Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2/Workshop

message: Can something like "WikiProjects exist solely to help write the encyclopedia" be voted on, or is that a content decision? --NE2 23:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Expanding on this, do my evidence headers at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2/Evidence#Evidence presented by NE2 look like reasonable things to cover? --NE2 23:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You might be better off asking at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2/Evidence. -- Kendrick7talk 01:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: The Committee has occasionally ruled on what is, or is not, appropriate contents and function of Wikipedia space pages — you may want to suggest this as a proposed principle on the workshop page.  While the arbitrators are not bound to those propositions, they usually read them to see what guidance is sought from the parties and it tends to influence what decisions they will take.  — Coren (talk) 01:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Looks okay to me; you may want to avoid long back-and-forth arguments there however; you want the arbitrators to be able to understand everyone's position at a glance— the associated talk page might be a better place to hash out the proposals.  — Coren (talk) 05:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I have moved this discussion here from WT:RFAR.  Jehochman  Talk 13:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about what kind of things can be decided

message: #What do you all feel prevents consensus being reached on WikiProject Highways?
#*No offense intended, but the fact that people sometimes don't seem to think about the issue and just go along with their first instinct. --NE2 06:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have moved this discussion here from the workshop.  — Coren (talk) 16:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions to the parties

message: How restricted should the people on this workshop be to sections: comment by arb, comment by parties and comment by outside users? Seddon69 (talk) 03:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I stated above, you usually want to avoid expansive back-and-forth discussion on the workshop proper— there are no hard and fast rules preventing them but this talk page is a better place for it.  — Coren (talk) 05:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Arbitrator, party and outside user is a pretty clear distinction.  Workshops do not work well when there is extended back and forth discussion of every principle, and in fact, if such discussions become contentious right under the arbitrators' noses, so to speak, it can lead to harsher findings and restrictions.  Play nice.  Also, findings of fact not supported by evidence, and proposed remedies not supported by evidence, or that are greatly out of proportion to the evidence, don't carry a lot of weight, so you don't have to spend a lot of effort in opposing them.  A good workshop is like an attorney's closinig argument in a court case; it organizes and summarizes the main points so that the Arbitrators and participants can follow the case more easily. Thatcher 19:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sections

message: With all due respect, I am wondering why the Arbitration Committee has been mostly silent about this case. This case has been here for nearly three weeks, and only one Arbitrator has commented on this case (except for the temporary injunction). --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Rschen.  The situation leading to this arbitration is reason enough to no longer edit the encyclopedia; the fact that it keeps spinning its wheels with little or no outside input is another reason.  --Son (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Inactivity

message: Although I have decided to leave USRD for a while, I would still like to see this RFAR brought to fruition. As was stated above, the arbitrators have remained mostly silent on this case, and it does not seem to be going anywhere. Son is talking about leaving Wikipedia over this, and that my friends, is not acceptable. I hate to see good editors motivated away from Wiki because they feel that the "powers-that-be" are not giving due diligence to this case.
I personally have taken a different path on the Wiki-highway, one of dispute resolution and patient mediation. From that standpoint, I can understand why arbitration might be sitting back and watching the various discussions that are taking place over on the project page, however this does need to be resolved, preferably sooner rather than later.
My best to all in USRD and CASH, and the arbitration committee. Edit Centric (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (A little kick in the pants here) I'm a bit dismayed that the above message has been posted for five days, with absolutely no feedback from an arbitrator, if for no other reason than just to let us know that the case is being looked at and reviewed on a regular basis. Come on, guys. A breath? A groan? A nod? Anything? This long-suffering ArbCom case needs to be put to bed. Edit Centric (talk) 08:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

text: (Addition) Just looked at the proposed decision page, it looks like there actually IS some movement going on there, slowly but surely... Edit Centric (talk) 08:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitrators Attention Requested 

message: In an effort to resolve the differences between the national and state editors I've proposed the following: User:Rschen7754/Manifesto. --Rschen7754 (T C) 01:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Manifesto