Arbitration Committee proceedings
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
[edit]
Open cases
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal | none | none | 11 December 2024 |
| Motion name | Date posted |
|---|---|
| Rachel Marsden | 15 May 2022 |
Motions
 | This page can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions. Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visit WP:ARC or WP:ARCA for potential alternatives. You can make comments in the sections called "community discussion" or in some cases only in your own section. Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor any comment. |
Rachel Marsden
Remedy 2 of the Rachel Marsden case ("Articles which relate to Rachel Marsden") is rescinded.
For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Enacted - Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 14:26, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Arbitrator views and discussion
- Support
- Izno (talk) 04:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Reasonable argument made to rescind this. Primefac (talk) 11:48, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- BDD (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- I fully support our continued cleanup of obsolete remedies CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 19:13, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
- WormTT(talk) 10:12, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Barkeep49 (talk) 10:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Maxim(talk) 12:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
- Beeblebrox (talk) 19:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:26, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Abstain
- Arbitrator discussion
- Like the just-resolved St. Christopher, I found a talk page notice for this while wikignoming (since removed). Unlike that remedy, this one is not quite a proto-DS, but would certainly fall under BLPDS today if arbitration enforcement were needed. Even so, I think the community's understanding of WP:BLP enforcement is also more rigorous. By today's community and committee standards, the part of the remedy allowing arbitrary full deletion of the pages of interest would be atypical, at best. This remedy appears in essence to be obsolete and should no longer be on the books accordingly. --Izno (talk) 04:37, 8 May 2022 (UTC)