556:
changed it and why (e.g. clarification). For changes that are (potentially) significant but which are not a complete rewrite then you should use both markup and explanation. For (nearly) complete rewrites it is often better to strike out your first proposal and write the revised one as a new proposal (just make it clear one is a replacement for the other) - this can be done immediately below the withdrawn proposal (i.e. it doesn't have to be chronological). If making significant changes to or replacing a proposal, it's often good practice to ping anyone who has commented, especially if you are making changes in response to their comment. If a proposal has garnered positive and negative feedback in might be better to propose an alternative rather than withdrawing and replacing (although if you do withdraw, someone who liked the original version can of course propose it themselves, so don't worry too much about this).
830:, the Workshop phase is mainly used to analyze the evidence and provide ideas to the drafting arbitrators to be included in the final decision. Once we have worked out a proposed decision we will post it on the PD page, and there will again be opportunity for further input as the arbitrators vote on each statement. At this point the statements we make should be based on the evidence already presented in the case, and that phase has already closed. I'm really hesitant to delay this any further as it's already been open for far longer than usual, but I'll ping the other drafting arbs here in case they have anything to add:
494:
respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
560:
related to that so its probably better to strike it out than delete it (certainly if it has been referred to in another section or removing it would change the meaning of a comment like "per Robert McClenon's third proposed principle"). If it hasn't been there long, hasn't been replied to or referred to elsewhere then you're likely going to be fine to remove it. If in doubt then either strike it out and mark it withdrawn or ask a clerk for advice.
160:
785:"portal fatigue syndrome". I have not had time or energy to review all the earlier phases. However, I'm troubled by several things. Most of the proposals (mine included) seem clearly partisan. Few of the people whose opinion I respect within the "portal camp", broadly construed, have participated in depth. There's been a focus on the interactions of
784:
I have barely participated in arbitration before, so I'm unsure how it is meant to work, and how much the arbitrators review evidence and propose solutions independent of non-arbiters' suggestions on the
Workshop page. I also came into this very late, after a long wikibreak at least partly because of
942:
I've now finished adding material, although I think it would be useful it the
Workshop could be held open a little longer to allow non-arbitrators to discuss it, especially the parties noted therein. I have pinged everyone (hopefully) but not otherwise notified them; I assume this is correct? Note
551:
I'm not an arb or a clerk, but from experience I'd say it's fine to strike out a proposal if you wish to withdraw it, before or after replies. (strike out only your proposal, not others' comments, obviously). It's not unusual for feedback from others to make the proposer realise there is something
493:
Arbitration case pages exist to assist the
Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to
690:
The "Comments by parties" section is a courtesy extended to parties to ensure their comments don't get lost in back-and-forth commentary in the general section. They are not obliged to make use of it, and in certain cases it may make more sense for them to respond in-line to other commenters. –
559:
As for removing sections, I'd say don't remove a proposal that has been replied to without the permission of an arb or clerk. For proposals that haven't been replied to, personally I'd say it depends how long they've been there - if it's been a while someone may be actively working on something
555:
Amendments depend how significant the change is. If it's very simple, such as fixing a typo, and the meaning is not changed then it doesn't need to be marked or highlighted in any way. For slightly more significant changes marking (strikeout/underscore) is optional but you should note you have
810:
If someone were to point out exactly which portals
Northamerica1000 is alleged to have worked on under this case, I could try to offer a portal expert's view of his edits, with the caveat that if they are deleted multi-page examples then it's almost impossible to reconstruct them.
563:
Finally, all the rules and conventions of arbitration apply to all cases unless there is an explicit statement otherwise, so everything I've said above (which I note again is my opinion based on experience, not an official ruling) would apply both here and for RHaworth.
797:, with little discussion of the complex range of broader issues that underpin this whole issue. There seems to have been little analysis of Northamerica1000's actions, despite sanctions against him being proposed. There's been no examination of
552:
they haven't considered or there is something they misunderstood, or simply that there proposal will not get support. In such situations its fine for proposals to be withdrawn or amended - preferably with a note explaining what you are doing.
742:
Given that
Evidence was held open for a further day to enable BrownHairedGirl to post her evidence, would it be sensible to extend the Workshop phase the additional day, too? There doesn't seem to have been a wide participation as yet.
76:
763:, the evidence page being held open an extra day didn't affect the timing of the workshop phase, as it has been open for 7 weeks now. Is there something specific you want to add that you need more time for? –
959:
I suggest we move forward towards the PD. Community input and comments are always welcome during the PD. If it is clear we have missed something, there is always an opportunity for more PDs to be added.
71:
381:
418:
250:
54:
183:
518:
Fourth, am I correct that only very minor changes should be made to a section after it has been commented, and then only if one is sure that they do not change the meaning of a reply?
412:
650:
Theoretically, yes. I'm personally not inclined to be hardcore about it unless it's a problem, but it's more or less up to the drafters if they want the clerks to be strict about it.
60:
49:
376:
408:
204:
196:
43:
29:
505:
First, I assume that after I add a section, I may delete it if no one has replied to it, but that after there has been a reply, it should remain as part of the record.
350:
801:'s behaviour, an editor whom I had not previously "met" but whose evidence offered on 18 December 2019 caused me to post on this case, rather than sitting it out.
502:
I can make a few reasonable guesses as to what is proper etiquette and conduct about the
Workshop, but would appreciate if a clerk or arbitrator could clarify.
370:
215:
193:
38:
403:
341:
260:
188:
346:
25:
356:
336:
219:
361:
274:
255:
477:
395:
286:
319:
245:
174:
21:
508:
Second, is it permitted to add to a section after other editors have commented on it? Is it necessary to mark the additions, such as by
311:
151:
297:
240:
232:
282:
180:
292:
210:
537:
Also, are the rules about workshop sections standard for arbitration? So are the same rules for
Portals as for RHaworth?
970:
954:
926:
906:
874:
854:
822:
779:
754:
725:
707:
685:
659:
644:
604:
587:
573:
546:
529:
17:
470:
331:
949:
921:
869:
817:
749:
542:
525:
435:
170:
463:
118:
790:
944:
916:
864:
827:
812:
786:
760:
744:
655:
599:
538:
521:
93:
569:
104:
515:
Third, is it permitted to strike a section or part of a section after it has been commented on?
835:
113:
902:
886:
863:. I will look over the evidence before I retire tonight, and see if anything springs to mind.
798:
721:
681:
640:
583:
437:
892:
849:
774:
702:
651:
593:
140:
88:
879:
FYI, here are three examples of the sort of reverts which might have frustrated NA1000:
440:
968:
565:
129:
99:
915:; I ended up using Portal:Maryland as my example as explained on the Workshop page.
912:
898:
717:
677:
636:
439:
159:
880:
579:
937:
860:
839:
764:
692:
135:
962:
831:
794:
124:
592:
FWIW, Thryduulf's comments encapsulates most of what I would say. --
441:
943:
that I will be going offline within an hour or so. Regards,
716:
subsections. After all, arbitrators are always watching.
895:
889:
883:
451:
366:
324:
200:
712:
Hopefully, matters don't get out of hand then, in the
498:Questions About Maintenance of Workshop Sections
471:
8:
664:Was curious, because I noticed some of the
672:sub-sections, rather then the more proper
631:sub-sections? thus not allowed to post in
478:
464:
147:
150:
7:
627:parties restricted to commenting in
251:Clarification and Amendment requests
859:Thanks for the detailed response,
36:
158:
18:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Arbitration
578:thanks for this information. --
1:
971:22:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
955:09:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
927:09:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
907:04:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
875:04:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
855:04:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
823:04:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
780:04:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
755:03:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
738:Extension of Workshop phase?
382:Conflict of interest reports
726:00:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
708:00:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
686:23:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
660:05:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
645:02:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
605:00:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
588:15:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
574:23:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
547:22:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
530:22:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
211:Search archived proceedings
152:Knowledge (XXG) Arbitration
995:
256:Arbitrator motion requests
793:, and to a lesser extent
491:Behaviour on this page:
619:Who can comment where?
452:Track related changes
312:Arbitration Committee
261:Enforcement requests
189:Guide to arbitration
110:Drafting arbitrators
674:Comment by parties
629:comment by parties
283:Contentious topics
181:Arbitration policy
953:
925:
887:Portal:Television
873:
821:
753:
670:Comment by others
633:comment by others
488:
487:
455:
423:
293:General sanctions
241:All open requests
171:About arbitration
144:
133:
122:
108:
97:
80:
72:Proposed decision
69:
58:
47:
986:
965:
947:
941:
919:
867:
852:
847:
815:
791:Northamerica1000
777:
772:
747:
705:
700:
666:involved parties
623:Clarify: Aren't
602:
596:
480:
473:
466:
454:
449:
442:
421:
377:Clerk procedures
369:
327:
298:Editor sanctions
275:Active sanctions
233:Open proceedings
203:
162:
148:
138:
127:
116:
102:
91:
74:
63:
52:
41:
994:
993:
989:
988:
987:
985:
984:
983:
963:
945:Espresso Addict
935:
917:Espresso Addict
893:Portal:Language
865:Espresso Addict
850:
840:
828:Espresso Addict
813:Espresso Addict
787:BrownHairedGirl
775:
765:
761:Espresso Addict
745:Espresso Addict
740:
703:
693:
621:
600:
594:
539:Robert McClenon
522:Robert McClenon
511:
500:
484:
450:
444:
443:
438:
428:
427:
426:
415:
398:
388:
387:
386:
373:
365:
353:
328:
323:
314:
304:
303:
302:
277:
267:
266:
265:
235:
225:
222:
207:
199:
177:
146:
34:
33:
32:
12:
11:
5:
992:
990:
982:
981:
980:
979:
978:
977:
976:
975:
974:
973:
933:
932:
931:
930:
929:
805:
804:
803:
802:
739:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
731:
730:
729:
728:
635:sub-sections?
620:
617:
616:
615:
614:
613:
612:
611:
610:
609:
608:
607:
561:
557:
553:
509:
499:
496:
486:
485:
483:
482:
475:
468:
460:
457:
456:
446:
445:
436:
434:
433:
430:
429:
425:
424:
416:
411:
406:
400:
399:
394:
393:
390:
389:
385:
384:
379:
374:
364:
359:
354:
349:
344:
339:
334:
329:
322:
316:
315:
310:
309:
306:
305:
301:
300:
295:
290:
279:
278:
273:
272:
269:
268:
264:
263:
258:
253:
248:
243:
237:
236:
231:
230:
227:
226:
224:
223:
218:
213:
208:
198:
191:
186:
178:
173:
167:
164:
163:
155:
154:
39:Main case page
37:
35:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
991:
972:
969:
967:
966:
958:
957:
956:
951:
946:
939:
934:
928:
923:
918:
914:
910:
909:
908:
904:
900:
896:
894:
890:
888:
884:
882:
878:
877:
876:
871:
866:
862:
858:
857:
856:
853:
848:
846:
845:
837:
836:KrakatoaKatie
833:
829:
826:
825:
824:
819:
814:
809:
808:
807:
806:
800:
796:
792:
788:
783:
782:
781:
778:
773:
771:
770:
762:
759:
758:
757:
756:
751:
746:
737:
727:
723:
719:
715:
711:
710:
709:
706:
701:
699:
698:
689:
688:
687:
683:
679:
675:
671:
667:
663:
662:
661:
657:
653:
649:
648:
647:
646:
642:
638:
634:
630:
626:
618:
606:
603:
597:
591:
590:
589:
585:
581:
577:
576:
575:
571:
567:
562:
558:
554:
550:
549:
548:
544:
540:
536:
535:
534:
533:
532:
531:
527:
523:
519:
516:
513:
506:
503:
497:
495:
492:
481:
476:
474:
469:
467:
462:
461:
459:
458:
453:
448:
447:
432:
431:
420:
417:
414:
410:
407:
405:
402:
401:
397:
392:
391:
383:
380:
378:
375:
372:
368:
363:
360:
358:
355:
352:
348:
345:
343:
340:
338:
335:
333:
330:
326:
321:
318:
317:
313:
308:
307:
299:
296:
294:
291:
288:
284:
281:
280:
276:
271:
270:
262:
259:
257:
254:
252:
249:
247:
246:Case requests
244:
242:
239:
238:
234:
229:
228:
221:
217:
214:
212:
209:
206:
202:
197:
195:
192:
190:
187:
185:
182:
179:
176:
172:
169:
168:
166:
165:
161:
157:
156:
153:
149:
145:
142:
137:
131:
126:
120:
115:
114:KrakatoaKatie
111:
106:
101:
95:
90:
86:
82:
78:
73:
67:
62:
56:
51:
45:
40:
31:
27:
23:
19:
961:
843:
841:
799:Newshunter12
768:
766:
741:
713:
696:
694:
673:
669:
665:
632:
628:
624:
622:
520:
517:
514:
510:underscoring
507:
504:
501:
490:
489:
109:
84:
83:
81:
65:
881:Portal:Food
668:posting in
216:Ban appeals
194:Noticeboard
85:Case clerks
652:Beeblebrox
601:Parlez Moi
595:Guerillero
422:(pre-2016)
409:Statistics
342:Procedures
89:Guerillero
566:Thryduulf
347:Elections
100:CodeLyoko
625:involved
61:Workshop
50:Evidence
28: |
24: |
22:Requests
20: |
913:BusterD
911:Thanks
899:BusterD
718:GoodDay
714:-others
678:GoodDay
637:GoodDay
419:Reports
357:History
337:Members
332:Contact
320:Discuss
184:(CU/OS)
30:Portals
580:Sm8900
362:Clerks
220:Report
134:&
123:&
98:&
938:Bradv
861:Bradv
789:with
676:. --
396:Audit
136:Bradv
16:<
964:Mkdw
950:talk
922:talk
903:talk
870:talk
842:brad
838:. –
832:Mkdw
818:talk
795:Moxy
767:brad
750:talk
722:talk
695:brad
682:talk
656:talk
641:talk
584:talk
570:talk
543:talk
526:talk
413:Talk
404:Talk
371:Talk
351:Talk
205:Talk
175:Talk
141:Talk
130:Talk
125:Mkdw
119:Talk
105:Talk
94:Talk
77:Talk
66:Talk
55:Talk
44:Talk
26:Case
287:Log
905:)
897:.
891:,
885:,
851:🍁
834:,
776:🍁
724:)
704:🍁
684:)
658:)
643:)
598:|
586:)
572:)
545:)
528:)
512:?
112::
87::
70:—
59:—
48:—
952:)
948:(
940::
936:@
924:)
920:(
901:(
872:)
868:(
844:v
820:)
816:(
769:v
752:)
748:(
720:(
697:v
680:(
654:(
639:(
582:(
568:(
541:(
524:(
479:e
472:t
465:v
367:+
325:+
289:)
285:(
201:+
143:)
139:(
132:)
128:(
121:)
117:(
107:)
103:(
96:)
92:(
79:)
75:(
68:)
64:(
57:)
53:(
46:)
42:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
