Hello everyone,
Over the last couple of days, there have been several media reports about the Foundation’s most recent office action, taken on December 6 https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/thread/NJUOKYM2UTKFH53OKGIXW6OSEEDUI3AL/. More are certain to follow. These media reports are based on a release from SMEX and Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN) that contains many material inaccuracies. Some of the errors will be obvious to our community - for perhaps the most obvious, the report states that the 16 users are all based in Saudi Arabia . This is unlikely to be the case. While we do not know where these volunteers actually reside, the bans of any volunteers who may have been Saudi were part of a much broader action globally banning 16 editors across the MENA region. Indeed, many of them are not active in the Arabic language projects. These organizations did not share the statement with the Foundation, and “sources of knowledge” as cited in their release can get things wrong. In addition, we do not have staff in the country named and never have, contrary to a message put out by the same groups on social media.
As we noted in December in our statement, we are unable to discuss Foundation office actions in detail. The Foundation always lists accounts banned as a result of its investigations https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Global_Ban_Policy#List_of_global_bans_placed_by_the_Wikimedia_Foundation. It is our goal to be as transparent as we can be within essential protection policies, which is why we do not ban in secret, but instead disclose accounts impacted and (when large numbers are involved) have disclosed the rationale.
The roots of our December action stretch back over several years. We were initially contacted by outside experts who made us aware about concerns they had about Farsi Wikipedia. We can’t comment on that report right now, but it will be published by that organization soon. This report not only contributed to our August 23, 2021 modification of our non-disclosure agreement https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Confidentiality_agreement_for_nonpublic_information&diff=21925066&oldid=21609723 to make it harder for rights-holders to be coerced, but led to further evaluation of issues across MENA. The December bans were the culmination of those evaluations.
Wikimedia is, as mentioned above, an open knowledge platform, and it thrives on open participation. Investigations and global bans are not things that any of us take lightly, but the Foundation is committed to supporting the knowledge-sharing models that have created so many valuable information resources in hundreds of languages across the world. Our first line of defense of our Terms of Use https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities are our volunteers themselves. Where issues present a credible threat of harm to our users and to the security of Wikimedia platforms, we will do the best we can to protect both.
We trust and hope that our communities understand that misinformation about this action has the potential to cause harm to the individuals involved. We believe in the incredible value produced by our volunteers across the globe, but even so we recognize that being found in contravention of a website’s Terms of Use — even in a manner that organization finds serious enough to warrant a ban — is not the equivalent of being convicted of any crime. Accordingly, we ask you to please be conscious of the real people involved, in the spirit of our long established respect for living people on our sites https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Biographies_of_living_people. We realize that it is tempting to speculate, but we do ask you all to recall that people’s employment options, their relationships, and even their physical safety may be compromised by speculation.
If anyone feels unsafe on Wikimedia projects, please use the local community processes or contact us. The Foundation and community will work together or in parallel to enhance the safety of all volunteers. To contact the Trust & Safety team please email ca@wikimedia.org .
Best regards, WMF Office/Trust and Safety
It's interesting to see the lack of transparency attributed to the fact that Wikimedia editing against ToS isn't akin to a crime. That juxtaposes in a strange way with the news stories claiming that what drove Wikimedia's action may be two members of the Wikimedia community who have been sentenced to very long prison sentences for their contributions to Wikimedia projects.
For those who hadn't seen the press stories, see here for the article in Ars Technica: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/01/wikipedia-admin-jailed-for-32-ye...
I agree with the criticism in the Ars article of Wikimedia's response - the objection to use of the phrase "high ranking" to describe admins, and the claim that Wikimedia can't possibly know where any of these people live. I don't see the value of including these in Wikimedia's response. These are the types of distinctions that have some meaning inside our little bubble, but very little outside.
Lastly, I find the link in WMF's statement to the Board's BLP resolution inapposite. As all editors will recognize, the resolution and its related policies are entirely focused on project content and protecting the subjects of that content from the messy process of editing.
On Fri, Jan 6, 2023 at 1:27 PM Wikimedia Trust and Safety ca@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello everyone,
Over the last couple of days, there have been several media reports about the Foundation’s most recent office action, taken on December 6 https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/thread/NJUOKYM2UTKFH53OKGIXW6OSEEDUI3AL/. More are certain to follow. These media reports are based on a release from SMEX and Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN) that contains many material inaccuracies. Some of the errors will be obvious to our community
- for perhaps the most obvious, the report states that the 16 users are all
based in Saudi Arabia . This is unlikely to be the case. While we do not know where these volunteers actually reside, the bans of any volunteers who may have been Saudi were part of a much broader action globally banning 16 editors across the MENA region. Indeed, many of them are not active in the Arabic language projects. These organizations did not share the statement with the Foundation, and “sources of knowledge” as cited in their release can get things wrong. In addition, we do not have staff in the country named and never have, contrary to a message put out by the same groups on social media.
As we noted in December in our statement, we are unable to discuss Foundation office actions in detail. The Foundation always lists accounts banned as a result of its investigations https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Global_Ban_Policy#List_of_global_bans_placed_by_the_Wikimedia_Foundation. It is our goal to be as transparent as we can be within essential protection policies, which is why we do not ban in secret, but instead disclose accounts impacted and (when large numbers are involved) have disclosed the rationale.
The roots of our December action stretch back over several years. We were initially contacted by outside experts who made us aware about concerns they had about Farsi Wikipedia. We can’t comment on that report right now, but it will be published by that organization soon. This report not only contributed to our August 23, 2021 modification of our non-disclosure agreement https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Confidentiality_agreement_for_nonpublic_information&diff=21925066&oldid=21609723 to make it harder for rights-holders to be coerced, but led to further evaluation of issues across MENA. The December bans were the culmination of those evaluations.
Wikimedia is, as mentioned above, an open knowledge platform, and it thrives on open participation. Investigations and global bans are not things that any of us take lightly, but the Foundation is committed to supporting the knowledge-sharing models that have created so many valuable information resources in hundreds of languages across the world. Our first line of defense of our Terms of Use https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities are our volunteers themselves. Where issues present a credible threat of harm to our users and to the security of Wikimedia platforms, we will do the best we can to protect both.
We trust and hope that our communities understand that misinformation about this action has the potential to cause harm to the individuals involved. We believe in the incredible value produced by our volunteers across the globe, but even so we recognize that being found in contravention of a website’s Terms of Use — even in a manner that organization finds serious enough to warrant a ban — is not the equivalent of being convicted of any crime. Accordingly, we ask you to please be conscious of the real people involved, in the spirit of our long established respect for living people on our sites https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Biographies_of_living_people. We realize that it is tempting to speculate, but we do ask you all to recall that people’s employment options, their relationships, and even their physical safety may be compromised by speculation.
If anyone feels unsafe on Wikimedia projects, please use the local community processes or contact us. The Foundation and community will work together or in parallel to enhance the safety of all volunteers. To contact the Trust & Safety team please email ca@wikimedia.org .
Best regards, WMF Office/Trust and Safety _______________________________________________ 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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
I hope that this statement and clarifications will be translated to Arabic by the Foundation and published on the Foundation's social media pages.
On Fri, Jan 6, 2023 at 8:58 PM Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
It's interesting to see the lack of transparency attributed to the fact that Wikimedia editing against ToS isn't akin to a crime. That juxtaposes in a strange way with the news stories claiming that what drove Wikimedia's action may be two members of the Wikimedia community who have been sentenced to very long prison sentences for their contributions to Wikimedia projects.
For those who hadn't seen the press stories, see here for the article in Ars Technica: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/01/wikipedia-admin-jailed-for-32-ye...
I agree with the criticism in the Ars article of Wikimedia's response - the objection to use of the phrase "high ranking" to describe admins, and the claim that Wikimedia can't possibly know where any of these people live. I don't see the value of including these in Wikimedia's response. These are the types of distinctions that have some meaning inside our little bubble, but very little outside.
Lastly, I find the link in WMF's statement to the Board's BLP resolution inapposite. As all editors will recognize, the resolution and its related policies are entirely focused on project content and protecting the subjects of that content from the messy process of editing.
On Fri, Jan 6, 2023 at 1:27 PM Wikimedia Trust and Safety < ca@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hello everyone,
Over the last couple of days, there have been several media reports about the Foundation’s most recent office action, taken on December 6 https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/thread/NJUOKYM2UTKFH53OKGIXW6OSEEDUI3AL/. More are certain to follow. These media reports are based on a release from SMEX and Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN) that contains many material inaccuracies. Some of the errors will be obvious to our community
- for perhaps the most obvious, the report states that the 16 users are all
based in Saudi Arabia . This is unlikely to be the case. While we do not know where these volunteers actually reside, the bans of any volunteers who may have been Saudi were part of a much broader action globally banning 16 editors across the MENA region. Indeed, many of them are not active in the Arabic language projects. These organizations did not share the statement with the Foundation, and “sources of knowledge” as cited in their release can get things wrong. In addition, we do not have staff in the country named and never have, contrary to a message put out by the same groups on social media.
As we noted in December in our statement, we are unable to discuss Foundation office actions in detail. The Foundation always lists accounts banned as a result of its investigations https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Global_Ban_Policy#List_of_global_bans_placed_by_the_Wikimedia_Foundation. It is our goal to be as transparent as we can be within essential protection policies, which is why we do not ban in secret, but instead disclose accounts impacted and (when large numbers are involved) have disclosed the rationale.
The roots of our December action stretch back over several years. We were initially contacted by outside experts who made us aware about concerns they had about Farsi Wikipedia. We can’t comment on that report right now, but it will be published by that organization soon. This report not only contributed to our August 23, 2021 modification of our non-disclosure agreement https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Confidentiality_agreement_for_nonpublic_information&diff=21925066&oldid=21609723 to make it harder for rights-holders to be coerced, but led to further evaluation of issues across MENA. The December bans were the culmination of those evaluations.
Wikimedia is, as mentioned above, an open knowledge platform, and it thrives on open participation. Investigations and global bans are not things that any of us take lightly, but the Foundation is committed to supporting the knowledge-sharing models that have created so many valuable information resources in hundreds of languages across the world. Our first line of defense of our Terms of Use https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities are our volunteers themselves. Where issues present a credible threat of harm to our users and to the security of Wikimedia platforms, we will do the best we can to protect both.
We trust and hope that our communities understand that misinformation about this action has the potential to cause harm to the individuals involved. We believe in the incredible value produced by our volunteers across the globe, but even so we recognize that being found in contravention of a website’s Terms of Use — even in a manner that organization finds serious enough to warrant a ban — is not the equivalent of being convicted of any crime. Accordingly, we ask you to please be conscious of the real people involved, in the spirit of our long established respect for living people on our sites https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Biographies_of_living_people. We realize that it is tempting to speculate, but we do ask you all to recall that people’s employment options, their relationships, and even their physical safety may be compromised by speculation.
If anyone feels unsafe on Wikimedia projects, please use the local community processes or contact us. The Foundation and community will work together or in parallel to enhance the safety of all volunteers. To contact the Trust & Safety team please email ca@wikimedia.org .
Best regards, WMF Office/Trust and Safety _______________________________________________ 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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Dear all,
Has there been any comment at all from the Wikimedia Foundation about the two former Saudi Wikipedia admins who were sentenced to 32 and 8 years in prison respectively?[1] (I say "former" admins because both were desysoped for lack of admin activity years before their 2020 arrests.[2][3] They remained active as editors though.)
These are horrifying sentences. (Note that the 32-year sentence was only imposed in August of last year in an appeal process.)
Other than a very tangential mention by Jimmy Wales that really did not do the subject justice[4] I have not seen any comment from the WMF on these prison terms.
This is in marked contrast to the case of Bassel Khartabil a few years ago – the WMF campaigned for his release.[5] Will there be any WMF communications on OsamaK's and Ziad's heart-breaking plight forthcoming? I understand one of the two had recently married. :(
It is also worth noting that two of the Arabic Wikipedia admins banned by the WMF a month ago had bureaucrat and checkuser rights.[6][7] In that sense, they were "high-ranking" – quite apart from the fact that if a Wikipedia only has 26 administrators in total, every one of those 26 is "high-ranking" from the point of view of the average person in the street.
The most glaring gap in WMF communications on this matter to date is that there is a confident statement from the WMF that "users with close connections with external parties were editing the platform in a coordinated fashion to advance the aim of those parties" but no information whatsoever on who these confidently identified "external parties" are – there is only a now very prominently disseminated statement that the Wikimedia Foundation "has denied claims the Saudi government infiltrated its team in the Middle East".[8]
Whatever merits this approach may have, it will leave many people niggled by unanswered questions. The Arabic Wikipedia community, meanwhile, speaks of the event as a "disaster" and formed a committee last month to obtain more information from the WMF. Are these talks ongoing?
Anyone with further information on any aspect of this affair please check in with the Signpost news team in the Signpost Newsroom in the next few days.[9]
Best, Andreas
[1] https://dawnmena.org/saudi-arabia-government-agents-infiltrate-wikipedia-sen... [2] https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec-rightschanges/ar.wikipedia.org/OsamaK [3] https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec-rightschanges/ar.wikipedia.org/Ziad [4] https://twitter.com/jimmy_wales/status/1611301592027856897 [5] https://diff.wikimedia.org/2015/10/08/bassel-missing-syria/ [6] https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec-rightschanges/ar.wikipedia.org/%D8%B5%D8%A7%D9... [7] https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec-rightschanges/ar.wikipedia.org/%D8%AC%D8%A7%D8... [8] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-64195644 [9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom
On Sat, Jan 7, 2023 at 11:12 AM Nanour Garabedian < garabedian.nanour.wiki@gmail.com> wrote:
I hope that this statement and clarifications will be translated to Arabic by the Foundation and published on the Foundation's social media pages.
On Fri, Jan 6, 2023 at 8:58 PM Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
It's interesting to see the lack of transparency attributed to the fact that Wikimedia editing against ToS isn't akin to a crime. That juxtaposes in a strange way with the news stories claiming that what drove Wikimedia's action may be two members of the Wikimedia community who have been sentenced to very long prison sentences for their contributions to Wikimedia projects.
For those who hadn't seen the press stories, see here for the article in Ars Technica: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/01/wikipedia-admin-jailed-for-32-ye...
I agree with the criticism in the Ars article of Wikimedia's response - the objection to use of the phrase "high ranking" to describe admins, and the claim that Wikimedia can't possibly know where any of these people live. I don't see the value of including these in Wikimedia's response. These are the types of distinctions that have some meaning inside our little bubble, but very little outside.
Lastly, I find the link in WMF's statement to the Board's BLP resolution inapposite. As all editors will recognize, the resolution and its related policies are entirely focused on project content and protecting the subjects of that content from the messy process of editing.
On Fri, Jan 6, 2023 at 1:27 PM Wikimedia Trust and Safety < ca@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hello everyone,
Over the last couple of days, there have been several media reports about the Foundation’s most recent office action, taken on December 6 https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/thread/NJUOKYM2UTKFH53OKGIXW6OSEEDUI3AL/. More are certain to follow. These media reports are based on a release from SMEX and Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN) that contains many material inaccuracies. Some of the errors will be obvious to our community
- for perhaps the most obvious, the report states that the 16 users are all
based in Saudi Arabia . This is unlikely to be the case. While we do not know where these volunteers actually reside, the bans of any volunteers who may have been Saudi were part of a much broader action globally banning 16 editors across the MENA region. Indeed, many of them are not active in the Arabic language projects. These organizations did not share the statement with the Foundation, and “sources of knowledge” as cited in their release can get things wrong. In addition, we do not have staff in the country named and never have, contrary to a message put out by the same groups on social media.
As we noted in December in our statement, we are unable to discuss Foundation office actions in detail. The Foundation always lists accounts banned as a result of its investigations https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Global_Ban_Policy#List_of_global_bans_placed_by_the_Wikimedia_Foundation. It is our goal to be as transparent as we can be within essential protection policies, which is why we do not ban in secret, but instead disclose accounts impacted and (when large numbers are involved) have disclosed the rationale.
The roots of our December action stretch back over several years. We were initially contacted by outside experts who made us aware about concerns they had about Farsi Wikipedia. We can’t comment on that report right now, but it will be published by that organization soon. This report not only contributed to our August 23, 2021 modification of our non-disclosure agreement https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Confidentiality_agreement_for_nonpublic_information&diff=21925066&oldid=21609723 to make it harder for rights-holders to be coerced, but led to further evaluation of issues across MENA. The December bans were the culmination of those evaluations.
Wikimedia is, as mentioned above, an open knowledge platform, and it thrives on open participation. Investigations and global bans are not things that any of us take lightly, but the Foundation is committed to supporting the knowledge-sharing models that have created so many valuable information resources in hundreds of languages across the world. Our first line of defense of our Terms of Use https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities are our volunteers themselves. Where issues present a credible threat of harm to our users and to the security of Wikimedia platforms, we will do the best we can to protect both.
We trust and hope that our communities understand that misinformation about this action has the potential to cause harm to the individuals involved. We believe in the incredible value produced by our volunteers across the globe, but even so we recognize that being found in contravention of a website’s Terms of Use — even in a manner that organization finds serious enough to warrant a ban — is not the equivalent of being convicted of any crime. Accordingly, we ask you to please be conscious of the real people involved, in the spirit of our long established respect for living people on our sites https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Biographies_of_living_people. We realize that it is tempting to speculate, but we do ask you all to recall that people’s employment options, their relationships, and even their physical safety may be compromised by speculation.
If anyone feels unsafe on Wikimedia projects, please use the local community processes or contact us. The Foundation and community will work together or in parallel to enhance the safety of all volunteers. To contact the Trust & Safety team please email ca@wikimedia.org .
Best regards, WMF Office/Trust and Safety _______________________________________________ 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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Dear all / Bona nit,
Following Andreas' last message: as we started getting some questions and we did not see any other official Wikimedia statement in regards of this specific issue –the exorbitant prison sentence–, the Catalan Wikipedia community we agreed via our Village Pump to publish yesterday a note condemning their imprisonment and the governmental meddling in the project.
We also asked the Catalan-speaking press to follow up and reproduce the topic to make it widely available in our language by following the current information from The Guardian:
https://twitter.com/viquipedia/status/1611446863047323649?s=46&t=t2bs5SC...
Apart from the internal investigation, which I can understand that may not be translated easily to the general public, the fact that any Wikimedia user is imprisoned this way because of editing about politics is a very serious issue and a common threat. I'd personally like to see a quick move oriented towards a strong condemn by all the rest of Wikimedia community.
Kind regards / Salutacions,
Xavier Dengra
El ds, 7 gen., 2023 a 22:26, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com va escriure:
Dear all,
Has there been any comment at all from the Wikimedia Foundation about the two former Saudi Wikipedia admins who were sentenced to 32 and 8 years in prison respectively?[1] (I say "former" admins because both were desysoped for lack of admin activity years before their 2020 arrests.[2][3] They remained active as editors though.)
These are horrifying sentences. (Note that the 32-year sentence was only imposed in August of last year in an appeal process.)
Other than a very tangential mention by Jimmy Wales that really did not do the subject justice[4] I have not seen any comment from the WMF on these prison terms.
This is in marked contrast to the case of Bassel Khartabil a few years ago – the WMF campaigned for his release.[5] Will there be any WMF communications on OsamaK's and Ziad's heart-breaking plight forthcoming? I understand one of the two had recently married. :(
It is also worth noting that two of the Arabic Wikipedia admins banned by the WMF a month ago had bureaucrat and checkuser rights.[6][7] In that sense, they were "high-ranking" – quite apart from the fact that if a Wikipedia only has 26 administrators in total, every one of those 26 is "high-ranking" from the point of view of the average person in the street.
The most glaring gap in WMF communications on this matter to date is that there is a confident statement from the WMF that "users with close connections with external parties were editing the platform in a coordinated fashion to advance the aim of those parties" but no information whatsoever on who these confidently identified "external parties" are – there is only a now very prominently disseminated statement that the Wikimedia Foundation "has denied claims the Saudi government infiltrated its team in the Middle East".[8]
Whatever merits this approach may have, it will leave many people niggled by unanswered questions. The Arabic Wikipedia community, meanwhile, speaks of the event as a "disaster" and formed a committee last month to obtain more information from the WMF. Are these talks ongoing?
Anyone with further information on any aspect of this affair please check in with the Signpost news team in the Signpost Newsroom in the next few days.[9]
Best, Andreas
[1] https://dawnmena.org/saudi-arabia-government-agents-infiltrate-wikipedia-sen... [2] https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec-rightschanges/ar.wikipedia.org/OsamaK [3] https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec-rightschanges/ar.wikipedia.org/Ziad [4] https://twitter.com/jimmy_wales/status/1611301592027856897 [5] https://diff.wikimedia.org/2015/10/08/bassel-missing-syria/ [6] [https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec-rightschanges/ar.wikipedia.org/%D8%B5%D8%A7%D9...) [7] https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec-rightschanges/ar.wikipedia.org/%D8%AC%D8%A7%D8... [8] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-64195644 [9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom
On Sat, Jan 7, 2023 at 11:12 AM Nanour Garabedian garabedian.nanour.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
I hope that this statement and clarifications will be translated to Arabic by the Foundation and published on the Foundation's social media pages.
On Fri, Jan 6, 2023 at 8:58 PM Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:
It's interesting to see the lack of transparency attributed to the fact that Wikimedia editing against ToS isn't akin to a crime. That juxtaposes in a strange way with the news stories claiming that what drove Wikimedia's action may be two members of the Wikimedia community who have been sentenced to very long prison sentences for their contributions to Wikimedia projects.
For those who hadn't seen the press stories, see here for the article in Ars Technica: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/01/wikipedia-admin-jailed-for-32-ye...
I agree with the criticism in the Ars article of Wikimedia's response - the objection to use of the phrase "high ranking" to describe admins, and the claim that Wikimedia can't possibly know where any of these people live. I don't see the value of including these in Wikimedia's response. These are the types of distinctions that have some meaning inside our little bubble, but very little outside.
Lastly, I find the link in WMF's statement to the Board's BLP resolution inapposite. As all editors will recognize, the resolution and its related policies are entirely focused on project content and protecting the subjects of that content from the messy process of editing.
On Fri, Jan 6, 2023 at 1:27 PM Wikimedia Trust and Safety ca@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello everyone,
Over the last couple of days, there have been several media reports about the Foundation’s most recent office action, [taken on December 6](https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/...). More are certain to follow. These media reports are based on a release from SMEX and Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN) that contains many material inaccuracies. Some of the errors will be obvious to our community - for perhaps the most obvious, the report states that the 16 users are all based in Saudi Arabia . This is unlikely to be the case. While we do not know where these volunteers actually reside, the bans of any volunteers who may have been Saudi were part of a much broader action globally banning 16 editors across the MENA region. Indeed, many of them are not active in the Arabic language projects. These organizations did not share the statement with the Foundation, and “sources of knowledge” as cited in their release can get things wrong. In addition, we do not have staff in the country named and never have, contrary to a message put out by the same groups on social media.
As we noted in December in our statement, we are unable to discuss Foundation office actions in detail. The Foundation always [lists accounts banned as a result of its investigations](https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Global_Ban_Policy#List_of_global_bans_pl...). It is our goal to be as transparent as we can be within essential protection policies, which is why we do not ban in secret, but instead disclose accounts impacted and (when large numbers are involved) have disclosed the rationale.
The roots of our December action stretch back over several years. We were initially contacted by outside experts who made us aware about concerns they had about Farsi Wikipedia. We can’t comment on that report right now, but it will be published by that organization soon. This report not only contributed to our August 23, 2021 [modification of our non-disclosure agreement](https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Confidentiality_agreement_for_n...) to make it harder for rights-holders to be coerced, but led to further evaluation of issues across MENA. The December bans were the culmination of those evaluations.
Wikimedia is, as mentioned above, an open knowledge platform, and it thrives on open participation. Investigations and global bans are not things that any of us take lightly, but the Foundation is committed to supporting the knowledge-sharing models that have created so many valuable information resources in hundreds of languages across the world. Our first line of defense of our [Terms of Use](https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Acti...) are our volunteers themselves. Where issues present a credible threat of harm to our users and to the security of Wikimedia platforms, we will do the best we can to protect both.
We trust and hope that our communities understand that misinformation about this action has the potential to cause harm to the individuals involved. We believe in the incredible value produced by our volunteers across the globe, but even so we recognize that being found in contravention of a website’s Terms of Use — even in a manner that organization finds serious enough to warrant a ban — is not the equivalent of being convicted of any crime. Accordingly, we ask you to please be conscious of the real people involved, in the spirit of our [long established respect for living people on our sites](https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Biographies_of_living_peopl...). We realize that it is tempting to speculate, but we do ask you all to recall that people’s employment options, their relationships, and even their physical safety may be compromised by speculation.
If anyone feels unsafe on Wikimedia projects, please use the local community processes or contact us. The Foundation and community will work together or in parallel to enhance the safety of all volunteers. To contact the Trust & Safety team please email ca@wikimedia.org .
Best regards,
WMF Office/Trust and Safety _______________________________________________ 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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Hello everyone,
We would like to thank you, Nanour, for the suggestion and apologize that the suggestion was necessary. We have now translated our message to the community into Arabic and posted a further update https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%88%D9%8A%D9%83%D9%8A%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%A7:%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%86/%D9%85%D9%86%D9%88%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%AA#Foundation_statement there, as we were made aware that much of the erroneous information spreading in the press and on social media is causing a lot of distress within our Arabic Wikipedia communities. Here is the updated text:
Our investigation and these bans are not connected to the arrest of these two users. The ban decision impacted 16 users, not all of whom were administrators, from Arabic and Farsi Wikipedia. As stated below, we have no reason to believe that these individuals are all residents of Saudi Arabia; on the contrary, this seems extremely unlikely. Further, we imagine you are all aware that editors are volunteers, not paid by the Foundation, and that the Foundation does not have offices or staff in Saudi Arabia.
While, as stated, the December office action is unrelated to the arrests of two Wikimedians in Saudi Arabia, the safety of Wikimedia volunteers always remains our utmost concern. We understand the desire to take action or speak out. Know that we need to act in the interests of any volunteer whose safety is under threat. As indicated in yesterday’s message, additional publicity around such cases can cause harm, as can speculation and misinformation. We are confident that everyone values the safety of their fellow volunteers and can understand the constraints this might create.
Best regards, WMF Office/Trust and Safety
On Fri, Jan 6, 2023 at 7:26 PM Wikimedia Trust and Safety ca@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello everyone,
Over the last couple of days, there have been several media reports about the Foundation’s most recent office action, taken on December 6 https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/thread/NJUOKYM2UTKFH53OKGIXW6OSEEDUI3AL/. More are certain to follow. These media reports are based on a release from SMEX and Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN) that contains many material inaccuracies. Some of the errors will be obvious to our community
- for perhaps the most obvious, the report states that the 16 users are all
based in Saudi Arabia . This is unlikely to be the case. While we do not know where these volunteers actually reside, the bans of any volunteers who may have been Saudi were part of a much broader action globally banning 16 editors across the MENA region. Indeed, many of them are not active in the Arabic language projects. These organizations did not share the statement with the Foundation, and “sources of knowledge” as cited in their release can get things wrong. In addition, we do not have staff in the country named and never have, contrary to a message put out by the same groups on social media.
As we noted in December in our statement, we are unable to discuss Foundation office actions in detail. The Foundation always lists accounts banned as a result of its investigations https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Global_Ban_Policy#List_of_global_bans_placed_by_the_Wikimedia_Foundation. It is our goal to be as transparent as we can be within essential protection policies, which is why we do not ban in secret, but instead disclose accounts impacted and (when large numbers are involved) have disclosed the rationale.
The roots of our December action stretch back over several years. We were initially contacted by outside experts who made us aware about concerns they had about Farsi Wikipedia. We can’t comment on that report right now, but it will be published by that organization soon. This report not only contributed to our August 23, 2021 modification of our non-disclosure agreement https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Confidentiality_agreement_for_nonpublic_information&diff=21925066&oldid=21609723 to make it harder for rights-holders to be coerced, but led to further evaluation of issues across MENA. The December bans were the culmination of those evaluations.
Wikimedia is, as mentioned above, an open knowledge platform, and it thrives on open participation. Investigations and global bans are not things that any of us take lightly, but the Foundation is committed to supporting the knowledge-sharing models that have created so many valuable information resources in hundreds of languages across the world. Our first line of defense of our Terms of Use https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities are our volunteers themselves. Where issues present a credible threat of harm to our users and to the security of Wikimedia platforms, we will do the best we can to protect both.
We trust and hope that our communities understand that misinformation about this action has the potential to cause harm to the individuals involved. We believe in the incredible value produced by our volunteers across the globe, but even so we recognize that being found in contravention of a website’s Terms of Use — even in a manner that organization finds serious enough to warrant a ban — is not the equivalent of being convicted of any crime. Accordingly, we ask you to please be conscious of the real people involved, in the spirit of our long established respect for living people on our sites https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Biographies_of_living_people. We realize that it is tempting to speculate, but we do ask you all to recall that people’s employment options, their relationships, and even their physical safety may be compromised by speculation.
If anyone feels unsafe on Wikimedia projects, please use the local community processes or contact us. The Foundation and community will work together or in parallel to enhance the safety of all volunteers. To contact the Trust & Safety team please email ca@wikimedia.org .
Best regards, WMF Office/Trust and Safety
Dear all,
Fjmustak (Farah Jack Mustaklem, a recent candidate for the WMF board) has uploaded a picture of the two jailed Wikipedians, Osama Khalid (User:OsamaK) and Ziyad Alsufyani (User:Ziad), to Commons:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Osama_Khalid_and_Ziyad_Alsufyani.jpg
Andreas
On Sun, Jan 8, 2023 at 12:41 AM Wikimedia Trust and Safety ca@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello everyone,
We would like to thank you, Nanour, for the suggestion and apologize that the suggestion was necessary. We have now translated our message to the community into Arabic and posted a further update https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%88%D9%8A%D9%83%D9%8A%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%A7:%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%86/%D9%85%D9%86%D9%88%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%AA#Foundation_statement there, as we were made aware that much of the erroneous information spreading in the press and on social media is causing a lot of distress within our Arabic Wikipedia communities. Here is the updated text:
Our investigation and these bans are not connected to the arrest of these two users. The ban decision impacted 16 users, not all of whom were administrators, from Arabic and Farsi Wikipedia. As stated below, we have no reason to believe that these individuals are all residents of Saudi Arabia; on the contrary, this seems extremely unlikely. Further, we imagine you are all aware that editors are volunteers, not paid by the Foundation, and that the Foundation does not have offices or staff in Saudi Arabia.
While, as stated, the December office action is unrelated to the arrests of two Wikimedians in Saudi Arabia, the safety of Wikimedia volunteers always remains our utmost concern. We understand the desire to take action or speak out. Know that we need to act in the interests of any volunteer whose safety is under threat. As indicated in yesterday’s message, additional publicity around such cases can cause harm, as can speculation and misinformation. We are confident that everyone values the safety of their fellow volunteers and can understand the constraints this might create.
Best regards, WMF Office/Trust and Safety
On Fri, Jan 6, 2023 at 7:26 PM Wikimedia Trust and Safety < ca@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hello everyone,
Over the last couple of days, there have been several media reports about the Foundation’s most recent office action, taken on December 6 https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/thread/NJUOKYM2UTKFH53OKGIXW6OSEEDUI3AL/. More are certain to follow. These media reports are based on a release from SMEX and Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN) that contains many material inaccuracies. Some of the errors will be obvious to our community
- for perhaps the most obvious, the report states that the 16 users are all
based in Saudi Arabia . This is unlikely to be the case. While we do not know where these volunteers actually reside, the bans of any volunteers who may have been Saudi were part of a much broader action globally banning 16 editors across the MENA region. Indeed, many of them are not active in the Arabic language projects. These organizations did not share the statement with the Foundation, and “sources of knowledge” as cited in their release can get things wrong. In addition, we do not have staff in the country named and never have, contrary to a message put out by the same groups on social media.
As we noted in December in our statement, we are unable to discuss Foundation office actions in detail. The Foundation always lists accounts banned as a result of its investigations https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Global_Ban_Policy#List_of_global_bans_placed_by_the_Wikimedia_Foundation. It is our goal to be as transparent as we can be within essential protection policies, which is why we do not ban in secret, but instead disclose accounts impacted and (when large numbers are involved) have disclosed the rationale.
The roots of our December action stretch back over several years. We were initially contacted by outside experts who made us aware about concerns they had about Farsi Wikipedia. We can’t comment on that report right now, but it will be published by that organization soon. This report not only contributed to our August 23, 2021 modification of our non-disclosure agreement https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Confidentiality_agreement_for_nonpublic_information&diff=21925066&oldid=21609723 to make it harder for rights-holders to be coerced, but led to further evaluation of issues across MENA. The December bans were the culmination of those evaluations.
Wikimedia is, as mentioned above, an open knowledge platform, and it thrives on open participation. Investigations and global bans are not things that any of us take lightly, but the Foundation is committed to supporting the knowledge-sharing models that have created so many valuable information resources in hundreds of languages across the world. Our first line of defense of our Terms of Use https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities are our volunteers themselves. Where issues present a credible threat of harm to our users and to the security of Wikimedia platforms, we will do the best we can to protect both.
We trust and hope that our communities understand that misinformation about this action has the potential to cause harm to the individuals involved. We believe in the incredible value produced by our volunteers across the globe, but even so we recognize that being found in contravention of a website’s Terms of Use — even in a manner that organization finds serious enough to warrant a ban — is not the equivalent of being convicted of any crime. Accordingly, we ask you to please be conscious of the real people involved, in the spirit of our long established respect for living people on our sites https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Biographies_of_living_people. We realize that it is tempting to speculate, but we do ask you all to recall that people’s employment options, their relationships, and even their physical safety may be compromised by speculation.
If anyone feels unsafe on Wikimedia projects, please use the local community processes or contact us. The Foundation and community will work together or in parallel to enhance the safety of all volunteers. To contact the Trust & Safety team please email ca@wikimedia.org .
Best regards, WMF Office/Trust and Safety
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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Hoi, I know the license... is it wise to use these pictures? What is it that the WMF advises? Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, 8 Jan 2023 at 14:38, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Dear all,
Fjmustak (Farah Jack Mustaklem, a recent candidate for the WMF board) has uploaded a picture of the two jailed Wikipedians, Osama Khalid (User:OsamaK) and Ziyad Alsufyani (User:Ziad), to Commons:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Osama_Khalid_and_Ziyad_Alsufyani.jpg
Andreas
On Sun, Jan 8, 2023 at 12:41 AM Wikimedia Trust and Safety < ca@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hello everyone,
We would like to thank you, Nanour, for the suggestion and apologize that the suggestion was necessary. We have now translated our message to the community into Arabic and posted a further update https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%88%D9%8A%D9%83%D9%8A%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%A7:%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%86/%D9%85%D9%86%D9%88%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%AA#Foundation_statement there, as we were made aware that much of the erroneous information spreading in the press and on social media is causing a lot of distress within our Arabic Wikipedia communities. Here is the updated text:
Our investigation and these bans are not connected to the arrest of these two users. The ban decision impacted 16 users, not all of whom were administrators, from Arabic and Farsi Wikipedia. As stated below, we have no reason to believe that these individuals are all residents of Saudi Arabia; on the contrary, this seems extremely unlikely. Further, we imagine you are all aware that editors are volunteers, not paid by the Foundation, and that the Foundation does not have offices or staff in Saudi Arabia.
While, as stated, the December office action is unrelated to the arrests of two Wikimedians in Saudi Arabia, the safety of Wikimedia volunteers always remains our utmost concern. We understand the desire to take action or speak out. Know that we need to act in the interests of any volunteer whose safety is under threat. As indicated in yesterday’s message, additional publicity around such cases can cause harm, as can speculation and misinformation. We are confident that everyone values the safety of their fellow volunteers and can understand the constraints this might create.
Best regards, WMF Office/Trust and Safety
On Fri, Jan 6, 2023 at 7:26 PM Wikimedia Trust and Safety < ca@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hello everyone,
Over the last couple of days, there have been several media reports about the Foundation’s most recent office action, taken on December 6 https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/thread/NJUOKYM2UTKFH53OKGIXW6OSEEDUI3AL/. More are certain to follow. These media reports are based on a release from SMEX and Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN) that contains many material inaccuracies. Some of the errors will be obvious to our community
- for perhaps the most obvious, the report states that the 16 users are all
based in Saudi Arabia . This is unlikely to be the case. While we do not know where these volunteers actually reside, the bans of any volunteers who may have been Saudi were part of a much broader action globally banning 16 editors across the MENA region. Indeed, many of them are not active in the Arabic language projects. These organizations did not share the statement with the Foundation, and “sources of knowledge” as cited in their release can get things wrong. In addition, we do not have staff in the country named and never have, contrary to a message put out by the same groups on social media.
As we noted in December in our statement, we are unable to discuss Foundation office actions in detail. The Foundation always lists accounts banned as a result of its investigations https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Global_Ban_Policy#List_of_global_bans_placed_by_the_Wikimedia_Foundation. It is our goal to be as transparent as we can be within essential protection policies, which is why we do not ban in secret, but instead disclose accounts impacted and (when large numbers are involved) have disclosed the rationale.
The roots of our December action stretch back over several years. We were initially contacted by outside experts who made us aware about concerns they had about Farsi Wikipedia. We can’t comment on that report right now, but it will be published by that organization soon. This report not only contributed to our August 23, 2021 modification of our non-disclosure agreement https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Confidentiality_agreement_for_nonpublic_information&diff=21925066&oldid=21609723 to make it harder for rights-holders to be coerced, but led to further evaluation of issues across MENA. The December bans were the culmination of those evaluations.
Wikimedia is, as mentioned above, an open knowledge platform, and it thrives on open participation. Investigations and global bans are not things that any of us take lightly, but the Foundation is committed to supporting the knowledge-sharing models that have created so many valuable information resources in hundreds of languages across the world. Our first line of defense of our Terms of Use https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities are our volunteers themselves. Where issues present a credible threat of harm to our users and to the security of Wikimedia platforms, we will do the best we can to protect both.
We trust and hope that our communities understand that misinformation about this action has the potential to cause harm to the individuals involved. We believe in the incredible value produced by our volunteers across the globe, but even so we recognize that being found in contravention of a website’s Terms of Use — even in a manner that organization finds serious enough to warrant a ban — is not the equivalent of being convicted of any crime. Accordingly, we ask you to please be conscious of the real people involved, in the spirit of our long established respect for living people on our sites https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Biographies_of_living_people. We realize that it is tempting to speculate, but we do ask you all to recall that people’s employment options, their relationships, and even their physical safety may be compromised by speculation.
If anyone feels unsafe on Wikimedia projects, please use the local community processes or contact us. The Foundation and community will work together or in parallel to enhance the safety of all volunteers. To contact the Trust & Safety team please email ca@wikimedia.org .
Best regards, WMF Office/Trust and Safety
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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
(putting my long-term volunteer of Persian Wikipedia hat on)
I first want to mention that out of 16 users banned by the office action, 10 were mostly active in Arabic Wikipedia and 6 were mostly active in Persian Wikipedia. I know it’s confusing but Arabic and Persian are completely different languages belonging to even different families and they only share the same script. An Arab person can read Persian but they won’t be able to understand anything except some loanwords. I’m saying this to emphasize they were basically two major office actions affecting different types of users. For example, the users banned in fawiki have mostly edited pro the Iranian government which meant they actually edited against the interest of the Saudis. I can’t comment if the 6 users were affiliated with the Iranian government or not.
I don't know about the users in arwiki but the reception of bans on fawiki has been overwhelmingly positive. I have seen at least twenty different positive reactions, publicly and privately. And I personally welcome those actions and the only major criticism I got from most users of fawiki were that “it was overdue” or “user foo and bar are not banned”.
We understand the desire to take action or speak out. Know that we need
to act in the interests of any volunteer whose safety is under threat.
I’m not a communication or T&S expert. I don’t know the details of this case. So take what I’m saying with a mountain of salt. A mere suggestion. Iranian activists have been advising families of people arrested for political reasons in Iran to speak up. To make noise. To interview outside of Iran. In many cases it has actually helped those prisoners by increasing the international pressure. The lawyers appointed to Iranian activists have all been instructed by the government to tell the families “not to make a noise and it’ll all be fixed” and usually, the exact opposite happens and the families speak up after they receive the body of their children. Here is a grim example by Amnesty international https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/12/iran-authorities-covering-up-their-crimes-of-child-killings-by-coercing-families-into-silence/. Again, this is a very specific case to Iran and I can’t really say what WMF should or shouldn’t do.
On the topic of communication:
But it seems WMF’s communication strategy here is to beat around the bushes. Press releases that deny very specific things that honestly don’t even need denying but by doing so if people don’t know specifics of the movement or don’t read it very very carefully, they might mistake it as denying all government interference. That is exactly what happens afterwards with many major media and WMF doesn’t try to correct the record.
For example, Here WMF has denied that the Saudi government tried to infiltrate Wikimedia’s staff. That is correct and doesn’t even need denying. But it doesn’t deny that the government tried to infiltrate the volunteer community or push or control content in Wikipedia. The thing is that most people are not aware of the staff vs long-term volunteer distinction. The result? The press responds with “WMF denied allegation of Saudi’s interference in Wikipedia” Here is an example from BBC Persian (a reputable source in Persian): https://www.bbc.com/persian/articles/cprnv1np9y2o I can find many more.
Or the fact that these 16 users were related to the Saudi’s government. WMF denied that because at least 6 of them were related to Iran. That doesn’t negate the fact that *some of them* might have been affiliated with the Saudi government (to emphasize again, I don’t know if any of them did, I have no access to the cases. And to be honest I don’t want to know). The result? Press goes “these 16 banns were not related to the Saudi government at all”.
IMHO, this is causing harm. For example, the Ars has released https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/01/wikipedia-admin-jailed-for-32-years-after-alleged-saudi-spy-infiltration/: “It's wildly irresponsible for international organizations and businesses to assume their affiliates can ever operate independently of, or safely from, Saudi government control”. This also makes us (the movement) look very naive. A government that kills dissidents in its consulate or (in case of Iranian government) rapes people in prison https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2022/11/middleeast/iran-protests-sexual-assault/index.html as a scare tactic, tries to interfere with Scotish indepence referendum https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-iran-meddled-in-scotland-s-independence-referendum/, or makes 92 fake news websites in US https://www.zdnet.com/article/us-seizes-iranian-government-domains-masked-as-legitimate-news-outlets/to spread disinformation would not try to interfere with Wikipedia and consider it untouchable.
I can give another example, In October 2019, Persian media ran an article on interference of the Iranian government in Persian Wikipedia. WMF released this https://fa.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D9%88%DB%8C%DA%A9%DB%8C%E2%80%8C%D9%BE%D8%AF%DB%8C%D8%A7:%D9%82%D9%87%D9%88%D9%87%E2%80%8C%D8%AE%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%87/%DA%AF%D9%88%D9%86%D8%A7%DA%AF%D9%88%D9%86&diff=prev&oldid=27376349: “The allegations of government interference in these media articles were examined by Persian Wikipedia volunteers and Wikimedia staff, but were found to be unsubstantiated.” That statement denies the allegations made in the original article but doesn't deny any government interference. You can guess what happened next. Major press in Persian (outside of Iran) went with (emphasize mine) “WMF said they researched but couldn’t find *any* interference by the Iranian government” (Iran international https://old.iranintl.com/%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%B4-%D9%88-%D9%81%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%88%D8%B1%DB%8C/%D9%88%DB%8C%DA%A9%DB%8C%E2%80%8C%D9%85%D8%AF%DB%8C%D8%A7-%D8%AA%D8%A7%DB%8C%DB%8C%D8%AF%DB%8C-%D8%A8%D8%B1%D8%A7%DB%8C-%D9%85%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%AE%D9%84%D9%87-%D8%AD%DA%A9%D9%88%D9%85%D8%AA-%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%AF%D8%B1-%D9%85%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D9%88%DB%8C%DA%A9%DB%8C%E2%80%8C%D9%BE%D8%AF%DB%8C%D8%A7-%D9%86%DB%8C%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%AA%DB%8C%D9%85, I can find more). WMF didn’t try to fix the mistake of the press. That action by WMF Comm felt like a slap on the face of me and many others and what we all went through.
Sorry for the long email.
Am So., 8. Jan. 2023 um 16:46 Uhr schrieb Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>:
Hoi, I know the license... is it wise to use these pictures? What is it that the WMF advises? Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, 8 Jan 2023 at 14:38, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Dear all,
Fjmustak (Farah Jack Mustaklem, a recent candidate for the WMF board) has uploaded a picture of the two jailed Wikipedians, Osama Khalid (User:OsamaK) and Ziyad Alsufyani (User:Ziad), to Commons:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Osama_Khalid_and_Ziyad_Alsufyani.jpg
Andreas
On Sun, Jan 8, 2023 at 12:41 AM Wikimedia Trust and Safety < ca@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hello everyone,
We would like to thank you, Nanour, for the suggestion and apologize that the suggestion was necessary. We have now translated our message to the community into Arabic and posted a further update https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%88%D9%8A%D9%83%D9%8A%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%A7:%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%86/%D9%85%D9%86%D9%88%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%AA#Foundation_statement there, as we were made aware that much of the erroneous information spreading in the press and on social media is causing a lot of distress within our Arabic Wikipedia communities. Here is the updated text:
Our investigation and these bans are not connected to the arrest of these two users. The ban decision impacted 16 users, not all of whom were administrators, from Arabic and Farsi Wikipedia. As stated below, we have no reason to believe that these individuals are all residents of Saudi Arabia; on the contrary, this seems extremely unlikely. Further, we imagine you are all aware that editors are volunteers, not paid by the Foundation, and that the Foundation does not have offices or staff in Saudi Arabia.
While, as stated, the December office action is unrelated to the arrests of two Wikimedians in Saudi Arabia, the safety of Wikimedia volunteers always remains our utmost concern. We understand the desire to take action or speak out. Know that we need to act in the interests of any volunteer whose safety is under threat. As indicated in yesterday’s message, additional publicity around such cases can cause harm, as can speculation and misinformation. We are confident that everyone values the safety of their fellow volunteers and can understand the constraints this might create.
Best regards, WMF Office/Trust and Safety
On Fri, Jan 6, 2023 at 7:26 PM Wikimedia Trust and Safety < ca@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hello everyone,
Over the last couple of days, there have been several media reports about the Foundation’s most recent office action, taken on December 6 https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/thread/NJUOKYM2UTKFH53OKGIXW6OSEEDUI3AL/. More are certain to follow. These media reports are based on a release from SMEX and Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN) that contains many material inaccuracies. Some of the errors will be obvious to our community
- for perhaps the most obvious, the report states that the 16 users are all
based in Saudi Arabia . This is unlikely to be the case. While we do not know where these volunteers actually reside, the bans of any volunteers who may have been Saudi were part of a much broader action globally banning 16 editors across the MENA region. Indeed, many of them are not active in the Arabic language projects. These organizations did not share the statement with the Foundation, and “sources of knowledge” as cited in their release can get things wrong. In addition, we do not have staff in the country named and never have, contrary to a message put out by the same groups on social media.
As we noted in December in our statement, we are unable to discuss Foundation office actions in detail. The Foundation always lists accounts banned as a result of its investigations https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Global_Ban_Policy#List_of_global_bans_placed_by_the_Wikimedia_Foundation. It is our goal to be as transparent as we can be within essential protection policies, which is why we do not ban in secret, but instead disclose accounts impacted and (when large numbers are involved) have disclosed the rationale.
The roots of our December action stretch back over several years. We were initially contacted by outside experts who made us aware about concerns they had about Farsi Wikipedia. We can’t comment on that report right now, but it will be published by that organization soon. This report not only contributed to our August 23, 2021 modification of our non-disclosure agreement https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Confidentiality_agreement_for_nonpublic_information&diff=21925066&oldid=21609723 to make it harder for rights-holders to be coerced, but led to further evaluation of issues across MENA. The December bans were the culmination of those evaluations.
Wikimedia is, as mentioned above, an open knowledge platform, and it thrives on open participation. Investigations and global bans are not things that any of us take lightly, but the Foundation is committed to supporting the knowledge-sharing models that have created so many valuable information resources in hundreds of languages across the world. Our first line of defense of our Terms of Use https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities are our volunteers themselves. Where issues present a credible threat of harm to our users and to the security of Wikimedia platforms, we will do the best we can to protect both.
We trust and hope that our communities understand that misinformation about this action has the potential to cause harm to the individuals involved. We believe in the incredible value produced by our volunteers across the globe, but even so we recognize that being found in contravention of a website’s Terms of Use — even in a manner that organization finds serious enough to warrant a ban — is not the equivalent of being convicted of any crime. Accordingly, we ask you to please be conscious of the real people involved, in the spirit of our long established respect for living people on our sites https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Biographies_of_living_people. We realize that it is tempting to speculate, but we do ask you all to recall that people’s employment options, their relationships, and even their physical safety may be compromised by speculation.
If anyone feels unsafe on Wikimedia projects, please use the local community processes or contact us. The Foundation and community will work together or in parallel to enhance the safety of all volunteers. To contact the Trust & Safety team please email ca@wikimedia.org .
Best regards, WMF Office/Trust and Safety
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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Thank you for speaking out. You've articulated many of my vague concerns with the Foundation's communications.
On Sun, Jan 8, 2023, 1:47 PM Amir Sarabadani ladsgroup@gmail.com wrote:
(putting my long-term volunteer of Persian Wikipedia hat on)
I first want to mention that out of 16 users banned by the office action, 10 were mostly active in Arabic Wikipedia and 6 were mostly active in Persian Wikipedia. I know it’s confusing but Arabic and Persian are completely different languages belonging to even different families and they only share the same script. An Arab person can read Persian but they won’t be able to understand anything except some loanwords. I’m saying this to emphasize they were basically two major office actions affecting different types of users. For example, the users banned in fawiki have mostly edited pro the Iranian government which meant they actually edited against the interest of the Saudis. I can’t comment if the 6 users were affiliated with the Iranian government or not.
I don't know about the users in arwiki but the reception of bans on fawiki has been overwhelmingly positive. I have seen at least twenty different positive reactions, publicly and privately. And I personally welcome those actions and the only major criticism I got from most users of fawiki were that “it was overdue” or “user foo and bar are not banned”.
We understand the desire to take action or speak out. Know that we need
to act in the interests of any volunteer whose safety is under threat.
I’m not a communication or T&S expert. I don’t know the details of this case. So take what I’m saying with a mountain of salt. A mere suggestion. Iranian activists have been advising families of people arrested for political reasons in Iran to speak up. To make noise. To interview outside of Iran. In many cases it has actually helped those prisoners by increasing the international pressure. The lawyers appointed to Iranian activists have all been instructed by the government to tell the families “not to make a noise and it’ll all be fixed” and usually, the exact opposite happens and the families speak up after they receive the body of their children. Here is a grim example by Amnesty international https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/12/iran-authorities-covering-up-their-crimes-of-child-killings-by-coercing-families-into-silence/. Again, this is a very specific case to Iran and I can’t really say what WMF should or shouldn’t do.
On the topic of communication:
But it seems WMF’s communication strategy here is to beat around the bushes. Press releases that deny very specific things that honestly don’t even need denying but by doing so if people don’t know specifics of the movement or don’t read it very very carefully, they might mistake it as denying all government interference. That is exactly what happens afterwards with many major media and WMF doesn’t try to correct the record.
For example, Here WMF has denied that the Saudi government tried to infiltrate Wikimedia’s staff. That is correct and doesn’t even need denying. But it doesn’t deny that the government tried to infiltrate the volunteer community or push or control content in Wikipedia. The thing is that most people are not aware of the staff vs long-term volunteer distinction. The result? The press responds with “WMF denied allegation of Saudi’s interference in Wikipedia” Here is an example from BBC Persian (a reputable source in Persian): https://www.bbc.com/persian/articles/cprnv1np9y2o I can find many more.
Or the fact that these 16 users were related to the Saudi’s government. WMF denied that because at least 6 of them were related to Iran. That doesn’t negate the fact that *some of them* might have been affiliated with the Saudi government (to emphasize again, I don’t know if any of them did, I have no access to the cases. And to be honest I don’t want to know). The result? Press goes “these 16 banns were not related to the Saudi government at all”.
IMHO, this is causing harm. For example, the Ars has released https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/01/wikipedia-admin-jailed-for-32-years-after-alleged-saudi-spy-infiltration/: “It's wildly irresponsible for international organizations and businesses to assume their affiliates can ever operate independently of, or safely from, Saudi government control”. This also makes us (the movement) look very naive. A government that kills dissidents in its consulate or (in case of Iranian government) rapes people in prison https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2022/11/middleeast/iran-protests-sexual-assault/index.html as a scare tactic, tries to interfere with Scotish indepence referendum https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-iran-meddled-in-scotland-s-independence-referendum/, or makes 92 fake news websites in US https://www.zdnet.com/article/us-seizes-iranian-government-domains-masked-as-legitimate-news-outlets/to spread disinformation would not try to interfere with Wikipedia and consider it untouchable.
I can give another example, In October 2019, Persian media ran an article on interference of the Iranian government in Persian Wikipedia. WMF released this https://fa.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D9%88%DB%8C%DA%A9%DB%8C%E2%80%8C%D9%BE%D8%AF%DB%8C%D8%A7:%D9%82%D9%87%D9%88%D9%87%E2%80%8C%D8%AE%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%87/%DA%AF%D9%88%D9%86%D8%A7%DA%AF%D9%88%D9%86&diff=prev&oldid=27376349: “The allegations of government interference in these media articles were examined by Persian Wikipedia volunteers and Wikimedia staff, but were found to be unsubstantiated.” That statement denies the allegations made in the original article but doesn't deny any government interference. You can guess what happened next. Major press in Persian (outside of Iran) went with (emphasize mine) “WMF said they researched but couldn’t find *any* interference by the Iranian government” (Iran international https://old.iranintl.com/%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%B4-%D9%88-%D9%81%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%88%D8%B1%DB%8C/%D9%88%DB%8C%DA%A9%DB%8C%E2%80%8C%D9%85%D8%AF%DB%8C%D8%A7-%D8%AA%D8%A7%DB%8C%DB%8C%D8%AF%DB%8C-%D8%A8%D8%B1%D8%A7%DB%8C-%D9%85%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%AE%D9%84%D9%87-%D8%AD%DA%A9%D9%88%D9%85%D8%AA-%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%AF%D8%B1-%D9%85%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D9%88%DB%8C%DA%A9%DB%8C%E2%80%8C%D9%BE%D8%AF%DB%8C%D8%A7-%D9%86%DB%8C%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%AA%DB%8C%D9%85, I can find more). WMF didn’t try to fix the mistake of the press. That action by WMF Comm felt like a slap on the face of me and many others and what we all went through.
Sorry for the long email.
Am So., 8. Jan. 2023 um 16:46 Uhr schrieb Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>:
Hoi, I know the license... is it wise to use these pictures? What is it that the WMF advises? Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, 8 Jan 2023 at 14:38, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Dear all,
Fjmustak (Farah Jack Mustaklem, a recent candidate for the WMF board) has uploaded a picture of the two jailed Wikipedians, Osama Khalid (User:OsamaK) and Ziyad Alsufyani (User:Ziad), to Commons:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Osama_Khalid_and_Ziyad_Alsufyani.jpg
Andreas
On Sun, Jan 8, 2023 at 12:41 AM Wikimedia Trust and Safety < ca@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hello everyone,
We would like to thank you, Nanour, for the suggestion and apologize that the suggestion was necessary. We have now translated our message to the community into Arabic and posted a further update https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%88%D9%8A%D9%83%D9%8A%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%A7:%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%86/%D9%85%D9%86%D9%88%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%AA#Foundation_statement there, as we were made aware that much of the erroneous information spreading in the press and on social media is causing a lot of distress within our Arabic Wikipedia communities. Here is the updated text:
Our investigation and these bans are not connected to the arrest of these two users. The ban decision impacted 16 users, not all of whom were administrators, from Arabic and Farsi Wikipedia. As stated below, we have no reason to believe that these individuals are all residents of Saudi Arabia; on the contrary, this seems extremely unlikely. Further, we imagine you are all aware that editors are volunteers, not paid by the Foundation, and that the Foundation does not have offices or staff in Saudi Arabia.
While, as stated, the December office action is unrelated to the arrests of two Wikimedians in Saudi Arabia, the safety of Wikimedia volunteers always remains our utmost concern. We understand the desire to take action or speak out. Know that we need to act in the interests of any volunteer whose safety is under threat. As indicated in yesterday’s message, additional publicity around such cases can cause harm, as can speculation and misinformation. We are confident that everyone values the safety of their fellow volunteers and can understand the constraints this might create.
Best regards, WMF Office/Trust and Safety
On Fri, Jan 6, 2023 at 7:26 PM Wikimedia Trust and Safety < ca@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hello everyone,
Over the last couple of days, there have been several media reports about the Foundation’s most recent office action, taken on December 6 https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/thread/NJUOKYM2UTKFH53OKGIXW6OSEEDUI3AL/. More are certain to follow. These media reports are based on a release from SMEX and Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN) that contains many material inaccuracies. Some of the errors will be obvious to our community
- for perhaps the most obvious, the report states that the 16 users are all
based in Saudi Arabia . This is unlikely to be the case. While we do not know where these volunteers actually reside, the bans of any volunteers who may have been Saudi were part of a much broader action globally banning 16 editors across the MENA region. Indeed, many of them are not active in the Arabic language projects. These organizations did not share the statement with the Foundation, and “sources of knowledge” as cited in their release can get things wrong. In addition, we do not have staff in the country named and never have, contrary to a message put out by the same groups on social media.
As we noted in December in our statement, we are unable to discuss Foundation office actions in detail. The Foundation always lists accounts banned as a result of its investigations https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Global_Ban_Policy#List_of_global_bans_placed_by_the_Wikimedia_Foundation. It is our goal to be as transparent as we can be within essential protection policies, which is why we do not ban in secret, but instead disclose accounts impacted and (when large numbers are involved) have disclosed the rationale.
The roots of our December action stretch back over several years. We were initially contacted by outside experts who made us aware about concerns they had about Farsi Wikipedia. We can’t comment on that report right now, but it will be published by that organization soon. This report not only contributed to our August 23, 2021 modification of our non-disclosure agreement https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Confidentiality_agreement_for_nonpublic_information&diff=21925066&oldid=21609723 to make it harder for rights-holders to be coerced, but led to further evaluation of issues across MENA. The December bans were the culmination of those evaluations.
Wikimedia is, as mentioned above, an open knowledge platform, and it thrives on open participation. Investigations and global bans are not things that any of us take lightly, but the Foundation is committed to supporting the knowledge-sharing models that have created so many valuable information resources in hundreds of languages across the world. Our first line of defense of our Terms of Use https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities are our volunteers themselves. Where issues present a credible threat of harm to our users and to the security of Wikimedia platforms, we will do the best we can to protect both.
We trust and hope that our communities understand that misinformation about this action has the potential to cause harm to the individuals involved. We believe in the incredible value produced by our volunteers across the globe, but even so we recognize that being found in contravention of a website’s Terms of Use — even in a manner that organization finds serious enough to warrant a ban — is not the equivalent of being convicted of any crime. Accordingly, we ask you to please be conscious of the real people involved, in the spirit of our long established respect for living people on our sites https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Biographies_of_living_people. We realize that it is tempting to speculate, but we do ask you all to recall that people’s employment options, their relationships, and even their physical safety may be compromised by speculation.
If anyone feels unsafe on Wikimedia projects, please use the local community processes or contact us. The Foundation and community will work together or in parallel to enhance the safety of all volunteers. To contact the Trust & Safety team please email ca@wikimedia.org .
Best regards, WMF Office/Trust and Safety
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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
-- Amir (he/him)
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
And to emphasize, I don't know if those users banned in the case of Arabic Wikipedia or Persian were affiliated with any governments, or they ever lived in Saudi Arabia or Iran. I'm just saying, it's like a case of WP:DUCK.
And I also understand that communication around these cases is hard, it involves people's physical safety or their basic freedom. Something I don't have to deal with very often. But all major tech companies call it what it is. Meta, Twitter (at least before the sink), google and so on all have press releases on banning users related to spread of government-back disinformation and explicitly naming governments. I don't see why we shouldn't, especially given all the misunderstandings I mentioned. Maybe I'm missing something obvious. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, privately or publicly.
Best
Am So., 8. Jan. 2023 um 20:19 Uhr schrieb The Cunctator <cunctator@gmail.com
:
Thank you for speaking out. You've articulated many of my vague concerns with the Foundation's communications.
On Sun, Jan 8, 2023, 1:47 PM Amir Sarabadani ladsgroup@gmail.com wrote:
(putting my long-term volunteer of Persian Wikipedia hat on)
I first want to mention that out of 16 users banned by the office action, 10 were mostly active in Arabic Wikipedia and 6 were mostly active in Persian Wikipedia. I know it’s confusing but Arabic and Persian are completely different languages belonging to even different families and they only share the same script. An Arab person can read Persian but they won’t be able to understand anything except some loanwords. I’m saying this to emphasize they were basically two major office actions affecting different types of users. For example, the users banned in fawiki have mostly edited pro the Iranian government which meant they actually edited against the interest of the Saudis. I can’t comment if the 6 users were affiliated with the Iranian government or not.
I don't know about the users in arwiki but the reception of bans on fawiki has been overwhelmingly positive. I have seen at least twenty different positive reactions, publicly and privately. And I personally welcome those actions and the only major criticism I got from most users of fawiki were that “it was overdue” or “user foo and bar are not banned”.
We understand the desire to take action or speak out. Know that we need
to act in the interests of any volunteer whose safety is under threat.
I’m not a communication or T&S expert. I don’t know the details of this case. So take what I’m saying with a mountain of salt. A mere suggestion. Iranian activists have been advising families of people arrested for political reasons in Iran to speak up. To make noise. To interview outside of Iran. In many cases it has actually helped those prisoners by increasing the international pressure. The lawyers appointed to Iranian activists have all been instructed by the government to tell the families “not to make a noise and it’ll all be fixed” and usually, the exact opposite happens and the families speak up after they receive the body of their children. Here is a grim example by Amnesty international https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/12/iran-authorities-covering-up-their-crimes-of-child-killings-by-coercing-families-into-silence/. Again, this is a very specific case to Iran and I can’t really say what WMF should or shouldn’t do.
On the topic of communication:
But it seems WMF’s communication strategy here is to beat around the bushes. Press releases that deny very specific things that honestly don’t even need denying but by doing so if people don’t know specifics of the movement or don’t read it very very carefully, they might mistake it as denying all government interference. That is exactly what happens afterwards with many major media and WMF doesn’t try to correct the record.
For example, Here WMF has denied that the Saudi government tried to infiltrate Wikimedia’s staff. That is correct and doesn’t even need denying. But it doesn’t deny that the government tried to infiltrate the volunteer community or push or control content in Wikipedia. The thing is that most people are not aware of the staff vs long-term volunteer distinction. The result? The press responds with “WMF denied allegation of Saudi’s interference in Wikipedia” Here is an example from BBC Persian (a reputable source in Persian): https://www.bbc.com/persian/articles/cprnv1np9y2o I can find many more.
Or the fact that these 16 users were related to the Saudi’s government. WMF denied that because at least 6 of them were related to Iran. That doesn’t negate the fact that *some of them* might have been affiliated with the Saudi government (to emphasize again, I don’t know if any of them did, I have no access to the cases. And to be honest I don’t want to know). The result? Press goes “these 16 banns were not related to the Saudi government at all”.
IMHO, this is causing harm. For example, the Ars has released https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/01/wikipedia-admin-jailed-for-32-years-after-alleged-saudi-spy-infiltration/: “It's wildly irresponsible for international organizations and businesses to assume their affiliates can ever operate independently of, or safely from, Saudi government control”. This also makes us (the movement) look very naive. A government that kills dissidents in its consulate or (in case of Iranian government) rapes people in prison https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2022/11/middleeast/iran-protests-sexual-assault/index.html as a scare tactic, tries to interfere with Scotish indepence referendum https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-iran-meddled-in-scotland-s-independence-referendum/, or makes 92 fake news websites in US https://www.zdnet.com/article/us-seizes-iranian-government-domains-masked-as-legitimate-news-outlets/to spread disinformation would not try to interfere with Wikipedia and consider it untouchable.
I can give another example, In October 2019, Persian media ran an article on interference of the Iranian government in Persian Wikipedia. WMF released this https://fa.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D9%88%DB%8C%DA%A9%DB%8C%E2%80%8C%D9%BE%D8%AF%DB%8C%D8%A7:%D9%82%D9%87%D9%88%D9%87%E2%80%8C%D8%AE%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%87/%DA%AF%D9%88%D9%86%D8%A7%DA%AF%D9%88%D9%86&diff=prev&oldid=27376349: “The allegations of government interference in these media articles were examined by Persian Wikipedia volunteers and Wikimedia staff, but were found to be unsubstantiated.” That statement denies the allegations made in the original article but doesn't deny any government interference. You can guess what happened next. Major press in Persian (outside of Iran) went with (emphasize mine) “WMF said they researched but couldn’t find *any* interference by the Iranian government” (Iran international https://old.iranintl.com/%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%B4-%D9%88-%D9%81%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%88%D8%B1%DB%8C/%D9%88%DB%8C%DA%A9%DB%8C%E2%80%8C%D9%85%D8%AF%DB%8C%D8%A7-%D8%AA%D8%A7%DB%8C%DB%8C%D8%AF%DB%8C-%D8%A8%D8%B1%D8%A7%DB%8C-%D9%85%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%AE%D9%84%D9%87-%D8%AD%DA%A9%D9%88%D9%85%D8%AA-%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%AF%D8%B1-%D9%85%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D9%88%DB%8C%DA%A9%DB%8C%E2%80%8C%D9%BE%D8%AF%DB%8C%D8%A7-%D9%86%DB%8C%D8%A7%D9%81%D8%AA%DB%8C%D9%85, I can find more). WMF didn’t try to fix the mistake of the press. That action by WMF Comm felt like a slap on the face of me and many others and what we all went through.
Sorry for the long email.
Am So., 8. Jan. 2023 um 16:46 Uhr schrieb Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>:
Hoi, I know the license... is it wise to use these pictures? What is it that the WMF advises? Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, 8 Jan 2023 at 14:38, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Dear all,
Fjmustak (Farah Jack Mustaklem, a recent candidate for the WMF board) has uploaded a picture of the two jailed Wikipedians, Osama Khalid (User:OsamaK) and Ziyad Alsufyani (User:Ziad), to Commons:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Osama_Khalid_and_Ziyad_Alsufyani.jpg
Andreas
On Sun, Jan 8, 2023 at 12:41 AM Wikimedia Trust and Safety < ca@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hello everyone,
We would like to thank you, Nanour, for the suggestion and apologize that the suggestion was necessary. We have now translated our message to the community into Arabic and posted a further update https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%88%D9%8A%D9%83%D9%8A%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%A7:%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%86/%D9%85%D9%86%D9%88%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%AA#Foundation_statement there, as we were made aware that much of the erroneous information spreading in the press and on social media is causing a lot of distress within our Arabic Wikipedia communities. Here is the updated text:
Our investigation and these bans are not connected to the arrest of these two users. The ban decision impacted 16 users, not all of whom were administrators, from Arabic and Farsi Wikipedia. As stated below, we have no reason to believe that these individuals are all residents of Saudi Arabia; on the contrary, this seems extremely unlikely. Further, we imagine you are all aware that editors are volunteers, not paid by the Foundation, and that the Foundation does not have offices or staff in Saudi Arabia.
While, as stated, the December office action is unrelated to the arrests of two Wikimedians in Saudi Arabia, the safety of Wikimedia volunteers always remains our utmost concern. We understand the desire to take action or speak out. Know that we need to act in the interests of any volunteer whose safety is under threat. As indicated in yesterday’s message, additional publicity around such cases can cause harm, as can speculation and misinformation. We are confident that everyone values the safety of their fellow volunteers and can understand the constraints this might create.
Best regards, WMF Office/Trust and Safety
On Fri, Jan 6, 2023 at 7:26 PM Wikimedia Trust and Safety < ca@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hello everyone,
Over the last couple of days, there have been several media reports about the Foundation’s most recent office action, taken on December 6 https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/thread/NJUOKYM2UTKFH53OKGIXW6OSEEDUI3AL/. More are certain to follow. These media reports are based on a release from SMEX and Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN) that contains many material inaccuracies. Some of the errors will be obvious to our community
- for perhaps the most obvious, the report states that the 16 users are all
based in Saudi Arabia . This is unlikely to be the case. While we do not know where these volunteers actually reside, the bans of any volunteers who may have been Saudi were part of a much broader action globally banning 16 editors across the MENA region. Indeed, many of them are not active in the Arabic language projects. These organizations did not share the statement with the Foundation, and “sources of knowledge” as cited in their release can get things wrong. In addition, we do not have staff in the country named and never have, contrary to a message put out by the same groups on social media.
As we noted in December in our statement, we are unable to discuss Foundation office actions in detail. The Foundation always lists accounts banned as a result of its investigations https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Global_Ban_Policy#List_of_global_bans_placed_by_the_Wikimedia_Foundation. It is our goal to be as transparent as we can be within essential protection policies, which is why we do not ban in secret, but instead disclose accounts impacted and (when large numbers are involved) have disclosed the rationale.
The roots of our December action stretch back over several years. We were initially contacted by outside experts who made us aware about concerns they had about Farsi Wikipedia. We can’t comment on that report right now, but it will be published by that organization soon. This report not only contributed to our August 23, 2021 modification of our non-disclosure agreement https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Confidentiality_agreement_for_nonpublic_information&diff=21925066&oldid=21609723 to make it harder for rights-holders to be coerced, but led to further evaluation of issues across MENA. The December bans were the culmination of those evaluations.
Wikimedia is, as mentioned above, an open knowledge platform, and it thrives on open participation. Investigations and global bans are not things that any of us take lightly, but the Foundation is committed to supporting the knowledge-sharing models that have created so many valuable information resources in hundreds of languages across the world. Our first line of defense of our Terms of Use https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities are our volunteers themselves. Where issues present a credible threat of harm to our users and to the security of Wikimedia platforms, we will do the best we can to protect both.
We trust and hope that our communities understand that misinformation about this action has the potential to cause harm to the individuals involved. We believe in the incredible value produced by our volunteers across the globe, but even so we recognize that being found in contravention of a website’s Terms of Use — even in a manner that organization finds serious enough to warrant a ban — is not the equivalent of being convicted of any crime. Accordingly, we ask you to please be conscious of the real people involved, in the spirit of our long established respect for living people on our sites https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Biographies_of_living_people. We realize that it is tempting to speculate, but we do ask you all to recall that people’s employment options, their relationships, and even their physical safety may be compromised by speculation.
If anyone feels unsafe on Wikimedia projects, please use the local community processes or contact us. The Foundation and community will work together or in parallel to enhance the safety of all volunteers. To contact the Trust & Safety team please email ca@wikimedia.org .
Best regards, WMF Office/Trust and Safety
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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
-- Amir (he/him)
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l Public archives at https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
Pe duminică, 8 ianuarie 2023, Amir Sarabadani ladsgroup@gmail.com a scris:
Maybe I'm missing something obvious. Feel free to correct me if I'm
wrong, privately or publicly.
I would be very surprised (and worried, mind you!) to find out that the WMF has the data needed to *reliably* link users and organizations for state-sponsored entities. The WMF is actively minimizing the amount of data it gathers on visitors and limits it to their own sites, while commercial companies are very creative in finding new ways to track their users without their consent between various media and domains.
Lacking that reliable identification, making statements related to state affiliation is almost certainly exposing the foundation to serious legal liability.
That doesn't mean that I disagree with the idea that this has been poorly communicated; nitpicking on jargon is not helping send the right message out. At the very least internal communication should explain that state "infiltration" is always a risk, regardless of country and project (remember the case on French Wikipedia a few years ago).
Strainu
Hi all,
Following up on Gerard’s question here and providing a bit more context: the photo is publicly available, so while we don't have a concern with its existence on Commons, our guidance around publicity in such cases still stands. We understand that every government and every situation is unique. As has been pointed out by Amir, sometimes making noise is beneficial. But in all cases, there must be a balance on how and in what ways we generate attention–again, it should be done thoughtfully with the interests and the wishes of both the volunteers and their families in mind. The recent media attention, based on inaccuracies and a statement in which the Foundation is named but had no part in, isn’t the way to do it. Feeding that narrative by connecting our own efforts to protect our volunteers to what is in many cases faulty and sensationalist reporting can cause more harm. In many instances we have recognized and spoken out against government interference in our projects. When volunteers face such situations due to their good faith contributions, the Wikimedia Foundation’s Human Rights Team https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Team can work to provide support via local partners that will meet the best interests of the individuals involved. Thank you again for everyone’s concern and attention to this situation.
Best regards, WMF Office/Trust and Safety
On Sun, Jan 8, 2023 at 12:41 AM Wikimedia Trust and Safety ca@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hello everyone,
We would like to thank you, Nanour, for the suggestion and apologize that the suggestion was necessary. We have now translated our message to the community into Arabic and posted a further update https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%88%D9%8A%D9%83%D9%8A%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%A7:%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%86/%D9%85%D9%86%D9%88%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%AA#Foundation_statement there, as we were made aware that much of the erroneous information spreading in the press and on social media is causing a lot of distress within our Arabic Wikipedia communities. Here is the updated text:
Our investigation and these bans are not connected to the arrest of these two users. The ban decision impacted 16 users, not all of whom were administrators, from Arabic and Farsi Wikipedia. As stated below, we have no reason to believe that these individuals are all residents of Saudi Arabia; on the contrary, this seems extremely unlikely. Further, we imagine you are all aware that editors are volunteers, not paid by the Foundation, and that the Foundation does not have offices or staff in Saudi Arabia.
While, as stated, the December office action is unrelated to the arrests of two Wikimedians in Saudi Arabia, the safety of Wikimedia volunteers always remains our utmost concern. We understand the desire to take action or speak out. Know that we need to act in the interests of any volunteer whose safety is under threat. As indicated in yesterday’s message, additional publicity around such cases can cause harm, as can speculation and misinformation. We are confident that everyone values the safety of their fellow volunteers and can understand the constraints this might create.
Best regards, WMF Office/Trust and Safety
On Fri, Jan 6, 2023 at 7:26 PM Wikimedia Trust and Safety < ca@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hello everyone,
Over the last couple of days, there have been several media reports about the Foundation’s most recent office action, taken on December 6 https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/thread/NJUOKYM2UTKFH53OKGIXW6OSEEDUI3AL/. More are certain to follow. These media reports are based on a release from SMEX and Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN) that contains many material inaccuracies. Some of the errors will be obvious to our community
- for perhaps the most obvious, the report states that the 16 users are all
based in Saudi Arabia . This is unlikely to be the case. While we do not know where these volunteers actually reside, the bans of any volunteers who may have been Saudi were part of a much broader action globally banning 16 editors across the MENA region. Indeed, many of them are not active in the Arabic language projects. These organizations did not share the statement with the Foundation, and “sources of knowledge” as cited in their release can get things wrong. In addition, we do not have staff in the country named and never have, contrary to a message put out by the same groups on social media.
As we noted in December in our statement, we are unable to discuss Foundation office actions in detail. The Foundation always lists accounts banned as a result of its investigations https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Global_Ban_Policy#List_of_global_bans_placed_by_the_Wikimedia_Foundation. It is our goal to be as transparent as we can be within essential protection policies, which is why we do not ban in secret, but instead disclose accounts impacted and (when large numbers are involved) have disclosed the rationale.
The roots of our December action stretch back over several years. We were initially contacted by outside experts who made us aware about concerns they had about Farsi Wikipedia. We can’t comment on that report right now, but it will be published by that organization soon. This report not only contributed to our August 23, 2021 modification of our non-disclosure agreement https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Confidentiality_agreement_for_nonpublic_information&diff=21925066&oldid=21609723 to make it harder for rights-holders to be coerced, but led to further evaluation of issues across MENA. The December bans were the culmination of those evaluations.
Wikimedia is, as mentioned above, an open knowledge platform, and it thrives on open participation. Investigations and global bans are not things that any of us take lightly, but the Foundation is committed to supporting the knowledge-sharing models that have created so many valuable information resources in hundreds of languages across the world. Our first line of defense of our Terms of Use https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities are our volunteers themselves. Where issues present a credible threat of harm to our users and to the security of Wikimedia platforms, we will do the best we can to protect both.
We trust and hope that our communities understand that misinformation about this action has the potential to cause harm to the individuals involved. We believe in the incredible value produced by our volunteers across the globe, but even so we recognize that being found in contravention of a website’s Terms of Use — even in a manner that organization finds serious enough to warrant a ban — is not the equivalent of being convicted of any crime. Accordingly, we ask you to please be conscious of the real people involved, in the spirit of our long established respect for living people on our sites https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Biographies_of_living_people. We realize that it is tempting to speculate, but we do ask you all to recall that people’s employment options, their relationships, and even their physical safety may be compromised by speculation.
If anyone feels unsafe on Wikimedia projects, please use the local community processes or contact us. The Foundation and community will work together or in parallel to enhance the safety of all volunteers. To contact the Trust & Safety team please email ca@wikimedia.org .
Best regards, WMF Office/Trust and Safety
Hi all,
It is a bit unfortunate that there is a palpable sense of resentment here on the part of the Wikimedia Foundation towards DAWN and SMEX.
As far as Osama's and Ziyad's best interests are concerned, I would suggest DAWN and SMEX's judgment should not be dismissed lightly. They have local expertise and indeed say they have conducted "interviews with sources close to Wikpedia and the imprisoned administrators".[1] I understand this to mean that they have spoken to Osama and Ziyad, or people close to them.
Sarah Leah Whitson, the Executive Director of DAWN, spent over 15 years in charge of Human Rights Watch's Middle East and North Africa division.[2] It's hard to think of someone more qualified to comment or advise on this matter.
Wouldn't it be better to work together on doing whatever can be done for Osama and Ziyad?
32 years in jail is a long, long time.
Also, the WMF posted a long statement on the Arabic Wikipedia that is worth reading.[3] I append a Google translation below for those interested.
Andreas
[1] https://dawnmena.org/saudi-arabia-government-agents-infiltrate-wikipedia-sen... [2] https://dawnmena.org/about/who-we-are-2/sarah-leah-whitson/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Leah_Whitson [3] https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%88%D9%8A%D9%83%D9%8A%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%AF%D9%...
Update from the Wikimedia Foundation
Hello all
We know the past few weeks have been difficult for the community. We also realize that this situation remains confusing and worrying in light of the media reports that have emerged. As an organization, we regret the distress and concern this situation has caused the community. While we know we can't answer all of your questions, we want to make sure you understand our processes and the rationale behind them. We also want to ensure that our actions are in the best interests of society to the best of our ability and with the tools available to us. As mentioned, the measures were not linked in any way to the recent media reports that are currently circulating, nor in any way to the arrests. The Foundation has learned of the arrest of Osama and Ziyad, and is actively following up on their conditions.
As we know that not everyone will have read all of the data, we would like to reiterate that the process of reaching the decision to take action in December 2022 was not easy or rushed. The investigation into violations of the Terms of Use took a long time starting with the Persian Wikipedia and moving on as new information emerged, and the final decision was guided by multiple levels of review by several employees across different functions. After consideration, it was unanimously agreed that the action is necessary to keep the community and platforms safe. Proper implementation of this measure was equally important in keeping the community and platforms safe, and thus adhering to established policies and procedures.
We realize that media reports and recent actions in December 2022 make many of you skeptical and perhaps even apprehensive about participating in the projects. We want you to know that the projects are owned by all of us, and most of all, that you are the creators and curators of the content. The Foundation rarely gets involved in issues of content or administration on the Site, in exceptionally problematic circumstances. No one should fear that the Foundation will take action on unintentional mistakes made while participating as bona fide editors.
As many of you already know, the Foundation fully supports community autonomy and the principle of subsidiarity as part of our commitment to respecting and promoting community autonomy. Not only do we feel this is the right approach to our shared values, but it is the only approach that can make these amazing projects work. To ensure we maintain this commitment, we do not deal with general community or community member disputes that might otherwise be addressed through existing community actions, nor act as a means of appealing community policies and decisions. If such situations arise, we look forward to working to help the community members who need help, but most of the time, this assistance will consist of guiding the community members to find the right community avenue that will solve their problem.
On some occasions, the Foundation considers cases of abuse. This only occurs when it has been brought to our attention that the local community lacks the necessary processes to effectively address the situation, or when the organization has a legal obligation as a platform provider to act in the interests of the safety of users and the platform. When we get involved, we are limited in the course of action we can take. Our procedures are guided by the Office's business policies, which allow us to issue global bans, event bans, issue warnings, interaction bans, and advanced permission removal. While this responsibility rests with us, we do not take our interventions lightly; These investigations take a lot of time and effort and require multiple staff members across different departments to ensure that we provide a comprehensive understanding of the matter before we take any action. For the size of our communities, we have issued very few centralized global bans. Collective global bans like the one we issued in December 2022 are only put in place in the most extraordinary circumstances, when the evidence strongly supports a serious threat to the organization's terms of use that all contributors must agree to abide by when editing projects.
Our December 6 office actions are the result of the Foundation's long-term and multiple investigations as part of our commitments as a platform provider. It was not related to the current circulating media reports. While there are still limits to what we can disclose in order to protect the safety and privacy of our users, we truly understand and sympathize with the fact that this continues to be an upsetting situation and would like you to know that we would not have taken this action if it was not necessary.
We also want to acknowledge that media reports have created great doubt in people's minds about the safety of participating in Wikimedia projects, due to their direct connection to the events of the arrests of volunteers. It is unfortunate that many organizations relied on incomplete facts and indirect sources in their coverage, which directly contradicts our principles. Regardless of the current situation, the Foundation is well aware that such risks exist globally, and we want our community members to be aware too - and work with us to take precautions to stay safe. Six months ago, the United Nations published an article describing the rise of disinformation as a "global disease".
In late May 2020, the Board included protecting projects and communities from "misinformation and bad actors" in its Statement on Community Culture. On August 23, 2021, we amended our Non-Disclosure Agreement to make it more difficult to coerce rights holders, by restricting access to certain high-risk areas to individuals who may be particularly vulnerable to threats, themselves and their families. We continue to work to secure the safety of those combating this "global disease" - disinformation - not just through office actions but in terms of proactively encouraging safe practices, as in our recent blog post on protecting online anonymity. This assessment by external experts has identified a number of areas to support our approach, the Board has issued a policy symbolizing our commitment to this improvement, and our Human Rights team continues to work to provide resources of information and support to users on the ground. We are also working on making additional digital security resources available to community members who feel unsafe online, which we will finalize soon.
We respect and realize that this action is a huge setback to the community and that is why we are open to providing the community with the support needed and what we can provide. If there is anything we can do to help the community during this time, please feel free to let us know via ca@wikimedia.org. As mentioned earlier, we are ready to provide you with the required support to the best of our ability.
Best Regards,
Wikimedia Foundation Office WMFOffice (talk) 09:09, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 1:50 PM Wikimedia Trust and Safety ca@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi all,
Following up on Gerard’s question here and providing a bit more context: the photo is publicly available, so while we don't have a concern with its existence on Commons, our guidance around publicity in such cases still stands. We understand that every government and every situation is unique. As has been pointed out by Amir, sometimes making noise is beneficial. But in all cases, there must be a balance on how and in what ways we generate attention–again, it should be done thoughtfully with the interests and the wishes of both the volunteers and their families in mind. The recent media attention, based on inaccuracies and a statement in which the Foundation is named but had no part in, isn’t the way to do it. Feeding that narrative by connecting our own efforts to protect our volunteers to what is in many cases faulty and sensationalist reporting can cause more harm. In many instances we have recognized and spoken out against government interference in our projects. When volunteers face such situations due to their good faith contributions, the Wikimedia Foundation’s Human Rights Team https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Team can work to provide support via local partners that will meet the best interests of the individuals involved. Thank you again for everyone’s concern and attention to this situation.
Best regards, WMF Office/Trust and Safety
On Sun, Jan 8, 2023 at 12:41 AM Wikimedia Trust and Safety < ca@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hello everyone,
We would like to thank you, Nanour, for the suggestion and apologize that the suggestion was necessary. We have now translated our message to the community into Arabic and posted a further update https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%88%D9%8A%D9%83%D9%8A%D8%A8%D9%8A%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%A7:%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%8A%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%86/%D9%85%D9%86%D9%88%D8%B9%D8%A7%D8%AA#Foundation_statement there, as we were made aware that much of the erroneous information spreading in the press and on social media is causing a lot of distress within our Arabic Wikipedia communities. Here is the updated text:
Our investigation and these bans are not connected to the arrest of these two users. The ban decision impacted 16 users, not all of whom were administrators, from Arabic and Farsi Wikipedia. As stated below, we have no reason to believe that these individuals are all residents of Saudi Arabia; on the contrary, this seems extremely unlikely. Further, we imagine you are all aware that editors are volunteers, not paid by the Foundation, and that the Foundation does not have offices or staff in Saudi Arabia.
While, as stated, the December office action is unrelated to the arrests of two Wikimedians in Saudi Arabia, the safety of Wikimedia volunteers always remains our utmost concern. We understand the desire to take action or speak out. Know that we need to act in the interests of any volunteer whose safety is under threat. As indicated in yesterday’s message, additional publicity around such cases can cause harm, as can speculation and misinformation. We are confident that everyone values the safety of their fellow volunteers and can understand the constraints this might create.
Best regards, WMF Office/Trust and Safety
On Fri, Jan 6, 2023 at 7:26 PM Wikimedia Trust and Safety < ca@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hello everyone,
Over the last couple of days, there have been several media reports about the Foundation’s most recent office action, taken on December 6 https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/thread/NJUOKYM2UTKFH53OKGIXW6OSEEDUI3AL/. More are certain to follow. These media reports are based on a release from SMEX and Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN) that contains many material inaccuracies. Some of the errors will be obvious to our community
- for perhaps the most obvious, the report states that the 16 users are all
based in Saudi Arabia . This is unlikely to be the case. While we do not know where these volunteers actually reside, the bans of any volunteers who may have been Saudi were part of a much broader action globally banning 16 editors across the MENA region. Indeed, many of them are not active in the Arabic language projects. These organizations did not share the statement with the Foundation, and “sources of knowledge” as cited in their release can get things wrong. In addition, we do not have staff in the country named and never have, contrary to a message put out by the same groups on social media.
As we noted in December in our statement, we are unable to discuss Foundation office actions in detail. The Foundation always lists accounts banned as a result of its investigations https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMF_Global_Ban_Policy#List_of_global_bans_placed_by_the_Wikimedia_Foundation. It is our goal to be as transparent as we can be within essential protection policies, which is why we do not ban in secret, but instead disclose accounts impacted and (when large numbers are involved) have disclosed the rationale.
The roots of our December action stretch back over several years. We were initially contacted by outside experts who made us aware about concerns they had about Farsi Wikipedia. We can’t comment on that report right now, but it will be published by that organization soon. This report not only contributed to our August 23, 2021 modification of our non-disclosure agreement https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Confidentiality_agreement_for_nonpublic_information&diff=21925066&oldid=21609723 to make it harder for rights-holders to be coerced, but led to further evaluation of issues across MENA. The December bans were the culmination of those evaluations.
Wikimedia is, as mentioned above, an open knowledge platform, and it thrives on open participation. Investigations and global bans are not things that any of us take lightly, but the Foundation is committed to supporting the knowledge-sharing models that have created so many valuable information resources in hundreds of languages across the world. Our first line of defense of our Terms of Use https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities are our volunteers themselves. Where issues present a credible threat of harm to our users and to the security of Wikimedia platforms, we will do the best we can to protect both.
We trust and hope that our communities understand that misinformation about this action has the potential to cause harm to the individuals involved. We believe in the incredible value produced by our volunteers across the globe, but even so we recognize that being found in contravention of a website’s Terms of Use — even in a manner that organization finds serious enough to warrant a ban — is not the equivalent of being convicted of any crime. Accordingly, we ask you to please be conscious of the real people involved, in the spirit of our long established respect for living people on our sites https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Resolution:Biographies_of_living_people. We realize that it is tempting to speculate, but we do ask you all to recall that people’s employment options, their relationships, and even their physical safety may be compromised by speculation.
If anyone feels unsafe on Wikimedia projects, please use the local community processes or contact us. The Foundation and community will work together or in parallel to enhance the safety of all volunteers. To contact the Trust & Safety team please email ca@wikimedia.org .
Best regards, WMF Office/Trust and Safety
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/... To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-leave@lists.wikimedia.org
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org