LPedia talk:Codes of Conduct

How can you add a disclosure to the page describing yourself if you are not supposed to edit pages that describe yourself?

JWD3 (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

This would be to your user page, not an article about you. 8)

-- Strangelv (talk) 21:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The Project page says disclosures on "user's Talk Page" but above indicates "user page" which is the more usual place to put it, at least on Wikipedia. That's where I'll put mine. Just in case people do think that's more appropriate and want to change it. LP-1979 (talk) 19:00, 18 October 2017 (CDT)

It is on the user page - where does it say user talk? I would like to edit that. Here is where I did mine User:CarynAnnHarlosCarynAnnHarlos (talk) 17:05, 19 October 2017 (CDT)

This project page, under Disclosures, says "However, these interests need to be listed on the user's Talk Page under a heading entitled "Disclosures." LP-1979 (talk) 18:34, 19 October 2017 (CDT)

Gracias, corrected it.

Discussion on Code of Conduct

Discussion on this potential addition:

In nearly every case, discussion on disputed items will take place on a user's or an article's discussion page and decided through the LPedia community. However, the Committee reserves the right to remove content that promotes ideologies other than Libertarianism or is harmful to the Party or its interests. Deletions can also occur upon a majority of Historical Preservation Committee members exercising veto power or upon the prerogative of the HPC chair. In accordance with our Party Platform, any entry advocating the initiation of physical force for political or social goals will be removed as well any advocating for bigotry amongst persons or violations of consensual interactions between persons.

The Libertarian Party is founded on the key principles of liberty, responsibility, and respect. With that foundation, it is to be expected that libertarians treat each other with professional respect, thoughtful consideration, and fundamental decency. Violation of this expectation by members of the Party not only risks substantial legal penalties, it also undermines the very legitimacy of the Party and the honor of its members.

I think these paragraphs are mixing several issues in a confusing way. Also that placing them together under the heading "Administration" (the only other heading being "Disclosures of Interest") is glossing over some of the most important parts.

There are two kinds of things being covered here: what might be considered bad conduct (the "code of conduct" itself) and what we might do in response ("administration"). I suggest breaking the sections up that way. There can be sections/sub-sections about problems like conflict of interest, abusive language, lack of "respect", "bigotry", or whatever -- each of which needs to be carefully considered so we don't exclude legitimate information. Note that while the second proposed paragraph is apparently a direct quote from the LNC Policy Manual, it is from a section that applies to conduct of LNC members (and in some cases contractors), not to LP members generally. What is acceptable for LPedia, as a collective work, might also be stricter than what is OK for individual members generally -- but it isn't necessarily exactly the same as what applies to LNC members.

Then there can be a section about how we deal with cases which violate this code.

JWD3 (talk) 15:19, 5 July 2017 (CDT)

JWD3- Yes I agree. Do you have any proposals that would do this? So you are suggesting Code of Conduct with some subsections and then one Administration section that would deal with any purported violations? And yes there is a very fine line to not exclude legitimate factual information and history. Yes the quote is from the LNC manual since they have to carefully deal with this same situation and seemed like a good guiding principle which is why I just copied the principle and not the specifics (and particularly because the specifics had to do with boss/employee dynamics and physical contact). The specifics in the manual are, I think, much stricter than we would have, but the guiding principle - in this context here - I think applies. And it does seem to extend this principle to Party members - particularly on Party property - which this is. I am totally open to thoughts and wish to come to consensus. The initial draft is kinda rough and done between some bouts of illness (I have been on and off being unwell and sit down and do bursts of work and means to sharpen and then get slammed with other stuff. CarynAnnHarlos (talk) 16:15, 5 July 2017 (CDT)