Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Workshop

Questions About Maintenance of Workshop Sections
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.

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.

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 underscoring ?

Third, is it permitted to strike a section or part of a section after it has been commented on?

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?

Robert McClenon (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Also, are the rules about workshop sections standard for arbitration? So are the same rules for Portals as for RHaworth?  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 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 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 In such situations its fine for proposals to be withdrawn or amended - preferably with a note explaining what you are doing.
 * 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 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one as a new proposal (just make it clear one is a replacement for the other) - this can be done immediately below the withdrawn proposal (i.e. it doesn't have to be chronological).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).
 * 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 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.
 * 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. Thryduulf (talk) 23:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks for this information. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * FWIW, Thryduulf's comments encapsulates most of what I would say. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  00:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Who can comment where?
Clarify: Aren't involved parties restricted to commenting in comment by parties sub-sections? thus not allowed to post in comment by others sub-sections? GoodDay (talk) 02:27, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 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. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:18, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Was curious, because I noticed some of the involved parties posting in Comment by others sub-sections, rather then the more proper Comment by parties. -- GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 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. – bradv  🍁  00:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hopefully, matters don't get out of hand then, in the -others subsections. After all, arbitrators are always watching. GoodDay (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Extension of Workshop phase?
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. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , 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? – bradv  🍁  04:09, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 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 "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 with, and to a lesser extent , 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 '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.


 * 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. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , 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:, . –  bradv  🍁  04:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the detailed response, . I will look over the evidence before I retire tonight, and see if anything springs to mind. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * FYI, here are three examples of the sort of reverts which might have frustrated NA1000: Portal:Food, Portal:Television , Portal:Language . BusterD (talk) 04:56, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks ; I ended up using Portal:Maryland as my example as explained on the Workshop page. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 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 that I will be going offline within an hour or so. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 09:40, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 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. Mkdw  talk 22:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)