Pretty much every deck in vintage either can kill you before you meaningfully play the game or lock you out of meaningfully playing the game before you kill them.
The main issue that folks who enjoy Workshop decks have with the argument that I stole that snippet from is that ultimately it comes down to differing visions of what is fun, what is enjoyable, and what the Vintage format should look like.
Which is a nice way of saying that "I don't like the way this feels so I want to take away a card from a deck style you enjoy" has a hard time convincing anyone, because they will more or less retort with:
Vintage as a format has an incredibly high blue skew based on the absurd power of blue spells in the history of Magic. If I want to be competitive in Vintage and not play blue your options run from Human Decks, Eldrazi Decks, Dredge (which an argument could be made that pitch dredge decks are blue decks that just don't run power) and Workshops. Many people don't necessarily want to feel like they have to play blue. This is a feeling and player preference, but it is just as valid as not wanting to play against prison decks.
It feels bad to have put a lot of money into acquiring a playset of a card that seems to constantly have a target painted on it because the ability for most people to separate what "feels true" with what is "statistically true" and their own personal preferences is mostly non-existent at the end of the day when we are talking about a game people play for enjoyment. People who do not like the way a deck plays or playing against that deck are more than happy to see that deck nerfed so that their own preferred choices perform better. This is human nature, but frequently it is player preference masquerading as objectivity behind a mask crafted of persuasive argument and statistics that can tell a variety of stories depending on the analysis and the storyteller.
Restrictions have collateral damage. I'd argue that Saturn's Aperture Science deck, which wat its heart is a Workshop-based paradoxical outcome deck is a great deal of fun to both play and play against. So is two card monte. The restriction of Gush critically hurt Doomsday decks. A Workshop restriction likewise hits decks other than the very present Ravager Workshop deck piloted by the author of the article.
And if those seem like the same tired old arguments that you see every time discussion around restricting workshops takes place, it is because just like the reasons you've posted in a lot of this thread- most of them come down to feelings. And settling the question of "whose feelings are more correct/more valid" is complex and messy. This is why advocating for restrictions has become such a contentious element; "my feelings are more valid than your feelings so your deck should just go away" understandably makes people irritable no matter what deck we are talking about.
And if you haven't read Chubbyrain's fantastic analysis, I highly recommend doing so.
1a) A strong argument can be made that restricting workshop would not cripple the deck. I don't know if enough testing has/can be done to verify this in one direction or another. It also still does not address the Doomsday/Gush Fringecombo/Workshop issue.
2b) A lot of the above remains true if you change the card from Workshops to Oath of Druids. At the end of the day, Vintage is time to many, many powerful cards and decks, some of which are critically weakened by the restriction of a namesake card.
I remain of the opinion that having a meaningful non-blue option is better for diversity than neutering it to the point that it is a fringe deck it what we already concede is a 70% blue field. But I'm also on record as being very, very conservative with restricting cards if only because it seems to take several years for cards consigned there to come off the list.
And lastly, big thanks to Maxtortion for writing this up, Chubbyrain's detailed analysis of it