This is an interesting discussion. When none of the "accused" are present, they can't defend themselves. Where do these new arguments come from? Or do you want everyone to start doing things your way? To call a fact something else, to say the same thing in different words, and get a "new" fact, a new argument? What's the point of going over it all again and again? You say that the arguments run out... But why then do you bring up Dima and Petya as examples and reproach them for it? What does that have to do with anything? I'm curious why you recused yourself from the Arbitration Committee (AK). You had the opportunity to be with them and resolve this issue and act as an authorized person, whom you constantly accuse. You refused, and now you're talking about shortcomings, but now it's just words, nothing more... moreover, it's unlikely that anyone will take them seriously.

Added after 55 seconds
Rebel center, huh...