Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee

{{{unindent}}}I have been wanting to know due to me wondering if i can vote somewhere not on Wikipedia{{{unindent}}} Muheen Kuf (talk) 12:17, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

:There is a private Arbitration Committee wiki, but access to that is strictly limited to currently serving arbitrators (and possibly a small number of WMF employees).

:The only vote relevant to the Arbitration Committee that non-Committee members can participate in is the annual election, which happens on Wikipedia in December. Editors must have made 150 edits to articles before 1 November to be eligible to vote in those elections. Thryduulf (talk) 12:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

It has emerged in answering Teahouse/ Help Desk questions that WP:ECR requires some clarification. This extract:

{{Blockquote|{{ordered list|list_style=list-style-type: upper-alpha

|The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed, with the following exceptions: {{ordered list

|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. Should disruption occur on "Talk:" pages, administrators may take enforcement actions described in "B" or "C" below.

|Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

}} }} }}

makes no mention of the Draft: namespace and WP:AFC.

They should either be explicitly disallowed, or (I believe preferably), a clause should be inserted saying that Non-extended-confirmed editors may create articles in Draft: (or User:) space and submit them via the AfC process, and that declined articles may be resubmitted once improved, in the usual manner. Discussions of such drafts should be subject to the same restrictions as those in the quoted guideline. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:37, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:Is the draft space the Talk namespace or an edit request? If not {{tq|the restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:41, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::It is analogous to both.

::Drafting a section on a talk page and making an edit request for it to be published to the article is no different in effect than drafting an article and making a request to AfC that it be published as an article.

::The former exists to allow competent, good-faith NECEs to make beneficial contributions, overseen by an ECE; as would the latter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:52, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Using a talk page to request an improvement is vastly different than writing a draft article. That also opens the door to gaining EC entirely though edits about an ECR topic. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:The part just before what you quoted is {{tqb|When such a restriction is in effect in a topic area, only extended-confirmed editors may make edits related to the topic area, subject to the following provisions: {{pb}}The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed, with the following exceptions:}}

:Non-EC editors are explicitly disallowed from all edits related to the topic area, with the exceptions listed. Edits in draft or user space are not among the exceptions. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:41, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::One of the exceptions mentioned in the part you quote is in what I quote: {{Tq|1="Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations..."}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:53, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:04, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Currently in the list of standard remedies available in a CTOPS, there are individual and page restrictions. Pages subject to page restrictions must have an editnotice on them. However, one of the page restrictions is page protection. It seems extremely unnecessary to require an editnotice for page protection -- in order to even see the editnotice, you'd have to have been in the class of individual not affected by the protection in the first place, i.e. it will never be shown to anyone it is relevant to. Additionally, the level of protection can already be conveyed through the standard protection system padlock icons and related templates. So can we adjust the text of the main WP:CT page and all the individual subpages for specific CT's (as well as any templates used for future CT page generation) to adjust the following sentence in the Templates section from {{tq|When a page has active page restrictions, the following template must be used as an editnotice:}} to {{tq|When a page has active page restrictions other than page protection, the following template must be used as an editnotice:}}? (I'm asking here as I'm unsure what the correct venue or process is -- can only the committee change it, does it require an RFCA, etc.) ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 03:33, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:Oh shoot, I guess I'm a badmin now because I never added an edit notice for any non-ARBPIA-EC protections. I think that's a pretty reasonable update to reflect common practice. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:38, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

:WP:CTOP specifies that "{{tq|An administrator who imposes a page restriction (other than page protection) must add an editnotice to restricted pages using the standard template ({{tl|Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice}} or a derived topic-specific template), and should generally add a notice to the talk page of restricted pages.}}" The message you're seeing that doesn't specify that seems to be from Wikipedia:Contentious topics/topic specific standard templates. I'll just update that to conform with the CTOP procedure. ~ Jenson ( SilverLocust 💬 ) 00:34, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::Aha, I had not checked to see if the text I was reading was transcluded from somewhere else but that looks like the culprit. Well, that simplifies things if it was just the template message that was out-of-touch with the process, thanks for the speedy fix! ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:11, 13 June 2025 (UTC)