Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions/Workshop

message: Please sign all your proposals by noting "proposed" and your signature ~~~~ either under "comment from parties" or "comment from others", depending on your role here. Thatcher131 12:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another couple of comments.  When you are running out of templates in a section, can you make a few more blanks before using the last one.  Also, citing one or two example diffs for findings of fact, or providing a bookmark link to a particular section of the evidence page, is often helpful. Thatcher131 02:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ahh, sorry. I think both of those problems where my fault. With the facts, i'd assumed the facts where supposed to be just statements. All the proposed 'facts' correspound with sections on the evidence page, i'll go link them if no one else has already done so. --`/aksha 11:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Linking to the evidence page or a couple of diffs makes it easier for the arbitrators and other parties to evaluate any proposals. Thatcher131 12:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

message: Should the parties be replying to, or commenting on, every proposed principle or proposed finding of fact?  I'm unclear on the procedure here. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The workshop process is one method that the arbitrators use to get a sense of where the case is coming from and where it might be going.  Sometimes the arbitrators read and comment on proposals and even adopt party's proposals into the final decision, and sometimes they write a proposed final decision without using the workshop page at all.  You should comment if you have something to say, although this is not a vote, so simply stating "support" or "oppose" is less useful than giving a reason for agreeing or disagreeing.  It may be useful to look at other arbitration cases' workshop pages to see how they have been used. Thatcher131 05:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Procedure question 

message: Is the "proposed remedies" section intended to be edited by anyone, or is it just for the arbitration committee?  --Milo H Minderbinder 20:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Proposed anything on this page can be edited by anyone as far as I know.  The Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions/Proposed decision page can only be edited by the ArbCom as well as Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions.  That's my understanding anyway.  —Wknight94 (talk) 20:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There does seem to be some odd stuff showing up there. --Elonka 21:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Such as?  —Wknight94 (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wknight94 is correct about anyone being able to edit the workshop page.  It is not uncommon for editors who are unfamiliar with arbitration cases to make some wildly implausible suggestions there.  Crazy-seeming ideas or remedies that look like overkill generally do no harm (as long as editors do not become uncivil over them). Thatcher131 01:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed remedies