User:Awilley/Discretionary sanctions

No personal comments and thicker skin sanctions

No personal comments

See also: Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks

On Article Talk pages within the topic area, you may not make personal comments accusing editors or groups of editors of doing things like assuming bad faith, making personal attacks, casting aspersions, being biased, or being uncivil. In other words you should basically just focus on article content instead of other users.

If another editor notifies you that you are in violation of this sanction you can remedy the problem by removing the comment, editing it with the appropriate strike and underline markup, or hatting the comment. If the comment was genuinely not intended as a personal comment you can explain how it was a miscommunication and apologize/refactor as necessary. Personal comments in edit summaries can also be resolved via apology. Be aware however that if you are subsequently reported to an administrator it will be the administrator who will judge whether the comment was personal or not and whether reparation attempts were adequate.

Users reporting violations of this sanction must follow the instructions here.

Thicker skin

See also: Meatball:DefendEachOther

On Article Talk pages within the topic area, you are not permitted to accuse other users of making personal comments. You may not ask other editors to retract or strike statements that you personally find to be uncivil, assumptions of bad faith, aspersions, etc. Ignore those statements and move on. Trust the community to deal with whatever needs to be dealt with.

You are permitted to report egregious hounding, personal attacks, aspersions, and other disruption to administrators, administrator noticeboards, and Arbcom.

Users reporting violations of this sanction must follow the instructions here.

Courtesy in reporting sanction

Before reporting any user to an administrator or administrative noticeboard for matters related to the topic area, you must first politely notify that user on their talk page alerting them to the problem and giving them sufficient opportunity to fix it. The notification should be short and polite, along the lines of:

Hi, I believe that you have violated [link to rule] with this edit [diff of edit violating the rule]. ~~~~

If the user ignores your post for 24 hours, deletes it without response, or indicates that they don't believe it is a problem you may then report the problem to an administrator, following the same form: short and to the point with a link to the offending diff, and with a second link showing that you notified the user. If a user has banned you from editing their talk page you may skip the courtesy notification and proceed directly to the administrator or noticeboard. Note that this required notification is not an excuse to engage in arguments on user talk pages.

This sanction does not apply to the reporting of sockpuppetry or obvious vandalism.

Edit summaries sanction

See also: Help:Edit summary

In all edits to Articles within the topic area, you must include an edit summary that clearly explains what you are doing in that edit. Misleading edit summaries in particular will lead to the one-week topic ban. Examples of misleading edit summaries include edit summaries of "copyedit" or "tweaks" or "improve ref" on an edits that make actual substantive changes to meaning. If you are approached by a user who alerts you to a problem with one of your edit summaries you can remedy the situation by reverting your edit and then re-making it with a better edit summary, making a null edit to explain what you did in the previous edit, or if your edit has been reverted by another user, you can simply apologize. If you don't do any of these things and an administrator determines that the edit summary was indeed inadequate you will be sanctioned with a one-week ban from editing Articles within the topic area. (Talk pages are still allowed in this case.)

Users reporting violations of this sanction must follow the instructions here.

Consensus required

You must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). This includes making edits similar to the ones that have been challenged.

Anti-filibuster sanction

See also: WP:BLUDGEON and WP:IDHT

Deprecated
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In normal sections or subsections on Article Talk pages in the topic area you are limited to three posts per section initially, and then after the 3rd post, one post per 24-hr period for threads with active discussion. If it is necessary to engage in a quick series of threaded replies with another user you may do so inside a collapse or {{hat}} template with a neutral title acceptable to the other user (for example, "Extended discussion about X between User:Y and User:Z"). Posts inside "hats" don't count against your daily limit, but don't abuse the privilege. In Survey, Voting, or RFC sections on Article Talk pages within the topic area, you may make only one unindented or bulletted comment, and zero indented (threaded) replies. You may modify your original vote within reason, using appropriate strike and underline markup. In Surveys with separate sections for voting and discussion you may post additional comments in the Discussion section but are limited to the maximum of three posts initially, and then one post per 24-hr period thereafter. In WP:AN, WP:AN/I, and WP:AN/EW threads that are discussing user behavior in the topic area, you are limited to one post per section or subsection. Exceptions to this are noticeboard discussions initiated by you and threads that are specifically about you. If a user notifies you that you are in violation of this sanction you may remedy the problem by either removing or hatting/collapsing the offending content. Failure to do so may result in a one-week topic ban. Users reporting violations of this sanction must follow the instructions here.

Auto-boomerang sanction

Deprecated
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If you initiate an administrative report against another user in the topic area and that report is dismissed with a result of "no action" or "no violation", or otherwise deemed as frivolous, you may be subjected to a 1-month topic ban from the topic area, imposed at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. This applies to reports filed at WP:AN, WP:AN/I, WP:AN/EW, and WP:AE.

Instructions for users reporting violations

Users wishing to report violations of these sanctions must first politely notify the offending editor on their talk page that you believe an edit of theirs violated the sanction, and then give them sufficient opportunity to fix the problem. The notification should be short and polite, along the lines of:

Hi, I believe that you have violated [name of sanction] with this edit [diff of edit violating the rule]. ~~~~

If the user ignores your message for more than 24 hours while continuing to edit elsewhere, deletes it without response, or indicates that they don't believe it is a problem you may then report the problem to an administrator. Your report to the administrator or administrative noticeboard must be similarly short and to the point, but must include three links: a link to the sanction, a link to the edit violating the sanction, and a link to the failed attempt at resolution.

One goal of these sanctions is to resolve issues at the lowest possible level, meaning the ideal outcome is for you to convince the editor to fix the problem on their own with no administrative intervention. If a user has banned you from their talk page you can, of course, skip this notification step and report directly to an administrator. Also note that a pattern of frivolous reports will probably result in "courtesy in reporting" and "auto-boomerang" sanctions being applied to you, so please be careful about pestering users with and reporting borderline cases. Also note that this required notification is not an excuse to engage in arguments on user talk pages, and doing so can also result in sanctions against you.

Enforcement: 1-week non-escalating topic ban

See also: WP:Banning policy § Topic ban

The default enforcement for violating any of the above sanctions is a 1-week topic ban from the topic area covered by the sanctions, broadly construed. Repeat offenses will result in further non-escalating 1-week topic bans. Violation of a topic ban will result in a block long enough to cover the unserved portion of the topic ban. For example, if you violate the topic ban 3 days after it is placed your account will be blocked for 4 days.

Note however that any admin may choose to impose tougher sanctions at any time for long term disruption or blatant violations of policy.

Note to enforcing administrators

These sanctions and 1-week topic bans are intended to address problems with low-level disruptive behavior and encourage good behavior with clear rules and consequences. They are also designed to minimize administrative burden, discourage appeals, and reduce drama that usually results when users perceive a "punishment" that is disproportionate to the "crime". Therefore enforcement of these sanctions should not follow the traditional pattern of escalating ban lengths. (You may of course, under your own authority, impose other discretionary sanctions that you see fit to deal with disruptive behavior.)

If a reporting user has not given the sanctioned user a chance to correct their mistake before reporting you should, at your discretion, issue a warning to both users instead of imposing the standard topic ban.