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]