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.

standard CTOPS restrictions

Is there a reason we include blocks and page protection in the list at Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Standard set when those are already authorized for admins everywhere? Valereee (talk) 16:28, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Because those restrictions then operate under the appeals/reversal procedures of Contentious Topics rather than the traditional procedures. The difference between the two is that CTOP gives a first mover advantage, while the traditional procedures give a second mover advantage. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2025 (UTC) Edit: It also requires different processes for appeals than the standard processes which is part of the first/second mover piece but impacts a different person so worth noting separately. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, got it, so it's the as an AE action part. Thanks! Valereee (talk) 16:33, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee it would be as a Contentious topic action with an AE action being something else and governed by related but slightly different rules (as our discussion around blocking highlights). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:41, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So much still to understand lol...I'll go see if I can figure out the difference before I bug you again here to spoon feed me. :D Valereee (talk) 16:44, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do these have to be logged? Doug Weller talk 19:25, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CTOPs restrictions? My understanding is yes, whether via rough consensus at AE or as an individual admin action. Valereee (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Doug Weller talk 14:51, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the differences in appeal/reversal, situations involving patterns of behaviour that typically require community discussion before enacting a remedy can be handled instead by a single administrator on their sole discretion. (The appeal/reversal procedures for actions taken under the scope of the contentious topic designation act as a brake to avoid quick reversals that can lead to escalating cycles of combativeness.) isaacl (talk) 02:21, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure but that's not true about blocking/protection which is what Valereee asked about- specifically the sanctions that admins normally can do. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:35, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Although there are situations where a block can be applied by a single admin even though there is no immediate disruption or specific guidance violation, generally having a contentions topic designation authorizing sole discretion empowers admins to enact a block at a somewhat different threshold, where ordinarily a community discussion would be held. I agree that the threshold doesn't change much for page protection. isaacl (talk) 15:34, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Except in ARBPIA, where ECP can be applied without any evidence of disruption. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's because the articles within scope are specifically under an extended-confirmed editing restriction by an arbitration remedy. It isn't a consequence of being designated a contentious topic. isaacl (talk) 15:54, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]