Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee: Difference between revisions

I don’t understand why there is a community consensus requirement for the deletion of articles but not for their creation. Perhaps in contentious topics new articles should be proposed first and then a discussion should follow to determine whether the article ought to be created. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Back in the early days (more than 20 years ago) the community wanted lots of articles to be added, so that was made easy. It’s not quite so easy to start an article now, and I don’t there is much sentiment in the community to make it any harder. The problem with your idea is, how would any process determine whether any proposed article would be contentious before it was created? Donald Albury 22:37, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The person creating the article would be expected to submit it to Articles for Creation if it is about a contentious topic. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:42, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I do not share your apparent confidence that all potential article creators will know about, understand, and agree to abide by such an expectation. Donald Albury 23:14, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Last year, I asked about a targeted pitch to prepare candidates, and a description of the challenges that require specific skill sets. I know Barkeep49 has updated his list of characteristics desired for the new round of arbitrators. Based on your experiences, would any of the current arbitrators like to highlight specific skills or experience that they think would be valuable to add to the committee? Any help you can provide to the community when deciding to run, prior to the end of the nomination period, and when evaluating the candidates afterwards would be appreciated! isaacl (talk) 04:32, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]