Wikipedia:Contentious topics/2021-22 review

2021-22 Discretionary Sanctions Review

Status as of 00:19 (UTC), Sunday, 21 December 2025 (Purge)

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.

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).

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to revise the discretionary sanctions procedure.

The discretionary sanctions procedure sets forth a special set of rules that apply in topic areas defined by the Arbitration Committee. Within those topic areas, administrators are granted additional authority to prevent and respond to misconduct by editors. Discretionary sanctions were first introduced in 2009, codified in 2011, and substantially reformed in a 2013–14 review process.

The purpose of this revision process is to simplify and clarify the procedure and resolve problems with the current system of discretionary sanctions.

Revision process

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).

Final decision

The merged text of the final decision may be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/2021-22 review/Implementation/Merged.

Name

1) 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".

Adopted 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.

Passed 10 to 0 with 1 abstention at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Nutshell

2)

Adopted language

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.

Passed 11 to 0 with 1 abstention at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Lead

3)

Adopted language

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:

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.

Passed 11 to 0 with 1 abstention at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Awareness

4)

Adopted language

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 without the prior approval of the Arbitration Committee. 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.^[b]

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

Passed 11 to 0 with 1 abstention at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Appeals and amendments

5)

Adopted language

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:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
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

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,^[e] or is no longer an administrator;^[f]
The contentious topic restriction was imposed by a single administrator and it was imposed or last renewed more than a year ago; 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 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.

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:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
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:

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

Amendment history

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:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;

request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and

submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction
edit

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;^[g]

The contentious topic restriction was imposed by a single administrator and it was imposed or last renewed more than a year ago; 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 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.

Standard of review
edit

On community review
edit

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:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),

the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or

the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review
edit

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),

the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or

compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

Passed 11 to 0 with 1 abstention at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

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 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.

Passed 9 to 1 with 1 abstention at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Amendment: Appeal template

Amend the previous proposal by adding the following text immediately after the numbered list describing the stages of appeal:
Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

Passed 9 to 1 with 2 abstentions at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Amendment: Allow a priori consent

Amend the previous proposal by inserting a note after "...the change,..." reading "The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction."

Passed 8 to 1 with 2 abstention at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Passed 11 to 0 with 1 abstention at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Contentious topic restrictions: imposition, types, duration, use

6)

Adopted language

Contentious topic restrictions (level 2 header)

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 #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 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.^[h]

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,^[i]
the "enforced BRD" restriction,^[j] and
other restrictions that have been specifically designated by the Arbitration Committee for use by a single administrator in a particular 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 ([CT 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: The text of the "Logging" proposal will be inserted here in the procedure.

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.

Amendment history

Contentious topic restrictions: imposition, types, duration, use

Contentious topic restrictions (level 2 header)

Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions in contentious topic areas. Those contentious topic restrictions take the form of editor 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.^[k]

Editor restrictions

Administrators may impose restrictions on individual editors ("editor 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 editor restrictions, which constitute the "standard set" of editor 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 editor restrictions for a particular contentious topic.

A rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") may impose any editor 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.
One year after being imposed, editor restrictions imposed by a single administrator 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,^[l]

the "enforced BRD" restriction,^[m] 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 page 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.
An administrator who imposes a page restriction (other than page protection) must add an editnotice to restricted pages using the standard template ([CT EDITNOTICE]), and should add a notice to the talk page of restricted pages.
One year after being imposed (or renewed), page restrictions imposed by a single administrator 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.

Passed 11 to 0 with 1 abstention at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Amendment: Limiting blocks to one year

The proposal titled "Contentious topic restrictions: imposition, types, duration, use", as amended by the amendment titled "Amendment: wording revisions for contentious topic restrictions", is further amended by inserting at the end of the "Duration of restrictions" section the following text:
Additionally, sitewide blocks become ordinary administrator actions one year after imposition, whether or not imposed by a consensus of administrators at AE.
The drafting arbitrators are directed to modify the "Procedural summary" table within the "Contentious topic restrictions: imposition, types, duration, use" proposal and the "Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction" section of the "Appeals and amendments" proposal for consistency with the changes made by this amendment.

Passed 6 to 5 with 1 abstention at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Amendment: wording revisions for contentious topic restrictions

Amend the previous proposal to read as follows:

Extended content

Contentious topic restrictions (level 2 header)

Administrators ~~may~~ 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 #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 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.^[n]

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,^[o]

the "enforced BRD" restriction,^[p] and

other restrictions that have been specifically designated by the Arbitration Committee for use by a single administrator in a particular 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.

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 ([CT EDITNOTICE]), and should generally add a notice to the talk page of restricted pages.

Editor restrictions

Administrators may impose restrictions on individual editors ("editor 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 editor restrictions, which constitute the "standard set" of editor 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 editor restrictions for a particular contentious topic.

A rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") may impose any editor 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.
One year after being imposed, editor restrictions imposed by a single administrator 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,^[q]

the "enforced BRD" restriction,^[r] 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 page 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.
An administrator who imposes a page restriction (other than page protection) must add an editnotice to restricted pages using the standard template ([CT EDITNOTICE]), and should add a notice to the talk page of restricted pages.
One year after being imposed (or renewed), page restrictions imposed by a single administrator 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.

Logging

This part in italics will go here in the merged procedure but is separately voted on at #Logging. Contentious topic restrictions must be recorded in the arbitration enforcement log by the administrator who takes the action.^[s] 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).^[t]

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.

Additionally, to maintain consistency in linking and wording, the "Continuity" proposal is amended by changing the two bullet points to read as follows:

Extended content

Previously-enacted single-admin page restrictions are now subject to renewal, modification, and revocation ~~by uninvolved administrators~~ in the same way as ordinary administrator actions after one year in accordance with ~~#Page restrictions~~ #Duration of restrictions and #Renewal of page restrictions.

Previously-enacted single-admin editor restrictions do not, as a result of #Duration of restrictions, ~~lose their status as "contentious topic restrictions"~~ become subject to modification and revocation in the same way as ordinary administrator actions after one year.

Passed 11 to 0 with 1 abstention at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Enforcement

7)

Adopted language

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.^[u]

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:

The editor was aware that they were editing in a contentious topic, and
The restricted page displayed an editnotice ([CT EDITNOTICE]) specifying the page restriction.

Passed 11 to 0 with 1 abstention at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Warnings

8)

Adopted language

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.

Passed 11 to 0 with 1 abstention at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Administrator instructions

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

Passed 11 to 0 with 1 abstention at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Contentious topic subpages

10) 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

Passed 11 to 0 with 1 abstention at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Editnotices and talk page notices

11) 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 mandatory 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).

Passed 11 to 0 with 1 abstention at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Designation of contentious topics

12)

Adopted language

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.

Passed 11 to 0 with 1 abstention at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Logging

13)

Adopted language

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

Passed 11 to 0 with 1 abstention at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Continuity

14)

Adopted language

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 #Duration of restrictions and #Renewal of page restrictions.
Previously-enacted single-admin editor restrictions do not, as a result of #Duration of restrictions, become subject to modification and revocation in the same way as ordinary administrator actions after one year.

Amendment history

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 #Page restrictions.

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

Passed 11 to 0 with 1 abstention at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Amendment: wording revisions for contentious topic restrictions

Adopted as an amendment to the "Contentious topic restrictions: imposition, types, duration, use" proposal with effect on this proposal.

Amend the previous proposal to read as follows:

Extended content

Contentious topic restrictions (level 2 header)

Administrators ~~may~~ 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 #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 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.^[x]

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,^[y]

the "enforced BRD" restriction,^[z] and

other restrictions that have been specifically designated by the Arbitration Committee for use by a single administrator in a particular 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.

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 ([CT EDITNOTICE]), and should generally add a notice to the talk page of restricted pages.

Editor restrictions

Administrators may impose restrictions on individual editors ("editor 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 editor restrictions, which constitute the "standard set" of editor 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 editor restrictions for a particular contentious topic.

A rough consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") may impose any editor 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.
One year after being imposed, editor restrictions imposed by a single administrator 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,^[aa]

the "enforced BRD" restriction,^[ab] 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 page 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.
An administrator who imposes a page restriction (other than page protection) must add an editnotice to restricted pages using the standard template ([CT EDITNOTICE]), and should add a notice to the talk page of restricted pages.
One year after being imposed (or renewed), page restrictions imposed by a single administrator 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.

Logging

This part in italics will go here in the merged procedure but is separately voted on at #Logging. Contentious topic restrictions must be recorded in the arbitration enforcement log by the administrator who takes the action.^[ac] 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).^[ad]

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.

Additionally, to maintain consistency in linking and wording, the "Continuity" proposal is amended by changing the two bullet points to read as follows:

Extended content

Previously-enacted single-admin page restrictions are now subject to renewal, modification, and revocation ~~by uninvolved administrators~~ in the same way as ordinary administrator actions after one year in accordance with ~~#Page restrictions~~ #Duration of restrictions and #Renewal of page restrictions.

Previously-enacted single-admin editor restrictions do not, as a result of #Duration of restrictions, ~~lose their status as "contentious topic restrictions"~~ become subject to modification and revocation in the same way as ordinary administrator actions after one year.

Passed 11 to 0 with 1 abstention at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' role and expectations

15)

Adopted language

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:

impose a restriction when involved;
modify a restriction out of process;
repeatedly fail to properly explain their enforcement actions;
repeatedly fail to log restriction or page restrictions; or
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.

Passed 11 to 0 with 1 abstention at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

AE noticeboard

16)

Adopted language

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.

Passed 11 to 0 with 1 abstention at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Sufficiency of other actions

17)

Adopted language

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

Passed 11 to 0 with 1 abstention at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Enforcement templates and procedural documents

18)

Adopted 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).

Passed 11 to 0 with 1 abstention at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement log

19)

Adopted language

The last paragraph of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Logging is amended to read as follows:

A central log ~~("log")~~ of all page restrictions and sanctions (including blocks, bans, page protections or other restrictions) placed as arbitration enforcement (including ~~discretionary sanctions~~ contentious topic restrictions) is to be maintained by the Committee and its clerks at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log. The log transcludes annual log sub-pages (e.g. [/2015], [/2014]) in reverse chronological order, with the sub-pages arranged by case. An annual log sub-page shall be untranscluded from the main log page (but not blanked) once five years have elapsed since the date of the last entry (including sanctions and appeals) recorded on it, though any active sanctions remain in force. Once all sanctions recorded on the page have expired or been successfully appealed, the log page shall be blanked. The log location may not be changed without the explicit consent of the committee.

Passed 11 to 0 with 1 abstention at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Decorum

20)

Adopted language

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.

Passed 11 to 0 with 1 abstention at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Administrative provisions

21) 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.

Passed 10 to 0 with 1 abstention at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee

22)

Adopted language

A consensus of administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard may refer an arbitration enforcement request to the Arbitration Committee for final decision through a request for amendment.

Passed 10 to 1 with 1 abstention at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Notes

^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^
An editor who has not received an alert 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.
^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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 the editor (a) posts a talk page message discussing the edit and (b) waits 24 hours from the time of the talk page message.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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 the editor (a) posts a talk page message discussing the edit and (b) waits 24 hours from the time of the talk page message.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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".
^ 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".
^ An uninvolved administrator who enforces a restriction by reversion is performing an administrative action and does not thereby become involved for administrative purposes.
^ 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".
^ 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".
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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 the editor (a) posts a talk page message discussing the edit and (b) waits 24 hours from the time of the talk page message.
^ 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.
^ 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.
^ 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".
^ 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 authority granted to the drafting arbitrators by this motion expires one month after enactment.

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.

Passed 6 to 0 with 1 abstention at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

[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] 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.

[3] 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.

[4] An editor who has not received an alert 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.

[5] Was mentioned by name in the applicable Final Decision;

[6] Was ever restricted or formally warned within the contentious topic;

[7] Ever alerted another editor to the contentious topic;

[8] Ever received a discretionary sanctions alert ({{ds/alert}}) for the same topic;

[9] 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);

[10] Has placed a {{Ct/aware}} template for the contentious topic on their own talk page; or

[11] Has otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic.

[5] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[6] 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.

[7] 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.

[8] 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.

[9] 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.

[10] 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 the editor (a) posts a talk page message discussing the edit and (b) waits 24 hours from the time of the talk page message.

[11] 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.

[12] 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.

[13] 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.

[14] 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.

[15] 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.

[16] 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 the editor (a) posts a talk page message discussing the edit and (b) waits 24 hours from the time of the talk page message.

[17] 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.

[18] 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.

[19] 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".

[20] 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".

[21] An uninvolved administrator who enforces a restriction by reversion is performing an administrative action and does not thereby become involved for administrative purposes.

[22] 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".

[23] 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".

[24] 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.

[25] 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.

[26] 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 the editor (a) posts a talk page message discussing the edit and (b) waits 24 hours from the time of the talk page message.

[27] 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.

[28] 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.

[29] 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".

[30] 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".

[a]