Wikipedia:Contentious topics (community-designated)

This is an information page.

It is neither an encyclopedia article nor one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines; rather, its purpose is to explain certain aspects of Wikipedia's norms, customs, technicalities, or practices. It may reflect differing levels of consensus and vetting.

Shortcuts

The Wikipedia community has designated certain topic areas as contentious topics (list).^[1]

Much like contentious topics designated by the Arbitration Committee, these topics have attracted more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project. The community has therefore decided that when editing a community-designated contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have additional authority to reduce disruption to the project.

Specifically, within a community-designated contentious topic, the Arbitration Committee's contentious topics procedure applies and the arbitration enforcement noticeboard (AE) may be used in a similar manner as in ArbCom-designated contentious topics.^[2] Other than AE, whenever the ArbCom contentious topics procedure references an ArbCom-specific process, template, or log page, the community-designated contentious topic process will use an equivalent community process, template, or log page.^[3]


When the ArbCom contentious topics procedure refers to this...	For community-designated contentious topics, generally, use this term:
The Arbitration Committee	The community^[4]
The arbitration enforcement log (WP:AELOG)	The enforcement log applicable to the topic

The relevant changes to the procedure that apply within community-designated contentious topics are shown below.

Comparison between ArbCom contentious topics and community contentious topics

General provisions

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~~ the community. 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)~~ the community (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.

Contentious topic restrictions

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.^[a]

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,
word limits on participation in each discussion within the contentious topic,^[b] and
other restrictions that have been specifically designated by ~~the Arbitration Committee~~ the community 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]
word limits on participation by all editors in a specific discussion,^[b] and
other restrictions that have been specifically designated by ~~the Arbitration Committee~~ the community 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~~ the contentious topic's 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 noting the CTOP invoked in the protection reason. The administrator renewing a page restriction then becomes the enforcing administrator. Page protections must clearly note in the protection reason that the protection action is an arbitration enforcement action and link to the applicable contentious topic page (e.g., ~~WP:CT/BLP~~ WP:GS/Crypto), which will cause the action to be automatically logged at ~~Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/Protections~~ the applicable log page. This does not apply to page restrictions imposed by consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

Logging

Contentious topic restrictions, excepting page protections, must be recorded in ~~the arbitration enforcement log~~ the contentious topic's enforcement log by the administrator who takes the action.^[e] Page protections must clearly note in the protection reason that the protection action is an arbitration enforcement action and link to the applicable contentious topic page (e.g., ~~WP:CT/BLP~~ WP:GS/Crypto), which will cause the action to be automatically logged at ~~Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/Protections~~ the applicable log page. 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.

Appeals and amendments

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has ~~three~~ two 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; and
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.~~

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals ~~(other than an appeal to ARCA)~~ may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[h] or is no longer an administrator;^[i] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
~~a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at 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.

Standard of review

On community review

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

~~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

Imposed by:	Single administrator	Rough consensus of administrators at AE
Authorized restrictions	The "standard set" of individual or page restrictions; and Any other restrictions designated by the ~~Arbitration Committee~~ community for use by a single admin in a particular contentious topic.	Any action available to single administrators; and Any other reasonable measures that are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project.
Maximum length	Indefinite; reversible by any uninvolved administrator after one year. However, page restrictions may be renewed.	Indefinite.^[j]
Modifications by	Any administrator, if the administrator who first imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; A clear consensus of uninvolved editors at the administrators’ noticeboard; A clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard~~; or~~ ~~A majority of the Arbitration Committee voting on a motion in response to a request for amendment filed with the Arbitration Committee.~~

Awareness of contentious topics

When an editor first begins making edits within any contentious topic, anyone may alert the editor of the contentious topic designation using the ~~{{Contentious topics/alert/first}}~~ {{alert/first}} 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 without the prior approval of ~~the Arbitration Committee~~ the community. When alerting an editor who has previously received any contentious topic alert, the {{alert}} template may be used, but any message that conveys the contentious topic designation is acceptable.^[k]

If the enforcing administrator believes that an editor was not aware that they were editing a designated contentious topic when making inappropriate edits, no editor restrictions (other than a logged warning) should be imposed.^[l] Once alerted to a specific contentious topic, editors are presumed to remain aware but may attempt to refute this presumption on appeal.^[m]

Administrators' role and expectations

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 restrictions 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.

Before imposing a delegated enforcement action, administrators must consider whether a regular administrative action would be sufficient to reduce disruption to the project.

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.

General provisions

Decorum

Certain pages (including the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE"), and 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.

Designation

Contentious topics may be designated ~~either as part of the final decision of an arbitration case or by Arbitration Committee motion~~ by the community.^[n]. When it becomes apparent that a particular contentious topic designation is no longer necessary, ~~the Committee~~ the community may rescind it. Any editor may request that the Committee review a contentious topic designation by submitting a ~~request for amendment ("ARCA")~~ proposal at the village pump for proposals (VPR) with notice to the administrators' noticeboard (AN). Unless ~~the Committee~~ the community 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.

Notes

^ 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.
^ ^a ^b "Uninvolved administrators may impose word limits on all participants in a discussion, or on individual editors across all discussions, within a specific contentious topic area. Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit. These restrictions must be logged and may be appealed in the same way as all contentious topic restrictions." — Remedy 2a of the Article titles and capitalisation 2 case
^ 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.
^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ 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.
^ Unless the restriction is a block, in which case the maximum length is one year.
^ 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.
^ 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 who has not received an alert 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 {{Contentious topics/aware}} template for the contentious topic on their own talk page; or
- Has otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic.
^ Specifically, at the village pump for proposals (VPR) with notice to the administrators' noticeboard (AN). See September 2023 RfC.

Community contentious topic rules

General provisions

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 community. Not all topics that are controversial have been designated as contentious topics – this procedure applies only to those topics designated by the community (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.

Contentious topic restrictions

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.^[a]

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,
word limits on participation in each discussion within the contentious topic,^[b] and
other restrictions that have been specifically designated by the community 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]
word limits on participation by all editors in a specific discussion,^[b] and
other restrictions that have been specifically designated by the community 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 contentious topic's 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 noting the CTOP invoked in the protection reason. The administrator renewing a page restriction then becomes the enforcing administrator. Page protections must clearly note in the protection reason that the protection action is an arbitration enforcement action and link to the applicable contentious topic page (e.g., WP:GS/Crypto), which will cause the action to be automatically logged at the applicable log page. This does not apply to page restrictions imposed by consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

Logging

Contentious topic restrictions, excepting page protections, must be recorded in the contentious topic's enforcement log by the administrator who takes the action.^[e] Page protections must clearly note in the protection reason that the protection action is an arbitration enforcement action and link to the applicable contentious topic page (e.g., WP:GS/Crypto), which will cause the action to be automatically logged at the applicable log page. 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.

Appeals and amendments

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has two 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; and
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN").

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[h] or is no longer an administrator;^[i] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN.

Standard of review

On community review

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.

Procedural summary

Imposed by:	Single administrator	Rough consensus of administrators at AE
Authorized restrictions	The "standard set" of individual or page restrictions; and Any other restrictions designated by the community for use by a single admin in a particular contentious topic.	Any action available to single administrators; and Any other reasonable measures that are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project.
Maximum length	Indefinite; reversible by any uninvolved administrator after one year. However, page restrictions may be renewed.	Indefinite.^[j]
Modifications by	Any administrator, if the administrator who first imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; A clear consensus of uninvolved editors at the administrators’ noticeboard; or A clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

Awareness of contentious topics

When an editor first begins making edits within any contentious topic, anyone may alert the editor of the contentious topic designation using the {{alert/first}} 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 without the prior approval of the community. When alerting an editor who has previously received any contentious topic alert, the {{alert}} template may be used, but any message that conveys the contentious topic designation is acceptable.^[k]

If the enforcing administrator believes that an editor was not aware that they were editing a designated contentious topic when making inappropriate edits, no editor restrictions (other than a logged warning) should be imposed.^[l] Once alerted to a specific contentious topic, editors are presumed to remain aware but may attempt to refute this presumption on appeal.^[m]

Administrators' role and expectations

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 restrictions or issue a grossly disproportionate restriction.

Administrative actions may be peer-reviewed using the regular appeal processes.

Before imposing a delegated enforcement action, administrators must consider whether a regular administrative action would be sufficient to reduce disruption to the project.

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.

General provisions

Decorum

Certain pages (including the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and the administrators' noticeboard ("AN")) 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.

Designation

Contentious topics may be designated by the community.^[n]. When it becomes apparent that a particular contentious topic designation is no longer necessary, the community may rescind it. Any editor may request that the Committee review a contentious topic designation by submitting a proposal at the village pump for proposals (VPR) with notice to the administrators' noticeboard (AN). Unless the community 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.

Notes

^ 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.
^ ^a ^b "Uninvolved administrators may impose word limits on all participants in a discussion, or on individual editors across all discussions, within a specific contentious topic area. Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit. These restrictions must be logged and may be appealed in the same way as all contentious topic restrictions." — Remedy 2a of the Article titles and capitalisation 2 case
^ 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.
^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ 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.
^ Unless the restriction is a block, in which case the maximum length is one year.
^ 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.
^ 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 who has not received an alert may also be presumed to be aware of a contentious topic if the editor:
- 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 {{Contentious topics/aware}} template for the contentious topic on their own talk page; or
- Has otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic.
^ Specifically, at the village pump for proposals (VPR) with notice to the administrators' noticeboard (AN). See September 2023 RfC.

References

^ This information page documenting the community's standard contentious topics process was approved by the community in a November 2025 RfC.
^ The use of AE for enforcement of community-designated contentious topics was authorized by the community in a November 2025 RfC and was authorized by the Arbitration Committee in Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Noticeboard scope 2.
^ Future changes to the contentious topics procedure are automatically incorporated into this page, but at any time, the community may, by consensus, supersede or reverse such changes as to community-designated contentious topics.
^ Only to the extent that the reference is applicable. For example, the ArbCom contentious topics procedure provides that an appeal may be granted by a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA. This provision is not applicable to the community, because the community cannot act by a "majority".

[5] 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.

[Words-6] "Uninvolved administrators may impose word limits on all participants in a discussion, or on individual editors across all discussions, within a specific contentious topic area. Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit. These restrictions must be logged and may be appealed in the same way as all contentious topic restrictions." — Remedy 2a of the Article titles and capitalisation 2 case

[7] 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.

[8] 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.

[9] 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".

[10] 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".

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

[12] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[13] 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.

[14] Unless the restriction is a block, in which case the maximum length is one year.

[15] 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.

[16] 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.

[17] An editor who has not received an alert 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 {{Contentious topics/aware}} template for the contentious topic on their own talk page; or

Has otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic.

[14] ~~Was mentioned by name in the applicable Final Decision;~~

[15] Was ever restricted or formally warned within the contentious topic;

[16] Ever alerted another editor to the contentious topic;

[17] Ever received a discretionary sanctions alert ({{ds/alert}}) for the same topic;

[18] 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]);

[19] Has placed a {{Contentious topics/aware}} template for the contentious topic on their own talk page; or

[20] Has otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic.

[18] Specifically, at the village pump for proposals (VPR) with notice to the administrators' noticeboard (AN). See September 2023 RfC.

[19] 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.

[Words-20] "Uninvolved administrators may impose word limits on all participants in a discussion, or on individual editors across all discussions, within a specific contentious topic area. Citations and quotations (whether from sources, Wikipedia articles, Wikipedia discussions, or elsewhere) do not count toward the word limit. These restrictions must be logged and may be appealed in the same way as all contentious topic restrictions." — Remedy 2a of the Article titles and capitalisation 2 case

[21] 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.

[22] 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.

[23] 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".

[24] 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".

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

[26] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[27] 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.

[28] Unless the restriction is a block, in which case the maximum length is one year.

[29] 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.

[30] 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.

[31] An editor who has not received an alert may also be presumed to be aware of a contentious topic if the editor:
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 {{Contentious topics/aware}} template for the contentious topic on their own talk page; or

Has otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic.

[35] Was ever restricted or formally warned within the contentious topic;

[36] Ever alerted another editor to the contentious topic;

[37] Ever received a discretionary sanctions alert ({{ds/alert}}) for the same topic;

[38] 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]);

[39] Has placed a {{Contentious topics/aware}} template for the contentious topic on their own talk page; or

[40] Has otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic.

[32] Specifically, at the village pump for proposals (VPR) with notice to the administrators' noticeboard (AN). See September 2023 RfC.

[1] This information page documenting the community's standard contentious topics process was approved by the community in a November 2025 RfC.

[2] The use of AE for enforcement of community-designated contentious topics was authorized by the community in a November 2025 RfC and was authorized by the Arbitration Committee in Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Noticeboard scope 2.

[3] Future changes to the contentious topics procedure are automatically incorporated into this page, but at any time, the community may, by consensus, supersede or reverse such changes as to community-designated contentious topics.

[4] Only to the extent that the reference is applicable. For example, the ArbCom contentious topics procedure provides that an appeal may be granted by a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA. This provision is not applicable to the community, because the community cannot act by a "majority".

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[a]

[b]

[c]

[d]

[e]

[f]

[g]

[h]

[i]

[j]

[k]

[l]

[m]

[n]

[a]

[b]

[c]

[d]

[e]

[f]

[g]

[h]

[i]

[j]

[k]

[l]

[m]

[n]

General provisions

Contentious topic restrictions

Standard set

Warnings

Duration of restrictions

Restriction notices

Renewal of page restrictions

Logging

Enforcement of restrictions

Appeals and amendments

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

Standard of review

On community review

On Arbitration Committee review

Procedural summary

Awareness of contentious topics

Administrators' role and expectations

General provisions

Decorum

Designation

Notes

General provisions

Contentious topic restrictions

Standard set

Warnings

Duration of restrictions

Restriction notices

Renewal of page restrictions

Logging

Enforcement of restrictions

Appeals and amendments

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

Standard of review

On community review

Procedural summary

Awareness of contentious topics

Administrators' role and expectations

General provisions

Decorum

Designation

Notes

See also

References