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.

List at WP:ECR

WP:ECR should list topics subject to extended confirmed restriction (or link to such a list), so new editors who land there can find out what they're not supposed to edit.

Perhaps this table listing both CT and ECR could replace Template:Contentious_topics/table on that page. Jruderman (talk) 04:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If ArbCom doesn't mind relinquishing the shortcut, WP:ECR should probably be a stand-alone navigational aid page, with a description of both versions of the restriction:ArbCom's ARBECR and the community's general sanctions version. It could include a list of affected topics. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hesitant about changing the shortcut because its main purpose is to explain the restriction, not to list additional areas under the restriction. I think an explanatory footnote would improve the section, so I added one here. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your BLP policy

And where should libel be "discussed", then, before it is strictly covered up? 92.17.1.49 (talk) 22:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If someone believes they have been libeled on Wikipedia, the procedure to follow is given on Wikipedia:Libel. I recommend seeking legal counsel before accusing someone of libel, however. Donald Albury 22:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is concerned that Donald Trump (I trust that I don't need to blue-link his name) is being libeled by userspace comments. I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV, but I kinda think the First Amendment part about freedom of speech makes this complaint frivolous. (Just pointing that out to make Wikipedia great again.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended confirmed restriction

Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles...

What about new topics on a talk page? Emdosis (talk) 23:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Emdosis: That is allowed only to make an edit request. As it says at WP:ARBECR, "Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive." So one cannot, for example, comment in a discussion. SilverLocust 💬 23:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. Does asking for the removal of sources (or rewriting of the article when the sources don't support the article's claims) count as an edit request? Emdosis (talk) 23:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any good-faith use of the {{edit request}} template is acceptable. Please follow the directions for that template. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should make it clear that challenging sources and reliability is above the threshold for WP:ECR. Even if they create an edit request to remove the sources they cannot take part in further discussion to develop consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in the restriction that prevents them from making the case for a removal or a revision using the appropriate template. It may well be so obvious one way or another that it gets actioned or declined without discussion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "not disruptive" part of the language is important to be aware of. Using the template simply to ask that a source be checked for reliability or for whether the text accurately reflects the source is likely to be permitted (although not necessarily to be acted upon as requested), but using it as an opportunity to complain about the source or text may not be seen as good-faith. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, absolutely. The edit request template directs people to phrase their requests in an actionable way, so I'm speaking under the assumption that the editor intends to follow that direction. Something like "X source does not support statement Y because of Z issue" would be acceptable; something like "X source sucks" or "Y statement is wrong" with zero elaboration would obviously be useless and might be seen as not being in good faith. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]