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)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Checkerboard Nightmare
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Able and Baker
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Able and Baker (2nd nomination)
Google search (95)
"not an obligatory step on the way to arbcomming people" - Snowspinner ambigious
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)
brenneman (t) (c) 06:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
It's a wiki. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 01:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Checkerboard Nightmare
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Able and Baker
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Able and Baker (2nd nomination)
Google search (95)
"not an obligatory step on the way to arbcomming people" - Snowspinner ambigious
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)
brenneman (t) (c) 06:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
It's a wiki. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 01:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
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)