Requests for Comment/Code of Conduct Commission reform

As Miraheze continues to evolve and different situations are seen, we must also adapt the global groups that were created quite a while ago, as was done with the old CVT group recently. Today the group that requires a reform is the Code of Conduct Commission. I have been a member of said commission since its existence and during these years have realized that it is not an effective first place to go to if there is a violation of the Code of Conduct. I am not sure whether when it was created it was intended to be the first place to go to, but the current way that the Code of Conduct Commission operates is dysfunctional and the commission is not able to resolve most cases of violations (because a commission is not appropriate for a simple case of a CoC violation). Therefore, we are left with two options: 1) to redefine the scope and the rights of the Code of Conduct Commission and make it the “court of last appeals” and direct users to the CoCC only in order appeal the decisions (or lack thereof) of other groups, or 2) more extremely to abolish the CoCC and give it’s current scope and powers to Stewards and Global Sysops. If we go for the option of redefining the scope, other global groups (or operators on IRC/Discord) would be the first to deal with cases of Code of Conduct violations and if one of the parties are dissatisfied with the decision made by the users they can ask the Code of Conduct Commission to review the case. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 10:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 1.1: Scope
It is clarified that '''The Code of Conduct Commission is the final arbitration body for disputes under the Code of Conduct, a user may only contact the commission once another group (i.e. Stewards, Global Sysops, IRC/Discord operators, etc.) has been contacted and they are not happy with result after sufficient discussion or that group has exhausted its process. The Code of Conduct Commission's role is to arbitrate the dispute and produce a binding result that analyses and resolves both the issues of the dispute and any improvements that can be made with previous handling. After the review is complete, the CoCC may take any action necessary against the user violating the CoCC or may impose a different sanction (or remove the current one). Users that do not show previous dispute resolution methods have been attempted will be redirected to the other groups and will not be heard by the CoCC'''.

Support

 * 1)  As I explain in the introduction the current functioning of the CoCC does not work and is ineffective so we need to change that. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 10:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  The current state is not fit for purpose and needs hardening.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  11:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) .  Right, we don't need a committee meeting on every single case of misbehavior.  We need an appeals process, and our existing committee can at that point ensure we are consistent and acting according to stated rules.   11:42 15-Jun-2020
 * 4) .I think it's a clear and useful rule.--松 (talk) 13:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 5)  Sounds great to me. WickyHoney (talk) 20:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 6)  as the others said it makes sense for a commission not to have to deal with every small cases of misconduct. I think this is a good attempt to make the commission better. DeeM28 (talk) 09:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 7) sounds like a good plan. Pherosis 04:20, June 16 2020 (MST)
 * 8) -EK ● 📝 ● 🌎 17:09, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 9) . Makes sense to me. Bertie (talk) 12:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 1.2: Rights
The Commission does not have the right to initiate discipline, but may by majority vote ask global or local sysops, as well as any other groups mentioned in the Code of Conduct to take action against user misbehavior, which may include a local block, a ban from IRC/Discord, a global lock, or other sanctions.

Support

 * 1)  Since it will be the final arbitration body it's important that it can actually make decisions and have someone enforce these decisions. Previously, this was not clear so with this proposal we can make it clear. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 10:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  as it can be considered an offence under the Code of Conduct anyway to prevent the enforcement of it.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  11:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) .   11:44 15-Jun-2020
 * 4)  good and clear idea! DeeM28 (talk) 09:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) fair. Pherosis 04:20, June 16 2020 (MST)
 * 6)  -EK ● 📝 ● 🌎 22:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 7) . Bertie (talk) 12:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 1.3: Current appeals section
The current section under Procedures for handling a case->Appealing is removed as the Code of Conduct Commission will now be in charge of appeals.

Support

 * 1)  The sysadmin team per se doesn't really deal with Code of Conduct violations unless they do so in their capacity as IRC or Discord operators, so therefore I think we should leave the final word to the CoCC with its new purpose. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 10:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  It's the final body and should remain so.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  11:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) .  A bookkeeping change, given the previous proposals.   11:45 15-Jun-2020
 * 4)  per above. DeeM28 (talk) 09:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 5)  as above. Pherosis 04:20, June 16 2020 (MST)
 * 6)  -EK ● 📝 ● 🌎 22:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 7) . Bertie (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 8)  I agree. WickyHoney (talk) 20:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 1.4: Appealing sanctions
After the Code of Conduct Commission has made their decision, If no period is specified in the decision, a 3 month wait must take place before appealing any sanctions or requesting that they are lifted. The Commission may decide to specify a longer wait before an appeal at its discretion.

Support

 * 1)  makes sense. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 10:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  sensible.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  11:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 3)  per above DeeM28 (talk) 09:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) . Bertie (talk) 12:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 5)  I agree. WickyHoney (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 6)  I think this is a highly practical rule.--松•Matsu (talk) 13:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  a single month seems like a more reasonable timespan. Pherosis 04:20, June 16 2020 (MST)

Comments

 * 1)  I think that someone who has had sanctions placed against them should have the opportunity to have their voice heard. However, to prevent abuse of this, a user must wait three months between each appeal and may only appeal twice. If anyone has any suggestions or improvements to this, please feel free to add them. -EK ● 📝 ● 🌎 22:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 1.5: Term Limits
Due to the current lack of many active volunteers, I feel that it is best to abolish term limits. Therefore members will not be prohibited from running more than three consecutive terms (though that may be subject to change in the future).

Support

 * 1)  per the proposal, not enough volunteers at the moment to be able to mandate term limits. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 10:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  We'd run out of people that'd pass to do it and are willing if not.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  11:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 3)  Basically, I agree that CoCC will fail if we do not lift the restriction on the period at all. However, personally, if there are three members selected from System Administrators and Stewards,I think it will be possible for CoCC to work, so I'll make another suggestion.--松 (talk) 11:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)fix.--松 (talk) 11:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify the slight confusion here, three members are no longer selected from System administrators and Stewards. That was indeed the procedure for the first election (2017) but since then five members are elected by the community directly (they may happen to also be sysadmins or stewards but they go through the same election process as any user). Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 12:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I seem to have overlooked that the election method has changed from the 2017 method. I switch to unconditionally supporting this proposal.--old:松 (talk)new:松•Matsu (talk)13:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) .  Term limits are fine for paid politicians with coercive power over the unwilling.  When asking for volunteers to help patrol a private club, warning them we will eventually not want their services is ridiculous.   11:50 15-Jun-2020
 * 2)  What Spike said, I do not think term limits are really needed now. DeeM28 (talk) 09:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) terms for volunteers seems unnecessary. Pherosis 04:20, June 16 2020 (MST)
 * 4) as long as power isn't being abuse, but if it is, since its subject to periodic "reelection" anyways... NimoStar
 * 5) as per the comments above. YuriNikolai (talk) 22:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 6) Bertie (talk) 12:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 7) We do not have enough people to make this work. -EK ● 📝 ● 🌎 17:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments
I don't think the two members, who are chosen directly from the community, should be permanent.--松 (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It will be in line with the current length of terms so they will be regularly confirmed. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  17:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Personally,I think it's better that the two members selected directly from the community are replaced each time.I expect these two members to play the role of so-called citizens.I don't think there is a need for　restrictions on the three members selected by position.--松 (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * These comments were added during the draft phase of this RfC. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 10:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 1.5a: Term Limits
Proposal 1.5 applies to members elected from System Administrators and Stewards and does not apply to members elected directly from the community.

Support

 * 1)  Voting by the proposer.--松 (talk) 12:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) .  Proposal 1.5 is to remove a rule.  Given we are removing a rule, what does it mean to have the removal "not apply" to some members?  I support removal of the rule.   12:07 15-Jun-2020
 * 2)  Per my comment above, sysadmins and stewards have no special treatment, that only happened for the 2017 election. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 12:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 3)  makes no sense.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  12:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments
I got out of the confusion and thought that this proposal is currently meaningless.I would like to cancel the proposal, but how is it?--松 (talk) 13:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Closed. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  14:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 1.6a: Current Members
The community empowers the CoCC to start a full re-election of members within 28 days of this RfC closing. When the election is closed, the terms of the current members of the CoCC (if not re-elected) end.

Support

 * 1)  Since the functioning is changing it makes sense for there to be a new election. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 10:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  We should inject some freshness and a new lease of life into it's reformed body.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  11:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) I agree with Reception123 above. Pherosis 04:20, June 16 2020 (MST)
 * 4) Bertie (talk) 12:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) Per RhinosF1. WickyHoney (talk) 19:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) .  Changing the role of the committee does not imply a change to the support previously expressed for the current members.  If any current member does not want to serve on a board relegated to an appeals role, a resignation should be accepted.  RhinosF1, injecting freshness argues for weekly elections, only they wouldn't.   11:53 15-Jun-2020
 * The scope & procedures are not reformed weekly though. I think we should give the opportunity for those to consider whether they would prefer to join the new role more and allow the community to determine whether they want the current members still in that role. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  12:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments
Could you tell me how long the term of the re-elected member will be?--松 (talk) 17:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Please see CoCC ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  17:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for teaching me.Is it okay to understand that one year starts from the day of re-election?--松 (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It would be stated at the time of election. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  18:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for politely answering my question.--松 (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * These comments were added during the draft phase of this RfC. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 10:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 1.6b: Current Members
Notwithstanding proposal 1.6c below, the current members will remain in their position until their term is over.

Support

 * 1)  I think instead of having a new election it is a better idea to let current members of the commission to resign if they don't want to continue serving on the new commission. DeeM28 (talk) 09:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1)  We should review whether the current members should retain their position.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  11:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Abstain

 * 1)  I prefer 1.6a but I don't think it would necessarily be bad if we wait until the next election. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 10:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 1.6c: Composition of the Code of Conduct Commission
Given that system administrators and stewards are those individuals who would be carrying out global restrictions or sanctions on users' accounts and that the Code of Conduct Commission, in addition to having the ability to command global sanctions as well, acts as the ultimate quasi-judicial tribunal of appeal for users. Therefore, it is proposed that a majority of its membership be composed of users other than system administrators, stewards, and global sysops. Where a resignation of an independent Code of Conduct Commission member occurs outside of the normal Code of Conduct Commission election schedule, a steward is empowered to post a notice of vacancy to the community noticeboard. Any open appeals for lifting of sanctions shall be stayed (that is, the existing restrictions or sanctions remain in place) until conclusion of the by-election and the Code of Commission's composition consists of a majority of independent members. Likewise, stewards are also empowered to globally lock any users' accounts who had open proceedings before the Code of Conduct Commission for CoCC-ordered sanctions until conclusion of the by-election and the CoCC resumes its proceedings, having restored its independent membership balance.

Oppose

 * 1)  I feel like this proposal is too confusing for it to be properly applied. In addition, the majority proposal does not make sense since people serve on the commission in their capacity as users and all 5 commission posts are elected by the community. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 10:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) .  At Miraheze, we will find that many roles of responsibility will be held by the same group of people.  Separation of powers is fine in a republic; again, too clever by half in a private club.  The joy of legislating might be racing ahead of the need for it.   11:57 15-Jun-2020
 * It would obviously be favored to be able to have a separation of powers at Miraheze and for a user to not be both a Steward or System Administrator (or Board member) but unfortunately the reality is we don't have enough volunteers for that. In the future ideally if we did have more we would definitely strive for a separation of powers. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 12:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 1)  I don't think we need to complicate this.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  12:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  commissioners need to be people who understand how decisions are going to effect on multiple levels. Pherosis 04:20, June 16 2020 (MST)
 * 3) Bertie (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 4)  I see no reason why sysadmins, stewards, and global sysops (who are trusted users of the community) can not also be a member of the CoCC -EK ● 📝 ● 🌎 17:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 5) i don't think this is something we need to do Cocopuff2018 15:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 1.7: Transparency & Accountability

 * The CoCC are required to disclose at least every 90 days the following:
 * 1) Number of open cases
 * 2) Number of cases resolved in the last 90 days
 * 3) Number of cases directed to another body in the last 90 days
 * 4) Number of cases opened in the last 90 days

Suppport

 * 1)  so we don't get to where we are now where no public action is being taken and we have no idea why when cases have been opened.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  11:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  I think by requiring the CoCC to be accountable and to report specific statistics the public can observe whether the new functioning is working or not. It shouldn't even really be a "requirement" per se, a CoCC member should do this voluntary as with such a commission being transparent is important in my opinion. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 12:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 3)  I like the idea of the community getting updates from the commission and so we know what is going on. DeeM28 (talk) 09:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 4) I agree. Pherosis 04:20, June 16 2020 (MST)
 * 5) Bertie (talk) 13:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 6)  One of the great things about Miraheze is the transparency and how the community can stay informed. There is no reason for this not to be the case for the CoCC. -EK ● 📝 ● 🌎 17:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Abstain

 * This being a wiki, one would think that this information would exist on a well-defined page and someone on the CoCC would be motivated to keep the page current. If we have "no idea why," RhinosF1, then maybe no one on the CoCC is motivated at all, in which case a new mandate is not a good idea.  Perhaps this will change when CoCC conducts (high-profile) appeals rather than routine discipline.   12:02 15-Jun-2020
 * Hopefully with the new reform, there will be a better idea of what they can handle and be more encouraged to. I still think transparency is a good idea so the community are aware of what they are doing. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  12:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 2: Abolition
The Code of Conduct Commission is abolished, all members end their terms the day after this RfC is closed if this proposal passes and Stewards, Global Sysops and any other operators are in charge of the Code of Conduct and to sanction any violations.

Oppose

 * 1)  I don't think abolishing the commission is a good idea, I prefer having a final body that can review the actions of others so everyone is held accountable. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 10:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 2)  There should be some final body of oversight in case of a dispute between local actors.  ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c -  11:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) .  In an RfC proposing a new role for the CoCC, it is odd including a proposal to abolish it.  A final vote should not include contradictory Proposals, with baffling results if both should prevail.   11:59 15-Jun-2020
 * 4)  If Stewards don't take care of something it is good to have a group of people to take a second look and decide if that was the right decision or not. DeeM28 (talk) 09:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 5)  just no. Pherosis 04:20, June 16 2020 (MST)
 * 6)  Per above statements. WickyHoney (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 7)  as above. Bertie (talk) 13:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 8)  No no no no no no. There must be a way to handle cases that does not involve SRE or the Steward. -EK ● 📝 ● 🌎 17:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 9) i am going to disagree on this i think it should stay as it is. Cocopuff2018 15:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Personal suggestions (from DRAFT PHASE)
I would like to move some of the discussions on the Reception123 talk page to this page.The reason Spike posted on the Reception123 talk page looks like a report, but it seems to me that the discussion has started halfway.Wouldn't it be confusing to participate in the discussion on this page without knowing the discussion on the Reception123 talk page?--松 (talk) 04:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Please note that disagreements with the specific proposals should be voiced when the RfC is published. This draft period is mostly to fix wording and grammar mistakes and to add proposals, not to discuss the specific proposals. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 08:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I commented to Reception123 to give him my opinion during the drafting process. I often state my belief that, once presented, an RfC's wording be solid and, above all, not receive "friendly amendments" after people have voted.  The drafting history, including my comments, may be relevant to readers (less so if Reception agrees and omits one proposal).  It's fine with me for Reception to include the dialogue with the RfC, perhaps on the talk page.  I'll make the same points when I vote.   14:46 14-Jun-2020
 * While I'm not opposed to 's thought to move the discussions from Reception123's user talk page, I concur with Reception123 and Spike that those were just preliminary conversations on changes to this CoCC reform draft and/or the CoCC commission itself. It would probably be confusing for people !voting on the eventual RfC on changes to the CoCC to see discussions about potential changes to an earlier revision of the draft. So, I think at this point, we should keep the discussions separate, but definitely ping me when this is moved out of draft phase, and I'll copy over my comments on the CoCC (not the draft) in general. Dmehus (talk) 15:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree and have said that this period is good for amendments and adding proposals, but discussing the actual merits of each proposal should be done during the vote. For example during the draft process if someone doesn't agree with the proposals they are free to propose an amendment, make another proposal or ask me what I mean by "proposal X" but what is confusing is if comments are added stating an opinion about a proposal before the voting and discussion process has began. Though maybe it would be time to make a few changes to the RfC process. In any case, I will be publishing this one this afternoon (UTC time) and will include this part in a section titled "Drafting period comments". The comments left above I will leave with a note. Reception123 (talk) ( C ) 06:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)