Requests for Comment/Examknow

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

The RfC is closed as following;

• Proposal 1 has support, but under the wiki creators policy has no effect. There have been no considerable violations of the Content Policy and even then, does not amount to "repeated". Taking note from RfC #1 and RfC #2, there was no consensus for community revocation.
• Proposal 2 passes as an endorsement.
• Proposal 3 has support and a recommendation will be passed along to the group contacts.
• Proposal 4 does not pass, but notes Examknow's own support to it.
• Proposal 5 has support.
• Proposal 6 is noted.
• Proposals 7 and 8 does not have the support.

Any disputes regarding the outcome to proposal 1 may be taken up with another Steward or taken to a discussion to amend the policy and then consequently retrospectively apply the outcome. John (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Regarding proposal 3, the group contacts have decided that current behavior does not advocate removal, following the guidelines in IRC/Group. The group contacts would like to note that the IRC cloak shows an affiliation with Miraheze, but that is all. In our opinion, it is no different than having a Miraheze username, as it confers no special privileges, and it not being used to hide anything outside of an IP address, the same as a wiki account. As such, it will not be removed at this time. -- Cheers, NDKilla ^{( Talk • Contribs )} 23:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

---

Following the release of our findings, we would like to request the Community’s opinion on a range of proposed sanctions. Examknow will also be referred to the Code of Conduct Commission in due course.

Signed,

• RhinosF1
• Reception123
• Zppix

Proposal 1

The community revokes Examknow’s Wiki Creator right as a consequence of the report.

a) Support

1.  Support as proposed ~ RhinosF1 - _(chat)^{· acc· c} - (on) 21:45, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
2.  Support as proposed Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 21:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
3.  Support as proposed. Reception123 (talk) (C) 09:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
4.  Support. Examknow should not be a contact person for new users seeking to create a wiki. General comments below. Spıke (talk)12:54 30-Oct-2019
5.  Support CnocBride | Talk | Contribs 16:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
6.  Support –Aνδρέας ^{talk | contributions} 15:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
7.  Support Wiki creators must have some standards. --DeeM28 (talk) 15:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

b) Oppose

1.  Weak oppose I am acknowledging Examknow's lack of understanding when it comes to policy and community standards, thus my weak oppose. This much said, I do not believe so much of the weight of this submission is within abuse or neglect of wiki creator tools, and I believe the opportunity for probation and monitoring for improvement is within the realm of possibility. Dross (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
2.  Oppose I have acknowledged the problems that have been laid out and have worked to improve them. In the recent logs you can see I have worked to do better when creating wikis and therefore I do not think I need to be removed from wiki creators. That said, some monitoring of my actions would not be a bad thing. --EK ● contribs 21:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

d) Comments

• In addition, this morning I’ve also found Examknow’s creation of 9773 has issues: firstly, it’s a testing wiki so should have been directed to test and secondly, it didn’t even fully create properly and I don’t see any report to sysadmins to alert us. ~ RhinosF1 - _(chat)^{· acc· c} - (on) 07:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2

The community endorses the removal of Examknow’s autopatrolled status.

a) Support

1.  Support as proposed ~ RhinosF1 - _(chat)^{· acc· c} - (on) 21:45, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
2.  Support as proposed Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 21:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
3.  Support as proposed. Reception123 (talk) (C) 09:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
4.  Support. The autopatrolled status means one's edits don't have to be patrolled. Examknow is not a vandal, but if management wants to review each of his future edits, that's fine with me, and should not require approval by the community. I think that autopatrolled also grants the power to mark other people's edits as patrolled (Uncyclopedia has a separate patroller power) and, yes, Examknow should not be vetting edits in the name of Miraheze. Spıke (talk)12:59 30-Oct-2019
5.  Support CnocBride | Talk | Contribs 16:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
6.  Support Some extra review of my responses to things is not necessarily a bad thing --EK ● contribs 18:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
7.  Support He should be patrolled because of the false statements. --DeeM28 (talk) 15:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
8.  Support Dross (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 3

The community request Examknow’s IRC Cloak is removed.

a) Support

1.  Support as proposed ~ RhinosF1 - _(chat)^{· acc· c} - (on) 21:45, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
2.  Support as proposed Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 21:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
3.  Support as proposed. Reception123 (talk) (C) 09:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
4.  Support Examknow ought not have special rights to prowl on IRC. Spıke (talk)12:56 30-Oct-2019
5.  Support CnocBride | Talk | Contribs 16:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

b) Oppose

1.  Oppose See my comments in the discussion section --EK ● contribs 23:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
2.  Oppose From what I have understood IRC cloaks do not imply that they are endorsed in any way by Miraheze and do not grant any "special powers" as @Spike: implies above. I do not thing Examknow has done enough for it to be reasonable to remove his cloak. I'd also mention that all the supports above are not backed up by any actual arguments, except for Spike's which is incorrect as far as I am aware. --DeeM28 (talk) 15:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 4

The community requests Examknow acts to ensure that he maintains competency when answering community questions.

a) Support

1.  Support as proposed ~ RhinosF1 - _(chat)^{· acc· c} - (on) 21:45, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
2.  Support as proposed Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 21:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
3.  Support as proposed. Reception123 (talk) (C) 09:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
4.  Support In both ways I could be better about actually both knowing what I was talking about before I give an answer and to Spike and CnocBride's point I could be a little more personal and less blunt. To tell the truth I really did not realize I was coming off as blunt and I will definitely pay closer attention to that going forward. --EK ● contribs 23:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

b) Oppose

1.  Oppose By "maintains competency" I think you mean acting in good faith; whereas if a user is not acting in good faith, it will do no good to nag him to do so. If youse mean competency in interpersonal relations, you will likewise not improve it by exhorting him to do so. Spıke (talk)13:03 30-Oct-2019
2.  Oppose I am of a similar stance to Spike. CnocBride | Talk | Contribs 16:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
3.  Oppose Per Spike, it is too vague and maintaining competency should be expected of anyone anyway. --DeeM28 (talk) 15:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
4.  Oppose VAGUE OwenFung87 10:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
5.  Oppose Being wrong and misrepresenting a team or community are two very different things. To resolve that Examknow shall provide more correct answers simply for being wrong at times is ridiculous, and not at all related to ensuring that Examknow does not act wrongly in a representative capacity to be perceived as official or authoritative. Dross (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 5

The community requests Examknow improves his conduct.

a) Support

1.  Support as proposed ~ RhinosF1 - _(chat)^{· acc· c} - (on) 21:45, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
2.  Support as proposed Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 21:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
3.  Support as proposed. Reception123 (talk) (C) 09:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
4.  Support CnocBride | Talk | Contribs 16:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
5.  Support –Aνδρέας ^{talk | contributions} 15:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

b) Oppose

1.  Oppose. I request that everyone improve his conduct! See my opposition to Proposal 4. Spıke (talk)13:04 30-Oct-2019
2.  Oppose per Spike, same as my comment above. --DeeM28 (talk) 15:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
3.  Oppose per Spike. Let's also all try to be learners and not forget we were all there at one point. Educate. Dross (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 6

Examknow may only gain any additional rights, defined as anything that must be added via Special:UserRights/Examknow, 3 months after this discussion is closed following a community vote.

a) Support

1.  Support as proposed ~ RhinosF1 - _(chat)^{· acc· c} - (on) 21:45, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
2.  Support as proposed Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 21:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
3.  Support as proposed. Reception123 (talk) (C) 09:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
4.  Support. 3 months is a suitable period to maybe grow up and start over. Spıke (talk)13:05 30-Oct-2019
5.  Support –Aνδρέας ^{talk | contributions} 15:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
6.  Support In order to prevent any efforts of hat collecting which have already been seen. --DeeM28 (talk) 15:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 7

If inappropriate behaviour continues, The community authorises additional sanctions to be placed without community approval.

a) Support

1.  Support as proposed ~ RhinosF1 - _(chat)^{· acc· c} - (on) 21:45, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
2.  Support as proposed Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 21:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
3.  Support. In fact, I authorize the sanctions in this vote to be placed without community approval; see my general comments below. Spıke (talk)13:07 30-Oct-2019
4.  Support –Aνδρέας ^{talk | contributions} 15:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

b) Oppose

1.  Oppose Even though I signed the main RfC, I think this proposal is quite vague and doesn't really change anything in the matter. Reception123 (talk) (C) 09:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
2.  Oppose Same as Reception CnocBride | Talk | Contribs 16:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

   @Reception123 and CnocBride: This effectively means that anyone who has the access can, if he continues, Implement something like site or topic bans if he does not improve without any sort of community discussion. ~ RhinosF1 - _(chat)^{· acc· c} - (on) 11:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

3.  Oppose Community approval is important. --DeeM28 (talk) 15:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

c) Abstain

1.  Abstain I think the idea of restricting bans to require a discussion simply for the fact that this RfC occured is laughable. Just as laughable is the idea that unlimited sanctions should be allowed just because of this proposal. This is not an all or nothing matter—please do not treat it as one. Dross (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 8

Examknow may only appeal after 6 months has passed. If an appeal fails, he must wait at least 6 months before trying again.

a) Support

1.  Support as proposed ~ RhinosF1 - _(chat)^{· acc· c} - (on) 21:45, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
2.  Support as proposed Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 21:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

b) Oppose

1.  Oppose 6 months is a long period of time for preventing someone to appeal. I think either 3 months would work, or no limits on appeals. Reception123 (talk) (C) 09:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
2.  Oppose. If Examknow has rational objections to this process, they should be heard at any time; though more-of-the-same in the form of an "appeal" should be treated as more-of-the-same. Spıke (talk)13:08 30-Oct-2019
3.  Oppose 4 weeks. CnocBride | Talk | Contribs 16:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
4.  Oppose Per Code_of_Conduct/Commission#Appealing. The revocations of rights will probably last more than a week, and the user in question should not be deprived of his/her right to appeal.--開拓者 (The Pioneer) (^talk/_contribs | global🌎) 13:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
5.  Oppose, three weeks at least. –Aνδρέας ^{talk | contributions} 15:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
6.  Oppose The time limit is a lot. --DeeM28 (talk) 15:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
7.  Oppose Per the above comments --EK ● contribs 23:42, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
8.  Strong oppose in favor of no limits. Dross (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

d) Comments

• I'm open to lower limits if wanted. ~ RhinosF1 - _(chat)^{· acc· c} - (on) 11:03, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

From Spike

I have been aware of Examknow's activities here, but am not sure I noticed when he first arrived. On that basis, I suspected he was very young or not a native English speaker or both, I believed he was wrong to take the initiative to interact with new Miraheze users, and observed that he had such a curt style as might disaffect some of them. I don't know everything he has done here but I have read the report. It makes assertions of widely varying degrees of seriousness. These include:

• Deciding incorrectly; I plead guilty as well.
• Being impolitic in discussions; probably me-too again.
• Having poor coding/MediaWiki skills: Does not warrant discipline.
• "Hat collecting," which means accumulating permissions solely for the sake of having them and not for the sake of using them constructively. The term has delighted me, but it exists mostly to disparage users for acting too vainly and is not an offense if the hats were not gotten fraudulently and not misused.
• Portraying himself as a Miraheze authority or go-to person that he does not merit. This is disruptive and annoying.
• Acting with overt bad faith when Miraheze executives interrogated him. This is a banning offense.
• Causing actual harm to Miraheze? This is even worse, but I don't know enough to agree he did so.

My conclusions:

1. Proposal 7 "authorises additional sanctions to be placed without community approval." In fact, I am willing that the current round of sanctions be placed without community approval.
2. At least he should be broken down to autopatrolled; at most he should be banned from Meta for a time, which as far as I know is the only place he has been disruptive. If Examknow has a wiki, he might be sent to it, to learn what he doesn't know about coding, though it probably won't teach him the interpersonal skills he needs. I don't see cause for a global ban.
3. He is one of a stream of anonymous users from around the world, and I am unenthusiastic about making requests that he improve his behavior, and about the offer of a gradual program to rehabilitate him (or to let us pat ourselves on the back for how gradual we are). The priority goal is to end the disruption of Meta and Miraheze, and this includes the mere wasting of the executives' time. Spıke (talk)03:00 30-Oct-2019

Hi Spike, Regarding the potentially bringing harm to Miraheze, I do believe there is a a high chance that we would have, with some users, better reputations or more users if he hadn’t have made some mistakes that he’s made. I agree with you that just not having good skills doesn’t warrant discipline but when you don’t know your limit and then apply for things that require more knowledge or represent yourself to have those skills, it does. Even know you agree with placing sanction without authorisation, we’d appreciate if you’d support the proposals explicitly in the support sections so whoever closes this is clear on who’s supporting what. Thanks, ~ RhinosF1 - _(chat)^{· acc· c} - (on) 04:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

No sale. Yes, Miraheze is harmed incrementally by poor interpersonal skills that drive away one or a few users. But "bringing harm to Miraheze" means something, like giving an interview to the newspaper that Miraheze preys on children. The complaint against Examknow should be specifics about what he did, not rhetoric about a cataclysm he might bring on if unchecked. I will look again at the ballot questions, but the point of my comment is the imprecision of the charges against Examknow; also, as always, the clumsiness of the "public vote" process compared to a team of Stewards that are likely to do the right thing. Spıke (talk)12:52 30-Oct-2019

Statement by CnocBride

I have not encountered this member directly, so I would ask all people viewing this statement to take note of that. I am basing my judgement purely off the evidence provided in the review conducted by the three community members. While it may be inappropriate for me, a formerly active member of the community, to comment on these issues, I am here purely off my own accord and just want to state no one other than my own conscience has asked me to take a look at this matter and pass my opinion over it. Again, take it with a pinch of salt since my activities on Miraheze since my resignation from the Code of Conduct Commission at the 2018 election has been confined to my private wiki.

I will review each piece of evidence separately:

Incorrectly declined wiki requests

Wiki Request 9481

Was rejected on the basis of 'Fandom closing it'. I disagree with this methodology as I firmly believe that a violation of Wikia community guidelines does not warrant that we, the Miraheze community, be weary of newcomers from that platform. The wiki should have been created and if problems did arise, they should have been dealt with according to normal procedure.

Wiki Request 9663

"The wiki has been deleted. Please contact a steward or leave a note on the stewards' noticeboard." I do not see this as an issue, I would need to be provided with more insight on this matter.

 Comment: The only reason I had marked this wiki as declined was because CreateWiki would not allow me to create it from the Special:CreateWiki interface as the wiki database already existed but when I navigated to the wiki, I saw an error that it was deleted. That was the only reason why I did not create it. Thanks. --EK ● contribs 18:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Pinging CnocBride --EK ● contribs 18:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Examknow so you leave it be and let a steward or sysadmin know... not decline it Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 18:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Declining is actually the right action here. Cordially, I'd make a request RhinosF1 considers making a statement to the effect that this isn't an accurate part of evidence to the point of incorrect handling but rather of correct handling. John (talk) 19:58, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. CnocBride | Talk | Contribs 00:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@John: Based on the request, If it was deleted and showing wiki not found but a DB was still there blocking it and they wanted the wiki Re-Creating which based on the request, they did. Then surely Examknow should have referred them to phab: rather than SN so the actual decline reason remains wrong. ~ RhinosF1 - _(chat)^{· acc· c} - (on) 08:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Request 9411 I personally would have created this wiki. As the wiki is private, I do not believe it is the right of a wiki creator to ask for any more specific details then what were specified. The requester specified "231 docs private repository"; the rationale for the request is there, docs private repository. It should be clear from that statement that the requester was using it as a database for private documents, the comment given by the wiki creator insinuated that there needed to be more information given on the docs specifically.

Wiki Request 9459

A good quote in regards to this: "Contempt prior to investigation is what enslaves a mind to Ignorance". There is no reason to believe such a wiki is a spam wiki, we can only assert that if the wiki members begin to violate the guidelines upon which Miraheze was built. This presumption was wrong and the wiki should have been created.

Blunt remarks on wiki requests

Wiki Request 9409

If a wiki creator feels that a wiki is against community guidelines, explain it to them. Don't give them a vague response about how it's against the rules. I don't see this necessarily as blunt, but rather just incompetency and vagueness. Consultation with other wiki creators and Miraheze staff should have been taken if the creator in question was confused.

Wiki Request 9456, 9457, 9458 and 9459

Only see comments given other wiki creators, see no relevance to the current investigation. Am I viewing this wrong or something?

 Fixed ~ RhinosF1 - _(chat)^{· acc· c} - (on) 11:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Misleading claims

I'm not going to go to deep into this, edits show a general lack of competency on the users part. Espousing a sense of understanding of Miraheze policy to members of the community despite making errors in edits and false claims.

IRC Issue

I'll leave that to the CoCC review.

Bringing Miraheze in to disrepute

Fully agree. Such actions may be offputting for certain newcomers to the community.

Evasion of questioning

I would like to see more concrete proof brought forward on this, as I have said, I have no dealt with the user personally. If a member periodically goes inactive, then I would not categorize that as evasion. However, if the member regularly ignores questions, attempts to deflect, disappears when tough questions are asked and reappears hours later to do work - then that is a heavy indicator they have no intent of answering them questions.

However, we must be aware, this is not a court of law and we cannot legally bind anyone to answer questions. Yes, failure to answer questions about such things as bots and their intentions could be a violation of community guidelines but again, Examknow is under no obligation to answer so there is that to take into account.

• I don't believe any of the evidence regarding this would be suitable for public release but it was based on multiple things including deflecting things, and disappearing when issues arrisesed. ~ RhinosF1 - _(chat)^{· acc· c} - (on) 11:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Competency

As stated above.

Hat collecting

I would like to see examples of specific requests and statements from local wiki admins who have dealt with this user.

• This was stated by a Simple Wikipedia admin but I don't know whether they would be willing to expand. ~ RhinosF1 - _(chat)^{· acc· c} - (on) 11:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Conclusion remarks

From the above reading, Examknow is not a malicious user of the site. Yes, he may have some flaws but so do we all. I believe that this facade of Examknow being a well versed member in matters of Miraheze needs to be rid of. Examknow must not attempt to espouse a disposition of being an expert on all matters Mediawiki and community administration. He mus also improve his interpersonal skills. No, he does not have to be charismatic but simply improve his phraseology so that it is more attuned to working with people who are new to the community and do not know him well. Bluntness, regardless of it being involuntary, can cause to people leaving Miraheze as I believe it portrays Miraheze as just another bureaucratic online community - which we are not. In essence, I propose the following action:

• Autopatrolled status be revoked.
• He improves his conduct.
• I agree with spike. He must ensure that all his edits are in good faith. They may be slightly incompetent, but if they are in good faith they can be easily reversed. This ties in with my above proposed action.
• IRC cloak is revoked.
• Wiki creator status is revoked. He may regain it once he has showed proper improvement of conduct.

That is all what I will give on this matter for today. CnocBride | Talk | Contribs 16:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I think your conclusion sums the issue up pretty well. ~ RhinosF1 - _(chat)^{· acc· c} - (on) 11:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Examknow

Hi everyone. I just wanted to clear a few things up about the findings listed. I would like to start with how I did not mean to be curt or rude on anything and I will certainly be more careful about this in the future. I personally have carefully reviewed the findings myself and I did find a few mistakes. When I was looking at the wiki requests to see what I might have done wrong, I saw that request numbers 9546, 9547, 9548, and 9549 appeared to have been responded to by another wiki creator and I had not responded to them in any way. As for the behavior on IRC, I did not see the sections of IRC logs that were reviewed, however my IRC logs nor my memory do not recall any activity on IRC that was against the Miraheze Code of Conduct which I just reviewed prior to writing this topic. I am not saying that anyone is completely wrong, but I would just like to add my input for you all to see. If anyone would like more details or has any questions, I am available to talk. Thanks everyone. --EK ● contribs 23:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Pinging RhinosF1, Reception123, and Zppix for their input. --EK ● contribs 23:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@John, CnocBride, and Examknow: I've fixed the incorrect wiki request numbers. ~ RhinosF1 - _(chat)^{· acc· c} - (on) 08:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Examknow: Be nice, Be respectful. I don't believe in the recent Incident you did either. ~ RhinosF1 - _(chat)^{· acc· c} - (on) 08:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

From 開拓者

The procedures of this RfC is unclear, and thus I don't think this RfC is valid (at least in some parts).

1. Is this a CoCC issue or a community issue? - If it's a CoCC issue, CoCC has the right to decide what to do without the community decision. However, it seems to me that not all the cases should be handled as a CoCC issue (ex. (non-intentional) mistakes the user has made so far). They should be treated separately.

Some parts are CoCC issues. ~ RhinosF1 - _(chat)^{· acc· c} - (on) 14:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

1. If some parts of this RfC are indeed CoCC cases, is it a due process for a non-CoCC member to file this report? - Unless Zppix and RhinosF1, who are both non-CoCC members, are indeed the reporters of these cases, filing these cases under their names is misleading and confusing. And even if so, they should be clear why they would like to ask for a community decision for CoCC related parts.

--開拓者 (The Pioneer) (^talk/_contribs | global🌎) 14:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I will shortly be passing a file onto the CoCC to review but we’re giving the community the opportunity to act on all the public evidence. ~ RhinosF1 - _(chat)^{· acc· c} - (on) 14:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

All right, but as for CoCC issues, what does the community say mean? CoCC should be independent from the community (or so I understand), and it's not very meaningful IMO to hold a community vote. Also, issues handled by the community should/may be a topic of RfC, but CoCC issues should be separated as it's confusing.--開拓者 (The Pioneer) (^talk/_contribs | global🌎) 15:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

There’s also quite a few non CoCC issues. ~ RhinosF1 - _(chat)^{· acc· c} - (on) 15:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

True, but, for example, the revocation of permissions, if made, might be interpreted as a result of the report as a whole, which includes possible CoC violations (that should be handled by CoCC); the reason(s) of the community decisions will be unclear as long as these issues are mixed up.--開拓者 (The Pioneer) (^talk/_contribs | global🌎) 15:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree completely --EK ● contribs 12:58, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Please understand that CoCC reports are confidential unless decided otherwise. (Personal opinion: I don't think CoCC is the only venue to resolve conduct issues.) — revi 08:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

True about CoCC reports being confidential, which is why I think some issues under the scope of CoCC should be treated separately. According to the Code of Conduct#Enforcement, such issues should be handled under the responsibility of CoCC members; considering that CoCC is "a group of people that represent the Miraheze community," community may have a say if CoCC (and not the reporter(s)) decides to make reports public and asks for it. However, there's no clear consent by the CoCC this time, which is why I believe this part (conduct related part) is not a valid discussion and should clearly be separated from this RfC.--開拓者 (The Pioneer) (^talk/_contribs | global🌎) 14:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

In rare cases the Commission may determine that a public statement will need to be made. If that is the case, the identities of all victims and reporters will be treated confidentially. This information will not be included in the public statement, unless those individuals instruct the Commission otherwise.

CoCC says if reporter says they want to be named, they can be named. So, if someone wants to say something about a case they reported, IMO they should be free to do so. I am not going to comment about a specific case. — revi 14:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Reporters, yes, they can make the fact they reported someone public. However, making who was reported public before any judgement is made is IMO not a due process (thus, this "someone" part should not be taken into public like this). Otherwise, this could get somewhat like a witch hunting or online bullying.--開拓者 (The Pioneer) (^talk/_contribs | global🌎) 14:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

---

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