Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics/Evidence

Deletion policy debate[edit]

I am deeply concerned by the apparent direction the evidence has just taken. The issues this RfAr was accepted on are WP:BITE and WP:AGF, and yet evidence is now being presented of users having "wrong" views on deletion policy. What's going on? How can disagreeing with other users on what a policy page should say possibly be evidence of any wrongdoing? -- SCZenz 04:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There were also, at least in the raising of the case, concerns brought (On my part) regarding atempts to railroad and stealthily change policy - certainly the removing of longstanding parts of the deletion policy with misleading edit summaries would fall under that, and to that end I see at least some of Tony's contributions as useful - indeed, I was going to add the "removed content added by anonymous user" diff myself. Phil Sandifer 04:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Those are legitimate issues. I remain concerned, however, that Aaron is being pushed extremely hard on his editing habits because many people disagree with his views. Some of that evidence only relates to him having the "wrong" attitude. But of course all of this is for the arbitrators to sort out. -- SCZenz 04:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good mannors and practices exist so that people who have disagreeing views can coexist without causing disruption. But as you say the evidence that he has the wrong views is irrevent. Evedence that he didn't WP:AGF or WP:BITE should be presented. Dformosa 05:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Surprise, surprise. Like I said before: this is not about good faith or biting newbies, this is about Snowspinner winning a content dispute and enforcing his views on policy. The arbitrators should have been sensible enough not to accept a case based on such appallingly tenuous grounds; one would think by now they'd have the experience to see what was really going on. Everyking 07:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You were, I believe, instructed to familiarize yourself with the particulars of a case before commenting. Go do so, and come back when you know who added the evidence in question. Phil Sandifer 08:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about particulars; I'm talking about the basis of it. Everyking 08:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For God's sake, do I have to spell it out for you? SCZenz isn't complaining about me here, he's complaining about Tony. Tony's evidence cannot possibly make the case more about my winning a content dispute, since, as I'm sure you're aware, I am not Tony. Phil Sandifer 08:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I should have said one side, without specifying you. But you're at the center of it, as I see it, so I think that's appropriate. I'll grant that it's probably an oversimplification to blame everything on one person, though. Everyking 08:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's been very "Wikipedia Vs. Webcomics" pretty much since the beginning. Kinda sad, really. Nifboy 00:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]