Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Comparison with discretionary sanctions

This explanatory supplement summarises differences between the old discretionary sanctions procedure and the newly adopted contentious topics procedure. This page is maintained by the arbitration clerks, but in the event of a conflict, only the contentious topics procedure is authoritative.

Shortcuts

This page in a nutshell: Contentious topics are specially-designated topics that have attracted more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project. This system replaced the former discretionary sanctions system, and there are several differences between the two.

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.^[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 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

"Contentious topic restrictions" section text

Administrators are authorized to impose contentious topic restrictions in contentious topic areas. Those contentious topic restrictions take the form of editor restrictions and page restrictions.

Editor restrictions prohibit a specific editor from making edits described in the restriction and may be imposed on editors who do not follow the expectations listed in § Editing a contentious topic in a contentious topic. Page restrictions prohibit all editors on a particular page from making edits described in the restriction and may be imposed to minimize disruption in a contentious topic.

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]

Single administrators may only impose restrictions in the standard set of contentious topic restrictions. A rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") may impose any restriction from the standard set and any other reasonable measures that are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project.

Standard set

The following editor restrictions constitute the standard set of editor restrictions which may be imposed by a single uninvolved administrator:

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
other restrictions that have been specifically designated by the Arbitration Committee for use by a single administrator in a particular contentious topic.

The following page restrictions constitute the standard set of page restrictions which may be imposed by a single uninvolved administrator:

page protection,
revert restrictions,
the "consensus required" restriction,^[c]
the "enforced BRD" restriction,^[d] and
other restrictions that have been specifically designated by the Arbitration Committee for use by a single administrator in a particular contentious topic.

Warnings

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 editor restrictions. An editor may be warned even if the editor was not previously aware that their editing occurred in a contentious topic.

Duration of restrictions

Contentious topic restrictions may be imposed for any fixed length of time, or for an indefinite period.

However, one year after being imposed (or last renewed, if applicable), contentious topic restrictions which were imposed by a single administrator may be amended or revoked without going through the appeals and amendments process in the same way as an ordinary administrator action.

Additionally, sitewide blocks become ordinary administrator actions one year after imposition, whether or not imposed by a consensus of administrators at AE.

Restriction notices

An administrator who imposes an editor restriction must provide a notice on the restricted editor's talk page specifying the reason for the restriction and informing the restricted editor of the appeal process.

An administrator who imposes a page restriction (other than page protection) must add an editnotice to restricted pages using the standard template ({{Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice}} or a derived topic-specific template), and should generally add a notice to the talk page of restricted pages.

Renewal of page restrictions

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.

Logging

Contentious topic restrictions must be recorded in the arbitration enforcement log by the administrator who takes the action.^[e] 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).^[f]

Enforcement of restrictions

Editors must comply with contentious topic restrictions. Editors who disagree with a contentious topic restriction may appeal it, but the restriction remains in effect until it is revoked or modified by an administrator.

Edits that breach an editor or page restriction may be reverted.^[g]

Editors who breach an editor or page restriction may be blocked or subjected to further editor restrictions.

However, breaches of a page restriction may result in a block or editor restriction only if:

The editor was aware that they were editing in a contentious topic, and
The restricted page displayed an editnotice ({{Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice}} or a derived topic-specific template) specifying the page restriction.

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.

^ 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 the editor (a) posts a talk page message discussing the edit and (b) waits 24 hours from the time of the talk page message.
^ 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 dummy edit or reblocking with the same settings) on behalf of the administrator. When this happens, the original administrator is still considered the "enforcing administrator".
^ An uninvolved administrator who enforces a restriction by reversion is performing an administrative action and does not thereby become involved for administrative purposes.

[1] 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.

[2] 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.

[3] 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.

[4] 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 the editor (a) posts a talk page message discussing the edit and (b) waits 24 hours from the time of the talk page message.

[5] 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".

[6] 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 dummy edit or reblocking with the same settings) on behalf of the administrator. When this happens, the original administrator is still considered the "enforcing administrator".

[7] An uninvolved administrator who enforces a restriction by reversion is performing an administrative action and does not thereby become involved for administrative purposes.

[a]

[b]

[c]

[d]

[e]

[f]

[g]