Requests for Comment/Abolish the Code of Conduct Commission

Add topic
From Miraheze Meta, Miraheze's central coordination wiki
  • Support I don't really like commenting on RFC but I've read the details John gave and I could in no conscious support a commission that has members actively sabotaging, a commission which keeps giving positive replies but never acting and a commission that misleads or down right lies. Paladox (talk) 23:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Supporting per the reasons above. Joritochip (talk) 04:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Supporting per reasons stated. Drgng (talk) 05:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Per the reasons stated above and by the proposer, I unfortunately must agree that moving forward, abolishing the commission would be the most sensible idea. Reception123 (talk) (C) 06:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support - For reasons stated above. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 09:43, 27 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Strongest support I'm strongly supporting this abolition, as it has already reached its breaking point. There's no sense of keeping this around, as the Code of Conduct could be handled much better without this. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 10:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support As three of the current members of the Code of Conduct Commission have themselves voted to abolish their own commission I cannot see a reason for me to oppose this. I think that while the idea of the CoCC was good in theory the evidence presented by John shows to us that in practice it has not been functional, from what I understand also unprofessional and has in consequence not lived up to the community's expectations when it decided to create it. However I do wonder (and I hope someone can answer this) how appeals will be handled after the commission is abolished. As an example if I was sanctioned by a Steward for violating the Code of Conduct and the same Steward declined my appeal what could I do to appeal my case further? Would the "body" of Stewards collectively review my case or would my chances be over after I appealed to the sanctioning Steward? DeeM28 (talk) 11:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you for the constructive and helpful comments, DeeM28, as always. Your question is a good one, though based on the community's currently authorized setup for the Code of Conduct Commission, it's not that much different from the status quo in that whenever a user had appealed their global sanction to the Commission, they were referred to the local platform moderators (i.e., Stewards, if it occurred on-wiki, or applicable Discord/IRC platform moderator, if it occurred on either of those channels) to ask for a reconsideration of their sanction. We would further advise them that if the local platform moderator(s) declined their appeal, or they had not received a response from local platform moderator(s) within a reasonable period of time (say 3-4 weeks), they could resubmit their appeal to the Commission for consideration. No appeal(s) have been heard thus far in this Commission's mandate, so I can only surmise the original requesting user(s) were either satisfied with local reconsideration or haven't yet applied for local reconsideration. Essentially, yes, though, to answer your question, Stewards collectively would discuss appeals by Steward- or Global Sysop-imposed sanctions in much the same way the Commission would've considered sanction appeals. Hope that helps. Dmehus (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Per all reasons stated above.  —Lakelimbo (talk)  14:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Strongest support They recognized that they couldn't enforce the Code of Conduct. MarioMario456 (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Everyone is enthusiastic about cracking down on misconduct, but proposer makes an airtight case that the Commission has not worked because it cannot work. Spıke (talk) 14:55 27-Mar-2021
  •  Support Sounds like an idea that didn't pan out, give it a retirement. GethN7 (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Per reasons stated above. Fredster33 (talk) 17:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Though I have not been on Miraheze for all that long, the reasoning presented above looks sound in my eyes, and I find myself agreeing with the proposal based off of the argument, as well as other points presented by community members. Turtle84375 (talk) 18:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support per nom. KMFStudios (talk) 00:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support If the committe themselves are for it, and for the clearly laid out reasons above, it makes sense to disolve it. --Aquatiki (talk) 01:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support I have designed committees that failed before. There's no shame in trying things out and then ending them when they don't work. --Labster (talk) 07:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • blarb Naleksuh (talk) 07:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Regretfully. The commission is a curious combination of being unneeded most of the time, and being too inefficient to actually function when needed. This I feel is in large part due to the nature of it being a volunteer run body. Most of us, who have multiple roles on Miraheze alone, simply don't have the time to collaborate quickly and effectively on the complex issues that we actually have reviewed. Even then, these cases have also been extremely difficult to resolve, as they would require the commission to effectively enforce an imposition upon the community or other group. In these situations, I would always prefer for the other body to review the problem and resolve it themselves, which entirely negates the purpose of the commission. Furthermore, one of the original reasons we instated the commission at all was so that we had a body to deescalate issues. However, the commission (largely as a result of the issues I have already stated, but there have been other contributing factors as well) has failed at this purpose. Membership as well, has been falling. We're down at four members, and I doubt (even had this proposal been soundly shot down by the community) that membership would be increase for next year. Due to my own personal commitments, I hadn't really been planning on sitting on the commission for as long as I have. -- Void Whispers 17:55, 28 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support per nom. --Firestar464 (talk) 06:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support per the above commission members. — Arcversintalk 21:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Per above. HeartsDo (Talk / Global / Wiki Creator) 15:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose[edit | edit source]

    1.  Weak oppose Abstain. From what has been presented here, this proposal has been made because the proposer doesn't like the pace of the commission's investigation and deliberation of a single case brought before the commission. If this is the only justification to bring this proposal forward, then there is an obvious conflict of interest here. --Robkelk (talk) 14:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • @Robkelk: That is not the only justification. There are many other issues with the CoCC that were listed above. Additionally, I believe that particular issue was included because it highlights their lack of organization in some sense, as they were unable to produce the final report that they had promised to produce on multiple occasions. Joritochip (talk) 15:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • There are multiple issues, really, but for me they mainly revolve around organizational design of the Commission, the lack of apparent need, and in regards to the Commission's final report on the case, that will still be delivered as part of the Commission's conclusion of existing cases. The main reason why it has not been delivered is because of the fact that the composition of the current Commission (and indeed, most past Commissions) is all or nearly all Stewards, SRE, and/or Global Sysops, so each member has multiple conflicting priorities. So, in short, I would characterize the main issues as being organizational design, functional duplication/lack of apparent need, and lack of volunteers to put their names forward on a consistent basis. Dmehus (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • It's also one of the very few cases that have ever been handled. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c - (on) 16:13, 27 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    2.  Oppose I don't want to convert this into BS like FANDOM, where you're banned just for saying some random insult or defending your friends. FtosorciM (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • @FtosorciM: This request for comment does not change the Code of Conduct itself, it just changes who enforces it. Currently, the team that is tasked with handling cases related to the Code of Conduct has many issues, which is why this RfC is proposing it is abolished. Joritochip (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Comments[edit | edit source]

    1.  Comment: Could you maybe clarify on what you mean when you said it makes a complete mockery of the process? DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 21:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Sure, essentially my argument revolves around the fact we have a Code of Conduct Commission that can't resolve Code of Conduct investigations, can't maintain the confidentially of them, can't maintain timelines and can't meet community expectations on transparency. We have a Commission set up to 'solve the fact the Code of Conduct is unenforceable' which itself fails to enforce the Code of Conduct. If you had filed a complaint under the pretence the complaint would be investigated with urgency and confidentially, how would you feel to find out that after four months, there is little to no progress, that a Commissioner is attempting to prevent other members of the Commission from investigating the complaint and to top it all of, information you submitted and shared in confidence, is being shared to people who shouldn't have access to it? John (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      @John: That makes total sense now. What you're saying is that it's just as ineffective as teaching a baby to not cry. In other words, even if we enforce it, it's not truly showing off its effectiveness, but rather the opposite effect. So what this means, it could potentially backfire and cause quite a ruckus for both parties. Just recently (going off-topic, but still somehow relates to the Code of Conduct), I've investigated 3 wikis (although one of them is already deleted) with serious violations of not only that type of violation, but also the Content policies. I'm sure you're probably know which wikis I'm talking about as I heard the Stewards (aside from you and Doug), are reviewing on what to do with them. DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 22:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      @John:, it's extremely difficult to have both confidentiality and transparency - one precludes the other. But you've cited lack of both as reasons to abolish the commission. Perhaps the underlying issue here is with expectations rather than with the commission's effectiveness. --Robkelk (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      It is not difficult at all to have confidentiality of reports but transparency in reporting the progression of reports. In the last RfC, the community mandated that every 90 days the Commission needs to be transparent in reporting the number of cases open, number of cases closed and number of cases declined - I don’t believe providing these figures breaches confidentially but is definitely transparent. The issue of confidentiality I raised was that my report was shared with members not part of the Commission, without my consent or without the Commissions consent either - one member chose to discuss material with someone else who wasn’t privy to the confidential report I thought I filed. I do not believe it is an unreasonable expectation that the Commission state the number of open requests and don’t share a confidential report without consent of either the reporter or the Commission deciding it is necessary or beneficial to do so. John (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    2. Why Abolish it ROSHAN SHANU OFFICIAL (t) 13:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    3.  Abstain I originally wanted to oppose this and suggest changes to the policy instead. But considering there is not enough apparent need, I am abstaining from this RfC instead. It's obvious that this proposal would pass anyway. Redmin Contributions CentralAuth (talk) 09:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Proposal 2: Reform Initiative[edit | edit source]

    There is a recognised problem with the current Code of Conduct Commission, but rather than abolish, another attempt should be made to reform the Commission. If this proposal is passed, a discussion on reform must have taken place prior to the end of the current Commission's terms ending on July 31st, 2021. If no reform RfC has taken place, the Commission is suspended until such a reform RfC has concluded.

    Support[edit | edit source]

    Oppose[edit | edit source]

    1. Per my comments above, we can not reform a system which doesn't work at a fundamental level - we can only make it a little less broken, but that does not mean it works. John (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    2. I don't think reform can help and also I don't think there can be something reformed with success,--MrJaroslavik (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    3. Regrettably, I also don't feel reform is feasible, as this would require the current Commission members, encumbered with other responsibilities, to draft such a plan. The Commission was a good-faith idea, but functionally, I just don't think it is fit for its purpose, and there's simply a lack of willing volunteers to put their names forward, who don't hold other (and multiple, in some cases) global responsibilities. Dmehus (talk) 22:20, 26 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    4. As has been said above, the commission has ran out of rope and reform is long past feasible. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c - (on) 22:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    5. Doesn't seem feasible at this point. User:Universal Omega/Sig  22:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC) |
    6.  Strongest oppose After having a look at the Code of Conduct Commission, it seems that I will cast my vote here as it does seem to be out of commission itself. Such irony, isn't it? DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 22:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    7. Oppose: As I said above I cannot support a commission that has active members sabotaging, a commission which misleads or down right lies. I would support creating a total new commission under a new name and ran differently. But the current commission cannot be reformed. It has lost the support of the community. Paladox (talk) 23:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    8. Oppose: Unfortunately it sounds like the Commission has no interest in reforming themselves following the failed attempt at reform in 2020. Joritochip (talk) 04:26, 27 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    9.  Oppose - For reasons stated above. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 09:43, 27 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    10.  Oppose Given the airtight case for repeal made above, this counterproposal calls for us to tread water while we await more paperwork, to decide not to decide. Repeal, already! A persuasive RfC to re-create the Commission, along lines more likely to work, will remain in order. Spıke (talk) 14:58 27-Mar-2021
    11.  Strong oppose Reasons stated above. --Matttest (talk) 09:28, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Comments[edit | edit source]

    Administrative Point[edit | edit source]

    If all proposals fail - the Commission continues to operate as-is. This is effectively the 'Status Quo', but rather than vote on the status quo, rejection of change should effectively identify the status quo as being the preferred route.

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