Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee

Use this page to discuss information on the page (and subpages) attached to this one. This includes limited discussion of the Arbitration Committee itself, as a body. Some things belong on other pages:

requesting arbitration: WP:A/R
discussing finalised decisions of the committee: WT:ACN
discussing pending decisions: find the proceedings page at Template:Casenav
discussing the process of arbitration: WT:A/R

Shortcuts

This Arbitration Committee has been mentioned by a media organization:

Ramey, Corinne (May 7, 2018). "The 15 People Who Keep Wikipedia's Editors From Killing Each Other". Wall Street Journal.

What are the rules on article creation through AfC for Israel/Palestine articles?

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Draft:Yael Admi was declined at AfC because the creator didn't have enough edits. When I asked the decliner about this they said they weren't certain in retrospect if that was the right call and suggested asking here. So...is that the way the rules are supposed to work? WP:ECR says "Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations," which is not 100% clear. Thanks. Prezbo (talk) 11:15, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If they submitted a stub and it was accepted, in order to further contributions they’d need to make numerous edit requests to flesh out the stub. Formally as long as each edit request was valid; this would work, but isn’t in the spirit of what granting edit request is for, as non ECP users are not even able to discuss on talk page, a prerequisite for genuine collaboration. AfC submissions feel like a way to bypass that intention; so no. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:07, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editing includes page creations, and WP:PIA's WP:ECR applies to the draft namespace. So creating this draft and submitting it to AfC both violated the restriction. SilverLocust 💬 12:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It should go without saying that the creation may have been in good faith, and if the draft is of good quality then it being adopted by someone who is extended-confirmed would likely benefit the project. If the author is close to being extended confirmed and appears to be here in good faith then the best thing to do is probably just leave the draft as neither accepted nor rejected until they do meet the threshold. Thryduulf (talk) 16:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:G5 is authorized to speedy delete ECR violations, but Thryduulf's advice is also worth bearing in mind. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 16:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this particular instance G5 is no longer valid as DaffodilOcean has made substantial edits to the page. Clearly they felt it was worth editing, so it might be worth revisiting as a draft, especially if the only reason it was declined was procedurally. Primefac (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I came across this on drafts that were about to expire (from SDZeroBot's G13 list) and made an edit to prevent that. I have no conflict of interest here, and no prior knowledge about the article. I think this person is notable, and plan to add more details to the draft. Should I just resubmit this to AfC when I am done? DaffodilOcean (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was what I was implying with my statement, yes (and I hope I didn't imply that you were somehow connected, just that you had edited it). And yes, if you feel you have reached a point where notability has been determined, by all means resubmit for review. Primefac (talk) 17:16, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not read your message to imply I was connected, I just like to be open about when I do (and do not) have a conflict of interest. DaffodilOcean (talk) 02:54, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it! Primefac (talk) 15:08, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Application of WP:ARBECR

Recently an IP editor made a few edit requests at Talk:Hamas. The IP editor wrote what they asked to add and provided sources for the proposed changes. I agreed with one change, disagreed with another and requested additional sources and clarifications for others. This is how it looked after a few more extended-confirmed editors joined the discussion [1].

All the requests were marked as not done and then archived by @User:M.Bitton referencing WP:ARBECR in edit summaries. I read WP:ARBECR and I don't believe that it requires archiving of an active discussion involving several extended-confirmed editors. This felt quite disruptive and it's the first time that it happened with me here. Of course I may be missing something, unfortunately I wasn't able to get clarifications from this editor privately. I'm requesting clarification whether actions like this follow the letter and spirit of WP:ARBECR and other relevant policies.

In case this is not the right forum, please let me know where I should raise this issue. Alaexis_¿question? 21:17, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to this comment that I left on ScottishFinnishRadish's talk page earlier to get a fuller picture of what happened. As for the IP, instead of letting them know that they're not allowed to discuss the contentious topic, Alaexis was actually encouraging them to discuss it through various edit requests (that were used as a tool to circumvent the ECR restriction). M.Bitton (talk) 21:21, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for inadvertently restoring comments at your user page, this was done unintentionally. Let's not discuss it here. Alaexis_¿question? 21:28, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

involving several extended-confirmed editors the discussion that you cited above is mainly between you and the IP who kept discussing it the ER even after it was answered and said that I shouldn't answer it because I did not participate in the discussion. The reason I archived it was to prevent them from violating ECR again and again. M.Bitton (talk) 21:49, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There were 3 extended-confirmed users in that thread: u:Smallangryplanet, u:Abo Yemen and I. I don't see how uncivil comments by the IP justify archiving my own responses to another extended-confirmed editor. Alaexis_¿question? 22:00, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two disagreeing with their edit request and you entertaining it and encouraging further them to discuss it. I already explained why it was archived (to prevent them from violating the ECR restrictions again and again, with your help). M.Bitton (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]