Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Enforcement_guidelines/Changes below:

Universal Code of Conduct/Enforcement guidelines/Changes

• 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).

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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

• 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;
  • N/A
• 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;

• 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.

• 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

• 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

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
  • Handled by AffCom

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

• 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.

• 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)

Violations in technical spaces

• Technical Code of Conduct Committee.

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:

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:

• 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

• 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

• 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

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.

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

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.

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)

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.

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

• 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.

RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue

Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo

HTML: 3.2 | Encoding: UTF-8 | Version: 0.7.4