Wikipedia:Contentious topics/2021-22 review/Implementation/Merged

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

Editing a contentious topic

Within contentious topics, you must edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
 * adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
 * comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
 * follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
 * comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
 * refrain from gaming the system.

You should err on the side of caution if you are unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations.

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

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 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.

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

Standard set
The following editor restrictions constitute the standard set of editor restrictions which may be imposed by a single uninvolved administrator:
 * sitewide and partial blocks,
 * topic bans and page bans (from the entire contentious topic, a subtopic, or specified pages within the topic),
 * interaction bans,
 * revert restrictions, and
 * other restrictions that have been specifically designated by the Arbitration Committee for use by a single administrator in a particular contentious topic.

The following page restrictions constitute the standard set of page restrictions which may be imposed by a single uninvolved administrator:
 * page protection,
 * revert restrictions,
 * the "consensus required" restriction,
 * the "enforced BRD" restriction, and
 * other restrictions that have been specifically designated by the Arbitration Committee for use by a single administrator in a particular contentious topic.

Warnings
Administrators may warn editors for conduct that falls short of the expectations in a contentious topic. Administrators may choose to log warnings in the arbitration enforcement log. Warnings that are logged in the arbitration enforcement log may be appealed like other editor restrictions. An editor may be warned even if the editor was not previously aware that their editing occurred in a contentious topic.

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

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

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

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

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

Renewal of page restrictions
If an uninvolved administrator (including the original enforcing administrator) decides that a page restriction is still necessary after one year, the administrator may renew the restriction by re-imposing it under this procedure and logging the renewal. The administrator renewing a page restriction then becomes the enforcing administrator. This does not apply to page restrictions imposed by consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

Logging
Contentious topic restrictions must be recorded in the arbitration enforcement log by the administrator who takes the action. 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).

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.

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:
 * 1) The editor was aware that they were editing in a contentious topic, and
 * 2) The restricted page displayed an editnotice (Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice or similar topic specific editnotice) 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 possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:
 * 1) ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (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.

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, or is no longer an administrator; 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.

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:
 * 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 contentious topic restriction 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, or
 * 3) compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

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 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.

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. Once alerted to a specific contentious topic, editors are presumed to remain aware but may attempt to refute this presumption on appeal.

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:
 * 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 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.

Noticeboard scope

 * This section is transcluded from . It applies to all enforcement decisions, including in contentious topics.

Noticeboard outcomes

 * This section is transcluded from . It applies to all enforcement decisions, including in contentious topics.

Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee

 * This section is transcluded from . It applies to all enforcement decisions, including in contentious topics.

Dismissing an enforcement request

 * This section is transcluded from . It applies to all enforcement decisions, including in contentious topics.

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.

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"). 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.

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, subject to the following transitional rules:
 * Previously-enacted single-admin page restrictions are now subject to renewal, modification, and revocation in the same way as ordinary administrator actions after one year in accordance with and.
 * Previously-enacted single-admin editor restrictions do not, as a result of, become subject to modification and revocation in the same way as ordinary administrator actions after one year.