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.

Abstention for non-votes procedure (November 2025)

Original discussion

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.

Abstention for non-votes procedure: Clerk notes

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

Motion: Amendment to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures relating to automatic abstentions for non-votes

The Committee resolves by motion:

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Arbitrator activity and voting is amended to include the following subsection:

Abstention for non-votes

Where an arbitrator does not vote on a proposal that requires an absolute majority, the process below may be followed.

For votes at a Proposed Decision page, or on a motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions or Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment:
- At any time after seven days from the proposed decision or motion being posted, any arbitrator (but often one of the drafting arbitrators, or a coordinating arbitrator) may initiate the 'abstention for non-votes' procedure. To initiate this, they will a) post a link to this subsection, along with a ping for each arbitrator potentially affected, to the 'Implementation notes' section of the proposed decision page (or equivalent section for a motion); and b) an email to the arbcom-en mailing list detailing the same.
- After 72 hours, any arbitrator votes still outstanding will be automatically considered as an abstention for the purposes of that individual proposal.
- Should an arbitrator who had abstentions automatically registered for proposal(s) under this clause subsequently vote on a proposal before it is closed, that vote will override and replace the automatic abstention.

A vote will not be closed as successful if the total number of arbitrators voting on it is less than an absolute majority of the Committee.

The application of this clause is not automatic, and arbitrators should use their best judgement when deciding whether or not to apply it. Factors that should be considered include levels of communication, statements around voting in the immediate future, as well as the nature and count of the votes.

Note that this process cannot be applied to the process that governs the removal of an arbitrator.

For this motion there are 15 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted – EggRoll97 ^(talk) 19:08, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support:

Following on from recent events and recent cases, and as discussed on the mailing list. The key sentence here is the one that starts The application of this clause is not automatic - judgement as to its best application (whether or not to activate, timing etc.) will be on a case-by-case basis. Daniel (talk) 22:48, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:49, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Elli (talk | contribs) 22:53, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aoidh (talk) 01:02, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:06, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Cabayi (talk) 10:06, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 (talk) 15:14, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Katie^talk 17:52, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am actually rather hesitant to support this. The Committee has done well enough without this for some 20 years. As Barkeep notes on the talk, Arbs should make the Committee their first Wiki priority. But that hasn't always been the case as of late. I understand the suggestion that we should simply remove inactive arbs, but that is an extreme step that requires the expenditure of considerable political capital and good will, reduces our already low manpower, and is very drama filled (our job is to reduce drama, not create it). Short of arbs taking personal responsibility and going inactive when they're really inactive, it seems this is our next best solution. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:07, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:27, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Arbitrator views and discussions

Community discussion

Statement by Extraordinary Writ

"A vote will not be closed as successful if the total number of arbitrators voting on it is less than an absolute majority of the Committee": is that supposed to be an absolute majority of the full Committee or an absolute majority as defined at WP:ARBPRO#Calculation of votes? Either way it would create perverse incentives: if there are seven supporters and no one else has voted, the item would pass if an eighth member opposed but fail if he just stayed quiet. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Absolute majority is defined by Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Calculation of votes as the total number of arbitrators, not including any arbitrators who are recused, abstaining, or inactive. Note that this safety provision (and its wording) is copied from an existing internal procedure. While I understand this proposed scenario as creating perverse incentive, I think the benefits from the safety net of requiring a majority to at least vote on an issue outweighs the narrow edge case. Daniel (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's less of a problem, then—thanks for the response. Obviously I'm not privy to the underlying issues here, but I'll just make two other comments: (1) it's really a shame if we're having to rewrite procedures because arbs aren't willing to go inactive or abstain when necessary, and (2) you all have a duty to promptly remove arbitrators who consistently fail to "[p]articipate conscientiously in the Committee's activities and deliberations", for security reasons if nothing else. I know it's got to be incredibly tempting to take one of the less confrontational paths, but we elect arbs in the hope that they'll do the right thing even when it's uncomfortable. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:01, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - Somewhat restricted by what I can/can't say, but to answer your final sentence first, I reckon the 2025 Committee has a decent track record of doing the right thing even when it's uncomfortable — AC/N currently is an example of that, and we've had a few others throughout the year similar (think the mass checkuser event earlier in the year, etc.). For (1), you have my full agreement there; it was hard to reach an outcome at Transgender healthcare and people for example, due to lingering outstanding votes impacting outcomes. For (2), also agree, although the key word is consistently - this proposed motion provides a mechanism that can serve as a spot-fix for occasional issues, where a consistent pattern that requires that (somewhat extraordinary) step may not exist. But overall, I'm fairly aligned with your comments and the sentiment that underpins them, and thanks for sharing your thoughts. Daniel (talk) 03:04, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yeah, I certainly don't mean to suggest that this is an issue unique to the current Committee; it's been going on for a while now. But CaptainEek's comment above is kind of reïnforcing my worry, which is that some arbs are letting concerns about drama and political capital control their responses in this area. It's a completely understandable approach, and ninety-nine times out of a hundred it'll turn out just fine, but I sure hope it won't take a redux of 2011 to show why the risk-reward calculation just doesn't work. I guess I'm kind of wandering from the matter at hand, though. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:05, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by isaacl

A minor copy editing suggestion: instead of "(but often one of the drafting arbitrators...", I suggest "(such as one of the drafting arbitrators...".

As it's an internal procedure, I defer to the arbitrators on what they think is the best way to initiate the process. Nonetheless, I suggest re-examining if all of the proposed steps are needed. In particular, is it necessary to specify that there must be a link to "Abstention for non-votes" section? Arbitrators should have familiarized themselves with the procedures. isaacl (talk) 04:26, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators would be familiar with the section, but parties or observers of a case or motion may not be - and to make the reason why majorities on proposals are changing obvious to all, I believe including a link to the section is prudent. We saw questions like this one at the most recent PD, and it would be fair to say there would be similar questions if proposals had changing majorities. Daniel (talk) 04:34, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To me, it just seems very detailed about one specific aspect, as if posting [[link to section]] {{ping|arbitrator 1|arbitrator 2| ...}} is enough to initiate the process. I'd as soon say something like "the arbitrator will post a message in the implementation notes section of the proposed decision page (or equivalent section for a motion), with a ping notification to all arbitrators potentially affected," and let the clerks add a link if it gets left out. That being said, I appreciate the desire to write down best practice. isaacl (talk) 05:16, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish

In the first line of text, please change "the below process" to "the process below". The thought of a "below process" sounds wrong to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eek made the change. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:07, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

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.

Awareness template for all CTs

Hi Metallurgist! Apologies for the delay in responding to your question about a universal awareness template. I raised this on clerks-l, and there was not consensus to advertise this as an official template, largely for the reasons I admitted to be skeptical of the idea. (Namely: there are always new contentious topics, whether from fresh authorizations or rescoping of previous ones, so this is a large invitation to wikilawyering about whether you were actually aware of a new topic.) In lieu of that proposal, we reached consensus to create Template:Contentious topics/aware/doc § Building your own awareness template, which can be used to signify that you are aware of all currently-authorized contentious topics. I also added updating the list as a step when creating a new CT, so it will be kept updated. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 21:10, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseBlaster Thank you for the update. I had forgotten about making that topic and wish I had kept up with it. I now understand there is a coding issue that creates a banner warning those who go to list a warning. My main issue is I am generally aware of most areas of contention even if I dont actively work in all of them, and I understand the concept. The problem is when you put all of them, it creates a large banner. The code I used in the template I created came from someone else's page which I found incredibly useful. If there is a way to create an all option or a generally aware option that would enable the detection to work, that would be ideal. I suppose I could use the proper categories and collapse it, but an all or generally aware option would be immensely useful.

Im not necessarily asking for my template to be made official, but for the concept to be made official. I just created that so others had an easy option. Again, if there is a way to maybe have a template that indicates someone is generally aware of contentious topics that meets the same requirements, that would be incredibly helpful.

In the meantime, I will try to integrate the one I created into a collapsible, now that Im aware of the deficiencies it has. ←Metallurgist (talk) 21:35, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I could've been more clear: there was no consensus to make the concept official, either. To avoid taking up space, you can wrap the list like <div style="display:none;">{{ct/aware|...}}</div> and then create your own banner (perhaps using {{notice}}) saying you are aware of all CTs as of the current date. (This is what I do!) Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 21:39, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could you link me where this discussion took place? I am interested in reading that. In any respect, I will play around with things to make this work. If I understand it correctly, the section that was added was done so to make it easier to place all the topics at once? ←Metallurgist (talk) 05:19, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It took place on clerks-l, which is not publicly accessible. You are correct that the section was added to make it easier to place all the topics at once. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 05:21, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright thank you very much for all of this. ←Metallurgist (talk) 05:25, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One last question, hopefully. Would putting this in a collapse template break the script from functioning?

Example:

This user is aware of all contentious topics designations and policies, and should not be given alerts for them.

←Metallurgist (talk) 05:31, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It would not :) House Blaster (talk • he/they) 05:32, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Am I correct in my interpretation of the new 30/500 restrictions?

Hi, I let a newish editor know that they weren't supposed to comment on the Arab–Israeli conflict, even in a wiki space like the WP:RSN. The response from the editor was "I haven't edited anything that belonged to the war. It is about whether the BBC is a reliable source or not, not the ethics of the conflict."[1] Here are the edits I think violated the rules: [2][3]

Unfortunately, I have over 100000 edits and the arbitration rules are still something of a mystery to me so please let me know whether my interpretation is correct before I pursue this further. (t · c) buidhe 04:19, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They are discussing the BBC in relation to the conflict, so that is not permitted under 30/500. The scope of the WP:ECR designation is the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is considerably more broad than the Gaza war. If they want to give the Trump example, that is fine, but discussing anything about the Arab–Israeli conflict is off the table. Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 04:43, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0–1	8
2–3	7
4–5	6