| Topic
|
EDGR
Text highlighted in pink is being revised.
Text highlighted in red is being removed.
|
Revised text
Text highlighted in yellow has been revised.
Text highlighted in green has been added.
|
Comment
|
| Code enforcement definition
|
Code Enforcement is the prevention, detection, investigation, and enforcement of violations of the Universal Code of Conduct.
|
Code enforcement is the set of prevention, detection, investigation, and other actions taken to address violations of the Universal Code of Conduct.
|
|
| Code enforcement is a responsibility of designated functionaries, the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee ["U4C Committee" – Final name to be determined], and the Wikimedia Foundation.
|
Code enforcement is a responsibility of designated functionaries and bodies with technical or decision-making power, such as, but not limited to: local sysops, stewards, Arbitration Committee (ArbComs) and their members, event safety coordinators, the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C), and the Wikimedia Foundation.
|
|
| N/A
|
Designating functionaries will be done, whenever possible, by local communities, following the principle of subsidiarity that online and offline communities across the world should make decisions for themselves whenever possible.
|
|
| This should be done in a proper, timely fashion, consistently across the entire Wikimedia Movement. Consequently, individuals charged with enforcing the Universal Code of Conduct must be fully acquainted with the regulations they enforce.
|
This should be done in a proper, timely fashion, consistently across the entire Wikimedia Movement. Consequently, individuals charged with enforcing the Universal Code of Conduct must be fully acquainted with the regulations they enforce.
|
N/A
|
| Enforcement of the UCoC is applied by means of preventive work and campaigns, issuing warnings and notices to persuade people with signs of problematic behaviour to comply, imposing technical restrictions and punishments, or taking additional steps that may be necessary and appropriate. Local and global functionaries who implement policies, codes, rules, and regulations on the Wikimedia spaces, both online and offline, are supposed to understand the management of the code enforcement function and the process.
|
Enforcement of the UCoC is applied by means of preventive work and campaigns, issuing warnings and notices to persuade people with signs of problematic behaviour to comply, imposing technical restrictions and punishments, or taking additional steps that may be necessary and appropriate. Local and global functionaries who implement policies, codes, rules, and regulations on the Wikimedia spaces, both online and offline, are supposed to understand the management of the code enforcement function and the process.
|
N/A
|
| Preventive work (articles 1 and 2 UCoC)
|
| Overview
|
The goal of preventive work is to make users of public Wikimedia Foundation wikis and others under the UCOC aware that it exists, and promote voluntary adherence to the code.
|
The goal of preventive work is to make users of public Wikimedia Foundation wikis and others under the UCoC aware that it exists, and promote voluntary adherence to the code.
|
N/A
|
| Handling translations of the UCoC enforcement guidelines
|
The original and legally binding version of the UCoC is in English. It should be translated into other languages used on Wikimedia projects. In the event of any differences in meaning between the original English version and a translation, the original English version takes precedence.
|
The original version of UCoC Enforcement Guidelines is in English. It will be translated into other languages used on Wikimedia projects. In the event of any differences in meaning between the original English version and a translation, the original English version should take precedence and be the one decisions are based on.
|
|
| Affirmation of the UCoC among certain groups
|
The UCoC applies to everyone who interacts and contributes to online and offline Wikimedia projects and spaces. The following individuals should be required to affirm (through signed declaration or other format to be decided) they will respect and adhere to the Universal Code of Conduct:
|
The UCoC applies to everyone who interacts and contributes to Wikimedia projects, official in-person events, and related spaces hosted on third party platforms. The following individuals should be required to affirm (through signed declaration or other format to be decided) they will acknowledge and adhere to the Universal Code of Conduct:
|
N/A
|
- All Wikimedia Foundation staff, Board Members, affiliated staff and contractors;
- Users with enhanced rights such as, but not limited to: sysop, bureaucrat, steward, interface admin, checkuser;
- Any individual, Wikimedia Foundation employee or otherwise who wants to use the Wikimedia Foundation trademark in an event such as, but not limited to: events branded with Wikimedia trademarks (such as by including them in the event's title) and representation of the Wikimedia organization, community, or project at an event (such as, but not limited to, a presenter or a booth operator);
- Any individual, who is seeking out formal, on- or off-wiki documented Wikimedia affiliation (such as, but not limited to: an individual, or group of individuals who is seeking to promote and/or collaborate a Wikimedia sponsored event, group, study, either on or off-wiki in a research setting);
- Any individual who is performing the duties of a Code Enforcement Officer for the UCoC
|
- All Wikimedia Foundation staff, Board members, Wikimedia affiliate board members, staff and contractors;
- All advanced rights holders;
- All members of any project’s high level decision making body;
- Any individual who wants to use the Wikimedia Foundation trademark in an event such as, but not limited to: events branded with Wikimedia trademarks (such as by including them in the event's title) and representation of the Wikimedia organization, community, or project at an event (such as, but not limited to, a presenter or a booth operator);
- Any officer of a Wikimedia affiliate or aspiring Wikimedia affiliate (such as, but not limited to: an individual, or group of individuals who is seeking to promote and/or collaborate a Wikimedia sponsored event, group, study, either on or off-wiki in a research setting).
|
|
| N/A
|
The users listed above should accomplish the affirmation at the occasion of acquiring the right or role, as well as every re-election, renewal or prolongation, the existing ones do so within a short time after the ratification of these guidelines, with exception of current advanced rights holders with rights that are not up for renewal who will not have a set timeframe to accomplish these affirmations. This may be changed on review after a year following the ratification of these guidelines. Once formed, the U4C will create procedures to facilitate these affirmations.
|
|
| Recommendations for UCoC training for community members
|
Local communities, Foundation and Affiliates should develop and implement training for community members to be able to identify, address, and mitigate the harms caused by harassment.
|
The Wikimedia Foundation should develop and implement training for community members, with guidance from local communities and affiliates, to be able to identify, address, and mitigate the harms caused by UCOC violations, in particular harassment and similar conduct issues.
|
|
| Training for users should include, at least, guidelines and tools for identification of what is considered unethical behaviour and a manual for how to respond when targeted by harassing behaviour.
|
Training for users should include, at a minimum, guidelines and tools for identification of what is considered unethical behaviour and a manual for how to respond when targeted by harassing behaviour.
|
|
| N/A
|
Individuals required to acknowledge and adhere to the Universal Code of Conduct will be required to attend training to ensure a common understanding of implementation. Other members of the community will be able to attend this training if they wish to do so.
|
|
Training will have the following level certifications:
- Level 1: Overall basic knowledge of the UCoC
- Level 2: The ability to handle a UCoC violation
- Level 3: The ability to handle a UCoC appeal
- Level 4: Support targets of harassment by appropriate means (see Anti Harassment Program)
|
Training should consist at minimum of the following levels of certification:
- Level 1: Overall basic knowledge of the UCoC
- Level 2: The ability to handle UCoC violations including appeals
- Level 3: Appropriate support for targets of harassment
|
|
| N/A
|
Completing a level of certified training should not be construed as holding the position or the level of community trust required to perform the actions covered under the training.
- We recommend resources for translation be provided by the Wikimedia Foundation when reports are provided in languages that designated individuals are unfamiliar with
- A training process for users and staff, developed by the Wikimedia Foundation with the input from the functionaries, to learn how to apply due processes and understand the UCoC in practice
|
|
| Promoting UCoC awareness
|
A link to the UCoC should be present on:
- User registration pages;
- Edit confirmation pages when a logged-out user edits;
- Footers on Wikimedia projects;
- Footers on the websites of recognized affiliates and user groups;
- Prominently displayed at in person events;
- Anywhere else deemed appropriate
|
In order to promote its visibility, a link to the UCoC should be present on:
- User registration pages
- Footers on Wikimedia projects and edit confirmation pages for logged-out users (where appropriate, considering usability, formfactor limitations, and other technical issues)
- Footers on the websites of recognized affiliates and user groups
- Prominently displayed at in person events
- Anywhere else deemed appropriate by local projects
|
|
| Responsive work (article 3 UCoC)
|
| Overview
|
The goal of responsive work is to provide pathways for the processing and filing of reported cases, providing resources for processing cases, definitions for different types of violations and enforcement mechanisms, as well as suggestions for the reporting tools, and pathways for appeals.
|
The goal of responsive work is to provide pathways for the processing and filing of reported cases, providing resources for processing cases, definitions for different types of violations and enforcement mechanisms, as well as suggestions for the reporting tools, and pathways for appeals.
|
N/A
|
| Principles for filing and processing of reported violation
|
- Reporting of UCoC violations should be possible by the target of the harassment, as well as by an uninvolved 3rd party that observes the incident;
- Cases should be forwarded or escalated where appropriate;
- Cases may be prioritized in justified circumstances;
|
- Escalation paths
- Reporting of UCoC violations should be possible by the target of the violation, as well as by an uninvolved third party that observes the incident;
- Certain cases should be forwarded or escalated where appropriate according to the Types of violations and enforcement mechanism / groups section;
- Cases may be prioritized as needed.
|
|
- Cases should be resolved by mediation rather than administrative sanction whenever possible and appropriate;
- N/A
- Cases should be resolved in as reasonable a timeframe as possible;
- Eventual sanctions are applied according to the responsibilities of the person who has violated the UCoC (paid staff, elected or selected user, volunteer, etc.), the nature of the breach and its seriousness;
- Appeals should be possible, and handled by a body different from the one that issued the appealed decision.
|
- Guidance for processing
- Cases, especially minor violations, should be resolved by warning and notification about the UCoC rather than an administrative sanction whenever possible and appropriate.
- Cases should be judged in an informed and contextually aware way.
- Cases should be resolved in a consistent time frame
- The deciding body should give regular updates to the participants if the processing is prolonged.
- Eventual sanctions are applied according to the roles and responsibilities of the person who has violated the UCoC (paid staff, elected or selected user, volunteer, etc.), the nature of the breach and its seriousness
- The privacy of a case should be determined not only by those charged with resolving the case, but also with input from those who raised the initial report.
|
|
- Obviously unjustified reports (such as, but not limited to: bad faith reporting) in which there is a lack of need for investigation should be discarded (keeping the case ID valid);
- Simple cases such as, but not limited to, simple vandalism should be resolved through editing and the regular processes that exist on a wiki to handle disruption;
|
- Special cases and exceptions
- Users engaged in bad faith reporting and persistent unjustified reports risk facing sanctions such as, but not limited to: loss of reporting privileges and/or sanctions to limit or block their access to the reporting interface.
- Simple cases such as, but not limited to, ordinary vandalism should be resolved through editing and the regular processes that exist on a wiki to handle disruption;
|
|
| Providing resources for processing cases
|
The coverage of Wikimedia projects by ArbComs should be maximized, by means of the following suggested provisions:
|
Local enforcement of the UCoC may be supported in multiple ways, and communities will be able to choose from different mechanisms or approaches based on several factors at their discretion, such as their capacity, approach to governance, and general community preferences. Some of these approaches can include:
|
|
- A shared ArbCom among projects of different types in the same language is an option the committee encourages projects to consider as a means to create a more effective UCoC project enforcement system;
- A group of projects that is sufficiently big (Current suggestions for metrics to measure this may include: active users, active sysops. The committee recommends these details to be elaborated by the Wikimedia Foundation with the U4C) are strongly encouraged to have an ArbCom;
- Ensure such a shared ArbCom is not Wikipedia-centristic, among other by providing a project-neutral domain for it, for example "id.wikiarbcom.org";
- Allow multiple different languages to share such an ArbCom if there is support for such in the participating communities.
|
- An Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) for a specific Wikimedia project;
- An ArbCom shared amongst multiple Wikimedia projects;
- Advanced rights holders enforcing local policies consistent with the UCoC in a decentralized manner;
- Panels of local administrators enforcing policies for a Wikimedia project; and
- Local contributors enforcing local policies through community discussion and agreement.
|
|
| N/A
|
Communities should continue to handle enforcement through existing means where they do not conflict with the other recommendations in these guidelines.
|
|
| Enforcement by types of violations
|
This section will detail a non-exhaustive list of the different types of violations (noted in bold), along with the enforcement mechanism pertaining to it.
|
This section will detail a non-exhaustive list of the different types of violations, along with the potential enforcement mechanism pertaining to it.
|
|
- Violations involving threats of any sort of physical violence
- Handled by Trust & Safety
|
- Violations involving threats of any sort of physical violence
- Handled by Trust & Safety
|
N/A
|
- Violations involving litigation or legal threats
- Cases should be promptly sent to the Wikimedia Foundation Legal team, or, when appropriate, other professionals who can appropriately evaluate the merit of the threats
|
- Violations involving litigation or legal threats
- Cases should be promptly sent to the Wikimedia Foundation Legal team, or, when appropriate, other professionals who can appropriately evaluate the merit of the threats
|
N/A
|
| N/A
|
- Violations involving the nonconsenting disclosure of personally identifying information
- Generally handled by users with oversight or edit suppression permissions
- Occasionally handled by Trust & Safety
- If the violation invokes a legal obligation, the case will be promptly sent to the Wikimedia Foundation Legal team or, when appropriate, other professionals who can appropriately evaluate the merits of the case
|
|
- Violations related to affiliate governance
|
- Violations related to affiliate governance
- Handled by the Affiliations Committee
|
|
- Systematic failure to follow the UCoC
- Handled by "U4C Committee"
- Cross-wiki violations of the UCoC at the administrative level will be handled by "U4C Committee"
|
- Systematic failure to follow the UCoC
- Handled by U4C;
- Cross-wiki violations of the UCoC at the administrative level will be handled by U4C
|
|
| N/A
|
Some examples of systematic failure include:
- Lack of local capacity to enforce the UCoC;
- Consistent local decisions that conflict with the UCoC;
- Refusal to enforce the UCoC;
- Lack of resources or community or lack of will to address issues.
|
|
- Off-wiki violations (examples such as, but not limited to: in person edit-a-thons or off-wiki instances such as on other platforms similar to: social media platforms, discussion lists)
- Handled by "U4C Committee", if the case is referred to them by event organizers or local affiliate groups
|
- Off-wiki violations
(examples such as, but not limited to: in person edit-a-thons or off-wiki instances such as discussion lists or related space hosted on third-party platforms)
- Existing local and global enforcement mechanisms like but not limited to?: friendly space policies, rules of conferences, give the rules of behaviour and act in cases of off-wiki violations.
- Handled by the U4C where no local structure (eg. arbcom) exists, or if the case is referred to them by event organizers, local affiliate groups, or the bodies that handle single-wiki UCoC violations. In some cases, it may be helpful to report the off-wiki violations to enforcement structures of the relevant off-wiki space. This should not be construed so as to imply that existing local and global enforcement mechanisms cannot act in cases of off-wiki violations.
- In instances of Foundation-hosted events, Trust & Safety provides event policy enforcement.
|
|
On-wiki UCoC violations
- Cross-wiki UCoC violations: Handled by the "U4C Committee", either directly or by referral from global sysops or stewards and from the bodies that handle single-wiki UCoC violations;
- Single-wiki UCoC violations: Handled by individual Wikimedia projects according to their existing guidelines (examples such as, but not limited to: vandalism, introducing bias or incorrect information, abuse of power, ban evasion)
|
- On-wiki UCoC violations
- Cross-wiki UCoC violations: Handled by the U4C if referred from or not handled by global sysops and stewards and the bodies that handle single-wiki UCoC violations;
- Single-wiki UCoC violations: Handled by individual Wikimedia projects according to their existing guidelines (examples such as, but not limited to: vandalism, introducing bias or incorrect information, abuse of power, ban evasion)
|
|
| N/A
|
- Violations in technical spaces
- Technical Code of Conduct Committee.
|
|
| Recommendations for the reporting and processing tool
|
| Overview
|
In order to lower the technical barrier for reporting and processing UCoC violations, a centralized reporting and processing tool for UCoC violations is to be developed and later maintained by the Wikimedia Foundation as a MediaWiki extension. The reporting tool should allow the complainant to provide details of the UCoC breach, as well as details about themselves and the other community members involved.
Reports should include enough information to be actionable or provide a useful record of the case at hand. This includes information such as, but not limited to:
- The way in which the reported behaviour violates the Universal Code of Conduct;
- Who or what has been harmed by this violation of the UCoC;
- The date and time at which this incident, or incidents, occurred;
- The location(s) where this incident occurred;
- Other pertinent information to allow enforcement bodies to best adjudicate the matter.
The tool should operate under the principles of ease-of-use, privacy and anonymity, flexibility in processing, and transparent documentation:
|
In order to lower the technical barrier for reporting and processing UCoC violations, a centralized reporting and processing tool for UCoC violations shall be developed and maintained by the Wikimedia Foundation as a MediaWiki extension.
Reports should include enough information to be actionable or provide a useful record of the case at hand. The reporting interface should allow the complainant to provide such details to whomever is responsible for processing that particular case. This includes information such as, but not limited to:
- The way in which the reported behaviour violates the UCoC
- Who or what has been harmed by this violation of the UCoC
- The date and time at which this incident, or incidents, occurred
- The location(s) where this incident occurred
- Other pertinent information to allow enforcement bodies to best adjudicate the matter
The tool should operate under the principles of ease-of-use, privacy and anonymity, flexibility in processing, and transparent documentation:
|
|
| Privacy and anonymity
|
- Allow reports to be made either publicly (where all details of the case are viewable by the general public), or with varying degrees of privacy (for example, where the name of the reporter is hidden to the public; where the username of any individuals involved in the reported behaviour are hidden to the public; and other potential examples);
- Clarify that increasing privacy may constrain the options available for resolution – for example, public mediation as an alternative to administrative sanctions may not be compatible with a completely private report;
- Permit reports to be made whether logged in or logged out
|
- Allow reports to be made either publicly (where all details of the case are viewable by the general public), or with varying degrees of privacy (for example, where the name of the reporter is hidden to the public; where the username of any individuals involved in the reported behaviour are hidden to the public; and other potential examples)
- Permit reports to be made whether logged in or logged out
|
|
| Processing
|
- Allow reports to be processed privately by the bodies charged with resolving UCoC violations;
- Allow reports to be forwarded to relevant bodies;
- Link current cases to previous cases involving the same recipient of a complaint, including allowing reports made in-person or off-wiki to be linked to ongoing reports of UCoC violations;
- Provide a way to integrate or document an in-person report into this same reporting system;
- Allow those who are processing cases to filter out bad-faith reports
|
- Allow reports to be processed privately by whomever is charged with resolving UCoC violations
- Allow reports to be forwarded to relevant bodies;
- Link current cases to previous cases involving the same recipient of a complaint, including allowing reports made in-person or off-wiki to be linked to ongoing reports of UCoC violations
- Provide a way to integrate or document an in-person report into this same reporting system
- Allow those who are processing cases to filter out bad-faith reports
|
|
| Transparent documentation
|
- Provide a way to publicly archive all cases in a searchable manner, while preserving privacy and security in non-public cases;
- Assign each case a unique public identifier for the purpose of public visibility;
- Allow limited data collection on basic statistics about the use of this tool, for the purposes of reporting out information about UCoC enforcement to the general public, in keeping with our principles of minimal data collection and respect for the privacy of our community members
|
- Provide a way to publicly archive all cases in a searchable manner, while preserving privacy and security in non-public cases
- Assign each case a unique public identifier for the purpose of public visibility
- Allow limited data collection on basic statistics about the use of this tool, for the purposes of reporting out information about UCoC enforcement to the general public, in keeping with our principles of minimal data collection and respect for the privacy of our community members
|
N/A
|
| Overview
|
Individuals charged with enforcing the UCoC are not required to use this tool and may continue to work with whatever tools they deem necessary or most appropriate, provided that they allow cases to be handled or created according to the same principles of ease-of-use, privacy and anonymity, flexibility in processing, and transparent documentation.
|
Individuals charged with enforcing the UCoC are not required to use this tool and may continue to work with whatever tools they deem necessary or most appropriate, provided that they allow cases to be handled or created according to the same principles of ease-of-use, privacy and anonymity, flexibility in processing, and transparent documentation.
|
N/A
|
| Recommendations for local enforcement structures
|
| Recommendations for local enforcement structures
|
Where possible we encourage existing enforcement structures to take up the responsibility of receiving and dealing with UCoC violations, in accordance with the guidelines stated above.
In order to make sure that enforcement of the UCoC remains consistent across the movement, we recommend the following principles are applied when handling UCoC violations on the scale of an individual project.
|
Where possible we encourage existing enforcement structures to take up the responsibility of receiving and dealing with UCoC violations, in accordance with the guidelines stated above.
If the local enforcement structure is stricter than the following baseline in a particular case, we recommend following the existing local enforcement structure over this guideline.
In order to make sure that enforcement of the UCoC remains consistent across the movement, we recommend the following baseline principles are applied when handling UCoC violations on the scale of an individual project.
|
|
- Training and support
- Resources for translation provided by the Wikimedia Foundation when reports are provided in languages that designated individuals are unfamiliar with, especially where machine translation is inadequate or problematic;
- A training process for functionaries and staff to learn how to apply due processes and understand the UCoC in practice
|
N/A
|
|
- Fairness in process
- Supportive conflict-of-interest policies that help admins or others determine when to abstain or disengage from a report when they are closely involved in the dispute
- In keeping with existing Wikimedia arbitration processes, anyone named in a dispute should recuse themselves from the case;
|
- Fairness in process
- Supportive conflict-of-interest policies that help admins or others determine when to abstain or disengage from a report when they are closely involved in the issue.
- In keeping with existing Wikimedia arbitration processes, arbitrators named in a dispute should recuse themselves from the case.
- When more information is needed to support a decision by the U4C and by staying within the expectation of the privacy policy and while minimizing undue harm to the accuser or the accusee while continuing due process, high level decision making bodies and communities will invite perspectives from the accused.
|
|
| We recommend that the Foundation work to create a system where contributors can safely express whether they feel safe in a particular project or not.
|
N/A
|
|
- Clear communication between local administrators
- Spaces, guidelines, and encouragement for admins to work together with other admins to support review and decision making, especially when an issue is complex (e.g. ones that involve many people, or involve reviewing long page histories)
|
N/A
|
|
- Transparency of process
- Existing communities and/or the Wikimedia Foundation should provide documentation on the severity of different, common kinds of harassment that can be used to map onto different outcomes. This would aid in supporting administrators or other enforcement bodies to use these recommendations to self-determine appropriate severity
For Wikimedia-specific conversations occurring off-project in unofficial or semi-official spaces (e.g. Discord, Telegram, etc.), Wikimedia’s Terms of Use may not apply. They are covered by that specific social media or discussion platform's Terms of Use and conduct policies. Nevertheless, the behavior of Wikimedians on these networks and platforms can be accepted as additional evidence in reports of UCoC violations. We suggest that off-project spaces create guidelines that discourage exporting on-wiki conflicts to 3rd-party platforms.
|
- Transparency of process
- Existing communities and/or the Wikimedia Foundation should provide documentation on the severity of different, common kinds of harassment that can be used to map onto different outcomes. This would aid in supporting administrators or other enforcement bodies to use these recommendations to self-determine appropriate severity
Wikimedia projects and affiliates, when possible, should maintain pages outlining policies and enforcement mechanisms in line with the UCoC policy text. Projects and affiliates with existing guidelines or policies in contradiction to the UCoC policy text should discuss changes to conform with global community standards. Updating or creating new local policies should be done in a way that does not conflict with the UCoC. Projects and affiliates may request advisory opinions from the U4C about potential new policies or guidelines.
For Wikimedia-specific conversations occurring on related space hosted on third party platforms (e.g. Discord, Telegram, etc.), Wikimedia’s Terms of Use may not apply. They are covered by that specific website's Terms of Use and conduct policies. Nevertheless, the behavior of Wikimedians on related space hosted on third party platforms can be accepted as additional evidence in reports of UCoC violations. Wikimedia Foundation should seek cooperation (where feasible) with such third-party platforms and encourage them to add guidelines that discourage exporting of on-wiki conflicts to their spaces.
|
|
| Processing appeals
|
| Overview
|
Individuals who have been found to have violated the UCoC should have the possibility of appeal.
|
Individuals who have been found to have violated the UCoC should have the possibility of appeal.
|
N/A
|
| Local enforcement bodies may elect to consider additional factors, or their importance, when choosing whether or not to take or allow an appeal. The specific logistical details of the appeals process for each project is left up to their own determination. In the case that the third-party reviewing the appeal does not speak the language in which the original violation was handled, they should receive translation support from local enforcement bodies.
|
N/A
|
|
| Appeal pathways
|
N/A
|
- Appeal pathways
An action by an individual advanced rights holder should be appealable to a local or shared collective decision body other than U4C (such as an ArbCom). If no such collective decision-making body exists, then an appeal to the U4C can be permissible. Aside from this arrangement, local communities may allow appeals to a different individual advanced rights holder.
Appeals are not possible in following cases:
- for vandalizing IPs, spam-only accounts, and similar cases
- for light sanctions (under 2 weeks ban)
- against a decision made by a Project’s community except if there is a suspicion of abuse of power or a systematic issue;
- against a decision of a high level decision making body except if referred by that body
- against certain decisions made by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal Team based on conflicting legal obligations
|
|
| U4C involvement
|
Appeals may be brought against either the decision of whether or not a UCoC violation occurred, the way in which investigations were conducted, or against the sanctions placed on individuals as a consequence of their violation(s) of the UCoC. Appeals should be handled by a third-party that was not involved in the initial process of enforcement, and determination of that third-party should be based on the following factors:
- The severity of the initial breach of the UCoC;
- Any prior history of UCoC violations on the part of the individuals involved;
- The severity of sanctions against the person engaging in a UCoC violation;
- The impact and harm caused by the UCoC violation to specific individuals, classes of editors, and to the project as a whole
|
- Deciding appeals by U4C and community bodies
The decision should be based on following factors:
- The severity of the initial breach of the UCoC;
- Any prior history of UCoC violations on the part of the individuals involved;
- The severity of sanctions against the person engaging in a UCoC violation;
- The impact and harm caused by the UCoC violation to specific individuals, classes of editors, and to the project as a whole;
- The length of time since the breach occurred;
- Contextual analysis of the breach as well as current state may be considered on a case by case basis;
- The suspicion of an abuse of power; and
- The suspicion of a systemic issue.
|
|
| UCoC Coordinating Committee (U4C)
|
|
|
The entire section "UCoC Coordinating Committee (U4C)" has been added during the revision process
|
|
| Glossary
|
|
|
The entire section "Glossary" has been added during the revision process
|
|
