Wikipedia:Contentious topics/2021-22 review/Proposed decision/Merged v1

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 individual 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 individual and page restrictions may be appealed.

Contentious topic restrictions
Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions in contentious topic areas. Those contentious topic restrictions 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 as a contentious topic restriction.

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:
 * 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.

If imposed by a single administrator, these individual restrictions lose their status as "contentious topic restrictions" one year after being imposed (if not sooner expired). After that time, these restrictions may be modified or revoked by any uninvolved administrator like an ordinary administrator action without going through the appeals and amendments process.

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 contentious topic 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, these page restrictions lose their status as "contentious topic restrictions" one year after being imposed or renewed (if not sooner expired). After that time, these restrictions may be renewed, modified, or revoked by any uninvolved administrator like an ordinary administrator action without going through the appeals and amendments process.

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.

Enforcement
Editors must comply with restrictions even if they disagree with the action. Editors who disagree with a restriction may appeal it, but the restriction remains in effect until it is revoked or modified by an administrator.

Edits that breach an individual or page restriction may be reverted.

If an editor breaches an individual restriction, the editor may be blocked and further enforcement actions may be taken to enforce the restriction.

Administrators may apply an individual restriction to an editor who breaches a 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.

Requesting a restriction
Administrators may decide to impose contentious topic restrictions on their own. Additionally, any editor may request the imposition of contentious topic restrictions at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE").

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).

Noticeboard scope

 * If adopted this section would be added to 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 contentious topic restriction [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 contentious topic restrictions), 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.

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.

Dismissing an enforcement request

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

Appeals and amendments
All contentious topic restrictions (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 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 through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org).

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction
Administrators have the authority to revoke or change a contentious topic restriction if and only if:
 * The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (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 contentious topic restriction:
 * 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 contentious topic restriction 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 restrictions imposed by a single administrator that have lost their status as contentious topic restriction under or.

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.

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 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. In addition to the expectations specific to contentious topic restrictions above, the following expectations apply to all enforcement decisions:

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, anyone may alert the editor of the contentious topic designation using [CT/TOPICNOTICE] 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. When alerting an editor who has previously received any contentious topic alert, the [LINK] 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 designating contentious topic when making inappropriate edits, no individual 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.

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 by uninvolved administrators in accordance with.
 * Previously-enacted single-admin individual restrictions do not, as a result of, lose their status as "contentious topic restrictions" after one year.

Independent enacted provisions

 * These proposals would not be part of the main text of the new procedure.

Enforcement templates and procedural documents

 * If adopted this section would be added to Arbitration Committee/Procedures.