User:Reception123/CoCC reform

From Meta

This page is a draft for an upcoming RfC. Please feel free to correct grammar mistakes and to add new proposals. If you would like to modify a current proposal significantly, please contact me first before doing so

As Miraheze continues to evolve and different situations are seen, we must also adapt the global groups that were created quite a while ago, as was done with the old CVT group recently. Today the group that requires a reform is the Code of Conduct Commission. I have been a member of said commission since its existence and during these years have realized that it is not an effective first place to go to if there is a violation of the Code of Conduct. I am not sure whether when it was created it was intended to be the first place to go to, but the current way that the Code of Conduct Commission operates is dysfunctional and the commission is not able to resolve most cases of violations (because a commission is not appropriate for a simple case of a CoC violation). Therefore, we are left with two options: 1) to redefine the scope and the rights of the Code of Conduct Commission and make it the “court of last appeals” and direct users to the CoCC only in order appeal the decisions (or lack thereof) of other groups, or 2) more extremely to abolish the CoCC and give it’s current scope and powers to Stewards and Global Sysops. If we go for the option of redefining the scope, other global groups (or operators on IRC/Discord) would be the first to deal with cases of Code of Conduct violations and if one of the parties are dissatisfied with the decision made by the users they can ask the Code of Conduct Commission to review the case.

Proposal 1 : New scope for CoCC[edit source]

Proposal 1.1: Scope[edit source]

It is clarified that The Code of Conduct Commission is the final arbitration body for disputes under the Code of Conduct, a user may only contact the commission once another group (i.e. Stewards, Global Sysops, IRC/Discord operators, etc.) has been contacted and they are not happy with result after sufficient discussion or that group has exhausted its process. The Code of Conduct Commission's role is to arbitrate the dispute and produce a binding result that analyses and resolves both the issues of the dispute and any improvements that can be made with previous handling. After the review is complete, the CoCC may take any action necessary against the user violating the CoCC or may impose a different sanction (or remove the current one). Users that do not show previous dispute resolution methods have been attempted will be redirected to the other groups and will not be heard by the CoCC.

Support[edit source]

Oppose[edit source]

Abstain[edit source]

Comments[edit source]

Proposal 1.2: Rights[edit source]

The Commission does not have the right to initiate discipline, but may by majority vote ask global or local sysops, as well as any other groups mentioned in the Code of Conduct to take action against user misbehavior, which may include a local block, a ban from IRC/Discord, a global lock, or other sanctions.

Support[edit source]

Oppose[edit source]

Abstain[edit source]

Comments[edit source]

Proposal 1.3: Current appeals section[edit source]

The current section under Procedures for handling a case->Appealing is removed as the Code of Conduct Commission will now be in charge of appeals.

Support[edit source]

Oppose[edit source]

Abstain[edit source]

Comments[edit source]

Proposal 1.4: Appealing sanctions[edit source]

After the Code of Conduct Commission has made their decision, If no period is specified in the decision, a 3 month wait must take place before appealing any sanctions or requesting that they are lifted. The Commission may decide to specify a longer wait before an appeal at its discretion.

Support[edit source]

Oppose[edit source]

Abstain[edit source]

Comments[edit source]

Proposal 1.5: Term Limits[edit source]

Due to the current lack of many active volunteers, I feel that it is best to abolish term limits. Therefore members will not be prohibited from running more than three consecutive terms (though that may be subject to change in the future).

Support[edit source]

Oppose[edit source]

Abstain[edit source]

Comments[edit source]

I don't think the two members, who are chosen directly from the community, should be permanent.-- (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

It will be in line with the current length of terms so they will be regularly confirmed. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c - (on) 17:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Personally,I think it's better that the two members selected directly from the community are replaced each time.I expect these two members to play the role of so-called citizens.I don't think there is a need for restrictions on the three members selected by position.-- (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 1.6a: Current Members[edit source]

The community empowers the CoCC to start a full re-election of members within 28 days of this RfC closing. When the election is closed, the terms of the current members of the CoCC (if not re-elected) end.

Support[edit source]

Oppose[edit source]

Abstain[edit source]

Comments[edit source]

Could you tell me how long the term of the re-elected member will be?-- (talk) 17:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Please see CoCC ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c - (on) 17:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for teaching me.Is it okay to understand that one year starts from the day of re-election?-- (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
It would be stated at the time of election. ~ RhinosF1 - (chat)· acc· c - (on) 18:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for politely answering my question.-- (talk) 18:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Proposal 1.6b: Current Members[edit source]

Notwithstanding proposal 1.6c below, the current members will remain in their position until their term is over.

Support[edit source]

Oppose[edit source]

Abstain[edit source]

Comments[edit source]

Proposal 1.6c: Composition of the Code of Conduct Commission[edit source]

Given that system administrators and stewards are those individuals who would be carrying out global restrictions or sanctions on users' accounts and that the Code of Conduct Commission, in addition to having the ability to command global sanctions as well, acts as the ultimate quasi-judicial tribunal of appeal for users. Therefore, it is proposed that a majority of its membership be composed of users other than system administrators, stewards, and global sysops. Where a resignation of an independent Code of Conduct Commission member occurs outside of the normal Code of Conduct Commission election schedule, a steward is empowered to post a notice of vacancy to the community noticeboard. Any open appeals for lifting of sanctions shall be stayed (that is, the existing restrictions or sanctions remain in place) until conclusion of the by-election and the Code of Commission's composition consists of a majority of independent members. Likewise, stewards are also empowered to globally lock any users' accounts who had open proceedings before the Code of Conduct Commission for CoCC-ordered sanctions until conclusion of the by-election and the CoCC resumes its proceedings, having restored its independent membership balance.

Support[edit source]

Oppose[edit source]

Abstain[edit source]

Comments[edit source]

Proposal 2: Abolition[edit source]

The Code of Conduct Commission is abolished, all members end their terms the day after this RfC is closed if this proposal passes and Stewards, Global Sysops and any other operators are in charge of the Code of Conduct and to sanction any violations.

Support[edit source]

Oppose[edit source]

Abstain[edit source]

Comments[edit source]

Personal suggestions[edit source]

@Reception123, Spike, and Dmehus: I would like to move some of the discussions on the Reception123 talk page to this page.The reason Spike posted on the Reception123 talk page looks like a report, but it seems to me that the discussion has started halfway.Wouldn't it be confusing to participate in the discussion on this page without knowing the discussion on the Reception123 talk page?-- (talk) 04:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@: Please note that disagreements with the specific proposals should be voiced when the RfC is published. This draft period is mostly to fix wording and grammar mistakes and to add proposals, not to discuss the specific proposals. Reception123 (talk) (C) 08:48, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
I commented to Reception123 to give him my opinion during the drafting process. I often state my belief that, once presented, an RfC's wording be solid and, above all, not receive "friendly amendments" after people have voted. The drafting history, including my comments, may be relevant to readers (less so if Reception agrees and omits one proposal). It's fine with me for Reception to include the dialogue with the RfC, perhaps on the talk page. I'll make the same points when I vote. Spıke (talk) 14:46 14-Jun-2020
@, Reception123, Spike, and Dmehus: While I'm not opposed to @:'s thought to move the discussions from Reception123's user talk page, I concur with Reception123 and Spike that those were just preliminary conversations on changes to this CoCC reform draft and/or the CoCC commission itself. It would probably be confusing for people !voting on the eventual RfC on changes to the CoCC to see discussions about potential changes to an earlier revision of the draft. So, I think at this point, we should keep the discussions separate, but definitely {{ping}} me when this is moved out of draft phase, and I'll copy over my comments on the CoCC (not the draft) in general. Dmehus (talk) 15:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree and have said that this period is good for amendments and adding proposals, but discussing the actual merits of each proposal should be done during the vote. For example during the draft process if someone doesn't agree with the proposals they are free to propose an amendment, make another proposal or ask me what I mean by "proposal X" but what is confusing is if comments are added stating an opinion about a proposal before the voting and discussion process has began. Though maybe it would be time to make a few changes to the RfC process. In any case, I will be publishing this one this afternoon (UTC time) and will include this part in a section titled "Drafting period comments". The comments left above I will leave with a note. Reception123 (talk) (C) 06:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
First of all, thank you for teaching me about the draft period and comments.The reason I added the comment was to get additional permission for the proposal by stating the difference in thinking.Why I chose to leave comments on this draft page rather than on the Reception123 talk page, because there were multiple users working on adding and modifying drafts.(i.e. I thought of the talk page as a one-to-one contact with the talk page owner (I thought it was more like a phone than a bulletin board).)I apologize for the confusion caused by the carelessness of my actions.-- (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC)