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. |
 | 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. |
In 2022, the Arbitration Committee 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?
[edit]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
[edit]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:
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
[edit]"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 setThe following editor restrictions constitute the standard set of editor restrictions which may be imposed by a single uninvolved administrator:
The following page restrictions constitute the standard set of page restrictions which may be imposed by a single uninvolved administrator:
WarningsAdministrators 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 restrictionsContentious 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 noticesAn 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 restrictionsIf 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), which will cause the action to be automatically logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/Protections. This does not apply to page restrictions imposed by consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. LoggingContentious topic restrictions, excepting page protections, must be recorded in the arbitration enforcement log by the administrator who takes the action.[f] 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), which will cause the action to be automatically logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/Protections. 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] Enforcement of restrictionsEditors 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.[h] 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:
|
- 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
[edit]"Appeals and amendments" section text
|
|---|
|
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 possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:
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 restrictionAn administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:
A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:
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 reviewOn community reviewUninvolved 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:
On Arbitration Committee reviewArbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:
|
- 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:
- 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.
- 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
[edit]"Procedural summary" section text
| ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||
- This summarizes the available restrictions, duration, and appeals provisions.
Awareness of contentious topics
[edit]"Awareness of contentious topics" section text
|
|---|
|
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}} 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. 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.[l] 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.[m] Once alerted to a specific contentious topic, editors are presumed to remain aware but may attempt to refute this presumption on appeal.[n] |
- 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
[edit]"Administrators' role and expectations" section text
|
|---|
|
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:
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. |
- This section is substantially unchanged.
Arbitration enforcement
[edit]"Arbitration enforcement" section text
|
|---|
Noticeboard scope
The arbitration enforcement noticeboard may consider:
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
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 through a request for amendment. Dismissing an enforcement request
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. |
- 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
[edit]"General provisions" section text
|
|---|
DecorumCertain 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. DesignationContentious 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. ContinuityAny 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:
|
- 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!
[edit]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.
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.
- ^ 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.