Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee

Informing editors of CTOPS

The page says that it is mandatory to use the designated template when alerting users about CTOPs for the first time. If a user shows basic awareness of the concept of CTOPS (e.g. by saying so on their talk page), do they still need the designated template or can the 'alert' template/a custom message be used instead per WP:IAR? QwertyForest (talk) 12:03, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd recommend following the procedure. Not following the procedure opens you up to wikilawyering when you try to take problematic users to WP:AE. They or others can claim they were not properly alerted. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Footnote [m] on the CTOP page provides some circumstances in which "awareness" can be presumed. The last two should cover QF's situation, namely:

• Has placed a {{Contentious topics/aware}} template for the contentious topic on their own talk page; or
• Has otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic.

Personally, I feel like this information shouldn't be hidden in a footnote. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Those points are for awareness of a specific topic area being designated as a contentious topic. As per the documentation for {{Contentious topics/alert/first}}, the template is not required for someone who has posted a {{Contentious topics/aware}} notice on their talk page. There is no exception made for other types of edits indicating awareness, with respect to the requirement for alerting users for the first time. isaacl (talk) 19:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

The footnote I'm quoting specifically says, right at the top, "An editor who has not received an alert may also be presumed to be aware of a contentious topic if the editor:" and then goes on to list a bunch of possibilities in which one can presume awareness (emphasis added). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the footnote is describing cases when an editor is presumed to be aware of a specific contentious topic. The corresponding sentence for the footnote starts with Once alerted to a specific contentious topic, editors are presumed to remain aware... In other words, that they are aware of the designation of a given topic. As I understand the discussion at the time, the arbitration committee wished to preserve a formal first notification so there would be a common baseline message that gets delivered to everyone being made aware of the system, while being more flexible in how awareness is evaluated once this common message has been received by a given editor. isaacl (talk) 06:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

But the footnote doesn't say "An editor who has not received an alert on some specific topic", it says "An editor who has not received an alert". Surely it would be illogical to suggest that I could go and stick an alert on someone else's page, but argue that I'm not aware of CTOPs because I personally have never received an alert? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

The footnote is in the context of the sentence it is annotating, so it doesn't repeat the entire context. I agree that, for example, it can easily be argued that I'm aware of the contentious topics system in spite of never receiving the formal first alert template, and so I imagine a discussion about it would conclude that I am aware. (It would not be as clear that I am aware of a specific designated contentious topic, though.) But I don't think a blanket statement can be made that anyone who has copied an alert template to someone's talk page is doing so with a default baseline of knowledge about the system and process, and so an evaluation of awareness would have to be discussed. (Some editors see talk page notifications being posted and then mimic the process.) The requirement for a first alert template establishes unambiguously that this baseline has been provided. isaacl (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)