 | This page documents an enforcement procedure of theArbitration Committee and should be read in conjunction with theCommittee's procedures. It should not be edited without the Committee's authorisation. |
 | This page in a nutshell: Contentious topics are specially designated topics that have attracted more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project. Administrators are allowed to impose editing restrictions on editors who do not follow project expectations within contentious topics. Administrators are also allowed to set special rules on pages within a contentious topic to prevent inappropriate editing. |
| Wikipedia Arbitration |
|---|
 |
|
| Track related changes |
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to ascontentious topics (abbreviatedCT). These arespecially 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 editcarefully andconstructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
You shoulderr 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 seteditor restrictions (restrictions on editing by particular editors) andpage 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.
Administrators are authorized to impose contentious topic restrictions in contentious topic areas. Those contentious topic restrictions take the form ofeditor restrictions andpage 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 arebroadly construed; this contentious topics procedure applies to allpages broadly related to a topic, as well asparts of other pages that are related to the topic.[b]
Single administrators may only impose restrictions in thestandard set of contentious topic restrictions. A rough consensus of administrators at thearbitration 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.
The 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:
Administrators may warn editors for conduct that falls short of theexpectations in a contentious topic. Administrators may choose tolog warnings in thearbitration 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 previouslyaware that their editing occurred in a contentious topic.
Contentious topic restrictions may be imposed for any fixed length of time, or for an indefinite period.
However, one year after being imposed (or lastrenewed, if applicable), contentious topic restrictions which were imposed by a single administrator may be amended or revoked without going through theappeals 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.
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 theappeal process.
An administrator who imposes a page restriction (other than page protection) must add aneditnotice to restricted pages using the standard template ({{Contentious topics/page restriction editnotice}} or aderived topic-specific template), and should generally add a notice to the talk page of restricted pages.
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 andlogging the renewal. The administrator renewing a page restriction then becomes the enforcing administrator. This doesnot apply to page restrictions imposed by consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Contentious topic restrictions must be recorded in thearbitration enforcement log by the administrator who takes the action.[e] 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]
Editors must comply with contentious topic restrictions. Editors who disagree with a contentious topic restriction mayappeal 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:
All contentious topic restrictions (andlogged 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 theapplicable 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.
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:
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.
Uninvolved administrators at thearbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at theadministrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:
Arbitrators hearing an appeal at arequest for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:
| Imposed by: | Single administrator | Rough consensus of administrators at AE |
|---|---|---|
| Authorized restrictions |
|
|
| Maximum length | Indefinite; reversible by any uninvolved administrator after one year. However, page restrictions may berenewed. | Indefinite.[j] |
| Modifications by |
| |
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 abot 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.[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 alogged 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 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 toassume good faith, toavoid biting genuine newcomers and to allow responsible contributors maximum editing freedom with the need to keepedit-warring,battleground conduct, anddisruptive 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.
Thearbitration 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 thedispute resolution process. To appeal decisions made directly by the Arbitration Committee, editors should submit arequest for clarification or amendment.
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.
A consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard may refer an arbitration enforcement request to the Arbitration Committee for final decision through arequest for amendment.
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.
Certain pages (including thearbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE"), theadministrators' noticeboard ("AN"), and the Arbitration Committee'srequests 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 andcasting 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.
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 arequest 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.
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:
