Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:Arbitration)

Contentious topic changes (June 2026)

[edit]
Original discussion
First 3 motions enacted. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 23:20, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.


These four motions would amend the contentious topics procedure by:

They are open for comments before voting. Your thoughts are welcome in § Community discussion :) Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:52, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topic changes: Clerk notes

[edit]
This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Live motion: Replacing awareness with warnings

[edit]
Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Awareness of contentious topics is hereby removed from the contentious topic procedures. Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Warnings is amended by inserting the following as a second paragraph:

An administrator should warn an editor whose behavior is not egregiously disruptive if the administrator believes the editor does not understand what editing in a contentious topic means. Otherwise, the administrator should issue an appropriate restriction.

To conform with these changes:

  • Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Warnings is amended by removing An editor may be warned even if the editor was not previously aware that their editing occurred in a contentious topic.
  • The part of Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Enforcement of restrictions beginning However, breaches of a page restriction... is amended to read However, breaches of a page restriction may result in a block or editor restriction only if the restricted page displayed an editnotice ({{Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice}} or a derived topic-specific template).
  • Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Noticeboard scope is amended by removing the word aware
  • Point (v) of Palestine-Israel articles 4 remedy 9, point (v) of Indian military history remedy 9, and point (vii) of GamerGate remedy 1.2 ("Available sanctions", "ARBIPA available sanctions", and "Sanctions available", respectively) are amended to read The contentious topics procedure permits uninvolved admins to use a wide variety of tools from the "standard set" to address disruption, including protections, blocks, topic bans, and revert restrictions.
  • Remedy 2 and remedy 3 of Editor conduct in e-cigs articles ("DS Extended: SPAs" and "DS: Administrators Encouraged", respectively) are terminated
  • Remedy 1 of COVID-19 ("Contentious topic designation") is amended to read:

    1) COVID-19 is designated as a contentious topic, replacing the community COVID-19 general sanctions.

    All sanctions issued under the COVID-19 general sanctions are governed by the contentious topic procedure. Administrators who enforced the COVID-19 general sanctions are thanked for their work and asked to continue providing administrative assistance enforcing this contentious topic.

  • Remedy 13 of Skepticism and coordinated editing ("BLP DS reminder") is retitled BLP contentious topic reminder and amended to read:

    13) Editors are reminded about the contentious topic designation from the Editing of Biographies of Living Persons case. Administrators should give serious consideration to issuing contentious topic restrictions to editors named in this decision in the event of further misconduct.

  • Remedy 1c of Indian military history ("Arbitration Committee assumes WP:GSCASTE and unifies South Asian WP:CTOPS") is amended by removing the second-to-last bullet point (beginning Editors aware of the previous contentious topic...)
  • Remedy 1 of Article titles and capitalisation 2 ("Manual of Style and article titles contentious topic scope amended") is amended by removing Editors aware of the previous contentious topic designation are not automatically presumed to be aware of the expanded scope, but may still be sanctioned within the subtopic of which they were previously considered aware. This does not invalidate any other reason why an editor might be aware of the expanded scope. Administrators are reminded that they may issue logged warnings even to unaware editors.

Administrators are strongly reminded that warning before sanctioning is almost always best practice. This change only removes the formalities associated with awareness.

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With no arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted - ~delta {talk • cont • 🇰🇷 • 🎢} 17:16, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support:

  1. Absolutely. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:48, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:20, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:31, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Aoidh (talk) 03:24, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 19:58, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mildly in favor. Izno (talk) 21:58, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Daniel (talk) 23:40, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  8. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 10:33, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:52, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  10. The robotic "awareness" criteria has always been an oddly bureaucratic aspect of the CT regime. Anyone who has listened to NYBrad at any point knows his story of how it outgrew its well intentioned origins. This is a good step forward. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:06, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:26, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Arbitrator discussion

Live motion: Repeated warnings

[edit]
Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Warnings is amended by inserting the following as a final paragraph:

If an editor does not improve their behavior after a warning, administrators should normally impose editor restrictions rather than give additional warnings.

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With no arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted - ~delta {talk • cont • 🇰🇷 • 🎢} 17:16, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support:

  1. I support the idea in principle, but I don't know that it'll have much effect. At least it gives a sign for admins to tap when making their argument at AE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:33, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I think the giv[ing] a sign for admins to tap will be helpful, though I expect to iterate on this in the future. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:04, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mildly in favor per SFR. Izno (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Aoidh (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Daniel (talk) 23:40, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 15:33, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  7. While I hate to add more to how CT works, this has been a long-term problem with AE --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:52, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Should help give more cover to AE admins to enact necessary but difficult sanctions. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:27, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

  1. Yeah, honestly, I think this ends up being a solution in search of a problem. I trust AE admins to be effective in calculating remedies. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:19, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It's creep. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 10:37, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Lets leave the discretion to the admins. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:06, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Arbitrator discussion

I've held off from supporting this. I'm not sure I want to, using Levivich's word, micromanage admins or require additional paperwork, and at the same time, I wonder if this is CREEP. At the same time, maybe we can try this minimalist approach and later reassess how it has worked? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:48, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Live motion: Eliminating renewal

[edit]

Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Renewal of page restrictions is hereby removed from the contentious topic procedures. To conform with this change:

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With no arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted - ~delta {talk • cont • 🇰🇷 • 🎢} 17:16, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Support:

  1. One of Wikipedia's greatest problems these days is the proliferation of overly-complex rules and procedures, which make it harder to contribute to the encyclopedia. We have done next to nothing to address it. Eliminating procedures which have never been used is the lowest hanging fruit when dealing with a complex document like Wikipedia:Contentious topics.

    I'll switch to oppose if anyone can find one (1) instance where this procedure was used. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:48, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:31, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mildly in favor of removal per my review. Should we remove this procedure, I do think someone is permitted by procedure to renew a thing by themself anyway (and such action can be appealed to AE after the fact regardless). Izno (talk) 21:54, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Daniel (talk) 23:40, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  5. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 10:29, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:50, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  7. With the understanding that removing this text doesn't actually remove the ability to renew a page restriction by just imposing it again. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 22:12, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Agreed with SilverLocust and Izno. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:39, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Aoidh (talk) 01:07, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  10. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:10, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:27, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Arbitrator discussion

Live motion: Consider banner blindness when placing banners

[edit]

Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Restriction notices is amended by inserting the following as a final sentence in the second paragraph: Editors should consider the hidden cost of banner blindness when placing contentious topic page notices, especially if a page has no active restrictions.

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With no arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support:

  1. Fewer notices makes it more likely that editors will read the important ones. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:48, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 20:41, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mildly in support but I'm skeptical of the utility. Second choice to the below I guess. Izno (talk) 21:56, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The two motions were meant to be complementary (i.e. both could theoretically pass). Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:57, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh. I don't think we need to say the same thing twice. Izno (talk) 22:01, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

  1. Come on. Adding instruction creep in a bunch of motions designed to get rid of instruction creep?! In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 10:26, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per ag --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:48, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:36, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Aoidh (talk) 01:09, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  5. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:11, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:28, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

  1. Daniel (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:47, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator discussion

Honestly, given the size of our procedures, I think this just gonna go ironically ignored. If we come up with a real way to deal with banner blindness, I'm all for it, but I'm not sure if this'll end up being an effective solution. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:17, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Live motion: Soften language surrounding talk page banners

[edit]

Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Restriction notices is amended by replacing and should generally add a notice to the talk page of restricted pages with and may add a notice to the talk page of restricted pages.

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With no arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support:

  1. Prefer to the above. If a(nother) concern to banner blindness is "people should be behaving themselves on pages regardless of whether something is a CTOP", I think I prefer "may" to "should". Izno (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 10:23, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:53, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

  1. I've been persuaded by isaacl (below) and SilverLocust (above), but I don't think this is a terrible idea. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:48, 8 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 20:40, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    (For quicker reference, here is my comment on the draft motion and isaacl's.) ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 22:22, 13 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Seems like a bad idea --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:47, 11 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I don't think this would be an improvement. - Aoidh (talk) 01:10, 14 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Banner blindness is a problem, sure. But I think that the CT banners are important to be able to point to. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:25, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:28, 16 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

  1. Daniel (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  2. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:41, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrator discussion

Arbitrator views and discussions

[edit]
  • My suggestion when HB was drafting this was to just remove awareness and add a single line that says, more or less, If an administrator believes that the editor is unaware they are editing in a CTOP or unaware of what that means the editor should be warned before sanctioning unless the disruption is egregious. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Community discussion

[edit]
  • I don't blame the committee for wanting to get rid of AWARE. However, the text of the motion is completely incongruous, for me, with the section name of "Replacing awareness with warnings". It's an absolute directive to consider an unlogged informal warning as the outcome in all situations, not just in the situations previously covered by an unaware editor. I also don't know how to square the second motion on repeated warnings with that motion on giving more informal warnings. Substantively I, on the whole, find the no repeated warnings order reasonable for ArbCom to give knowing that a future ArbCom might give an opposite order; it is healthy for some ArbComs to be more willing to sanction than others. I support the third and fourth motions around renewals and banner blindness. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:04, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two things. One, how do the changes to AWARE square the circle of "an editor who is very disruptive in CT and needs sanctioning, but has never been made aware or warned"? Is it still bad form to simply go straight to an AE block? Secondly...in the fourth one. The image used to illustrate "banner blindness on talk pages"...is not of a talk page. It's banners that go on an article, which if it existed would be very silly certainly, but doesn't illustrate the actual point at all IMHO. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:13, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm curious about the first question too because from what House Blaster wrote in the section heading and explanation the answer would be "still bad form" but the actual policy people would read seems to give admins carte blanche. I think Arbs would have been better off changing Standard of review to say the policy version of "An editor truly oblivious to CT would be a good reason to accept an appeal for anything that's not a warning". Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:20, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    To your first point, the intention is that someone who is engaging in behavior that shouldn't require a warning, admins would be permitted to use CT tools to address that disruption. I'm open to suggestions to make that intention more clear, and I'd support something like SFR's text. To your second point, I'm saying that we all recognize that it looks silly on an article, but it's what we do to our talk pages. See, e.g., Talk:Tandon v. Newsom, which has seven banners. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:25, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict × 2) Concur with Bkeep that this is... not as clear as it claims to be. Regarding banner blindness, I'd suggest that we have a procedural order of templates and CTOPS-related templates always display first in any case, I don't see a way to avoid banner blindness apart from just... less banners and then it leads to a whole can of worms as to how we can achieve that; I'd argue that a reminder to think about it does not help since we're already aware and do think of it. --qedk (t 愛 c) 20:08, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Editors considering less banners is absolutely a positive, in my view. I'll gently push back on we're already aware and do think of it—discussions about adding CT banners are always about whether an article is in scope, not about whether a banner would be helpful. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:03, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ScottishFinnishRadish:, I think your wording above is incredibly clear and would make things a lot simpler for everybody. I suppose there is an argument that an administrator could maliciously claim they believed someone was aware in order to issue a sanction unfairly, but I like to have faith in my fellow administrators (plus, I think anyone who obviously did that would be swiftly dealt with through their own sanction) so it's not something I'm especially concerned about. CoconutOctopus talk 20:26, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree it's a huge improvement over the current motion. I would just suggest using oblivious or some other synonym for unaware just to make the break with the past clearer. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    "Unfamiliar"? I think you are right that avoiding the term "aware" is a good idea. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:35, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfamiliar works well as a term in my eyes. CoconutOctopus talk 20:50, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm glad of the proposal to get rid of awareness. The current system can be too rigid at times. Sometimes when folks are disruptive, I want to gently guide them towards behaving properly with tailored messages instead of hitting them with a big template that implies they are not disruptive. If they double down instead of listening, going through the motions of then making them aware and then going to AE, is bureaucratic. For other types of sanctions we don't make people aware either, and escalate as appropriate. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 20:26, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • re the BLP DS reminder Editors are reminded that "living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles" is a designated contentious topic. is absolutely horrible phrasing that I had to read two or three times to properly parse. I think something like Editors are reminded that "biographical content relating to living or recently deceased people" is designated a contentious topic (or "biographical articles and other biographical content...") would be much easier to read and understand. I realise this would require rewording the designation on the actual CT authorisation as well but, (a) you're already amending things anyway, and (b) the change would be a positive readability improvement there too. Thryduulf (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be fine amending the scope of the CT, though I think that's beyond the scope of a motion about awareness. Would Editors are reminded that there is a contentious topic designation for biographies of living people be better? Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:59, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I personally understand living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles", it parses to [living or recently deceased people] + [that are the subject of biographical content] + [in a Wikipedia article], i.e. any biographical content in any article, as long as the subject of biographical content—not necessarily of the article—is living or recently deceased. Thryduulf's suggestion parses to mostly the same but in a more intuitively understandable way. In so far as there's a scope change implied in it, it's that it no longer restricts things to articles (which imo wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing because BLP vios on talk pages or in redirect titles aren't exactly welcome either, but yeah that would need formal adjusting I suppose), but that could be fixed by adjusting his suggestion to either Editors are reminded that "biographical content relating to living or recently deceased people in Wikipedia articles" is designated a contentious topic or Editors are reminded that "biographical content in Wikipedia articles relating to living or recently deceased people" is designated a contentious topic (struck, see Thryduulf's reply below)
    Your suggestion to me reads as "articles that specifically are biographies of living people", which is a substantially narrower scope. It's possible that that's the scope actually intended by the currently existing phrasing, but if so the phrasing is even more horrible than it seems on first glance, because that's not what it actually says. AddWittyNameHere 10:09, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Your (AddWittyNameHere's) two suggestions are not the same imo. The first covers [biographical content about living or recently deceased people] in [any Wikipedia article] while the second covers [all biographical content] in [Wikipedia articles about living or recently deceased people].
    HouseBlaster's phrasing could be read as applying to (all content) in (biographical articles about living people), or it could be read as a simple pointer to the (unchanged) designation elsewhere. The latter would avoid any issues of conflicting scopes if the designation changes in the future (c.f. the mess that The Troubles got into) but would not (by itself) resolve the parsing issues noted. That change may actually be better handled as a completely separate motion though to ensure it attracts the attention of the editors interested in that CT who might not care about awareness details. Thryduulf (talk) 10:55, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm...upon rereading, you're quite right that my two suggestions can be read differently with 'relating to' in the second one much more likely read as referring to the clause immediately before it ("Wikipedia articles') than to 'biographical content'. Not sure how I missed that, but glad you caught it and pointed it out. Consider my suggestions struck. And concur fixing the underlying phrasing issue in the designation tiself might be better dealt with in a separate motion. AddWittyNameHere 11:14, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    I think amending CT/BLP is beyond the scope of this process, though I agree its wording could be massively improved.

    The first sentence is meant to be a pointer, so maybe say that explicitly? Editors are reminded about the contentious topic designation at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons § Motion: contentious topic designation (December 2022). The second sentence is the important part of the remedy, which was written as "admins should use this if named parties continue to cause disruption", not a general reminder. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:03, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, making it an explicit pointer resolves this issue (although it's worth looking at the designation separately, maybe after these motions are resolved). I'd phrase it as something like Editors are reminded about the contentious topic designation authorised in the Editing of Biographies of Living Persons case. as I find that easier to read than a URL. The link is deliberately to WP:NEWBLP on the thinking that if the section is renamed or superceded by a new motion, the shortcut will be retargetted to wherever the current authorisation is. Thryduulf (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone with that, but using the word "from" rather than "authorised in". Avoiding the word "authorised" was actually one of the changes during WP:CT2022. (Not that I understand why that was changed... but it was.) Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:47, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would tone down the WP:AWARE replacement to "Before imposing a contentious topic restriction, administrators should consider whether an informal, unlogged warning or regular administrative action would be sufficient" - no emphasis, and "should" instead of "must". I feel that going must consider is a contradiction - you'd be setting this ironclad, scary, all-bold requirement to... consider the alternative? And, what, if I can demonstrate that an administrator didn't even consider any alternatives, that would be grounds for appeal, or even sanctions against them because of the big scary "must?" The fact is that this leaves it up to administrative discretion, and there's no getting around it - I feel that leaving in the big scary bold must would just result in some weird appeals from people who want to read it as an entitlement to an initial warning (which it clearly isn't, given the "consider.") "Should" is the sort of wording we use on lots of other policies; administrators are experienced enough to understand that it's a very strong admonition as to what the general best practices is. must consider just reads weirdly in a way that would lead to odd interpretations and appeals - at the end of the day, either you're leaving it up to administrator discretion or you aren't. --Aquillion (talk) 22:06, 27 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seconding Aquillion's point. "Must consider" is the formulation used at WP:BLPCRIME and in practice it works really poorly. It's unenforceable and unreviewable -- all someone has to do to comply is say they considered it. This works as guidance ("should consider," as in the fourth item), but not as an enforceable rule.
    A common way of handling this sort of situation is to set a default, and then require a specific, articulated rationale for varying from the default.
    So for #1 it could be "must give a warning for first offense unless there are extenuating circumstances, in which case those must be specifically articulated in the log (eg, 'no warning -- serious violations of TOS -- death threats')."
    For #2 it could be "must give only one warning unless there are extenuating circumstances, in which case those must be specifically articulated in the log (eg, '2nd warning because they promptly self-reverted')."
    That would at least give something to review when reviewing the admin's decision to vary from the default. Other two motions look good. Levivich (talk) 00:18, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @HouseBlaster: I agree the "should normally impose" language is better than "should give serious consideration". I still think that both formulations are superficial in that they state (IMO) universally-accepted principles without addressing the difficult exceptions. I think if you ask 100 admins, all 100 will tell you that warnings should normally be given for a first offense, and subsequent offenses should normally result in restrictions not just further warnings. I don't think anyone disagrees with this, and like Izno and SFR, I don't think arbcom stating this is going to make a difference to anyone. The more difficult question is when should an admin depart from this normal procedure, and that doesn't seem to be a question that any of the draft motions are addressing. I would suggest, if arbcom wants to give guidance to admins, then give guidance, don't just say what everyone already knows is true, but give like new information that's not something everyone already knows/agrees with. I think one helpful bit of new guidance is, as I mention above, requiring admins to document the reasons for departing from the norm. Another possible path is to give examples of when departures from the norm should happen, although I could see arbcom not wanting to do that for fear of micromanaging. (I'm not sure if I'd consider it micromanaging or not.) Hth, Levivich (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel that the distinction between logged and unlogged warnings is unhelpful. As I see it, the point of warning an editor is to let them know that their behavior is disruptive and they should change course. The point of logging the warning is to alert other admins that the editor has already been warned, so they can consider that if the disruption continues. Having different tiers of warnings that escalate from "informal" to "logged" is just bizarre; a warning is a warning, and all warnings in arbitration enforcement should be logged. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 06:19, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    One big difference is that only admins can log warnings in the enforcement log, but anyone can give an informal warning. (And one of the reasons that only uninvolved admins can log their warnings is that non-admins' warnings have a decent change of being inappropriate.) Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:03, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've stated previously that I think the audience for awareness messages (either on article talk pages or user talk pages) is fairly narrow: editors who are aware that the standard set of restrictions can't ordinarily be applied by a single administrator on their own initiative, and so are willing to engage in actions that pushes the boundaries of disruptive behaviour. I think it's beneficial for the community to progress towards a base assumption that editors are expected to behave collaboratively, whether or not restrictions can be imposed upon them by a single administrator or a community discussion. After many years of authorization of discretionary sanctions/contentious topics designations, I think by now the community is generally comfortable with admins imposing restrictions to curb disruption in highly disputed areas. Thus I think it's appropriate to transition away from the formal concept of awareness to reduce complexity. isaacl (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the proposal to amend Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Warnings, I agree that editors generally should be warned about their behaviour before being restricted. But I don't think it's necessary that editors be warned that they are editing in a designated contentious topic area before they are restricted. Typically, editors who have been warned about their behaviour and continue to behave poorly to the degree that an admin is about to sanction them are aware that they are being disruptive. I'm not sympathetic that they didn't alter their behaviour because they didn't know certain types of restrictions could be imposed upon them by a single admin. isaacl (talk) 21:56, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why the new phrasing calls out egregious disruption. If something has to be done it can be, but if they're clearly unaware of the stakes and a warning might work that should be the tack. I also expect editors, in the face of disruption, will let someone know about CTOPs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:02, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I understood that's the tack you are proposing. I just have a different view on the course to set. isaacl (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:06, 28 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    As a rough analogy, if someone is acting disruptively in public, the appropriate authorities can take action, even if the person doesn't know the jurisdiction in which their current location falls. isaacl (talk) 00:05, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding this comment regarding pages with specific restrictions in force: personally I think editors should be able to know what restrictions are in effect before trying to edit the page. Thus I think it's good to have both a talk page banner and an edit notice. isaacl (talk) 06:47, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I already have new editors snap at me all the time when I place the existing CT notices, demanding that I explain why I am threatening them with a "warning template". We definitely still need a no-fault-notice level of CT awareness. signed, Rosguill talk 16:31, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Removing the formal awareness requirement (thus removing the need to use a specific template) in favour of allowing any wording to serve as notification provides flexibility to craft a gently worded message, tailored for the specific editor. I feel this should provide more options to inform new editors in a non-confrontational way. isaacl (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I misread the motion at first glance, thanks for the clarification. signed, Rosguill talk 16:42, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Take a look at {{welcome-arbpia}} and {{welcome-ctsa}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:44, 5 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair, contentious topic notifications have always been (mild) warnings. Sometimes when a mild warning seemed not enough, I added a note below them like "Contrary to the message above, this notification does come in response to issues with your editing." But even without that text: If you send someone a message whose only two effects are allowing sanctions for the account from now on, and letting the user know that they need to be careful, that is a warning. Sending them without any concerns about the user's conduct has always been a rare and unfriendly-looking action. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:25, 6 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding giving admins a sign to tap: as I've discussed in User:Isaacl/Address problems without creating new specialized rules, I'm not a fan of adding text simply to be used as a link target that is brandished. Personally, I don't think that's enough to justify lengthening the text (which adds to the burden of those reading it) in a way that is already covered by standard practice for significant disruption. isaacl (talk) 01:24, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    @ArbCom Clerks: I apologize for going over the word limit. I request an extension to the number of words I have written (by my rough count, 511 words). isaacl (talk) 01:33, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    isaacl: Extension granted to 511 plus concise replies to questions from arbitrators. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:40, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn't this be reworking the highest level guidance to encourage desired behaviour? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:56, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate this is a tricky area. Although the arbitration committee has delegated authority to enact guidance on behalf of the community, when the usual consensus-based decision-making process is failing, it limits its use of this power as much as possible. So changing the highest level guidance for editor-specific restrictions at Wikipedia:Banning policy is out of scope. In my view, the proposed addition is too general to have a specific effect on committee-designated contentious topic areas. If the burden of a specialized rule is going to be paid, then I think it should have more potential benefit. isaacl (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Administrators should give serious consideration to issuing contentious topic restrictions to editors named in this decision in the event of further misconduct feels like a harsher sanction than was actually imposed on those editors (several of whom are in good standing). I'd suggest just rescinding the remedy rather than trying to fiddle with it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:36, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It was originally rewritten as a general reminder (e.g. just the first sentence of the original remedy), but arbs around during the original case said that the language you quoted is closer to the intent of the remedy. I'd certainly be receptive towards a request for termination at WP:ARCA. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:23, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean, whatever the intent was, it's very clearly not what the remedy said, and I think most people would be pretty frustrated to find that ArbCom had quietly turned what they thought was a no-fault awareness notification into a sword of Damocles. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:25, 15 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny that a request (ping) is made for comments from three affected people, and when they comment, their comments are immediately hatted. Haha. - Walter not a grumpy old man Ego 06:52, 17 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Roxy the dog, I expect you don't want to hear this from me, since you're fresh off a block that I handed out for personal attacks. But I think you do need to hear it from someone, and no one else has stepped up, so here I am.
The hatting of those comments, like the redacting of the personal attack that led to your most recent block, was done as a kindness. Evidently, you don't think of it that way. That's fine. You're perfectly entitled to think whatever you like about it. You can find it condescending, or rude, or simply unnecessary, and if you're feeling particularly het up about it you can rant about me, or Ixtal, or House, or whomever, in dms somewhere or down at the pub. But on-wiki, really the only thing worth doing is rolling your eyes and moving on. What you definitely shouldn't be doing is drawing further attention to whatever it was that someone hid for your benefit. If you keep this up, I think it is inevitable that you'll end up with sanctions rather stronger than a brief block. You've already been given a lot of rope, and you haven't been using it wisely. Please stop trying to shoot yourself in the foot when someone is trying to take the gun. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 00:08, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
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.

1RR WP:CTOP restrictions and templates

[edit]

Do the 1RR restrictions extend to templates transcluded into the affected articles (especially when those templates are one-offs created exclusively for use in the affected article, and where the Template talk page redirects to the article that is a WP:CTOP)? Eg: 2026 Iran war has a WP:CTOP notice on the talk page, and Template:2026 Iran war infobox is transcluded into that article. As a secondary question if the CTOP restrictions extend to templates (and other such pages), in this case would 1RR apply to the entire set of pages? Eg: If you revert on the main article, and then revert on a template, you would be violating 1RR? And must the editor be notified with Ds/aware even if they've edited on the talk page where the notice is at the top? —Locke Cole • t • c • b 01:50, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee&oldid=1361237890"