Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Shakespeare authorship question/Workshop

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk) Case clerks: AGK (Talk) & X! (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Newyorkbrad (Talk) & SirFozzie (Talk)

re Comment by AlexPope

Perhaps this could be moved to the General Discussion area by a Clerk? It is neither a request nor a motion, by my understanding of the intent in this instance, and appears to be incorrectly placed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Something other than "template"?

Please call proposals something other than "template." (Is this something the clerks should do?) This will make it easier to follow discussions on the watchlist. Thanks. Wrad (talk) 06:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

To Nina, Nish and Tom (and clerks?)

In everybody's best interest, can people perhaps agree to close that overlong thread that has developed in Nina's proposals section? The workshop page is meant for brief discussion of concrete proposals for the final decision. Nina's proposals were unlike anything the Arbcom would ever actually do from the start, and the ensuing debate has strayed even further from the goal of the page. It might be useful for the parties to study actual Arbcom decisions in prior cases, to get a feel for what kinds of proposals are likely to be adopted, and how to word them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

My apologies.I'd gladly delete my contributions, but clearly cannot do so unilaterally because it would mess up the page.Nishidani (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You may wish to request a Clerk to collapse the discussion from the point where it went off topic (and, no, I do not care to suggest where that might be)? LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I not only agree, I would be grateful. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Collapsed monster thread per WP:BOLD. Do it differently, or ask a clerk to, if you prefer a different model. Bishonen | talk 05:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC).

Note from the drafting arbitrators

Brad and myself have begun work on a proposed decision in this case. While I won't say that any further information will go unread, I would suggest it would be a good idea to finish up any evidence or workshop proposals in the coming days. SirFozzie (talk) 04:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

In the interests of setting a definitive time frame, 11:59 PM UTC Feb 2 (or about 65 hours or so from now), is considered the deadline for stuff that we DEFINITELY will read before posting any PD. SirFozzie (talk) 05:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)