Wikipedia:Contentious topics: Difference between revisions

This page contains a procedure of the Arbitration Committee. Please do not change this page without the committee's authorisation.

Shortcuts WP:AC/DS WP:ACDS

This page in a nutshell: Discretionary sanctions is a special system that creates an acceptable and collaborative editing environment for our most contentious and strife-torn articles. Discretionary sanctions may be placed by administrators within specified topics after the Arbitration Committee have authorised their use. This updated Discretionary sanctions procedure was authorised by motion on 3 May 2014 and superseded and replaced all prior discretionary sanction provisions with effect from that date.

Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

• The committee is the Arbitration Committee.
• AE ("arbitration enforcement noticeboard”) is the venue for requesting, applying, discussing and appealing most enforcement requests.
• AN ("administrators’ noticeboard") is the alternative venue for appeals.
• ARCA ("Requests for Amendment") is the venue for appealing to the committee.
• An alert is the formal alert notice that informs editors an area of conflict is covered by discretionary sanctions.
• An appeal includes any request for the reconsideration, reduction, or removal of a sanction.
• An area of conflict is a topic or group of topics in which the use of discretionary sanctions has been authorised by the committee.
• An editor is anyone and everyone who may edit and has edited the encyclopedia.
• The enforcing administrator is the administrator who places sanctions authorised in this procedure.
• A sanction includes any sanction, restriction, or other remedy placed under this procedure.

Amended on 20 January 2015

auth.authDiscretionary sanctions may be authorised either as part of the final decision of an arbitration case or by committee motion. When it becomes apparent that discretionary sanctions are no longer necessary for a particular area of conflict, only the committee may rescind the authorisation of them, either at the request of any editor at ARCA or of its own initiative. Unless the committee specifies otherwise, after rescinding the authorisation all sanctions remain in force.

auth.conflictWhere there is a conflict between any individual provision authorising standard discretionary sanctions for an area of conflict and any provision in the standard discretionary sanctions procedure, the provision in the standard procedure will control.

auth.logA log of the areas of conflict for which discretionary sanctions have been authorised is maintained at the discretionary sanctions main page.

Expectationsguide.expect

Amended on 20 January 2015

The availability of discretionary sanctions is not intended to prevent free and candid discussion, but sanctions may be imposed if an editor severely or persistently disrupts discussion. Within the area of conflict, editors are expected to edit carefully and constructively, to not disrupt the encyclopedia, and to:

1. adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
2. comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
3. follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
4. comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
5. refrain from gaming the system.

Any editor whose edits do not meet these requirements may wish to restrict their editing to other topics in order to avoid the possibility of sanctions.

Decorumguide.decor

Certain pages (typically, AE, AN, and ARCA) are used for the fair, well-informed, and timely resolution of discretionary sanction enforcement cases. Editors participating in enforcement cases must disclose fully their involvement (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, as necessary to address inappropriate conduct.

aware.aware

No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. An editor is aware if they were mentioned by name in the applicable Final Decision or have ever been sanctioned within the area of conflict (and at least one of such sanctions has not been successfully appealed). An editor is also considered aware if in the last twelve months:

1. The editor has given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict; or
2. The editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement; or
3. The editor has successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict.

Alertsaware.alert

Amended on 20 January 2015

Any editor may advise any other editor that discretionary sanctions are in force for an area of conflict. However, these only count as the formal notifications required by this procedure if the standard template message – currently {{Ds/alert}} – is placed unmodified on the talk page of the editor being alerted. An alert:

• is purely informational and neither implies nor expresses a finding of fault,
• cannot be rescinded or appealed, and
• automatically expires twelve months after issue.

As {{Ds/alert}} template is part of this procedure, it may be modified only with the committee's explicit consent.

aware.relatedAn editor who has an unexpired alert in one area under discretionary sanctions may be sanctioned for edits in another separate but related topic, which is also under discretionary sanctions, provided the nature or the content of the edits – broadly but reasonably construed – in the two topics are similar.

alert.dupEditors issuing alerts are expected to ensure that no editor receives more than one alert per area of conflict per year. Any editor who issues alerts disruptively may be sanctioned.

admin.expectWhen deciding whether to sanction an editor, and which sanctions may be appropriate, the enforcing administrator’s objective should be to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment for even our most contentious articles. To this end, 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.

admin.notWhile discretionary sanctions give administrators necessary latitude, they must not:

1. impose a sanction when involved;
2. modify a sanction out of process;
3. repeatedly fail to properly explain their enforcement actions;
4. repeatedly fail to log sanctions or page restrictions; or
5. repeatedly issue significantly disproportionate sanctions or issue a grossly disproportionate sanction.

admin.remedyAdministrators who fail to meet these expectations may be subject to any remedy the committee consider appropriate, including desysopping. Administrative actions may be peer-reviewed using the regular appeal processes.

admin.toolsTo act in enforcement, an administrator must at all relevant times have their access to the tools enabled. 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.

admin.involvedEnforcing 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.

admin.ownappealAdministrators may not adjudicate their own actions at any appeal though they are encouraged to provide statements and comments to assist in reaching a determination.

admin.proportion 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.

admin.consensus 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.

admin.overruling 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.

Broadly construedbroadly.construed

When considering whether edits fall within the scope of discretionary sanctions, administrators should be guided by the principles outlined in the topic ban policy.

Sanctionssanctions.user

Any uninvolved administrator is authorised to place: revert and move restrictions, interaction bans, topic bans, and blocks of up to one year in duration, or other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project.

sanctions.caveatsPrior to placing sanctions that are likely to be controversial, administrators are advised to elicit the opinions of other administrators at AE. For the avoidance of doubt, enforcing administrators are not authorised to issue site bans; to require the removal of user rights that cannot be granted by an administrator or to restrict their usage; nor to enforce discretionary sanctions beyond their reasonable scope.

sanctions.noticeThe enforcing administrator must provide a notice on the sanctioned editor’s talk page specifying the misconduct for which the sanction has been issued as well as the appeal process. The enforcing administrator must also log the sanction.

Page restrictionssanctions.page

Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict semi-protection, full protection, move protection, revert restrictions, and prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists). Editors ignoring page restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator. The enforcing administrator must log page restrictions they place.

Best practice is to add editnotices to restricted pages where appropriate, using the standard template ({{ds/editnotice}}).

Enforcementsanctions.enforcement

Should any editor ignore or breach any sanction placed under this procedure, that editor may, at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator, receive a fresh further sanction. The further sanction must be logged on the appropriate page and the standard appeal arrangements apply.

Loggingsanctions.log

Amended on 20 January 2015

All sanctions and page restrictions must be logged on the central log, currently /Log. Whenever a sanction or page restriction is appealed or modified, the administrator amending it must append a note recording the amendment to the original log entry. While sanctions and page restrictions are not invalidated by a failure to log, repeated failure to log may result in sanctions. The log location may not be changed without the explicit consent of the committee.

dismissal When no actual violation occurred, or the consensus of uninvolved administrators is that exceptional circumstances are present, which would make the imposition of a sanction inappropriate, administrators may also close a report with no action; if appropriate, they may also warn or advise the editor being reported, in order to avoid further breaches.

dismissal.nosecondguessing Administrators wishing to dismiss an enforcement request should act cautiously and be especially mindful that their actions do not give the impression that they are second-guessing the Arbitration Committee or obstructing the enforcement of their decisions.

dismissal.appeal Dismissed requests may not be reopened. However, any interested users may, after discussion with the administrator in question, appeal the dismissal to the Arbitration Committee at "ARCA". Petitioners who forum shop by resubmitting denied enforcement requests without good reason may find themselves cautioned or sanctioned in return.

Appeals by sanctioned editorssanctions.appeals

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

1. ask 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 at "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-llists.wikimedia.org).

Modifications by administratorssanctions.modify

No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without:

1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

sanctions.outofprocessAdministrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

sanctions.freshNothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Important notes:appeals.notes

1. For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
3. These provisions apply only to discretionary sanctions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
4. All enforcement actions are presumed valid and proper, so the provisions relating to modifying or overturning sanctions apply, until an appeal is successful.

cont.noappealNothing in this current version of the discretionary sanctions process constitutes grounds for appeal of a remedy or restriction imposed under prior versions of it.

cont.alertsAll sanctions and restrictions imposed under earlier versions of this process remain in force. Warnings issued under earlier procedures are not sanctions and become alerts for twelve months from the date of the passing of the motion authorising this procedure (3 May 2014 [1]), then expire.

cont.pendingappealsAppeals open at the time this version is adopted will be handled using the prior appeals procedure, but this current process will thereafter govern appeals.

The following list is stored at Template:Contentious topics/list.

The following topics are currently designated as contentious topics. The italicised link after each topic names the associated arbitration decision.

• Pages relating to Abortion (Abortion)
• All edits about, and all pages related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed. (American politics 2)
• All edits about, and all pages related to anti-Semitism and Jewish history in Poland, specifically in relation to World War II and The Holocaust. (Antisemitism in Poland)
• Pages relating to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related ethnic conflicts (Armenia-Azerbaijan 2)
• Pages relating to Climate change (Climate change)
• All edits about, and all articles related to, COVID-19, broadly construed. (COVID-19)
• Any edit about, and all pages relating to, Complementary and Alternative Medicine (Acupuncture)
• Pages relating to the Balkans or Eastern Europe. (Eastern Europe)
• Articles with biographical content relating to living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles (Editing of Biographies of Living Persons)
• Pages relating to Falun Gong (Falun Gong)
• All edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them (Gender and sexuality)
• All pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural biotechnology, including glyphosate, broadly interpreted (Genetically modified organisms)
• Any edit about, and all pages relating to, the governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues (Gun control)
• Pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes) (Horn of Africa)
• Pages relating to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan (India-Pakistan, motion)
• All edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed. (Iranian politics)
• Discussions about infoboxes, and edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes (Civility in infobox discussions).
• The topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed. (Kurds and Kurdistan)
• Pages relating to the Manual of Style and article titles policy (Article titles and capitalisation)
• Pages relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict (Palestine-Israel articles)
• Pages relating to Pseudoscience and Fringe science (Pseudoscience)
• Pages relating to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour (Race and intelligence)
  • This includes restoring edits by banned editors in the Race and intelligence topic area (motion)
• The results of any national or sub-national election (Historical elections)
• Pages relating to Sri Lanka (motion)
• Pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland (The Troubles)

The following topics have previously been designated as contentious topics, or had discretionary sanctions authorised under the previously used procedure, but this designation has been rescinded or superseded by later cases. The italicised link after each topic names the associated arbitration decision.

• Pages related to the Austrian school of economics and the Ludwig von Mises Institute (Austrian economics)
• Ayn Rand and related pages (Ayn Rand)
• Pages relating to Cold fusion (Cold fusion 2)
• Discussions about the integration of Wikidata on the English Wikipedia (Crosswiki issues; expired by its own terms one year after authorization)
• Pages relating to Gibraltar (Gibraltar)
• Pages relating to Homeopathy (Homeopathy)
• Any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed (Interactions at GGTF)
• Pages relating to the Balkans (Macedonia); incorporated into the Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions by motion
• All pages related to the Monty Hall problem, broadly interpreted (Monty Hall problem)
• Pages dealing with transgender issues including Chelsea Manning and paraphilia classification (e.g. hebephilia) (Sexology and Manning naming dispute); superseded by the GamerGate decision (which was later superseded by Gender and sexuality by motion)
• All edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed (GamerGate); superseded by Gender and sexuality by motion
• Pages relating to the Tea Party movement (Tea Party movement)
• The topic covered by the article currently located at tree shaping, interpreted broadly (Tree shaping)
• Pages relating to the Senkaku Islands topic area (Senkaku Islands)
• Pages relating to Waldorf education (Waldorf education)
• Pages relating to Scientology (Scientology, motion)
• The topic of Landmark Worldwide, broadly construed (Landmark Worldwide, motion)
• Pages relating to the Ancient Egyptian race controversy, and associated articles (Ancient Egyptian race controversy)
• Pages relating to Transcendental meditation (Transcendental Meditation movement)
• Pages relating to Muhammad (Muhammad images))
• The topic of Electronic cigarettes, broadly construed (Editor conduct in e-cigs articles)
• Pages relating to Liancourt Rocks (Liancourt Rocks)
• Pages related to longevity, broadly construed (Longevity)
• All discussions about pharmaceutical drug prices and pricing and for edits adding, changing, or removing pharmaceutical drug prices or pricing from articles (Medicine)
• Pages relating to the September 11 attacks (September 11 conspiracy theories)
• Pages relating to the Shakespeare authorship question (Shakespeare authorship question)

• Template:Ds - family of templates used as part of the arbitration discretionary sanctions system
• Full list of general sanctions
• Committee review of the DS system, 2013–14 (the review was conducted on the 2013 review talk page)
• Previous version of discretionary sanctions, deprecated in May 2014

Adopted on 20 January 2015

Establishment of a central log

A central log ("log") of all sanctions placed under the discretionary sanctions procedure is to be established by the Arbitration clerks on a page designated for that purpose (Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log). The log transcludes annual log sub-pages (e.g. [/Log/2015], [/Log/2014]) in reverse chronological order, with the sub-pages arranged by topic, then by month within each topic. An annual log sub-page shall be courtesy blanked once five years have elapsed since the date of the imposition of the last sanction recorded on it, though any active sanctions remain in force. Notifications and warnings issued prior to the introduction of the current procedure on 3 May 2014 are not sanctions and remain on the individual case page logs.