Requests for Comment/Code of Conduct reform


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * Given that the conversation here has long since waned here and that it would appear that uninvolved Stewards are currently unavailable to action this, I am boldly closing this given that fact that no proposal has less than a 70% support ratio. All sections in this proposal have passed. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 04:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

The Code of Conduct has for a long time been a different kind of policy as it was originally intended for technical spaces but over time has developed into a policy for wikis as well due to the gap of any other policies to prevent inappropriate comments and behavior. Along with the Content Policy RfC it feels necessary to make modifications to the Code of Conduct and make it more appropriate for wikis, since vague requirements like "be nice" have no place as a general rule for all wikis and are rather something for other spaces. These proposals make attempts to have more clarity in terms of what is allowed and what is not. Most proposals are largely based on the current interpretations of the Code of Conduct and are things that are generally seen as unacceptable in a community and are banned by most large platforms. It's probably also noted that (at least in some countries) a lot of the things listed are on the limits of legality if not outright illegal (such as harassment, hate speech and any kind of threats). Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 07:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

EDIT: In order to make a close easier by a Steward, here are proposed model policies: User:Reception123/Model Global Conduct Policy, User:Reception123/Model Volunteer Conduct Policy‎, User:Reception123/Model Miraheze Spaces Code of Conduct‎. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 19:18, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposal initiated by: Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 07:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposal co-initiated by: Agent Isai  Talk to me! 08:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 1 (Miraheze Spaces Code of Conduct)

 * The current Code of Conduct as written is cloned into the Miraheze Spaces Code of Conduct (MSCoC) and applies to all domains where 'Miraheze' as a group has authority. A non-exhaustive list of things this includes are: any IRC channel under the control of Miraheze, such as the the #miraheze- namespace on libera.chat (including #miraheze itself), Phabricator, and Discord. The MSCoC does not strictly apply to wikis but it is recommended that users follow it. A new Global Conduct Policy is created for wikis. In the event that no sub-proposals are approved, the status quo will remain and Proposal 1 does not come into effect.

Explanation: Per the foreword, the original Code of Conduct was not intended to be used on wikis but instead in spaces. As such, this proposal clones the Code of Conduct into a new Miraheze Spaces Code of Conduct and defines its new jurisdiction.

Support (1)

 * 1)  per general explanation and original intentions. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 07:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  The CoC is clearly not meant to be used on wikis so this changes its jurisdiction back to what it originally was intended for.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 08:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 3)  This brings Code of Conduct to a consistent state across all Miraheze platforms. No question, this gets full support from me. NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 15:46, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 4)  This makes sense. I'm down for it. Dt2x (talk) (Special:Contributions/Dt2x) 07:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 5)  Per norm. Spencers (talk) 00:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 6)  It seems preferable that the current CoC is transferred to its initial purpose. --DeeM28 (talk) 07:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 7)  I agree with other opinions.  Hey Türkiye  message?  07:59, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 8)  I agree. —Executive2 (talk) 10:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 9)  I agree Silicona (talk) 11:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 10)  Yes. --Looney Toons (talk) 14:46, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 11)  --VexinVector (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 12)  Agreed. --Blad  (talk • contribs • global) 14:50, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 13) . Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contribs • global • rights) 19:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 14)  Makes sense. --1108-Kiju /Talk  08:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 15)  As per the other explanations Soukupmi  (talk) (✔) 21:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Neutral (1)

 * 1)   What are spaces?  Imamy (talk) 05:54, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  Is this proposal's topic aimed at proposing "a new Global Conduct Policy... created for wikis"? If so the way this proposal is written is unclear as the introductory lines seem to be proposing something else? Perhaps it is the way it is written (or it's just my brain). |  -- FrozenPlum  (Talk / Email) 08:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Oppose (1)

 * 1)  - I would prefer a more hands-off policy, though my main concern is freedom regarding the content of wikis --Metalhead339 (talk) 17:55, 16 November 2022 (CEST)
 * The content of wikis is regulated by the Content Policy, this policy is about user behavior. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 17:05, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments (1)

 * 1)  I like it! Elijah Wilder (talk) 14:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposal 1.1 (Global right holders)

 * The Miraheze Spaces Code of Conduct will apply to all users who hold advanced permissions on Meta and globally, including on all wikis.

Explanation: The MsCoC has some important reminders for advanced permission holders which they should also keep in mind on wiki. The requirements to 'be nice' and 'step down when you no longer have time' will remain for these groups from whom the community expects the highest standards of behavior.

Support (1.1)

 * 1) Makes sense for it to apply to people who represent the community and have responsibilities. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 07:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Advanced permission holders are held to higher standards, these practical but important guidelines are needed. They add no extra burden to us and are important.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 08:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Obvious. OrangeStar (talk) 13:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) No big surprise. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 14:24, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) Restrictions should be "yes, and" for those in greatest trust. Applying the same baseline standard + more to advanced roles makes perfect sense. NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 15:49, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) If we can futher give restrictions via permissions, then this wiki gives admin more freedom then needed. Spencers (talk) 00:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) Yeah let's do this stuff, might make a change in Miraheze for the better. (user|talk) 19:39, 14th of November 2022. (GMT-5)
 * 8) Per above. --DeeM28 (talk) 07:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 9) I agree with other opinions.  Hey Türkiye  message?  08:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 10) I agree. Silicona (talk) 11:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 11) --Executive2 (talk) 12:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 12) --VexinVector (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 13) . Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contribs • global • rights) 19:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 14)  This seems like a positive directive potentially moving Miraheze in a good direction. |  -- FrozenPlum  (Talk / Email) 08:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 15) Like my previous posters I find this a good add. Soukupmi  (talk) (✔) 21:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Neutral (1.1)

 * 1)  Remaining neutral until I understand the points that are made.  Imamy (talk) 06:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  Same as above.

Oppose (1.1)

 * 1)  - I'm concerned for the ramifications this would have towards the content of Wikis --Metalhead339 (talk) 17:58, 16 November 2022 (CEST)

Comments (1.1)

 * 1) "Step back" is no longer considered inclusive language (think of people who don't have legs, for instance.  There's probably some better language on the Volunteer Amnesty Day website.  I suggest a "find and replace" for anywhere in any of the proposals that use this language. Angelyork (talk) 22:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 1.2 (General Conduct amendment)

 * The "General Conduct" section of the MSCoC is amended to the following:


 * Be nice. We're all part of the same community, so be friendly, be welcoming, and be a nice person overall. Be someone that other people want to be around, not avoid. Together, we work to build a project so be a likable person.


 * Be respectful. Disagreement is no excuse for poor manners. We work together to resolve conflict, assume good intentions and do our best to act in an empathic fashion. We don't allow frustration to turn into a personal attack. A community where people feel uncomfortable or threatened is not a productive one and will surely fail. Always assume good faith and work together to resolve disputes or seek assistance if you can't come to an agreement.


 * Harassing others is unacceptable. Harassment hurts others and the project. A hostile environment is tense and one no one wants to be in. Depending on the severity of your actions, you may be warned once or immediately disciplined (muted, quieted, banned, etc.) depending on the medium. If you have a problem with another user, please contact a platform moderator first before escalating the issue. Harassment is never the answer.


 * Ask for help when unsure. Nobody is expected to be perfect in this community. Asking questions early avoids many problems later, so questions are encouraged, though they may be directed to the appropriate forum. Those who are asked should be responsive and helpful, they should never be rude or condescending. Those who hold advanced permissions are expected to ask for help, they aren't perfect either, so they should never be afraid to ask for help.


 * Step down when you no longer have time. If you hold advanced permissions or have some form of responsibility in running community resources (i.e. you're operating a bot or service), be aware of your own constraints. If something occurs in your life and you can no longer find time to devote to your roles, find a way to step down gracefully. If you don't, other people on your team may always await your opinion and stall things waiting for your very delayed review or response. Some users may become discouraged from seeking advanced roles which they would be a perfect fit for because they think the role is adequately staffed when in reality, it needs more active users. By stepping down, you help encourage more users to take up advanced roles which they may be suitable for. Make sure someone can take over for you, and transfer the relevant information (contacts, passwords, etc.) for a smooth transition.

We all go on tangents sometimes, and casual off-topic discussion is fine. However for all of Miraheze's services, if you are a disruption to actual on-topic discussions, you may be removed. Some platforms allow for off-topic discussions and others don't. If you're having an off-topic discussion on a platform that allows for it, make sure to go to the appropriate spot.

In addition to our Content Policy that covers our website, all forms of spam and vandalism are unacceptable.

Our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy apply to services besides our website, where applicable.

Explanation: While the points are the same as on the current Code of Conduct, the explanations behind them have been amplified to bring more clarity on what they mean. For example, the 'be respectful' and 'harassment' section has been extended to recommend contacting platform administrators if you have a problem with someone as an alternative to venting one's anger and the 'harassment' further clarifies types of actions which local platform moderators can take. The 'ask for help' section further exhorts people to seek help where needed. The 'step down' section is made easier to read and adds (very common) examples of what happens when inactive users don't resign.

Support (1.2)

 * 1)  Less vagueness is better and the fact that it no longer applies to wikis makes it possible for it to be more detailed. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 07:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  Much better and clearer wording, this is what we've needed for a while.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 08:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 3)  Agree with everything. OrangeStar (talk) 14:02, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 4)  It's obvious that this should've been addressed earlier. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 14:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 5)  Support overall, added proposed alternate language in comments to the Stepping Down section to say a similar thing in fewer words, as a boon to quick readability. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 16:24, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 6)  It is much clearer than the current version of CoC, and can be helpful for new users. -- JerryHan3 ( T · C · P ) 00:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 7)  without a question per norm. Spencers (talk) 00:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 8)  Similar to the current provisions - no issue. --DeeM28 (talk) 07:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 9)  I want to give the strongest support, these behaviors should never be in Miraheze and the necessary action should be taken.  Hey Türkiye  message?  08:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 10)  I agree. Silicona (talk) 11:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 11) --Executive2 (talk) 12:01, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 12)  Dissentrix (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 13)  The explanations are clear and concise. This works. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contribs • global • rights) 19:17, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 14)  I feel this would be helpful for the user experience, I'd just add that I'd rather wait longer for a response then recieve a frustrated or terse one. Taking a moment to take a breath is always okay in my book, and approaching interactions from a place of positivity motivates me to respond in kind and be patient as a Miraheze user. |  -- FrozenPlum  (Talk / Email) 08:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 15)  Vague policy is bad, so this proposal helps with clarity as the wiki farm are growing, it tends to have more issues cropping up. TF3RDL (talk &#124; contribs &#124; FANDOM &#124; Wikipedia) 14:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 16) While I would have appreciated some highlighting of the exact changes, I fully agree with the explanations. And thus I support it. Soukupmi  (talk) (✔) 21:40, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Neutral (1.2)

 * 1)  I agre on some of this but idk about it (user|talk) 19:42, 14th of November, 2022. (GMT-5)
 * 2)  --VexinVector (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 3)   Remaining neutral until I understand the points that are made.  Imamy (talk) 06:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments (1.2)

 * 1) Adding link to Code of Conduct for those wishing to do side-by-side review.  This block applies to the General Conduct section. NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 16:00, 14 November 2022 (UTC)


 * 1) Adding proposed alternate language on stepping down point, condensing language for readability and conciseness: NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 16:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) Step down when you no longer have time. If you hold advanced permissions or have some form of responsibility in running community resources (i.e. you're operating a bot or service), be aware of your own constraints. If something occurs in your life and you can no longer find time to devote to your roles, find a way to step down gracefully. Holding on to roles without the availability to do them will delay work where your input is needed and discourage other qualified users from applying for the role, seeing no vacancies. By stepping down, you ensure the health of Miraheze and create space for new volunteers. Make sure someone can take over for you, and transfer the relevant information (contacts, passwords, etc.) for a smooth transition.


 * 1) Are there any examples of cultural awareness anywhere that you can reference?  Different people have extremely different understandings of what being courteous means.  What I'm saying should not be used to excuse inappropriate behavior, but this code has the potential to limit Miraheze's volunteer base to people who understand any unwritten rules. Consider defining your terms.  Examples: what is harassment? What is a likeable person? Angelyork (talk) 22:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 1.3 (Enforcement)

 * Local platform administrators will be responsible for enforcing the Miraheze Spaces Code of Conduct.

Support (1.3)

 * 1) Makes sense. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 07:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 2) No issue there, that's the status quo for platforms anyhow.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 08:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) It's the same for local wiki admins/bureaucrats, cross-platform application just makes sense NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 16:13, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 4) If the admins don't want to see behaviors like this, this should happen. Spencers (talk) 00:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) This is sensible. Any alterantive could not work properly as demonstrated by the disbanded CoCC. --DeeM28 (talk) 07:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 6) It makes sense, Local Administrators can take this responsibility.  Hey Türkiye  message?  08:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) I definitely agree.--Executive2 (talk) 12:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 8) agreed. Silicona (talk) 13:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 9) --VexinVector (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 10) Good idea. Money12123 (contribs | CentralAuth) 20:20, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 11) For sure. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contribs • global • rights) 19:21, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 12) Makes sense. | Soukupmi  (talk) (✔) 21:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Neutral (1.3)

 * 1)   Remaining neutral until I understand the points that are made.  Imamy (talk) 06:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 2 (Volunteer Conduct Policy)

 * The Volunteer Conduct Policy (VCP) is an additional conduct policy which is directed to Miraheze volunteers such as local Meta and global permission holders from whom the community holds to a higher standard of conduct.


 * Be courteous. You represent Miraheze (in a way)! Even if you hold low advanced permissions, some users may confuse you for a 'staff' member just because you have an extra button you can press that they can't. Therefore, make sure your conduct reflects well on Miraheze. Be nice and courteous, even if people do annoy you. Remember, we're all part of the same community, so be friendly and be welcoming!


 * Be respectful. Our volunteers are held to higher standards of conduct. Thus, we never let escalate disagreement or frustration into personal attacks or harassment. We, of all people, work together to resolve conflicts, assume good faith, and do our best to act in an empathic fashion - we set the example of how to do this. A hostile environment where people feel uncomfortable or threatened is not a productive one and harms the project, our users, and you. Always assume good faith and work together to resolve disputes amicably or seek assistance if you can't come to an agreement.


 * Be patient. Our users come from all different backgrounds. Some may be very technically inclined and may have no problems understanding your instructions. Others may be completely new to the concept of wikis, wikitext, or even MediaWiki itself. It is important to be patient with them. If possible, guide them through our processes. Don't get annoyed or angry if they don't understand something you may find easy (such as creating a page, using ManageWiki, or basic page formatting) or if they themselves get frustrated when they don't understand things. If you lose patience with someone, let someone else help that user. An outburst of anger will only discourage and hurt the user who will leave the project with an bad impression. Even if a user displays issues with competence, be patient with them or if your patience has reached a limit, simply leave the conversation.


 * Work together in unity. Miraheze is not a one-man show. Our volunteers are what drive the project! Always work amicably with other volunteers. Always seek input from your peers; don't try to take big decisions unilaterally, this has backfired on many in the past. If you have questions regarding things such as how to handle wiki request or handle a case, seek feedback from your fellow peers, don't be afraid to ask. We work together for the benefit of our users, therefore, if you have a disagreement with another volunteer, try to resolve it. If you can't resolve it on your own, contact an immediate superior to you such as an Engineering Manager, a Steward, administrator, bureaucrat, or another user who can help mediate. Even if you don't get along with another volunteer, if you are required to, work together with them for the benefit of our project. Don't be belligerent and don't stir up more issues with them. This only hurts our project, our users and most importantly, you.


 * Don't abuse your power. Use any rights granted to you correctly. Never overstep the boundaries set by policy and never use your powers to harass or intimidate others, 'power show', or to force your view in editorial disputes. If you are unsure about an action, contact a Steward who can help guide you on proper procedure. Overstepping the boundaries set by policy or harassing others will result in your actions being referred to the community for review or immediate revocation in certain cases, as defined by relevant policy. Advanced permission holders should also never show off their rights to impress or intimidate others, this is disrespectful and may be construed as an abuse of power in some circumstances.


 * Ask for help. Don't carry the world on your shoulders. Nobody is be perfect. You of all users are expected to ask for help. This is a team effort so ask for help whenever you need it. Also ask for help if you have a question; asking questions and second opinions early on helps avoid many problems later on. Never be afraid to ask for help!

Explanation: While drafting this entire Request for Comments, some of the clauses within this proposal were originally in the new MSCoC as it was envisioned that the MSCoC could also apply to advanced permission holders at all times, even on wiki. The wording on these clauses began to feel improper to apply to regular users too and began to become too specific to those who hold some sort of responsibility or advanced permission but it was necessary that that be said. As such, this new volunteer-oriented conduct policy was created with vital clauses such as "be patient." This new conduct policy exhorts some simple but vital things that we Miraheze volunteers should keep in mind at all times such as teamwork, seeking others input, asking for help, being patient, and more. You may notice that some of the clauses in the VCP may seem similar to ones in the MSCoC but in comparison to the ones in the MSCoC, these clauses are modified to be more specific to our volunteers (such as the 'be respectful' clause which encourages volunteers to set the example of how to resolve issues).

Support (2)

 * 1)  It's a good idea to hold advanced permission holders to higher standards. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 07:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  This is extremely important to have for volunteers. We are held to higher standards so having this to remind us and exhort this from us is important. As I stated in proposal 1, this adds no extra burden to us and in fact, we should already be practicing what this proposal states.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 08:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Actions by Meta right-holders (as the "main" wiki of Miraheze, where people come to request wikis and read info about the project) and global administrators can have a lot of impact on global and local communities. Holding them to a higher standard is obvious. OrangeStar (talk) 14:06, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 4)  The proposed volunteer policy codifies existing norms in a clear way. +1 for clarity! --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 16:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 5) Those rules can work very well with our community. Without it, who's going to be the boss? Spencers (talk) 00:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 6)  Volunteers must be held to high standards as they de facto represent Miraheze and them not being considerate and helpful would be a negative for Miraheze's image as a whole. --DeeM28 (talk) 07:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 7)  I support it being done, it makes perfect sense.  Hey Türkiye  message?  08:04, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 8) --Executive2 (talk) 12:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 9)  This is definitely warranted. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:16, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 10)  agreed Silicona (talk) 13:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 11)  Dissentrix (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 12)  Absolutely. If you're volunteering, it's necessary to have a higher standard. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contribs • global • rights) 19:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 13)   Imamy (talk) 06:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 14)  The principles here seem solid and sensible. |  -- FrozenPlum  (Talk / Email) 08:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 15) Yes, I like. | Soukupmi  (talk) (✔) 21:46, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Neutral (2)

 * 1)  --VexinVector (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments (2)

 * 1) For those looking for an existing Volunteer code of conduct, this is 100% new policy that codifies existing norms. :) --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 16:27, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 2.1 (Enforcement)

 * Stewards, along with Meta administrators and bureaucrats for roles they oversee, will be in charge of enforcing this policy on wiki. Platform moderators will enforce this on their respective platforms.

Explanation:

Support (2.1)

 * 1)  Makes sense. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 07:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  No objections, reasonable.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 08:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 3)  It's not like anyone else can enforce it anyway. OrangeStar (talk) 16:34, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 4)  Clear and appropriate delegation and designation of tasks. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 16:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 5)  This rule makes absolutely perfect sense in the way admins can enforce wiki. We need features like this. Otherwise, who's going to implement it? Spencers (talk) 00:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 6)  Per above. --DeeM28 (talk) 07:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 7)  I support it being done, it makes perfect sense.  Hey Türkiye  message?  08:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 8) --Executive2 (talk) 12:15, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 9)  This should've been done ages ago to be perfectly blunt. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 10) agreed Silicona (talk) 12:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 11) . Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contribs • global • rights) 19:25, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 12)  Very reasonable. |  -- FrozenPlum  (Talk / Email) 08:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 13) Makes sense. | Soukupmi  (talk) (✔) 21:47, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Neutral (2.1)

 * 1)  --VexinVector (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)   Not sure if I understand what bureaucrat means in this context.  Not sure what context is implied for the whole point.  As a bureaucrat for my wiki, not sure how I can enforce anything.  Imamy (talk) 06:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 3 (Global Conduct Policy)

 * The Global Conduct Policy is a global conduct policy that applies individually to all users on all wikis. This new policy governs the conduct of users and what behavior is unacceptable.

Proposal 3.1 (Harassment)

 * Harassment of other users is unacceptable. In order for something to fall under this section, it usually requires a pattern of behavior rather than a single instance or event, but in some instances a single instance may be enough. Harassment defined in this Global Conduct Policy includes those set forth below, but are not limited to:
 * Personal attacks, violence, threats of violence, or deliberate intimidation.
 * Offensive, derogatory, or discriminatory comments.
 * Gratuitous or off-topic use of sexual language or imagery.
 * Inappropriate or unwanted public or private communication, following, or any form of stalking.
 * Disclosure or threatening to disclose a person's identity or other private information without their consent. Disclosure of some identifying information is not consent to disclose other identifying information.
 * Inappropriate or unwanted publication of private communications. Publishing or reporting private communication or personally identifying information for the purposes of reporting harassment (as explained here) is acceptable.
 * Discrimination, particularly against marginalized and otherwise underrepresented groups. Targeted outreach to such groups is allowed and encouraged.
 * Reporting users for purposes other than reporting genuine violations of global policies (e.g., retaliating against a reporter or victim by filing a report claiming their response was harassment).
 * Repeated failures to handle harassment appropriately despite proper warnings by global functionaries

Explanation: This section is part of the current Code of Conduct. This new revision has only slightly modified this list by removing mentions of defunct bodies such as the Code of Conduct Commission.

Support (3.1)

 * 1)  As currently defined in the CoC, behavior above is clearly unacceptable and have no place on Miraheze. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 07:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  A new conduct policy is very much needed! This section of the current CoC is important to have in a new conduct policy.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 08:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 3)  Obvious. OrangeStar (talk) 16:36, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 4)  I support, but it looks like one of the 'harassment definition' bullets was removed inadvertently.  See comments. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 17:27, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 5)  per all --The user who loves human heads on alien/animal bodies in cartoons for no reason (talk to me uwu!) 18:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 6)  HIBs (Harassers, Imitators, and Bulliers) are very unwelcome in this community. Whoever does these things violates our policy of respect. A hugely support for this idea and hope this gets implemented. Spencers (talk) 00:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 7)  It largely represents the previous policy and the fact that it mentions that in certain cases even a signle instance can be enough is a good advance. I weakly oppose as I am slightly concerned about the concern raised by Agiletek below. --DeeM28 (talk) 07:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 8)  I support it being done, it makes perfect sense.  Hey Türkiye  message?  08:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 9) --Executive2 (talk) 12:16, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 10)  People who create accounts for the purpose of harassing, hounding (or worse, slandering) someone don't deserve any of my respect if this is repeated behavior. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 11)   --VexinVector (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 12)  Per my rationale for "hate speech" below. Rules like these are often far too vague and allow bad-faith actors to take advantage of them. I appreciate the consistency, and the clear statements. Dissentrix (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 13)  agreed Silicona (talk) 12:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 14) . Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contribs • global • rights) 19:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 15)   Imamy (talk) 06:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 16)  Also another sensible ammendment given the other proposals and discussion. |  -- FrozenPlum  (Talk / Email) 08:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 17) Makes sense. | Soukupmi  (talk) (✔) 21:49, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose (3.1)

 * 1)  "particularly against marginalized and otherwise underrepresented groups"? Very vague and uneven. We're part of the same community, but some are more equal than others? Agiletek (talk) 06:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you possibly explain how they're vague? --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's pretty obvious: Marginalized according too who? Underrepresented according to who? Agiletek (talk) 07:39, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's pretty obvious what groups it's talking about. OrangeStar (talk) 13:43, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 1)  Agreed with Agiletek's rationale. --GentlemensDame883 (talk) 07:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * While you both aren't wrong about you 2 being in the same community, could either of you provide examples on how some are more equal than the others? --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 1)  Ok this sounds like racism to me, who agrees? (User:DudemanTheDude|User talk:DudemanTheDude) 19:28, 15th of November, 2022. (GMT-5)
 * I don't. Can you explain how this is racism? OrangeStar (talk) 13:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I also do not. This is about harassment, and not about who is equal or not. Spencers (talk) 12:21, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 1)  - Agreed with Agiletek's rationale + I see a certain political bias, towards which I'm opposed + this could be abused by overzealous social activists who aren't even members of any marginalized groups -- Metalhead339 (talk) 18:01, 16 November 2022 (CEST)
 * Can you point out the political bias in the proposal? OrangeStar (talk) 13:51, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This proposal sounds biased in favour of certain political groups/ideologies (which I shall not name) that are hell-bent on eliminating free speech in the name of "inclusivity" and "tolerance" (while completely lacking any tolerance towards political dissent). Any emphasis on "marginalized and otherwise underrepresented groups" is just begging for abuse by certain overzealous social activists... though, some admins have pointed out that the rule doesn't extend to them. -- Metalhead339 (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2022 (CEST)
 * You used the term "social justice warriors" in another comment, I don't know why you felt the need to censor what ideologies you're talking about in this comment, when you've already made clear who you're talking about. Whether or not underrepresented groups are mentioned or not doesn't change how this will be enforced, it exists to make clear that we won't allow content harassing them in the wikifarm. What you're mentioning is a practice known as wikilawyering (applying the rules as written instead of the spirit behind them), which is frowned upon basically universally on the wiki world, including here. OrangeStar (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments (3.1)
Harming the discussion or community with methods such as sustained disruption, interruption, or blocking of community collaboration (i.e. trolling).
 * It appears the following bullet was removed, was this intentional/did this get merged into another bullet? --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 17:27, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe that's covered under section 8 of the Terms of Use, in that such activities - if sustained - are "illegal in the United Kingdom". If so, then it wouldn't need to be duplicated in the Code of Conduct. --Robkelk (talk) 22:40, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This tracks, after review. If that's the majority interpretation too I'm good with that. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 23:18, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This might be efficient, but I can't say it's the majority interpretation. As a user who is not a citizen of the United Kingdom, I'm not familiar with UK's laws and policies, so I think we still need this paragraph that is easier for international users to understand. -- JerryHan3 ( T · C · P ) 00:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The reason why it should be duplicated in the Code of Conduct is because we should not have to have Stewards go interpret UK laws or even have to involve Trust and Safety in any case where there is a potential violation of UK laws because we have no additional community rules about the topic. I believe it is desirable to have an even higher level of protection than the law offers especially since it differs in every country. --DeeM28 (talk) 07:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright, DeeM28 clinched it, this clause needs to go back in now in my view. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 15:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Those with the strongest opposition, please this is about harassment, not explaining that people are more equal. They explained it all. Spencers (talk) 12:25, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This point reads as if it allows discrimination against majority groups (such as white or straight people): "Discrimination, particularly against marginalized and otherwise underrepresented groups. Targeted outreach to such groups is allowed and encouraged." Users should not discriminate against anyone, regardless of their race or sexual orientation. I'd suggest changing it to this: "Discrimination against another person or a group of people based on their race, sexual orientation, etc." Tali64³ (talk) 23:55, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 3.2 (Inappropriate behavior)
Explanation: This is intended for situations where it is not clear that harassment is occurring (as that's a serious charge) but where the behavior is still unacceptable. This should be strictly interpreted.
 * Other than the rules outlined above, users may not behave in such a way which makes people feel threatened and uncomfortable. Such behavior may include: repeated personal attacks towards multiple users, casting aspersions, making false accusations, attributing statements to users without them having been made.

Support (3.2)

 * 1)  Sometimes there are users who manage to be just under the definition of harassment but which still cause a majority of people to feel uncomfortable. This should obviously not be lightly enforced but it should be clear that the behavior mentioned is still not acceptable. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 07:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  I agree with Reception123, that sort of behavior should not be accepted.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 08:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 3)  Language is ambiguous, but so is the behavior it hopes to capture.  Adding weak support. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 17:29, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 4)  That also belongs to HIBs Spencers (talk) 00:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 5)  While in principle this behavior is not one we should accept this proposal is indeed quite vague and there is a risk that it could be used in retaliation against a user who people simply don't "like". I would insist that it should be strictly intrepreted and no one should be given a block or even a global lock unless a threashold really is met. --DeeM28 (talk) 07:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 6)  I support it being done, it makes perfect sense.  Hey Türkiye  message?  08:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) --Executive2 (talk) 12:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 8)  Harassment should NEVER be taken lightly, at all. PERIOD. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 9) --VexinVector (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 10)  because I think it will help stop the trolls. Weak because it may be very harsh and too strict, but for now I support --The user who loves human heads on alien/animal bodies in cartoons for no reason (talk to me uwu!) 17:18, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 11)  Dissentrix (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 12)  agreed much Silicona (talk) 12:51, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 13)  Fully agree. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contribs • global • rights) 19:28, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 14)   Imamy (talk) 06:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 15)  I'm in agreement with DeeM28, I support this of course, though the wording is a bit vague. While I absolutely understand its intent, the wording "uncomfortable" is problematic. It's hard to account for people's feelings, particularly in cases that perhaps those feelings do not seem entirely logical or rational to the average person or especially larger groups of people, such as local wiki bureacrats, admins etc. E.g., A problematic repeat editor having edits reversed and/or corrected (out of necessity for maintaining a high standard of content quality per local policies) may end up end up feeling "uncomfortable" despite us providing help, tips, resources, and assistance. If it happens repeatedly they may think they're being targeted when they just don't adhere to our much tighter rules than say a Fandom wiki (which is quite loose in acceptable editing behavior). It has occured in the past, it'll likely occur again. Some refined controls on this for wikis to handle things locally as long as is reasonably appropriate (without higher intervetion) would seem essential. Also, not all communication happens on-wiki, wiki "staff" volunteers are often privy to more background and other communication channels on group maintained wikis. Threats in any form should not be tolerated, nor generally normally unacceptable behavior--though again, normally accepted behavior say on Fandom differs greatly from normally accepted behavior for the sub-policies we have on our wiki locally (we're much more discerning). |  -- FrozenPlum  (Talk / Email) 08:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 16) Weak and very open to interpretation while absolutely necessary. It will heavily depend on how this will be enforced. No editor should be able to call this title just because their edits were undone often. So I share the concerns of the others. | Soukupmi  (talk) (✔) 21:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 3.3 (Hate speech)

 * Hate speech is not allowed. Examples include but are not limited to: using racist, homophobic or other derogatory language towards a person or group of people.

Explanation: Most types of hate speech are prohibited by UK law so Miraheze has that legal obligation anyhow but this proposal seeks to codify the status quo into the new Conduct policy to make it clear to users that this is not allowed versus them thinking perhaps it is if they're under the impression that it is. While the current Code of Conduct and the harassment section does prohibit hate speech indirectly when used in harassment, this new proposal explicitly prohibits its usage in all contexts when directed to people. This is pretty reasonable as we don't want to harbor hate on the platform.

Support (3.3)

 * 1)  These kind of things have no place on Miraheze and some are even illegal under UK law. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 07:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  Pretty straightforward, no issue with this. This is common sense.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 08:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 3) Harassment, personal attacks and general toxicity are big no-no for the platform and it should be dealt as quickly as possible. I don't see why not. TF3RDL (talk &#124; contribs &#124; FANDOM &#124; Wikipedia) 10:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 4)  While this is covered in generalities by earlier conduct points, it's worth a clear and exact statement --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 17:42, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 5)  Again, also belongs to HIBs, but can be also racist, sexist, or more. I totally agree. Spencers (talk) 00:27, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 6)  This is obvious. You can't use your right to harm others. -- JerryHan3 ( T · C · P ) 02:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 7)  While many these days view themselves as "free speech absolutists" there simply cannot be justification for allowing hate based on race or sexual orientation. This should obviously not cover criticism of something but not where it incites to hatred. --DeeM28 (talk) 07:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 8)  I support it being done, it makes perfect sense.  Hey Türkiye  message?  08:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 9) --Executive2 (talk) 12:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 10)  Should be obvious why I'm putting in my strong support here. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 11)  Obvious. OrangeStar (talk) 13:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 12)  To counterract all the people in the "oppose" section. It's absolutely disgusting that this even needs to be asked. Sabkv (talk) 15:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 13)  --VexinVector (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 14)  Hate speech is not part of free speech. I'm free to show a fist, but not to plant it on someone's face. How difficult can it be. Pepijnk (talk) 23:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 15)  It's pretyy obvious why, hate speech should be banned from this site. ([[User talk:DudemanTheDude) 19:36, 15th of November, 2022. (GMT-5)
 * 16)  per obvious reasons --The user who loves human heads on alien/animal bodies in cartoons for no reason (talk to me uwu!) 15:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 17)  Here to add my voice to this - let's not have the website encourage the kind of stuff we see on Parler or Gab via the excuse of "hands-off moderation", m'kay? I'd rather not have this become some neo-Nazi meetup spot, or I'd have second thoughts about contributing. Dissentrix (talk) 17:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 18)  There is no room for hate speech at Miraheze that can drive away non-bigoted users and allow hate-infested bigots to say whatever they like under the guise of "free speech." Hate speech is not harmless and turns otherwise pleasant communities into toxic sludge. Shiningflair (talk) 04:31, 17 November 2022‎ (UTC)
 * 19)  You know the analogy of letting a neonazi that doesn't cause trouble into your bar and all of a sudden your bar is the nazi bar? Yeah, that. Anpoca (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 20)  Hate speech has no place here. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contribs • global • rights) 19:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 21)   Imamy (talk) 06:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 22)  This seems a necessary given. |  -- FrozenPlum  (Talk / Email) 08:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 23) Makes sense. Absolutely. | Soukupmi  (talk) (✔) 21:56, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 24) Personally, I'd say yes to this. While yes, there is the argument that hate speech does fall under free speech but remember that Miraheze is a British organization (I think) and even if we live in a different country, we should still follow the site's rules and we really don't need Miraheze's reputation ruined. Snorunt (talk) 02:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose (3.3)

 * 1) I can't support it, and in fact I feel myself in need to oppose it, because I believe speech must be free even if I do not agree with it. Speech by itself is harmless. HornyLikeIAmA14YearOldGirl (talk) 23:00, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a quite common response, and I can see where it comes from, considering most Mirahezians opposing are likely in America. However, Miraheze is based in the UK. The UK has hate speech laws, and obviously Miraheze is not above the law, like it or not. --Blad  (talk • contribs • global) 22:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Free speech doesn't apply to Miraheze, the Miraheze community not allowing people to start wikis dedicated to harassing racial and gender groups isn't ending their freedom of speech. May I also add I disagree with your view that speech is just speech. Hate groups that start online are, too, just speech, until it isn't. Examples of this are the QAnon movement, a movement started by a 4chan troll that ended up inspiring violent attacks. Another one is the Incel movement. It is my view that not only do we not have an obligation of giving these people an online platform, it is our moral obligation to reject them in Miraheze. They are free to spew their bullshit elsewhere, just not here. OrangeStar (talk) 14:05, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Any actual problems this would ever hope to resolve are covered under policy against harassment, and instead creates problems by using the term "Hate Speech", which is a political bludgeon, not an actual thing, that changes as those in authority need it to to bludgeon a new target. Words existing do not harm: Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me. Further at least one Miraheze wiki covers a wide variety of media and this prohibits including dialog from many of works of media, even those of significant cultural importance. Agiletek (talk) 06:27, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It may be a 'political blugdeon' in the United States but in most countries in the European Union and the United Kingdom hate speech is prohibited especially in the context of race. While it may not be part of the United States' norm it is European nations as they accept that free speech should not encroach on other people's rights and that there must be limits to free speech. --DeeM28 (talk) 07:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * To add on to this, users should remember that Miraheze is a British entity, not American. Hate speech laws in Britain do restrict most types of speech which would be considered 'hate'. The status quo will probably not change whether this proposal passes or not which is that we don't allow that sort of speech due to legal restrictions. This proposal formally sought to codify this in the platform but this does not get rid of the legal obligations we face. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 13:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That's why you be up-front about the legal issues and simply use the older fallback of "We will do X and Y as required by law of " and "Your use of this website should not violate of " rather than add vague and abusable sections to the ToS. Agiletek (talk) 07:37, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This isn't an amendment to the Terms of Use (whose breaking would entitle you to the most severe of punishments, a global ban), this is an addition to the user conduct policy. Stewards, who enforce this policy and are elected by the community, are under constant community scrutiny and the community can demote them for reason. Unlike other wiki farms like Fandom where you can't see 'staff' actions, all our actions are logged here on Meta from global locks to wiki deletions, etc., it'd be hard for a Steward to abuse this without anyone batting an eye. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 15:06, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Agreed with previous opposers' rationales, and adding that as someone from outside the West looking in, after the cases of Darren Brady, Harry Miller etc., I look askance at "encroaching on others' rights", "causing anxiety" and all that sort of excuse for chilling effects. --GentlemensDame883 (talk) 08:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * First of all, no one mentioned "causing anxiety" and that's not what hate speech is about. Second, it should be pointed out that in the UK where Miraheze is located some forms of hate speech and racial hatred are illegal meaning that even if this section were not to pass it would still be banned by the ToU. Third, I understand views in the US about this matter but it has to be said that it's an outlier when it comes to full absolute free speech with no qualification. And lastly, we're not trying to ban a whole range of things here, we're just after statements like "I hate X because you have X skin color", "I hate X because they are X orientation/gender". Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 13:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) I hope that it's OK to write my own opinions here, I made sure it said "all registered users" before adding my thoughts, I agree with all of the opposing voices here. I do live inside the USA, and freedom of speech is essential to democracy and there are far too many websites policing what we say these days. Words are wind, and no one should be prevented from saying them, within reason of course. But using language like this, including "encroaching on others' rights" could be used to mean literally anything. What does that even mean? How does saying words encroach on another's rights? There is no right to NOT be offended. That doesn't exist, nor should it. Trying to make a world where you're not affecting someone else's emotions is absurd, the "offensiveness" of someone's speech is a highly subjective opinion and will differ from person to person. --Talentlessneckbeardgamer (talk) 11:04, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * As another resident of the US, freedom of speech is not a principle that is possible to follow to outer boundaries of the first amendment for any platform on the internet unless it wants to have the stability and reputation of Kiwi Farms. Now to argue on the overriding fact: this, in all its vagueness, comes down as actual law in the United Kingdom, and platform Stewards are bound to address it on a legal basis even if there is ambiguity in definition. Because the hole in that ambiguity may very likely be filled with a lawsuit Miraheze is in no position of fighting on its user's behalf. Support or oppose, the principle will remain regardless of consensus: the fundamental remains at a legal level to be interpreted. Which I agree is not ideal, but that is what it is. I can only promise that Miraheze operators tend to be conservative in using definitions, only using them for things that cause genuine issues. Ie, encroachment on rights would likely be taken literally and an exceptional use of the policy especially as Miraheze in turn is not governed by at times rabid American political boundaries. --Raidarr (talk) 12:00, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I see many opposers are concentrating on the fact that supposedly the proposal is against people being offended. That is not at all true, it is very specifically about hate speech (see my comment above as well). Why should it be justified for people to be able to claim "I don't like X person because of their skin color?". It's not about a specific person being offended. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 13:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I find your reasoning very flawed. First, the US First Amendment applies only to the US Federal Government and US State Governments. As a UK company, Miraheze is free to censor, and deny a platform to, whatever speech or people it wishes to. We shouldn't shape our global policies around it as if it's a law that we actually have to honor. On another note, the websites that do follow a First Amendment-style approach to moderation tend to be, well, pretty horrible websites. OrangeStar (talk) 13:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Freedom of speech is important and needs to be uphold. 44cckw (talk) 18:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Please see my comment above, there's no such thing as freedom of speech in Miraheze. Platforms that accept the kind of content that this proposal is trying to ban are, inevitably, toxic places that end up, by their very nature, driving out non-bigoted contributors. Please argue why you think Miraheze should provide a platform to these people. OrangeStar (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Hate speech here is ill-defined. Does it mean, for example, (1) "derogatory speech directed at a specific person or group because they are that person or group"? (2) "hate speech as defined in current UK law"? (3) "disagreement with something someone strongly believes"? (4) anything "perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by hostility"? (4) came from a not-too-ancient guideline by the UK College of Policing, so it's a relevant question here.  Going by the current atmosphere at Miraheze I suspect it's either (1) or (2), in which case I would not oppose it if this was clarified.  As it stands the rule looks open to abuse. Haggishunter (talk) 14:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 1 and 2 are intended (and the status quo), 3 and 4 were not even thought of until this mention and I didn't think that people could even claim disagreement is hate speech. If passed, Stewards would only enforce this clause in the sense of 1 and 2. In case voters are unaware, Stewards (the head honchos of Miraheze, who are elected by the community) are under community scrutiny at all times so if we did enforce it in the sense of 3 and 4, we would get our rights revoked. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 15:06, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 1)  - I support free speech, and I believe that no group is above criticism + I fear that an anti-hate-speech policy may be abused towards continent that merely offends certain overly sensitive and overzealous social activists (who aren't even members of any marginalized groups) -- Metalhead339 (talk) 18:04, 16 November 2022 (CEST)
 * Free speech doesn't exist to the extent in the UK compared to America, where Miraheze is hosted, and as such, American laws don't apply to Miraheze --Blad  (talk • contribs • global) 17:37, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's not get things wrong either. Free speech does exist in the UK, it's something that is very valued. It just doesn't exist to the extent that it does in the US, in the UK and other European countries it's considered that free speech is not absolute and should be limited in certain situations. I think it was made pretty clear that this wouldn't extend to "overzealous social activists".  Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 18:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I corrected myself, thank you for pointing that out. --Blad  (talk • contribs • global) 18:59, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments (3.3)

 * 1) Opposers, hate speech is illegal in Europe, please keep in mind of this. Spencers (talk) 12:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This is quite true. Many European nations have many laws on hate speech. For some, especially Americans, this may be new all speech is protected in the US. Because Miraheze is a British entity, we either way cannot host most types of hate speech due to legal restrictions. This proposal formally codifies what is already the status quo. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 13:05, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * In the UK, the law is probably not as strict as many other European countries (such as France or Germany who also make Holocaust denial illegal as an example) but it still covers most of the aspects of this proposal per the link provided by Agent. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 13:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, that makes sense, but that does not change the fact that hate speech is illegal so why do people oppose this proposal? Spencers (talk) 22:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * People oppose because they see the buzzword and have a strong reaction, often from backgrounds of political examples where the term was employed too liberally. Even if the admittedly somewhat nebulous concept had even more examples than now, there would be scruples about application. The 'freedom of speech' misconception also runs strong in certain elements of the community, together making a crowd that will likely oppose even if they understand the legal foundations at play here which I suspect isn't the case anyway. That this section would run into controversy is probably to be expected. Alas, failure of this proposal would only make for confusion when the fundamentals are enforced by necessity. I suspect if the same idea was proposed in different words with the same examples, something not as subject to partisanship, there would be less controversy. --Raidarr (talk) 00:43, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hate speech is confused with freedom of speech, opposers said. This is a controversial section containing supporters' and opposers' opinions and, sometimes, one side attacks another, which violates harassment (so as hate speech). Spencers (talk) 11:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hate speech is, I think, pretty well-defined in those countries that restrict it. It is not well-defined in the proposal. Some of those political examples where the term was applied too liberally were in the UK, so it's understandable if people are worried about unintended consequences. Haggishunter (talk) 14:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the political reasons are irreverent to this proposal (I do understand that people are worried about it, though). It still doesn't matter if it's worrying people for political reasons, hate speech still should not start in the first place (especially in Europe, Asia, and even the United Nations think it's illegal and/or separated from freedom of speech). Please, these opposers need to understand that hate speech is illegal in most places. Spencers (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * In fact, it's illegal in most Asia countries too. Also, according to the United Nation, hate speech "may threaten social peace", and should be excluded from the protection of speech freedom. -- JerryHan3 ( T · C · P ) 13:13, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * However, this article reveals another reason for opposing this part, because opposers may concern that "attempts to curb hate speech may silence dissent and opposition", and I think we should further clarify the rules in this aspect. -- JerryHan3 ( T · C · P ) 13:13, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I live in Hungary, a country that DOES have laws against hate-speech. My main concern isn't even what is legally considered hate-speech, but the fact that anti-hate-speech rules will inevitably get abused by overzealous social activists. I run a wiki about a fictional fantasy world, I don't want any social justice warriors get it deleted because my stories may or may not have X-phobic or Y-philic subtext according to some. I want some guarantee, that only genuine legally-defined hate-speech gets punished, and not whatever upsets the terminally online social activists. --Metalhead339 (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2022 (CEST)
 * If you're worried about your wiki being taken down then you're worrying about the wrong policy. The Content Policy applies to wikis, not the Code of Conduct, so this entire proposal will not affect the policy on what's allowed or not. Agent Isai  Talk to me! 17:44, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about Dog whistle (politics) when talking about subtext? OrangeStar (talk) 14:38, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 3.4 (Personal threats)

 * Personal threats are not allowed. Examples include but are not limited to: death threats, threats of injury, threats of violence.

Explanation: While the current Code of Conduct and the harassment section does prohibit this indirectly, this new proposal explicitly prohibits threats even when made outside of direct harassment. Threats in general against one's safety have no place here.

Support (3.4)

 * 1)  Per explanation. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 07:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  No issues with this.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 08:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 3)  Clear and unambiguous.  --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 17:43, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 4)  Can also be defined as HIBs, but also, can also lead to prison time if it really happens. In summary, watch your thoughts people. Spencers (talk) 00:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 5)  I think it was already under the harassment section but I am fine with allowing it to stay here. --DeeM28 (talk) 07:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 6)  I support it being done, it makes perfect sense.  Hey Türkiye  message?  08:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) --Executive2 (talk) 12:19, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 8)  Personal threats like that have no place here. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 9)  --VexinVector (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 10)  Clear and necessary. -- JerryHan3 ( T · C · P ) 12:35, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 11)  Obvious. OrangeStar (talk) 13:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 12)  because it keeps users safe. --The user who loves human heads on alien/animal bodies in cartoons for no reason (talk to me uwu!) 17:06, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 13)  Per common sense. No reason anyone should be intimidated, or feel any sort of threat to their well-being, on a collaborative website like this. Dissentrix (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 14)  Of course. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contribs • global • rights) 19:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 15)  This seems common sense and I agree, necessary. |  -- FrozenPlum  (Talk / Email) 08:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 16)  Imamy (talk) 09:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 17) Common sense. | <span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,#283cbd,#9030b0);-webkit-background-clip:text!important;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">Soukupmi  (talk) (✔) 22:00, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 3.5 (Standards)

 * Global and local functionaries (i.e. Stewards, administrators, etc.) are held to a higher standard than other community members. They should also not misuse their permissions to harass or intimidate others. If these groups violate this policy, they should expect less leeway than others.

Explanation: Global and local functionaries should be held to a higher standard of conduct hence their positions. This clause makes it clear that they should not expect extra leeway but instead, less leeway.

Support (3.5)

 * 1)  Per comments made above. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 07:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  Per my comments on proposal 2. People with elevated permissions should be held to a higher degree of scrutiny and should be given less leeway because of their elevated positions.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 08:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 3)  Partially covered by proposed Volunteer code of conduct, but worth stating explicitly. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 17:50, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 4)  Per number 2, which, in conclusion, belongs to HIBs. Spencers (talk) 00:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 5)  As with politicians in real life it is fully sensible to hold those who have chosen to have more responsibility to higher standards. --DeeM28 (talk) 07:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 6)  I support it being done, it makes perfect sense.  Hey Türkiye  message?  08:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) --Executive2 (talk) 12:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 8)  Reception123 has it all written here, and there's no denying that harassment of any kind is unacceptable behavior. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 9)  --VexinVector (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 10)  I agree. OrangeStar (talk) 13:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 11)  Dissentrix (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 12)  Seems verbatim as above, but fully agree again. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contribs • global • rights) 19:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 13)  Seems pretty standard and common sense. |  -- FrozenPlum  (Talk / Email) 08:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 14)  Imamy (talk) 06:18, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 15) Same reasoning as part 2. | <span style="background:linear-gradient(90deg,#283cbd,#9030b0);-webkit-background-clip:text!important;-webkit-text-fill-color:transparent;">Soukupmi  (talk) (✔) 22:02, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 3.6 (Enforcement)

 * Local administrators are responsible for enforcing the Code of Conduct. This may include: reverting revisions, hiding revisions, warning users, blocking users, etc.
 * As per their role descriptions, Stewards and Global Sysops may enforce the Global Conduct Policy where necessary.

Support (3.6)

 * 1)  Makes sense, in line with CP rules. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 07:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  Reasonable and it's the status quo already.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 08:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 3)  Another codification of existing norm, fully support. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 17:51, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 4)  Beyond full support because HIBs reverse these consequences for behaviors. Spencers (talk) 00:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 5)  Local communities are the main people responsible for their wiki and its content. --DeeM28 (talk) 07:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 6)  I support it being done, it makes perfect sense.  Hey Türkiye  message?  08:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) --Executive2 (talk) 12:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 8)  --VexinVector (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 9)  makes sense Rebel Agent (talk) 20:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC) Striker per Requests for comment Policy, account was made after RfC published. --<span style="font-weight: bold; background:linear-gradient(#ff00ff,#c800c8,purple,#c800c8,#ff00ff);; -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent">Blad  (talk • contribs • global) 23:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 10)  Yep. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contribs • global • rights) 19:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 11)  Yes, another given for me as it makes perfect sense. |  -- FrozenPlum  (Talk / Email) 08:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 12)  Imamy (talk) 06:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposal 3.7 (Sanctions)

 * Local administrators are in principle free to decide what sanctions to apply to users who violate this policy. In certain situations, if Stewards believe that the sanction imposed is very disproportionate to the violation and/or the harm done, they may modify the sanction imposed
 * If a user violates this policy on multiple wikis, they may be globally locked.

Explanation: This allows for local administrators to handle sanctions instead of dictating "If X then Y" in an arbitrary fashion. This is also helpful as it allows Stewards to lock accounts which clearly violate this policy across multiple wikis (such accounts are typically, almost 101% of the times, trolls, vandals, or both).

Support (3.7)

 * 1)  Makes sense, in line with CP rules. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 07:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 2)  Local administrators are usually reasonable so I trust they can hand out sanctions appropriately.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 08:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 3)  I believe I understand intent of this point, but will ask in comments to confirm.  --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 17:53, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 4)  Makes sense, but most admins are reasonable. Spencers (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 5)  Reasonable to give priority to local wikis while allowing for intervention if necessary given that the policy is a global one. --DeeM28 (talk) 07:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 6)  I support it being done, it makes perfect sense.  Hey Türkiye  message?  08:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 7) --Executive2 (talk) 12:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 8)  Oh trust me, I had to deal with this a lot. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 9)  --VexinVector (talk) 17:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 10)  Dissentrix (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 11)  Yeah. Thanks - BrandonWM (talk • contribs • global • rights) 19:32, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 12)  Sober second thoughts are necessary sometimes as we all have our moments. |  -- FrozenPlum  (Talk / Email) 08:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 13)  I don't fully understand.  However, I will support because it can't hurt to try finding a new way to do things, especially if it works.  Imamy (talk) 06:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Oppose (3.7)

 * 1)  Oh boy, that will ruin Miraheze's reputation. Am0ngU$ (talk)
 * How so? Agent Isai  Talk to me! 22:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh boy, how is it going to ruin Miraheze's reputation? Spencers (talk) 22:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments (3.7)

 * 1) To clarify intent said another way: "Local admins have jurisdiction to decide outcomes for bad behavior, but we will step in if the outcome is insufficient (too weak or too strong) given the offense and its impact.  If (the offender?  the local admin?) keeps (offending? making bad judgement calls?) on multiple wikis they may be globally locked."  I guess I'm mostly looking for clarification on that last point. --NotAracham (talk • contribs • global) 17:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * According to the explanation, I think the second sentence means "If the offender keeps offending on multiple wikis, they may be globally locked. " I think we should adjust this sentence to the new one. -- JerryHan3 ( T · C · P ) 13:42, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Not really related to this, but I want to know: what is the difference between a lock and a global block? OrangeStar (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Locks are for users. Global blocks are for IP addresses. --<span style="font-weight: bold; background:linear-gradient(#ff00ff,#c800c8,purple,#c800c8,#ff00ff);; -webkit-background-clip:text !important; -webkit-text-fill-color:transparent">Blad  (talk • contribs • global) 22:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.