User:Callanecc/Essay/Community discretionary sanctions

Community discretionary sanctions are a form of general sanctions that can be authorised by the community for certain topic areas, group of pages or page which are especially contentious or experiencing sustained disruptive editing. They allow administrators the ability to impose sanctions and restrictions to make a more acceptable, collaborative editing environment.

Community discretionary sanctions are similar to the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions however they have been modified for use by the community.

Definitions

 * The community is the body which in empowered to authorise community discretionary sanctions for a page or group of pages.
 * CDS/E ("community discretionary sanctions enforcement noticeboard") is the venue for requesting, applying, discussing and appealing most enforcement requests.
 * AN ("administrators' noticeboard") is the venue to request that community discretionary sanctions be authorised and is the alternative venue for appeals.
 * A notification is formal notice that informs editors an area of conflict is covered by community 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 community discretionary sanctions has been authorised by the community.
 * 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.

Authorisation
Community discretionary sanctions may be authorised by the community by a consensus of uninvolved editors, usually at the administrators' noticeboard. If it becomes apparent that discretionary sanctions are no longer necessary for a particular area of conflict, the community may revoke authorisation. Unless the community specifies otherwise, sanctions imposed prior to such a revocation remain in force.

Guidance for editors
Within an 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.

Certain pages (typically, CDS/E and AN) are used for the fair, well-informed, and timely resolution of community 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.
 * Decorum

Awareness and notifications
No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that community discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. An editor is aware if they have ever been sanctioned within the area of conflict (and at least one of such sanctions is current). An editor is also considered aware if in the last twelve months :
 * 1) The editor has given and/or received a notification for the area of conflict; or
 * 2) The editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at AN, ANI or CDS/E; or
 * 3) The editor has successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict; or
 * 4) The editor ####Some thing about sanctions expiring?###

Any editor may advise any other editor that community 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 designed for each area of conflict (see Template:CDS) is placed unmodified on the talk page of the editor being alerted. A notification:
 * Notifications
 * is purely informational and neither implies nor expresses a finding of fault,
 * cannot be rescinded or appealed, and
 * automatically expires twelve months after issue.

Editors 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.

Role of administrators
When 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.

While community discretionary sanctions give administrators necessary latitude, they must not: Administrators who fail to meet these expectations may be restricted from participating in community discretionsary sanctions enforcement or referred to the Arbitration Committee for further action. Administrative actions may be peer-reviewed using the regular appeal processes.
 * 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.

To 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 enforcement nor reverse their own previous administrative actions.

Expectations of administrators
Enforcing administrators must not be involved. They are accountable to the community, and must provide justification for any enforcement action they mete out. Participating in routine enforcement actions, enforcement discussions, or referring matters to the administrators' noticeboard does not render an administrator involved. Administrators may not adjudicate their own actions at any appeal, though they are encouraged to provide statements and comments to assist other administrators in reaching a conclusion.

Enforcing administrators are expected to exercise good judgment by responding flexibly and proportionately when they intervene. 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 after having been initially notified of the sanctions.
 * Proportionality

Placing sanctions and page restrictions
When considering whether an edit falls within an area of conflict, administrators should be guided by the principles outlined in the topic ban policy.
 * Broadly construed

Any uninvolved administrator is authorised to impose revert and move restrictions, interaction bans (which can apply in all areas of Wikipedia), topic bans, and blocks of up to one year in duration, or any other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project.
 * Sanctions

Prior to placing sanctions that are likely to be controversial, administrators are advised to elicit the opinions of other administrators at AN or CDS/E. 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 community discretionary sanctions beyond their reasonable scope.

The enforcing administrator must provide a notice on the sanctioned editor's talk page specifying the misconduct for which the sanction has been issued, which may be a link to community or administrative discussion, the appeal process and the page which details the sanctions and log. ####The templates **** and uw-csblock may be used for notifying users of sanctions. The enforcing administrator must also log the sanction.

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, prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists) or other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project. Editors ignoring page restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator. The enforcing administrator must log page restrictions they place.
 * Page restrictions

Best practice is to add editnotices to restricted pages where appropriate.

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.
 * Enforcement

All notices, sanctions and page restrictions must be logged on the pages specified for that purpose. 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.
 * Logging

Appeals and modifications

 * Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. The process has two possible stages, the editor may:
 * 1) ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; and
 * 2) request review at the community discretionary sanctions enforcement noticeboard (CDS/E) or the administrators' noticeboard ("AN").

No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without:
 * Modifications by administrators
 * 1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
 * 2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at CDS/E or AN.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new more restrictive sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

For an amendment or appeal request to succeed, the clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved editors at AN is required. If consensus at AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.