This is a draft version. Source: adapted notably from the Wikimedia Foundation Governance Wiki, https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Office_actions (CC BY-SA 4.0), with changes. Status: proposal, to be adopted. See the detailed disclaimer.

In simple words: most problems on the platform would be handled by the community itself. But in rare and serious cases (legal orders, danger for a person, child protection), the hosting foundation itself would have to step in: delete or protect a page, ban someone, or take other direct actions. These are called office actions. They would be rare, follow strict internal processes, and should not be undone by users. Nothing here is in force yet: it is a proposal, to be adopted.

Office actions policy

The office actions policy is a set of guidelines and procedures regarding official changes to or removals of content on the WikiDeal Markets and Portals (collectively, "the Platform"), or actions against specific individuals, performed by staff members of the Ynternet.org Foundation ("the Foundation") and under its authority, upon receipt of one or multiple complaints from the community or the public, or as required by law. Complaints that may lead to enforcement of office actions may include, but are not limited to, privacy violations, child protection, copyright infringement or systematic harassment. All office actions would be performed pursuant to the Terms of Use.

Purpose and scope

The purpose of this policy is to help improve the actual and perceived safety of WikiDeal community members, the project itself, and the public in circumstances where actions at the level of community governance are either insufficient or not possible. Community policies would remain primary on all Markets and Portals, as explained in the Terms of Use, and office actions would be complementary to those community policies. However, there may be some rare cases where the Foundation must override community policy, such as in complying with valid and enforceable court orders to remove content that might otherwise comply with policy, or in protecting the safety of the WikiDeal communities or the public.

Some of the actions described or referenced in this policy mirror actions also taken by the WikiDeal communities and their governance mechanisms, such as mediation and arbitration. All actions mentioned under this policy refer to actions taken by the Foundation, and any equivalent actions performed by the communities are explicitly called out. For example, the terms "global ban" or "event ban" under this policy refer to global bans and event bans enforced by the Foundation, even though similar bans may be decided by community bodies.

Primary office actions

The Foundation would not hold editorial or supervisory control over content and conduct on the Platform; this work would be done by a largely autonomous community of users who, in accordance with the Terms of Use, create their own policies meant to uphold the goals of a fair and safe marketplace. However, in cases where community actions have not been effective and/or legal considerations require intervention, the Foundation could take actions accordingly.

Foundation global ban

A global ban is one of the most severe actions the Foundation could take in order to address misconduct or serious threats to the safety of users, the public or the Platform, pursuant to the Terms of Use. It would be performed primarily in order to help assure the actual and perceived safety of users of the Platform and to assist in preventing prohibited behavior that hinders fair dealing and dialogue. Situations that may lead to a Foundation global ban include, but are not limited to:

users engaging in significant or repeated harassment of users on multiple Markets or Portals;
users engaging in significant or repeated harassment outside the Platform so as to threaten (emotionally or physically) users;
placing in danger, significantly compromising or otherwise threatening the trust or safety of users or staff;
users repeatedly or egregiously violating the Terms of Use, such as through hosting illegal content on the servers of the Platform; or
threatening or compromising the security of the technical infrastructure of the Platform.

In some cases, a Foundation global ban could be issued following Terms of Use violations that, individually, would not be sufficient to warrant a global ban, but form part of a broader pattern of seriously problematic conduct. In those cases, the global ban would typically be issued only after prior warnings (from the community and/or the Foundation). However, the Foundation would reserve the right to impose a global ban directly, in sufficiently severe cases of repetitive Terms of Use violation, or where it has not been practical to offer warnings.

A global ban would prohibit individuals, either in their own capacity or as agents of others, from all websites, platforms and activities related to WikiDeal. This includes, but is not limited to, the Markets and Portals, mailing lists hosted by the Foundation, technical infrastructure, as well as any in-person events sponsored or funded by the Foundation for WikiDeal. Accordingly, an individual globally banned by the Foundation would not be allowed to participate in, edit, contribute, or otherwise modify any content on those sites, platforms, or lists without the explicit permission of the Foundation.

A global ban would be placed against an individual instead of against a specific username. It would therefore apply to any alternate accounts an individual may control and any accounts they might create after the ban has been enacted. It could also apply to anonymous accounts the banned individual may be using or may use in the future.

Global bans would be considered a last resort and would only be enforced upon receipt of a complaint, investigation, extensive review and explicit approval following the procedures. As they prohibit all involvement in the Platform and its activities from the moment they are enacted, by definition they also prohibit potentially positive future involvement of the banned individual, regardless of the outcome of that involvement. Knowingly facilitating the contributions of a globally banned individual, acting as a proxy for such a person, or attempting to interfere with the enforcement of a global ban may result in sanctions, including loss of advanced user rights or suspension of contributing access to the Platform. Since global bans would be reserved for severe cases, their duration should typically be expected to be indefinite.

A ban would not, by itself, extinguish the contracts already concluded between users through the Platform: the consequences of a ban on pending contracts are addressed in the Terms of Use.

Foundation event ban

A Foundation event ban is an office action enforced in order to help improve the actual and perceived safety of users attending in-person events related to WikiDeal. It would be placed under exceptional circumstances such as repeated abuse or behavior that compromises the trust and safety of volunteers or users. While not limited to these examples, Foundation event bans could be enacted in situations such as where:

users have already exhibited or have threatened to exhibit harassing or otherwise abusive conduct during in-person events; or
users have already exhibited or indicated an intention to attend in-person events in bad faith or to systematically undermine discussions and collaboration.

An event ban would restrict the access, attendance and/or participation of individuals at offline events that are sponsored or funded by the Foundation for WikiDeal or, in some cases, associated entities (such as partner organizations or user groups). This would not be an action unique to the Foundation; communities could also enact event bans under the Friendly space policy when they feel that a ban will help maintain the trust and safety of community members and users attending offline events. Event bans imposed by the Foundation may be subject to different criteria than those developed and observed by communities, but are intended to complement them.

Being banned from local events would not automatically mean that one is banned from all global events. The terms of one event ban can differ from those of another and may depend on multiple variables. For example, Foundation event bans could be:

Location specific: one may be banned from all in-person events taking place within a certain geographical area, such as a city or a country.
Project specific: they may be applicable to any events relating to work and/or collaboration on particular Markets or Portals.
Time specific: event bans may not necessarily be indefinite; they may be placed for a specific period.

While an event ban could be lifted if it is found that it has served its purpose, continued abuse from the banned user may weigh into a decision by the Foundation to expand the ban. If notice of an event ban does not include a specific expiration date or note that it is irrevocable, an appeal may be sent to info@wikideal.net. (Event bans that are part of global bans or lead to global bans would not be subject to appeal.)

Event bans could be one step before a global ban, as they would be placed in situations where a complaint has been made to the Foundation regarding user conduct that specifically occurs or may occur during in-person events. They may, however, exist in isolation, if the issue leading to the event ban is not a concern in online interaction or behavior.

Pursuant to this policy, names or pseudonyms of individuals explicitly (through an event ban) or implicitly (through a global ban) banned from attending events could be made available to designated teams or individuals within an event organization team or safe space committee, in the form of an event bans list. The list could include more identifying information if available, including photographs to help in identification.

Copyright takedown compliance

The Foundation encourages people to first consider taking advantage of the community-led processes in order to report and resolve instances of copyright infringement. This can be done by writing to info@wikideal.net with an informal request for content removal, including all relevant information in support of your request, such as the location of the reported material as well as information that helps establish copyright ownership and the legality or illegality of the material's use.

In some cases, the Foundation could also receive formal takedown requests. The handling of formal copyright takedown requests under Swiss law, including the review of every notice, the possibility to challenge a removal, and the treatment of repeat infringers, is described in the copyright takedown policy (draft adaptation to Swiss law, under review). In the spirit of transparency, the Foundation intends to inform the WikiDeal community each time it performs a formal takedown, as well as through aggregate statistics.

As with all office actions, reverting takedowns performed under this policy without appropriate legal reasons is strongly discouraged. As a matter of policy, the Foundation could terminate, in appropriate circumstances, the accounts of repeat infringers. In most cases, it could also terminate the accounts of users who, upon being notified that content they have contributed has been removed as a result of a formal complaint, revert that removal.

Child protection

The safety of minors is extremely important, and the Foundation intends to go to great lengths to help assure it. To that effect, if minors are believed to be at risk, actions would be taken right away. These actions aim at mitigating both conduct and content promoting child abuse. Child abuse may be discussed educationally as part of documentation, but never promotionally or with the purpose of titillation.

Pursuing or facilitating inappropriate adult-child relationships is not acceptable on the Platform. This type of activity may include, but is not limited to, posting child sexual abuse material or any material depicting inappropriate sexual acts between adults and minors that violates applicable law, distributing or trafficking obscene material against minors that is unlawful under applicable law, conducting communications with underage users through the Platform in an attempt to groom them, attempting to move their communications to other platforms for grooming purposes, or attempting to approach minors inappropriately during in-person events. Read more in the proposed policy on combating online child exploitation.

Concerns about child safety would be reviewed and appropriate actions taken as a matter of priority. Instances believed to be child sexual abuse material, including information brought to attention through requests for nonpublic user information, would be reported to the competent authorities, in line with the Requests for user information procedures and guidelines. The Foundation could also take additional actions against individuals found to be engaging in such activities, such as alerting local or international law enforcement.

Secondary office actions

The actions listed under this section would generally be performed at the Foundation's discretion, as a possible outcome of the evaluation of a separate report. Direct requests for these actions would generally be deferred to appropriate community governance mechanisms, starting with mediation, then arbitration.

Conduct warning

A conduct warning would be issued when a situation is observed to be problematic and is meant to be a preventative measure against further escalation. It is considered as a step geared towards de-escalation of the situation, when this is believed to have sufficient margin for it. It informs the recipient that behavior they may consider acceptable is in fact not, grants them the opportunity to reflect on it, and encourages them to take corrective measures towards mitigating and eventually eliminating it.

A conduct warning would usually be issued by the Foundation in situations where a user's online and/or offline behavior is considered borderline abusive, disruptive or otherwise hindering the collaborative process, but does not yet rise to the level of corrective actions. Such a warning would typically aim to address the type of conduct that may include, but is not limited to, repeated personal attacks, edit warring, impersonation or otherwise inappropriate in-person commentary and behavior.

There may be some circumstances where a warning is offered as a courtesy to users who may be otherwise sanctioned by an event or global ban. Warnings would be given only after an extensive evaluation, including review by multiple relevant staff, and would be issued confidentially. Their intent is not to shame the individual or escalate the situation, but to offer a user believed to be working in good faith an opportunity to cease behaviors that would otherwise lead to sanctions.

Removal of advanced rights

In extremely rare situations, the Foundation could become aware of circumstances and information regarding major breaches of trust performed by users with access to advanced tools. It may not be possible to share some or all of that information with the WikiDeal communities due to privacy reasons, and the case can therefore not be handled through community governance mechanisms. In some of those cases, the abuses reported may not rise to the level of irreversibly expelling the user from the communities; however, they may be severe enough to have breached the community's trust in the individuals involved and therefore warrant removal of administrative rights.

Removals of user rights would usually be either permanent or long term. Rebuilding trust is not impossible, which is why individuals are encouraged to reflect on their actions leading up to the removal of their advanced rights and consider how they may best serve the communities moving forward. In situations of long term removals, and once the no-rights period has elapsed, a user may have to fulfill additional criteria before they are permitted to reapply for advanced rights; those would be made known to them at the time of the removal.

Use of advanced rights by Foundation staff

There is a wide range of administrative actions that could be performed by the Foundation during the evaluation of reports of misconduct, in upholding the Terms of Use. Theoretically, this could be any administrative action that can be performed by volunteers in the communities. The Foundation intends to support and encourage community autonomy and therefore to take the smallest amount of action possible, which is why it would not be customary to accept community requests for said actions.

CheckUser

Of all administrative rights, CheckUser (a tool that reveals technical data, such as IP addresses, associated with an account) would be the one most commonly used by the team designated by the Foundation, in order to help assure the trust and safety of WikiDeal communities. More often than not, it would be used during the review process of emergency reports regarding threats of harm against community members, users, public figures or the general public. It could also be used in response to requests for information, in line with the Requests for user information procedures and guidelines and the Privacy policy (first draft, under review), or in connection with legal disputes and regulatory investigations. It could sometimes be used in relation to the investigation of long term abuse in consideration of a global ban, as well as when issuing a global ban. Last but not least, it could be used when reviewing reports of alternate accounts suspected to be used by globally banned users, in enforcing a global ban. In any case, performing a CheckUser alone does not mean or prove that the person checked has done something wrong.

It should be noted that, because of the sensitive nature of the information it may convey, CheckUser would only be used when the information is pertinent in protecting the communities and only if there is no other reasonable way to obtain it. While the Foundation could share CheckUser information with highly trusted members of the community, it could opt to withhold said information if revealing it hinders ongoing efforts by law enforcement to protect the public or endangers community members. This action would be performed through a staff account. See also the guidelines on modifying CheckUser logs (under construction).

Page protection

Page protection prevents a broad range of users from editing a specific page. It may affect users with or without special permissions, and a "do not touch" rule impacting all users could also be imposed. Foundation page protection would be granted in only the rarest circumstances and would typically require a court order or a substantial risk to the trust and safety of users, staff, or the public. It would otherwise be left for community mechanisms to handle, in line with the policies of each Market or Portal.

When a page is protected under this policy, a clearly visible notice would be placed on the page. A page could be reduced to a few sentences to remove questionable content, and people would then be invited to build it up again, following instructions provided on the page.

Range blocks

Range blocks are typically an action taken by the communities in order to help reduce vandalism and disruption. However, in some cases the Foundation could impose a range block in order to enforce a global ban, while upholding the Terms of Use.

Range blocks prevent a group of IP addresses from becoming active on the Platform; range-blocked IPs would be prevented from creating an account, editing, or contacting other users through on-platform features.

When range blocks are placed in the course of enforcing a global ban, they would be performed under a dedicated role account of the Foundation. In any other situation, they would be performed through a staff account.

Requesting an office action

A request for consideration of an office action should be sent to info@wikideal.net, from which it would be routed to the function in charge of the specific action. In order for the request to be considered, it is important that it:

explicitly specifies the action requested;
includes a succinct summary of the reasons for the request;
provides evidence (URLs) that there have already been attempts to have the issue resolved through community governance structures, starting with mediation, then arbitration, where applicable and where possible; and
includes any crucial information and evidence in support of the request, including pertinent documentation, subject to specific action requirements as detailed under the corresponding section.

Who would perform office actions?

Office actions would be performed strictly by Foundation staff or contractors. They could be authorized by any representative or delegate of the Foundation, usually as directed by its legal counsel or as prescribed by each individual policy related to the specific office action.

Office actions would usually come from a dedicated role account, clearly identified as acting for the Foundation. In some cases, like performing copyright takedowns, office actions could be performed by an individual staff account. Either way, they would be clearly indicated both during and after, to prevent ambiguities.

Administrators and others who have the technical power to revert or edit office actions are strongly cautioned against doing so. Unauthorized modifications to office actions would not only be reverted, but may lead to sanctions by the Foundation, such as revocation of the rights of the individual involved. When in doubt, community members should consult the Foundation staff member who performed the office action. However, details regarding an office action would only be shared to the extent that they do not compromise the safety of users, the public or the project.

Timeline of office actions

Each office action request is as unique as the person it regards. This applies especially to requests regarding conduct issues; content related actions tend to be more straightforward. Moreover, each action listed under this policy would be subject to different internal processes; it may be the outcome of the evaluation of a reported behavior, rather than the evaluation happening in order to determine if a requested action is warranted.

For these reasons there would be no set timeline for office actions in general. However, the Foundation intends to respond as soon as possible and to adhere to the following timeline guidelines:

Global bans: 4 weeks
Event bans: 4 weeks
Copyright takedown compliance: 7 business days
Child protection: 24 hours

While the intention is to adhere to the aforementioned timeline guidelines, it is possible that it takes longer for an office action request to be evaluated and granted. Delays in evaluation can be caused by the receipt of additional or new information regarding the original request, the request expanding substantially during evaluation, or other unforeseen circumstances.

Appeals

Office actions, or Foundation decisions not to take an office action, could be appealed within 6 months of their first issuance or of their substantial, atypical modification (the extension of a suspension by several months, for example, would not trigger a new right to appeal), upon approval of the Foundation's legal counsel.

Only individuals directly involved in a case could request review, either as the individual who requested the initial case or as the individual under investigation. Reviews could be requested following the decision (that is, whether or not to take an office action), at the end of the investigation.

Appeals against office actions should be sent by email to info@wikideal.net, setting out the reason(s) why the action was inappropriate.

With regards to office actions undertaken around investigations into the behavior of specific users, a volunteer case review function could be established by the future governance bodies to review appeals of eligible office actions. Until such a function exists, appeals would be reviewed internally by the Foundation, and the community dispute resolution path, mediation first, then arbitration, remains available for disputes between users.

General information

It is important to help clarify a few points regarding office actions in general.

Office actions would be extremely rare. In comparison to actions taken throughout the Platform, led by the community governance mechanisms in compliance with the Terms of Use, the number of office actions is expected to be very, very small.

Office actions are preventable. All conduct mitigated by office actions is unwanted on the Platform in the first place; if such conduct is observed and corrected (that is, removed, ceased or otherwise prevented), no complaint is likely to be made, as there is nothing to complain about. Similarly, if a complaint is resolved before any action is taken, it is unlikely for an office action to subsequently take place.

Office actions would be transparent when possible, but safety (and legal compliance) come first. It is not always possible to maintain the same level of transparency for every office action listed under this policy as, in some situations, complete or even partial transparency can compromise the right to privacy and/or safety of involved individuals or hinder ongoing police investigations. The Foundation intends to be transparent wherever possible, but not at the risk of placing users, the public, or the project in danger.

Office actions would be governed by strict internal processes. The lack of transparency involved in certain office actions would not remove the accountability of those enforcing them; they would be required to comply with internal processes and protocols, and office actions would never be enforced without multi-level review and explicit approval. Information regarding final office actions and the internal processes followed in enforcing them would be shared whenever possible.

Office actions would not be based on personal grudges. They would be performed only following explicit complaints to the Foundation about the content of a Market or Portal or certain abusive behavior taking place within, or affecting the wellbeing, trust and safety of, users of the Platform. In some cases, investigations could be prompted by law enforcement requests or as part of policy enforcement processes. They would also be taken in line with prescribed processes and be subject to strict internal review.

Abusive requests would not be acceptable. The Foundation intends to attempt to address all valid requests for an office action submitted in good faith through the appropriate communication channels. However, it would not consider requests that themselves breach the Terms of Use, the Friendly space policy or other behavioral policies, or requests accompanied by demands for preferential treatment (such as control over a page). Intimidation, threats of harm or any other communication that may constitute harassment towards staff would not be tolerated. If any of the above conduct is observed and if inappropriate reporting behavior continues after a warning has been issued, the Foundation could entirely refuse to communicate with the reporting party. The lock-out period would be determined based on the seriousness, frequency, number and, if reasonably apparent, presumed intent (for example apparent bad faith) of the abusive reports.

Post-action monitoring. The Foundation would not generally monitor the Platform for breaches of the office actions it has enforced. It would rely on the WikiDeal community's help in keeping the communities safe and thriving by reporting such breaches to info@wikideal.net, where they would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, followed by appropriate actions.

Enforcing office actions. Community members would be welcome, but not expected or obliged, to help enforce office actions. If they choose to do so on the grounds of upholding the Terms of Use, this should not be a punishable action and they should not be subject to sanctions. One can help enforce office actions in multiple ways, such as reporting alternate accounts of a banned user, removing content uploaded by a globally banned user, or informing of an event banned user's intent to turn up at an event they should not be attending.

Abuse of office or staff actions. If you think that the office actions listed under this policy have been abused, you can submit your concerns to info@wikideal.net. This address can also be used to report potential abuse by staff accounts, such as inappropriate conduct or use of their advanced user rights.