The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The proposal for establishing a Commission to enforce the Code of Conduct has passed. It is important to note that the Commission is only formed for the purpose of enforcing the Code of Conduct. The Commission has no bearing over the handling of common spam/vandalism. The next steps for the community is the election of members for the Commission. In order to start the process, I have drafted the following:
For a minimum of one week, or until the community decides it is ready, users will be allowed to nominate themselves and others for the position on the Community noticeboard. All users nominated by others must somewhere signify acceptance to their nomination before this period closes. During this period, the Steward and Staff bodies should pick their members.
Individual requests for each nominee will be opened in a central location (for now Meta:Requests for permissions, although a discussion in the interim may change the location). These requests will be open for at least a week to allow for participation. The two requests with the most support will be successful.
Any user who disagrees with the process is welcome to open a discussion to amend it. -- VoidWhispers 23:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
We really had no way to enforce the Code of Conduct, and this is problematic - why we have a rules that cannot be enforced? Thus, I propose that we amend the Code of Conduct to have a commission of community members and traditional staff (Stewards, System Administrators) to review Code of Conduct violations and decide what to do, collectively.
Community will hold an election for the community seat of Code of Conduct Commission upon successful closure of this RfC.
These proposals cannot pass individually, because it depends on previous statements. (If Code of Conduct cannot be revised, Code of Conduct Commission cannot be established, and if Commission cannot be established, then electing a member is meaningless.) Thus, this RfC has single proposal (for 3 modifications) for community consideration. — revi 08:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
I am open to amending the draft, please share anything that can improve the draft. — revi 08:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
"Attempting to circumvent a decision of the System Administrators or appeals body, e.g. unblocking someone during a period the System Administrators banned them." will have System Administrators modified to CoC Commission too. — revi 11:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
As initiator. — revi 08:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
I helped with creating this new amendment, and I think that having this committee will allow the CoC to function better and more effectively. Reception123 (talk) (C) 08:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to see this introduced as a better way to enforce our Code of Conduct and for it to be worked more easily. CnocBride 11:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't see how this remotely 'taking power' away as mentioned in IRC and implied/stated below, I support this RFC as I believe we should of done this from day 1 Zppix (talk) 17:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the previous comments. —Alvaro Molina (✉ - ✔) 02:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Concuerdo con la propuesta y los comentarios anteriores que se hayan hecho.Wiki1776 (talk) 19:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Agree. Bertie (talk) 11:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Support I set out below that the proposal and commission are too formal for my tastes, but as none of the people who would face extra procedural steps seems bothered by them, I'll support the proposal. Spıke(talk)20:49 28-Oct-2017
Oppose More bureaucracy! In truth, we have done just fine as is so far without requiring a commission. If you want to create a commission to oversee current enforcement procedures that's satisfactory but to create a whole new system for something like Miraheze? To quote a certain doctor, "Are you out of your corn fed minds?" Miraheze has enough problems obtaining volunteers to fulfil current roles, never mind paper work like this. What we have here is a solution looking for a problem, we don't actually have a problem, we don't need to fix the current procedures and it's a massive exercise in futility. With all due respect to the proposer, this kind of thing should be considered a few years down the line when there are a lot more users. Even then however, I feel that enforcement would be served faster using the current methods. Enfaru (talk) 10:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Oppose "We really had no way to enforce the Code of Conduct, and this is problematic - why we have a rules that cannot be enforced?" If the sysadmins cannot enforce the current CoC, how could a commission that does not have the powers that the sysadmins have possibly enforce anything? This appears to be to be a case of "do something, no matter how ineffective that something might be, because somebody thinks that we have to do something."--Robkelk (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
If this is prompted by last night's outbreak of spam, the proper response is: Permaban him and clean up after him with a minimum of dithering about whether he was entitled to think of Miraheze as his personal bridge abutment lacking only spray paint, and a minimum of distraction for other users who are actually contributing. But I was known as a real bastard of an Admin and don't claim to speak for this farm. If youse feel we need a policy to point to in taking such action, fine. (Wikia Uncyclopedia has a ban policy aiming for consistent ban durations, and a tutorial on discipline from the Admin's view, and avoiding it.) I do think that reaction to misconduct should be by individual Admin action, with enough paperwork to ensure that everyone is on the same page (a goal already achieved somewhat by IRC), and the only role for a committee should be appeal/review/overview. See vandalism? notify whichever Admin seems to be on duty, and stand back to avoid being hit by sparks; don't convene the Commission. Spıke(talk)11:58 16-Sep-2017
As a note of interest, the user we believe behind this had been locked in January per community consensus and de facto site banned from around then. An official ban was later made on the user(s) in May. The current state of the proposed amendments does not require commission intervention for every case of vandalism. Indeed, "Miraheze Support Platform moderators may issue a temporary response in accordance with the Code of Conduct. After the temporary measure, they MUST send their report with their reason to the Commission." -- VoidWhispers 16:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
In addition to what Void said, for the record, this has been a project for a while now, and has nothing to do with the vandalism yesterday indeed. The Code of Conduct needs clear enforcement and sanctions, so that is why this commission is being proposed. Reception123 (talk) (C) 17:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
I believe there are good intentions for this proposal. Yes, it would serve a useful purpose and, if implemented properly, would make an effective tool to combat one of the problems Miraheze encounters almost on a daily basis. We all dislike the annoying people that seem to think Meta and any other Miraheze wiki is a personal playground for vandalism on others' hard work or, for want of a better expression, bad behaviour. Dealing effectively with any kind of misconduct will ultimately lead to positive outcomes as a whole, and certainly having rules in place are important, however, they are only as good as those who are governing/enforcing them. Excluding the recent bouts of vandalism, which have been dealt with effectively, the problem we have with misconduct scenarios is that we tend to dilly-dally too much. In the past we have spent far too much time discussing the hows and the whys and not enough time making a decision and acting on that decision in a timely manner, which has seen at least one staff member (and probably other users) walk away from Miraheze. The creation of a commission is another way of alleviating additional pressures from existing staff members to effectively create new staff to deal with problem users, in much the same way as was done with creating the CVT. In itself this is a good idea but let's not get bogged down with too much red tape in the process otherwise Miraheze will become another Wikipedia with regard to its staffing a multitude of job roles that serve every conceivable type of "wiki crime" there is. Additionally, so users are aware of Miraheze's policies, maybe a direct link in the menu to the Global Policies category would be beneficial. Borderman(Talk) 18:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
For the record, I've been preparing this since May 2017, according to my records. I don't care about that guy. — revi 03:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
@Void: As you are a steward I am contacting you on this matter. This discussion has been ongoing for well over a month now. I am just wondering will this policy be implemented or is discussion still necessary? CnocBride 20:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section