-24894325-20180206205021

Now, before this conversation can go any further, it is necessary to make sure that it does not violate T:POINT. The relevant quote is: You may open up discussions on matters that have already been decided only when you have arguments which have not formed a part of that discussion, or other, precedent discussions on the same topic.

Therefore, as a point of order, I would kindly request the OP to list which parts of his original post provide new arguments heretofore not present in the Vienna discussions. I thank NateBumber for providing a link to the thread where the decision was made to invalidate Vienna.

No matter how editors feel about that decision, it is a long-standing policy of the wiki not to re-litigate such decisions unless new evidence and/or new arguments appear. Without this policy we would be condemned to eternally squabble over every choice ever made, and every new user would be free to open all the old wounds.

It is a sad truth that inclusion debates often get heated and unpleasant. The previous Vienna debate had seen its share of mutual recriminations flying around. As much as I wish this debate to avoid this fate, there is a very real possibility that it won't. This is why I am asking, non-judgmentally, that the first OP prove that now, at this moment there exists a novel material reason, a new yet undiscovered clue that warrants reopening this cold case.

If this proof is provided, the debate will continue unimpeded. Until this proof is provided, I would request all other editors to refrain from commenting. Partly because, without this proof, the thread will be promptly closed by T:POINT and all the comments will go to waste, but mainly to avoid potentially heated debates whose only result, in case of the closure by T:POINT, will be worsened relations among editors.

I would like to emphasise that the novelty of material/argument can only be demonstrated by the OP and it has to be present in the original post. T:POINT does not allow editors to rehash old arguments in hopes that they or somebody else will later come up with something new.