Talk:Code of Conduct

Resource

 * Ubuntu CoC, licensed under same license as ours.
 * Google's, derived from Ubuntu one
 * Facebook, from TODOGroup

Just some link for our consideration. We probably have more room for improvements on the policy. &mdash; revi  13:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Note
I hope that stewards and sysadmins are aware that whatever policy is adopted here, you will be expected to abide by it as well. Policies like this should apply to everyone, including staff. -- Amanda   (talk)  17:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You keep proposing these policies yet keep participating in things like name shaming. -- Cheers, NDKilla ( Talk • Contribs ) 18:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Re: recent changes
I changed the definition of harassment to be from someone's personal opinion with unnecessary specifics to be the leading statement on Harassment. Also, I removed the note about users being banned on wiki for irc things and vice versa. Well this was true, I think it was another unnecessary specific that does more harm than good in a policy. Also, removed the bit on global staff / local users. Staff have no obligation to bend to the whim of every user. We try to be respectful and help everyone how we can. Also, it's nice when we all get along, but besides following global policies, users have no obligation to bend to the whim of global staff. There are consequences for both groups ignoring each other. -- Cheers, NDKilla ( Talk • Contribs ) 13:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Definition of Harassment: Who decides what is "Offensive"?
Who gets to decide what is and is not offensive? And should the same definition apply across all of Miraheze?

We've already had at least one example of definition collision on Meta, where something that someone else thought was acceptable was something that I found extremely offensive. (And that's all that need be said about the specifics - the fact that there are specifics is sufficient for this conversation.)

I'd like to see this be defined in relation to community standards, where the active editors (not the founding admin) of each wiki set their own standards as to what is and is not offensive. Following that theory, I'll leave the exact wording of the definition up to the active editors here.

--Robkelk (talk) 23:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Enforcement section says System administrators decide on case by case. Also this is mostly targeted towards Meta (where the coordination is happening), IRC, and Phabricator, so each wiki community is free to have their own standard on their expectation for their users. &mdash; revi  03:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Why the exception for whistleblowing?
We aren't WikiLeaks - we aren't likely to have any whistleblowers post anything here. And there are cases on record (not here) where people who posted personally-identifying information to harass someone else publicly claimed whistleblowing as the motivation; that was very common on Usenet. --Robkelk (talk) 23:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I copied it from Wikimedia CoC, and that sounds reasonable, so I'm removing it (after saving this). &mdash; revi  03:50, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Request for clarification of precedence of policies
I formally request that the precedence of this policy be defined.

Ideally, the definition should start with this sentence fragment:
 * In the case of any disagreement between the Code of Conduct and the Terms of Use, the

and end with this sentence fragment:
 * shall take precedence.

I leave it up to the Stewards whether the gap between the two fragments should be filled with the phrase "Terms of Use" or "Code of Conduct".

I am making this request because, in a discussion on All The Tropes, John has (perhaps unintentionally) pointed out a disagreement between between the Code of Conduct and the Terms of Use.

--Robkelk (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The Terms of Use always takes precedence. I'm unsure of what disagreement I pointed out? John (talk) 20:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Template
Could someone please replace with ? It will allow the for translated versions of the template to be used. MacFan4000 (talk) 15:37, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

please link to an eir page
This text: should have a link to the eir page Rsterbal (talk) 05:09, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) miraheze operators should specify time lengths and reasons for all bans and quiets so that eir will manage our ban list
 * There is no dedicated Eir page on Miraheze Meta, while there's one in Wikimedia Meta. We (Ops) have a small internal note as a quick help for the bot, though. &mdash; revi  06:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added a link to the page mentioned by revi on IRC. Reception123 (talk) ( 'C' ) 06:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

What is eir?Rsterbal (talk) 03:50, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As mentioned in the text you quoted, and the link that I have updated on the IRC page, Eir is a bot which manages bans and modes in #miraheze. Reception123 (talk) ( 'C' ) 09:14, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * "The ircname of the bot should preferably contain a URL to a wiki page or web page describing the bot." https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC/Bots Rsterbal (talk) 12:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * meta.wikimedia, not meta.miraheze. No official binding process here. &mdash; revi  15:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Remove CoCC references
The CoCC stopped existing about a week ago, all references to it should be removed (the CoCC is the Code of Conduct Commission). —Mario Mario 456 23:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * +1 this, someone else mentioned in on Discord and I agree.  Agent Isai  Talk to me! 23:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I would say that I am in support for this change. The page still mentions If you encounter someone violating the Code of Conduct, you should contact the Commission by following Code of Conduct/Commission and other details about how the commission members were elected. If there is no commission, why do we need to mention its existence on the global policy. ~ Mazzaz (talk) 03:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't. No one has got round to updating it yet. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  07:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Should be ✅ ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  08:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a few left over references to the commission under the harrassment section:
 * "Attempting to circumvent a decision of the Commission or appeals body, e.g. unblocking someone during a period the Commission banned them".
 * "Repeated failures to handle harassment appropriately despite proper warnings by Stewards/Code of Conduct Commission members" Hb1290 (talk) 02:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Question
Is adding users that you dislike to your user page against these guidelines? Moisty (talk) (CentralAuth) 13:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)


 * That all depends on which context it falls under. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Inherently I don't think it's a significant Conduct problem unless it was a bit more, ie, claims or inciting response/drama. That said, local communities are within their rights to forbid this and I doubt it would be taken well on Meta. It's a bad look and in bad taste generally, to be sure. --Raidarr (talk) 08:32, 22 April 2022 (UTC)