The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Strictly speaking, this RfC is appealing no real sanctions imposed. So, administratively, this RfC is null and void but its small consensus is noted. The only sanction which could be appealed is "no additional rights except after 3 months and after a community discussion". This RfC falls outside of those 3 months and no rights are assigned without community discussion already barring autopatrolled. John (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Now that we have established some agreed facts, Examknow would like to propose the following actions. Once again the community is asked to provide their Support, Oppose, or their Abstain for each proposal.
Oppose Per my analysis below, this proposal is too drastic and is attempting to do too much at once. I would be more inclined to support several independent proposals to remove individual restrictions, rather than a single proposal to remove all restrictions at once. Amanda Catherine (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
I have not monitored EK's behavior and, in any case, am not responsible for disciplining other members. But EK himself wrote this proposal for his own rehabilitation, structured as a four-part report card, on which if I assent to these "agreed facts," I seem to be obliged to grant him the remedy he seeks. This is overtly manipulative. By the way, is there anyone else on Miraheze who thinks EK's presence is so vital that he needs to be forgiven his past misconduct? Spıke(talk)15:49 16-Apr-2020
I do not agree to the initial RfC that imposed the sanctions because I think when possible it is up to the administrators and other elected users to discipline users, not up to some general community vote. I think that a request for removal should be voted on, but not a general RfC saying "this user has done something". But because we have had the first rfc we must also have the second and I think users to deserve to be given second chances and to learn from their mistakes. DeeM28 (talk) 06:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Oppose They were some valid issues raised, I see this more as a lesson that EK learnt, it had an impact. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c - (WB) 15:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Are you kidding? Like editing other people's posts, this attempt to purge embarrassing episodes from one's past must not prevail! If EK were to misbehave again, on what grounds should we be prevented from reading that he has a record of similar behavior? Spıke(talk)15:40 16-Apr-2020
Strong oppose From what I know on wikis, deleting and hiding discussions is not something that is done because of transparency. It might be bad for reputation but you cannot simply hide your past. DeeM28 (talk) 06:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Oppose on a purely procedural basis. This proposal is irrelevant, because the mere existence of the previous RFC is not a "sanction" that needs to be "appealed". Amanda Catherine (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
I've taken the time to read through the past two RFCs and almost everything that went along with them. Given that I was not active at the time that the incidents in question occurred, I feel that the analysis I am providing should be truly independent and unbiased. For starters, I don't like how the format of this entire RFC reads like an ArbCom Proposed Decision with the "agreed facts" essentially being the equivalent to "findings of fact". It also makes no sense to me why we are !voting on these facts - if they are agreed upon there should be no reason to !vote or discuss them. The very fact that they are being discussed and are not unanimously supported suggests that not everyone agrees with them.
Furthermore, it is not clear exactly what is being appealed here. One of the proposals is simply to "remove all restrictions", and the other proposal to delete the previous RFC doesn't appear to be relevant (the existence of the RFC is not a sanction that needs to be appealed). This would make more sense if there were individual proposals to remove each of the restrictions that were imposed independently, with a separate !vote and discussion for each. With only one proposal to remove everything, that increases the likelihood that the appeal will fail as written because some people may be willing to lift some but not all restrictions (I'm not saying that is necessarily the case here, but more just in a general sense).
As to the specifics of what led to the restrictions being imposed in the first place - I'm really of two worlds when it comes to the prospect of lifting/vacating them. Going through the evidence that was presented, I see the following issues:
Incorrect declining of wiki requests
Being uncivil towards users when declining their wiki requests
General disruptive editing on Meta (this covers all of the stuff about "overstating knowledge" and whatnot),
Claiming they are going to be active and then not being so,
And being evasive to questions about their activities.
Declining wiki requests incorrectly to me is a simple mistake or error that should not be overemphasized. After all, it's not very difficult for another wiki creator to overturn a declined wiki request and create the wiki (assuming their haven't been significant changes in the CreateWiki interface since I last held the bit). If there is a pattern of incorrect declining after warnings/reminders, then remove the wiki creator right. This does not merit a long drawn-out process as to the logistics of what was agreed upon or what was happening. Incivility when declining wiki requests, however, is a separate issue that needs to be addressed. Wiki creators are often the first people that new Miraheze users interact with, and therefore it is exceptionally important for their communications with new users to be as civil and gentle as possible. Incivility by wiki creators should not be treated as lightly as errors when reviewing requests, because if the first person you interact with at a new group is rude, chances are you may decide to leave that group. That's not what we want to be happening.
Disruptive editing on Meta, whether it be overstating knowledge, making misleading statements, or excessive wikilawyering (all of which are included in the initial evidence) would be best met with a local block if behavior continues after warnings. Again, there does not need to be a long drawn-out discussion about this - it would be within any Meta admin or sysadmin/steward discretion to impose such a block. While the issue of claiming to be active and then not being so could be seen as disruptive editing/misleading, there is always the possibility that real life issues occurred unexpectedly. I say that as someone to whom this has happened to, hence my abrupt and unexpected leave of absence. Pushing for more information repeatedly does not help the situation in such a circumstance, and, if this was indeed the case (I obviously have no knowledge about the circumstances of EK's inactivity), frankly the fact that EK was evasive to questioning should not be unexpected.
I see no reason to believe that given the evidence presented, there was a serious risk of brining Miraheze into disrepute, although I am not privy to the confidential code of conduct commission evidence.
TL;DR Based on my understandings of the publicly available evidence, it seems that there was a major case of going through process just for the sake of going through process, when a lot of what was ultimately achieved could have been achieved quicker through simple admin/steward discretion. Long drawn-out community discussions are really only necessary for major changes affecting multiple users, or if an action taken within discretion is challenged, including by the person the action was taken against. Additionally, both the original RFC and this appeal read to me like an ArbCom case with specific points of evidence and specific "findings of fact", both of which lead to specific remedies. That's not the best way to go about things. Finally, it is not abundantly clear what exactly this appeal is attempting to achieve - since if the facts in question are indeed "agreed facts" there should be no reason to !vote or discuss them, and the only proposals offered are either too drastic (prop. 1) or irrelevant (prop. 2). If I have misinterpreted anything, anyone who was involved in the initial investigations may correct me (politely, of course). Amanda Catherine (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section