Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Comparison with discretionary sanctions

Arbitration​Committee

The Arbitration Committee recently adopted the contentious topics procedure, which replaces ArbCom's former "discretionary sanctions". Contentious topics and discretionary sanctions have a lot in common, but there are some noteworthy changes. If you've previously interacted with the discretionary sanctions system and you're looking for a primer on the changes, you're in the right place.

If you aren't already familiar with discretionary sanctions, it may be more useful to read the contentious topics procedure directly. This page assumes some familiarity with the old system.

Q: What has changed from the discretionary sanctions procedure?

Some of the significant changes made by the Committee in 2022 include:

• Changing the name from "discretionary sanctions" to "contentious topics";
• Making it easier to change and modify older restrictions;
• Reducing the formalities associated with awareness and alerts;
• Clarifying the standards associated with appeals; and
• Documentation changes, such as a new guidance page for enforcing administrators.

The following section contains section-by-section analysis of changes from the pre-2022 discretionary sanctions procedure.

Lead section

Lead section text

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. 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 editor 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 editor and page restrictions may be appealed.

• The lead section is new. It is intended to highlight the key features of the contentious topics system and describe the expectations for editors in contentious topics.

Contentious topic restrictions

Standard set

• There is now a "standard set" of editor restrictions and page restrictions.
• Single administrators may only impose restrictions from the standard set; a rough consensus of administrators may additionally impose any other reasonable measures.

Warnings

• Warnings may now be imposed even if the editor was not previously aware of the contentious topic designation.

Duration

• Restrictions imposed by a single administrator become regular admin actions (and may be modified or revoked as such) after one year. This is intended to make it easier to review old restrictions (such as old page restrictions).
  • Page restrictions may be renewed by an administrator (even the one who imposed originally), which resets the one-year timer.
• Restrictions imposed by a consensus of admins at AE don't become regular admin actions after one year.

Templates

• If a page has active page restrictions, {{contentious topics/page restriction editnotice}} or one of the topic specific editnotices must be used to detail that a restriction has been applied.

Appeals and amendments

• As detailed above, single-admin imposed restrictions can be modified or removed a year after they were imposed (or if relevant renewed).
• The standard for accepting an appeal at AE/AN is now clear consensus (previously clear and substantial consensus)
• An appeal should be accepted when:
  1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
  2. the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
  3. the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.
• As described above, logged warnings can be appealed.
• A rough consensus of editors at AN or administrators at AE may specify a period up to a year where no appeals are allowed except to ARCA.

Procedural summary

• This summarizes the available restrictions, duration, and appeals provisions.

Awareness of contentious topics

• Editors no longer need to be alerted every 12 months, as they are presumed to remain aware after their first alert.
• When alerting an editor who has never received a contentious topic or discretionary sanction alert for any topic, you must use {{alert/first}}. In other cases you may use {{alert}}, {{alert/DS}}, or any message that the contentious topic designation is in effect.

Administrators' role and expectations

• This section is substantially unchanged.

Arbitration enforcement

Noticeboard scope

• The community may now decide to authorize AE to hear enforcement requests and appeals for community-authorized general sanctions.

Noticeboard outcomes

• 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.

Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee

• A consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard may refer an arbitration enforcement request to the Arbitration Committee for final decision at WP:ARCA.

Dismissing an enforcement request

• This section is substantially unchanged.

General provisions

Decorum

• This section is substantially unchanged.

Designation

• This section is substantially unchanged.

Continuity

• Any DS restrictions are governed under the CT procedure for appeals and amendments. However, the following transitional rules apply:
  • Single-admin DS page restrictions can be renewed, modified and removed in the same way and can also be renewed.
  • Single-admin DS editor restrictions do not become subject to modification and revocation after a year.

Q: Something is still unclear!

If a procedural page, template, or guidance document is unclear, please reach out to the arbitration clerk team at WP:AC/C. As part of the Committee's decision, the arbitration clerks were given additional authority to update and maintain those templates and guidance pages and would love to help.