Vigilant wrote:Quackery that makes me feel good about myself.rhindle wrote:People who bring up their Myers/Briggs do not inspire a lot of confidence IMO.
I’ve also noticed that his non WMF nickname is a hardcore Tolkien fanboy reference.
I suspect that we’re only days away from finding his fursona.
Probably a Troll, definitely trolls!
Things are vastly cheaper in Poland.Vigilant wrote:Dude.
You are the saddest lawyer I’ve ever seen.
You charge $17.50/hour?
I’ve been.Poetlister wrote:Things are vastly cheaper in Poland.Vigilant wrote:Dude.
You are the saddest lawyer I’ve ever seen.
You charge $17.50/hour?
I call it “zodiac for nerds”.rhindle wrote:People who bring up their Myers/Briggs do not inspire a lot of confidence IMO.
Yeah, what that sort of thing tells me is that they're not even bothering to really read about it, because any basic reading would confirm that it's not useful.mendaliv wrote:I call it “zodiac for nerds”.rhindle wrote:People who bring up their Myers/Briggs do not inspire a lot of confidence IMO.
My thought is more often than not the people who get way into this stuff end up being a self-fulfilling prophecy. “I’m supposed to be bad with these situations, and I’ve been thrust into this sort of situation?! Oh god I can’t handle this!”Poetlister wrote:Myers/Briggs and similar exercises are necessarily very superficial. Pigeonholing everyone into a small number of groups is bound to oversimplify. Anyway, people are not consistent; test them again and the chances are that they will give slightly different results, and if they're borderline in their group they might be put in a different group the second time.
That's quite reasonable. You also find that some people can function well in a role differenf from their preferred one, although of course they will be less happy if it's for a prolonged period.Anroth wrote:Of course you work in an office long enough you quickly learn the most optimum team makeup is a bunch of Specialists led by a co-ordinator with maybe a monitor/evaluator if your employer cares about followup.
Hat collecting is very much a motivating force behind many editors, so it's wise to create more opportunities to get hats. Of course, those with the biggest collections do very little article editing, suggesting that they're not really there to build an encyclopaedia.
They plan to get "functionaries" involved in enforcement. While arbs might be beneficial in such position, looking at the list of WP:FUNC (T-H-L) you'll see many names discussed on this forum with strong reasons. They have no idea this will recreate the same toxic admin vs. plebs divide of enwiki, just on a new level, unless transparency and accountability is radically improved.
Wait, what? I'm a functionary to help deal with abuse by spammers and trolls, not play nanny to people who can't get along. This sounds like an absolutely terrible idea.
WMF newspiece from 22 May:ReaperEternal wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2020 7:05 pmWait, what? I'm a functionary to help deal with abuse by spammers and trolls, not play nanny to people who can't get along. This sounds like an absolutely terrible idea.
Do you have a link to where the WMF wants to try to convince the CU/OS teams to enforce whatever this universal code of conduct is supposed to be?
Some current OS'ers also support granting themselves more power wrt private investigations in the arbcom rfc.Working with community functionaries to create and refine a retroactive review process for cases brought by involved parties, excluding those cases which pose legal or other severe risks; and
Significantly increasing support for and collaboration with community functionaries primarily enforcing such compliance in a way that prioritizes the personal safety of these functionaries.
Until such directives are implemented, the Board instructs the Foundation to adopt and implement policies for reducing harassment and toxicity on our projects and minimizing legal risks for the movement, in collaboration with communities whenever practicable. Until these two phases of the UCoC are complete and operational an interim review process involving community functionaries will be in effect. In this interim period, the Product Committee of the Board of Trustees will also advise the Trust & Safety team.
I know that I at least don't have the skills or desire to deal with enforcing a universal code of conduct. When has ability to do a job ever had anything to do with what people do on WP? The functionaries form a crowd, and implementation of the policy is crowdsourced.ReaperEternal wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2020 7:29 pmOh lovely. That should be a completely different role, since functionaries (checkusers especially) are more selected on technical knowledge rather than arbitration skills.
This sort of language does seem rather suggestive, to say the least. If they're really putting "functionaries" (the existing ones) in charge of all this, it means (1) they don't want to do it themselves, (2) they don't want to create another level of bureaucracy, since they know the new bureaucracy will be just as easily-compromised as the existing ones, and (3) they probably want the emphasis to be on "high-value targets," i.e., admins who disrespect them (or their spouses, hint hint) and so-called "unblockable" long-term users — otherwise, almost any respected user(s) could do it, they wouldn't need people with advanced permissions.Significantly increasing support for and collaboration with community functionaries primarily enforcing such compliance in a way that prioritizes the personal safety of these functionaries.
Exactly. The wording "collaboration with community functionaries" has a wide range of interpretations and I assume they meant this will be voluntary. Though I tend to assume people to be reasonable more than that actually happens...ReaperEternal wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2020 7:29 pmOh lovely. That should be a completely different role, since functionaries (checkusers especially) are more selected on technical knowledge rather than arbitration skills.
That's the weirdest sentence. What "safety" arbs get today? Yet, every year there are many people running the elections.Midsize Jake wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2020 8:50 pmThe reference to "personal safety" is also interesting — to some extent they may really believe that the functionaries in question will be in real danger because of this, but as always, we don't know if they're using the Wikipedian definitions of the words "danger" and "safety," or the conventional ones.
Once the UCoC is ratified by the board, there will not be an opportunity for specific communities to accept or reject it. it is an official Foundation policy applying across all its online (like the Terms of Use and the Privacy Policy) and related offline spaces (like the Friendly Space Policy).
I am pleased that they included gaslichting in the "abuse of power" section.Pudeo wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 3:58 pmThe draft has been published.
Universal Code of Conduct/Draft review
That should be easy to identify and police.Gaslighting (Psychological manipulation): Working (alone or with a group) to cause someone to doubt their own perceptions, senses, or understanding. People with community authority have a particular privilege to be viewed as reliable and should not abuse this to attack others who disagree with them.
Easy to identify, but probably impossible to police given the power imbalance in favour of those with "community authority".Giraffe Stapler wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 4:55 pmI am pleased that they included gaslichting in the "abuse of power" section.That should be easy to identify and police.Gaslighting (Psychological manipulation): Working (alone or with a group) to cause someone to doubt their own perceptions, senses, or understanding. People with community authority have a particular privilege to be viewed as reliable and should not abuse this to attack others who disagree with them.
I was being sarcastic! Well spotted!
It's so often difficult to tell.
sign, or maybe the 
or 
one.
Well, let's face it, it often is easy to identify, especially if you've been participating (or, I daresay, observing) for a sufficient period of time. So you were right to point that out.
Personally I would lose both of those qualifiers and just say "for their own benefit" — to me that would almost be a no-brainer.Abuse of office by functionaries, officials and staff: misuse of authorities, knowledge or resources at the disposal of (elected) project functionaries, as well as officials and staff of the Wikimedia Foundation or Wikimedia affiliates to intimidate or threaten others, or for their own material or immaterial benefit.
I mean, it's not totally wrong, but what I think they're really trying to say there is something more like, "hostile comments from prominent figures may create the impression of encouraging threats by their friends and supporters," or even "...of encouraging their friends and supporters to amplify the hostility." I understand that they're trying to soft-pedal this by using the word "unintended," but if they're being even slightly realistic, they have to know that sometimes this is completely intentional and even downright malicious.Abuse of seniority and connections: Using one’s position and reputation to intimidate others. We ask people with significant experience and connections in the movement to behave with special care because hostile comments may carry an unintended implication of creating threats from friends and supporters.
So it's still not totally reasonable, but at least they're giving individual WP projects some leeway on how they want to define this. I'm actually a little curious as to why they did — it almost looks like some of them are coming to their senses on this issue, but that can't be right, can it?Doxing: publishing others' private information, such as name, a place of employment, a physical or email address, without their explicit permission. As a minimum standard, one should never publish information that a person has tried to keep private and not published online. Many communities will have a higher standard than this and prefer to prohibit the publication of information published elsewhere on the internet but not shared on a Wikimedia project.
In real life, the way you say something provides clues.Poetlister wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 8:15 pmI've often had sarcasm misunderstood. It's better to use the
I don't see that at all.Midsize Jake wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 8:20 pmOverall though, most of the serious objections to this are probably going to come from the anti-PC crowd, which is basically what we (and, I assume, they) expected.
Insults: This includes name calling, using slurs or stereotypes, and any attacks based on personal characteristics. Insults may refer to perceived characteristics like intelligence, appearance, ethnicity, race, religion, culture, caste, sexual orientation, gender, disability, age, nationality, political affiliation, or other characteristics. In some cases, repeated mockery, sarcasm, or aggression may qualify as insults collectively, even if individual statements would not.
Threats: Using the possibility of physical violence, legal action, unfair embarrassment, or reputational harm to win an argument or force someone to behave the way you want.
Stalking: following a person across the project and repeatedly critiquing their work with the intent to upset or discourage them.
Abuse of office by functionaries, officials and staff: misuse of authorities, knowledge or resources at the disposal of (elected) project functionaries, as well as officials and staff of the Wikimedia Foundation or Wikimedia affiliates to intimidate or threaten others, or for their own material or immaterial benefit.
Abuse of seniority and connections: Using one’s position and reputation to intimidate others. We ask people with significant experience and connections in the movement to behave with special care because hostile comments may carry an unintended implication of creating threats from friends and supporters.
Recall Maria Sefidary Huici's response to Fram...Gaslighting (Psychological manipulation): Working (alone or with a group) to cause someone to doubt their own perceptions, senses, or understanding. People with community authority have a particular privilege to be viewed as reliable and should not abuse this to attack others who disagree with them.
Deliberately introducing incorrect or biased content to the Wikimedia projects or hindering the creation of content.
Systematically manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view
Yes, that's why emoticons are useful. Mind you, the way people react is very affected by culture. I have found that when dealing with some people from East Asia, putting on a tone that would convey sarcasm to a British listener is regarded as being warm and friendly.Eric Corbett wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 8:34 pmIn real life, the way you say something provides clues.Poetlister wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 8:15 pmI've often had sarcasm misunderstood. It's better to use the
Online, they're gone.
what a reasonable person would
I’m really happy that we have a reasonableness test here. Where I work, my employer has adopted an industry Model Code of Conduct (it would look bad not to) which says, in effect, that if someone feels harassed then harassment has taken place. When I raised the issue with the consultant/trainer at our mandatory training session, her response was that the entry barrier to filing against harassment was such that I shouldn’t worry about vexatious or wrongful complaints(!). Anyone who has had to deal in real life with a person having borderline personality disorder or just a garden-variety manipulative psychopath would know how much damage such a person can cause by presenting themself as a victim. We need to have protections from those who would subvert the system, either inadvertently as a result of their world-view, or purposely as a way of defeating those they don’t like. Pelagic (talk) 11:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Stalking is a problem, but the definition in the document leaves room for misinterpretation. A few examples for clarification: 1) a user creates a stub about a woman in some scientific field. Another user feels this is part of an organized attempt to get more articles about women into Wikipedia in the name of political correctness, even though they are not notable. That second user marks not only that article for deletion but all of the other recently created articles about women by the first user, with the (marginal) claim that the subjects are not notable. Depending on the facts, this might be (and imo probably is) stalking. 2) A user creates an entry on one of the Wiktionaries that uses a definition from a copyrighted dictionary. A second user checks the content, finds that it is taken verbatim from a copyrighted dictionary, and reverts it with an explanation. That user then checks all of the first user's recent contributions and find that they also use copyrighted material. The second user continues to monitor the contributions of the first user, until it's clear that the first user has understood that no copyrighted material may be used, they leave, or they are blocked for persisting. In this case I think we can't call it stalking, although the intent is clearly to discourage the specific behavior. 3) In the case of a repeat vandal, following their contributions closely and reverting them all would be done with the explicit intent to discourage the person, and yet again this would not be considered stalking. (Note: I have done the last two and been an observer of a case of the first type.)
I'm uncertain about the language about a baseline of acceptable behavior; a baseline would imply that refusal to meet the baseline has consequences. But there is a large neutral area between the acceptable behavior baseline and the unacceptable behavior baseline. What happens to behavior that falls in this area? If nothing happens, we're not really talking about baseline acceptable, but something else. We can encourage certain behavior, perhaps.
This is already too long so I'm stopping here. Good luck! -- ArielGlenn (talk) 09:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Who polices the secret police?Trust & Safety
I strongly object to this page "being monitored by Wikimedia Foundation’s Trust and Safety team." This is the most unsuitable monitoring institution that could have been found. If monitoring is necessary, one should look for unbiased persons. T&S is by definition biased regarding this subject. And what is even more problematic: T&S themselves are in the habit of accusing and judging "perpetrators" in procedures that have been criticized as unfair and uncontrolled. This should definitely exclude them as moderators and "monitorers" of a discussion of this subject.Mautpreller (talk) 08:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
As far as I see it, it doesn't really matter what's in the code of conduct, because even vague wordings can be 'weaponized' if needs be. It only matters who's enforcing it and what weight they give to organized efforts at influencing its enforcement.Midsize Jake wrote: ↑Mon Sep 07, 2020 8:20 pmOverall though, most of the serious objections to this are probably going to come from the anti-PC crowd, which is basically what we (and, I assume, they) expected.
I agree with that, I think. (Although they did block User:MjolnirPants (T-C-L) last year, who's one of the first people I would have thought of in this context.)