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

In simple words: the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) sets the rules of respect for everyone on the WikiDeal platform. This page proposes how those rules would be applied in practice: how to prevent violations (awareness, training), how to respond to them (reports, decisions, appeals), and which committee would act as the final recourse when local structures fail. The goal is an enforcement that is fair, consistent and as local as possible.

UCoC Enforcement Guidelines

1. Purpose of these guidelines

These Enforcement Guidelines describe how the community and the Ynternet.org Foundation would achieve the goals of the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC). This includes, among other topics: promoting understanding of the UCoC, engaging in proactive work to prevent violations, developing principles for responsive work to UCoC violations, and supporting local enforcement structures.

The UCoC applies to all online and offline WikiDeal spaces. Therefore, enforcing the UCoC is a shared responsibility. In line with the principle of decentralisation, the UCoC should be enforced at the most relevant local level possible.

The Enforcement Guidelines provide a framework for the interaction of current and future enforcement structures, seeking to create the groundwork for an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. On WikiDeal, the community mechanisms of first recourse are intended to be mediation and then arbitration, as described on the Justice portal.

1.1 Translations of the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines

The original version of the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines is in English. It would be translated into the various languages used on the WikiDeal platform, with best efforts to have accurate translations. If any difference arises in the meaning between the English version and a translation, decisions by the U4C must be based on the English version.

1.2 Review of the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) would lead annual reviews of the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines.

2. Preventive work

This section aims at providing guidelines for the WikiDeal communities, user groups and partner organizations to be aware of the UCoC, to fully understand it and to adhere to it. To that end, this section details recommendations for raising awareness of the UCoC, handling translations of the UCoC, and promoting voluntary adherence to the UCoC where appropriate or necessary.

2.1 Notification and confirmation of the UCoC

The UCoC applies to everyone who interacts and contributes to the WikiDeal platform. It also applies to official in-person events, and related spaces hosted on third-party platforms, as a baseline of behavior for collaboration on the platform worldwide.

The UCoC is intended to be part of the WikiDeal Terms of Use (proposal, to be adopted).

Additionally, the following individuals would need to confirm their adherence to the UCoC:

All Ynternet.org Foundation staff and contractors, Board members, and the board members and staff of WikiDeal user groups and partner organizations;
Any representative of a WikiDeal user group or aspiring user group (such as, but not limited to: an individual, or group of individuals, who is seeking to promote or organize a WikiDeal sponsored event, group or study, either on or off the platform); and
Any individual who wants to use the WikiDeal name or logos in an event, such as, but not limited to: events carrying the WikiDeal name (for example by including it in the event's title) and representation of the WikiDeal community or platform at an event (such as, but not limited to, a presenter or a booth operator).

2.1.1 Promoting UCoC awareness

In order to improve awareness, a link to the UCoC would be accessible on or at:

User and event registration pages;
Footers of the Markets and Portals and edit confirmation pages for logged-out users (where appropriate and technically possible);
Footers on the websites of recognized user groups and partner organizations;
Prominently communicated at in-person, remote and hybrid events; and
Anywhere else deemed appropriate by local communities, user groups and event organizers.

2.2 Recommendations for UCoC training

The U4C, with support from the Ynternet.org Foundation, would develop and implement training to provide a common understanding of the UCoC and skills for its implementation. Relevant stakeholders would be consulted in the development of training, including, but not limited to: user groups, the Affiliations Committee, Arbitration Committees, Stewards and other advanced rights holders, the Trust and Safety and Legal teams, and others as deemed beneficial to providing a complete view of the UCoC.

These trainings are for people who want to be part of UCoC enforcement processes, or those who want to be informed about the UCoC.

The training would be set up in independent modules covering general information, identification of violations and support, and complex cases and appeals. The U4C would be responsible for maintaining and updating the training modules as needed.

Training modules would be available in different formats and on different platforms for easy access. Local communities and user groups who want to provide training at their community level would get support from the Ynternet.org Foundation to implement training, depending on available resources. This includes support for translations.

Participants who complete a module would have the option of having their completion publicly acknowledged.

The following sets of trainings are proposed:

Module A - Orientation (UCoC - General)

Help to ensure a common understanding of the UCoC and its implementation
Explain concisely what the UCoC is and its expected enforcement, as well as what tools are available to help report violations

Module B - Identification and Reporting (UCoC - Violations)

Give people the ability to identify UCoC violations, understand reporting processes and learn how to use reporting tools
Detail the type of violation, how to identify reportable instances in their local context, how and where to make reports, and optimal handling of cases within UCoC processes
Training would also focus on specific parts of the UCoC, such as harassment and abuses of power (as required)

Modules C - Complex cases, Appeals (UCoC - Multiple Violations, Appeals)

These modules are a prerequisite to joining the U4C, and are recommended for prospective U4C applicants and advanced rights holders
This module should cover two specific topics:
- C1 - Handling complex cases (UCoC - Multiple Violations): cover cases spanning several Markets or Portals, long term harassment, identifying credibility of threats, effective and sensitive communication, and protecting the safety of victims and other vulnerable people
- C2 - Handling appeals, closing cases (UCoC - Appeals): cover handling UCoC appeals
These modules would be instructor-led and tailored trainings, provided to U4C members and applicants, and community-elected functionaries who have signed the confidentiality agreement under the Access to Nonpublic Personal Data policy
When possible, the materials for these instructor-led trainings, such as individual modules, slides or questions, would be publicly available

3. Responsive work

This section aims at providing guidelines and principles for processing reports of UCoC violations, and recommendations for local enforcement structures dealing with UCoC violations. To that end, this section details important principles for processing reports, recommendations for the creation of a reporting tool, suggested enforcement for different levels of violations, and recommendations for local enforcement structures.

3.1 Principles for filing and processing of UCoC violations

The following principles are standards for reporting systems across the platform.

Reports:

Reporting of UCoC violations should be possible by the target of the violation, as well as by uninvolved third parties that observed the incident
Reports shall be capable of covering UCoC violations, whether they happen online, offline, in a space hosted by a third party, or a mix of spaces
It must be possible for reports to be made publicly or with varying degrees of privacy
Credibility and verifiability of accusations would be investigated thoroughly to properly assess risk and legitimacy
Users who continually send bad faith or unjustified reports risk facing loss of reporting privileges
Accused individuals shall have access to the particulars of the alleged violation made against them, unless such access would risk danger or likely harm to the reporter or others' safety
Where possible and necessary, the Ynternet.org Foundation would provide translation resources for reports

Processing violations:

Outcomes shall be proportional to the severity of the violation
Cases shall be judged in an informed way, which makes use of context, in alignment with the principles of the UCoC
Cases shall be resolved within a consistent time frame, with timely updates provided to participants if it is prolonged

Transparency:

Where possible, the group that processed the UCoC violation would provide a public archive of those cases, while preserving privacy and security in non-public cases
The Ynternet.org Foundation would publish basic statistics about usage of the central reporting tool proposed in section 3.2, while honoring the principles of minimal data collection and respect for privacy
- Other groups that process UCoC violations are encouraged to provide basic statistics about UCoC violations and reporting as they are able, while honoring the principles of minimal data collection and respect for privacy

3.1.1 Providing resources for processing cases

Enforcement of the UCoC by local governance structures would be supported in multiple ways. Communities would choose from different mechanisms or approaches, based on several factors such as: the capacity of their enforcement structures, approach to governance, and community preferences. On WikiDeal, mediation can always be requested first, then arbitration, through the internal justice mechanisms of the Justice portal. Some of these approaches can include:

An Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) for a specific Market or Portal
An ArbCom shared amongst multiple Markets or Portals
Advanced rights holders enforcing local policies consistent with the UCoC in a decentralized manner
Panels of local administrators enforcing policies
Local contributors enforcing local policies through community discussion and agreement

Communities would handle enforcement through existing means where they do not conflict with the UCoC.

3.1.2 Enforcement by type of violations

This section details a non-complete 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 the Trust and Safety team of the Ynternet.org Foundation
Violations involving litigation or legal threats
- Sent to the Legal department of the Ynternet.org Foundation, or, when appropriate, other professionals who can appropriately evaluate the merit of the threats
Violations involving the nonconsensual disclosure of personally identifiable information
- Generally handled by users with oversight or edit suppression permissions
- Occasionally handled by the Trust and Safety team
- Sent to the Legal department of the Ynternet.org Foundation or, when appropriate, other professionals who can appropriately evaluate the merits of the case, if this kind of violation invokes a legal obligation
Violations related to the governance of user groups and partner organizations
- Handled by the Affiliations Committee or equivalent body
Violations in technical spaces
- Handled by the committee in charge of the code of conduct for technical spaces
Systemic failure to follow the UCoC
- Handled by the U4C
- Some examples of systemic 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 lack of will to address issues
On-platform UCoC violations
- UCoC violations that happen across multiple Markets or Portals: handled by global sysops and stewards and the bodies that handle single-space UCoC violations, or handled by the U4C where they do not conflict with these guidelines
- UCoC violations that happen on a single Market or Portal: handled by existing enforcement structures according to their existing guidelines, where they do not conflict with these guidelines
  - Simple UCoC violations such as vandalism should be handled by existing enforcement structures through existing means, where they do not conflict with these guidelines
Off-platform violations
- Handled by the U4C where no local governance structure (for example an ArbCom) exists, or if the case is referred to them by the enforcement structure that would otherwise be responsible
- In some cases, it is helpful to report the off-platform violations to enforcement structures of the relevant off-platform space. This does not preclude existing local and global enforcement mechanisms from acting on the reports
Violations at in-person events and spaces
- Existing enforcement structures often provide rules of behavior and enforcement in offline spaces. These include the friendly space policy and conference rules
- Enforcement structures handling these cases can refer them to the U4C
- In instances of events hosted by the Ynternet.org Foundation, the Trust and Safety team would provide event policy enforcement

3.2 Recommendations for a reporting tool

A centralized reporting and processing tool for UCoC violations would be developed and maintained by the Ynternet.org Foundation. It would be possible to make reports through the wiki interface with this tool. The purpose is to lower the technical barrier for reporting and processing UCoC violations.

Reports should include relevant actionable information or provide a documentation record of the case at hand. The reporting interface should allow the reporter to provide details to whomever is responsible for processing that particular case. This includes information such as, but not limited to:

How the reported behavior violates the UCoC
Who or what has been harmed by this violation of the UCoC
The date and time at which the incident(s) occurred
The location(s) of the incident(s)
Other information to allow enforcement groups to best handle the matter

The tool should operate under the principles of ease-of-use, privacy and security, flexibility in processing, and transparency.

Individuals charged with enforcing the UCoC would not be required to use this tool. They may continue to work with whatever tools they deem appropriate, as long as cases are handled according to the same principles of ease-of-use, privacy and security, flexibility in processing, and transparency.

3.3 Principles and recommendations for enforcement structures

Where possible, existing local enforcement structures would have the responsibility of receiving reports of and dealing with UCoC violations, in accordance with the guidelines stated here. To ensure that enforcement of the UCoC remains consistent across the platform, the following baseline principles would be applied when handling UCoC violations.

3.3.1 Fairness in process

Enforcement structures must develop and maintain supportive conflict-of-interest policies. These should help admins or others determine when to abstain or disengage from a report when they are closely involved in the issue.

All parties would usually have the opportunity to give their perspective on the issues and evidence, and feedback from others can also be invited to help provide more information, perspective and context. This may be limited to protect privacy and safety.

3.3.2 Transparency of process

The U4C, in line with its purpose and scope as defined in section 4.1, would provide documentation on the effectiveness of UCoC enforcement actions and their relation to common violations throughout the platform, supported by the Ynternet.org Foundation in conducting this research. The goal of this documentation is to aid enforcement structures in developing best practices for enforcing the UCoC.

The Markets, Portals, user groups and partner organizations, when possible, shall maintain pages outlining policies and enforcement mechanisms in line with the UCoC policy text. Communities 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. Communities may request advisory opinions from the U4C about potential new policies or guidelines.

For WikiDeal-specific conversations occurring on related spaces hosted on third-party platforms (for example Discord or Telegram), the WikiDeal Terms of Use may not apply. They are covered by that specific website's Terms of Use and conduct policies. Nevertheless, the behavior of WikiDeal community members on related spaces hosted on third-party platforms can be accepted as evidence in reports of UCoC violations. WikiDeal community members who moderate WikiDeal-related spaces on third-party platforms would be required to incorporate the UCoC into their policies. The Ynternet.org Foundation encourages best practices for third-party platforms that discourage the continuation of on-platform conflicts to their spaces.

3.3.3 Appeals

An action taken by an individual advanced rights holder would be appealable to a local or shared enforcement structure. Local communities may allow appeals to a different individual advanced rights holder. If no local enforcement structure exists, then an appeal to the U4C would be permissible.

Enforcement structures would set standards for accepting and considering appeals based on relevant contextual information and mitigating factors. These factors include, but are not limited to: verifiability of the accusations, the length and effect of the sanction, whether there is a suspicion of abuse of power or other systemic issues, and the likelihood of further violations. The acceptance of an appeal is not guaranteed.

Appeals would not be possible against certain decisions made by the Legal department of the Ynternet.org Foundation. However, some office actions and decisions would be reviewable by the Case Review Committee. The limitation, specifically on appeals from office actions and decisions, may not apply in some jurisdictions, if legal requirements differ.

Enforcement structures should seek informed perspectives on cases in order to establish a basis to grant or decline an appeal. Information should be handled sensitively, with care for the privacy of the people involved and the decision-making process.

To achieve this goal, enforcement structures are encouraged to consider different factors when reviewing appeals. These may include, but not be limited to:

The severity and harm caused by the violation
Prior histories of violations
Severity of sanctions being appealed
Length of time since the violation
Analysis of the violation in context
Suspicions of a possible abuse of power or other systemic issue

4. UCoC Coordinating Committee (U4C)

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) would be a co-equal body with other high-level decision-making bodies (for example the ArbComs and the Affiliations Committee). Its purpose is to serve as final recourse in the case of systemic failures by local groups to enforce the UCoC.

4.1 Purpose and scope

The U4C would monitor reports of UCoC breaches, and may conduct additional investigations and take actions where appropriate. The U4C would regularly monitor and assess the state of UCoC enforcement. It may suggest suitable changes to the UCoC, the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines and the U4C Charter for the Ynternet.org Foundation and the community to consider, but may not change these documents on its own. When necessary, the U4C would assist the Ynternet.org Foundation in handling cases.

The U4C:

Handles complaints and appeals in the circumstances outlined in the Enforcement Guidelines
Performs any investigations necessary to resolve said complaints and appeals
Provides resources for communities on UCoC best practices, such as mandatory training material and other resources as needed
Provides a final interpretation of the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines and the UCoC if the need arises, in collaboration with community members and enforcement structures
Monitors and assesses the effectiveness of UCoC enforcement, and provides recommendations for improvement

The U4C would not take cases that do not primarily involve violations of the UCoC or its enforcement. The U4C's responsibilities are explained in the context of other enforcement structures in section 3.1.2.

4.2 Selection, membership, and roles

Annual elections, organized by the global community, would select up to 16 voting members.

In exceptional circumstances, the U4C may call interim elections, if it determines that resignations or inactivity have created an immediate need for additional members. Elections would be in a format similar to that of the regular annual elections.

The Ynternet.org Foundation may appoint up to two non-voting members to the U4C and would provide support staff as desired and appropriate.

4.3 Policy and precedent

The U4C does not create new policy and may not amend or change the UCoC. The U4C instead applies and enforces the UCoC as defined by its scope.

As community policies, guidelines and norms evolve over time, previous decisions would be taken into account only to the extent that they remain relevant in the current context.

5. Glossary

Administrator (sysop or admin): A user who holds technical rights to maintain a Market or Portal (such as deleting pages or blocking accounts), generally elected through community processes.
Advanced rights holder: A user who holds administrative rights above typical editing permissions, and is generally elected through community processes or appointed by Arbitration Committees. This includes, as a non-exhaustive list: local sysops or administrators, functionaries, global sysops, stewards.
Affiliations Committee (AffCom): The committee in charge of recognizing WikiDeal user groups and partner organizations, and of handling matters related to their governance.
Arbitration Committee (ArbCom): A group of trusted users who serve as the final decision-making group for some disputes. An ArbCom is considered a high-level decision-making body only for the parts of the UCoC that are within its scope, as defined by its community. An ArbCom may serve more than one Market or Portal and more than one language. For the purposes of these guidelines, this includes the committee in charge of the code of conduct for technical spaces and administrative panels. On WikiDeal, arbitration is connected to the internal justice mechanisms of the Justice portal.
Binding verbs: When drafting the source Enforcement Guidelines, the drafting committee considered the words 'create', 'develop', 'enforce', 'must', 'produce', 'shall', and 'will' as binding. Compare this to recommendation verbs.
Case Review Committee: The committee that would review certain office actions and decisions of the Ynternet.org Foundation.
Community: Refers to the community of a Market or Portal. Decisions made by a community are generally determined by consensus.
Cross-space: Affecting or occurring on more than one Market or Portal. See also: Global.
Event safety coordinator: A person designated by the organizers of an in-person WikiDeal-affiliated event as responsible for that event's safety and security.
Global: Referring to the whole WikiDeal platform and its community-wide governing bodies. It is generally used to contrast against "local".
Global sysops: Users who hold administrative rights across the whole platform, entrusted through a global community process.
High-level decision-making body: A group (for example the U4C, an ArbCom, the AffCom, the Stewards) beyond which there can be no appeal of UCoC enforcement. Different issues may have different high-level decision-making bodies. This term does not include a group of users participating in a discussion organized at a noticeboard and resulting in a decision, even if the results of that discussion cannot be appealed.
Local: Referring to a single Market, Portal, user group or partner organization. This term usually refers to the smallest, most immediate governing body applicable to the situation.
Off-platform: Generally refers to online spaces that are not hosted by the Ynternet.org Foundation, even if WikiDeal community members are present and actively using the space. Examples of off-platform spaces include Twitter, WhatsApp, IRC, Telegram, Discord, and others.
Personally identifiable information (PII): Any data that could potentially identify a specific individual. Any information that can be used to distinguish one person from another and can be used to deanonymize previously anonymous data is considered PII.
Market or Portal: A space of the WikiDeal platform. The Markets and the Portals are collectively called "the Platform".
Recommendation verbs: When drafting the source Enforcement Guidelines, the drafting committee considered the words 'encourage', 'may', 'propose', 'recommend', and 'should' as recommendations. Compare this to binding verbs.
Related space hosted on third-party platforms: Websites, including private wikis, not operated by the Ynternet.org Foundation but where users discuss matters relevant to WikiDeal. Often moderated by WikiDeal volunteers.
Staff: Employees of, staff members assigned to, or contractors of the Ynternet.org Foundation or of a WikiDeal-related organization, whose work requires interaction with WikiDeal community members or in WikiDeal spaces (including third-party spaces dedicated to WikiDeal activity).
Steward: A user elected by the global community and entrusted with the highest level of technical rights, for cross-space tasks and for situations where no local structure can act.
Systemic issue or failure: An issue for which there is a pattern of failing to follow the Universal Code of Conduct with participation of several people, particularly those with advanced rights.
Office Action Policy: The office actions policy proposed for the WikiDeal platform (proposal, to be adopted), or its equivalent successor policy.