Requests for Comment/Code of Conduct

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Discussion has slowly withered away and as it has past a 7 day timespan with no on-going discussions, I'm going to close this. The policy is therefore adopted as is and applies to IRC, Phabricator, other relevant discussion platforms now and in future and to wikis where no local standard applies. John (talk) 10:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

---

Reason for Request

On behalf of members of the staff (mostly NDKilla, John and revi) I am making this request for comment on a code of conduct. Recently, we have had a few issues on IRC and disputes between users. They have said that it is not clear what the "policy" or "code" is for IRC discussions so it has been discussed and decided that a Code of Conduct should be created, in order to make it clear how users should conduct themselves on the Miraheze's different services and wikis (Phabricator, IRC, Meta). As I said above the main purpose of this code is to clarify how users, and staff are conduct themselves when using Miraheze but the code also has some other purposes as well. You may find the current draft User:NDKilla/Code of Conduct and may feel free to comment/vote for implementation below. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reception123 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Support

• Yup. — revi 15:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Weak support It's a good idea and I think it's necessary. However, I would like it if some or all of my NPA Draft could be included. The draft expands on the definition of harassment and what constitutes as such, among other things. There needs to be a crystal clear policy on what qualifies as harassment and what actions are appropriate actions in dealing with it (IMHO). -- Amanda (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

 Comment: @Amanda: A "crystal clear" policy is certainly useful but let's not delve into the realm of turgid material that no one will ever read. I think some of your NPA could be included as there are some definitions in the code of conduct that might need a little tightening. Let's be sure of one thing, it needs to be clear and, this is key, at the same time succinct. Borderman  ^{talk | contribs | email}

•  Support Per initial proposal (forgot to support). Reception123 (talk) (contribs) 17:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
•  Support --NeoMahler (talk) 10:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support - Bertie (talk) 11:00, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Weak support - Rajavlitra (talk) 11:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support —Alvaro Molina (✉ - ✔) 12:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support - Cant see why not 89.127.31.127 18:52, 1 May 2017 (UTC) IP votes are not counted --Reception123
•  Support Would help to clear up misunderstandings. -- Void ^Whispers 19:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support KA07 (talk) 03:14, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Josh6243 20:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support I'm supporting this as it seems like a good idea considering the misunderstandings of late. @NDKilla: The code of conduct reads well and I like the fact that it covers pretty much everything without being too long and tedious, which some policies can be. Maybe some definitions might need expanding a little but still kept succinct. What is deemed as offensive to one person may not be to another. Someone might not think their comments are intimidating, discriminatory or derogatory etc. And someone else might be offended by every little negative comment said against them. Some people can be over emotional and others can be the opposite without realising they are. Someone might say something genuine without malice but it might read as threatening by another. These are all feasible scenarios and I think this is very difficult to define as people will read things in different ways. However, a lot of keeping the code in check boils down to comment sense, having manners and not getting over emotional at comments a user may not like or agree with. Borderman  ^{talk | contribs | email} 22:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose

•  Oppose for now.

Opening or attention getter - To everyone here:

State your concern - My opinion is that the question of where it applies and what is "authority" is not clearly answered, and the writing style is also confusing.

State the problem as you see it - I don't know if it applies only to meta or also to the projects, such as Coldwater, and the proposal also contains at least one clear-cut, by the book case of glittering generality, which is one of the least obscure propaganda techniques.

State a solution - My opinion is that it needs more time, clarification and replacement of words such as "good" with something more precise.

Obtain agreement (or buy-in) - How does that sound to the community? Saline (talk) 13:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC) That doesn't sound good. ~~~~Anjuna~~~~

Comments

•  Comment: I personal feel that some of the terms need to be more specific. "Personal attacks, violence, threats of violence, or deliberate intimidation." is what the CoC currently reads. What qualifies as a personal attack or imitation? Users and sysadmins will have different opinions on this matter and therefore we should have a united community-approved criteria. Revi makes a good point that stricter rules are easier to bypass, however IMHO we should have strict rules that accomplish what they need to without spilling the beans. -- Amanda (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

  The point that I'm trying to make is that in order for Wikipedia to function, decisions based partially on common sense must be made and any decision made, even those which have highly specific policies to back them up will always be made based partially on common sense. While this does not excuse the use of terms such as "disruption" to justify decisions which are clearly made without sufficient justification, decisions simply cannot always be 100% policy-based, and even in the case of those which are backed by a specific policy, it is only through the use of common sense that we determine that the policies apply to said decisions. from the linked page. — revi 17:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

  • The above is true - ultimately there's always a decision to make. However, it's also true that while stricter rules are easier to bypass, more vague rules are easier to abuse. Which is something best not to invite. From previous experience, a takeover by self-appointed (or bowing and kissing its way to the top) inquisition is a much greater threat than random clowns. TVT ropes, for one. If there will be obvious problems, it should not be too hard to notice them and pass a minor amendment to the rules later. Dealing with corruption at a stage when it's obvious is much harder. It's not all horrible as is, but clarity is desirable indeed.

    Also, how wikipedia is an example of anything but "things to avoid like a plague"? That pit is something to imitate, really? TBeholder (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment: How about using parts or all of the Ubuntu CoC, either just cloning it or using it as an inspiration? https://www.ubuntu.com/about/about-ubuntu/conduct --Forteller (talk) 18:24, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

  Our CoC has already been inspired by the Ubuntu CoC as well as others :) Reception123 (talk) (contribs) 18:32, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

  Hey, I adapted some portion of Ubuntu CoC in ours, you can check Attribution section! — revi 18:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment: @Amanda: Your NPA does seem like a good idea but I have some suggestions. I don't think Name-calling is overly bad especially "brat" or "immature". Alot of the time their necessary for people to learn. More serious names are questionable. Sexual or racial slurs if they are given in a joking manner I believe their OK. "The use of profane language to describe the actions of someone else" I don't like this one. I think its alright to say "That guy did something fucking stupid". I don't think that's innapropriate. " The use of phrases such as "You're stupid" or similar" Don't like this one either. I believe you're stupid isn't overly bad. I don't really give crap what others say. " Delibrate gender harassment (i.e. intentionally referring to someone by the incorrect gender)" Ye I don't like this either. Thats a good one. I'm doing this purely of the basis that I am a fairly strong believer in free speech and I do think the NPA is good but it goes way to far to the point of banning childish playground teasing. CnocBride (talk) 19:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

---

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