[Wikimedia-l] Re: Arabic Wikipedia day of action

[William Chan]

This seems interesting at best when you provide links to articles in the
Arabic statement and did not do so at the translated statement in English.
The intention seems more interesting when there are no discussions and/or
something similar to a media pack/explanation note for an act of this size.

I don't know if the Human Rights and/or the Advocacy Team was notified or
involved in this, but the execution needs to be improved.

When you would want carry out advocacy right then there should be a call to
action for what readers should do if they support the cause, an article or
a letter explaining to the affected why this needs to be done (the "Stop
Genocide/War" slogan is not enough), and a page documenting all these
documents and/or further readings. Slapping a shutdown notice on the main
page + a banner (that is basically the same) does not serve this purpose
for rallying support for your cause.

Undeniably, to execute this closure requires a major support from the
members of the community, but the current form seems to be executed in a
way that will not generate the publicity it deserves (even if you
support/oppose the shutdown).

(Note: this War and all the atrocity should and must end as soon as
possible (preferably with an executable plan for lasting peace) and the
perpetrators should be investigated and prosecuted while the affected
should be compensated, and all should mourn the innocent lives lost)

Regards,
William


On Sun, 24 Dec 2023 at 00:04, James Heilman  wrote:

> Itzik, this applies only to ar WP correct? Hebrew WP can of course take
> actions as they see fit. Each project is somewhat independent of others.
>
> J
>
> Sent from Gmail Mobile
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 23, 2023 at 05:38 itzik Edri  wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately, not only did Arabic Wikipedia go dark, but also the entire
>> movement. The day marks a sad day in the history of a movement that should
>> be neutral and respect the movement's readers, volunteers and donors around
>> the world. This was the day when one of our most important projects was
>> taken hostage by politics. This is not the vision of our movement. It is
>> not what hundreds of thousands of volunteers have worked so hard to build.
>>
>> For more than 19 years, I have volunteered for this movement, and I have
>> never felt so ashamed.
>>
>> What's next?
>>
>> Let's take dark Hebrew Wikipedia and call for the release of 130 babies,
>> elders, and civilians who were taken from their beds and are being held
>> captive for more than two months without access to the red cross, whose
>> medical condition is unknown.
>>
>> In addition, I hope that European Wikipedias will go dark to raise
>> awareness about the rising antisemitism and violence towards Jews.
>>
>> I believe that this is our commitment as a movement according to the
>> updated movement mission, as it seems from Arabic Wikipedia last action.
>>
>>
>>
>> Itzik
>> A proud Israeli and a proud chairperson of Wikimedia Israel.
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 23, 2023, 03:19 Farah Jack Mustaklem 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Greetings to all,
>>>
>>> Arabic Wikipedia editors have agreed to hold a day of action to
>>> highlight the plight of the Palestinian people and to call for peace. At
>>> 00:00 UTC on the 23rd of December, the Arabic Wikipedia "went dark",
>>> meaning that Wikipedia will not be editable for 24 hours. Wikipedia remains
>>> accessible for reading, though.
>>>
>>> This action stems from the community's sense of moral duty to combat
>>> injustice. Wikipedia communities have previously stood up for human rights
>>> such as by protesting legal travesties like SOPA and PIPA or by showing
>>> solidarity with Ukrainians following Russia's invasion of their country.
>>>
>>> May everyone celebrating the holidays - and those who aren't - stay
>>> safe, and may peace and justice prevail throughout the World.
>>>
>>> All the best
>>>
>>> Farah
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
>>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>>> Public archives at
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/OCPVKAGK3TAXJLLZPVFZVJKB3FVDZEUY/
>>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> Public archives at
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/IGQWADSGFJSURWTSX2VJFS6JVF6WLKQR/
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: EU designates Wikipedia a Very Large Online Platform

[William Chan]

   - Special risk assessments including for negative effects on mental
   health will have to be provided to the Commission 4 months after
   designation and made public at the latest a year later;

This is what I found from the requirements of the designation:
What health effect? like over-reading articles or engaging in
over-exhausting communities?

Regards,
William Chan


On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 at 21:21, F. Xavier Dengra i Grau via Wikimedia-l <
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Hi/Bon dia,
>
> To me, statements like "Platforms need to provide an easily
> understandable, plain-language summary of their terms and conditions, in
> the languages of the Member States where they operate" seem to perpetuate
> some problems (or legal questions/gaps) of what will happen with those
> wikis in minority languages that are spoken in more than one Member State
> (Basque, Silesian, Occitan, Catalan, Sami languages, etc).
>
> Will we need to force each individual wiki project to include texts in
> other languages and to recomply certain practices, as they are separate
> websites? Or will it be accepted that the sum of each linguistical domain
> works as a whole?
>
> Best/Salutacions
>
> Xavier Dengra
>
> El dj, 27 abr., 2023 a 12:12, David Gerard  va
> escriure:
>
> https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_23_2413
>
> In the same category as Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, TikTok ...
>
> On the face of it, this seems a miscategorisation. However, the
> recommendations aren't *bad*, and they're stuff we basically do anyway
> - though through volunteer editors, not the Foundation.
>
> The main nuisance will be a report as if we're Facebook.
>
> How are we approaching this one?
>
>
> - d.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/AEWKAMWM3WITONWYEG3LUY4PR7R4RFVT/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/CIZFE5ESJ4MWVRT4WIELKG2M5WEGBDG3/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/RRHUOZYP6FTXVSRZY4IXZF2KCQMMQ2SP/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Upcoming vote on the revised Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct

[William Chan]

Hi Chico,

I disagree with your conclusion. The code is conduct is in force but
there's no universal way of enforcing it. However, some communities which
had previously been plagued with bad faith actors have already used the
UCoC as a step towards introducing better governance initiatives.
Another plus side, the UCoC had discouraged bad faith actors to a point
where communities can push new initiatives that limit these bad faith
actors without the fear of disruption from these bad actors.

It is thus, for me, can at least define civility for some communities and
introduce sanity back to these communities, (read: the Chinese Wikipedia).

Regards,
William

On Fri, 6 Jan 2023, 03:00 Chico Venancio,  wrote:

> Nataliia,
>
> Thanks for addressing this issue, I do think your message clarified a lot
> and moves us forward with some paths and goalposts.
>
> I do take objection to this statement, however.
> > First, the UCoC is being enforced now. Not only does it help guide the
> Wikimedia Foundation in its current actions (and has since it was adopted
> by resolution [1]), but multiple communities have referred to it in their
> own actions. The policy is in place already, and its enforcement by
> communities is encouraged, there is no expectation that it be delayed until
> the guidelines for globally approaching the enforcement of the policy are
> agreed upon.
>
> Whatever the board's intentions are, the outcome is the UCoC is delayed
> until we have enforcement guidelines. Both WMF and communities have acted
> in this way and we could cite several examples of actions since the UCoC
> approving resolution a bit over 2 years ago.
>
> For a single, very symbolic, example, let me point you in the right
> direction of https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T280886
>
> A full 4 months after the resolution, and now 20 months ago, I created a
> rather simple task add links to the UCoC to all WMF wikis. Code for it was
> written and it briefly was live before being reverted due to indecision on
> where the text policy should live. I have called attention to WMF staff to
> this crucial issue for the past 20 months, and yet we still do not even
> link to the UCoC in our websites.
>
> Best regards,
> Chico Venancio
>
> Em qui., 5 de jan. de 2023 às 14:38, Nataliia Tymkiv <
> ntym...@wikimedia.org> escreveu:
>
>> Dear Chico, and Peter, dear all.
>>
>> Speaking as the chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, I
>> have a few thoughts. First, the UCoC is being enforced now. Not only does
>> it help guide the Wikimedia Foundation in its current actions (and has
>> since it was adopted by resolution [1]), but multiple communities have
>> referred to it in their own actions. The policy is in place already, and
>> its enforcement by communities is encouraged, there is no expectation that
>> it be delayed until the guidelines for globally approaching the enforcement
>> of the policy are agreed upon.
>>
>> You do raise a valid question about the success of the last round of
>> votes. At that point in time, as at this time, staff had recommended that
>> we, the Board, review any version that passed a simple majority, but such a
>> situation was never a guarantee of ratification. We respected the results
>> of the vote – if communities at large could not support the outcome, we
>> would not have evaluated it at all – but we were interested not only in
>> support numbers but in causes of concern. What we noticed last time was
>> that concerns coalesced around a few specific areas, so we felt the
>> guidelines would benefit from deeper discussion and exploration of those
>> specific areas. We wanted to make sure the enforcement guidelines were as
>> widely understood and supported at their launch as they could be and
>> greatly appreciate the work the communities have done together with the
>> volunteer-led revisions drafting committee to explore those areas.
>>
>> With this next round of voting, we hope to find that the further
>> conversations have led to alignment in these few challenging areas.
>> Ideally, the guidelines will meet with even more support than last time. If
>> not, if the changes have actually reduced support, then it might be worth
>> considering whether those revisions were actually beneficial to the broader
>> community. If this version of the enforcement guidelines do not exceed the
>> level of support of the last, we may instead need to consider ratifying the
>> last or some hybrid of the two or even further reviewing with the community
>> certain aspects for different development.
>>
>> No matter what happens with the enforcement guidelines vote, the UCoC is
>> important to our community health. While global alignment on how to
>> approach issues is being sought, we trust local communities are continuing
>> to uphold this policy and other requirements of the Terms of Use to the
>> best of their abilities.
>>
>> [1]
>> 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: About raising money

[William Chan]

I think zh.wiki adds that into the list of reasons why UCoC should be
enforced.

Of course I hope the foundation can be as transparent as possible.

On Wed, 29 Sept 2021 at 06:35, Vi to  wrote:

> Hr.wiki case proves that some very basic things must be enforced, anyway.
>
> Vito
>
> Il giorno mar 28 set 2021 alle ore 23:29 Todd Allen 
> ha scritto:
>
>> If UCOC is such a great idea, it should be made opt-in, or at least
>> opt-out. After all, if it's so brilliant, surely everyone will want it
>> anyway, right?
>>
>> It is the imposition of "You will get this whether you like it or not"
>> which is the problem.
>>
>> Todd
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 28, 2021 at 4:39 AM Vi to  wrote:
>>
>>> UCOC must surely be ruled out of this list. The reasons behind its
>>> creations are indisputable.
>>>
>>> Anyway donations are collected because of volunteers' work, but should
>>> be mainly bound to readers' (donors') will.
>>>
>>> Vito
>>>
>>> Il giorno mar 28 set 2021 alle ore 10:19 Todd Allen <
>>> toddmal...@gmail.com> ha scritto:
>>>
 It's not only that.

 When the WMF uses its funds to actively act against its volunteer
 community (ACTRIAL, MEDIAVIEWER, FRAMBAN, and more lately UCOC), that
 raises issues beyond disgust. The projects we spent our time building are
 now actively being used to do things we don't want to do. It is not just
 that WMF is using its money on frivolous or useless projects (though that
 would be a problem), it is that WMF is using its funds from what we built
 to actively punch us in the face and act against us.

 If WMF were using its funds to take trips out to Barbados for no
 reason, well--we'd probably still be irritated about that. But use our
 funds to actively stomp on our volunteer community, and ignore what they
 say?

 Well that's not just disgust. That's anger, and that's what you're
 seeing.

 Regards,

 Todd Allen

 On Sat, Sep 25, 2021 at 2:51 PM Guillaume Paumier <
 gpaum...@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> (Sending this as a personal opinion, albeit one informed by my work on
> revenue strategy in the past few years.)
>
> Discussions about fundraising in the Wikimedia movement often involve
> the same arguments over time. My theory, after observing and participating
> in those discussions for 15 years, is the following.
>
> Objections to Wikimedia fundraising (and, more broadly, revenue
> generation) tend to stem from three main sources:
> * the moral superiority of financial disinterest
> * outlandish budgets and fundraising goals
> * improper means used to raise money.
>
> The first one is relatively simple. A significant number of us find
> any relationship between money and free knowledge viscerally disgusting.
> We've been editing as volunteers for years, devoting our free time to the
> advancement of humankind through knowledge. We have done so through
> countless acts of selflessness. Our financial disinterest is
> inextricably woven into our identity as Wikimedians. The Foundation should
> only raise the minimum funds required to "keep the lights on." Anything
> more is an attempt to profit from our free labor, and that's revolting.
>
> This is not unlike discussions of business models in the libre
> software community; we can also see those arguments surface in discussions
> around paid editing. I will leave the moral argument aside, because little
> can be done to change individual identities and moral judgments of money.
> But let's name them explicitly, in hopes that we can separate them from
> more fact-based arguments, if we are willing and able.
>
> The second point of contention is how much we raise. To those of us
> who remember the early years ("May we ask y'all to chip in a few dollars 
> so
> we can buy our second server?!"), raising $150+ million a year these days
> seems extravagant, and probably always will. The much smaller budgets from
> our past act as cognitive anchors, [1] and in comparison recent budgets
> appear greedily outsized. Instead of being outraged by the growth of the
> budget, we should instead ask ourselves how much money we really need.
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchoring_(cognitive_bias)
>
> And the fact is that, as a movement, we need as much money as we can
> get to advance our mission. Our vision is so ambitious and expansive that
> it is also bound to be inevitably expensive. This is something that the
> Board understood: shortly after endorsing the Strategic Direction in 2017,
> they directed the Foundation to prepare to raise more funds than usual, to
> be able to move towards our collective vision for 2030. [2] My fellow
> members of the working group on Revenue Streams for movement strategy also
> understood the scope of the 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Regarding a series of serious office actions / 有关于一系列的办事处行动

[William Chan]

Update to this:

I can't confirm if [3] can be observed or confirmed due to the time between
incident and current time, but other factual statements can be backed.

On Tue, 14 Sep 2021 at 18:06, William Chan  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> 1. I must say that, for those who were desysopped, there are very clear
> evidence and feelings from Hong Kong editors that the elections that
> empowered them to the positions they got came from rigged elections with
> canvassing being observed but never dealt due to acts to deal with them
> being claimed as outright hostility against the users in China.
> 2. I wrote the August 2019 piece. I'm not banned, I'm 1233. [1]
> 3. There were accounts which those admin accounts being shared upon
> non-admins (I don't think, imo, even account sharing between admins is
> right at all)
> 4. The Chinese community is in standstill after 2019.
> 5. It seems to be a preliminary conclusion of events that lead to all zhwp
> Checkusers deprived of such checkuser right.
> 6. I really hope for a global discussion, but a November 2017 discussion
> (initiated my me) led to nothing, then I think there's an ongoing RFC that
> didn't get much attention too.
> 7. I am quite confident that SWAN will discuss this issue and a larger
> open office hour is coming.
> 8. IMO, Techyan and Walter Grassroot deserved this.
> 9. Even outright fascism propaganda can't be dealt with internally till
> WMF g-lock [2]
> 10. Yes, if you get into a deeper dive on editors, you will find large,
> half-page political announcements are on userpages.
> 11. The worst part of those discussions are within QQ, off wiki plots
> against the safety of active, dissident (in terms of Communist party
> leadership) editors.
> 12. They did all the hostility since 2015 [3]
>
> Regards,
> William Chan
>
> [1]:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-08-30/Community_view
> [2]:
> https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:%E5%B0%A4%E9%87%8C%E7%9A%841994=67304211
> [3]:https://twitter.com/Philip_Tzou/status/1437543054043275265
>
> On Tue, 14 Sept 2021 at 17:43, Yair Rand  wrote:
>
>> (For those trying to play catch-up on the Wikipedia-in-China issue, I
>> recommend diving into some old Signpost archives: [1] ("The BBC looks at
>> Chinese government editing"), [2] ("Interview: Carl Miller on Wikipedia
>> Wars"), [3] ("Community View: Observations from the mainland"), [4]
>> ("Special report: Hardball in Hong Kong"), and maybe [5] ("Chinese man
>> detained and penalized for reading Wikipedia") and [6] ("China and the
>> Chinese Wikipedia"). Note that the author of the community view piece and
>> the subject of the special report, User:Techyan and User:Walter_Grassroot
>> respectively, are both among those banned in this action. I have not found
>> sources covering the more recent events relating to the canvassing policy.)
>>
>> I'm having a difficult time understanding the notice, particularly which
>> parts are relating to the NDA change and which are relating to the more
>> recent actions. If I am understanding correctly, the NDA change:
>> * was prompted by credible threats against contributors,
>> * involved risks pertaining to private data being taken by hostile
>> entities,
>> * could not be communicated in advance even to stewards without creating
>> serious risks.
>>
>> Meanwhile, regarding the bans and desysoppings:
>> * The message vaguely implies, but does not state, that "credible threats
>> to [Chinese users'] safety" were relevant to this decision.
>> * A second justification is similarly implied: That the actions were
>> necessary to avoid community capture/infiltration on zhwiki, presumably by
>> the government of the PRC. Particularly highlighted issues of relevance to
>> this are canvassing and fraud, presumably for community manipulation.
>> * Some relevant information on this cannot be revealed publicly ("limits
>> to what we can reveal").
>>
>> Maggie has stated on-wiki that those desysopped will be permitted to run
>> for adminship again [7], while the WMF will "monitor the integrity of
>> elections for those seeking sysop rights again (after this action) until we
>> are able to help the local community adopt a more secure system." I am
>> fairly confident that, if the desysoppings were necessary to avoid actual
>> harm (that is, if there was a threat to safety from those users holding
>> advanced rights), the WMF would not allow the restoring of those rights.
>> Maggie's on-list response to Yaroslav mentioning desysoppings of those
>> "whose behavior has 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: WMCUG Response for recent office actions

[William Chan]

They got the statement translated by themselves:

https://qiuwen.wmcug.org.cn/archives/403/on-wmf-office-action-en-1/

Interesting. They, if I remember correctly, already got conduct warnings
against them, as mentioned by them during the FRAM case.

https://archive.is/3Tffv

Regards,
William Chan


On Tue, 14 Sept 2021 at 16:30, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Here is a machine translation, by DeepL.com (Google Translate produces
> gobbledygook by comparison!)
>
> Qiuwen - Wikimedians of Mainland China
>
> Drop the illusion and prepare for the fight - a comment on the
> Foundation's region-wide lockdown of Chinese Wikimedians and Maggie
> Dennis's "statement"
>
> Posted by Qiuwen on September 14, 2021 in Drop the illusions, prepare for
> the struggle - A comment on the Foundation's region-wide targeting of
> Chinese Wikimedians and Maggie Dennis' "statement"
>
> [This commentary, by Lu Zu, takes the form of an open letter and will be
> translated into English shortly.]
>
> September 13, 2021 will be remembered by all Chinese Wikipedians.
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation has locked out all Chinese Wikipedians, including
> members and liaison members of my group, for no apparent reason, and has
> removed the administrator and administrative privileges of many more
> Wikipedians. This decision was made by the Foundation at the instigation of
> some people in the Chinese wiki community, without any consideration,
> without listening to the views of the community, and without any basis for
> believing the slander of a small group of people.
>
> It is no accident that the Foundation has decided to take action at this
> point in time. The Foundation has torn off its mask of hypocrisy towards
> us, and indeed towards the entire mainland Chinese community, and has
> revealed its green fangs. Following the Foundation's decision, the
> perpetrators of this farce are rejoicing that their imagined greatest
> rival, our own Wikipedians of Mainland China (WMC), has been knocked off -
> just as they were four years ago when they were region-wide locked out at
> Watchtower Ai Meng.
>
> The Chinese government and the Communist Party of China have been
> criticized for blocking foreign websites and suppressing Wikipedia's
> development in China. But the Foundation has done what even the Chinese
> government has failed to do - the Chinese government has not stopped us
> from organising meetings or events, and has not declared our grey area,
> university club-like organisation an "illegal group". Zero Wikipedians have
> been arrested, threatened, or in any way obstructed by the Chinese
> government, and the Foundation has banned seven people and removed the
> administrative powers of 12 others with a single move.
>
> These people have done the dirtiest and toughest work in China, a country
> where Wikipedia has been blocked until now, to grow the community to its
> current size. Now, they have to be slapped backwards and bitten back by the
> Foundation.
>
> The Foundation has clearly learnt its lesson from when Fram, the
> administrator of the English Wikipedia, was banned in 2019. At that time,
> Fram's administrator was pulled from his post and was also banned from the
> English Wikipedia. This caused an uproar in the English Wikipedia community
> at the time. The Foundation never dreamed that the community would react so
> strongly to the banning of Fram. The foundation may have had an external PR
> team, but they didn't realise that it was the community that needed PR the
> most. It took the Foundation over a month to put out the fires in the
> community. Even though the vast majority of the English wiki community
> objected to the Foundation's forced involvement in the community, the
> Foundation did not budge: the Fram, who had his administrator privileges
> removed for no good reason, was not reinstated after weeks of protest and
> opposition from the community.
>
> We know that there are many people in the community who care about us, who
> want Wikipedia to be unblocked in China, who want the Wikimedia movement to
> grow in China, who recognise the efforts and even sacrifices that WMC has
> made for the development of Wikimedia in China, or at the very least, who
> think that the Foundation should not have banned so many administrators
> overnight and without warning. You may also be under the illusion that the
> Foundation has the possibility to admit its mistake or to retract their
> decision. The truth, dear friends, may have disappointed you. Like you, we
> hope that today is just a nightmare. However, I am here to give you a
> precautionary note: lose your illusions and prepare to fight.
>
> Having seen what happened with Fram, this time the Foundation accompanied
> 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Regarding a series of serious office actions / 有关于一系列的办事处行动

[William Chan]

Hi,

1. I must say that, for those who were desysopped, there are very clear
evidence and feelings from Hong Kong editors that the elections that
empowered them to the positions they got came from rigged elections with
canvassing being observed but never dealt due to acts to deal with them
being claimed as outright hostility against the users in China.
2. I wrote the August 2019 piece. I'm not banned, I'm 1233. [1]
3. There were accounts which those admin accounts being shared upon
non-admins (I don't think, imo, even account sharing between admins is
right at all)
4. The Chinese community is in standstill after 2019.
5. It seems to be a preliminary conclusion of events that lead to all zhwp
Checkusers deprived of such checkuser right.
6. I really hope for a global discussion, but a November 2017 discussion
(initiated my me) led to nothing, then I think there's an ongoing RFC that
didn't get much attention too.
7. I am quite confident that SWAN will discuss this issue and a larger open
office hour is coming.
8. IMO, Techyan and Walter Grassroot deserved this.
9. Even outright fascism propaganda can't be dealt with internally till WMF
g-lock [2]
10. Yes, if you get into a deeper dive on editors, you will find large,
half-page political announcements are on userpages.
11. The worst part of those discussions are within QQ, off wiki plots
against the safety of active, dissident (in terms of Communist party
leadership) editors.
12. They did all the hostility since 2015 [3]

Regards,
William Chan

[1]:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-08-30/Community_view
[2]:
https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:%E5%B0%A4%E9%87%8C%E7%9A%841994=67304211
[3]:https://twitter.com/Philip_Tzou/status/1437543054043275265

On Tue, 14 Sept 2021 at 17:43, Yair Rand  wrote:

> (For those trying to play catch-up on the Wikipedia-in-China issue, I
> recommend diving into some old Signpost archives: [1] ("The BBC looks at
> Chinese government editing"), [2] ("Interview: Carl Miller on Wikipedia
> Wars"), [3] ("Community View: Observations from the mainland"), [4]
> ("Special report: Hardball in Hong Kong"), and maybe [5] ("Chinese man
> detained and penalized for reading Wikipedia") and [6] ("China and the
> Chinese Wikipedia"). Note that the author of the community view piece and
> the subject of the special report, User:Techyan and User:Walter_Grassroot
> respectively, are both among those banned in this action. I have not found
> sources covering the more recent events relating to the canvassing policy.)
>
> I'm having a difficult time understanding the notice, particularly which
> parts are relating to the NDA change and which are relating to the more
> recent actions. If I am understanding correctly, the NDA change:
> * was prompted by credible threats against contributors,
> * involved risks pertaining to private data being taken by hostile
> entities,
> * could not be communicated in advance even to stewards without creating
> serious risks.
>
> Meanwhile, regarding the bans and desysoppings:
> * The message vaguely implies, but does not state, that "credible threats
> to [Chinese users'] safety" were relevant to this decision.
> * A second justification is similarly implied: That the actions were
> necessary to avoid community capture/infiltration on zhwiki, presumably by
> the government of the PRC. Particularly highlighted issues of relevance to
> this are canvassing and fraud, presumably for community manipulation.
> * Some relevant information on this cannot be revealed publicly ("limits
> to what we can reveal").
>
> Maggie has stated on-wiki that those desysopped will be permitted to run
> for adminship again [7], while the WMF will "monitor the integrity of
> elections for those seeking sysop rights again (after this action) until we
> are able to help the local community adopt a more secure system." I am
> fairly confident that, if the desysoppings were necessary to avoid actual
> harm (that is, if there was a threat to safety from those users holding
> advanced rights), the WMF would not allow the restoring of those rights.
> Maggie's on-list response to Yaroslav mentioning desysoppings of those
> "whose behavior has been problematic in relation largely to canvassing or
> demonstrated abuse of their roles" seems to further support that this was
> not about harm.
>
> The canvassing rationale for the desysoppings (and possibly for some of
> the bans, if all seven were not for the same reasons) is not sufficient to
> justify this action by the WMF; preventing local canvassing is not within
> the T's remit. This may not have been the actual rationale (per "limits
> to what we can reveal"), but there are clear indications that it was, per
&g

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Regarding a series of serious office actions / 有关于一系列的办事处行动

[William Chan]

up a page on Meta to
>> talk, and I will be hosting an office hour in coming weeks.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Maggie
>>
>> [1]
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Resilience_and_Sustainability
>> [2]
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Access_to_nonpublic_personal_data_policy#Policy_adjustment_on_behalf_of_Legal
>> [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_of_Mainland_China
>> [4]
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Croatian_Wikipedia_Disinformation_Assessment-2021
>> [5] https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/zh.wikipedia.org
>> [6]
>> https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/zh.wikipedia.org/reading/page-views-by-country/normal|map|last-month|(access)~desktop*mobile-app*mobile-web|monthly
>>
>> ***
>>
>> 大家好
>>
>> 我是 Maggie Dennis, 维基媒体基金会社团及延续性的领导。[1] 今天我想和大家分享维基媒体基金会在全球保护社团采取的一系列办事行动。
>>
>> 我在这里先向大家说声对不起。这封信会比较长，有些方面也会比较歧义。这些事的确比较复杂，但我会尽量简化但明确的把这些资料和大家分享。我会在安全范围内尽我所能的回答问题，我也会在未来的几个星期主办
>> office hour 在和大家更详细的研讨。我们正在设置有关于人力资源上的问题并会在 Wikimedia-L 和 Meta 发布讯息。
>>
>> 相信大家已经知道基金会在几周前对 NDA 政策的改变。这些改变已经在 Meta
>> 讨论过了，我也不必在这里重申，[2]但让我在这里简要地说明。基金会收到了有关各人威胁的可信消息并调整了接受各人“non-disclosure
>> agreements”的姿态。这个安全风险是有关于浸入及索取基金会的系统，也包括取数个人识别资料和选举管理机构的影响。我们不能预先宣布这新的策略即使是我们最信任的团体
>> (stewards), 为了不触发这些风险。我们在受影响的区域限制了使用权并且和受影响的使用者讨论风险对它们的影响。
>>
>>
>> 我想在这里强调不是某个受影响的人藏了恶意而是浸入发生可以有很多种。我们知道在维基百科里有不良角色和社团迎合为了就是取数和推进反开放知识的目标这也包括某人受了不良角色的影响而屈服因为他们已经是认可的知情人。这策略改变的目的是为了减少后者的风险，招募或更严重的敲诈勒索。我们相信有些受影响的用户自己有以上的风险而不限制与有可能被逼盗用有个人资料使用者。
>>
>> 今天，维基媒体基金会在两个受影响的区域之一，推出了第二阶段寻址浸入风险的扫荡行动。经过了深入调查非附属团体 Wikimedians of
>> Mainland China 的活动， 我们禁止了七个用户和删除了十二个管理员权限。[3]
>> 我们还联系了一些其他编辑，解释了有关拉票指南和人肉政策的解释，，并要求它们调整这些行为。
>>
>> 有关于办事行动维基媒体基金会通常不会向外公开但这个案件的范围和性质是前所未有的。在安全和隐私的范围内我们不能透露在非附属团体的这些用户，但我想承认这行动是激进的，而且做出这一决定并不容易。
>> 我们努力地不想阻止和破坏中文真诚用户的努力，他们为自由和开放的知识而努力奋斗，包括参与该群体的一些人。我们也不想让真诚的用户觉得不实欢迎，当我们收到了对它们安全可信的威胁，我们也不能冒险采取任何措施保护他们，从而使他们面临危险。
>>
>> 一些时间前，
>> 我们限制了在中国用户的个人资料暴露，也知道在中文维基百科有相似的浸入。我们也确认了有些用户为某些因故而受了身体伤害。我们别无选者必须快速做回应。
>>
>> 当我回顾我在维基媒体的这些年，从一个非主流的网站转变成一个全求都信任的线上百科全书，我把这个案件当作是一个挑战和胜利。
>> 在2007年当我钢开始改编的时候我已经相信维基媒体会是全球最大成就之一， 那就是集体知识，在手指上。
>> 不用多久时间，我就发现了许多编辑人员善意的姿态和那些用来呈现资料角度的战争。我不是在暗示我有预见性的警告，我觉得很多用户在我参与前就知道这事会发生。我不认为这个风险在这个时候比较高，当维基媒体的项目收到这么庞大的信任，还有组织的努力来控制我们分享的知识。
>>
>>
>> 团体“占领”
>> 是一个真是的风险。多年已来，基金会意识到的克罗地亚维基百科面临的挑战。我们也有进十年的文档。基金会在最近设立了虚假信息团队，但是我们还在评估克罗地亚维基百科的问题。这些问题是基金会较早前聘请的承包商来帮我们理解原因和解决办法。[4]
>> 为了应付团体组织的资料控制，我们也设立了一组人权团队来应对紧急人权危机。我们惊天所免领的问题也让我看到了我们所需要的来应付这些困难问题，像是如何继续开放编辑给每个人，在每个地方但能够确保我们的用户在编辑中受到被封的威胁下感到安全。
>>
>> 在管理员权限，我们希望能够与国际华语群体链接来参与及讨论选举的方向为了避免团体占领也绕着不知让中文维基百科的用户感到安全也绝对是安全。
>> 我们也必须确认中文项目的用户可以举办公平的选举，没有拉票或欺诈。 我们希望建设这些公平的法则来维持选举能够让我们在未来恢复 CheckUser 权利.
>>
>>
>> 我想在结束这封电子邮件时指出，我个人对你们中的那些感到震惊的人深表歉意。这无疑将包括那些想知道他们是否应该担心他们的个人信息被暴露的人（我们不这么认为；我们相信我们及时采取了行动以防止这种情况发生）以及那些担心进一步采取这种大胆行动的人可能会扰乱他们及其工作和社区（此时，通过这一行动，我们相信已识别的风险已在中短期内得到控制）。我也对那些在这种威胁的阴影下一段时间感到不安的社区深表歉意。基金会继续建设我们的能力，以支持每个想要或需要其支持的社区我们仍在学习如何在我们这样做的时候做得很好。我们寻求改进的关键领域之一是了解我们的人权影响的能力以及我们应对这些挑战的能力。你没有得到你应得的服务。我们无法立即解决问题，但我们正在积极、有意识地、专注地努力改进。
>>
>>
>> 向分布在世界各地、服务于多个大洲的读者的4000名活跃中文维基人，[5][6]我想传达我的悲伤和遗憾。我想向你保证，我们会做得更好。您为世界各地的中文读者分享知识所做的工作意义重大，我们致力于支持您在未来开展这项工作，并提供您在安全、可靠和高效的环境中取得成功所需的工具。
>>
>> 同样，我将回答我能回答的问题，也依赖于法律领域甚至其他领域的其他人的支持。我们正在 Meta 上建立一个页面来讨论，我将在未来几周内主办
>> office hour 在和大家更详细的研讨。
>>
>> 此致,
>> Maggie
>>
>> [1]
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Resilience_and_Sustainability
>> [2]
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Access_to_nonpublic_personal_data_policy#Policy_adjustment_on_behalf_of_Legal
>> [3] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedians_of_Mainland_China
>> [4]
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Croatian_Wikipedia_Disinformation_Assessment-2021
>> [5] https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/zh.wikipedia.org
>> [6]
>> https://stats.wikimedia.org/#/zh.wikipedia.org/reading/page-views-by-country/normal|map|last-month|(access)~desktop*mobile-app*mobile-web|monthly
>>
>>
>> --
>> Maggie Dennis
>> She/her/hers
>> Vice President, Community Resilience & Sustainability
>> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> Public archives at
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/6ANVSSZWOGH27OXAIN2XMJ2X7NWRVURF/
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/LHWZ4A5VN6JS3P3EPQXO46LWELX5RUP4/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

-- 

William Chan
Education Programme Coordinator
Wikimedia Community User Group Hong Kong
User group : meta page <http://bit.ly/WMCUGHK> | facebook
<http://fb.me/WikimediaUGHK>
Personal : linkedin <https://www.linkedin.com/in/the2/> | telegram
<http://t.me/theonly2>

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/OI3NOQTEOCB2FPOZBPKUVTRPKYSAFXGL/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Regarding a series of serious office actions / 有关于一系列的办事处行动

[William Chan]

> communities, but those users themselves and those they love.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Maggie
>>>
>>>
>>> [1]
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Access_to_nonpublic_personal_data_policy#Answers_to_some_questions_around_policy_change
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 5:43 PM effe iets anders <
>>> effeietsand...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thank you Maggie, for the announcement. It's a sad day, and I'm sure
>>>> there were many sad actions that resulted in this.
>>>>
>>>> Two questions from my end:
>>>> * Could you commit to making a better translation available (through
>>>> community processes or otherwise) for the record? I think this decision may
>>>> be referred to quite a bit in the future, so it's valuable to have an
>>>> accurate translation available to the Chinese community.
>>>> * What countries are affected currently by the NDA decision
>>>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Confidentiality_agreement_for_nonpublic_information=prev=21925066=source>?
>>>> It is suggested that China and Iran are, but I can't find an authoritative
>>>> list (but may be looking at the wrong place). This would be helpful for
>>>> volunteers from countries that are wondering if they should even bother to
>>>> apply for positions. The definition "blocked access" is a bit fluid. I'm
>>>> assuming here that the fact that a country is on this list, is not a secret
>>>> in itself.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> Lodewijk
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 11:06 AM William Chan  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Leo,
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that this is a Google Translation product. But yes, it is in
>>>>> such bad shape where even Chinese natives can barely read. But I
>>>>> acknowledge the fact that the urgency and secrecy of the matter made
>>>>> consulting external parties, to the extent, even contractors working for
>>>>> WMF, impossible.
>>>>>
>>>>> To Maggie,
>>>>>
>>>>> May I ask if there is a certain number for the amount of users linked
>>>>> with the unrecognized user group being warned? There is no request for the
>>>>> list of users, just the number would be fine. The Wikipedia communities in
>>>>> Hong Kong need to access the total damage dealt to the user group who had
>>>>> persistently engaged in activities harassing the safety of Hong Kong 
>>>>> Users.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> William Chan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 14 Sept 2021 at 01:58, Leo Z  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Maggie,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for the prompt response. I do not know who those ‘native
>>>>>> speakers’ are, perhaps that’s just a way to avoid providing language
>>>>>> proficiency certificate. I do not know. Google translation might even do
>>>>>> better.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am more than certain that this translation is not just faulty or
>>>>>> unsatisfactory, but terrible if not horrifying, disastrous, or outright
>>>>>> shocking for an acclaimed international organization. The issue for this
>>>>>> specific translation is not with 'movement-specific' terms, but a
>>>>>> significant lack of elementary understanding regarding the fundamental
>>>>>> grammatical structure of the Chinese language. I will refrain from 
>>>>>> listing
>>>>>> specific examples here (there are plenty), but those mistakes are
>>>>>> hilarious, if not outright absurd. Whoever translated this text might
>>>>>> barely pass an AP Chinese exam.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please consult a professor in Chinese language at Berkeley or CCSF or
>>>>>> even just a language school, or perhaps consult someone from ChinaSF, 
>>>>>> maybe
>>>>>> even a Chinese speaking professional from HSBC or wherever. There are
>>>>>> plenty, if you feel it’s necessary. I’m more than certain they will offer
>>>>>> similar opinions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sincere hope for a better translation,
>>>>>> Leo
>>>>>> On Sep 14, 2021, 1:

[Wikimedia-l] WMCUG Response for recent office actions

[William Chan]

Hi all,

Of course I am not from WMCUG, but they issued a statement regarding the
series of serious office actions:

https://qiuwen.wmcug.org.cn/archives/390/on-wmf-office-action-zh-1/

Of course there is an archive.is link so as not to , you know, they may
just take down:
https://archive.is/EE6AD

Interesting to see if they really translated this to English.

Regards,
William
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/BZ6YRH72IJTG6SITGGLIMH2W7NAR2EJX/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Regarding a series of serious office actions / 有关于一系列的办事处行动

[William Chan]

Hi Leo,

I think that this is a Google Translation product. But yes, it is in such
bad shape where even Chinese natives can barely read. But I acknowledge the
fact that the urgency and secrecy of the matter made consulting external
parties, to the extent, even contractors working for WMF, impossible.

To Maggie,

May I ask if there is a certain number for the amount of users linked with
the unrecognized user group being warned? There is no request for the list
of users, just the number would be fine. The Wikipedia communities in Hong
Kong need to access the total damage dealt to the user group who had
persistently engaged in activities harassing the safety of Hong Kong Users.

Regards,
William Chan


On Tue, 14 Sept 2021 at 01:58, Leo Z  wrote:

> Hi Maggie,
>
> Thanks for the prompt response. I do not know who those ‘native speakers’
> are, perhaps that’s just a way to avoid providing language proficiency
> certificate. I do not know. Google translation might even do better.
>
> I am more than certain that this translation is not just faulty or
> unsatisfactory, but terrible if not horrifying, disastrous, or outright
> shocking for an acclaimed international organization. The issue for this
> specific translation is not with 'movement-specific' terms, but a
> significant lack of elementary understanding regarding the fundamental
> grammatical structure of the Chinese language. I will refrain from listing
> specific examples here (there are plenty), but those mistakes are
> hilarious, if not outright absurd. Whoever translated this text might
> barely pass an AP Chinese exam.
>
> Please consult a professor in Chinese language at Berkeley or CCSF or even
> just a language school, or perhaps consult someone from ChinaSF, maybe even
> a Chinese speaking professional from HSBC or wherever. There are plenty, if
> you feel it’s necessary. I’m more than certain they will offer similar
> opinions.
>
> Sincere hope for a better translation,
> Leo
> On Sep 14, 2021, 1:17 AM +0800, Maggie Dennis ,
> wrote:
>
> Hello, all.
>
> A few responses.
>
> First, Nathan and William, we will share as much information as we can,
> but will need to be careful about what we say about the individuals
> involved for legal and safety reasons. This is indeed related to increasing
> resilience across Wikipedias and not at all specifically for ZhWP. I do
> think it's important for us to offer some additional support there, given
> the current situation, but we are looking at increasing safety everywhere.
>
> Leo, thank you for your feedback on the translation, which was provided by
> native Chinese speakers. Since I myself am completely unable to read
> Chinese, I don't know the nature of the issue, but I do know that in the
> past we have had some issues with movement-specific terms being translated.
> I recall once when "free in speech" was mistranslated as "free as in beer"
> - which we always deliberately try to avoid. :)
>
> Best,
> Maggie
>
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 12:45 PM Nathan  wrote:
>
>> Maggie,
>>
>> Thank you for taking these very difficult actions to protect both the
>> members of our community as well as the values that it seeks to uphold. I
>> also appreciate the degree of transparency provided and hope that more
>> information will be disclosed as it is appropriate. I imagine questions
>> will be asked about how these individual accounts were selected for office
>> actions and the contours of the risk both to the individuals behind these
>> accounts and the wider community. Any information that the WMF is able to
>> safely share will help all of us understand better what the threats are and
>> how we may better support the movement's goals in jurisdictions where our
>> values are not respected.
>>
>> Thank you again,
>> Nathan
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> Public archives at
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/VOHDBMA7WWDK6TMTDZNN6B6XX7AL5J4G/
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
>
>
> --
> Maggie Dennis
> She/her/hers
> Vice President, Community Resilience & Sustainability
> Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> Public archives at
> https://lists.wikim

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Regarding a series of serious office actions / 有关于一系列的办事处行动

[William Chan]

Hi Maggie,

May I ask if the action is a part of a wider effort to improve community
resilience (not only at zhwp, but across multiple projects)?

Regards,
William Chan


On Tue, 14 Sept 2021 at 00:39, Maggie Dennis  wrote:

> Hi, Yaroslav.
>
> No, not all admins residing on the mainland have been desysopped, only
> those whose involvement with the group in question have raised significant
> concerns about community election processes and whose behavior has been
> problematic in relation largely to canvassing or demonstrated abuse of
> their roles. We want to work with the Chinese community on improving the
> community’s health, including fair election systems that are less
> vulnerable to undue outside influence like threatening conduct towards
> those who oppose elections--perhaps something like SecurePoll.
>
> This action has no impact on admins residing in mainland China in good
> standing and also does not prevent other good users on the mainland from
> applying for such rights in proper community process.
>
> Warm regards,
> Maggie
>
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 12:27 PM Yaroslav Blanter 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Maggie,
>>
>> thanks for sharing. I think this is indeed very important.
>>
>> Just to understand this better - have all administrators on all projects
>> who reside in the Mainland China been desysopped?
>>
>> If this is the case, is there a policy that no user residing in the
>> Mainland China can become administrator on any of our projects?
>>
>> If this is the case, how it is going to be implemented? As a bureaucrat
>> on Wikidata who promotes new admins I obviously do not know where they
>> reside.
>>
>> Best
>> Yaroslav
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 6:15 PM Maggie Dennis 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> (on-wiki:  ; Google translated notice that there is a professional
>>> Chinese translation of the email below - 中文翻譯見下文)
>>>
>>> Hello, everyone.
>>>
>>> I’m Maggie Dennis, the Wikimedia Foundation’s Vice President of
>>> Community Resilience & Sustainability.[1] I’m reaching out to you today to
>>> talk about a series of actions the Foundation has recently taken to protect
>>> communities across the globe.
>>>
>>> I apologize in advance for the length and the ambiguity in certain
>>> areas. These are complicated issues, and I will try to summarize a lot of
>>> what may be unfamiliar information to some of you succinctly. I will answer
>>> questions to the best of my ability within safety parameters, and I will be
>>> hosting an office hour in a few weeks where I can discuss these issues in
>>> more depth. We’re currently getting that set up in regards to availability
>>> of support staff and will announce it on Wikimedia-L and Meta as soon as
>>> that information is prepared.
>>>
>>> Many of you are already aware of recent changes that the Foundation has
>>> made to its NDA policy. These changes have been discussed on Meta, and I
>>> won’t reiterate all of our disclosures there,[2] but I will briefly
>>> summarize that due to credible information of threat, the Foundation has
>>> modified its approach to accepting “non-disclosure agreements” from
>>> individuals. The security risk relates to information about infiltration of
>>> Wikimedia systems, including positions with access to personally
>>> identifiable information and elected bodies of influence. We could not
>>> pre-announce this action, even to our most trusted community partner groups
>>> (like the stewards), without fear of triggering the risk to which we’d been
>>> alerted. We restricted access to these tools immediately in the
>>> jurisdictions of concern, while working with impacted users to determine if
>>> the risk applied to them.
>>>
>>> I want to pause to emphasize that we do not mean to accuse any specific
>>> individual whose access was restricted by that policy change of bad intent.
>>> Infiltration can occur through multiple mechanisms. What we have seen in
>>> our own movement includes not only people deliberately seeking to
>>> ingratiate themselves with their communities in order to obtain access and
>>> advance an agenda contrary to open knowledge goals, but also individuals
>>> who have become vulnerable to exploitation and harm by external groups
>>> because they are already trusted insiders. This policy primarily served to
>>> address the latter risk, to reduce the likelihood of recruitment or (worse)
>>> extortion. We believe that some of the individuals impacted b

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Regarding a series of serious office actions / 有关于一系列的办事处行动

[William Chan]

Hi Yaroslav,

No, not all had been desysopped.
Regards,
William Chan


On Tue, 14 Sept 2021 at 00:28, Yaroslav Blanter  wrote:

> Hi Maggie,
>
> thanks for sharing. I think this is indeed very important.
>
> Just to understand this better - have all administrators on all projects
> who reside in the Mainland China been desysopped?
>
> If this is the case, is there a policy that no user residing in the
> Mainland China can become administrator on any of our projects?
>
> If this is the case, how it is going to be implemented? As a bureaucrat on
> Wikidata who promotes new admins I obviously do not know where they reside.
>
> Best
> Yaroslav
>
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 6:15 PM Maggie Dennis 
> wrote:
>
>> (on-wiki:  ; Google translated notice that there is a professional
>> Chinese translation of the email below - 中文翻譯見下文)
>>
>> Hello, everyone.
>>
>> I’m Maggie Dennis, the Wikimedia Foundation’s Vice President of Community
>> Resilience & Sustainability.[1] I’m reaching out to you today to talk about
>> a series of actions the Foundation has recently taken to protect
>> communities across the globe.
>>
>> I apologize in advance for the length and the ambiguity in certain areas.
>> These are complicated issues, and I will try to summarize a lot of what may
>> be unfamiliar information to some of you succinctly. I will answer
>> questions to the best of my ability within safety parameters, and I will be
>> hosting an office hour in a few weeks where I can discuss these issues in
>> more depth. We’re currently getting that set up in regards to availability
>> of support staff and will announce it on Wikimedia-L and Meta as soon as
>> that information is prepared.
>>
>> Many of you are already aware of recent changes that the Foundation has
>> made to its NDA policy. These changes have been discussed on Meta, and I
>> won’t reiterate all of our disclosures there,[2] but I will briefly
>> summarize that due to credible information of threat, the Foundation has
>> modified its approach to accepting “non-disclosure agreements” from
>> individuals. The security risk relates to information about infiltration of
>> Wikimedia systems, including positions with access to personally
>> identifiable information and elected bodies of influence. We could not
>> pre-announce this action, even to our most trusted community partner groups
>> (like the stewards), without fear of triggering the risk to which we’d been
>> alerted. We restricted access to these tools immediately in the
>> jurisdictions of concern, while working with impacted users to determine if
>> the risk applied to them.
>>
>> I want to pause to emphasize that we do not mean to accuse any specific
>> individual whose access was restricted by that policy change of bad intent.
>> Infiltration can occur through multiple mechanisms. What we have seen in
>> our own movement includes not only people deliberately seeking to
>> ingratiate themselves with their communities in order to obtain access and
>> advance an agenda contrary to open knowledge goals, but also individuals
>> who have become vulnerable to exploitation and harm by external groups
>> because they are already trusted insiders. This policy primarily served to
>> address the latter risk, to reduce the likelihood of recruitment or (worse)
>> extortion. We believe that some of the individuals impacted by this policy
>> change were also themselves in danger, not only the people whose personal
>> information they could have been forced to access.
>>
>> Today, the Foundation has rolled out a second phase of addressing
>> infiltration concerns, which has resulted in sweeping actions in one of the
>> two currently affected jurisdictions. We have banned seven users and
>> desysopped a further 12 as a result of long and deep investigations into
>> activities around some members of the unrecognized group Wikimedians of
>> Mainland China.[3] We have also reached out to a number of other editors
>> with explanations around canvassing guidelines and doxing policies and
>> requests to modify their behaviors.
>>
>> When it comes to office actions, the Wikimedia Foundation typically
>> defaults to little public communication, but this case is unprecedented in
>> scope and nature. While there remain limits to what we can reveal in order
>> to protect the safety and privacy of users in that country and in that
>> unrecognized group, I want to acknowledge that this action is a radical one
>> and that this decision was not easily made. We struggled with not wanting
>> to discourage and destroy t

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Blocking users for Palestinian flag

[William Chan]

 about this incident. Send me a private
>> message and I can explain better.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 29, 2021 at 8:17 PM 4nn1l2 <4nn1l2.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Wikimedians,
>>
>>
>>
>> Persian Wikipedia has reached a new level in their arbitrary and
>> nonesense adminship. They have blocked me for placing a Palestinian flag on
>> my userpage (of course they have already removed it from my userpage and
>> you need to see a previous revision of my userpage).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> https://fa.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%DA%A9%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A8%D8%B1:4nn1l2=32191672
>>
>>
>>
>> Another user has nominated the file for deletion on Commons!
>>
>>
>>
>> I am admin on Commons myself and I'm fed up with how fawiki is managed.
>> They block users for the most friviolous reasons.
>>
>>
>>
>> What does this mean?
>>
>>
>>
>> Yours faithfully,
>>
>> User:4nn1l2
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> Public archives at
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/QKGG6JWW5S4SI4Q5XN5ZUXG5FPE5JOKE/
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Amir (he/him)
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>>
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>>
>> Public archives at 
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/TCKQO6QDYJJGGJUYG623C7KRQHQPIUVQ/
>>
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> Public archives at
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/UAHL5ZUAFLXOFFWLSIUXHIK5UHWRIB2N/
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
>>
>> _/  FN * फ्रेड्रिक नोरोन्या * فريدريك نورونيا‎ +91-9822122436
>>
>> _/  See a different Goa here, via
>>
>> _/  https://youtube.com/c/frederickfnnoronha
>>
>> _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient>
>>
>> Virus-free. www.avg.com
>> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email_source=link_campaign=sig-email_content=emailclient>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> Public archives at
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/WDBOEJIAM4T72JYZQ2VFBHEP4FGAGEAY/
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>
>> ___
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> Public archives at
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/GMKDLBKVCUB6KBDF2KITV7JJWFAHL3XT/
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>
>> _______
>> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
>> at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
>> Public archives at

[Wikimedia-l] Is it time for a Global Username Policy that is similar to Global Rename Policy?

[William Chan]

Hi,

I have observed that there is a global renaming policy but a global
username policy is absent? As we all know that usernames are global
following SUL, and literally the same username will be used across multiple
wikis.

So, a very simple question is raised: shall there be a draft of the global
username policies, considering usernames are now global?

Also, also due to SUL, it seems that username blacklists should be put at a
global scale, or it may just be not logical as one may just escape one
wiki's username blacklist through creating it at another project, and use
SUL to circumvent such block.

I hope for broad input, considering this may mean a broad policy change,
and what I have in my mind is just a very primary idea to install a Global
Username Policy that acts similar to the current Global Rename Policy that
is in enforcement.

P.S. I put it here before placing it on meta RFC is not to avoid
circumvention but hope to seek more input instead of just bumping a very
large policy change without any external input.

Regards,
William
User:1233
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Board Ratification of Universal Code of Conduct

[William Chan]

Perhaps it is the buoyancy and resilience at large wikis (in terms of
participants' nationality and political tenancy) that seem to shade the
importance of UCoC.

The problem at other languages of Wikipedia where the language is used
primarily at only one or free country, the need quickly surfaces as
nationalism and other of extremism, such as denial of mass concentration
camps (cough, some Chinese), or historical revisionism (cough, some
Croatian) quickly implies the need of UCoC.

Some may argue that UCoC is not something needed, but the fact that CoC
doesn't exist on all language projects created the need for one to be made,
both for legal and moral reasons.




On Wed, 3 Feb 2021, 19:21 Fæ,  wrote:

> Thanks for sharing for the WMF board María,
>
> Though I have been highly critical of aspects of the Universal Code of
> Conduct, the consultation process has been widely cast and approached
> using reasonable, logical, methods. Those WMF employees running those
> consultations have tried to keep an open mind and tried not to censor
> or mute critical feedback. It's not an easy task.
>
> Most, maybe over 90% of folxs that subscribe to this email list have
> in mind the English, French, Spanish, German Wikipedias when making
> comments, but from the perspective of the WMLGBT+ user group, our
> members frequently raise abuse and harassment cases in minority
> language projects where the admin 'corps' may be a small club and
> where members of minority groups are genuinely scared of hostile
> repercussions from editing on controversial topics such as local
> politics and rights for minority groups. It may feel especially unsafe
> for those who have been targeted and previously outed themselves
> during edit-a-thons or similar. Our user group is an important
> supportive resource so that some of those affected can discuss their
> experience on our off-wiki groups, without having to publicly
> "victimize" themselves and without needing to litigate an Arbcom case
> or painfully compile evidence for WMF T Sometimes those cases turn
> in to on-wiki action, more often nothing happens on-wiki but the
> contributor feels better by having a safe space to talk and are
> welcome to stay anonymous.
>
> Even on the bigger projects, we see user pages with alt-right and
> anti-LGBT+ opinions being expressed with hostile userboxes, extremist
> icons and statements to the effect that "this user opposes XXX rights
> for XXX minority groups" and these users happen to be well
> established, with many years within that Wikimedia project, or having
> functionary roles like sysop rights, or access to OTRS. A significant
> step forward to making our projects more open and accessible for all
> good-faith contributors is the UCoC section on "Abuse of power,
> privilege, or influence". Those of us that have been around the
> projects for a few years are aware of cases of sysops that routinely
> abused their authority, bullied their way in disagreements and they
> were eventually de-sysopped after the pattern of abuse became too
> blatant and extreme for anyone to ignore any longer. In very rare
> cases on minority projects, the local community and/or processes were
> not up to the task of holding those with tools to account, and we saw
> T take necessary and entirely justifiable action. We hope to see the
> UCoC firmly set the a basic minimal standard to ensure these cases of
> abuse are identified and acted on locally and promptly, without
> forcing extreme measures. We know that for each extreme case that gets
> dealt with, there are several more that remain unsatisfactory and
> those abusers and harassers are never held to account, but continue as
> "life long" authority holders.
>
> The UCoC publication is welcome. Its existence is not a threat to the
> autonomy and authority of Wikimedia projects, because there's nothing
> in the UCoC that any project should resist having policies and
> procedures to address. If your sysops, check users, stewards,
> bureaucrats, Arbcom members or Founder don't want to comply with the
> very basic good governance and good behaviours spelt out in the UCoC,
> hurry up and show them the door, they never were competent.
>
> The implementation discussions to follow may become complex and
> heated, but I'm sure that most of us now suspect that on our better
> run projects it means no changes to policies at all, just do for real
> what those policies say, rather than making excuses for bad behaviour
> from those with big hats or a self-perpetuating mobile peanut gallery
> of jokey lads.
>
> Thanks
> Fae
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_LGBT+
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> On Tue, 2 Feb 2021 at 11:58, María Sefidari  wrote:
> >
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I’m pleased to announce that the Board of Trustees has unanimously
> approved a Universal Code of Conduct for the Wikimedia projects and
> movement.[1]  A Universal Code of Conduct was one of the final
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Sexual harassment

[William Chan]

munity
> functions
> > > > would very likely have been able to manage it properly had the
> > > discussions
> > > > continued. The formation of the messages also help determine the
> > > outcome; a
> > > > message saying they were told to report there with no links but one
> to
> > > the
> > > > editor’s userpage is not very helpful for people viewing it. A list
> of
> > > > problematic diffs and an unbiased, unemotional recounting of events
> is
> > > > quite helpful for those viewing it. The latter is much likely to
> result
> > > > successfully than the former.
> > > >
> > > > Also, T actions are not quick and easy either. Their investigations
> > are
> > > > usually quite extensive and take equally extensive periods of time.
> > > > Communities act quicker, and though the volunteers may be affected
> more
> > > by
> > > > personal prejudice than employees of the WMF, we are a collaborative
> > > > project that relies on community input.
> > > >
> > > > Hopefully the UCoC is successful with setting reasonable definitions
> > and
> > > > expectations for community enforcement of conduct policies, though in
> > my
> > > > view larger projects are not the most pressing issue to be addressed
> by
> > > the
> > > > UCoC. This instance of sexual harassment is minor when viewed in
> > > > perspective. It’s clearly uncivil and a problem, and we don’t know
> how
> > > the
> > > > ANI section would have ended up if continued (though I would have
> > > supported
> > > > a strong warning and block if it continued, perhaps an IBAN), but it
> > > could
> > > > have been handled locally. Take a look at most projects with under 30
> > > > admins. Small community, usually tightly knit, with entrenched
> > > hierarchies
> > > > of social clout. Those projects are where extreme incivility, blatant
> > > > bigotry, and clearly biased administrative actions occur most often.
> > Not
> > > to
> > > > mention non-harassment/incivility issues like copyright violations,
> > > > backwards policies, and historical revisionism, completely ignored by
> > > local
> > > > administrators, which hopefully at some point can be mitigated as
> well.
> > > >
> > > > Regarding Fæ’s email, it would be interesting and useful to see a
> study
> > > on
> > > > boomerangs at ANI. It does seem prevalent for newer editors,
> > experiencing
> > > > biting from more established editors, to be unable to seek
> > rectification
> > > > for the more established editor’s conduct. It is unfortunately also
> > > common
> > > > that, when incivility exists, some of it is present on both sides,
> > making
> > > > these issues much less clear-cut and dramatically increasing the
> > > > potentiality for a boomerang.
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Vermont
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 15:40 William Chan  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Why the harassed normally email T but not seeking local help:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Sometimes some kinds of harassment against a person or a group is
> an
> > > > > orchestrated attempt driven by off-wiki matters. Considering the
> > > > > "importance" of Wikipedia and it's sister projects, and the
> > > fundamentally
> > > > > huge size of the movement, it seemed mostly unnoticeable in some
> > cases.
> > > > >
> > > > > These kinds of planned harassment (not only sexual harassment but
> all
> > > > forms
> > > > > of harassment) would not normally be observed in large languages
> used
> > > by
> > > > > different nations because the sheer size of the user base diluted
> > their
> > > > > attempts.
> > > > >
> > > > > However, if language becomes national and got very limited outside
> > use
> > > > > apart from the country they are from (i.e. Japanese in Japan, or
> > Korean
> > > > in
> > > > > Korea,etc. Not saying they have a serious sexual harassment
> problem,
> > > just
> > > > > an example), harassment against the minority may appear in all
> forms,
> > >

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Sexual harassment

[William Chan]

Why the harassed normally email T but not seeking local help:


Sometimes some kinds of harassment against a person or a group is an
orchestrated attempt driven by off-wiki matters. Considering the
"importance" of Wikipedia and it's sister projects, and the fundamentally
huge size of the movement, it seemed mostly unnoticeable in some cases.

These kinds of planned harassment (not only sexual harassment but all forms
of harassment) would not normally be observed in large languages used by
different nations because the sheer size of the user base diluted their
attempts.

However, if language becomes national and got very limited outside use
apart from the country they are from (i.e. Japanese in Japan, or Korean in
Korea,etc. Not saying they have a serious sexual harassment problem, just
an example), harassment against the minority may appear in all forms,
including but not limited to blocking them from any administrative posts,
to sexual harassments to an outright ban of some individuals. In this case,
local bodies which deal with harassing would be normally held by those who
are, or show sympathy to the harasser, and that is the problem.

Local governance (last stand) bodies are usually opaque in nature - the
elections to those bodies are normally fair, but it is not transparent
enough of what they do just because they are volunteer.

Those very large communities normally have a (relatively) inefficient speed
to deal with issues because of the number of problems they receive.
The irony is that, for the smaller communities is, the abuser would have
some connection with the last-stand bodies, that would mean conflict of
interest - though with much irony, COI is not observed when they are
playing Wikipolitics.

This means, you either get a local "slow safe soace" because they receive
too many case to review per day, or an "unsafe safe space" because
harassers know those who deal with these reports.


You either get a language that is too big and inefficient to treat reports,
or languages that, because of the size, they harasser may just outright
know the ones who deal with these problems. That's why T needs way more
people.

And not all languages have self-governing bodies.



P.S. Written by someone who had emailed T about harassments against
himself. One harasser got a conduct warning while the other one got
foundation-blocked.

On Mon, Aug 24, 2020, 22:54 Gnangarra  wrote:

>  For a person to report harassment they must first feel safe to do so.  Not
> everyone is capable of dealing with or participating in a public debate
> about whether they have been harassed, there is a significant difference
> between arguing facts on a topic and dealing with harassment and offensive
> comments directed at you.  Its a very effective method of ensuring that you
> can keep control of subject areas, or part of Wikipedia.  What is going
> unnoticed, unrecorded and never dealt with is the same people make personal
> attacks and harass contributors repeatedly, many of these people are
> protected by other at AN/I or large followings that ensure they are almost
> untouchable.
>
> Just like this thread dismissing problems when they are raised is
> unhelpful, and has a chilling effect on productive outcomes.   The lack of
> alternative safe ways to address issues has been a problem for many years
> driving away 1,000s of good contributors.
>
> On Mon, 24 Aug 2020 at 21:47, Chris Gates via Wikimedia-l <
> wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> > I fail to understand how requiring public report of publicly-occurring
> > harassment is a problem.
> >
> > If people are being harassed constantly via off-wiki communication,
> > emailing a local admin team or T is definitely the best thing to do if
> > they don’t want to make it public in an on-wiki report.
> >
> > However, if it’s on-wiki, I don’t see any viable reason as to why it
> should
> > not be reported on-wiki as well. By no means is it “doubling down” on
> > harassment; that doesn’t even make much sense considering that it isn’t
> the
> > collective community making the harassment, it’s an individual. It also
> > doesn’t matter at all what the harasser feels like either; if they’re
> > blocked after a civilly-written and clear-cut report on ANI it doesn’t
> > matter what they think. It’s not acceptable to have a secret police team
> to
> > handle every content issue; community input exists for a reason,
> especially
> > on collaborative projects like this.
> >
> > Further, when did anyone say the community is not willing to handle
> > harassment issues? It truly bothers me to see people write nonsense like
> > this.
> >
> > I will restate:
> >
> > Local communities appoint administrators to enforce consensus. There is
> > consensus that harassment should be responded to with warnings and, if
> > repeated or severe, blocks.
> >
> > These administrators usually have a mailing list and an on-wiki
> > noticeboard. These noticeboards are open for anyone to create sections
> 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Paid API?

[William Chan]

It's don...@wikimedia.org.

On Thu, Jul 9, 2020, 19:05 Mohammed Bachounda  wrote:

> Hello,
> Why i'm recieving this message :
> Message not delivered
> There was a problem delivering your message to *don...@wikimedia.com*. See
> the technical details below.
>
> * Mohammed Bachounda *
> Leader Wikimedia Algeria UG
>   [image: Thumbnail for version as of 13:48, 19 April 2020]
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2020 at 2:05 AM Joseph Seddon 
> wrote:
>
> > Hey all,
> >
> > Apologies for the delay. Two overview pages covering the technical and
> > business side of the project:
> >
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/OKAPI
> > https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/OKAPI
> >
> > Regards
> > Seddon
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 10:29 PM Samuel Klein  wrote:
> >
> > > A well-provisioned bulk api has been missing for some time.  Thanks for
> > > working on this.  And clearing up the recommended way for WP content to
> > > appear and be linked in third-party searches and infoboxes is important
> > --
> > > the sort of thing that an internal policy (and way to subscribe to
> feeds)
> > > can help.
> > >
> > > I do hope we can host this on WM or openstack infrastructure, and do it
> > in
> > > a way that expands and improves the solid existing frameworks for HTML
> > > dumps :)
> > >
> > > S
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 8:43 AM Chris Keating <
> > chriskeatingw...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > It's interesting that of all the strategy recommendations, two are so
> > far
> > > > being implemented. One is the Universal Code of Conduct, which has at
> > > least
> > > > had plenty of discussion and publicity, that even precedes the
> strategy
> > > > process. The other is this, which hasn't been particularly prominent
> > > > before, but the WMF seems to have a team working on it just a couple
> of
> > > > weeks after the final recommendations were published.
> > > >
> > > > So while doing this is one of the strategy recommendations, it
> doesn't
> > > seem
> > > > that is is now happening *because of* the strategy
> recommendations
> > > >
> > > > Chris
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 10:46 AM Gergő Tisza 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > You can find some more discussion at
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2018-20/Recommendations/Iteration_3/Promote_Sustainability_and_Resilience#Freemium
> > > > >
> > > > > As I mentioned there, the premise of the recommendation is that the
> > > > > movement needs new revenue sources; in part because the 2030
> strategy
> > > is
> > > > > ambitious and requires a significant increase in resources, in part
> > > > because
> > > > > our current lack of diversity (about 40% of the movement's budget
> is
> > > from
> > > > > donations through website banners, and another 40% from past
> banners
> > > via
> > > > > email campaigns and such) is a strategic risk because those
> donations
> > > can
> > > > > be disrupted by various social or technical trends. For example,
> > large
> > > > tech
> > > > > companies which are the starting point of people's internet
> > experience
> > > > > (such as Facebook or Google) clearly have aspirations to become the
> > end
> > > > > point as well - they try to ingest and display to their users
> > directly
> > > as
> > > > > much online content as they can. Today, that's not a whole lot of
> > > content
> > > > > (you might see fragments of Wikipedia infoboxes in Google's
> > "knowledge
> > > > > panel", for example, but nothing resembling an encyclopedia
> article).
> > > Ten
> > > > > years from now, that might be different, and so we need to consider
> > how
> > > > we
> > > > > would sustain ourselves in such a world - in terms of revenue, and
> > also
> > > > in
> > > > > terms of people (how would new editors join the project, if most
> > people
> > > > > interacted with our content not via our website, but interfaces
> > > provided
> > > > by
> > > > > big tech companies where there is no edit button?).
> > > > >
> > > > > The new API project aims to do that, both in the sense of making it
> > > > > possible to have more equitable arrangements with bulk reusers of
> our
> > > > > content (who make lots of money with it), and by making it easier
> to
> > > > reuse
> > > > > content in ways that align with our movement's values (currently,
> if
> > > you
> > > > > reuse Wikipedia content in your own website or application, and
> want
> > to
> > > > > provide your users with information about the licensing or
> provenance
> > > of
> > > > > that content, or allow them to contribute, the tools we provide for
> > > that
> > > > > are third rate at best). As the recommendation mentions, erecting
> > > > > unintentional barriers to small-scale or non-commercial reusers was
> > > very
> > > > > much a concern, and I'm sure much care will be taken during
> > > > implementation
> > > > > to avoid it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Wrt transparency, I agree 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Hong Kong community's concern on implementing Hong Kong National Security Law

[William Chan]

Diane and all,

It seems the the bill is far more dangerous than what we the local
community have expected:

1. The bill exerts prosecution power on anything Hong Kong, from Hong Kong
soli to water to Hong Kong-registered ships to Hong Kong-registered
aircrafts, and applies on both Hong Kong citizens and non-Hong Kong
citizens.

2. You can commit this crime anywhere on Earth. Even if such "crime" is
carried outside of Hong Kong by non-Hong Kong citizens, this law makes Hong
Kong have the judicial power to expirate such "criminal"

3. This means that non-Hong Kong contributors writing positively about the
Hong Kong protests and topics about Hong Kong independence in a
pro-protester tone can technically violate the bill.

4. If such a person steps onto a Hong Kong registered Aircraft (such as
Cathay Pacific Airline Planes) or Hong Kong-registered ships, they can
logically be arrested and brought to Hong Kong for trial for acts
documented on sec. 3. Even when both the origin and destination is not in
Hong Kong.

There seems to be much more problems than expected considering how China
manipulates its laws to its own good by violating international treaties
and protections on human rights (when it is against their agenda).

Grave Concern,
William

On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 at 23:08, William Chan  wrote:

> Dear our beloved global community members,
>
> The National Security Bill for Hong Kong is passed today (30 Jun, HKT
> 2300). Most members within Hong Kong’s recovering community are shocked,
> considering how much it affects local politics, and at the same time,
> uncertainty brought from this decision to the local community (including
> much of the Hong Kong people). Even until this moment, not to mention its
> accessibility for the general public, the full text is only to be found at
> the time of implementation (30 Jun, HKT 2300). However, this unknown text
> will precede all common law principles within 30 minutes’ time for those
> who are currently in Hong Kong.
>
> There are a few points that we would like to bring up -- our worries this
> piece of completely unconsulted legislation (apart from few well-known
> local pro-Beijing figures), from the drafting phase to the implementation
> phase, could change the Chinese-dominant Hong Kong community work:
>
>
> 1. This piece of legislation has never entered a public consultation
> phase. The legislation is passed in a way to effectively circumvent local
> legislative council opposition. It imposes unnecessary restrictions on free
> speech, and is against all norms within local (Hong Kong) politics, where
> most bills, including the most controversial Article 23 implementation bill
> that was brought to a halt in 2003, had open public consultation. This
> piece of legislation didn’t do so, and citizens have not even read what is
> written before it became a law.
>
> 2. This piece of legislation seems to interfere with freedom of speech
> even out of local boundaries. This includes, most possibly the
> criminalization of speeches and acts that promote Hong Kong independence.
> This can include, according to what the so-called “people’s congress
> representative” which most within the city cannot vote for, said acts
> committed online could also be counted. This may mean writing for, for
> example, reasons that lead to the rise of the Hong Kong independence
> movement, may become a criminal act if written in Hong Kong. This is
> unprecedented, and, as we all know, IP addresses can be documented and
> tracked to prosecute personnels. If writing for Wikipedia becomes a
> criminal act, what can go right?
>
> 3. It narrows the editor base. For example, the ban of Wikipedia in China
> had completely changed the community environment for Mainland editors of
> the Chinese Wikipedia. Off-site insults became common where local policies
> could not act on as the editor base became much narrower. Without the input 
> across
> the political spectrum, Wikipedia will become harder to remain neutral
> for its content.
>
> 4. Uncertainty brings whether accessing Wikipedia articles related to
> Hong Kong independence can become a crime. It’s interpretation of the
> bill is unknown, and it seems possible as the implementation of the bill
> violates how local laws are passed.
>
>
> The local offline and most members of the online community has accessed
> the effects in the short run and the long run:
>
>
> In the short run, we expect the community base to retain mostly intact,
> while meetups (currently run in an online mode due to the coronavirus
> pandemic) would attract fewer members, particularly when local
> pro-democracy (not pro-independence) figures are warned to be sent into
> jail with this piece of legislation.
>
> In the long run, if nothing changes, we expect 

[Wikimedia-l] Hong Kong community's concern on implementing Hong Kong National Security Law

[William Chan]

Dear our beloved global community members,

The National Security Bill for Hong Kong is passed today (30 Jun, HKT
2300). Most members within Hong Kong’s recovering community are shocked,
considering how much it affects local politics, and at the same time,
uncertainty brought from this decision to the local community (including
much of the Hong Kong people). Even until this moment, not to mention its
accessibility for the general public, the full text is only to be found at
the time of implementation (30 Jun, HKT 2300). However, this unknown text
will precede all common law principles within 30 minutes’ time for those
who are currently in Hong Kong.

There are a few points that we would like to bring up -- our worries this
piece of completely unconsulted legislation (apart from few well-known
local pro-Beijing figures), from the drafting phase to the implementation
phase, could change the Chinese-dominant Hong Kong community work:


1. This piece of legislation has never entered a public consultation phase.
The legislation is passed in a way to effectively circumvent local
legislative council opposition. It imposes unnecessary restrictions on free
speech, and is against all norms within local (Hong Kong) politics, where
most bills, including the most controversial Article 23 implementation bill
that was brought to a halt in 2003, had open public consultation. This
piece of legislation didn’t do so, and citizens have not even read what is
written before it became a law.

2. This piece of legislation seems to interfere with freedom of speech even
out of local boundaries. This includes, most possibly the criminalization
of speeches and acts that promote Hong Kong independence. This can include,
according to what the so-called “people’s congress representative” which
most within the city cannot vote for, said acts committed online could also
be counted. This may mean writing for, for example, reasons that lead to
the rise of the Hong Kong independence movement, may become a criminal act
if written in Hong Kong. This is unprecedented, and, as we all know, IP
addresses can be documented and tracked to prosecute personnels. If writing
for Wikipedia becomes a criminal act, what can go right?

3. It narrows the editor base. For example, the ban of Wikipedia in China
had completely changed the community environment for Mainland editors of
the Chinese Wikipedia. Off-site insults became common where local policies
could not act on as the editor base became much narrower. Without the
input across
the political spectrum, Wikipedia will become harder to remain neutral for
its content.

4. Uncertainty brings whether accessing Wikipedia articles related to Hong
Kong independence can become a crime. It’s interpretation of the bill is
unknown, and it seems possible as the implementation of the bill violates
how local laws are passed.


The local offline and most members of the online community has accessed the
effects in the short run and the long run:


In the short run, we expect the community base to retain mostly intact,
while meetups (currently run in an online mode due to the coronavirus
pandemic) would attract fewer members, particularly when local
pro-democracy (not pro-independence) figures are warned to be sent into
jail with this piece of legislation.

In the long run, if nothing changes, we expect the recovering user group
will most likely descend into non-compliance like the former chapter, and
similar to the current state of the offline-inactive Chinese User Group,
Wikimedia User Group China, which ceased its offline operations after the
Chinese government blocked Wikipedia. In the worst case scenario, the local
community may be replaced with a pseudo-community that works more like a
propaganda service than a User Group advocating for free speech and open
access.

We, as Hong Kong editors have tried expressing our concern but it is in
vain because of fierce opposition from some Chinese Wikipedia editors who
are mostly pro-Beijing. Uncertainty from the legislation, where original
plans to react to the bill when it became open to the public, became in
vain because of “local editors’ desire to respond when the bill is
publicized” and the Standing Committee of National People’s Congress of
China act to hide the bill from public access. This rendered the local
community’s inability to react before the bill was implemented. This
included plans to “shut down” some articles related to the ongoing 2019-20
Hong Kong protests. Of course, this turns out to be in vain both because of
its controversy of bringing Wikipedia into media attention, and whether
such an act violates neutrality principles, plus fierce opposition from
editors from China (excl. Hong Kong and Macao).

We hope the glocal community can pay attention to the effects of this bill
in Hong Kong, as it would most probably limit free speech and may affect
most citizens (including Wikimedia (incl. Wikipedia) editors in Hong Kong),
instead of what it proclaimed 

[Wikimedia-l] Concerns by local (Hong Kong) movement affiliate regarding free speech and access to Wikipedia in Hong Kong

[William Chan]

Dear all,

There is now a bill in the "deliberation" process of the Chinese People's
Political Consultative Conference ("CPPCC"). This bill is named as "Hong
Kong Special Administrative Region of People's Republic of China National
Security Law" (the "Bill"). This bill will probably be handed to the
People's Congress ("PC") after the process.

If passed in the PC, it will be added into the Annex III of the Basic Law.
At the same time, local approval will not be needed and will be applied in
Hong Kong. This seems to be a Beijing response to the near year-long
protests in Hong Kong.

The Board of Wikimedia Hong Kong User Group (the "Board") made a statement
hereinafter regarding the current developments regarding such a bill, as
this may possibly undermine the capability for Wikipedia to be accessed
unrestrictedly in Hong Kong.

Below is the statement issued by the Board :

//
We are currently very aware of Beijing authorities and local pro-Beijing
party members pushing for a bill which may limit the freedom of speech
within Hong Kong.

We are monitoring this issue closely, as it may affect the capability of
the User Group to carry out its mission for ensuring uncensored and
unrestricted access to Wikimedia projects, including Wikipedia and Wikinews.

- The Board, Wikimedia Community User Group Hong Kong
//

About the Protests: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019–20_Hong_Kong_protests
About the User Group:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_User_Group_Hong_Kong

Regards,
William Chan (User:1233)
Board Member, Wikimedia Community User Group Hong Kong
*issued on behalf of the board*
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

[Wikimedia-l] Statement of Wikimedia Community User Group Hong Kong regarding possible internet censorship in Hong Kong

[William Chan]

Dear all,

Wikimedia Community User Group Hong Kong has released the following
statement in response to the effect to the local community from the use of
Emergency Regulations Ordinance within the city:

***

Free speech, expression and access to uncensored web services are some of
the fundamental requirements for anyone living in Hong Kong to access
Wikipedia and its sister projects, which is also a protected right under
the Basic Law of Hong Kong.

Wikimedia Community User Group Hong Kong is in dire concern regarding
recent moves by the government. The usage of such ordinance can bring
negative effects to the local community and members of the public who want
to access Wikipedia:

   1. Usage of the ordinance can restrict the organization of offline
   meetups in Hong Kong
   2. Usage of the ordinance can also restrict access to Wikipedia and its
   sister projects

Such worries are not fabricated, as a member of the Executive Council of
Hong Kong expressed such possibility of removing internet access within
Hong Kong through enacting relevant provisions.

We hope all members of the public, especially the police, the government
itself, protesters, etc. to remain calm and not to initiate violence.

We also continue our stance to conference participants and organizers not
to use Hong Kong as a transit point for going to/from events.
***
William Chan (User:1233)
Board Member, Education Programme Coordinator
Wikimedia Community User Group Hong Kong
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

[Wikimedia-l] Statement of Wikimedia Community User Group Hong Kong to event organizers and global Wikimedia Movement communities

[William Chan]

Dear all,

Wikimedia Community User Group Hong Kong has released the following
statement about ongoing protests carried out in Hong Kong.


Wikimedia Community User Group Hong Kong (the Hong Kong Wikimedia
Community) has released a resolution on April 16 about its stance on the
Extradition Bill [1]. However, the ongoing developing situation requires
the local community to issue the following statement. We request the global
community, particularly East Asian Wikimania Participants, to be alerted
about the ongoing development of the Hong Kong Protests against the
extradition bill.

Recent development of protests against the extradition in the Hong Kong
Special Administrative Region has developed in an unintended way, where
news reports, including local and international news outlets showing the
pro-government councilors cooperating with local triads in attacking
passers-by (in Yuen Long), and protesters “battling” the force using
block-and-run tactics.

Local strikes, non-cooperation movements from protesters, and police
threats in recent days has disrupted local traffic and harmed the safety of
individuals staying in Hong Kong.

Furthermore, strikes from airport staff has led to partial closure of the
Hong Kong International Airport, where the airport only operated on a
single-runway, which had led to delays and cancellations of flights.

The Hong Kong Wikimedia Community is well aware of the associated safety
risks and risks of delays, and recommends international conference
participants not to arrange participants, and participants not to use Hong
Kong as a transit point.

At the same time, the Hong Kong Wikimedia Community has been notified from
our members that there are at least three members living within the
conflict zone. Currently, none of our members are hurt or charged with
crimes associated with the extradition bill protests.

We also hope all members of the general public, including the police,
government itself, protesters, etc. to stay calm and not to initiate
violence against their opposing parties.

[1] & Original Statement:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Community_User_Group_Hong_Kong/Resolution/Fugitive_Offenders_Amendment_Bill

The statement is also released through Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/WikimediaUGHK/posts/1282637515229584/
----
William Chan
Community Liaison, Educator
Wikimedia Community User Group Hong Kong
User group : meta page <http://bit.ly/WMCUGHK> | facebook
<http://fb.me/WikimediaUGHK>
Personal : linkedin <https://www.linkedin.com/in/the2/> | telegram
<http://t.me/theonly2>

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>