This Arbitration Committee has beenmentioned by a media organization: Ramey, Corinne (May 7, 2018)."The 15 People Who Keep Wikipedia's Editors From Killing Each Other".Wall Street Journal.

WT:ACArchives

Late 2003 – May 2005 May 2005 – April 2006 April 2006 – April 2008 April–October 2008 October 2008 – April 2009 April 2009 – March 2010 March 2010 – February 2011 February 2011 – July 2011 July 2011 July 2011 – October 2011 October 2011 – late May 2012 late May 2012 – September 2012 September 2012 – February 2013 March 2013 – July 2013 July 2013 – November 2013 November 2013 – October 2014 October 2014 – November 2015 November 2015 – December 2016 January 2017 – January 2019 January 2019 – May 23, 2019 May 21, 2019 – January 2020 February 2020 – March 2021 March 2021 – June 2022 June 2022 – July 2023 August 2023 – November 2024 November 2024 – present

This page has archives. Topics inactive for14 days are automatically archived1 or more at a time byLowercase sigmabot III.

The Parsoid parser doesn't like gluing together headings like is done onWikipedia:Contentious topics:

<includeonly>==</includeonly>=== Restriction notices ===<includeonly>==</includeonly>

The issue is that this parses as two separate tokens in parsoid, and the tokens are not glued together. Can we change this markup to:

<includeonly>=====</includeonly><noinclude>===</noinclude> Restriction notices<includeonly>=====</includeonly><noinclude>===</noinclude>

so that each sequence of==== is an uninterrupted token? Note also that the order should be<includeonly> then<noinclude> both before and after the heading -- not sure why, but it seems to matter. (Another more robust alternative is to duplicate the entire heading inside<noinclude> and<includeonly> blocks.) You can test this fix by adding?useparsoid=1 after the title to view the rendering with Parsoid. Thanks.C. Scott Ananian (he/him) (talk)15:40, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

<includeonly>===== Restriction notices =====</includeonly><noinclude>=== Restriction notices ===</noinclude> would be the alternative Scott referenced there.SSastry (WMF) (talk)17:17, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay; should be Done. Best,HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)17:46, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Moved toWikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks § Please consider moving some of the Wikipedia:Contentious topics footnotes refed from WP:STANDARDSET into its body

Please remove the link toWP:BRD from "Enhanced BRD" inWikipedia:Contentious topics#Standard set. Sending someone to a page whose opening lines are:

TheBOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is one of manyoptional strategies that editors may use to seekconsensus. This process isnot mandated by Wikipedia policy...

(emphasis in the original) is asking for trouble. I'd love for it to have a completely different name, but as a minimum, let's not point people at a page that describes an optional approach (and one that isn'tWikipedia:What editors mean when they say you have to follow BRD).WhatamIdoing (talk)22:22, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone actually been confused by this? I would consider giving it a new name, but I'm not sure its worth the effort if nobody has been misled. Best,HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)02:02, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was confused by the name when it was originally invented.WhatamIdoing (talk)02:32, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was readingWikipedia:Contentious topics and have contributed a fair bit to topics related to lesser-known discrimination and ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, primarily related to Bulgaria. I have had no issues with vandalism on these articles, so I was under the impression that it is best practice to not attempt to restrict articles by default. However, it appears there is a standing contentious topics authorization for those topics. Should they be tagged with "Contentious topics|topic=ee"?Pietrus1 (talk)01:27, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, I think it is a good idea to place the talk page banner so that everyone knows the page is subject to the enhanced standards of editing in a CT. There isn't a rule that requires tagging them, but if you come across pages I wouldpersonally encourage you to add the tag. Best,HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)02:05, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an admin who refused to speedy delete the articleMelat Kiros underWP:G5 in relation toWikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict simply because the article was created by an editor who wasn't extended-confirmed. My reasoning is theMelat Kiros article is not directly related to theArab–Israeli conflict per the contentious topics listing and is instead about an American lawyer and politician who merely protested against Israel, with no other connection to the conflict. However, other editors have questioned this decision so I'm looking for guidance. The contentious topic is theArab–Israeli conflict but that article doesn't even cover the protests around the world related to the topic. And I have concerns if every article about any person who has protested or stated an opinion on the conflict automatically fall under this contentious topic. If that happens, we would have potentially tens of thousands of additional articles under this contentious topic. So please share any guidance on if this should happen or is articles such as Melat Kiros are not covered by the contentious topic.

As an FYI, when I declined the speedy delete I suggested the article be brought up for an AfD,with that suggestion being followed. There is also anArbitration/Requests/Enforcement discussion going on about this. Thanks--SouthernNights (talk)17:39, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@SouthernNights, since it is an article about someone whois most notable for publishing an open letter criticizing big law firms for their silence on the genocide in Gaza and the crack downs on pro-Palestinian protests on college campuses, I'd say it's pretty unambiguously covered byWP:PIA. But I also think (arb hat off) that you're correct to decline a G5-for-ECR on an article that's already at AfD. --asilvering (talk)18:31, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. And yeah, it's better to have an AfD than to speedy delete an article if an article doesn't clearly meet the SD criteria. Speedy delete has very narrow guidelines for which articles are eligible and I prefer to err on the side of not deleting them if there's any question on eligibility.SouthernNights (talk)18:55, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree withit's almost always better to have an AfD than to speedy delete an article quite strongly in the case of G5, since this CSD is specifically in place to save community time in areas whereit often is not obvious that discussion would be a waste of community time. ECR is used in areas where pov problems are endemic but not frequently obvious to uninformed editors. Sockmasters often were originally blocked for things like copyright violations or source-text integrity issues that require more work to check. And so on. --asilvering (talk)19:11, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn't have said that in regards to G5 and was talking about situations were the speedy delete criteria don't clearly apply to an article. I agree with the value of both ECR and G5. And I should add now that I understand contentious topics applies even to articles that barely touch on the subject, I will apply that when I do speedy deletes.SouthernNights (talk)19:55, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a relatively inexperienced editor, so I will admit that I am still learning the rules. Does this mean I cannot create (or edit any articles to add) a reference to Israel or Palestine? How far does that go? On the talks page of one of the articles I edited, a user said an edit I made in reference toAIPAC on a political candidate's page about accepting contributions (an assertion that was sourced from multiple credible news articles and was information that no one has disputed the relevance or accuracy of) also fell outside the Contentious Topic policy as well. Is that accurate? That seems like it very much biases towards the status quo of things instead of moving articles towards being accurate with up to date information.Edittttor (talk)21:44, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Edittttor As the user you are referring to here, I'll explain my rationale. The article is about Kat Abughazaleh, not Laura Fine, so speculation about Laura Fine's funding seems misplaced in Kat Abughazaleh's article. If the point was about how AIPAC specificly launched a campaign in opposition of Abughazaleh, and Abughazaleh's response to it, it would be relevant. A paragraph about allegations of Fine being funded by AIPAC is not really suitable. AIPAC is an ECR topic, so there's a decent chance that the reference could fall under Contentious Topic.

As for the articles you are creating, while you are familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia's policies, I would recommend going through theWikipedia:Articles for creation. If the reviewers think that your articles meet wikipedia's standards, it will be published and will be very difficult to be successfully nominated for deletion down the road.EaglesFan37 (talk)00:45, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Edittttor, you can make references to Israel and Palestine, but nothing about the Arab-Israeli conflict, which does, unfortunately, cover a lot of Israel/Palestine topics. The reason is preciselybecause you are still learning the rules, and editor conflict in this topic area is bad enough when it only involves editors whodo - not to mention that there is a lot ofWP:SOCK going on. We don't like this either but itis helping. At the rate you're going, you'll hit 500 edits soon enough. --asilvering (talk)01:40, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OK don't shoot me, but I discovered what a contentious topic is like 2 hours ago. Long story short, I got like a mail merge in my page from another editor. It included the text.

'Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days, and you are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any page within this topic.'

But the linked takes me to a page that says.

'Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Should disruption occur on "Talk:" pages, administrators may take enforcement actions described in "B" or "C" below.'

Idk how to actually link to these things. But it seems unclear which is true. Like the experenced editor reverted my request so I'm guessing no Talk page is true. But I felt like either the generic message, or the linked text, might need clarity.~2025-40258-84 (talk)14:18, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Noindexed pages
• Wikipedia move-protected talk pages
• Wikipedia pages referenced by the press