Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Canadian politics/Workshop

Comments by Littleolive oil

 * I've started adding content to the workshop but not sure I have it all right; happy to fix or remove if needed. Littleolive oil (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I'll switch finding of facts and principles later tonight. its been a while since I've done one of these... rushing right now. Littleolive oil (talk) 22:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Headings, please
Please give your proposals short titles instead of leaving 'Template' in place. Thanks. :-) Katietalk 11:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I have cleaned up. Sorry about the messes I left in place. I spent the weekend with a daughter in hospital who had an appendicitis operation. I was more tired than I thought. Littleolive oil (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Bradv
I don't see anything that needs to be done here. There is no evidence of any issue that the community can't solve through the regular rules of engagement, or that would have been handled better if discretionary sanctions were applied. Nor is there any evidence of significant violations by any of the parties that would require intervention. I would suggest that ArbCom reaffirm some of the principles around neutral point of view and civility, which will serve to remind all the parties that we must work together to write good content. – bradv 🍁  02:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Curly Turkey
Moved from

The article has been completely stalemated for weeks. I've refrained from editing it because it's become clear even minor edits (such as the non-removal moving of an inline cite) will become another contentious, circular, exhausting talk page "discussion". "No action" would be a disaster for this article. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 02:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

"Analysis of evidence"
I'm having trouble trying to understand the protocols here. What is an appropriate use of the "Analysis of evidence" section? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:18, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The section is a holdover from previous years when parties and observers centralized their analysis and conclusions much more than now, when analysis comes (for the most part) through threaded-ish discussion of workshop proposals and sectioned discussion on the PD talk page (when applicable). You are welcome to use the space to, for example, explain the context and significance of a series of diffs, or comment more fully on conflicting perspectives and evidence. Best, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 02:21, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Workshop phase closing
The workshop phase will close in about 24 hours. For the Arbitration Committee,  Mini  apolis  14:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)