Universal CoC

[jf1970]

What's the endgame for the WMF here?

Increase recruitment by decreasing assholery.

[Vigilant]

That'll be the cover story.

Decrease annoyance and resistance to their aims by removing the veterans.
Indoctrinate the replacements more thoroughly.
Sup at the trough.

[Dennis Brown]

They have a nice little slush fund, so I can see throwing token amounts of money around for small things, although I'm not sure exactly what. Some free Chrome laptops, perhaps, to the most dutiful. Sycophant of the month awards, something like that.

[Vigilant]

What's the endgame for the WMF here?

Increase recruitment by decreasing assholery.

That'll be the cover story.

Decrease annoyance and resistance to their aims by removing the veterans.
Indoctrinate the replacements more thoroughly.
Sup at the trough.

They have a nice little slush fund, so I can see throwing token amounts of money around for small things, although I'm not sure exactly what. Some free Chrome laptops, perhaps, to the most dutiful. Sycophant of the month awards, something like that.

I was speaking of the WMF.
They have a ton of money and virtually no controls on how they spend it. Tides Foundation grant anyone?
They've spent a giant pile of cash already on things that have literally nothing to do with 'keeping the servers running".
They've hired a new CEO with overt Social Justice views and the Board is fully aligned.

If they get rid of the troublemakers on the projects who routinely protest their ill-conceived ideas(and *gasp* speak to the press. Oh, the cheek!), who will stand in their way when they spend more and more of the donations on political goals and handouts to favored organizations?

The WMF seems to be trying to become some sort of quasi-PAC.

[tarantino]

A vote to ratify the Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) is scheduled for 7 March 2022 to 21 March 2022 via SecurePoll.

Again, the point man for this is the wmf's anonymous movement strategy and governance facilitator, Xeno. While most of the other foundation employees use a pleasant profile picture of themselves on their user page, Xenocidic uses a photo of a beaver taken in Alaska.

[Boing! said Zebedee]

I see anyone who has not made at least 20 edits between August 21 and February 22 is not allowed to vote. So no matter how long you've voluteered and how much work you've done, if you dare take six months off then you're non-personed by the WMF.

[Jim]

Well, I just about have those 20 edits, so I voted.

Seems the game-plan, if the motion is defeated, is to change it a bit and ask again, and again, until it's eventually accepted.

[Giraffe Stapler]

Voting process

---

If you are eligible to vote:

1. Review the Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct policy.
2. Decide whether to support or oppose the adoption of the Enforcement Guidelines. If opposing the guidelines, write down recommended changes to Guidelines on a piece of paper.
3. Burn the paper while chanting "Assume Good Faith". Turn around three times (this step is optional but recommended).
4. Go to the SecurePoll Voting page and follow the instructions. Stop for a second and wonder if your vote will actually count for anything or if this is cynical attempt to engage the Community in what is a foregone conclusion.
5. Remind other community members to vote!

[owl be it]

The Trust and Safety unit has three arms: Policy, Disinformation, and Operations.

Since when does the Committee for Public Safety have three heads? (And how come none of these three have anything to do with trust or safety?)

[Vigilant]

The Trust and Safety unit has three arms: Policy, Disinformation, and Operations.

Since when does the Committee for Public Safety have three heads? (And how come none of these three have anything to do with trust or safety?)

Sounds more like the GRU.

[Emptyeye]

[...]

I get what the endgame is--push out the old guard of admins, install (Or, I guess more accurately, "'coincidentally' end up with") a new, more "WMF-friendly" regime in their wake--but in order to do that, they need to...actually have a new regime to be there in that wake. And that, rather famously, ain't coming, and hasn't been coming for years and years.

Just noting here that Ealdgyth has echoed my thoughts in somewhat different words on Iridescent's talkpage on-wiki.

You may or may not agree that this is the goal of the WMF, but if it is their goal, it does seem very reminiscent of the "Step 1: [Start the Plan] Step 2: ??? Step 3: Profit!" meme from years back.

[owl be it]

Just noting here that Ealdgyth has echoed my thoughts in somewhat different words on Iridescent's talkpage on-wiki.

You may or may not agree that this is the goal of the WMF, but if it is their goal, it does seem very reminiscent of the "Step 1: [Start the Plan] Step 2: ??? Step 3: Profit!" meme from years back.

I think there is a non-sinister possibility: they could just be so mind-bogglingly daft it hasn't occurred to them that people could (write untrue stuff, be rude to people, etc) on Wikipedia until right now. The fact that hundreds of volunteers do this for free is not apparent to them (hence stuff like the huge middle finger of IP masking, endless grants for editathons and awareness campaigns but not for basic bug fixes).

It would explain the sudden emphasis on WMF autocracy as the only way to deal with false information -- they don't realize that the projects have editors.

[Beeblebrox]

If this thing passes the first thing I am going to do is start a campaign urging new and current holders of advanced permissions not to sign the "affirmation", and not to quit either, but to keep using their perms so the WMF has to either back down or fire us all.

We'll see who blinks first.

[Vigilant]

If this thing passes the first thing I am going to do is start a campaign urging new and current holders of advanced permissions not to sign the "affirmation", and not to quit either, but to keep using their perms so the WMF has to either back down or fire us all.

We'll see who blinks first.

SuperProtect 2.

[Boing! said Zebedee]

If this thing passes the first thing I am going to do is start a campaign urging new and current holders of advanced permissions not to sign the "affirmation", and not to quit either, but to keep using their perms so the WMF has to either back down or fire us all.

We'll see who blinks first.

I almost regret having retired from admin now, because I'd definitely be up for that. It would be interesting to see how many adopt the same stance - I suspect more than the WMF are expecting.

[jf1970]

Wow you guys are so brave

[Midsize Jake]

Wow you guys are so brave

Well, it's hard to have a staring contest with someone who's wearing eyeshades.

[Vigilant]

Wow you guys are so brave

Your comments are of a consistent quality.

[Beeblebrox]

I personally support the idea of the UCoC, as it was initially sold to the community. It was supposed to be a way to rein in smaller projects that can be taken over by extremists. These enforcement guidelines seem aimed at forcing every single admin into pledging their loyalty, and hypothetically allowing an outside volunteer body to overturn ArbCom decisions. Once again, they've gone too far.

[Vigilant]

I personally support the idea of the UCoC, as it was initially sold to the community. It was supposed to be a way to rein in smaller projects that can be taken over by extremists. These enforcement guidelines seem aimed at forcing every single admin into pledging their loyalty, and hypothetically allowing an outside volunteer body to overturn ArbCom decisions. Once again, they've gone too far.

They're a bunch of amateurs with no relevant experience huffing each other's smug farts.

How else would it end up?

[owl be it]

I personally support the idea of the UCoC, as it was initially sold to the community. It was supposed to be a way to rein in smaller projects that can be taken over by extremists. These enforcement guidelines seem aimed at forcing every single admin into pledging their loyalty, and hypothetically allowing an outside volunteer body to overturn ArbCom decisions. Once again, they've gone too far.

They say absolute power corrupts absolutely. I think in the case of the WMF, perhaps, it is absolute stupidity, but the same principle is true.

[L-H]

The vote has ended a few days ago. Where are the results?

[Beeblebrox]

The vote has ended a few days ago. Where are the results?

It's basically the same as how the ArbCom elections are run, the votes are "scrutinized" to try and weed out duplicates, socks, etc. I've believe the target date is the fifth.

[Giraffe Stapler]

I personally support the idea of the UCoC, as it was initially sold to the community. It was supposed to be a way to rein in smaller projects that can be taken over by extremists. These enforcement guidelines seem aimed at forcing every single admin into pledging their loyalty, and hypothetically allowing an outside volunteer body to overturn ArbCom decisions. Once again, they've gone too far.

This is the problem in a nutshell. They can't really accomplish the goal of having a universal code of conduct if admins aren't willing to enforce it, and that was always going to be an issue. It would have been wiser to start with something much more basic that would flush out the problem admins and projects. Even then, there will be admins who will not agree to enforce it just based on principle ("Well I don't believe all Elbonians should be stoned to death, but I support free speech").

There's an argument to be made that the WMF is shifting its responsibility for enforcing the terms and conditions to the volunteers. If it had just done that, it probably would have gone over better. Instead, they imposed a mandate for a community written code of conduct, did some "consultation", and came up with something that is overblown and over-reaching. I support an enforceable code of conduct (in theory) but enforcing it was always going to be a problem and it has great potential to be used as a weapon, especially on smaller projects.

I really hope they break down the votes by region and wiki.

[Vigilant]

It's even worse than that.

The UCoC(k) is very poorly written and open to all sorts of interpretations and rules lawyering.
This will devolve into a just another tool used to destroy your enemies at ANI and ARBCOM.

Add in the rocket surgeons at T&S playing Spy v Spy and using this as umbrella coverage to legitimize newer implementations of Frammageddons and you have all the elements of the Stasi except the competence.

[Beeblebrox]

There's an argument to be made that the WMF is shifting its responsibility for enforcing the terms and conditions to the volunteers. If it had just done that, it probably would have gone over better. Instead, they imposed a mandate for a community written code of conduct, did some "consultation", and came up with something that is overblown and over-reaching.

This is part of what is troubling me. The volunteer community was actually involved with developing this. If they had all said they didn't like the direction it was going, I don't think we'd have the guidelines we are looking at now. In other words, at least some segment of the global community actually wants this.

[Vigilant]

I disagree.

The WMF has decided it's going to get its way.
They have people write up these proposals who clearly have no actual governance experience.
They hold their "feedback" pages in weird places that nobody really goes to.
They schedule these proposals and their feedback for weird times and short intervals.
If they get push back, they massage the wording a little, but not the underlying thrust, and submit it again for "approval".
They do this until they get what they wanted "ratified".

I think the big breakdown will be when they try to force unpaid editors to enforce them.
This will almost certainly fail for a variety of reasons.
UCoC(k) will become just another weapon in the Star Chamber proceedings by Tito&Stasi.

WMF, "Buh, buh, buh, you guys said this was what you wanted..."

[Boing! said Zebedee]

This is part of what is troubling me. The volunteer community was actually involved with developing this. If they had all said they didn't like the direction it was going, I don't think we'd have the guidelines we are looking at now. In other words, at least some segment of the global community actually wants this.

I suspect a lot of people want a UCoC itself, but just aren't interested enough to delve into what many of us are seeing as flaws in it and in the enforcement process.

Many can't think beyond simple rules backed by enforcement to the letter, and can never work things out for themselves. I mean, how many times have we seen people who can not get their heads around the idea of guidelines that are interpreted flexibly depending on circumstances?

For these folk, the thought that a UCoC is better than no UCoC is their limit.

(Oh, and I also suspect that a lot of those offering feedback throughout the process have come from the flocks of WMF sheep)

[Boing! said Zebedee]

...Tito&Stasi...

Hehe, I like that

[Midsize Jake]

...Tito&Stasi...

Hehe, I like that

As I recall, they were a semi-obscure singing duo back in the 70s who had a minor hit with their single "Love Will Keep us From Dissenting Against the Leadership," after which they were never heard from again.

[Boing! said Zebedee]

Ah, I'd always wondered what happened to them.

[Vigilant]

They were a cover band for Nicolae and Elena Ceaușescu.

The hits keep coming....

[owl be it]

This is part of what is troubling me. The volunteer community was actually involved with developing this. If they had all said they didn't like the direction it was going, I don't think we'd have the guidelines we are looking at now. In other words, at least some segment of the global community actually wants this.

Yeah, I mean, not that many people participate in RfAs or ArbCom elections, and those are extremely straightforward things that have been around for decades and have an obvious purpose/impact. The WMF, on the other hand, is constantly having elections or nominations or requests for comment about some kind of arcane nonsense (or trying to spread awareness of some cause), so I think almost everyone ignores notices from them. Even relatively benign stuff on Meta like the community wishlist, hardly anybody cares about. It is quite easy for a small group of busybodies to dominate the conversation there.

[Beeblebrox]

I don't just mean the public comment periods, there was a drafting committee full of volunteers that helped write the enforcement guidelines. If they had all given the same feedback, that this was a giant overreach and would be resisted by the community they represent, I have to think the foundation would've tried to change it to something they thought the local communities would accept, simply because they clearly want some form of this approved, and they do have to get it past the board, which is a separate entity.

[Vigilant]

In the best traditions of the Duma

[Beeblebrox]

Turnout was insanely low. Only 1,233 of 46,834 voters from the ten largest wikis voted. That's about 2.5% of eligible voters from those wikis. More people than that vote in the average arbcom election. Looks like about 150 wikis were not heard from at all.

[Ryuichi]

Given some unknown (perhaps unknowable?) portion of that 1,233 will be the enfranchised "Developers, Wikimedia Foundation staff and contractors, Wikimedia movement affiliates’ staff and contractors, and Wikimedia Foundation board members", the turnout of "Editors" would be even lower.

[Giraffe Stapler]

Turnout was insanely low. Only 1,233 of 46,834 voters from the ten largest wikis voted. That's about 2.5% of eligible voters from those wikis. More people than that vote in the average arbcom election. Looks like about 150 wikis were not heard from at all.

The results were based on "home wiki" meaning where a person first registered their account. For example, say that someone registered their account on the Cherokee language Wikipedia but does almost all of their editing on the English language Wikipedia. They would be counted as an eligible voter from Cherokee language Wikipedia (assuming they were eligible, of course). If they voted, that would count as a vote from Cherokee language Wikipedia even if they hadn't edited there in years. The numbers do not necessarily reflect where people edit (although I would guess it is reasonably close).

[Vigilant]

Turnout was insanely low. Only 1,233 of 46,834 voters from the ten largest wikis voted. That's about 2.5% of eligible voters from those wikis. More people than that vote in the average arbcom election. Looks like about 150 wikis were not heard from at all.

Given some unknown (perhaps unknowable?) portion of that 1,233 will be the enfranchised "Developers, Wikimedia Foundation staff and contractors, Wikimedia movement affiliates’ staff and contractors, and Wikimedia Foundation board members", the turnout of "Editors" would be even lower.

Anybody want to bet that WMF people tipped the scales for the 'aye' vote?

[Vigilant]

This is a "Senior Manager of Trust and Safety"

Peruse that depth of experience.

[ReaperEternal]

If this thing passes the first thing I am going to do is start a campaign urging new and current holders of advanced permissions not to sign the "affirmation", and not to quit either, but to keep using their perms so the WMF has to either back down or fire us all.

We'll see who blinks first.

For what it's worth, I have absolutely no intention of attempting to enforce that pile of generic phrases, and obviously I won't sign anything saying I will do so. I'm toying with whether to resign...or just ignoring the whole thing and seeing what the WMF does about it.

[Vigilant]

Tell them to go fuck themselves with their own UCoCk.

Dare them to do something about it.
Take a stand for what's right.

[Ritchie333]

I don't see my response being materially different from this. I don't think it's that unusual to be incredibly suspicious of contracts and trying to avoid to commit to them wherever possible, is it?

(I still haven't read the Arbcom confidentiality agreement, don't know how it might affect me, and am glad I'm out of that loop).

[Vigilant]

This is some funny, funny shit.

Saving for posterity

Anasuya Sengupta
8 Apr 2022 7:36 p.m.
Tl;dr Urgent need to address the note denying race and ethnicity as
“meaningful distinctions among people” in the Universal Code of Conduct
(UCoC). The current wording is highly problematic and can result in
endorsing systemic and individual discrimination and violence on the basis
of race and ethnicity, rather than preventing it.

Dear Wikimedians,

We are writing this letter as the Whose Knowledge? user group, both to
Wikimedia-l, as well as adding it to the talk page for the UCoC.[0] We
endorsed the UCoC in the community voting process because we are committed
to its principles and intentions (indeed, some of us have been expressly
working towards it within the movement for a very long time, in multiple
ways).

However, we continue to be deeply concerned about the current wording of a
specific note in the UCoC: under Section 3.1 about Harassment, the note
under Insults states that “The Wikimedia movement does not endorse "race"
and "ethnicity" as meaningful distinctions among people. Their inclusion
here is to mark that they are prohibited in use against others as the basis
for personal attacks." (emphasis ours)[1]

This is both manifestly incorrect and entirely against what we believe to
be the principles and intentions of the UCoC. Other Wikimedians have
already pointed out the deeply contradictory nature of this statement,
including WJBScribe on the talk page in May 2021,[2] but their comments
appear not to have been considered yet.



By stating that "The Wikimedia movement does not endorse "race" and
"ethnicity" as meaningful distinctions among people," those responsible
for
this text do not seem to fully grasp that:


-

Even though the concept of ‘race’ as a biological distinction has been
refuted, ‘race’ as a social construct has been fully accepted by modern
scholars.[3] Even more importantly, we know historically that the concept
of ‘race’ was created and developed to serve and justify European
colonialism in its quest to enslave, marginalize, oppress, dominate and
exterminate black, brown and indigenous peoples in the lands they
colonized. This form of “racial science” was also responsible for the
genocide of Europeans who would otherwise be racialized as white outside of
Europe, in particular during World War II. Since then the concept of ‘race’
has been used to develop and create some of the most wide ranging systems
of power and privilege that currently marginalize and oppress the majority
of the world.
-

By denying or not ‘endorsing’ the existence of race as a “meaningful
distinction among people”, the Wikimedia movement is not doing non-white
people any favors or helping to end racism or racist demonstrations, such
as insults based on race. As we’ve said before, being silent about racism
doesn’t make it go away. It only creates the perfect environment for the
continued existence of the deep structural powers and privileges that
created it in the first place.[4]
-

Additionally, it is equally manifestly important to acknowledge the ways
in which the concept of ‘ethnicity’ is used to create “meaningful” -
including violently discriminatory - “distinctions” amongst people,
including Islamophobia and anti-Semitism as two obvious examples. It is
equally obvious that the concepts of ‘race’ and ‘ethnicity’ are not
equivalent and/or interchangeable, and cannot be used so.
-

By including such a problematic statement, the UCoC contradicts the
movement’s commitment to knowledge equity, clearly stated and approved as
part of our Wikimedia Movement Strategy for 2030. The Universal Code of
Conduct of a movement that doesn’t “see” race or ethnicity or acknowledge
the historical and current effects of our racialized and ethnically-driven
world, cannot and will not be able to “focus our efforts on the knowledge
and communities that have been left out by structures of power and
privilege.”[5]
-

Leaving this wording in, also negates the ongoing efforts by individuals
and organizations across the movement who work with passion and commitment
towards knowledge equity in different ways, including through challenging
racist and ethnically discriminatory behavior in our projects.


As long-time members of our movement, we assume good faith, and recognize
that this current wording may have happened through honest intentions gone
badly wrong. As Wikimedians who believe in shared improvements through
collective editing, we hope that this mistake too will be immediately
acknowledged and removed from the UCoC. We are not entirely sure who is
ultimately responsible for this change, but if the Wikimedia Foundation
Board is in charge of reviewing the policy, we believe it is incumbent upon
the Board to share with us what possible next steps they will take, towards
this.

We look forward to a UCoC that lives up to its principles and intentions,
and we commit to its practice as Wikimedians.

With love, respect, and solidarity,

Adele and Anasuya with the Whose Knowledge? team, advisors, and friends

[0]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Un ... pen_Letter_…

[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Univers ... %80%93_Har…

[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Un ... 2The_Wikim…

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(hum ... orization)

[4]
https://whoseknowledge.org/media-sectio ... summit-201…
and
https://whoseknowledge.org/media-sectio ... nd-from-us…

[5]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strateg ... Our_strate…


--
*Anasuya Sengupta*
+44 7367 868585
*Reimagining and redesigning the internet to be for and from us all*
http://whoseknowledge.org
*We just launched the first ever State of the Internet's Languages report
<http://internetlanguages.org>!*

*There can be no love without justice... The moment we choose to love we
begin to move against domination, against oppression. The moment we choose
to love we begin to move towards freedom, to act in ways that liberate
ourselves and others.*
*(bell hooks)*

Count the false assumptions and logical fallacies used, kiddos.

The text of this email could be used verbatim in a GOP attack ad that casts the left as whack-a-doodles with mouthes full of shit.

[Vigilant]

Maggie Dennis making it worse.

When you're trying your very hardest to justify all of the shit the right says about you.

Maggie Dennis
10:21 p.m.
Hello, Anasuya and Whose Knowledge.

(Context for those who don’t know me: I am the Vice President of Community
Resilience & Sustainability, and among others I oversee the team
shepherding the UCoC process.)

Thank you very much for raising this issue. Foundation staff have been
discussing this as well with the same points that you have raised, and it
is something we’ve been thinking about how to address.

As probably many of you know, the plan all along had been to get the UCoC
policy, to get the enforcement approach, and then to see how they work
together in operation. Our plan has been to review the policy and
enforcement approach together a year after the ratification of Phase 2.
However, we decided to prioritize a slower approach to Phase 2 to make sure
it was functional out the gate especially for the functionaries and
volunteers who enforce it, as a result of which the timeline we had
imagined for Policy review has been considerably pushed back. If we had
made our preliminary time plan, we would have started testing these out
months ago. The Policy and Enforcement Guidelines would have been ripe for
review sometime around November 2022.

As you all know, the vote has just concluded on the UCoC Phase 2. In the
vote, community members were asked if they supported it as written or not,
with the ability to provide feedback either way - with the notion that the
feedback would help us focus on major blockers to the enforcement approach.
I have already spoken to several members of the Board about some of the
concerns that have been raised about the enforcement guidelines; we’ve
spoken about this passage in the Policy, too. I know from my conversations
with the Board that they want to get this done right, not just get it done
- and they are very open to understanding these major blockers.

The project team is compiling a report for the Board on the challenging
points surfaced during the vote. We think the enforcement guidelines are a
very good first draft for the enforcement pathways, but–based on the
comments we’ve seen–we are very aware there may be more work ahead before
we reach a Board ratified version of those guidelines. As this passage in
policy is not necessary to achieve the goal of the UCoC - which is to
forbid harassment and attacks based on personal factors including race and
ethnicity - our intention has been to recommend to the Board that the
passage in question be reviewed simultaneously with any further Phase 2
enforcement workshopping, instead of waiting for the “year in operation”
review intended.

I still think it makes sense to review how the enforcement guideline and
policy work together to see how they are functioning once they have a trial
period. But I ALSO don’t think it makes any sense to hold off on reviewing
a passage from policy that community members (including some community
members who are Foundation staff) strongly agree may be actively harmful
just because Phase 2 is taking longer than anticipated.

I also want to say that I have spoken to some of the individuals who were
involved in writing the UCoC and understand fully that the intent of the
composers was to avoid any implication that racism and ethnic bias are
valid. As you said, Anasuya - honest intentions. I have spoken to many
individuals who have felt personally hurt and erased by the phrase in
denying their lived reality. I have also spoken to others who have feared
that it makes it more difficult to talk about the actual harms of racism
and ethnocentrism by implying that such topics are taboo to discuss.

We ourselves are learning from all of these perspectives and concerns to
ensure that people feel the representation they deserve. These
conversations are hard, and I’m grateful to the people who are willing to
have them and doing their best to listen and engage with empathy and
respect. <3

Best regards,

Maggie

Tell me again what this has to do with supporting the development of wikipedia?

[Giraffe Stapler]

As you all know, the vote has just concluded on the UCoC Phase 2. In the
vote, community members were asked if they supported it as written or not,
with the ability to provide feedback either way - with the notion that the
feedback would help us focus on major blockers to the enforcement approach.

Wait, what? I thought the vote was just about enforcement. The UCoC was imposed by the Board.

What is being voted on? - The Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) Enforcement Guidelines
The Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) Enforcement Guidelines were created for the enforcement of the Universal Code of Conduct, which was previously ratified by the Board of Trustees. Enforcement Guidelines include prevention, detection, investigation, and other actions to address violations of the Universal Code of Conduct. Enforcement will continue to be handled by the community with the UCoC setting a baseline for evaluating behavior.

Am I misunderstanding what Maggie Dennis is referring to? That seems like a very serious misstatement. Did I snooze through a vote on the wording of the UCoC?

[Randy from Boise]

This whole "Universal Code of Conduct" affair is just horseshit for bureaucrats. They'll have a junket someplace warm to talk about it and will circle jerk each other for six hours a day before hitting the beach.

t

[Vigilant]

I think you sell them short.

They’ll use this for a new putsch.
Selective enforcement

[Randy from Boise]

Which differs from the current situation, how exactly?

tim

[Vigilant]

From the mailing list thread

4:46 p.m.
Dear Maggie,

Could I ask you for help with a couple of things:

1. The UCoC states that "sharing information concerning other contributors'
Wikimedia activity outside the projects" is harassment. Is it really the
WMF's intention to prohibit public discussions of controversial editing? To
give some examples, in the past English Wikipedia arbitrators commented on
cases like the Scientology case or the Indian Institute of Planning and
Management (Wifione) case in the press. Following the letter of the UCoC,
they would no longer be allowed to do so. Even articles like
https://www.cnet.com/science/features/w ... e-coronavi…
fall foul of the letter of the UCoC as written today, with every Wikipedian
involved in it guilty of harassment, per the UCoC. Is it really your
intention to prevent volunteers from discussing anyone's Wikipedia activity
outside the project? And if it isn't – could you help us prevail upon your
colleagues in the WMF board and the drafting committee to just fix the
sentence and have it unambiguously say what they really mean?

2. The UCoC states that the following is harassment: "Psychological
manipulation: Maliciously causing someone to doubt their own perceptions,
senses, or understanding with the objective to win an argument or force
someone to behave the way you want." We have, and always have had, and
always will have, users with sincerely and passionately held fringe beliefs
about matters of science, politics, religion, etc., as well as users
lacking basic compentency in the subject area or language they choose to
work in. How can they be prevented from inserting erroneous material
without causing them to doubt their own perceptions etc. in a way that they
may well – in good faith – is malicious?

Andreas

BADSITES, take 48?

If you have a en.wp account that posts on WO, will the UCoCkHeads ban you?