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:
|
 | This Arbitration Committee has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
| Wikipedia Arbitration |
|---|
 |
|
|
| Track related changes |
Proposals regarding ARBECR protection levels at VPR
editThere is currently a request for comment at Village pump (proposals) about protection levels for articles under an arbitration extended confirmed restriction.
RfC: Extended confirmed pending changes (PCECP)
[Q1:] Should extended confirmed pending changes (hereby abbreviated as PCECP) be enabled on Wikipedia?
Q2: If this proposal passes, should PCECP be applied preemptively to WP:ARBECR topics?
SilverLocust 💬 19:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
- There is kind of a procedural question here regarding the intersection between community consensus and WP:AC/P. Is this the community's decision to make, or the committee, or both? Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Two navigational aid suggestions
editHi! My user story is that I've been digging around case history for the purpose of candidate review for WP:ACE2024. There have been a few consistent slowdowns that I feel could be improved by technical clerking on closed case pages.
The easy one: transclude {{Casenav}} at the top of case subpages in the Wikipedia talk: namespace. It's a lot of clickarounds to navigate between talk subpages.
The more difficult one that may already be implemented but I'm too stupid to find it / doesn't display in Minerva / something: a link (maybe in {{Casenav}}, maybe on the main case page) to the archived WT:ACN discussion of the case closure. The threads at WT:ACN often can provide valuable context for how community members respond to ArbCom decisions, and usually also contain relevant followups from Arbitrators.
I'd be willing to track down all these threads in the archives if – understandably – no one here wants to do it, but I'd want some confirmation first that they'd be linked somewhere useful before putting in the work (which probably won't be that bad since there are only 51 archives).
Anybody else think these are good ideas? Any clerks willing to implement? Folly Mox (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- On the first suggestion, casenav should already be the second banner at the top of case talk subpages, but mobile Minerva hides those unless you click "Learn more about this page" to view them. Could you clarify what you are suggesting?
- To partially address (or begin to address) the second suggestion, I have asked Legobot to create an archive index at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive index, similar to this example. I believe the bot will create it around 03:00 UTC. SilverLocust 💬 16:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks, SilverLocust, yes it looks like I attached the "may be hidden in Minerva" caveat to the wrong item. I guess I was expecting the template not to be hidden since it is visible on the case subpages in the Wikipedia namespace. Please chalk that one up to my own stupidity. Folly Mox (talk) 21:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)