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:

requesting arbitration: WP:A/R
discussing finalised decisions of the committee: WT:ACN
discussing pending decisions: find the proceedings page at Template:Casenav
discussing the process of arbitration: WT:A/R

Shortcuts

This Arbitration Committee has been mentioned by a media organization:

Ramey, Corinne (May 7, 2018). "The 15 People Who Keep Wikipedia's Editors From Killing Each Other". Wall Street Journal.

question regarding CT awareness[edit]

Is an editor considered to be aware of a contentious topic if they request protection of an article falling inside the topic? e.g. User:Example (who knows that ARBPIA is under 500/30 but nothing else about its CT restrictions, and has not been alerted) sees repeated disruption on an article related to Palestine/Isreal, and requests indef ECP at WP:RPP. Would User:Example be considered aware after requesting page protection? – dudhhr^talk _contribs (he/they) 16:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disclaimer: I am not an arbitrator

The relevant info from WP:AWARE is that editors can be presumed to be aware without receiving an alert based on a number of situations, including:

Has otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic.
Ever participated in any process relating to the contentious topic (such as a request or appeal at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ["AE"], the administrators' noticeboard ["AN"], or an Arbitration Committee process page [requests for arbitration and subpages])

I guess in this example you give, it depends on other specifics. For example, is the indefinite ECP request made using the contentious topic procedure? If so, then the second bullet point could be used to indicate awareness (as it's a request related to the contentious topic). However, if the ECP request was made using the justification along the lines of "semi-protection isn't working as autoconfirmed editors are being disruptive" without a mention to the contentious topics procedure, this wouldn't meet any of the points as the user could just be making the request with the understanding that ECP protection exists.

As with all of these assumptions of awareness, an administrator who believes a user was not aware should impose no editor restrictions (other than a logged warning). Therefore, there likely is no bright line and it depends on a more case-by-case basis when considering situations such as this.

The arbitrators or other users may of course disagree with how I see this, so a user should not rely on this distinction to avoid being considered aware. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:57, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]