Talk:Arbitration Committee (Wikipedia)

A few comments
"Decisions are appealed to Jimmy Wales"

Is that accurate? I thought it was the opposite nowadays. Is this a verifiability versus truth issue?

And, is it really necessary to use inline references like that? Ten in a row, seriously? I'm inclined to put them in a bulleted list at the bottom of the page. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well actually the reliable sources says Jimmy is a member of the committee, so I'm struggling with an Original Research v. Verifiability issue. Still thinking on it.


 * And it isn't 10 in a row, its just that I found the sources before I wrote the content, so they are sitting there waiting for me to build sentences around them; WP:DEADLINE and all.  MBisanz  talk 20:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You're a deadline. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Psh, you know quite better. Celestial events could occur that deadline you.  Or, even better, the power goes out.  Whichever outcome will be beneficial to the project.   Keegan talk 07:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * zomg stalker. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

For that specific sentence, I'd reword it to state that at one point, decisions were appealed to (or by?) Jimmy. This leave it open ended on purpose until there is a source to say he no longer does, or continues to appeal, etc. But since this is still in userspace, we don't need to be as picky.  Sy  n 01:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * From a legal perspective, in general a natural person can take decisions for a firm or organisation when the statutory rulings give the firm or foundation the power to delegate certain powers to that person, or to give certain powers to a function like 'CEO' or 'President' and this person holds that function. It's also possible that Wales is copyright holder and wants to be able to remove content that infringes copyrights.2001:16B8:1136:2901:F5AD:A8C5:E337:54B5 (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Some older sources


Might just be good for color; I didn't look too close. There are a surprising number of sources on this and it's a wonder no one did this before. rootology ( C )( T ) 01:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have some of them already and most of the others just have the term "arbitration" in it without actually talking about the Committee. The only one I didn't have is the Newsmax Media one, and reading their Wiki article, I'm not sure I want to include it in an article that will already have an immense amount of scrutiny.  MBisanz  talk 05:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

This has an article
Seriously, what? Naval-gazing, I think. I checked the sources over; discounting the self-references, not a single one discusses the committee in depth; all are passing mentions of it, such as in the Scientology case, and Essjay. The brief mentions are its (basic) purpose and how many members there are. The topic is simply not notable enough for inclusion. Aiken  &#9835;  19:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Check out the "FAQ" above. It addresses your concerns, I think. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really :) It does not explain how it meets notability requirements. A few passing mentions of it in Wikipedia-related news articles does not make a significant amount of coverage. Aiken   &#9835;  19:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, at the risk of saying other shit exists, care to explain why the child in Africa needs to know about Michael Snow (attorney)? :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 19:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think they do. But as you say, other shit exists :) Seriously, something cobbled together from a bunch of news articles which mention it in a couple sentences at most does not meet notability requirements. Aiken   &#9835;  20:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you're aware of just how many articles on the English Wikipedia that's true of. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am; one by one :) Some are obviously notable, but brief mentions don't make notability. Aiken   &#9835;  21:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, and despite my reservations about the likelihood of this article to be used as a coatrack for people who have a chip on their shoulders about ArbCom, there is little doubt that ArbCom is notable enough by our own criteria; it has been examined in some depth in at least a number of peer-reviewed papers for one. &mdash; Coren (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Behavioral disputes only

 * The Arbitration Committee (also known as ArbCom) of the English Wikipedia website is a panel of editors that imposes binding rulings with regard to disputes between other editors of the online encyclopedia.

The cited source doesn't discuss the ArbCom in-depth, and fails to the mention the ArbCom's limitation to behavioral disputes. The first sentence in its current form creates the impression that the ArbCom passes binding rulings on content disputes, which it doesn't. Imho the word "behavioral" should be added for accuracy's sake. --87.79.131.231 (talk) 09:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * will try to fix this. Content can indirectly be part of a dispute, f.i. when it is or is not neutral and editors have different POVs 2001:16B8:1136:2901:F5AD:A8C5:E337:54B5 (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Northern Ireland
There is a mention of the ongoing arbitration enforcement regarding Northern Ireland in this article, which was about the Senkaku Islands dispute, which was another the arbitration case that the author didnt mention. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee History
What was "Tranche Gamma" and "Tranche Beta"? I saw a reference to them in an article about an ARBCOM election in 2006. I can't find any explanation of what they are/were when I did a search of Wikipedia. They seem to be related to ARBCOM but this article is light on history. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 17:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * At the moment, there is only a tranche alpha and tranche beta, but I think you're correct, there was once a tranche gamma. Hopefully, the chart below explains how it works, but essentially the arbitrators serve 2 years, and half of them are up for re-election in any given year. PhilKnight (talk) 18:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Could someone from the arbitration committee look into this?
--Maleko Mela (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate decision
Mark Bernstein's blog article has been picked up by Alex Hern in the Guardian, and subsequently Gawker, progressively misrepresenting the current status of the decision to "Arbcom has purged 5 editors". Berstein's post was based on the original draft at the beginning of the voting process, and the overall outcome has naturally moved considerably since then. Just removed an unsourced POV comment about it, and suggest that it's not worth mentioning on this page until the decision is made final. 87.81.224.193 (talk) 13:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It's been picked up by Addicting Info as well. http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/01/24/wikipedia-declares-war-on-women-gives-anti-feminist-males-control-over-gender-and-sexuality-entries/ 74.110.109.119 (talk) 17:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

26th reference links to incorrect page
Please change reference to point to correct page on "Blog Wikipedysty"(in Polish). Monniasza talk 18:57, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm not on the good page
Hello.

I've trouble with the French Wikipedia. Abusive block. I've just been blocked for using the discussion page as improvement suggestions for articles. For a month, without warning. That's an abuse, and I have no mean to contact the "comité d'arbitrage" on the page.

I want to make an appeal against the mod abusing of their tools, without having the courtesy to communicate with users on their page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.91.51.235 (talk) 07:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

This part seems outdated.
Members of the Committee are appointed by Wales either in person or email following advisory elections; Wales generally chooses to appoint arbitrators who were among those who received the most votes. That isn't how it works at the moment - surely we can find a more recent source? --Aquillion (talk) 03:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe Wales holds this power now as representative of Wikimedia Foundation Inc US? It's also possible that Wales is copyright holder/official agent and wants to be able to remove content that infringes copyrights.2001:16B8:1136:2901:F5AD:A8C5:E337:54B5 (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Suggest new section the FRAM case
Dear editors on this page,

I was digging into the process of ArbCom creation and I would like to suggest we include WP:FRAM crisis as a part of ArbCom, and WMF.

This case is (at least one of) the case(s) that sets precedent of power boundary between WMF and ArbCom, similar to Marbury v Madison case that draws the boundary of US Federal Exec branch and judicial branch, and establishes the power of judicial review. I'd like to ask for editor's opinions before go ahead and suggest any edit.

, to invite you to join the discussion from Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests.

References to be considered:
 * https://slate.com/technology/2019/07/wikipedia-fram-banning-editor-controversy.html
 * http://archive.is/78gkk

etc. xinbenlv  Talk, Remember to "ping" me 00:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

US Wikipedia Arbitration Committee - arbitration under US laws?
As far I could check, the Wikimedia Foundation Inc US Arbitration Committee for the project english Wikipedia possibly can not be seen as arbitration in a legal sense under US Laws. Main points: in general a contract or agreement between parties is needed for a valid arbitration procedure. Do (all) editors have a contract with the Wikimedia Foundation? In general an Arbitration Committee is only allowed to take decisions with consequences that also can be reached by the free will of the impeached person and to which this person did freely agree by contract or agreement. The situation here could be delegated decision making power from Bomis Inc / Wikimedia Foundation Inc to a panel of editors, not arbitration.2001:16B8:1136:2901:F5AD:A8C5:E337:54B5 (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

List of rulings that apply
Is there someone who knows what rules exactly do apply for ArbCom? Are they extensely listed somewhere? I did found 22 sets of guidelines, policies, principles, rules that could apply. Do official Wikimedia Foundation Chapters have their own sets of rulings? 2001:16B8:1136:2901:F5AD:A8C5:E337:54B5 (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Fix on cohesion impossible when edits are being rolled back
In the header editors are being encouraged to cleanup the article to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The article needs fixing on cohesion for more reasons. It doesn't talk about an arbitration committee in general, only about corporate arbitration on Wikimedia projects. And than mostly about the english Wikipedia project. I did spend quiet some time to make a first step in cleaning up and reorganising the article. Searched for reliable sources and read them, added some text to explain the Wikimedia project arbitration system, with sources, re-arranged text-blocks. The whole edit was rolled back within a minute without reasoning. It could not be possible that someone did examine the text. Is that ownership conduct? When someone has time, please review the edit and put back what seems good to you. Hopefully the Universal Code of Conduct will protect users from behaviour like that, making Wikipedia more open for a global perspective. 2001:16B8:11D6:C801:C45F:F5FC:11A2:617F (talk) 21:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

English language Wikipedia
The text suggests, this Committee is ruling over all Wikipedia projects of the Wikimedia Foundation. Is that correct? When not, the text should mention the score of this Committee, in legal terms it's jurisdiction. 83.135.188.144 (talk) 07:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 12 June 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to Arbitration Committee (Wikipedia). WP:BARTENDER. This RM has 10 (ten!) proposed titles, mostly between Wikipedia/Wikimedia, Wiki______ Arbitration Committee/Arbitration Committee (Wiki_____), and the capitalization of Committee.There seems to be a pretty clear consensus to move somewhere, but a large disagreement on where. In the name of BARTENDER, no prejudice against discussing any of these points in seperate RMs. Also, I have throughly analysed this RM (it took me over an hour to conger this up) and am unlikely to be persuaded that my close was wrong. As such, I waive the requirement to discuss this with me before pursuing a MR. (closed by non-admin page mover) C LYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 19:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * On Wikipedia/Wikimedia: Those supporting Wikimedia cited the lead talking about all Wikimedia projects and the mention of Wikinews in the third section. Wikipedia supporters countered that the lead was misleading compared to the body and the third section mention was poorly sourced and barely hanging on.
 * On Wiki______ Arbitration Committee/Arbitration Committee (Wiki_____), the argument boiled down to WP:NATURAL in favor of Wiki______ Arbitration Committee and the fact that the body is named Arbitration Commitee, not Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. NATURAL states Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title, is sometimes preferred. However, do not use obscure or made-up names. emphasis mine. Since the official name does not contain Wiki_____ and no evidence has been presented that "Wiki_____ Arbitration Committee" is a common enough name, I have sided with parenthetical disambiguation.
 * And, finally, the capitalization of Committee. This wasn't discussed much and an RM on specifically this might be helpful. The two supporters argued that it was an improper noun and shouldn't be capitalized, while every other person !voted for an uppercase version without contesting the lowercase version. This doesn't render a strong consensus either way.

Arbitration Committee → Wikipedia Arbitration Committee – "Arbitration Committee" is too vague - it can potentially cause confusion as other arbitration committees exist outside of Wikipedia. -- Prodraxis talk contribs  21:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. C LYDE  TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE (please mention me on reply) 22:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)  — Relisting.   ❯❯❯  Raydann  (Talk)   06:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - I understand the reasoning behind this, but if it were to be renamed, wouldn't Arbitration Committee (Wikipedia) be the more apt choice? Tim O&#39;Doherty (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose its not only about the wikipedia ArbCom the leading line says: "On Wikimedia Foundation projects" and it has a section made for other sister projects 05:13, 13 June 2023 (UTC) AlexBobCharles (talk) 05:13, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @AlexBobCharles @Tim O'Doherty Then perhaps Arbitration Committee (Wikimedia) might be a better title.... -- Prodraxis talk contribs  18:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The committees are in use on Wikipedia projects, no sourced data on the page shows that they have been used on other Wikimedia entities. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose: there's already a hatnote at the page to disambiguate it, moving isn't necessary. – Material  Works  ping me! 16:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Support Arbitration committee (Wikimedia). The Wikimedia committee is certainly not the primary topic. See Central Arbitration Committee, for example. This is simple puffery on the part of Wikipedia. And given there is more than one, it should be lowercased. Strange how editors seem to think that things to do with Wikipedia don't have to follow the naming conventions imposed on everything else! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:55, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Arbitration Committee (Wikipedia) sums up the page and removes confusion. This is a Wikipedia committee, not Wikimedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Support move to Arbitration committee (Wikimedia). The current title can be redirected to Arbitration. BD2412  T 23:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Support for Arbitration committee (Wikimedia). Though it focuses heavily on Wikipedia ArbComs, the article is indeed about the concept of arbitration committees across "Wikimedia Foundation projects", as the top section presents in its first two paragraphs. There is a page on Wikinews about their ArbCom, though I'm unfamiliar with it and don't know of any others. I also agree with Necrothesp that as an improper noun so it should be lowercase, and with Tim O'Doherty for parentheses since it fits the style of other titles better. In any case, good suggestion! Kaasterly (talk) 09:45, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment: Consensus is towards disambiguating the current title. But should the parentheses contain Wikipedia or Wikimedia. Relisting to generate further consensus.   ❯❯❯  Raydann  (Talk)   06:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Wikipedia has been notified of this discussion.  ❯❯❯  Raydann  (Talk)   06:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose If you can request and show some access logs showing a profusion of confused editors ending up here who were searching for something else, I might change my vote. There is already a hatnote to trap possible misunderstandings, and if that isn't enough, expand it or create a WP:Disambig page. This just seems like a solution in search of a problem. Mathglot (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Support as proposed, though ensure that a disambiguation hatnote remains. Ideally I'd like to name the page the "Supreme Court of Wikipedia", but jokes aside, I do think that a disambiguation is necessary. I'd also back Arbitration Committee (Wikipedia) or Arbitration Committee (Wikimedia), but I would ideally like to reduce the amount of parentheses in titles to make it quicker for those on iOS or Android keyboards to type.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 20:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment in support of (Wikipedia), the page is mainly and almost solely about Wikipedia's committee, although the lead language seems to try to purposely steer it to Wikimedia (as have other things which used to be or are Wikipedia). Wikipedia and Wikimedia were created and exist as separate entities, no matter how much Wikimedia wants to exchange its name for the common name of the project they were founded to fund and care for. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. For what it's worth, it seems this page on the Wikipedias of other languages use "Wikipedia" in the lead instead of "Wikimedia". The only exceptions it seems are Uzbek and Ukrainian. The German does include the tiny bit about the English Wikinews ArbCom. Wikidata also classifies this concept as part of the "Wikipedia community", but describes it as a "Wikimedia committee" in it's description. I am somewhat new to editing so I'm not too sure of all this has to imply. Kaasterly (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support (Wikipedia), current article title may accidentally be looked up. DimensionalFusion   (talk)  17:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support (Wikipedia), though honestly it is probably fine already. There are some other arbitral tribunals that include the phrase, but I don't know that they are notably referred to as just "the Arbitration Committee." For example, does anyone refer to the UK's Central Arbitration Committee that way? SilverLocust (talk) 09:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak support for Wikipedia Arbitration Committee - Although we have specific guidelines for when something should be disambiguated, and to my knowledge I can't think of any titles that may be directly confused with this, it's reasonable that coverage of our own project should be openly displayed as such. (Just to clarify, WP:NATURAL specifies that natural disambiguation is preferred, which is why I prefer this format, but I'm not especially opposed to (Wikipedia) if that's what the community wants. ASUKITE  18:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Support. The page on "Arbitration committee" should be on the concept of such a committee, not a specific case of such a commitee. I'd opt to have "Wikimedia Arbitration Committee", and creating a disambiguation page akin to:
 * ''An arbitration committee is a governing body that resolves disputes or conflicts between members or users. Examples of arbitration committees include:
 * ''Wikimedia Arbitration Committee
 * ''Central Arbitration Committee
 * ''The International Bar Association Arbitration Committee
 * The International Chamber of Commerce Commision on Arbitration and ADR
 * Couruu (talk) 09:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note that Arbitration c ommittee is already a disambiguation page and is not Arbitration C ommittee. (See also WP:DIFFCAP.) &#123;&#123;replyto&#124; SilverLocust &#125;&#125; (talk) 03:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Move to Wikimedia Arbitration Committee. The current title is neither a precise nor a recognisable name for the topic. Andrewa (talk) 11:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia Arbitration Committee would be better if that form is used as the page is about a Wikipedia project not a Wikimedia grouping. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The article starts out On Wikimedia Foundation projects, an Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) is... (my emphasis). The scope is not limited to Wikipedia. Andrewa (talk) 18:42, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Please read the article, once you get past the lead which tries to accent Wikimedia it is about Wikipedia's committee. The lead is "misleading". Randy Kryn (talk) 09:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Please check your own depth of research before accusing me of not doing mine.
 * You will for example find at Arbitration Committee Arbitration Committees are now used on eleven Wikipedia versions and the English Wikinews. See also Wikinews:Wikinews:Arbitration_Committee.
 * Yes, none of this is currently in the article, but it is within the scope as currently described by both the lead and the title. So ask yourself, would it most improve Wikipedia to add the missing content, or should we instead descope the article? Is there any reason to descope the article?
 * How would Wikipedia work if, instead of improving articles, we just descoped their leads and titles to match any missing content?
 * In my opinion, it is you who have found the text "misleading". Few if any Wikipedia articles are perfect. But let us improve this one rather than giving up on it. Andrewa (talk) 10:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "None of this is currently in the article" - this discussion is about the current article. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Important issue! No, this discussion is about the article name. We want the best name for the article. The eventual content will then be determined to a great extent by the name we choose. This is perhaps the wrong way around, but now we need to complete the RM process before moving ahead. The goal is the best article, not just a name for the current content. Andrewa (talk) 15:22, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Right, and the best name would include "Wikipedia", which is the determinative primary topic for ARBCOM. The foundation co-opting another page from a Wikipedia topic shouldn't fly as standard operating procedure. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You say determinative primary topic for ARBCOM... I'm not sure what this means, but wp:primary topic does not seem to apply at all. This is about the scope of the article. No ambiguity is suggested. The question is, should this article be about the English Wikipedia ARBCOM, or all eleven Wikipedia ARBCOMs, or about all ARBCOMs?
 * Those are all valid topics. But for now we have only one article (and that's probably enough but we don't decide that here). I see no reason to narrow the scope. Have redirects from Wikipedia-specific names by all means. But make this article about all Wikimedia ARBCOMs.
 * foundation co-opting another page from a Wikipedia topic is equally enigmatic.
 * In short, this reply doesn't seem to relate to my point at all. Andrewa (talk) 21:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Alternative suggestion: Arbitration Committee on Wikimedia (or Arbitration Committee on Wikipedia, or Arbitration Committee on Wikimedia projects) : Since "Arbitration Committee" is a body within Wikipedia (or other Wikimedia projects), in my opinion we can forgo the brackets by using prepositions like Supreme Court of the United States, Supreme Court of Canada, Supreme Court of India, etc. I'm not saying "Arbitration Committee of Wikimedia" because there isn't a single ArbCom body for all of Wikimedia, but the article is about the general concept of ArbComs on Wikimedia projects. The bracketed format also works, but oppose Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 13:58, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You oppose 'Wikipedia Arbitration Committee' yet approve of 'Wikimedia'? Please read the article (excluding the misleading wikimedia-heavy lead), it's about Wikipedia's committee. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I'm fine with either "Wikimedia" or "Wikipedia". I just don't want them as a prefix to ArbCom as in Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. It sounds if the actual body is named that way, but it isn't. The actual body is named just "Arbitration Committee". &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 14:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Why exclude the lead? Andrewa (talk) 18:46, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There's also a tiny bit about Wikinews in the third section. Kaasterly (talk) 19:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That bit is unsourced and almost dangling. The article is about Wikipedia's committee (except for the misleading lead). Randy Kryn (talk) 09:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Except for the lead and the title, and the available information... not all of it in the article content as of yet. Do you object to the Wikinews Arbcom being in the content? We may need to rely on primary sources admittedly. That is OK in some circumstances. The content is verifiable.
 * Is there any evidence at all that only Wikipedias (eleven of them) and Wikinews can have ARBCOMs? Andrewa (talk) 10:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nominator but alternative proposals are good too. Killuminator (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If we go with one of the titles that uses the term Wikipedia, do we then have a separate article on the use of Arbcoms by other Wikimedia projects, or does that title cover them too? (Or do we leave this information out of the Wikipedia main space entirely... surely not, but it does probably rely on primary sources.) Andrewa (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support Wikimedia Arbitration Committee or Wikipedia Arbitration Committee as natural disambiguation. Skarmory   (talk •   contribs)  00:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Support Wikimedia Arbitration Committee but oppose  for reasons given above. Andrewa (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Quote from WP:TITLEDAB: Adding a disambiguating term in parentheses after the ambiguous name is Wikipedia's standard disambiguation technique when none of the other solutions lead to an optimal article title. When we have viable natural disambiguation, it's preferred over parenthetical disambiguation. Skarmory   (talk •   contribs)  00:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree, natural disambiguation is available here and preferred. My only reservation is the proposal to limit this article's scope to Wikipedia. There's at least one other Wikimedia project with an ARBCOM, as the article already says, and no reason that others could not. Andrewa (talk) 07:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

MOS:JARGON issue?
Just my two cents, but maybe we should avoid using expressions whose exact meaning is not known by the general public when speaking about ourselves. Thinking about things like "topic-banned" or (maybe) "revert". While the readers will probably get the gist of it, these word do not have the same sense for us as for them. — Alien333 (what I did &amp; why I did it wrong) 09:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)