Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics/Workshop

message: *Exactly. - brenneman(t)(c) 13:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction discussion 

message: Google search (95) 
"not an obligatory step on the way to arbcomming people"  - Snowspinner ambigious 
:I can clarify this, though I think the context of the quote makes it obvious - too many RfCs serve as dress rehearsals for an arbcom case. Not nearly enough RfCs serve to actually solicit comment and come to an agreement. This was bad in July, and it still is. Phil Sandifer 05:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *That's actually how it reads, although the link from FuelWagon seemed to indicate the opposite, that RfC wasn't part of the chain to RfA. - brenneman(t)(c) 06:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other RfCs 

message: Just throwing this as a random thought.  In cases where the VfD becomes contnious would it be a good idea to move
it to a slow track so that both sides can do resurch and support there cases based on facts and sound resoning?
Or is this something better discussed in anouther forum? Dformosa 07:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a lot of alternatives on the deletion reform page (linked to from the first page of AfD), but deletion is already five days on AfD and then a long time (depending) on the backlog before anyone dispenses with it, and then some admins (particularly Tony Sidaway) have had the habit of simply undeleting articles without using WP:VFU.  However, if Tony or Snowspinner (both of whom have the ability) do not undelete a deleted article they argued for, there is WP:VFU, where a strong case can get an article back and where the voter pool is much, much smaller than AfD.  Thus, there is already about a 16 day timeframe.  I'm not sure slower than that is anything more than "list again."  Geogre 13:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would a slow Deletion proccess make VfD's less acremious?

message: After Kelly said she planned to refactor, I decided to do a lot of the job myself by withdrawing all of my earlier drafts and abandoned proposals.  These are here:
* Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics/Workshop/Withdrawn.
If you made comments on the earlier drafts and still think they apply to the later ones, please make a comment to this effect on each new proposal.  Feel free to revive any earlier drafts or use parts of them as material for your own proposals, but I strongly suggest that the proposals themselves be regarded as dead, and we concentrate on what we have at the moment. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Refactoring the workshop

message: I do hope Arbcom, when deciding whether or not various parties are "playing to win" takes note of the following edits: , .  There may be others, but those are the obvious ones.  
For the record, I'd issue nary a peep if Arbcom decided my opinion was somehow not relevant to this issue and removed it.  But for one of the parties to the case to do such a thing is a shocking breach of etiquette.  Those edits, to me, are the best example possible of the "playing to win" attitude that Tony is so quick to accuse others of having.  Perhaps Tony's name needs to be added to the findings of fact in the "playing to win" section; since I am not a party to this action, it would be inappropriate for me to do so.  Nandesuka 13:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So long as all removed comments are preserved in the /Withdrawn, it's not a horribly big deal, but having things removed to disappear is totally inappropriate.  I should hope that the members of ArbCom read through /Withdrawn as well as the workshop.  The critical thing is not to have anyone's work, either in the form of allegations no longer pressed or refutations that were successful enough to convince, just "go away."  Cryptic's earlier reversion was timely and necessary, as edit summaries had not indicated a move, just a remove.  Geogre 18:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I've also noticed there are now places where my comments aren't replying to anything, because the other party's comments were removed.  That seems pretty weird. Tony, might you be overdoing it a bit? -- SCZenz 19:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: *While I had noticed the mangled conversations, I'm quite suprised by the diffs Nandesuka has provided.  I notice that Tony has edited elsewhere since the question was raised.  I'd like to hear Tony's input as soon as possible. - brenneman(t)(c) 09:15, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I did wonder if it was appropriate at the time, but decided "fuck it" and that your words were just clutter anyway. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes.  That's why the text you removed has a place on it.  Cheers!  Nandesuka 01:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tony's Refactoring Considered Harmful

message: For those who don't have this page on their watchlist, the arbitrators have begun to place proposals there. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics/Proposed decision]]