CZ:Moderator Blocking Procedures

The Citizendium Constabulary is established first and foremost to ensure that the community remains a collegial and pleasant place to do work, free of abuse and disruption. The Constabulary takes the position that there are two classes of offense: those to which any constable can be expected to make a fair, rapid response, and those that are relatively difficult to adjudicate, and which require a lengthier process. We have separated the relevant policies into two sections, below.

Strictly speaking, it is not *accounts* that are banned by constable action but *persons*. Banned persons are forbidden from creating new accounts. Bans can be reversed only upon appeal or application for reinstatement. Generally speaking, one reinstatement of contributor rights is achievable after a period of some months, so long as the respondent demonstrates remorse about and understanding of the offense, and also proves his or her identity. Reinstatement a second time will be much more difficult, and probably impossible.

Rapid Response Rules and Procedures

The Citizendium has some strictly enforced rules. The Constabulary holds that there are certain offenses the quality of which is immediately evident simply by reading text that the offender has written, or observing behavior. In such cases, constables are charged with responding as quickly as possible. For some of these offenses there is a "zero tolerance policy," and for others, there is something very close to that.

Here is the procedure for enforcing the following "rapid response rules." First, a constable spots the offense, or receives a report about it and examines it. Second, if necessary, the constable consults the rule and confirms that, in his or her own judgment, the rule clearly covers the offense. Third, the constable applies the ban or issues the warning prescribed, with the length prescribed by the rule and/or the person's previous record.

If in doubt, a constable must consult with the constable mailing list.

Offenses which will result in an immediate ban

Any language or behavior that most reasonable persons would interpret in the following ways will result in an immediate, permanent ban.

• Threats, either of physical harm or of other egregious aggression, whether of an individual or of a group of individuals.
• Extremely offensive insults or personal attacks; direct and harsh attacks on the moral character, or personal or professional credibility, of a project member in good standing; or any application of particularly crude and vulgar epithets ("four letter words") to project members in good standing. It does not matter whether these attacks are made using Citizendium resources or other resources.
• Defamation; making what a reasonable person should know are false or unproven (and therefore legally actionable) claims about a person that affect the reputation and/or earning potential of that person.
• Uploading of copyrighted material.
• Use of an unapproved pseudonym.
• Creation of a second account (a "sockpuppet"), and use of it after a first account has been banned.
• Vandalism, i.e., the gratuitous addition or changing of text, or moving pages, evidently aimed at offending readers and/or inconveniencing constables.
• Writing or uploading clearly obscene, horrifically violent, or (in

general) patently offensive text, images, or sounds.

• Public posting of private, personal e-mails of Citizens.
• Use of the wiki to sell goods and "spam," including, but not limited to, writing or editing articles about one's own company or organization, as well as adding links to websites with which one is associated. Persons tempted to do this are instructed to e-mail the Topic Informant Group at czinternal-topic@citizendium.org, or for minor additions, to use the article's talk page.

Offenses which will result in a warning first, then a ban

The following are offenses that are both clear and serious, but which in the judgment of the Constabulary warrant first a (single) warning, followed by a permanent ban upon the second offense.

• Blatant and obvious violations of the Citizendium neutrality policy; writing any text that virtually everyone should be able to agree places one view in a far better, or far worse, light than other, competing views that must also be presented sympathetically.
• Editing an article about oneself or about matters with which one has been directly involved, that pose an obvious question of conflict of interest.
• Insults or personal attacks that are relatively mild, and which do not rise to the egregious level of immediate bannability, but still definitely objectionable on grounds that they aggressively impugn the moral character, or personal or professional credibility, of a project member in good standing. It does not matter whether these attacks are made using Citizendium resources or other resources.

The Citizendium Adjudication Process

While constables are empowered to take many actions singly and with only appeal oversight--in relatively clear cases--disruptions of the community in many less clear cases cannot be decided so summarily. The following describes the process we have adopted for adjudicating the hard cases.

Summary: Somebody reports a violation to constables@citizendium.org. If it seems serious, and not something that anyone can act on immediately, someone forwards it to czinternal-constable and gives it a number. Then two people volunteer to look into the matter and compile a list of problems and what rules they violate. At the same time they ask the respondent if he/she wants them to publish the results on the wiki. They collect statements from anyone involved who wants to offer them, and then settle on a decision. This decision is quickly put before the larger group of constables before acted on--then it's acted on.

1. The adjudication process formally begins when someone makes a complaint about a Citizendium contributor by sending an e-mail to constables@citizendium.org. It may be a constable who lodges this complaint.

2. If a complaint is frivolous, resolvable summarily, or otherwise does not require a formal process, it will be resolved by whichever constable first responds, and then placed in an appropriate folder. Otherwise, a constable will forward the mail to the constable mailing list, and at the same time give it a case number.

3. Two constables declare on the constable list that they volunteer to take up the case. Note that, due to conflict of interest concerns, no constable who has been a party to a dispute with a respondent may volunteer, nor may constables adjudicate disputes about their peers in a given workgroup of which they are members, or in which they often do much work regardless of whether they are members.

Note that merely having previously been an assigned constable for a case involving the respondent does not constitute having been "party to a dispute" with the respondent. The Citizendium Constabulary has the dispute with the respondent, not any particular constable.

4. If in the opinion of *either* assigned constable (including the first volunteer) it is the case that both (a) there is excellent evidence of a bannable offense, and (b) there is no evidence that the offending behavior has stopped or is likely to stop, then that constable may block the account of the respondent, with the following notice in the log and e-mail: "Your user account has been placed on probation, possibly only temporary, by the Citizendium Constabulary, pending the final resolution of your case."

5. The assigned constables then ask the respondent whether he/she wishes the proceedings to be made public on the wiki or else to be kept private. The proceedings are kept private until the respondent *clearly* instructs the Constabulary to make the proceedings public, e.g., with the words, "Please make the proceedings of this case public."

6. The assigned constables then compile a list of offenses, that is, they list the respondent's offending edits or otherwise document the respondent's offending behaviors. If there are very many of them, then the constables list only those that are perceived to be the most egregious, and summarize the rest.

7. Next, the assigned constables present these documents to the respondent and to any other persons most directly impacted by the respondent's actions, and ask for statements from all parties. One week, measured from the time the request is first made, is allowed for statements, although the statement period can be shortened by various parties saying that they will not be making a statement. The respondent, in particular, is asked whether he/she wishes to contest either the findings of fact or the applicability of various rules to these findings of fact.

8. If the statements require any significant revision to the list of offenses, then 6-7 are repeated, although with the period for further statements being limited to three days.

9. The constables make a decision regarding the case, given their findings of fact, their judgment regarding what rules have been broken (and how egregiously), and any other relevant information contained in the statements proffered by the respondent and others affected.

10. If the constables cannot agree on a decision, or if in the view of

• either* of the constables, the case presents any special difficulties, e.g., the covering rules are not clear or do not exist yet, then the case is forwarded to the entire constable group for discussion. All efforts shall be made by constables to arrive at consensus. If no consensus appears forthcoming, then the Chief Constable calls for a vote, which he or she then tallies. The decision in the case is then executed by one of the original volunteers.

11. If, however, both constables agree on a decision and that the case presents no special difficulties, then all documents are submitted to the constable mailing list, and (at about the same time) one of the assigned constables executes the decision.

The Appeals Process

Both bans and warnings may be appealed by sending an e-mail to constables@citizendium.org.

To be drafted