I'll be using this section to collect diffs, formulate reasonings, and generally workshop, although that ranks equal seventh with outside the square on User:Aaron Brenneman/Phrases that make me retch (October 2005).
Can discussions on points be made in new sections, with anchor links in the relevent sections? - brenneman(t)(c) 13:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Introduction discussion
WP:WEB
WP:WEB/Talk
Comics AfDs
Chex
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Checkerboard Nightmare
Able and Baker
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Able and Baker
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Able and Baker (2nd nomination)
Websnark
http://www.websnark.com/
- [1]
Yes. The entire treatment of webcomics on Wikipedia is complete fucking crap right now. I am appalled beyond all reason. In fact, the entire treatment of deletion on Wikipedia is complete fucking crap...
Other RfCs
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
Raised on
Raised by
Other RfMs
Google search (53)
Other RfArs
Google search (137)
Discussion
What are you trying to show here? Because depending on what it is, I may be able to save you searching by admitting to it. Is it just that I've been involved in a lot of arbitration? Or more arbitration than mediation? Phil Sandifer 05:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not trying to "show" anything here, that is what the evidence page is for. This is simply, as the section heading indicates, a sandbox.
- I am trying to understand why, after numerous attempts to resolve this with you via your talk page, you've gone straight to arbitration rather than, oh, I don't know, talking to me first? Opening an RfC? Asking for mediation?
- By examining your past involvement with Arbitration, I'm thus trying to understand the current one. I.e. Do you have a history of using ArbCom to bludgeon those whose views differ from yours? Have you in the past availed yourself of the other avenues of dispute resolution?
brenneman(t)(c) 06:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- It is worth asking how many of those RFArs I was involved in the dispute on. I count at least 9 where I had no particular investment in the dispute - it was just a quagmire that seemed to me to require arbitration, so I submitted the case. One (Orthogonal) went through all steps of dispute resolution. Two - John Gohde and the second Lir case - were initiated against me. One (Anthony) was started based on my trying to enforce a previous ruling. One (EK2) was similarly based on an attempt to enforce existing rules. Only Avala, the two Netoholic cases, and EK3 are clear-cut cases of my resolving a dispute I was having with someone through arbitration. And now this one. Phil Sandifer 06:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking for myself, in the two cases involving me Snowspinner never lifted a finger to resolve anything with me—Arbitration was his first course of action. He seems to be a firm believer in arbitration as the best means of settling disputes and has little interest in working things out through discussion. Everyking 06:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, he and plenty of others tried incredibly hard to get you to alter your objectionable behaviour by other means beforehand, to such an extent that the AC accepted that your cries of "but he didn't actually touch third base!" more closely resembled attempts to delay resolution than lost opportunities to solve the problem without arbitration - David Gerard 07:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Like what? I can think of nothing. The only thing was that IRC conversation in which we agreed to the deal that he broke two months later. But that was only done after the case was started. Everyking 07:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Would a slow Deletion proccess make VfD's less acremious?
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
We can spend a month or so pondering a suspected copyright infringement. AfD used to have a minimum discussion period of ten days, I believe, but it is now as short as five days. There is no harm in spending more time on such discussions and this would be administratively easy to do. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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:
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)[reply]
I do hope Arbcom, when deciding whether or not various parties are "playing to win" takes note of the following edits: [2], [3]. 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
I apologised on the page yesterday for the grossly inappropriate removals of material that Nandesuka cites above. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:29, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
If that is the apology, it strikes me as rather lacking, Tony. Speaking for myself, I usually prefer to make my own decision on what is or isn't clutter, and what is or isn't a readable. El_C 10:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rest assured that that was not the apology. The text that I removed does not have any place on Wikipedia, but it was probably wrong for me to remove it. --13:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- Probably wrong? Respectfully, Tony, it was certainly wrong. No one contributor bears – or should bear – the burden of deciding what is appropriate and what is not. I expect more from one who is running for ArbCom himself. – ClockworkSoul 18:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's a wiki. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. That's why the text you removed has a place on it. Cheers! Nandesuka 01:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]