Universal CoC

[Vigilant]

This.

Dan Szymborski

It's almost as if ratifying an incomplete document based on vague framework
and future changes is a terrible idea.

That this is coming up now is not the least bit surprising. It was brought
up, along with many things, during one of the arbitrarily endpointed
"discussion" periods that involved people in the Wiki movement asking
questions and receiving next to no substantive communication from people
who were writing the document. You'd have better luck asking the wishing
well what it did with your penny.

Dan

[Vigilant]

This is so very dumb.

Andreas points out the ludicrous nature of this garbage the WMF has written.

Andreas Kolbe
15 Apr 8:01 p.m.
Dear Rosie,

Could you kindly also look at and clarify the following passage in the
Universal Code of Conduct:


- *Disclosure of personal data (Doxing):* sharing other contributors'
private information, such as name, place of employment, physical or email
address without their explicit consent either on the Wikimedia projects or
elsewhere, or sharing information concerning their Wikimedia activity
outside the projects.


As written, the first part of this says that contributors must no longer
state – on Wikipedia or elsewhere – that a particular editor appears to be
working for a PR firm, is a congressional staffer,[1] etc.

The second part forbids any and all discussion of contributors' Wikimedia
activity outside the projects. (For example, if I were to say on Twitter
that User:Koavf has made over 2 million edits to Wikipedia, I would already
be in breach of the code as written.)

Thanks,
Andreas

[Midsize Jake]

Just to be clear, we don't "share" information here, we disseminate information. So we're going to assume that everything Wikipediocracy does is A-OK with the Wikimedia folks.

[Beeblebrox]

There's just so much vagueness around this thing, so many passages that are open to various interpretations. As written, this would basically make participating here incompatible with participating there.

[Vigilant]

There's just so much vagueness around this thing, so many passages that are open to various interpretations. As written, this would basically make participating here incompatible with participating there.

using the same nym.

"Who is this charming new person EeblebroxBay?"

If anyone tried to link the two accounts, you can insist admins slap them into the ionosphere for violation of the uCoCk.

[Midsize Jake]

We might have to give this some thought...

It would be dishonest to have an official policy by which we would deny that any Wikipediocracy member is, or has ever been, a registered Wikipedia user. As some of you already know, we occasionally even verify that a person registering under the name of a WP user is in fact that user, and I assume "they" know that.

Changing member names is easy enough by itself, but obviously changing them in posts is a lot more involved — a global search 'n' replace would work for WPO member quotes, but that would also change the occasional quotes of WP users, not to mention that name references not in quotes would have to be eyeballed in order to decide which entity the poster was referring to.

Another thing we could maybe do is publicly state that the site doesn't actually discuss Wikipedia per se, but rather a "parallel universe Wikipedia" that's featured in a Neil Gaiman novel that's "due out in a few months." This would be under the principle that "implausible deniability is better than no deniability at all," I guess.

People who try to implement information control keep neglecting the ripple effects, dammit. And frankly, I'm more convinced than ever that the internet is making us dumber as a species.

[AndyTheGrump]

You don't need a "parallel universe", Jake. Just create a Wikipedia fork, keep it up to date, and discuss that instead,

[Vigilant]

You don't need a "parallel universe", Jake. Just create a Wikipedia fork, keep it up to date, and discuss that instead,

Get a free AWS slice, download and install the latest wiki dump, set a cron job to update every night...profit!

[Vigilant]

Great discussion

[Randy from Boise]

Great discussion

I've been wasting my time this week looking at thousands of mechanical watches on eBay and putting finishing touches on a bootleg box set revisiting a 1980s power pop songwriter than nobody cares about.

I feel that I have spent my time more productively than these others.

t

[ArmasRebane]

Great discussion

I've been wasting my time this week looking at thousands of mechanical watches on eBay and putting finishing touches on a bootleg box set revisiting a 1980s power pop songwriter than nobody cares about.

I feel that I have spent my time more productively than these others.

t

Iridescent's talk page is a great place for people to have discussions about how Wikipedia is going to hell, but no one there actually seems engaged in doing anything about it except complaining.

[Vigilant]

Great discussion

I've been wasting my time this week looking at thousands of mechanical watches on eBay and putting finishing touches on a bootleg box set revisiting a 1980s power pop songwriter than nobody cares about.

I feel that I have spent my time more productively than these others.

t

Iridescent's talk page is a great place for people to have discussions about how Wikipedia is going to hell, but no one there actually seems engaged in doing anything about it except complaining.

I like the part where “WhyAmIADingDong” tried to defend the no-warning 1 month block on mega because someone said their work product was bad.

[Vigilant]

Here comes the bulldozer

TL;DR - we've completed another meaningless milestone towards forcing our uCoC down the users' throats.

We collected some ... data ... but we don't really know what it means so we're going to make Pie Charts! Yay! I love Pie!

TL;DR - We have no idea what we're doing or how we're doing it, but we know where we're going and we need to keep this bukakke theater going long enough to make the money shot.


The whole process is so cynical.

[ArmasRebane]

I don't really get the point of freaking about the UCOC on En.wp at least. Because as soon as they make a decision from on high that's permissible according to the UCOC but the local community doesn't like, things will go pear-shaped and their actions will be reverted to the extent possible.

[Vigilant]

I don't really get the point of freaking about the UCOC on En.wp at least. Because as soon as they make a decision from on high that's permissible according to the UCOC but the local community doesn't like, things will go pear-shaped and their actions will be reverted to the extent possible.

I disagree.

Some people may resign the tools, but the WMF doesn't care.
In fact, the people who would resign the tools over this may be the precise demographic the WMF wants gone.

There will always be a bunch of eager hat-chasers in the queue.

I think en.wp knuckles under and takes their soma.

[owl be it]

There will always be a bunch of eager hat-chasers in the queue.

Will there? There are only a handful of new admins per year at this point.

[Vigilant]

If they got rid of half of the existing 'advanced permissioned users' I get the feeling the promotion rate would skyrocket.

[Boing! said Zebedee]

In fact, the people who would resign the tools over this may be the precise demographic the WMF wants gone.

Nutshell. Nail, head. That.

[ArmasRebane]

I don't really get the point of freaking about the UCOC on En.wp at least. Because as soon as they make a decision from on high that's permissible according to the UCOC but the local community doesn't like, things will go pear-shaped and their actions will be reverted to the extent possible.

I disagree.

Some people may resign the tools, but the WMF doesn't care.
In fact, the people who would resign the tools over this may be the precise demographic the WMF wants gone.

There will always be a bunch of eager hat-chasers in the queue.

I think en.wp knuckles under and takes their soma.

Most of the people who would go would be the ones actually producing the content and/or the people maintaining the backlogs. Even if their goal was to push people out, it's still ultimately harming them, and this presumes that the only opposition will be people resigning their tools rather than using those tools to revert them. Depending on the inciting incident, it would very much be a "they can't ban all of us"-type deal.

[Vigilant]

I don't really get the point of freaking about the UCOC on En.wp at least. Because as soon as they make a decision from on high that's permissible according to the UCOC but the local community doesn't like, things will go pear-shaped and their actions will be reverted to the extent possible.

I disagree.

Some people may resign the tools, but the WMF doesn't care.
In fact, the people who would resign the tools over this may be the precise demographic the WMF wants gone.

There will always be a bunch of eager hat-chasers in the queue.

I think en.wp knuckles under and takes their soma.

Most of the people who would go would be the ones actually producing the content and/or the people maintaining the backlogs. Even if their goal was to push people out, it's still ultimately harming them, and this presumes that the only opposition will be people resigning their tools rather than using those tools to revert them. Depending on the inciting incident, it would very much be a "they can't ban all of us"-type deal.

See if you can recognize the players

[Emptyeye]

Most of the people who would go would be the ones actually producing the content and/or the people maintaining the backlogs. Even if their goal was to push people out, it's still ultimately harming them, and this presumes that the only opposition will be people resigning their tools rather than using those tools to revert them. Depending on the inciting incident, it would very much be a "they can't ban all of us"-type deal.

Plus, as I said either earlier in this thread or elsewhere, the presumable WMF plan of "Kick out the hostile old guard and install a new more WMF-friendly regime of admins" is fatally flawed in that it requires a new regime of admins to install. I disagree with Vigilant that this will solve itself after the "kick the old guard out" part of the plan is completed. The paranoia/reluctance to run/reluctance to promote new admins is community-wide, not just confined to the admin corps. Kicking out the old admins doesn't change that.

[The Blue Newt]

Most of the people who would go would be the ones actually producing the content and/or the people maintaining the backlogs. Even if their goal was to push people out, it's still ultimately harming them, and this presumes that the only opposition will be people resigning their tools rather than using those tools to revert them. Depending on the inciting incident, it would very much be a "they can't ban all of us"-type deal.

Plus, as I said either earlier in this thread or elsewhere, the presumable WMF plan of "Kick out the hostile old guard and install a new more WMF-friendly regime of admins" is fatally flawed in that it requires a new regime of admins to install. I disagree with Vigilant that this will solve itself after the "kick the old guard out" part of the plan is completed. The paranoia/reluctance to run/reluctance to promote new admins is community-wide, not just confined to the admin corps. Kicking out the old admins doesn't change that.

Djimma’s Retirement Account The WMF doesn’t need to do regime change in that manner; there’s more than enough money and willing victims to replace any recalcitrant admins with a combination of automation and deskilling.

[Vigilant]

Most of the people who would go would be the ones actually producing the content and/or the people maintaining the backlogs. Even if their goal was to push people out, it's still ultimately harming them, and this presumes that the only opposition will be people resigning their tools rather than using those tools to revert them. Depending on the inciting incident, it would very much be a "they can't ban all of us"-type deal.

Plus, as I said either earlier in this thread or elsewhere, the presumable WMF plan of "Kick out the hostile old guard and install a new more WMF-friendly regime of admins" is fatally flawed in that it requires a new regime of admins to install. I disagree with Vigilant that this will solve itself after the "kick the old guard out" part of the plan is completed. The paranoia/reluctance to run/reluctance to promote new admins is community-wide, not just confined to the admin corps. Kicking out the old admins doesn't change that.

Your assumption that RfA would stay the same is one I would argue.

[owl be it]

I guess I could see it going either way. If numbers fell far enough... it would be easy for the WMF to just hire a bunch of $7/hr "fact checkers" or something, on the basis that admins just need some help and can't handle the increased workload and it's for everyone's benefit. Then at some point, when the inevitable friction occurred, we would learn that "harassment" against fact checkers (i.e. undoing bad reverts) is considered a T&S issue with immediate and permanent consequences, and that'll be the end of it.

[Vigilant]

This uCoC stuff sure is a cockup.

Trying to make this so very complicated

The dumbest process on the planet


A little light blogging about insanity Cthulhu would shrink from

They're actually listening to us!

There is no expectation that the committee members read all feedback.

awwww... Oh well, there's an encyclopedia to write...

[Vigilant]

Here comes the final thrust.

[AndyTheGrump]

How do you enforce a guideline?

[Vigilant]

How do you enforce a guideline?

With seemingly random bannings decided in the cesspits of the WMF.

[Vigilant]

Ummmm, we had a bunch of serious questions about this uCoC thing...

STFU! We're voting now!

[No Ledge]

I clicked the "VOTE HERE" button and got this response:

Sorry, you are not in the predetermined list of users authorized to vote in this election.
We apologize, but you do not appear to be on the eligible voter list. Please visit the voter help page for more information on voter eligibility and information on how to be added to the voter list if you are eligible.

What the... I'm not on their list of reliable rubber stamps?
Yes, I was logged into my account on Meta.

Maybe 261 edits on Meta isn't enough to cross the bar? First time I've looked at my time card on that platform.

I'll try again tomorrow or in a couple days.

[No Ledge]

Hmm. What did I do to deserve this?

MediaWiki internal error.

Original exception: [4535a291-f84f-473f-ae79-8c53b42260f2] 2023-01-17 18:42:24: Fatal exception of type "ConfigException"

Exception caught inside exception handler.

Set $wgShowExceptionDetails = true; at the bottom of LocalSettings.php to show detailed debugging information.

[tarantino]

Hmm. What did I do to deserve this?

MediaWiki internal error.

Original exception: [4535a291-f84f-473f-ae79-8c53b42260f2] 2023-01-17 18:42:24: Fatal exception of type "ConfigException"

Exception caught inside exception handler.

Set $wgShowExceptionDetails = true; at the bottom of LocalSettings.php to show detailed debugging information.

I got that a couple of times too.

The account eligibility tool says you're eligible.

https://meta.toolforge.org/accounteligi ... 65/Wbm1058?

[Vigilant]

Another technological triumph for the WeMakeFailures team!

[redbaron]

Hmm. What did I do to deserve this?

MediaWiki internal error.

Original exception: [4535a291-f84f-473f-ae79-8c53b42260f2] 2023-01-17 18:42:24: Fatal exception of type "ConfigException"

Exception caught inside exception handler.

Set $wgShowExceptionDetails = true; at the bottom of LocalSettings.php to show detailed debugging information.

That's a general error, I got it when opening random pages.

[Boing! said Zebedee]

Hmm. What did I do to deserve this?

MediaWiki internal error.

Original exception: [4535a291-f84f-473f-ae79-8c53b42260f2] 2023-01-17 18:42:24: Fatal exception of type "ConfigException"

Exception caught inside exception handler.

Set $wgShowExceptionDetails = true; at the bottom of LocalSettings.php to show detailed debugging information.

That was happening everywhere for a brief period this evening.

[Smultronstället]

It happened to me this morning on two pages. I don't understand what it means. I guess it didn't matter at all. That's my takeaway.

[No Ledge]

MediaWiki internal error.

Original exception: [4535a291-f84f-473f-ae79-8c53b42260f2] 2023-01-17 18:42:24: Fatal exception of type "ConfigException"

Exception caught inside exception handler.

Set $wgShowExceptionDetails = true; at the bottom of LocalSettings.php to show detailed debugging information.

Summary of the problem for the curious, hopefully more accessible than the incident report:

We were deploying a modification to DiscussionTools that was removing a configuration option (879103). It had two distinct changes, in two files: one removed the code reading the config option, and one that removed the definition of the config option.

The code was correct, and worked as expected in initial testing, but it revealed a problem in the tools we use for deploying code – those two distinct changes were not deployed at the same time, but with a significant delay between them, causing the code to attempt to read a config option that was no longer defined, causing the "ConfigException" that everyone saw.

Since the delay was different on different servers, the sites were still accessible to some users, who were randomly hitting the servers that were using a consistent version of the code (either before or after the change).

The same modification to DiscussionTools was deployed again, with a small change to avoid the issue, a few minutes ago (880916).

Bartosz is one of WMF's software engineers that I respect for knowing what they're doing.

[Beeblebrox]

I'm looking over this page link and I am not seeing any mention of the compulsory training and oath of fealty for admins. Could they actually have listened and realized how insane that was, or am I just missing it?

[Vigilant]

I'm looking over this page link and I am not seeing any mention of the compulsory training and oath of fealty for admins. Could they actually have listened and realized how insane that was, or am I just missing it?

They'll pass the enforcement vote and then backfill the loyalty pledges.

Mark this post.

[Midsize Jake]

I'm looking over this page link and I am not seeing any mention of the compulsory training and oath of fealty for admins. Could they actually have listened and realized how insane that was, or am I just missing it?

To me, it looks like it's a little of both. I agree with Mr. Vigilant that they'll backfill the loyalty pledges, but for now, they do seem to have removed the entire Affirmation of the UCoC among certain groups section and eliminated the word "affirm" in favor of "confirm." So now the section is titled "Notification and confirmation of the UCoC," and the new section contains no reference to "all advanced rights holders."

The fact that they didn't include this in the Comparison page, and instead made it look like the original version was more like the current one and only underwent minor wording changes, does seem to indicate some level of embarrassment over the original wording — along with a strong desire to cover the whole thing up. If I were a Wikipedia administrator I'd probably feel a certain amount of relief at this, but I'd feel even better if they explicitly stated that they'd overstepped in the original version (indeed, to an almost hilarious extent) and made it clear that whatever requirements they implement will be more reasonable. By effectively pretending that this wasn't really a "change," they've sidestepped that, which should be concerning for the admins.

Mind you, I don't mean to suggest that there aren't quite a few administrators who really should be required to affirm, confirm, or whateverfirm their adherence to (and understanding of) higher behavioral standards, especially as it applies to them personally. But unless you're going to pay these people, there are obviously going to be limits on what you can realistically ask of them.

[No Ledge]

Down to within the last hour and a half of voting I think. I guess I should make the effort for something this important.

What is being voted on?

Executive summary
The revised UCoC Enforcement Guidelines consists of two parts:

• Preventive work
• Promoting UCoC awareness, recommending UCoC training, among others.
• Responsive work
• Detailing a process for filing, processing reported violations, providing resources for reported violations, designating enforcement actions for violations, etc.

But the devil may be the details. I wish they gave me a more meaty executive summary.

[No Ledge]

The question on the table is

Do you support the enforcement of the Universal Code of Conduct based on the revised guidelines? (vote yes or no)

I'm not sure how to answer this. The UCoC cannot be enforced based on these guidelines.

It can only be enforced after the U4C Building Committee which has not yet been formed, determines the procedures, policy, and use of precedent of the U4C, drafts the remainder of the U4C process and designates any other logistics necessary to establish the U4C.

The guidelines delegate to a new global committee called the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C). They say it will be a co-equal body with the Arbitration Committee. But what happens if or when these "co-equal bodies" have a disagreement? If someone doesn't get the result they want at ArbCom can they appeal to U4C? Or vice versa?

Will the U4C Building Committee be a co-equal body with the English ArbCom?

[owl be it]

The question on the table is

Do you support the enforcement of the Universal Code of Conduct based on the revised guidelines? (vote yes or no)

I'm not sure how to answer this. The UCoC cannot be enforced based on these guidelines.

It can only be enforced after the U4C Building Committee which has not yet been formed, determines the procedures, policy, and use of precedent of the U4C, drafts the remainder of the U4C process and designates any other logistics necessary to establish the U4C.

The guidelines delegate to a new global committee called the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C). They say it will be a co-equal body with the Arbitration Committee. But what happens if or when these "co-equal bodies" have a disagreement? If someone doesn't get the result they want at ArbCom can they appeal to U4C? Or vice versa?

Will the U4C Building Committee be a co-equal body with the English ArbCom?

That seems reckless. They should really determine a course for the U4C Building Committee with a U4CBCEC (Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee Building Committee Exploratory Committee) which is itself delineated by the U4CBCECDC (Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee Building Committee Exploratory Committee Delineation Committee).

[Vigilant]

The question on the table is

Do you support the enforcement of the Universal Code of Conduct based on the revised guidelines? (vote yes or no)

I'm not sure how to answer this. The UCoC cannot be enforced based on these guidelines.

It can only be enforced after the U4C Building Committee which has not yet been formed, determines the procedures, policy, and use of precedent of the U4C, drafts the remainder of the U4C process and designates any other logistics necessary to establish the U4C.

The guidelines delegate to a new global committee called the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C). They say it will be a co-equal body with the Arbitration Committee. But what happens if or when these "co-equal bodies" have a disagreement? If someone doesn't get the result they want at ArbCom can they appeal to U4C? Or vice versa?

Will the U4C Building Committee be a co-equal body with the English ArbCom?

That seems reckless. They should really determine a course for the U4C Building Committee with a U4CBCEC (Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee Building Committee Exploratory Committee) which is itself delineated by the U4CBCECDC (Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee Building Committee Exploratory Committee Delineation Committee).

Splitter!

[Randy from Boise]

This whole Universal COC is nothing but bureaucratic do-nothings fluttering about pretending that they are doing something.

Nobody needs it, nobody wants it, but the WMF assholes will do whatever they damned well please because it's a multimillion dollar business they have their greedy grabbers sunk into and because they can.

For the average editor, none of this means anything. As always, WMF will ban whomever they feel like banning on whatever pretext. Again: because it's their money trough and because they can.

t

[Beeblebrox]

A little bird told me that some of the more extreme garbage (i.e mandatory training and loyalty pledges from all admins on all projects) in the previous versions of the enforcement guidelines actually came from the volunteer side, not the WMF.
Those were my main concerns, the UCoC itself is not going to be particularly relevant on en.wp because we we already have a large body of policies that prohibit the sort of things the UCoC is aimed at. Enforcement can therefore remain local and we don't need to cite the UCoC when we already have perfectly good local policies. (YMMV)

When this was first brought up, it was sold as only being about the smaller wikis, where it is possible for a small group to basically stage a coup and kick out everyone who isn't in line with whatever shitty agenda the coup is based on. Then when the initial enforcement guidelines came out, it had all this weird authoritarian garbage aimed at all admins on all projects in it, which now appears to have been purged back out.

My understanding is that the U4C would not be able to overrule local arbcoms. That was my only other real concern, so I feel like we can probably go back to ignoring it.

What I could see being useful for those smaller wikis is to require that pledge at the local level as a prerequisite for adminship. That should allow them a way of being able to stop hostile takeovers.

[Vigilant]

When this was first brought up, it was sold as only being about the smaller wikis, where it is possible for a small group to basically stage a coup and kick out everyone who isn't in line with whatever shitty agenda the coup is based on.

How does uCoCk prevent this?

[Giraffe Stapler]

Passed. Of course.

Universal Code of Conduct revised enforcement guidelines vote results

The recent community-wide vote on the Universal Code of Conduct revised Enforcement Guidelines has been tallied and scrutinized. Thank you to everyone who participated.

After 3097 voters from 146 Wikimedia communities voted, the results are 76% in support of the Enforcement Guidelines, and 24% in opposition. Statistics for the vote are available. A more detailed summary of comments submitted during the vote will be published soon.

From here, the results and comments collected during this vote will be submitted to the Board of Trustees for their review. The current expectation is that the Board of Trustees review process will complete in March 2023. We will update you when their review process is completed.

On behalf of the UCoC Project Team, JPBeland-WMF (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

[el84]

Hey, they narrowly avoided a 'crat chat.

[Vigilant]

I'm sure the cosmopolitan sophisticates in the Trust&Safety offices will wield this new power with all the delicacy and subtlety of a rutting rhino.