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

[Andreas Kolbe]

Dear Maggie and all,

There have been a number of responses from the mainland Chinese media in
the past week, and I found myself thinking about the two below, as well as
the term "infiltration":

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202109/1234607.shtml

https://baijiahao.baidu.com/s?id=1711166904747459645

(The second of these is in Chinese; I'll append a machine translation
below.)

The first article frames recent developments as a blow to Wikipedia's
"neutrality". I've long wondered what neutrality actually means on a global
stage, and how far the community is prepared to go in pursuing this ideal.

In the English Wikipedia, neutrality is defined as "representing fairly,
proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the
significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

This sounds great until you come to realise that it all hinges on a single
word: "reliable". If you say that certain sources – or certain countries'
sources – are "not reliable", the whole edifice falls down.

Now the average reliability of academic or journalistic research can
certainly vary from one country to the next. The local political and
economical climate always influences what is published. Countries are also
at different stages of development. In many fields, what counted as good
research in a given locale fifty or hundred years ago may seem ridiculously
flawed and "unreliable" today.

So different times and different locales have different standards. At the
same time we can take it as a given that everyone is indoctrinated and
conditioned by the environment and culture they're born into. While we're
all human, human societies are inherently tribal. Everyone is made to
believe to some extent that their own tribe – or at least a specific
subgroup within it – "tells the truth", and that others often "lie".

Yet we know that our own politicians have also lied to us, and that the
media we ourselves consume and soak up daily are subject to political and
economical influence and manipulation. To some extent we are all willing
victims of our own culture's propaganda.

Given that this conditioning happens and has happened in every society that
has ever existed, it comes as no surprise that with a predominantly
Western, Caucasian, politically centre-left user base, the sources most
guaranteed to be considered "reliable" in Wikipedia are those written and
published by centre-left Caucasian Westerners. A state broadcaster like the
BBC is considered infinitely more "reliable" than a state broadcaster like
Russia Today, or the Global Times.

If you now hear a voice in your head reflexively responding, "But the BBC
simply IS far more reliable than Russian or Chinese state sources", then
what does "neutrality" actually mean when speaking on an international
stage? Shouldn't we be open about the way we are privileging "our" sources
because we believe them to be more truthful?

This is essentially what the second Chinese article linked above is
arguing: it says (somewhat polemically) that it would be better to call
Wikipedia the "US State Department Encyclopedia" or something like that.
And actually, many of us will recall that the Clinton State Department was
indeed represented at Wikimania 2012 – and that there have been ongoing
personal ties between the WMF and the Clintons, as well as the US Council
on Foreign Relations, ever since.[1]

So while the Chinese editors are saying – not entirely without rational
justification – that the WMF has been "infiltrated" by the US State
Department, the WMF is saying that Wikipedia has been "infiltrated" – if
not by the Chinese government as such (though it seems more likely than not
to me that the mainland user group has government links), then by a user
group that is largely sympathetic to it.

Which brings me to my main point: maybe the term "infiltration" is simply
not very helpful if we are trying to build a resource that reflects all of
humanity, as One Humanity. Can we find a different way of talking about
this?

I don't want to be accused of being entirely lost in relativism, so I want
to conclude by saying that I take a very dim view of the idea of reporting
Wikipedians to state authorities for their support or opposition to any
political  regime in power anywhere.

Andreas

[1]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0NsY48OQdc=457s
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/federal-faces-richard-boly/2012/06/25/gJQAz2r82V_story.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2021-06-27/Forum

English machine translation (DeepL) of the second article:

Wikipedia, starting a "purge" of Chinese people?

Global Times Commentary

Published: 09-18
00:25
The official account of the Global Times
Recently, Wikipedia, the world-renowned online encyclopedia project,
suddenly did something extremely bad and politically charged - it blocked a
number of mainland Chinese editors who had been building its pages in
Chinese for free.

Not only that, 

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

[ktsquare]

If anyone wants some feedback regarding the beginning of zh.wikipedia, I
can try to help.




Virus-free.
www.avg.com

<#m_3618226274263309006_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>

On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 3:04 PM William Chan  wrote:

> 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 

[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 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 

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

[Maggie Dennis]

Hello, all.

First, Yiufamily, sorry for not defining that term! An "office hour" is an
informal chat (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/IRC_office_hours) - I've
been doing these about once a quarter with a twist, as they are video calls
that are broadcast afterwards with notes of what was discussed. You can
read more here. (
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Resilience_and_Sustainability#Office%20hours
)

We're not sure when we will be able to do it. Now that our incoming CEO has
been announced, I can say that we are trying to coordinate both that
meeting and parts of her listening tour, and I want to make sure that I do
not overwhelm anyone - staff who support these events or community who
attend them. That said, right now we are hoping for October 7th.

I know not everyone will be able to attend in person. We will be accepting
questions in advance. Details will be out as soon as the date is confirmed.

I also want to note that I have answered a few more questions here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Office_actions/September_2021_statement

Best,
Maggie




On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 8:32 AM  wrote:

> What does "Office Hour" means? and when will it be hosted?
> ___
> 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/OBRQRA5WWMN4ZNAN5WLNMDA3FLOBFGSZ/
> 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.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/TIQDK7GZLZYZP6KE2ULVK7L4REIKNND6/
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

[yiufamily . hh]

What does "Office Hour" means? and when will it be hosted?
___
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/OBRQRA5WWMN4ZNAN5WLNMDA3FLOBFGSZ/
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

[Isaac Olatunde]

Hello ytcontact07,

Maggie has apologised for the translation in this thread and a better
translation has now been provided on meta Wiki (
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Office_actions/September_2021_statement/zh
).

The translation concerns have been addressed and I believe they would be
more careful in the future. It's unhelpful to continue to flog a dead
horse.

Regards

Isaac

On Wed, 15 Sep 2021, 10:18 Gnangarra,  wrote:

> Hello ytcontact07
>
> It is just like evacuating a village before a typhoon hits, or a volcano
> erupts. It's going to inconvenience a few people but it's better than doing
> nothing.  Some people may not return to the village but the villagers were
> saved and they'll be ready if it happens again even taking proactive steps
> beforehand.
>
> On Wed, 15 Sept 2021 at 16:19,  wrote:
>
>> Hello Maggie,
>>
>> First of all, as others have pointed out, this English-Chinese
>> translation is horrendous. I am pretty certain even Google translate
>> wouldn't contain this much of misused characters. Please revise this
>> translation.
>>
>> Second, you have made some very serious allegations in this statement but
>> with little substantiating evidence of any sort. I do not know what kind of
>> organizational and administrative power Wikimedia Foundation has over the
>> Wikipedia community, regional communities, and others; but even if the
>> power demonstrated in this statement is correctly vetted, there is still
>> tremendous burden of proof to explain this action. Otherwise this statement
>> would be simply another misguided political attempt in a community that it
>> does not belong, as well as further damaging the communities of Wikimedians
>> in a region that really should have received much more support in order to
>> extend the reach of free knowledge.
>> ___
>> 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/6FGR4OS3NZGTILJNL3DYRCT2NZEUP2OU/
>> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>
>
>
> --
> GN.
> * 2021*
> *Celebrating 20 years of Wikipedia*
>
>
> Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
> My print shop: https://www.redbubble.com/people/Gnangarra/shop?asc=u
>
>
> ___
> 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/EUCVAKMT5AFI7HIX537FXPQCMUW6NXC6/
> 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/56V3G7VUPQSOH43NHIWMPPD2662W37BD/
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

[Gnangarra]

Hello ytcontact07

It is just like evacuating a village before a typhoon hits, or a volcano
erupts. It's going to inconvenience a few people but it's better than doing
nothing.  Some people may not return to the village but the villagers were
saved and they'll be ready if it happens again even taking proactive steps
beforehand.

On Wed, 15 Sept 2021 at 16:19,  wrote:

> Hello Maggie,
>
> First of all, as others have pointed out, this English-Chinese translation
> is horrendous. I am pretty certain even Google translate wouldn't contain
> this much of misused characters. Please revise this translation.
>
> Second, you have made some very serious allegations in this statement but
> with little substantiating evidence of any sort. I do not know what kind of
> organizational and administrative power Wikimedia Foundation has over the
> Wikipedia community, regional communities, and others; but even if the
> power demonstrated in this statement is correctly vetted, there is still
> tremendous burden of proof to explain this action. Otherwise this statement
> would be simply another misguided political attempt in a community that it
> does not belong, as well as further damaging the communities of Wikimedians
> in a region that really should have received much more support in order to
> extend the reach of free knowledge.
> ___
> 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/6FGR4OS3NZGTILJNL3DYRCT2NZEUP2OU/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>


-- 
GN.
* 2021*
*Celebrating 20 years of Wikipedia*


Wikimania: https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Gnangarra
Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
My print shop: https://www.redbubble.com/people/Gnangarra/shop?asc=u
___
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/EUCVAKMT5AFI7HIX537FXPQCMUW6NXC6/
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

[ytcontact07]

Hello Maggie,

First of all, as others have pointed out, this English-Chinese translation is 
horrendous. I am pretty certain even Google translate wouldn't contain this 
much of misused characters. Please revise this translation. 

Second, you have made some very serious allegations in this statement but with 
little substantiating evidence of any sort. I do not know what kind of 
organizational and administrative power Wikimedia Foundation has over the 
Wikipedia community, regional communities, and others; but even if the power 
demonstrated in this statement is correctly vetted, there is still tremendous 
burden of proof to explain this action. Otherwise this statement would be 
simply another misguided political attempt in a community that it does not 
belong, as well as further damaging the communities of Wikimedians in a region 
that really should have received much more support in order to extend the reach 
of free knowledge.
___
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/6FGR4OS3NZGTILJNL3DYRCT2NZEUP2OU/
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

[Maggie Dennis]

Hello, all.

I have some responses to your questions posted here and elsewhere that I've
just dropped on Meta on the talk page of the statement there
.
I was asked to concentrate there because it can be hard for people to find
answers scattered through an email thread. It's very long or I might paste
it here, too. Apologies if folks wish I had; I can do that going forward if
so. Also, if folks feel that statement should be moved to the main page so
that it can be marked for translation, too, I'm happy to accommodate and
don't at all object if somebody just boldly does it. I wanted to get some
answers out quickly and thus didn't ask others on my team for their
recommended approach.

Warm regards,
Maggie

On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 11:39 AM Alphos OGame 
wrote:

> Hello Maggie, hello all,
>
> If you can communicate on the subject, when was your team first made aware
> of the situation ? Trying to figure out how long this has lasted.
> And were affected users (by which I mean users who had their emails and
> passwords reset) ultimately able to recover their accounts ? Or will they
> be ?
>
> Thank you for letting us know of the issue.
>
> Roger / Alphos
>
>
> Le 14 sept. 2021 à 10:48, William Chan  a écrit :
>
> Hi Andres,
>
> I am not Maggie (definitely here) but as far as I know, some members from
> the zhwp are also affected. If I am correct, it is their email being
> removed and password got reset.
>
> William
>
>
> On Tue, 14 Sept 2021 at 16:45, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:
>
>> Hi Maggie,
>>
>> Thanks for your post; I have two questions.
>>
>> 1. What is the status of Mardetanha, the Iranian steward and past (even
>> very recent) author of Wikimedia blog posts (which link his real name to
>> his user name)?[1][2]
>>
>> Judging by https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?diff=21964430 where he
>> says, using his alt account,
>>
>> Yes, we are all locked until "voluntarily" resign to get back our account
>> back [[User:Mard|Mard]] ([[User talk:Mard|talk]]) 12:06, 1 September 2021
>> (UTC)
>>
>> his account must be locked. But I can't find any recent actions related
>> to his account in the public logs on Meta.[3] What am I missing?
>>
>> 2. Speaking of project capture, the Kazakh Wikipedia was captured by
>> state actors almost a decade ago (with the Foundation's blessing at the
>> time, and public regrets later[4]).
>>
>> Are there any functionaries in Kazakhstan that will be impacted by these
>> changes?
>>
>> Andreas
>>
>> [1] https://diff.wikimedia.org/author/mohsen-salek/
>> [2]
>> https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/north-africa-west-asia/persian-wikipedia-independent-source-or-tool-iranian-state/
>> [3]
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type===User%3AMardetanha==%5B%5D=newusers
>> [4]
>> https://eurasianet.org/wikipedia-founder-distances-himself-from-kazakhstan-pr-machine
>>
>> On Monday, September 13, 2021, Maggie Dennis 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi, again.
>>>
>>> I just realized I failed to answer one of the questions. I'm sorry; it's
>>> rather late in my day, and I didn't mean to overlook it. In addition to
>>> what was noted earlier, I believe it was 12 other users who were contacted
>>> and asked to adjust their behavior to work within community policies,
>>> especially regarding "canvassing" and good faith collaboration with other
>>> users.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Maggie
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 6:21 PM Maggie Dennis 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Hello, all.

 First, our apologies for the translation. We had hoped to provide this
 service to make it easier for our Chinese language communities, but clearly
 it didn't work out as we had hoped. I'm enormously grateful to say that a
 Chinese translation is now available on Meta:
 https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Office_actions/September_2021_statement/zh
 <3 We are actively seeking to increase our capacity in Chinese and several
 other languages, and I hope some people will apply!
 https://boards.greenhouse.io/wikimedia/jobs/3374682?gh_src=b62d5dae1us

 With respect to the NDA policy change, this was indeed very obliquely
 addressed on September 1st here
 ,[1]
 at which point we felt the need to be very oblique in our response because
 we were still actively attempting to communicate with all users impacted.
 We knew, of course, that experienced Wikimedians would be able to connect
 the dots but were hoping to avoid attracting external attention by bad
 actors that might put some of these people in danger. Not being a lawyer,
 I'm still a little nervous about saying the wrong thing (my teams were more
 involved in implementing than directing that policy change), but it's
 probably obvious to everyone by now that you have correctly named the

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

[Alphos OGame]

Hello Maggie, hello all,

If you can communicate on the subject, when was your team first made aware of 
the situation ? Trying to figure out how long this has lasted.
And were affected users (by which I mean users who had their emails and 
passwords reset) ultimately able to recover their accounts ? Or will they be ?

Thank you for letting us know of the issue.

Roger / Alphos


> Le 14 sept. 2021 à 10:48, William Chan  a écrit :
> 
> Hi Andres,
> 
> I am not Maggie (definitely here) but as far as I know, some members from the 
> zhwp are also affected. If I am correct, it is their email being removed and 
> password got reset.
> 
> William
> 
> 
> On Tue, 14 Sept 2021 at 16:45, Andreas Kolbe  > wrote:
> Hi Maggie,
> 
> Thanks for your post; I have two questions.
> 
> 1. What is the status of Mardetanha, the Iranian steward and past (even very 
> recent) author of Wikimedia blog posts (which link his real name to his user 
> name)?[1][2]
> 
> Judging by https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?diff=21964430 
>  where he says, using 
> his alt account,
> 
> Yes, we are all locked until "voluntarily" resign to get back our account 
> back [[User:Mard|Mard]] ([[User talk:Mard|talk]]) 12:06, 1 September 2021 
> (UTC)
> 
> his account must be locked. But I can't find any recent actions related to 
> his account in the public logs on Meta.[3] What am I missing?
> 
> 2. Speaking of project capture, the Kazakh Wikipedia was captured by state 
> actors almost a decade ago (with the Foundation's blessing at the time, and 
> public regrets later[4]). 
> 
> Are there any functionaries in Kazakhstan that will be impacted by these 
> changes?
> 
> Andreas
> 
> [1] https://diff.wikimedia.org/author/mohsen-salek/ 
> 
> [2] 
> https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/north-africa-west-asia/persian-wikipedia-independent-source-or-tool-iranian-state/
>  
> 
> [3] 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type===User%3AMardetanha==%5B%5D=newusers
>  
> 
> [4] 
> https://eurasianet.org/wikipedia-founder-distances-himself-from-kazakhstan-pr-machine
>  
> 
> 
> On Monday, September 13, 2021, Maggie Dennis  > wrote:
> Hi, again.
> 
> I just realized I failed to answer one of the questions. I'm sorry; it's 
> rather late in my day, and I didn't mean to overlook it. In addition to what 
> was noted earlier, I believe it was 12 other users who were contacted and 
> asked to adjust their behavior to work within community policies, especially 
> regarding "canvassing" and good faith collaboration with other users. 
> 
> Best,
> Maggie
> 
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 6:21 PM Maggie Dennis  > wrote:
> Hello, all.
> 
> First, our apologies for the translation. We had hoped to provide this 
> service to make it easier for our Chinese language communities, but clearly 
> it didn't work out as we had hoped. I'm enormously grateful to say that a 
> Chinese translation is now available on Meta: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Office_actions/September_2021_statement/zh 
>  
> <3 We are actively seeking to increase our capacity in Chinese and several 
> other languages, and I hope some people will apply! 
> https://boards.greenhouse.io/wikimedia/jobs/3374682?gh_src=b62d5dae1us 
> 
> 
> With respect to the NDA policy change, this was indeed very obliquely 
> addressed on September 1st here 
> ,[1]
>  at which point we felt the need to be very oblique in our response because 
> we were still actively attempting to communicate with all users impacted. We 
> knew, of course, that experienced Wikimedians would be able to connect the 
> dots but were hoping to avoid attracting external attention by bad actors 
> that might put some of these people in danger. Not being a lawyer, I'm still 
> a little nervous about saying the wrong thing (my teams were more involved in 
> implementing than directing that policy change), but it's probably obvious to 
> everyone by now that you have correctly named the immediate jurisdictions of 
> concern.
> 
> I do want to say, though, that the policy was written to address a challenge 
> which is likely to be ongoing: we are not just in danger of infiltration, but 
> of attack through the extortion or potentially persecution of publicly 
> identifiable people with access to 

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

[Eric Liu]

Or even Affiliates in Taiwan or Hong Kong were a better solution, as some 
Wikimedia Movement terms are best understood by our own members of the 
community.

Hopefully the Foundation would try to solve the translate issues.
___
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/JPZCVFCMRMR22DM35IP2F4AT2A7YP47M/
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,

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
> the posts.
>
> This decision may have needed to be made. The decision also might not have
> been the WMF's decision to make.
>
> Outside of specific limited situations, desysoppings are decisions made by
> volunteers. It is possible that circumstances 

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

[William Chan]

No idea why it got half of the content, but what I can say, is that they
removed emails and reset passwords of user accounts until they
"voluntarily" stepped down. This may mean a need to dive into email logs.

On Tue, 14 Sep 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
> the posts.
>
> This decision may have needed to be made. The decision also might not have
> been the WMF's decision to make.
>
> Outside of specific limited situations, desysoppings are decisions made by
> volunteers. It is possible that circumstances have made functioning local
> discussion impossible, in which case a global discussion could take place.
> If necessary secrecy of certain information makes public global discussion
> unable to independently provide judgement, it could fall to the stewards to
> assist. Unless this situation relates to one of the responsibilities that
> the community has delegated to T, at no point does this fall to them.
>
> While the lack of disclosure makes it impossible to be sure, it looks
> quite likely to me that the WMF has acted inappropriately in
> desysopping these users.
>
> -- Yair Rand
>
> [1]
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-10-31/In_focus
> [2]
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-10-31/Interview
> [3]
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-10-31/Community_view
> [4]
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2021-07-25/Special_report
> [5]
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-11-01/In_the_media#Chinese_man_detained_and_penalized_for_reading_Wikipedia
> [6]
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-08-30/Community_view#China_and_the_Chinese_Wikipedia
> [7] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WMFOffice#Recent_desysops
>
> ‫בתאריך יום ב׳, 13 בספט׳ 2021 ב-12:15 מאת ‪Maggie Dennis‬‏ <‪
> mden...@wikimedia.org‬‏>:‬
>
>> (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 

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

[Yair Rand]

(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
the posts.

This decision may have needed to be made. The decision also might not have
been the WMF's decision to make.

Outside of specific limited situations, desysoppings are decisions made by
volunteers. It is possible that circumstances have made functioning local
discussion impossible, in which case a global discussion could take place.
If necessary secrecy of certain information makes public global discussion
unable to independently provide judgement, it could fall to the stewards to
assist. Unless this situation relates to one of the responsibilities that
the community has delegated to T, at no point does this fall to them.

While the lack of disclosure makes it impossible to be sure, it looks quite
likely to me that the WMF has acted inappropriately in desysopping these
users.

-- Yair Rand

[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-10-31/In_focus
[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-10-31/Interview
[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-10-31/Community_view
[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2021-07-25/Special_report
[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2020-11-01/In_the_media#Chinese_man_detained_and_penalized_for_reading_Wikipedia
[6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-08-30/Community_view#China_and_the_Chinese_Wikipedia
[7] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WMFOffice#Recent_desysops

‫בתאריך יום ב׳, 13 בספט׳ 2021 ב-12:15 מאת ‪Maggie Dennis‬‏ <‪
mden...@wikimedia.org‬‏>:‬

> (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 

[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 Andres,

I am not Maggie (definitely here) but as far as I know, some members from
the zhwp are also affected. If I am correct, it is their email being
removed and password got reset.

William


On Tue, 14 Sept 2021 at 16:45, Andreas Kolbe  wrote:

> Hi Maggie,
>
> Thanks for your post; I have two questions.
>
> 1. What is the status of Mardetanha, the Iranian steward and past (even
> very recent) author of Wikimedia blog posts (which link his real name to
> his user name)?[1][2]
>
> Judging by https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?diff=21964430 where he
> says, using his alt account,
>
> Yes, we are all locked until "voluntarily" resign to get back our account
> back [[User:Mard|Mard]] ([[User talk:Mard|talk]]) 12:06, 1 September 2021
> (UTC)
>
> his account must be locked. But I can't find any recent actions related to
> his account in the public logs on Meta.[3] What am I missing?
>
> 2. Speaking of project capture, the Kazakh Wikipedia was captured by state
> actors almost a decade ago (with the Foundation's blessing at the time, and
> public regrets later[4]).
>
> Are there any functionaries in Kazakhstan that will be impacted by these
> changes?
>
> Andreas
>
> [1] https://diff.wikimedia.org/author/mohsen-salek/
> [2]
> https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/north-africa-west-asia/persian-wikipedia-independent-source-or-tool-iranian-state/
> [3]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type===User%3AMardetanha==%5B%5D=newusers
> [4]
> https://eurasianet.org/wikipedia-founder-distances-himself-from-kazakhstan-pr-machine
>
> On Monday, September 13, 2021, Maggie Dennis 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi, again.
>>
>> I just realized I failed to answer one of the questions. I'm sorry; it's
>> rather late in my day, and I didn't mean to overlook it. In addition to
>> what was noted earlier, I believe it was 12 other users who were contacted
>> and asked to adjust their behavior to work within community policies,
>> especially regarding "canvassing" and good faith collaboration with other
>> users.
>>
>> Best,
>> Maggie
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 6:21 PM Maggie Dennis 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello, all.
>>>
>>> First, our apologies for the translation. We had hoped to provide this
>>> service to make it easier for our Chinese language communities, but clearly
>>> it didn't work out as we had hoped. I'm enormously grateful to say that a
>>> Chinese translation is now available on Meta:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Office_actions/September_2021_statement/zh
>>> <3 We are actively seeking to increase our capacity in Chinese and several
>>> other languages, and I hope some people will apply!
>>> https://boards.greenhouse.io/wikimedia/jobs/3374682?gh_src=b62d5dae1us
>>>
>>> With respect to the NDA policy change, this was indeed very obliquely
>>> addressed on September 1st here
>>> ,[1]
>>> at which point we felt the need to be very oblique in our response because
>>> we were still actively attempting to communicate with all users impacted.
>>> We knew, of course, that experienced Wikimedians would be able to connect
>>> the dots but were hoping to avoid attracting external attention by bad
>>> actors that might put some of these people in danger. Not being a lawyer,
>>> I'm still a little nervous about saying the wrong thing (my teams were more
>>> involved in implementing than directing that policy change), but it's
>>> probably obvious to everyone by now that you have correctly named the
>>> immediate jurisdictions of concern.
>>>
>>> I do want to say, though, that the policy was written to address a
>>> challenge which is likely to be ongoing: we are not just in danger of
>>> infiltration, but of attack through the extortion or potentially
>>> persecution of publicly identifiable people with access to personal
>>> information. The intention is not to shut down access to everyone in every
>>> such jurisdiction who has ever blocked Wikimedia sites, but to flag for the
>>> Foundation's legal department the need to review in such cases. Because of
>>> that, depending on the current risks of which we are aware, the list of
>>> impacted jurisdictions may change. I would hope that people will not
>>> hesitate to apply; rejection of a signed NDA in such cases is by no means a
>>> personal judgment and may be a step taken to protect not only our
>>> 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 

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

[Maggie Dennis]

Hi, again.

I just realized I failed to answer one of the questions. I'm sorry; it's
rather late in my day, and I didn't mean to overlook it. In addition to
what was noted earlier, I believe it was 12 other users who were contacted
and asked to adjust their behavior to work within community policies,
especially regarding "canvassing" and good faith collaboration with other
users.

Best,
Maggie

On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 6:21 PM Maggie Dennis  wrote:

> Hello, all.
>
> First, our apologies for the translation. We had hoped to provide this
> service to make it easier for our Chinese language communities, but clearly
> it didn't work out as we had hoped. I'm enormously grateful to say that a
> Chinese translation is now available on Meta:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Office_actions/September_2021_statement/zh
> <3 We are actively seeking to increase our capacity in Chinese and several
> other languages, and I hope some people will apply!
> https://boards.greenhouse.io/wikimedia/jobs/3374682?gh_src=b62d5dae1us
>
> With respect to the NDA policy change, this was indeed very obliquely
> addressed on September 1st here
> ,[1]
> at which point we felt the need to be very oblique in our response because
> we were still actively attempting to communicate with all users impacted.
> We knew, of course, that experienced Wikimedians would be able to connect
> the dots but were hoping to avoid attracting external attention by bad
> actors that might put some of these people in danger. Not being a lawyer,
> I'm still a little nervous about saying the wrong thing (my teams were more
> involved in implementing than directing that policy change), but it's
> probably obvious to everyone by now that you have correctly named the
> immediate jurisdictions of concern.
>
> I do want to say, though, that the policy was written to address a
> challenge which is likely to be ongoing: we are not just in danger of
> infiltration, but of attack through the extortion or potentially
> persecution of publicly identifiable people with access to personal
> information. The intention is not to shut down access to everyone in every
> such jurisdiction who has ever blocked Wikimedia sites, but to flag for the
> Foundation's legal department the need to review in such cases. Because of
> that, depending on the current risks of which we are aware, the list of
> impacted jurisdictions may change. I would hope that people will not
> hesitate to apply; rejection of a signed NDA in such cases is by no means a
> personal judgment and may be a step taken to protect not only our
> 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 
> 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
>> ?
>> 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 

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

[Maggie Dennis]

Hello, all.

First, our apologies for the translation. We had hoped to provide this
service to make it easier for our Chinese language communities, but clearly
it didn't work out as we had hoped. I'm enormously grateful to say that a
Chinese translation is now available on Meta:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Office_actions/September_2021_statement/zh
<3 We are actively seeking to increase our capacity in Chinese and several
other languages, and I hope some people will apply!
https://boards.greenhouse.io/wikimedia/jobs/3374682?gh_src=b62d5dae1us

With respect to the NDA policy change, this was indeed very obliquely
addressed on September 1st here
,[1]
at which point we felt the need to be very oblique in our response because
we were still actively attempting to communicate with all users impacted.
We knew, of course, that experienced Wikimedians would be able to connect
the dots but were hoping to avoid attracting external attention by bad
actors that might put some of these people in danger. Not being a lawyer,
I'm still a little nervous about saying the wrong thing (my teams were more
involved in implementing than directing that policy change), but it's
probably obvious to everyone by now that you have correctly named the
immediate jurisdictions of concern.

I do want to say, though, that the policy was written to address a
challenge which is likely to be ongoing: we are not just in danger of
infiltration, but of attack through the extortion or potentially
persecution of publicly identifiable people with access to personal
information. The intention is not to shut down access to everyone in every
such jurisdiction who has ever blocked Wikimedia sites, but to flag for the
Foundation's legal department the need to review in such cases. Because of
that, depending on the current risks of which we are aware, the list of
impacted jurisdictions may change. I would hope that people will not
hesitate to apply; rejection of a signed NDA in such cases is by no means a
personal judgment and may be a step taken to protect not only our
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 
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
> ?
> 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 

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

[effe iets anders]

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
?
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, 1:17 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] 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.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/IXB5VLKSTKRUZZKINOBL5G2SBFZAHQ6L/
> To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines
> at: 

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

[Leo Z]

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.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/IXB5VLKSTKRUZZKINOBL5G2SBFZAHQ6L/
> 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/ZNQ67MBPILWRNQRNCAQO3Z2LQNTRTEHN/
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

[Maggie Dennis]

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.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/IXB5VLKSTKRUZZKINOBL5G2SBFZAHQ6L/
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

[Leo Z]

Hi Maggie,

I’m not sure which translation service you’ve retained. This is a grossly 
unprofessional and barely intelligible Chinese translation. In the very least, 
I’m pretty sure there are plenty undergrads at Berkeley who you can pay minimum 
wage with that would do so much better than this. Please find better 
alternatives, otherwise you are just throwing away your money for nothing 
really.

Best,
Leo
On Sep 14, 2021, 12:16 AM +0800, 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 the efforts of good faith users in China who have worked so hard to 
> fight for free and open knowledge, including some of those involved in this 
> group. We do not want them to fear that their contributions are unwelcome. We 
> also could not risk exposing them to danger by doing nothing to protect them 
> after we became aware of credible threats to their safety.
>
> While some time ago we limited the exposure of personal information to users 
> in mainland China, we know that there has been the kind of infiltration we 
> describe above in the project. And we know that some users have been 
> physically harmed as a result. With this confirmed, we have no choice but to 
> act swiftly 

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

[Yaroslav Blanter]

Maggie and William, thanks a lot for the answers.

Best
Yaroslav

On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 6:45 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
___
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/LHMAXZAOM5M26NRUPIQREBOT4GLE5U7Q/
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

[Nathan]

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

[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 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 

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

[Maggie Dennis]

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 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 

[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 the efforts of good faith users in China who have
>> worked so hard to fight for free and open knowledge, including some of
>> those involved in this group. We do not want them to fear that their
>> contributions are unwelcome. We also could not risk exposing them to danger
>> by doing nothing to protect them after we became aware of credible threats
>> to their safety.
>>
>> While some time ago we limited the exposure of personal 

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

[Yaroslav Blanter]

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 the efforts of good faith users in China who have
> worked so hard to fight for free and open knowledge, including some of
> those involved in this group. We do not want them to fear that their
> contributions are unwelcome. We also could not risk exposing them to danger
> by doing nothing to protect them after we became aware of credible threats
> to their safety.
>
> While some time ago we limited the exposure of personal information to
> users in mainland China, we know that there has been the kind of
> infiltration we describe above in the project. And we know that some users
> have been physically harmed as a result. With this confirmed, we