Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

Arbitrator experiences

[edit]

With the arbitration committee election process getting underway, it would be greatly appreciated if any arbitrators would like to share their experiences at Wikipedia:Arbitrator experiences. It's invaluable for potential candidates to gain a better understanding of what the role entails. Thanks for your consideration in this matter! isaacl (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

While it probably would have been ok, the edit notice at WP:CTOP is rather stern, so in the interest of caution, making request here - Can a clerk please change the existing anchor and add:

−
<!--Awareness --><section begin="Awareness of contentious topics"/>{{anchor|Awareness and alerts}}
+
<!--Awareness --><section begin="Awareness of contentious topics"/>{{anchor|Awareness and alerts|Awareness|Awareness of contentious topics}}

at the section Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Awareness of contentious topics - it looks like that section was previously just called "Awareness" (probably when it was DS instead of CTOP), as there's incoming section link(s) to it that are broken (I noticed it while I was pulling up Wikipedia:Contentious_topics#cite_note-14, but guessing there might be other incoming links, so adding an anchor to fix it and adding the current title in case it gets renamed again in the future. Thanks :) Raladic (talk) 21:49, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:59, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious alert template doc suggestion

[edit]

I had to dig down to a footnote on a separate page to figure out if I needed to re-alert someone who had gotten previous DS alerts. So, I'd like to suggest adding (If an editor has previously been alerted to the presence of discretionary sanctions, they may be presumed to be aware of the contentious topic.) at the end of the first paragraph of Template:Contentious topics/alert/doc#Usage, per the wording at Wikipedia:Contentious_topics#cite_note-14. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:33, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On that note - the template doc is at odds with the approved language from the actual text of the CT Reform - Wikipedia:Contentious topics/2021-22 review#Awareness, ”Only the officially designated templates should be used for an editor's first contentious topic alert..” - which says the template “should” be used, not “must” - that’s an important distinction that could otherwise be used by someone to WP:WIKILAWYER their way out of “I wasn’t alerted with this exact template”. Raladic (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I think we've gotten too far up our own asses about trying to write this stuff as legalese. This stuff is normally done by whole teams of professionals who make a pile of money and still mess it up. I think that awareness requirement is silly enough, but having to use Arbcom Approvedtm templates is even sillier. We should scrap the whole awareness thing and replace it with Generally, editors should be made aware that they're editing in a CTOP with an explanation and link to the applicable CTOP page before they are sanctioned with CTOP powers. Egregious behavioral violations can be sanctioned without any prior communication. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the strict wording could use a small dose of common sense application.
It's one thing if some editor is very new and may genuinely never have seen it, so giving them some heads up on CTOPs is reasonable and sure, the template has more info than an editor may manually link to. But when we have AE or ANI threads where admins are forced to say "sorry, can't ban this user who has never gotten this template, so best I can do is a warning", while editors have 5k+ (or I've even seen cases of 10k+) edits and have been around for a few years seems entirely implausible that they have not come across CTOPs conceptually. Raladic (talk) 17:35, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've previous written that I'm not completely convinced that a process to formally make an editor aware of the contentious topic framework is necessary, particularly if the usual warning-before-action principle is followed by admins. Editors face the risk of sanctions for the same type of behaviour on non-contentious topics; it would just take a community discussion. So the editors to which an awareness alert makes a difference are ones who are unaware of how to identify that a page is in the scope of a contentious topic, deliberately choose to act disruptively, and are counting on the community not to reach a consensus on sanctions. I'm not sure the benefit/tradeoff ratio is sufficiently high. isaacl (talk) 21:33, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands the alert is often given as the warning before action (or request for action), which is contrary to the wording and intent of the alert templates, making the whole exercise even more silly. Everyone knows that getting hit with that template is essentially saying "keep it up and I'll see you at AE". ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:28, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking about this, and while SFR is correct about it really being "keep it up and I'll see you at AE", I'm not sure that that's worse than someone finding themselves at AE without ever before being told that getting there was a possibility. Perhaps a more honest way of going about it would be to have a one-time informational template about the process, sort of like what the first-alert template does now, followed by something like a series of uw-ctop templates based on the existing uw- templates. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is more templates really the solution? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:55, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not, unless they are better than what we have now. And no templates may not be the solution, either. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It also occurs to me that there could be a single uw warning, so as not to have a proliferation of templates. So there would be a standardized first-time notification that CTOPs exist, and a single template that "you are violating CTOPS, so stop or we go to AE" (but worded more diplomatically than that). --Tryptofish (talk) 23:58, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, there is a first alert template that must be used, and an alert template that can be used to tell an editor about a specific designated contentious topic area, but any message conveying this info is fine. Personally, I feel this covers your use cases. isaacl (talk) 05:22, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a distinction to be made, between the intended use of a template, and how well the template is formulated in terms of whether or not it achieves its intended use. The non-first alert is intended, often, to tell someone to cut it out, but it isn't written that way. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:27, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that nothing prevents anyone from doing this right now, since any one can write any message they desire to tell someone about a designated contentious topic area, and anyone can create a warning template that others can choose to use if they find it appropriate for the particular circumstances. isaacl (talk) 14:30, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As long as they use alert/first the first time. Currently that must be done. That has led to me including the alert/first after each use of {{welcome-arbpia}}, which kinda defeats the purpose of the welcome message. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:38, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I mentioned that. isaacl (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think my suggested replacement covers that. Generally, editors should be made aware that they're editing in a CTOP with an explanation and link to the applicable CTOP page before they are sanctioned with CTOP powers. Egregious behavioral violations can be sanctioned without any prior communication. Still letting people know, just without having to cast the right magical ritual. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:18, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's a good point. I suppose an argument (not sure how valid it is) could be made that it's better to have defined language for letting them know, instead of leaving that up to anyone who does the letting know. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:23, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Having a single, rigidly-defined way of defining awareness was how it used to work with Discretionary Sanctions, but that was (rightly imo) loosened with the change to Contentious Topics.
The point of awareness is to avoid people being sanctioned for do things they genuinely didn't know weren't allowed, especially if that thing is allowed more generally (e.g. a second revert on a page covered by a 1RR restriction). It also functions to alert editors that there will be both less leniency and potentially harsher repercussions in this topic area than more generally on Wikipedia.
If things aren't working in a way that is ideal currently, then I suggest we start by agreeing what principles we are trying to ensure and progress from there rather than adding yet more layers on top of what exists already. IMO the basic principles should be
  • Behaviour/actions that would be unacceptable anywhere on Wikipedia should be dealt with (including in terms of severity of consequence) as if it had happened in a non-CTOP area unless it is clear that the editor in question unambiguously knew that there were additional/more severe consequences before doing whatever it was they did.
  • Behaviour/actions that would be acceptable elsewhere but is not acceptable on a given page should result in a warning at most (and awareness for the future) unless it is clear that the editor in question unambiguously knew that there were additional/more severe consequences before doing whatever it was they did.
  • Purely informational notices should be routinely given to every editor making substantive edits in a CTOP area as a matter of routine, unless they are clearly already aware. A warning of potential AE action should only be given before the user's first edit after receiving an informational notice for egregiously bad behaviour that would be sanctionable outside a CTOP area. Thryduulf (talk) 23:53, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's also the fact that the move from DS to CT quietly lost the stern "Any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned." which used to be part of DS procedure, because while yes, of course there may be some people that may be entirely unaware of CTOPs, primarily newer editors, and in that case, letting them know is useful. But that is often not just how DS/CTOP alerts have and are often being used, which is as a sort of disruptive/abusive intimidation by users who are in a discussion or edit with some other user and have been issuing them precisely as the intimidation/threat as SFR called out (while not checking if the user has been aware of them per the many reasons of why an editor may be aware of a CTOP which are not covered by the edit-filter of the CTOP alert (or the scarcely used {{DS/aware}} which was birthed during the the 2019 Clarification/Amendment discussion.
The template docs themself were not adjusted in DS->CTOP move, so it still contains the "Alerts ensure a user knows what is expected of them. Alerts are a neutral courtesy; never use them to intimidate, coerce, or shame another editor", but with the backing at the actual WP:CTOP page no longer making a mention of it, some people have seen it as an excuse to use is to intimidate others they are not agreeing with. Raladic (talk) 02:46, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are opportunities for ArbCom to move towards "AWARNESS being a defense" rather than an admin stopper that the move from DS to CT started. I do urge the committee be careful about what ends up in the body which was written to be readable and useful by Wikipedians of all knowledge levels. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, now that we've had a huge discussion over the meaning of alert templates, does anyone have an opinion on the question I actually asked? :) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:05, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gracias. :) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:13, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I tucked it in a different paragraph that was talking about when not to give an alert, rather than the first paragraph, but I figured it was close enough. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:16, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, thought that made sense. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Awareness template

[edit]

There is no template I could find that signalled awareness for all topics, so I created one. {{Ct/aware/all}} Is there a way to integrate this into the main one or put it as an option for a template? I would like others to be able to use it. Metallurgist (talk) 04:17, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that your template is purely text, so it requires readers actually reading your page.
The actual {{ct/aware}} template invokes {{#invoke:Contentious_topics/aware|listToText}} for each ct, so that the automatic filter 602 can cross-check an attempt by a user to give a particular CT alert and whether it was given (I think, not 100% if the filter just hits if any alert was given for any topic).
Which in turn Module:Sanctions/AlertHelper and {{tlx}Contentious topics/table}} and {{Gs/topics/table}} are responsible for.
Long story short, Likely a change to the abuse filter 602 to specifically read your template as a universal "don't ever warn me about any CT, just assume I know" and just always matches, rather than trying to unravel the current logic might be easiest?
But I also know that @HouseBlaster is currently doing some stuff around the CT table templates, so maybe he wants to use it as an opportunity to outsource the {{for loop||call=Contentious topics/table/usageline|a-a|a-i|ab|ap|at|blp|cam|cc|cid|covid|ee|fg|gc|gg|gmo|horn|irp|kurd|ps|r-i|rne|sa|tt|ya}} sauce from the {{Contentious topics/table}} into something more generically parseable so it could be reused? Raladic (talk) 09:34, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll start by saying that I consider myself aware of all contentious topics, so I understand the impulse. Where I struggle with this idea is that, by creating such a template, editors who use it are committing to being aware of any and all changes to CT designations, for as long as you use that template. I don't know if I want to give that the official seal of approval. (I am not sure how easy it would be to get filter 602 to recognize the awareness, but we can cross that bridge when we get there.) I will raise this on clerks-l, but I would personally say you should manually list all of them. Perhaps we can create an easy prefilled awareness template, which would make it possible to specify you are aware of all CTs currently in force? Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 12:41, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]