Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Awareness repeal FAQ

The requirement to leave contentious topic alerts has been repealed. These are some answers to common questions.

What has changed?

The complicated set of "awareness criteria" has been repealed by the Arbitration Committee.

The important part of the motion says:

Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Awareness of contentious topics is hereby removed from the contentious topic procedures. Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Warnings is amended by inserting the following as a second paragraph:

An administrator should warn an editor whose behavior is not egregiously disruptive if the administrator believes the editor does not understand what editing in a contentious topic means. Otherwise, the administrator should issue an appropriate restriction.

You can read the entire motion, which amended many arbitration decisions to remove references to awareness. Those other amendments are unlikely to impact day-to-day editing.

Why was this change made?

Awareness was incredibly bureaucratic. This change was designed to simplify the already-complex contentious topic procedure by replacing a multi-factor test with common sense.

What happens to the alert templates?

There were three alert templates:

• {{subst:alert}} is retained as a no-fault informational notice.
• {{subst:alert/first}} is a newcomer-friendly welcome and introduction to the contentious topic procedure. It is based on the standard {{welcome}} template.
• {{subst:alert/DS}} was merged with {{subst:alert}}, given that the discretionary sanctions procedure has been obsolete since 2022. It is better to explain the current rules than how they changed years ago.

Do I still need to maintain a list of contentious topics I am aware of?

No. You may remove {{ct/aware}} from your talk page.

What should I do if someone leaves me an alert?

You can politely tell them that alerts are now unnecessary. {{Don't template me}} can be used to indicate you would rather not receive templated messages.

How does this work at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard?

At Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement ("AE"), you no longer need to supply evidence that a particular editor was aware of a contentious topic. Instead, you should link to any previous warnings and restrictions. The following is a non-exhausive list of reasons a warning might be unnecessary:

• The behavior was egregiously disruptive.
• An editor was warned for similar behavior outside of a contentious topic.
• An editor was warned for similar behavior in a different contentious topic.
• A highly experienced editor is trying to wikilawyer that they were not aware of a well-known contentious topic designation (e.g. the Arab–Israeli conflict or biographies of living persons).

Conversely, the following might be reasons to warn an editor before filing at AE:

• An editor received a generic {{alert}}, but were not given a warning explaining what they were doing incorrectly.
• An editor received a warning many years ago, but their behavior has been exemplary in the interim.

Above all, editors should use common sense.

I still have questions

Ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard!