Wikipedia:Contentious topics/2021-22 review/Proposed decision/Merged v1
Status as of 23:25 (UTC), Thursday, 6 June 2024 ()
- The final decision has been posted and announced.
- The initial implementation period has concluded and the updated procedure has come into effect.
- Any editors interested in the ongoing implementation process are invited to assist at the implementation talk page.
- To be notified about updates, subscribe to the update list.
|
The revision process will be conducted in four phases:
The revision process was managed by drafting arbitrators designated by the Arbitration Committee (CaptainEek, L235, Wugapodes). |
 | Welcome to the Proposed Decision phase of the discretionary sanctions review. This page supplements the proposed decision. This page shows what the merged text of the new procedure would be in the event that all of the proposal in the proposed decisions (as of 13 November 2022) pass without amendment. |
 | This page documents an enforcement procedure of the Arbitration Committee and should be read in conjunction with the Committee's procedures. It should not be edited without the Committee's authorisation. |
 | This page in a nutshell: Contentious topics are specially-designated topics that have attracted more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project. Administrators are allowed to impose editing restrictions on editors who do not follow project expectations within contentious topics. Administrators are also allowed to set special rules on pages within a contentious topic to prevent inappropriate editing. |
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics (abbreviated CT). These are specially-designated topics that have attracted more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee.[a] Not all topics that are controversial have been designated as contentious topics – this procedure applies only to those topics designated by the Arbitration Committee (list). When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have additional authority to reduce disruption to the project.
Editing a contentious topic
Within contentious topics, you must edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
You should err on the side of caution if you are unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations.
Within contentious topics, administrators have the ability to set individual restrictions (restrictions on editing by particular editors) and page restrictions (special rules on how particular pages can be edited). Some of these abilities may be exercised by a single administrator while others require a consensus of administrators. All individual and page restrictions may be appealed.
Contentious topic restrictions[edit]
Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions in contentious topic areas. Those contentious topic restrictions take the form of individual restrictions and page restrictions. Unless otherwise specified, contentious topics are broadly construed; this contentious topics procedure applies to all pages broadly related to a topic, as well as parts of other pages that are related to the topic.[b]
Individual restrictions[edit]
Administrators may impose restrictions on editors ("individual restrictions") in contentious topics who do not follow the expectations listed in #Editing a contentious topic as a contentious topic restriction.
The restrictions that can be imposed depend on whether the action is taken by a single administrator or by a rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE").
Any uninvolved administrator may impose the following individual restrictions, which constitute the "standard set" of individual restrictions:
- sitewide and partial blocks,
- topic bans and page bans (from the entire contentious topic, a subtopic, or specified pages within the topic),
- interaction bans,
- revert restrictions, and
- any other restrictions designated by the Arbitration Committee as part of the standard set of individual restrictions for a particular contentious topic.
A rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") may impose any restriction from the standard set above and any other reasonable measures that are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project and may do so for any length of time, including indefinitely.
If imposed by a single administrator, these individual restrictions lose their status as "contentious topic restrictions" one year after being imposed (if not sooner expired). After that time, these restrictions may be modified or revoked by any uninvolved administrator like an ordinary administrator action without going through the appeals and amendments process.
Warnings[edit]
Administrators may warn editors for conduct that falls short of the expectations in a contentious topic. Administrators may choose to log warnings in the arbitration enforcement log. Warnings that are logged in the arbitration enforcement log may be appealed like other individual restrictions. An editor may be warned even if the editor was not previously aware that their editing occurred in a contentious topic.
Page restrictions[edit]
Administrators may impose special rules and restrictions that apply to pages within contentious topics ("page restrictions") to minimise disruption as a contentious topic restriction. These page restrictions apply to all editors editing the restricted page.
The restrictions that can be imposed depend on whether the action is taken by a single administrator or by a rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE").
Any uninvolved administrator may impose the following page restrictions, which constitute the "standard set" of page restrictions:
- page protection,
- revert restrictions,
- the "consensus required" restriction,[c]
- the "enforced BRD" restriction,[d] and
- any other restrictions designated by the Arbitration Committee as part of the standard set of page restrictions for a particular contentious topic.
A rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") may impose any restriction from the standard set above and any other reasonable measures that are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project and may do so for any length of time including indefinitely.
If imposed by a single administrator, these page restrictions lose their status as "contentious topic restrictions" one year after being imposed or renewed (if not sooner expired). After that time, these restrictions may be renewed, modified, or revoked by any uninvolved administrator like an ordinary administrator action without going through the appeals and amendments process.
Renewal of page restrictions[edit]
If an uninvolved administrator (including the original enforcing administrator) decides that a page restriction is still necessary after one year, the administrator may renew the restriction by re-imposing it under this procedure and logging the renewal. The administrator renewing a page restriction then becomes the enforcing administrator. This does not apply to page restrictions imposed by consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Enforcement[edit]
Editors must comply with restrictions even if they disagree with the action. Editors who disagree with a restriction may appeal it, but the restriction remains in effect until it is revoked or modified by an administrator.
Edits that breach an individual or page restriction may be reverted.[e]
If an editor breaches an individual restriction, the editor may be blocked and further enforcement actions may be taken to enforce the restriction.
Administrators may apply an individual restriction to an editor who breaches a page restriction if:
- The editor was aware that they were editing in a contentious topic, and
- There was an editnotice ([CT EDITNOTICE]) on the restricted page which specified the page restriction.
Requesting a restriction[edit]
Administrators may decide to impose contentious topic restrictions on their own. Additionally, any editor may request the imposition of contentious topic restrictions at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE").
Logging[edit]
Contentious topic restrictions must be recorded in the arbitration enforcement log by the administrator who takes the action.[f] Administrators who renew, change, or revoke a contentious topic restriction must append a note recording the amendment to the original log entry.
Administrators should clearly and unambiguously label their actions as contentious topic restrictions (such as in the block summary, page protection summary, edit summary, or talk page message announcing the action, whichever is appropriate).[g]
Arbitration enforcement (AE)[edit]
Noticeboard scope[edit]
- If adopted this section would be added to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures and transcluded here similarly to "Dimissing an enforcement request" below
The arbitration enforcement noticeboard may consider:
- requests for administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction [LINK] imposed by an administrator,
- requests for an individual enforcement action against aware editors [LINK] who engage in misconduct in a contentious topic [LINK],
- requests for page restrictions [LINK] (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in contentious topics,
- appeals against arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions), or
- requests or appeals pursuant to community-imposed remedies which match the contentious topics procedure, if those requests or appeals are assigned to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard by the community.
For all other matters, including content disagreements or the enforcement of other community-imposed sanctions, editors should use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal decisions made directly by the Arbitration Committee, editors should submit a request for clarification or amendment.
Noticeboard outcomes[edit]
Requests and appeals at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard may not be closed with a "rough consensus" or "clear consensus" outcome without at least 24 hours of discussion.
Dismissing an enforcement request[edit]
- This section is transcluded from Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Dismissing an enforcement request. It applies to all enforcement decisions, including in contentious topics.
When no actual violation occurred, or the consensus of uninvolved administrators is that exceptional circumstances are present, which would make the imposition of a sanction inappropriate, administrators may also close a report with no action; if appropriate, they may also warn or advise the editor being reported, in order to avoid further breaches.
Administrators wishing to dismiss an enforcement request should act cautiously and be especially mindful that their actions do not give the impression that they are second-guessing the Arbitration Committee or obstructing the enforcement of their decisions.
Dismissed requests may not be reopened. However, any interested users may, after discussion with the administrator in question, appeal the dismissal to the Arbitration Committee at "ARCA". Petitioners who forum shop by resubmitting denied enforcement requests without good reason may find themselves cautioned or sanctioned in return.
Appeals and amendments[edit]
All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an individual restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.
The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:
- ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
- request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
- submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en
wikimedia.org).
Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction[edit]
Administrators have the authority to revoke or change a contentious topic restriction if and only if:
- The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator,[h] or
- An appeal is successful (see below).
An appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:
- a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"),
- a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE"), or
- a majority of the Arbitration Committee voting on a motion in response to a request for amendment ("ARCA").
Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.
The limits in this section do not apply to restrictions imposed by a single administrator that have lost their status as contentious topic restriction under #Individual restrictions or #Page restrictions.
Standard of review[edit]
On community review[edit]
Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:
- the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
- the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
- the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.
On Arbitration Committee review[edit]
Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:
- the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
- the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
- compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.
Procedural summary[edit]
| Imposed by: | Single administrator | Rough consensus of administrators at AE |
|---|---|---|
| Authorized restrictions |
|
|
| Maximum length | Indefinite; reversible by any uninvolved administrator after one year. However, page restrictions may be renewed. | Indefinite |
| Modifications by |
| |
Administrators' role and expectations[edit]
Administrators should seek to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment within contentious topics. Administrators are expected to use their experience and judgment to balance the need to assume good faith, to avoid biting genuine newcomers and to allow responsible contributors maximum editing freedom with the need to keep edit-warring, battleground conduct, and disruptive behaviour to a minimum. Before imposing a contentious topic restriction, administrators must consider whether a regular administrative action would be sufficient to reduce disruption to the project.
While contentious topic restrictions give administrators necessary latitude, administrators must not:
- impose a restriction when involved;
- modify a restriction out of process;
- repeatedly fail to properly explain their enforcement actions;
- repeatedly fail to log restriction or page restrictions; or
- repeatedly issue significantly disproportionate restriction or issue a grossly disproportionate restriction.
Administrators who fail to meet these expectations may be subject to any remedy the committee considers appropriate, including desysopping. Administrative actions may be peer-reviewed using the regular appeal processes.
Former administrators – that is, editors who have temporarily or permanently relinquished the tools or have been desysopped – may neither act as administrators in arbitration enforcement nor reverse their own previous administrative actions.
Administrator expectations[edit]
- This section is transcluded from Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Expectations of administrators. In addition to the expectations specific to contentious topic restrictions above, the following expectations apply to all enforcement decisions:
Enforcing administrators are accountable and must explain their enforcement actions; and they must not be involved. Prior routine enforcement interactions, prior administrator participation in enforcement discussions, or when an otherwise uninvolved administrator refers a matter to AE to elicit the opinion of other administrators or refers a matter to the committee at ARCA, do not constitute or create involvement.
Administrators may not adjudicate their own actions at any appeal. However, they are encouraged to provide statements and comments to assist in reaching a determination.
Enforcing administrators are expected to exercise good judgment by responding flexibly and proportionately when they intervene. Except for the cases when the Arbitration Committee has predetermined the set of escalating sanctions to be imposed for violations of a final decision, the severity of the sanction imposed should be commensurate with all circumstances of the case at hand, including the seriousness of the violation and the possible recidivism of the editor in question. When dealing with first or isolated instances of borderline misconduct, informal advice may be more effective in the long term than a sanction. Conversely, editors engaging in egregious or sustained misconduct should be dealt with robustly.
Administrators do not need explicit consensus to enforce arbitration decisions and can always act unilaterally. However, when the case is not clear-cut they are encouraged, before acting, to seek input from their colleagues at arbitration enforcement.
When a consensus of uninvolved administrators is emerging in a discussion, administrators willing to overrule their colleagues should act with caution and must explain their reasons on request.
General provisions[edit]
Decorum[edit]
Certain pages (including the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE"), the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"), and the Arbitration Committee's requests for amendment ("ARCA")) are used for the fair, well-informed, and timely resolution of individual and page restrictions. Editors participating in enforcement cases must disclose fully their involvement with parties (if any). While good-faith statements are welcome, editors are expected to discuss only evidence and procedure; they are not expected to trade insults or engage in character assassination. Insults and personal attacks, soapboxing and casting aspersions are as unacceptable in enforcement discussions as elsewhere on Wikipedia. Uninvolved administrators are asked to ensure that enforcement cases are not disrupted, and may remove statements or restrict or block editors to address inappropriate conduct.
Awareness of contentious topics[edit]
When an editor first begins making edits within any contentious topic, anyone may alert the editor of the contentious topic designation using [CT/TOPICNOTICE] template. Only the officially designated templates should be used for an editor's first contentious topic alert, and these templates may not be placed using a bot or other form of automated editing. When alerting an editor who has previously received any contentious topic alert, the [LINK] template may be used, but any message that conveys the contentious topic designation is acceptable.
If the enforcing administrator believes that an editor was not aware that they were editing a designating contentious topic when making inappropriate edits, no individual restrictions (other than a logged warning) should be imposed.[i] Once alerted to a specific contentious topic, editors are presumed to remain aware but may attempt to refute this presumption on appeal.[j][k]
Designation[edit]
Contentious topics may be designated either as part of the final decision of an arbitration case or by Arbitration Committee motion. When it becomes apparent that a particular contentious topic designation is no longer necessary, the Committee may rescind it. Any editor may request that the Committee review a contentious topic designation by submitting a request for amendment ("ARCA"). Unless the Committee specifies otherwise, after rescinding a designation, all restrictions previously-issued under that designation remain in force and continue to be governed by the contentious topics procedure.
Continuity[edit]
Any restrictions imposed under the prior discretionary sanctions procedure to date remain in force. Any changes to or appeals regarding previously-imposed restrictions will be governed by the current contentious topics procedure, subject to the following transitional rules:
- Previously-enacted single-admin page restrictions are now subject to renewal, modification, and revocation by uninvolved administrators in accordance with #Page restrictions.
- Previously-enacted single-admin individual restrictions do not, as a result of #Individual restrictions, lose their status as "contentious topic restrictions" after one year.
Notes[edit]
- ^ The community has its own version of a contentious topics system. These are most often referred to as general sanctions (GS), but are sometimes referred to as community sanctions or community discretionary sanctions.
- ^ This procedure applies to edits and pages in all namespaces. When considering whether edits fall within the scope of a contentious topic, administrators should be guided by the principles outlined in the topic ban policy.
- ^ On pages where "consensus required" is in effect, an edit that is challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page.
- ^ On pages where "enforced BRD" is in effect, an edit that is challenged by reversion may not be reinstated by the editor who originally made it until (a) the editor posts a talk page message discussing the edit and (b) the edit waits 24 hours from the time of the talk page message.
- ^ An uninvolved administrator who enforces a page restriction by reversion is performing an administrative action and does not thereby become involved for administrative purposes.
- ^ Other administrators may log the contentious topic restriction on behalf of the original administrator. When this happens, the original administrator is still considered the "enforcing administrator".
- ^ If an enforcing administrator clearly intends to impose a contentious topic restrictions but forgets to label their action, other administrators may label the action (such as through a null edit or reblocking with the same settings) on behalf of the administrator. When this happens, the original administrator is still considered the "enforcing administrator".
- ^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.
- ^ Edits made before an editor was aware of a contentious topic designation may still be considered as part of a pattern of behavior in future enforcement processes if those processes primarily concern post-awareness conduct.
- ^ An editor may also be presumed to be aware of a contentious topic if the editor:
- Was mentioned by name in the applicable Final Decision;
- Was ever restricted or formally warned within the contentious topic;
- Ever alerted another editor to the contentious topic;
- Ever received a discretionary sanctions alert ({{ds/alert}}) for the same topic;
- Ever participated in any process relating to the contentious topic (such as a request or appeal at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE"), the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"), or an Arbitration Committee process page (requests for arbitration and subpages);
- Has placed a {{Ct/aware}} template for the contentious topic on their own talk page; or
- Has otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic.
- ^ Editors should exercise caution before re-alerting an editor to the same contentious topic as a previous alert, as there is a presumption that an editor remains aware.
Independent enacted provisions[edit]
- These proposals would not be part of the main text of the new procedure.
Administrator instructions[edit]
The Arbitration Committee will, acting through its members, clerks, and other editors designated by the Committee, maintain instructions for enforcing administrators.
Contentious topic subpages[edit]
The Arbitration Committee will, acting through its members, clerks, and other editors designated by the Committee, maintain a subpage of the contentious topics procedure listing relevant information including:
- other topic-wide remedies (e.g. ARBPIA-wide 500/30 and 1RR)
- standard templates for the topic area
- any guidance for admins from ArbCom
- any ARCAs or other clarifications that affect the topic
- any additions to the "standard set" for the topic
Editnotices and talk page notices[edit]
The Arbitration Committee will, acting through its members, clerks, and other editors designated by the Committee, modify contentious topics editnotices and talk page notices with the following broad goals:
- Creating two editnotice templates: one for optional use on pages with no page restrictions, and one for use on pages with page restrictions;
- Using clear and concise formatting when describing page restrictions in place of long individual lines; and
- Creating custom ArbCom-maintained templates for cases with existing topic-wide restrictions (such as Template:Editnotice GMO 1RR).
Enforcement templates and procedural documents[edit]
- If adopted this section would be added to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures.
Arbitrators and arbitration clerks may, after consultation with the Arbitration Committee, update and maintain templates and procedural documents related to arbitration enforcement processes (including the contentious topics system).
Administrative provisions[edit]
Each reference to the prior discretionary sanctions procedure shall be treated as a reference to the contentious topics procedure. The arbitration clerks are directed to amend all existing remedies authorizing discretionary sanctions to instead designate contentious topics.
Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee[edit]
If a consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard determines that unusual circumstances prevent the arbitration enforcement process from reaching a successful outcome, it may refer the enforcement request to the Arbitration Committee for final decision through a request for amendment.
Motion to close[edit]
The Arbitration Committee thanks all those who have participated in the 2021-22 discretionary sanctions review process and all who have helped bring it to a successful conclusion. This motion concludes the 2021-22 discretionary sanctions review process.