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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Contentious topics‎ | 2021-22 review

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by L235 (talk | contribs) at 22:41, 13 November 2022 (→‎Vote (Contentious topic restrictions): oops sign). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Status as of 08:38 (UTC), Monday, 13 May 2024 (Purge)

The revision process will be conducted in four phases:

  1. Phase I community consultation (March – April 2021) (closed)
  2. Phase II community consultation (September – October 2022) (closed)
  3. Proposed decision (November – December 2022)
  4. 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).

On this page, arbitrators will consider proposals for the outcome of the review process. After all the proposals have been voted on, the process will conclude with a motion to close.

Comments are welcome on the talk page. The proposed decision will be posted for five days of community review and comment before arbitrators vote on the proposals in order to allow the Committee to receive suggestions for stylistic or typographical amendment.

Name

Proposal summary

The discretionary sanctions (DS) system will be renamed "contentious topics" (CT), and restrictions placed within the DS system will be referred to as "contentious topic restrictions".

Consultation rationale and comments
Language

The language in subsequent proposals reflects the "contentious topics" and "contentious topic restrictions" language. In the event that an alternative name proposal is passed, the wording will be substituted as appropriate.

Vote (Name)

Comments by arbitrators
The name is something I'm still having trouble with, and I think a number of arbs are still thinking through. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment: Arbitrated topics

In place of "contentious topics", the new name will be "arbitrated topics", and the text of all the proposals will reflect that new name.

Comments by arbitrators

Nutshell

Proposal summary

Clarify the "in a nutshell" box.

Consultation rationale and comments
Language
Extended content

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.

Vote (Nutshell)

Comments by arbitrators


Lead section

Proposal summary

Add a lead section that describes the ArbCom contentious topics system and describes expectations of editors.

Consultation rationale and comments
Language
Extended content

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 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.

Vote (Lead)

Comments by arbitrators

Awareness

Proposal summary

The current WP:AWARENESS criteria are replaced with an appealable presumption of awareness following an initial alert. The use of the standard template alert becomes optional after a user's first alert.

Consultation rationale and comments
Language
Extended content

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

Draft template language

Edits to the templates may be approved by the clerks following consultation with the Arbitration Committee.

First-time CT alert recipients

You have recently made edits related to [CT code], which is a designated contentious topic[LINK]. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have additional authority in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, you 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.

You should err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard [LINK] or you may learn more about this contentious topic [LINK TO TOPIC-SPECIFIC CT PAGE]. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ct/aware}} template.

CT alert templates for those previously alerted to DS

Information icon You have recently made edits related to [CT code]. This is a standard message to inform you that [CT code] is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see [LINK]. [MAYBE: For a summary of the differences between discretionary sanctions and contentious topics, see WP:CTVSDS].]

Subsequent CT alert templates

Information icon You have recently made edits related to [CT code]. This is a standard message to inform you that [CT code] is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see [LINK].

Vote (Awareness)

Comments by arbitrators
One outstanding question is whether information currently found in the notes should be moved into the body of the text. I am leaning toward keeping it as is but think I could still be convinced. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment: removing bot prohibition

Amend the previous proposal by striking the following: and these templates may not be placed using a bot or other form of automated editing.

Comments by arbitrators

Appeals and amendments

Proposal summary
  • Lowers the level of consensus required for a successful appeal from "clear and substantial consensus" to "clear consensus"
  • Provides clear standards of review on appeal
Consultation rationale and comments
Language
Extended content

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,[e] 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:

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 #Individual restrictions or #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 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.

Vote (Appeals and amendments)

Comments by arbitrators

Amendment: Appeal timeframe

Amend the previous proposal by adding the following text immediately before the "Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction" header:

A rough consensus of administrators AE may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than a stage 3 appeal) may be submitted.

Comments by arbitrators

Contentious topic restrictions: imposition, types, duration, use

Proposal summary
  • Individual administrators now have access to a standard set of page and individual restrictions to enact, plus any that are designated for a particular topic area.
  • Some abilities are now restricted to use by a rough consensus of administrators at AE:
    • Taking actions outside the "standard set" of restrictions
    • Imposing restrictions that can't be reversed by any administrator for longer than one year (but page restrictions can be renewed)
Consultation rationale and comments
Language
Extended content
Contentious topic restrictions (level 2 header)

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.[f]

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 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:

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.

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,[g]
  • the "enforced BRD" restriction,[h] 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.

Procedural summary

Imposed by: Single administrator Rough consensus of administrators at AE
Authorized restrictions
  • The "standard set" of individual or page restrictions; and
  • 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; and
  • Any other reasonable measures that are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project.
Maximum length Indefinite; reversible by any uninvolved administrator after one year. However, page restrictions may be renewed. Indefinite
Modifications by
  • Any administrator, if the administrator who first imposed the contentious topic restriction (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.

Vote (Contentious topic restrictions)

Comments by arbitrators
One open question: should the "extended-confirmed restriction" (WP:ECR) be added to the standard set of page restrictions, or is it sufficient to allow page protections (which include extendedconfirmed protection)? One argument against including it is that WP:ECR is written to be topic-wide rather than page-specific. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:41, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment: Limiting blocks to one year

Amend the previous proposal by modifying the second-to-last paragraph of "Individual restrictions" to read as follows: 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. These measures may have any duration, including indefinite, except that sitewide blocks are limited to one year in duration.

Comments by arbitrators

Enforcement

Proposal summary

Clarifies how restrictions are enforced.

Consultation rationale and comments
Language
Extended content

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.[i]

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.

Vote (Enforcement)

Comments by arbitrators

Warnings

Proposal summary

Makes explicit that

  • Warnings may be logged
  • Logged warnings may be appealed
  • Logged warnings may be imposed even if the editor was not previously aware of CT
Consultation rationale and comments
Language
Extended content

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.

Vote (Warnings)

Comments by arbitrators


Administrator instructions

Language

The Arbitration Committee will, acting through its members, clerks, and other editors designated by the Committee, maintain instructions for enforcing administrators.

Consultation rationale and comments
Example

Vote (Administrator instructions)

Comments by arbitrators

Contentious topic subpages

Language

The Arbitration Committee will, acting through its members, clerks, and other editors designated by the Committee, maintain a subpage of the contentious topics procedure listing relevant information including:

  • other topic-wide remedies (e.g. ARBPIA-wide 500/30 and 1RR)
  • standard templates for the topic area
  • any guidance for admins from ArbCom
  • any ARCAs or other clarifications that affect the topic
  • any additions to the "standard set" for the topic
Consultation rationale and comments
Example

Vote (Contentious topic subpages)

Comments by arbitrators

Editnotices and talk page notices

Language

The Arbitration Committee will, acting through its members, clerks, and other editors designated by the Committee, modify contentious topics editnotices and talk page notices with the following broad goals:

  • Creating two editnotice templates: one for optional use on pages with no page restrictions, and one for use on pages with page restrictions;
  • Using clear and concise formatting when describing page restrictions in place of long individual lines; and
  • Creating custom ArbCom-maintained templates for cases with existing topic-wide restrictions (such as Template:Editnotice GMO 1RR).
Consultation rationale and comments
Example

Vote (Editnotices and talk page notices)

Comments by arbitrators

Designation of contentious topics

Proposal summary
  • Change "authorisation" to "designation" of contentious topics
  • Minor tweaks to how conflicts between wordings are handled
Consultation rationale and comments
Language
Extended content

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.

Vote (Designation)

Comments by arbitrators

Logging

Proposal summary

Reducing and simplifying the language around logging

Consultation rationale and comments
Language

Contentious topic restrictions must be recorded in the arbitration enforcement log by the administrator who takes the action.[j] 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).[k]

Vote (Logging)

Comments by arbitrators

Continuity

Proposal summary

Establishes transition rules from discretionary sanctions to contentious topics.

Consultation rationale and comments
Language
Extended content

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 #Page restrictions.
  • Previously-enacted single-admin individual restrictions do not, as a result of #Individual restrictions, lose their status as "contentious topic restrictions" after one year.

Vote (Continuity)

Comments by arbitrators
The rationale for the difference in treatment for individual vs. page restrictions is that page restrictions can be reimposed at any point and one of the main purposes of the one-year rule is allowing admins to clean up old page restrictions when they're no longer necessary but nobody is incentivized to put in the effort to go through the whole AE process to repeal them. Whereas individual restrictions can't just be reimposed and also don't suffer from that problem. I could be convinced to apply the new rules to individual restrictions, though. The language right now is pretty clunky. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' role and expectations

Proposal summary

Reducing and simplifying the language

Consultation rationale and comments
Language
Extended content

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

Vote (Administrators' role and expectations)

Comments by arbitrators

AE noticeboard

Proposal summary

Incorporates AE scope into ArbCom procedure. Allows community to use AE noticeboard for its own version of contentious topics by consensus.

Consultation rationale and comments
Language
Extended content
Noticeboard scope
If adopted this section would be added to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures and transcluded here similarly to "Dismissing 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.

Sample language for community use of the AE noticeboard
This is sample language for how the community would assign GS enforcement functions to the AE noticeboard.
Proposal (lightweight)

I propose that the AE noticeboard be a venue for enforcement requests and appeals for the community-imposed general sanctions currently in effect for professional wrestling.

Proposal (detailed)

I propose that the community-imposed general sanctions currently in effect for professional wrestling be amended to read as follows:

Old (to be replaced)

  • Any uninvolved administrator may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
  • The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length, bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict, bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics, restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
  • Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor shall be given a warning with a link to this decision and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
  • Sanctions imposed may be appealed to the imposing administrator or at the appropriate administrators' noticeboard.

New (to be enacted)

  • The community designates professional wrestling as a community-designated contentious topic. Uninvolved administrators may take enforcement actions in the area of conflict as specified in the contentious topics procedure.
  • Enforcement requests and appeals may be heard at the AE noticeboard consistent with the contentious topics procedure.


Vote (AE noticeboard)

Comments by arbitrators

Amendment: removing community scope

Amend the previous proposal by striking the last bullet point of "Noticeboard scope".

Comments by arbitrators

Sufficiency of other actions

Proposal summary

Reaffirms existing practice

Consultation rationale and comments
Language
Extended content

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

Vote (Sufficiency of other actions)

Comments by arbitrators

Enforcement templates and procedural documents

Proposal summary

Authorizes arbitrators and clerks, after consulting ArbCom, to update and maintain AE templates and docs, including for CT (e.g. alert templates, editnotices, case-specific pages)

Consultation rationale and comments
Language
If adopted this section would be added to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures.

Arbitrators and arbitration clerks may, after consultation with the Arbitration Committee, update and maintain templates and procedural documents related to arbitration enforcement processes (including the contentious topics system).

Vote (Sufficiency of other actions)

Comments by arbitrators


Decorum

Proposal summary

Retains the "Decorum" section verbatim.

Consultation rationale and comments
  • Not in the original consultation because there were no changes from the original DS procedure.
Language
Extended content
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.

Vote (Decorum)

Comments by arbitrators

Administrative provisions

Each reference to the prior discretionary sanctions procedure shall be treated as a reference to the contentious topics procedure. The arbitration clerks are directed to amend all existing remedies authorizing discretionary sanctions to instead designate contentious topics.

Vote (Administrative provisions)

Comments by arbitrators

Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee

Proposal summary

Allows a consensus of administrators at AE to refer cases "in extraordinary circumstances" to the full Committee for decision.

Consultation rationale and comments
Language

If a rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard determines that unusual circumstances prevent the arbitration enforcement process from reaching a successful outcome, it may refer the enforcement request to the Arbitration Committee for final decision through a request for amendment.

Vote (Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee)

Comments by arbitrators

Notes

  1. ^ 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.
  2. ^ 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.
  3. ^ An editor 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 {{Ct/aware}} template for the contentious topic on their own talk page; or
    • Has otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic.
  4. ^ 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.
  5. ^ 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.
  6. ^ 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.
  7. ^ 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.
  8. ^ 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 (a) the editor posts a talk page message discussing the edit and (b) the edit waits 24 hours from the time of the talk page message.
  9. ^ An uninvolved administrator who enforces a page restriction by reversion is performing an administrative action and does not thereby become involved for administrative purposes.
  10. ^ 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".
  11. ^ 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 null edit or reblocking with the same settings) on behalf of the administrator. When this happens, the original administrator is still considered the "enforcing administrator".

Motion to close

The above proposals that are supported by an absolute majority of unrecused active arbitrators are hereby enacted. The drafting arbitrators (CaptainEek, L235, and Wugapodes) are directed to take the actions necessary to bring the proposals enacted by this motion into effect, including by amending the procedures at WP:AC/P and WP:AC/DS.

The Arbitration Committee thanks all those who have participated in the 2021-22 discretionary sanctions review process and all who have helped bring it to a successful conclusion. This motion concludes the 2021-22 discretionary sanctions review process.

Vote (motion to close)

Comments by arbitrators
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Contentious_topics/2021-22_review/Proposed_decision&oldid=1121745880"