Wikipedia talk:Arbitration rationale

What on earth? This is still part of our rationale for existence; it's not just of "historical interest". It could probably do with updating, though. (Presumably by Jimbo, by an arbitrator or by someone like James F. who knows the whole story from the inside.) - David Gerard 21:27, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It's on my to-do list, yeah, sorry.
 * James F. (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the "page is presently inactive and is kept primarily for historical interest". Until such time as someone wants to update it and make it active again, we should leave it tagged as such. It's only slightly interesting reading material, and was only active for two weeks in Feb 2004 by two people. Trust me, the ArbCom doesn't even need to have this rationale -- that's covered elsewhere. The points here are out of date and incomplete. -- Netoholic @ 21:33, 2005 May 13 (UTC)


 * Well, let's break it down:
 * page
 * Yes, we pass here.
 * presently inactive
 * It's not been edited in a while. That doesn't make it inactive.
 * kept
 * No deletion motions yet, so, I suppose, if you mean "kept" in terms of "not yet been deleted".
 * primarily for historical interest
 * No, sorry, wrong.
 * HTH.
 * James F. (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2005 (UTC)


 * 15 months of no edits = inactive ... I dunno what else to say.
 * Considering that the "point/counter-point" on this page is done with regards to the version of the Arb Policy as it was in Feb 2004... yes, this is of historical interest only. I keep saying, if/when someone wants to refresh this to bring it up-to-date, then you can remove the tag.  To leave it as is just means its confusing. -- Netoholic @ 21:42, 2005 May 13 (UTC)


 * [Edit conflict]
 * Inactive in the context of the "historical" template means that the so-tagged-page is no longer relevant. This does not apply in this case.
 * Anyway, David has just updated it rather, so this entire discussion is moot.
 * James F. (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Just updated to match present reality - any major holes? - David Gerard 21:57, 13 May 2005 (UTC)