Theory A: WMF Office is unhappy about year-old UCoC-related criticism and satire, so its authors "deserve" retaliation

"Universal Code of Conduct is at stake"

As suggested by colleague Wargo, the (not yet operational) Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) may be involved and I "deserve it". Let me paste my reformatted answer cum theory then:

You deserve it. And stop spreading FUD about UCoC. Wargo (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Dear @Wargo

Thanks: you may be on to something about this UCoC. Indeed, as per the links above, a year ago I was much involved in formal analysing, criticising and then spoofing the UCoC and WMF and similar WM bodies and past failed initiatives, as per the invitation of the local "facilitators" to discuss it.

FYI: I even received a nifty star in a appreciation from the moderator which I promptly tinkered with therein, as well. (In very short: the "serious" part of my analysis was much similar to Open Letter (or Warning, should I say) from Arbcoms to the Board of Trustees, which I also mention there.) So let me put this as:

A: WMF Office is unhappy about year-old UCoC-related criticism and satire, so its authors "deserve" retaliation 

Did I get you right here?

If so, do you think that all the de-, pl-, cs-, en- etc. ArbCom members who signed it there will also receive such a rebuke, each of them by such private message, under the divide et impera tactic?

Now, since you mentioned Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt - let us turn the tables. Do you agree that such Kafkaesque and anonymous message one receives from such a body is meant to create Fear ("formal warning"), Uncertainty ("but we will not provide details, i.e. diffs or regulations") and Doubt (about their social and organisational competence mostly)?

If you have further inside tips about this "deserving" or UCoC: do provide them here or in this virgin topical blog[this one], anonymously, as e.g. Signpost may be interested in your knowledge, as well. 

Zezen (talk) 10:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Related advice:

"You were warned"

Well, whatever happens, you can't say you weren't warned. This is a pretty direct message that some of the ways you have expressed yourself are unacceptable and you should change your behavior. Demanding to receive more information than what they supplied to you won't change the fact that you've been warned. Liz (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this explanation @Liz.

• Are you part of that secret body or do you know how they work? Do you thus also know which of "the ways" are "some" then, that is the actual diffs vs ToU items? (I still do not know, even after more days' quick self-research, as per Point 4 above, but a colleague suggest UCoC discussions themselves, see my separate answer to him above).

What do you think of my general criticism of the "Star Chamber" nature of their operations, that is can you answer Point 3 and 2 above? Why are they incompetent (see this "Graham's Hierarchy") and totalitarian even in this very message?

Speaking of this "demanding": do you think I will be SanFranBanned soon by enquiring further here (and there), as even this is not allowed nowadays?

For now, apart from here, I will remind them of my public query about the same posed directly to the "non-Trust and un-Safety" (as I will be calling them from now on), as they avoid the answer after two days' wait.

And before this potential ban, while I can still post anything, here will be the slightly more likely:

Theory B: WMF Offices were contacted by (years-old by now) high-level trolls, LTAs and Globally Banned users (or their representatives) and is being unwittingly weaponized thereby

Update A:

Probably Bingo! as this was one of the first pages (some of them old and innocent) which started to disappear, as expected and described in early 2021, in the very same pages...

📜 "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. There is no defense. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also, it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage." Source: ✊🏾 Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals, 1971✊🏾

Ver. 1.1.4