Code of Conduct/Commission/Election/2019/Question

Questions for All Candidates

 * What would your priorities be on the commission?


 * My priorities on the commission would be to become more effective and to have a functional and active Code of Conduct commission which will process requests in a timely manner. Reception123 (talk) ('C' ) 12:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The requests sent to CoCC should be handled and investigated thoroughly and in a reasonable time. Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 17:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * To ensure that the CoCC operates at paramount efficiency while also ensuring that all cases are investigated thoroughly and fairly; all sides must be heard. I would also make it a sidebar activity to reform the electoral system with my CoCC colleagues for future elections and ensure that it is as fair and as proportional as possible. &#32; Miraheze Logo.svg CnocBride | Talk | Contribs  17:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Personally, I would love to make sure that the Commission can make a response within the first week a report is issued, even if this is only a preliminary action. This will require that the entire Commission is active in their duties. -- Void  Whispers 00:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the commission to handle complicated and complex investigations into conduct where delegated platform administrators are not able to handle them. Therefore, the only real priority for the commission should be up holding the principles of Miraheze with regard to open, accessible, civil and free discussions. Conduct should always be held to a high regard to allow the best decisions and discussions to occur in such a diverse community. John (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Firstly, following the rules as a matter of course is important. Speedy response as the first step is part of them (per the 72 hours rule), but it's only one among the rules we should follow. Secondly, I'd like to put another high priority on providing a diverse view to the commission since it's one of my biggest strengths. As I said on the RfC regarding harrassment, not all communities (including my home wiki) are English communities, and understanding the cultural contexts they have when an issue is reported will be my specialty.-- 20:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


 * What do you think you would bring to the commission?


 * I think I could bring my experience on Miraheze and my experience with cases similar to what would be sent to the commission. Reception123 (talk) ('C' ) 12:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have always been a heavy believer of civility, and I take pride in trying to help maintain civility in the projects I am apart of as well as make sure I, myself am being civil. Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 17:37, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe I will bring pragmatism, firm belief in equality and fair judgement and civility to CoCC investigations. While I'm not insinuating the current commission lacks such characteristics, I believe I have established myself as a civil and fair member of the Miraheze community who is able to work well with other people and reach consensus in a civil and peaceful manner. I am flexible, able to mold my opinions and stances for present situations and ensure that everyone is treated with respect. &#32; Miraheze Logo.svg CnocBride | Talk | Contribs
 * As a sitting member of the Commission, I have a pretty good idea of what has been working well, and what could use some work. I've been gaining experience communicating with various users about the general operation and ongoing stuff for Miraheze. -- Void  Whispers 00:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have a career of conduct investigations and remain neutral and impartial when conducting complex investigations. Further as a sitting member and being an active voice within the System Administration team when it comes to upholding the principles of Miraheze - I don't shy away from asking the difficult questions or saying the controversial but accurate points. I call out poor and inconducive behaviour when it happens and expect the same with me. John (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As I already said above, I can provide a diverse point of view, especially for non-English/Asian communities and for humor wiki communities. While other candidates are all English natives from English speaking countries (and most of them focusing on meta or phab), I live in Japan and am a Japanese native running a Japanese humor wiki, meaning that I have a different and unique background compared to others. When the community have different cultures, the same action could mean a different thing. On some RfCs (such as the one regarding usernames), I have heard some concerns from users coming from humor wikis, for example. This also came from cultural differences; some usernames can be humorous there, but not on other wikis. A similar thing can occur in reported issues as well, and I am ready to understand the context of each case and provide a proper cultural background whenever necessary so that the commission can make a right judgement.-- 20:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)


 * What measures will you take to maintain integrity and accountability for yourself and fellow commissioners in the course of your duties on the commission?
 * I will deal with all cases objectively, and as I have already done during my previous years, will recuse myself as necessary from any cases that I have been involved with in my other capacities at Miraheze. Reception123 (talk) ('C' ) 08:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I will stand by any inquiry into my dealings as a CoCC member, I will not attempt to sabotage or interfere with any investigations into myself or fellow commissioners by the community and will ensure to recuse myself from all situations in which bias could reasonably be called. &#32; Miraheze Logo.svg CnocBride | Talk | Contribs  !
 * If I have COI I will recuse myself, otherwise I will just stick with the facts and what is able to be proven to determine how I react. Zppix (Meta &#124; CVT Member &#124; talk to me) 20:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Not exactly what has been asked, but the Commission as a whole could do with a bit more reflection on itself. We perhaps could do with having more internal systems to keep everything working smoothly. On a personal level, integrity and accountability have a lot to do with being able to explain yourself. You can't just make a decision (certainly not one on the Commission), and then be unable to say why you made that decision. Worse is if you feel you have to hide the reasons you made the decision. Also, you have to be willing to admit where you went wrong, and that it was a mistake that should not have been made. -- Void  Whispers 00:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Per my reply to the question above, integrity and accountability are a core of my day to day job. I will keep myself accountability to the community during the period of sitting on the commission, being approachable and maintaining a professional impression. John (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Being reasonable, logical, fair, and responsible are the core parts. Whenever I or anyone close to me (ex. someone working on my home wiki together for a long time) is the user in question, I will concentrate on providing necessary information and avoid making a biased judgement. One way to make it clear I'm on the right track is to make sure I would make the same judgement no matter who was questioned, if the context and the actions were exactly the same.-- 20:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Further questions for any nominee willing to answer

 * Some candidates will face the last consecutive term following our rules if successfully elected. Following the last year's result which 4 out of 5 members were elected consecutively (and likely be similar this year as well), do you think we can elect enough new CoCC members next year? If not, do you think we should amend the rules to maintain 5 members? (The point here is what you think about being elected consecutively)
 * I think that we should see that next year, but it is always good to have new people with new approaches, however if there are not enough people who would volunteer next year, yes the rules should be amended to allow more consecutive terms, though hopefully it doesn't come to that. Reception123 (talk) ('C' ) 08:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * To quote a former Irish Prime Minister, Charles Haughey, "Some Chinese leaders go on into their eighties". A humorous statement about term lengths and all that nonsense. I firmly believe if the community have the backing of a certain CoCC member to continue then I see no reason to impose term limits. Of course, if there are enough candidates to fill the seats on the commission, then I believe term limits should be imposed to bring in fresh ideas to the commission. However, if times require that we temporarily abolish term limits on the CoCC, then I see no reason to allow candidates to run again for the office once there is no outright opposition from members of the community to them continuing in the role. &#32; Miraheze Logo.svg CnocBride | Talk | Contribs  17:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that membership in the Commission is something we need to consider a bit more than just relaxing term restrictions, as currently only four of the five nominees have responded to these questions (although I don't know if John knows he has been nominated yet). I am a bit afraid of us not being able to elect five members even without term limits. For all the activity we get across all of our wikis, there is not much of a global community. But, on to the actual question. Personally, I'm not a big fan of some positions being held by one person for long consecutive periods of time. However, I have also experienced situations where imposing a hard limit on position terms resulted in a serious negative impact to the group's functionality. While I don't think that would happen here (if we could find enough candidates to fill all the seats), I also don't see much of a need to have term limits provided that elections happen regularly (and in this case, they do). Ideally, if a change in membership needs to happen, it should happen naturally by the elections. However, when it comes down to it, I'm not sure. I think there should be a community decision on what needs to be done about this. Depending on what happens following this election, I am planning on opening a discussion with the community to try and decide on something. -- Void  Whispers 00:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * People should be elected for as long as their worth and valuable contributions stand. For some, this is one term, for others it can be longer. Candidates should themselves realise when their contributions become to depreciate in value and when they can no longer offer something new or special that someone else can. Being able to recognise when one could potentially being preventing new blood or new ideologies being introduced is a critical characteristic of a good representative. Given the relatively lack of use of the commission in the wider picture, new blood isn't being preventing by the same people being elected as of yet. John (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As the one who posted this question, I don't think we can successfully elect new members if it goes at the current rate. I can think of some candidates to nominate, most of whom have been active on RfCs and have shown a clear view on each topic, but if it failed, the only practical way is to amend the rules so that current members can be elected longer. However, this should be avoided if possible. I don't think current members will go corrupted, and I trust the community judgement that trust them as well, but having members in an environment where no one outside can check what's going inside could lead to mistakes; history has already proven it by showing many of the most trusted politicians fell into the dark side; even if the term limit is amended, I believe there always should be at least one new member to monitor them to keep ourselves accountable.-- 20:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)