Requests for Comment/Examknow followup

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

The RfC is closed as proposals 1, 2, 3 and 4 having less than a majority in support of them. For Proposal 1.1, there is a 50/50 split, therefore no consensus either side for enacting a change to the policy. John (talk) 16:34, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

---

Follow the outcome of Requests for Comment/Examknow, it appears the community is not allowed to vote revocation of Wiki Creator. This RfC exists to change that. Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 22:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I have further expanded the RfC. ~ RhinosF1 - _(chat)^{· acc· c} - (on) 18:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed facts

• Examknow was a wiki creator (person charged with dealing with wiki requests).
• He behaved to users in a way that could be interpreted as overly blunt, Special:RequestWikiQueue/9409 Special:RequestWikiQueue/9546 and bellow
• and has declined a wiki request later approved, Special:RequestWikiQueue/9481
  • and Reception123, RhinosF1, and Zippix feel that he incorrectly declined Special:RequestWikiQueue/9663, Special:RequestWikiQueue/9411 and Special:RequestWikiQueue/9549
• and has been accused of hat collecting (getting new rights for the sake of it).
• There are more serious allegations the evidence of which can not be shared.
• The policy at the time said that the right "wiki creator" could only be taken away by a steward for violating the content policy or by a system administrator for causing damage (from a technical point of view).
• The community has specifically rejected removal of wiki creator through RfC. Requests_for_Comment/Future_of_Wikicreators#Community_consensus_1
• The community supported removal of his wiki creator rights when asked in an RfC.
• John closed the RfC noting that it has support but can't be conducted because of the aforementioned policy.
• Additionally the community asked that Examknow's IRC Cloak be removed.
• John said in the closing note that "a recommendation will be passed along to the group contacts" with regards to the IRC.
• NDKilla then stated that "group contacts have decided that current behaviour does not advocate removal, following the guidelines in IRC/Group"
• Group contacts are the people who can ask Freenode to take actions on behalf of the Miraheze IRC group. NDKilla and John are group contacts.

These facts had been compiled by El Komodos Drago and agreed by RhinosF1, John, Reception123, and Examknow see Talk:Requests_for_Comment/Examknow_followup

Proposal 1

Allow community to vote for revocation of the Wiki Creator user right.

Support

1.  Strong support Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 22:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
2.  Strong support vague but we can chose the exact specifications of required support etc. as other proposals or in a future RfC. ~ RhinosF1 - _(chat)^{· acc· c} - (on) 18:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose To give us a sample of how it would be used one need only look to the case that precipitated this. ExamKnow was subject to an RfC where the serious allegations (that they misled, lied to and evaded investigators) however the evidence for these claims was not only undisclosed but undescribed. The minor allegations are at best questionable and at worse down right subjective. Further, they face claims that they violated rules that were not codified at the time (see my response in section 3). 19:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
2.  Oppose If we're to support community revocation of Wiki Creator, we should also support community appointment. Even better, do away with the group entirely, making wiki creation a steward task. Also very shady not to consider past RfCs from the start. Dross (talk) 21:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

   Wiki Creator is a community appointed right. ~ RhinosF1 - _(chat)^{· acc· c} - (on) 21:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

3.  Oppose Support Amendment 1 to this proposal. Reception123 (talk) (C) 06:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
4.  Oppose see my reasoning in Amendment 1 to Proposal 1. Paladox (talk) 13:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
5. No to everything. See my general comments below. Spıke (talk)00:54 10-Nov-2019
6.  Oppose While I think the topic itself is worth discussing, proposing it as a "followup" of an individual case is IMO not the right way to do this. Amendment to the general rules should be done on a different RfC.--開拓者 (The Pioneer) (^talk/_contribs | global🌎) 18:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
7.  Oppose per above --EK ● contribs 00:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Abstain

1.  Abstain Is this only case specific? I believe that there should be an option for removal of wiki creator rights in general if they commit serious rule violations during their period as wiki creator. However, I do not believe a community vote on Examknow is necessary at this present moment in time. CnocBride | Talk | Contribs 01:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments

•  Comment: I'm leaving a link to the previous revocation case which started with a vote. I guess this is one of the reasons which caused this confusion (though the RfP itself was closed properly as a Steward action IMO).--開拓者 (The Pioneer) (^talk/_contribs | global🌎) 17:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Amendment 1 to Proposal 1

Keeps the initial statement from Proposal 1 but adds the following conditions:

• there is a support ratio of at least 50%
• a period of one week has passed since it started

Support

1.  Support While I originally voted against people being able to revoke wiki creators I now realize it is important to be able "recall" or "revoke" users who are elected by the community and that the current policy is very strict on what a wiki creator has to do in order to be removed (i.e. someone could be rude to people on Meta but they can't be removed because they haven't violated the CP). Reception123 (talk) (C) 06:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
2.  Support it makes sense to have the same rule as for other elections on miraheze. --DeeM28 (talk) 07:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

   Could you point me to the policies other roles can be revoked under? ~ El Komodos Drago (talk to me) 09:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

   Steward, CVT and meta sysop I believe all have community removal policies on their relevant pages. ~ RhinosF1 - _(chat)^{· acc· c} - (on) 09:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

3.  Support seems fair. ~ RhinosF1 - _(chat)^{· acc· c} - (on) 09:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
4.  Strong support I support both this and the original proposal Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 16:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
5.  Support The amendment is reasonable and simple to abide by. centrist16 | | 23:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose As I stated with regards to section 1, this power is vague and will likely be used to recall creators who did nothing against the rules (e.g. Examknow). Furthermore, the evidence in such cases may be subjective (hat collecting, for instance, requires us to know what was going through Examknow's head. Unless anyone here is a mind reader I can not see how that can be done.) Worse it may be, as it was in the Examknow case, private making a public RfC useless as the people voting don't have the evidence, rendering it nothing but a popularity contest (The Examknow case verges on a witch hunt, RhinosF1 told us in the Discord that they started investigating because "we have a bit of history and I found issues with some stuff he'd done"). ~ El Komodos Drago (talk to me) 08:50, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
2.  Oppose I agree with @El Komodos Drago that this is vague and can be used to go after any user just because you doin't like them or because they did nothing against the rules at the time. I can see the community voted for the RFC because the full evidence was not there. Also what constitutes 50% of the community? 6 users? 10 users? If it's that easy to revoke something then we need to change this. The rights should only be able to be revoked in exceptional circumstances e.g you have concrete proof he did something serious. This RFC is unprecedented and is targeting him. As someone said supporters could be targeted by this unprecedented action. Paladox (talk) 13:26, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
3. No to everything. See my general comments below. As far as I know, all RfCs require "a support ratio of at least 50%" also known as a majority. Regarding a mandatory minimum time to leave the question open, a proposal cannot set procedural rules for its own adoption. Moreover, as I see this RfC as dilatory, I think it should be administratively closed. Spıke (talk)01:01 10-Nov-2019
4.  Oppose While I think the topic itself is worth discussing, proposing it as a "followup" of an individual case is IMO not the right way to do this. Amendment to the general rules should be done on a different RfC.--開拓者 (The Pioneer) (^talk/_contribs | global🌎) 18:05, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
5.  Oppose Supporting the comments of Spike and Paladox, also see my comments in general comments section. CnocBride | Talk | Contribs 23:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments

@クールトレイン７７７:, @Pkbwcgs:, @開拓者:, @Centrist16:, @Enfaru:, and @Amanda Catherine: all voted on a similar proposal. I have pinged them here so they get a chance to respond. ~ El Komodos Drago (talk to me) 22:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 2

The community requests the immediate full implementation of Requests for Comment/Examknow. Including both the revocation of Wiki Creator and his IRC cloak.

Support

1.  Strong support The community asked for it so it should be done. ~ RhinosF1 - _(chat)^{· acc· c} - (on) 18:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
2.  Strong support Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 18:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Strongest oppose I oppose this because i feel this is a witch hunt. I also absolutely am against going after users like this. This means we could go after any user that did something that was later was banned. (I know this specifically mentions only Examknow but still the point still applies). Paladox (talk) 19:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
2.  Strong oppose the community can request it all they like but unless they would like to backdate proposal 1 (and thereby take an extremely unethical step) it can not be done. ~ El Komodos Drago (talk to me) 19:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
3.  Strongest oppose per Paladox and El Komodos Drago. Dross (talk) 21:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
4.  Oppose For the Wiki Creator revocation I believe Stewards have taken correct action based on the current policy, but I would like to see my amendment to Proposal 1 implemented and a vote in that sense. As for the IRC cloak I don't think the community needs to pressure the group contacts on this matter. Reception123 (talk) (C) 06:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
5.  Strong oppose i opposed the removal of the IRC cloak on the RfC so I can not agree to this. --DeeM28 (talk) 07:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
6. No to everything. See my general comments below. Spıke (talk)00:58 10-Nov-2019
7.  Oppose The voting so far already shows that this is definitely NOT the community opinion, which itself is already an enough reason. Additionally, the closure was done in a valid manner, and taking "the community" over it without a valid reason is a violation of the very rules that "the community" has built over the past years; we should respect what we have created (necessary amendments are welcome, but this is not the proper way).--開拓者 (The Pioneer) (^talk/_contribs | global🌎) 18:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
8.  Oppose Supporting the comments of Spike and Paladox, also see my comments in general comments section. CnocBride | Talk | Contribs 23:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
9.  Strongest oppose The reasoning for the original RfC was very wrong to begin with and I think that it is ridiculous that a SECOND RfC is being opened in the hope that the community will change it's mind. On IRC RhinosF1 told me that I had better resign as wiki creator or else there would be chaos. I just think that there was no real reason for this RfC and it really should just be closed. --EK ● contribs 00:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 3

Where no policy allows for the result of an RfC, Stewards should use discretion to determine whether the proposal has support to pass and implement it. The closing steward should then request the community clarify procedure for next time.

Support

1.  Strong support To avoid future loopholes. ~ RhinosF1 - _(chat)^{· acc· c} - (on) 18:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
2.  Strong support Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 18:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Strongest oppose

   Well, I don't think I've ever used strong oppose before let alone strongest oppose, I've always felt that it was a bit naff personally, but if there ever was a time that time is now. The way I view it is that if this were a law it would violate the ECHR (The European Convention on Human Rights). At that point, you must back down and take a long hard look at yourself and say "do I really want to do this?" And the answer is no, you don't really want to do this because it is deeply unethical and immoral.

   The truth is that rules exist not just so that people can be punished but so that people know what is acceptable. How will people know what is acceptable and what is not? More importantly, how would the supporters feel if this was, a few years down the line, used as a precedent against them? It is totally unacceptable for a rule to be backdated as no one would know when they are breaking a rule that will come up in the future.

   Further, you appear to be supporting this because it is convenient at this time. I hate to say it but convenient at this time is where dictatorships come from. First, they come to power promising democracy then when they can't deliver their reforms because of that democracy they allow democracy to be circumvented. Before long they have become a tyrant. ~ El Komodos Drago (talk to me) 19:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

2.  Strongest oppose See my reasoning in Proposal 2. I also second what @El Komodos Drago says above. Paladox (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
3. No to everything. See my general comments below. EKD says above that this would violate the ECHR. In the US, it would be called an unconstitutional Bill of Attainder: a rule or procedure devised with exactly one person in mind. Spıke (talk)00:58 10-Nov-2019

   PS to clarify: I am not saying Proposal 3 violates the U.S. Constitution! only that it is a bad idea of the same sort from which the Constitution bars the government. Just an analogy, like the ECHR one. Spıke (talk)23:31 10-Nov-2019

4.  Oppose Stewards' discretion should lie within the rules, not to rule them.--開拓者 (The Pioneer) (^talk/_contribs | global🌎) 18:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
5.  Oppose Supporting the comments of Spike and Paladox, also see my comments in general comments section. CnocBride | Talk | Contribs 23:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposal 4

The community confirms they do not support the implementation and decisions in the closure of the Examknow RfC.

Support

1.  Strong support ~ RhinosF1 - _(chat)^{· acc· c} - (on) Definitely. 18:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
2.  Strong support Zppix (Meta | CVT Member | talk to me) 18:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

1.  Oppose Paladox (talk) 19:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
2.  Oppose in the context of the proposals above it seems that this exists only to go after John for stuff he was bound by policy not to do (removal of Wiki Creator) and technologically couldn't do (removal of the IRC cloak). ~ El Komodos Drago (talk to me) 19:42, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

   John and PuppyKun/NDK both have the ability to request IRC cloaks are removed. ~ RhinosF1 - _(chat)^{· acc· c} - (on) 19:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

   Which Jhon says he's done. Also are you agreeing that this is aimed at going after Jhon? ~ El Komodos Drago (talk to me) 20:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

   John and NDK chose not to remove the cloak. This proposal is aimed at stating the community isn’t happy with the actions that happened. The above proposals are meant to resolve the issue for future. ~ RhinosF1 - _(chat)^{· acc· c} - (on) 20:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

   As I understand it, they can not remove the cloak themselves rather they must wait for the people incharge of the IRC to do so (which the people incharge of the IRC declined to do). Am I wrong? ~ El Komodos Drago (talk to me) 20:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

   They are in charge of the Miraheze area on IRC. They were the ones that made the decision not to remove it. ~ RhinosF1 - _(chat)^{· acc· c} - (on) 20:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

3.  Oppose Though I have some gripes about some of John's RfC closes and procedural work on Miraheze, there is nothing unreasonable regarding the closes. Additionally, referring specific matters to their respective management groups should not be penalized and is a perfectly reasonable action. Dross (talk) 21:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
4.  Oppose As I said above, I support the decisions made as they have been made in accordance with current policies and it is not up to John to decide what the policies are, it is up to the community which had given their say about it in the previous RfC. Even though the vote was given a while ago, we can't just assume that people have changed their mind about the matter because they voted here in an unrelated matter. We can use the example of Brexit, because three years passed can the government just assume that everyone changed their mind about it and call a referendum every year to confirm that people changed their mind? Reception123 (talk) (C) 06:29, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
5.  Strong oppose I support what the stewards have done and per above. --DeeM28 (talk) 07:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
6. No to everything. See my general comments below. Annoyance at one user has become a motion that the community does not support the governance of this wiki farm? Spıke (talk)00:58 10-Nov-2019
7.  Oppose The closure was done in a valid manner, and I support the results of the previous RfC. This sounds more like a complaint to me.--開拓者 (The Pioneer) (^talk/_contribs | global🌎) 18:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
8.  Strong oppose Consensus in my view was gathered. CnocBride | Talk | Contribs 23:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
9.  Strong oppose You asked the community and the community told their opinion --EK ● contribs 00:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments

Does this mean that they don't support that it was closed at all or don't support that it was closed in the way it was? ~ El Komodos Drago (talk to me) 19:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Don’t support the result and way that closure was (not) implemented. Feel free to copy edit the wording. ~ RhinosF1 - _(chat)^{· acc· c} - (on) 19:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

This entire retaliation is extremely worrisome to me. These proposals set the precedent for mob rule and reversal or overruling of other set policies, commissions, or procedures. It starts with more minor global rights like Wiki Creator, but will eventually expand to other things like stewards, staff, or code of conduct. Dross (talk) 21:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

General comments

I just want to say that I think that this case with Examknow has gone very far and has become drama because the people who are trying to ban Examknow are causing more drama and fuss than Examknow himself right now, when it would have been easier to accept the result of the Rfc and monitor the behavior of Examknow to make sure he does not continue to act in the way that he did. I also agree fully with Paladox's comment about this now being a witch hunt and the investigators only wanting at any cost to get rid of Examknow. --DeeM28 (talk) 07:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

No to everything. Accusers presented their case in the original RfC: that defendant (1) committed newbie errors, (2) acted "too big for his britches," and (3) did other things they cannot disclose. If there was disruption meriting a block, Admins could have acted with or without an RfC.

Now, accuser, dissatisfied with the result, comes again with another restatement of the High Crimes and another vote. And then another, until you win? This RfC is "dilatory": It asks to measure the will of the community though it has already been measured and nothing significant has happened in the meantime; that is, it is a waste of voters' and management's time.

On a global level: Defendant is guilty of joining a new club and trying to become an instant leader. Accusers are guilty of the same thing. Spıke (talk)00:52 10-Nov-2019

I second this. To me, this has turned into a sort of quasi-witchhunt where people are trying to hunt for rule violations, rather than addressing the already established rule violations. These rule violations have already been addressed, consensus has been agreed upon and I do not believe that putting another RfC to the community because certain members were upset with the RfC previous is a good way for the community to run. An RfC should have longstanding consensus until new evidence is brought forward which precipitates a new RfC. At the moment, no new evidence has been brought forward so I deem whatever action was recommended in the previous RfC to be the only valid action unless the 'prosecutors' can bring forward new examples of where Examknow has violated community guidelines. CnocBride | Talk | Contribs 01:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with everything said up here. --EK ● contribs 00:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Timing, as with the motives I am becoming increasingly interested in the timing of these RfCs. They have become a major issue in the CoCC election because they are running side by side. I wonder if this will be quite as interesting tale to hear as the motives were. ~ El Komodos Drago (talk to me) 23:50, 11 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