Wikipedia:Contentious topics/2021-22 review/Phase II consultation/Draft

2021-22 Discretionary Sanctions Review

Status as of 11:36 (UTC), Tuesday, 23 July 2024 ()

• The final decision has been posted and announced.
• The initial implementation period has concluded and the updated procedure has come into effect.
• Any editors interested in the ongoing implementation process are invited to assist at the implementation talk page.
• To be notified about updates, subscribe to the update list.

Timeline

The revision process will be conducted in four phases: Phase I community consultation (March – April 2021) (closed) Closing statement posted (May 2021) (closed) Discretionary sanctions topic amendments (February 2022) (closed) Phase II community consultation (September – October 2022) (closed) Proposed decision (November – December 2022) Public review (November 13 – 18, 2022) Final decision (December 2022) Implementation: The drafting arbitrators will implement the Committee's decision in conjunction with the Committee's clerks and interested volunteers designated by the Committee. The revision process was managed by drafting arbitrators designated by the Arbitration Committee (CaptainEek, L235, Wugapodes).

---

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics (abbreviated CT). These are specially-designated topics that have attracted more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. Not all topics that are controversial have been designated as contentious topics – this procedure applies only to those topics designated by the Arbitration Committee (list). When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers to reduce disruption to the project.

Editing a contentious topic

Within contentious topics, editors should 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.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if they are unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations.

Within contentious topics, administrators have the ability to set individual restrictions (restrictions on editing by particular editors) and page restrictions (special rules on how particular pages can be edited). Some powers may be used by a single administrator while other powers require a consensus of administrators. All individual and page restrictions may be appealed.

Special enforcement actions

Administrators may take special enforcement actions in contentious topic areas. Those special enforcement actions take the form of individual restrictions and page restrictions. Unless otherwise specified, contentious topics are broadly construed; this contentious topics procedure applies to all pages broadly related to a topic, as well as parts of other pages that are related to the topic.

Individual restrictions

Administrators may impose restrictions on editors ("individual restrictions") in contentious topics who do not follow the expectations listed in #Editing a contentious topic as a special enforcement action.

The restrictions that can be imposed depend on whether the action is taken by a single administrator or by a rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE").

Any uninvolved administrator may impose the following individual restrictions, which constitute the "standard set" of individual restrictions, for up to one year:

• sitewide and partial blocks,
• topic bans and page bans (from the entire contentious topic, a subtopic, or specified pages within the topic),
• interaction bans,
• revert restrictions, and
• any other restrictions designated by the Arbitration Committee as part of the standard set of individual restrictions for a particular contentious topic.

A rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") may impose any restriction from the standard set above and any other reasonable measures that are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project and may do so for any length of time, including indefinitely, except for sitewide blocks which are limited to 1 year in duration.

Individual restriction enforcement

When an individual restriction is in effect, it is important for the restricted editor to comply with the terms of the restriction, even if they disagree with the restriction. If an editor breaches an individual restriction, the edit may be reverted, the editor may be blocked, and further actions may be applied to enforce the restriction. Editors who disagree with an individual restriction may appeal it, but the restriction remains in effect until it is revoked or modified by an administrator.

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

Page restrictions

Administrators may impose special rules and restrictions that apply to pages within contentious topics ("page restrictions") to minimise disruption as a special enforcement restriction. These page restrictions apply to all editors editing the restricted page.

The restrictions that can be imposed depend on whether the action is taken by a single administrator or by a rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE").

Any uninvolved administrator may impose the following page restrictions, which constitute the "standard set" of page restrictions :

• page protection,
• revert restrictions,
• the "consensus required" restriction,
• the "enforced BRD" restriction, and
• any other restrictions designated by the Arbitration Committee as part of the standard set of page restrictions for a particular contentious topic.

A rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") may impose any restriction from the standard set above and any other reasonable measures that are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project and may do so for any length of time including indefinitely.

If imposed by a single administrator, page restrictions may be renewed, modified, or revoked by any uninvolved administrator without going through the appeals and amendments process starting one year after they are imposed (or renewed). 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. This does not apply to page restrictions imposed by consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

Page restriction enforcement

Editors must comply with the terms of page restrictions. Edits that breach a page restriction may be reverted. Furthermore, editors who breach a page restriction may be subject to an individual restriction to enforce the page restriction if:

1. The editor was aware that they were editing in a contentious topic, and
2. There was an editnotice ([CT EDITNOTICE]) on the restricted page which specified the page restriction.

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

Requesting a restriction

Administrators may decide to take special enforcement action on their own. Additionally, any editor who thinks that administrators should take special enforcement action in a particular case may make a request at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE").

Logging

Special enforcement actions must be recorded in the arbitration enforcement log by the administrator who takes the action. Administrators who change or revoke a special enforcement action must append a note recording the amendment to the original log entry.

If an administrator forgets to log a special enforcement action, it is not valid until it has been logged.

It is important for administrators to clearly and unambiguously label their actions as special enforcement actions (such as in the block summary, page protection summary, edit summary, or talk page message announcing the action, whichever is appropriate).

Arbitration enforcement (AE)

See also: § Individual_restrictions, § Page_restrictions, § Decorum, and § Appeals_and_amendments

AE is meant for actions which cannot be taken via other avenues. If an action could be taken as a regular admin action rather than an AE action, it should be.

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.

Noticeboard scope

If adopted this section would be added to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures and transcluded here similarly to "Dimissing an enforcement request" below

The arbitration enforcement noticeboard may consider:

• requests for administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a special enforcement action [LINK] imposed by an administrator,
• requests for an individual enforcement action against aware editors [LINK] who engage in misconduct in a contentious topic [LINK],
• requests for page restrictions [LINK] (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in contentious topics,
• appeals against arbitration enforcement actions (including special enforcement actions in a contentious topic), or
• requests or appeals pursuant to community-imposed remedies which match the contentious topics procedure, if those requests or appeals are assigned to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard by the community.

For all other matters, including content disagreements or the enforcement of other community-imposed sanctions, editors should use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal decisions made directly by the Arbitration Committee, editors should submit a request for clarification or amendment.

Dismissing an enforcement request

This section is transcluded from Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Dismissing an enforcement request. It applies to all enforcement decisions, including in contentious topics.

Adopted on 21 April 2017

When no actual violation occurred, or the consensus of uninvolved administrators is that exceptional circumstances are present, which would make the imposition of a sanction inappropriate, administrators may also close a report with no action; if appropriate, they may also warn or advise the editor being reported, in order to avoid further breaches.

Administrators wishing to dismiss an enforcement request should act cautiously and be especially mindful that their actions do not give the impression that they are second-guessing the Arbitration Committee or obstructing the enforcement of their decisions.

Dismissed requests may not be reopened. However, any interested users may, after discussion with the administrator in question, appeal the dismissal to the Arbitration Committee at "ARCA". Petitioners who forum shop by resubmitting denied enforcement requests without good reason may find themselves cautioned or sanctioned in return.

Appeals and amendments

All special enforcement actions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an individual restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

1. ask the administrator who first made the special enforcement action (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
3. submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Changing or revoking a special enforcement action

Administrators have the authority to revoke or change a special enforcement action if and only if:

• The administrator who originally made the special enforcement action (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator, or
• An appeal is successful (see below).

An appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the special enforcement action:

• a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"),
• a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE"), or
• a majority of the Arbitration Committee voting on a motion in response to a request for amendment ("ARCA").

Any administrator who revokes or changes a special enforcement action out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

The limits in this section do not apply to page restrictions imposed by a single administrator if it has been over one year since the restriction was imposed (or last renewed); see #Page restrictions.

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 special enforcement action on appeal if:

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.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a special enforcement action only if:

1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
2. the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion,
3. compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action, or
4. the appeal warrants a full case.

Procedural summary

Imposed by:	Single administrator		Rough consensus of administrators at AE
Type:	Individual restrictions	Page restrictions	Individual restrictions	Page restrictions
Authorized restrictions	The "standard set" of individual or page restrictions Any other restrictions designated by the Arbitration Committee for use by a single admin in a particular contentious topic.		Any action available to single administrators Any other reasonable measures that are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project.
Maximum length	One year	Indefinite; reversable or renewable by any uninvolved administrator after one year	Indefinite
Modifications by	Any administrator, if the administrator who first made the special enforcement action (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.

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

While special enforcement actions give administrators necessary latitude, administrators must not:

1. impose a restriction when involved;
2. modify a restriction out of process;
3. repeatedly fail to properly explain their enforcement actions;
4. repeatedly fail to log restriction or page restrictions; or
5. repeatedly issue significantly disproportionate restriction or issue a grossly disproportionate restriction.

Administrators who fail to meet these expectations may be subject to any remedy the committee considers appropriate, including desysopping. Administrative actions may be peer-reviewed using the regular appeal processes.

Former administrators – that is, editors who have temporarily or permanently relinquished the tools or have been desysopped – may neither act as administrators in arbitration enforcement nor reverse their own previous administrative actions.

Administrator expectations

This section is transcluded from Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Expectations of administrators. It applies to all enforcement decisions, including special enforcement actions.

Adopted on 21 April 2017

Enforcing administrators are accountable and must explain their enforcement actions; and they must not be involved. Prior routine enforcement interactions, prior administrator participation in enforcement discussions, or when an otherwise uninvolved administrator refers a matter to AE to elicit the opinion of other administrators or refers a matter to the committee at ARCA, do not constitute or create involvement.

Administrators may not adjudicate their own actions at any appeal. However, they are encouraged to provide statements and comments to assist in reaching a determination.

Enforcing administrators are expected to exercise good judgment by responding flexibly and proportionately when they intervene. Except for the cases when the Arbitration Committee has predetermined the set of escalating sanctions to be imposed for violations of a final decision, the severity of the sanction imposed should be commensurate with all circumstances of the case at hand, including the seriousness of the violation and the possible recidivism of the editor in question. When dealing with first or isolated instances of borderline misconduct, informal advice may be more effective in the long term than a sanction. Conversely, editors engaging in egregious or sustained misconduct should be dealt with robustly.

Administrators do not need explicit consensus to enforce arbitration decisions and can always act unilaterally. However, when the case is not clear-cut they are encouraged, before acting, to seek input from their colleagues at arbitration enforcement.

When a consensus of uninvolved administrators is emerging in a discussion, administrators willing to overrule their colleagues should act with caution and must explain their reasons on request.

General provisions

Decorum

Certain pages (including the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE"), the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"), and the Arbitration Committee's requests for amendment ("ARCA")) are used for the fair, well-informed, and timely resolution of individual and page restrictions. Editors participating in enforcement cases must disclose fully their involvement with parties (if any). While good-faith statements are welcome, editors are expected to discuss only evidence and procedure; they are not expected to trade insults or engage in character assassination. Insults and personal attacks, soapboxing and casting aspersions are as unacceptable in enforcement discussions as elsewhere on Wikipedia. Uninvolved administrators are asked to ensure that enforcement cases are not disrupted, and may remove statements or restrict or block editors to address inappropriate conduct.

Awareness of contentious topics

When an editor first begins making edits within any contentious topic, an uninvolved editor may alert the editor of the contentious topic designation using [CT/TOPICNOTICE] template. Only the officially designated template should be used and these templates may not be placed using a bot or other form of automated editing.

If an involved editor wishes to inform another editor of the contentious topics system, or of a particular contentious topic, a request should be made at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard. Any uninvolved editor may respond to such requests unless otherwise specified by an arbitrator or arbitration clerk. The appropriate template should be placed unless the recipient has made no edits within the specified contentious topic.

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

Designation

Contentious topics may be designated either as part of the final decision of an arbitration case or by Arbitration Committee motion. When it becomes apparent that a particular contentious topic designation is no longer necessary, the Committee may rescind it. Any editor may request that the Committee review a contentious topic designation by submitting a request for amendment ("ARCA") or the Committee may do so of its own initiative. Unless the Committee specifies otherwise, after rescinding the designation all previously-issued restrictions remain in force and continue to be governed by the contentious topics procedure.

Where there is a conflict between any individual provision designating a contentious topic and any provision in the standard contentious topic procedure, the provision in the standard procedure will control unless specifically noted.

Continuity

Any restrictions imposed under the prior discretionary sanctions procedure to date remain in force. Any changes to or appeals regarding previously-imposed restrictions will be governed by the current contentious topics procedure.