755:
chapters who use their paid staff to resolve some social problems, like addressing people in conflict at events in the role of security officers. The most stressful issues at the admin board are intense harassment happening in the wiki space but unrelated to wiki, and which include suggestion of violence, suggestion of sex negativity, and suggestion of personal threat. Wiki volunteers are happy to moderate wiki disputes but when something is creepy, but not creepy enough to trigger a
Wikimedia Foundation response, then there is a service failure. On the creepy danger scale, the ANI board can take anything that ranks 1-2 (2 is slightly concerning) and the WMF will take anything that ranks 8-10 (8 being evidence of threat). 3 is "somewhat concerning" and 7 is "really scary but ambiguous". Volunteers do not come to Knowledge because they want to deal with problems ranking 3+ on this scale, and yet these kinds of problems fall to ANI and ArbCOM. Way too often, administrators and arbitrators who have elite skills to resolve wiki issues get their time and emotional labor wasted on legal, violent, and harassment issues which require a non-wiki skill set to address. I would not prohibit willing wiki volunteers from taking these issues sometimes, but considering that the role specification for admins and arbs is wiki expertise and not social work, it is not a natural fit to expect expertise with domestic violence, mental health, online stalking, and social deviancy from the people who get appointed based on wiki proficiency. I think that there should be trained staff on these issues. Organizations which have volunteers or staff who regularly expose themselves to trauma need to offer their agents regular access to counseling to debrief and process and get regular reality checks on their personal safety, because by responding they actually get involved in the dangerous situation.
759:
harassment exists then for whatever reason the organization interprets that as a failing of their operations. Of course this is not true and there is no shame in admitting that one is the victim of harassment, because the victim is not to blame. While any and all individuals in the WMF acknowledge problems, collectively the organization has an aversion to identifying them. A premise in this study is that the reports which go to ANI are supposed to go to ANI. This has never been the case - ANI is not a police force and lots of things happen on wiki / online which, if they happened on the street, would result in bystanders calling the police. When an issue is 4+ on the scale of 1-10 for danger, a person would call the police if they witnessed that social transgression in-person in an urban crowd. The on-wiki tolerance for social transgression goes far beyond what is tolerable in person and this is not natural.
658:
board is a last resort and being used as a catch all because there is no place to kick other problems. This research project begins with the presumption that all problems have to go to the admin board, when actually, the
Knowledge community has always behaved as if the admin board is the place for problems with a wiki nature and that the Wikimedia community's funding pool, either through the WMF or otherwise, will be the part of the process for generating ethical judgements of suspected deviancy beyond the context of the software interface. There should be another place, not the admin board, where the problems which would emotionally damage a normal person to hear should go. I think that the criticism that this research surfaces is too much confused over issues which the admin board does not even want to address.
644:
most awful kinds of social problems which no other website would tolerate, including problems which are traumatic to even encounter as a third party like sexual abuse, were issues that fell to random community volunteers because of a
Wikimedia Foundation practice that there would never be paid staff intervention in any Wikimedia community occurrence. The Wikimedia community still has not established any lasting norms and I think that everything is in transition, and mostly crazy. I do not look at the current state of things and imagine that anyone is lacking for ideas on reforming it if the funding were available and if it were socially appropriate to use the funding to address the madness.
185:
855:, thank you all for reading the AN/I report and leaving really insightful comments. The AN/I research is part of a larger project by the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (CHI) to identify problems with reporting and managing harassment cases and then work with the wikimedia communities to come up with solutions. Right now, we (WMF Anti-Harassment tools team and Support and Safety team) are opening up discussions on English Knowledge and Meta to talk about the results of these studies, hear other thoughts and ideas exactly like the ones that you all have expressed here. I would like to copy this thread over to the place where we are opening the
650:
wants to fix the Admin board, it is possible to divide the pool of issues into "what any sane person would say that crowdsourced volunteers should manage" versus "what any sane person would say requires special training to manage, and probably paid staff". We are at an impasse because the
Wikimedia Foundation will not hire paid staff to address social misconduct on Wikimedia projects, nor is there any Wikimedia community organization which has ever requested Wikimedia community funding to address harassment directly. I see no fault in the WMF because there is consensus that the WMF not have paid staff engage too much with the Wikimedia community.
111:
131:
522:
issue. These
Moderators would not have to be Admins, as they would not be responsible for the final verdicts; instead, they would keep order so that Admins could proceed with their investigations. " "Moderators", "admins", and "editors" should not be capitalized, and that's five wrong in less than a paragraph. That aside, if we introduced "moderators" in addition to "admins", people would just bitch about both of them. By the time a matter comes to ANI, it's usually at a point where you
365:
91:
104:
237:
same people – the survey was anonymous – but still, that's not a very good quota. There was also general consensus among answers that the AN/I process breaks down with increasing case complexity. However, while more than six in ten (62.5%) participants said they "sometimes" or "frequently" disagreed with the outcome of AN/I cases, nearly as many (51.13%) reported they "agreed" or "strongly agreed" with the general process of AN/I reports.
121:
544:
warring" is highlighted in green, despite that being a clear accusation of wrongdoing. So whoever did that analysis didn't do it very well. Also, rather than or in addition to an image with usernames redacted, there should be a link to the archive of the discussion itself. It's not like we hide this stuff from public view and so there's a need to use screenshots instead of the real thing. Every last word gets archived.
37:
141:
101:
296:
151:
560:
neither of the users who worked to get it it published had any prior experience with it. I saw those capitalisations but I honestly thought the author would have addressed anything as blatant as that themselves. We don't mind you volunteering to do 30 hours of copyediting for the next issue - we can then be sure that it is perfect. We need all the help we can get.
221:
246:
is a 'old hat' with plenty of friends", one editor writes. This bias of
Knowledge meta structures towards more experienced users – even in cases where that experience should not generally matter, such as in AN/I decisions that should be made according to Knowledge policy – has already been reported on
302:
The findings of the paper are similar to the ongoing internal criticism against AN/I: a discussion-based culture and a decentralized network of noticeboards without effective moderation do not lead to effective case management. For HMNCP, the result would be the replacement of the noticeboards with a
253:
Another issue that could potentially further this clique-building was a perceived lack of admins actually active on the noticeboard – one participant reports seeing "the same old faces time after time." Participants speculated that this may be associated with the sometimes extreme complexity and long
236:
Nearly three quarters (72.06%) of the participants reported being involved in an incident reported on AN/I in the last twelve months before the survey took place, while about as many (73.13%) said they were dissatisfied with the way reports are handled on AN/I. These do not necessarily have to be the
657:
process is intense, but community evaluation process demonstrates that the community expects that admins resolve wiki conflicts, and not that they need to perform exorcisms. I think the research shared here has diminished value for not acknowledging a community insight that we already had: the admin
285:
The improvement to AN/I advocated by most editors was the introduction of moderators to keep discussions relevant to the discussed issue. These moderators would not have to be admins, as they would not be responsible for the final verdicts; instead, they would keep order so that admins could proceed
275:
There is a general agreement that ANI has its flaws and that reforming certain things wouldn't be a bad idea. If users are generally feeling unsatisfied with how things at ANI are being discussed and handled, and responses to the survey show a significant vote on specific things – we outta take time
245:
A specific problem raised by several answers is the discrepancy in the handling of new and old users – which is especially interesting considering the high self-reported experience of the participants. "Rarely is the discussion unbiased in these cases where one of the users is new and the other one
232:
Invitations to the survey were sent to editors who had recently contributed to the AN/I boards, but were also posted publicly on noticeboards and through
Wikimedia affiliate mailing lists. Overall, 136 people completed the survey; 100 of those claimed to have been editors for longer than five years,
758:
Another big problem with all of this is the lack of visibility. The WMF just went through an entire research project in this and I would say that they have a conflict of interest in this research. It is unfortunate, but historically the WMF has been structured in a way that if they acknowledge that
643:
A bias that I see in the study is that it does not acknowledge
Knowledge's very strange moderation system. Since Knowledge is almost entirely community based, until a few years ago there was hardly any reporting system for extreme violence, like death threats or suicide talk. Even more recently the
306:
Another finding of HMNCP is a systemic inability of
Knowledge report structures to convert precedents into standards, with many cases being negotiated in very similar fashions time after time again. It is noticeable that Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) cases already function in a fashion of strictly
787:
After reading the report twice, I still felt missing something. It is this: questions like "Are you an admin?" and "Did you close any AN/I report last year?". Most survey results are more understandable and logical when assuming (ouch) that most respondants are AN/I-active admins. For example this
676:
IMO one of the problems with ANI is that it's been allowed to become run by the comments of too many uninvolved and/or inexperienced users and wannabe admins (what we casually refer to as the peanut gallery). Due to our open access nature, many people think it's cool to be a 'forum
754:
We already send certain legal complaints to the
Wikimedia Foundation legal team. Lately the Wikimedia Foundation Support and Safety team has started taking serious violent threats. These are the precedents we have for sending some issues to paid external support services. There are some Wikimedia
649:
The Administrator noticeboard exists to settle conflicts related to Knowledge editing. I do not think that there is anyone on the Administrator board that ever wants to address harassment, stalking, violence, sex danger, criminal derangement, or people who are incapable of socializing. If anyone
559:
another issue of the Signpost. The March issue was almost certainly going to be the last one. This article was the only one I didn't copy edit myself. Our ad hoc efforts to get this thing out was like passengers being asked if they can fly a plane because the pilots have had heart attacks -
543:
a request for someone to elaborate on what they said can be construed by any reasonable person as an accusation or an attack. There are many similar comments highlighted as "accusations/attacks" that are not in the slightest anything like them. On the other hand, an accusation of "long-term edit
521:
So, first off. Does the Signpost undergo any proofreading? I suppose I'll do it myself, but this whole thing is full of inappropriate capitalization. As an example: "The improvement to AN/I advocated by most Editors was the introduction of Moderators to keep discussions relevant to the discussed
805:
guidelines. Introducing unfair or unbalanced guidelines will not improve the "community health", it will only let careless admins off the hook (an indicator is the many boomerang references). Survey outcome does not point to this in any way. (And one guideline less could be implemented today:
294:
The Wikimedia Foundation also reached out to the Harvard Negotiation and Mediation Clinical Program (HNMCP) in the autumn of 2017 to provide recommendations for reports and management of conflicts between editors. HMNCP observed several communities, interviewed experts and finally published
574:
Hello! Thank you for your constructive feedback. The capitalized titles were, in fact, part of a new Manual of Style; however, they don't seem to be taking on. As for the screenshot of the AN/I thread, this was done to prevent anyone from stumbling in there from here, maybe leaving another
762:
I advocate for either Wikimedia chapters who hire special staff or non-wiki nonprofit organizations with expertise in social work to handle these issues. I expect that these issues number in the 1000s/year on wiki globally. If we actually had a reporting system rather than pushing them
485:
856:
205:
240:
538:
Okay, and now I've also looked at the huge image with the scary red outlines over "attacks and accusations". And there's nothing to it. Even a comment consisting of nothing more than "Please elaborate" is marked in red, which means "Accusations/attacks". There is
859:
so that others interested in the topic can see your thoughts. On the other page, I'll respond with my thoughts on substances of your comments and how it fits in with some the CHI's tentative work projects for the next calendar year that begins in July.
335:
Finally, HMNCP recommends a better standardization and dissemination of systems and policies across Wikimedia communities and offers a bit of warning: Harvard "assumes no responsibility for the implementation of the recommendations expressed herein".
254:
history of cases discussed on AN/I, as well as the "thanklessness of both the admin's and the involved editor's role." Finally, almost half (48.49%) of the participants said that discussions on AN/I are "almost never" or "rarely" focused and neutral.
257:
286:
with their investigations. Two other proposals that aimed in a similar direction were a ban on uninvolved editors getting involved in AN/I discussions and the introduction of a fill-in report form, which would allow more standardized procedures.
723:
Bluerasberry, your comments are really insightful and have made me re-think what ANI is all about. It's still swirling around in my brain but I think your idea that the admins aren't to blame for not engaging in discussions that are harmful
144:
307:
enforcing and, if necessary, modifying prior verdicts. The status of ArbCom as Knowledge "High Court" could inspire AN/I to adopt an analogous standardized way of conduct, in a fashion adopted to the generally lower profile of cases.
114:
30:
Admin reports board under criticism: A recent Community Health Initiative survey found only 27% of respondents are happy with the way reports of conflicts between editors are handled on the Administrators' Incident Noticeboard
227:
732:
for not dealing with this stuff" Zeitgeist. Ideas like this are hard for the community to swallow, though: that the community has limits on its ability to self-regulate or self-resource and may need help from outside. ☆
600:, I didn't know you were in that type of a situation. I would hate to see the Signpost go away, and if you'll let me know what I can do, I would certainly be happy to help, whether that's copyediting or anything else.
220:" due to a lacking rule for scope on AN/I reports. Ideas for improvements included moderation of discussions by neutral clerks as well as bans of uninvolved editors in AN/I discussions. The survey also included
154:
792:?" (e.g., i.e., does the closure reflect the discussion?). My experience is that admins have an enormous leeway in making individual (personal) decisions, covered from criticism by the no-wheelbarring rule
624:
134:
262:
While there was no lack of criticism, there was also a consensus that AN/I in general was a positive thing in need of reform. This sentiment is also shared among admins active on AN/I, according to
332:
Especially the call for better organization of complex discussions seems very much in line with the proposal of report forms and the exclusion of uninvolved editors made in the Wikimedia survey.
71:
788:
could clarify why so many respondants want to forbid non-admins to engage, and why so little self-criticism is visible (more below). Also missing is the angle "What do you think about the
77:
809:
All in all I get the sense that unevenly more respondants are admins, and crucial questions are missing, hence the survey is evading the issue of admin conduct at AN/I. -
303:
single, centralized evaluation system. While this is harsher than what editors wanted in the internal survey, many of the proposed ideas seemed to build on similar ideas.
550:
671:
247:
191:
The thread was found on AN/I April 20th, 2018, extending to more than double the shown length in total. The number of involved editors was close to twenty, and growing.
606:
588:
444:
439:
201:
699:, good to read how you think about those non-admins. Then, when you handle a case, the reporter and the accused editors (involved by definition) suddenly have become
464:
434:
569:
818:
686:
469:
389:
233:
which conforms with the teams' warning that the opt-in nature of the survey and its small sample would most likely result in a skew towards experienced editors.
796:
the ~complete absence of any way to appeal. Then 53% is "fearing would not be handled appropriately", but 'not .. appropriately' is not fleshed out any further.
636:
776:
742:
459:
429:
414:
399:
716:
500:
124:
404:
382:
526:
will be making someone mad no matter what you do (or even if you do nothing at all). So it's not surprising that tough issues leave someone pissed off.
532:
869:
394:
376:
352:
343:
197:
196:
Out of over one hundred questioned editors, only twenty-seven (27%) are happy with the way reports of conflicts between editors are handled on the
56:
45:
474:
419:
454:
619:
and decided to leave the caps as-is. It turns away contributors if the c/e is overly prescriptive. In my judgement, building and revitalizing
424:
933:
449:
216:
teams, also found that dissatisfaction has varied reasons including "defensive cliques" and biased administrators as well as fear of a "
276:
and look into those things and figure out exactly what is causing the dissatisfaction and what can or should be done to resolve it.
213:
289:
21:
505:
909:
489:
904:
899:
653:
I really feel sorry for the admin board and the personal risk that administrators assume in making themselves available. The
512:
94:
894:
882:
623:
outweighs what comes down to a trivial difference in style. I note that caps for positional/occupational titles is
184:
889:
364:
50:
36:
17:
241:"Otherwise 'popular' users often avoid heavy sanctions for issues that would get new editors banned."
801:
Telling, the call is for "More guidelines" (Harvard says this too), but no hint is made for more
865:
771:
666:
616:
209:
323:
3. Offer guidelines to encourage behaviors that promote effective collaborative discussions.
915:
584:
575:
unconstructive comment adding nothing to the discussion. If you want better copy-editing,
8:
258:"Discussions need to be clerked to keep them from raising more problems than they solve."
217:
601:
545:
527:
310:
The HMNCP report applies the general idea of standardization in three recommendations:
861:
826:
764:
682:
659:
565:
496:
707:
serious? How can you ever make a decision when you are this biased re non-admins? -
814:
712:
580:
164:
228:
53% avoided making a report due to fearing it would not be handled appropriately
763:
inappropriately to ANI I think that many would be easier to identify and sort.
576:
927:
738:
654:
632:
850:
696:
678:
595:
561:
728:
is something I'd never considered. It's always been a kind of "what jerks
842:
810:
708:
263:
321:
2. Organize complex discussions using argument mapping techniques; and
857:
discussion about improving harassment reporting systems and workflows
834:
749:
734:
628:
555:
Please don't be too hard on the editorial team. You're lucky there
862:
SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative
175:
174:
Zarasophos is currently working on everything related to
297:
an extensive catalogue of findings and recommendations
222:
an analysis of available quantitative data about AN/I
510:If your comment has not appeared here, you can try
208:, which was undertaken by the Wikimedia Foundation
319:1. Offer guidelines for consensus decision making;
925:
202:Community health initiative on English Knowledge
178:. He also recently took up Editing the Signpost.
695:AN/I because they cannot decide & block.
162:
198:Administrators' Incident Noticeboard (AN/I)
806:"Personal attacks are allowed at AN/I").
513:
14:
926:
691:Those "peanut gallery" editors cannot
55:
29:
312:
268:
934:Knowledge Signpost archives 2018-04
72:Admin reports board under criticism
27:
363:
183:
57:
35:
28:
945:
703:in AN/I business and you do take
495:These comments are automatically
290:Oh, and there is a Harvard paper
149:
139:
129:
119:
109:
99:
89:
579:We can use every helping hand.
506:add the page to your watchlist
13:
1:
481:
18:Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost
7:
10:
950:
672:23:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
637:18:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
625:common in some communities
607:14:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
589:17:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
570:17:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
551:03:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
533:02:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
200:, a recent survey by the
870:14:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
819:09:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
777:21:45, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
743:21:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
717:09:50, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
687:02:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
503:. To follow comments,
368:
248:in other circumstances
188:
40:
877:What do you think of
367:
214:Anti-Harassment Tools
187:
39:
883:Share your feedback.
499:from this article's
790:quality of closures
617:did the copyediting
490:Discuss this story
445:WikiProject report
440:Arbitration report
369:
210:Support and Safety
189:
46:← Back to Contents
41:
605:
549:
541:absolutely no way
531:
514:purging the cache
465:Technology report
435:Discussion report
330:
329:
283:
282:
51:View Latest Issue
941:
918:
854:
846:
838:
830:
774:
769:
753:
669:
664:
604:
599:
548:
530:
517:
515:
509:
488:
470:Featured content
390:From the editors
387:
379:
372:
355:
347:
313:
269:
218:boomerang effect
167:
153:
152:
143:
142:
133:
132:
123:
122:
113:
112:
103:
102:
93:
92:
63:
61:
59:
949:
948:
944:
943:
942:
940:
939:
938:
924:
923:
922:
921:
920:
919:
914:
912:
907:
902:
897:
892:
885:
874:
873:
848:
840:
832:
824:
772:
765:
747:
679:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง
667:
660:
593:
562:Kudpung กุดผึ้ง
519:
511:
504:
493:
492:
486:+ Add a comment
484:
480:
479:
478:
380:
375:
373:
370:
359:
358:
353:
350:
345:
339:
338:
292:
260:
243:
230:
193:
192:
181:
169:
168:
161:
160:
159:
150:
140:
130:
120:
110:
100:
90:
84:
81:
70:
66:
64:
54:
53:
48:
42:
32:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
947:
937:
936:
913:
908:
903:
898:
893:
888:
887:
886:
876:
875:
872:
822:
821:
807:
798:
797:
784:
783:
782:
781:
780:
779:
767:Blue Rasberry
760:
756:
721:
720:
719:
662:Blue Rasberry
651:
646:
645:
640:
639:
613:
612:
611:
610:
609:
572:
494:
491:
483:
482:
477:
472:
467:
462:
460:Traffic report
457:
452:
447:
442:
437:
432:
430:Community view
427:
422:
417:
415:Special report
412:
407:
402:
400:News and notes
397:
392:
386:
374:
362:
361:
360:
351:
342:
341:
340:
328:
327:
324:
322:
320:
317:
291:
288:
281:
280:
277:
273:
259:
256:
242:
239:
229:
226:
194:
190:
182:
171:
170:
158:
157:
147:
137:
127:
117:
107:
97:
86:
85:
82:
76:
75:
74:
73:
68:
67:
65:
62:
49:
44:
43:
34:
33:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
946:
935:
932:
931:
929:
917:
911:
906:
901:
896:
891:
884:
880:
871:
867:
863:
858:
852:
844:
836:
828:
820:
816:
812:
808:
804:
800:
799:
795:
791:
786:
785:
778:
775:
770:
768:
761:
757:
751:
746:
745:
744:
740:
736:
731:
727:
722:
718:
714:
710:
706:
702:
698:
694:
690:
689:
688:
684:
680:
675:
674:
673:
670:
665:
663:
656:
652:
648:
647:
642:
641:
638:
634:
630:
626:
622:
618:
614:
608:
603:
602:Seraphimblade
597:
592:
591:
590:
586:
582:
578:
573:
571:
567:
563:
558:
554:
553:
552:
547:
546:Seraphimblade
542:
537:
536:
535:
534:
529:
528:Seraphimblade
525:
516:
507:
502:
498:
487:
476:
473:
471:
468:
466:
463:
461:
458:
456:
453:
451:
448:
446:
443:
441:
438:
436:
433:
431:
428:
426:
423:
421:
418:
416:
413:
411:
408:
406:
403:
401:
398:
396:
393:
391:
388:
384:
378:
377:26 April 2018
371:In this issue
366:
357:
349:
337:
333:
325:
318:
315:
314:
311:
308:
304:
300:
298:
287:
278:
274:
271:
270:
267:
265:
255:
251:
249:
238:
234:
225:
223:
219:
215:
211:
207:
203:
199:
186:
180:
179:
177:
166:
156:
148:
146:
138:
136:
128:
126:
118:
116:
108:
106:
98:
96:
88:
87:
79:
60:
58:26 April 2018
52:
47:
38:
23:
19:
879:The Signpost
878:
827:Bluerasberry
802:
793:
789:
766:
729:
725:
704:
700:
692:
677:moderator'.
661:
621:The Signpost
620:
556:
540:
523:
520:
409:
405:In the media
383:all comments
356:"In focus" →
334:
331:
309:
305:
301:
293:
284:
261:
252:
244:
235:
231:
195:
173:
172:
95:PDF download
916:Suggestions
701:experienced
497:transcluded
145:X (Twitter)
803:reasonable
581:Zarasophos
348:"In focus"
206:The survey
165:Zarasophos
83:Share this
78:Contribute
22:2018-04-26
910:Subscribe
501:talk page
928:Category
905:Newsroom
900:Archives
730:they are
577:Be Bold!
410:In focus
395:Signpost
346:Previous
176:Jadidism
135:Facebook
125:LinkedIn
115:Mastodon
69:In focus
20: |
851:Kudpung
726:to them
697:Kudpung
596:Kudpung
524:already
475:Gallery
420:Opinion
204:found.
843:DePiep
823:Hello
811:DePiep
773:(talk)
709:DePiep
668:(talk)
655:WP:AfD
455:Humour
264:Oshwah
155:Reddit
105:E-mail
31:(ANI).
895:About
425:Op-ed
16:<
890:Home
866:talk
815:talk
739:talk
713:talk
705:them
683:talk
633:talk
627:. ☆
585:talk
566:talk
450:Blog
354:Next
212:and
835:Bri
794:and
750:Bri
735:Bri
693:run
629:Bri
557:was
266::
163:By
80:—
930::
881:?
868:)
847:,
839:,
831:,
817:)
741:)
715:)
685:)
635:)
615:I
587:)
568:)
344:←
326:”
316:“
299:.
279:”
272:“
250:.
224:.
864:(
853::
849:@
845::
841:@
837::
833:@
829::
825:@
813:(
752::
748:@
737:(
711:(
681:(
631:(
598::
594:@
583:(
564:(
518:.
508:.
385:)
381:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
