[Wikimedia-l] Re: Recent press around December Office Action

[Andreas Kolbe]

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-sentence-independent-wikipedia-administrators-to-prison/
[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/ويكيبيديا:الميدان/منوعات#تحديث_من_مؤسسة_ويكيميديا

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 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Recent press around December Office Action

[Wikimedia Trust and Safety]

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
 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 
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
> 
> 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 <
> c...@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
>> .
>> 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
>> .
>> It is our goal to be as transparent as we can be within essential
>> protection policies, which is 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Recent press around December Office Action

[Strainu]

Pe duminică, 8 ianuarie 2023, Amir Sarabadani  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
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list -- wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
Public archives at 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/4QLXGY3FLLJR5YSSNE4XTWV6DFTIHCG6/
To unsubscribe send an email to wikimedia-l-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Recent press around December Office Action

[Amir Sarabadani]

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 :

> 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  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 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
>> .
>> 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 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Recent press around December Office Action

[The Cunctator]

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  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 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
> .
> 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
> :
> “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
> 
> as a scare tactic, tries to interfere with Scotish indepence referendum
> ,
> or makes 92 fake news websites in US
> 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Recent press around December Office Action

[Amir Sarabadani]

(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 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
.
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
:
“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

as a scare tactic, tries to interfere with Scotish indepence referendum
,
or makes 92 fake news websites in US
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

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Recent press around December Office Action

[Gerard Meijssen]

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  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 <
> c...@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
>> 
>> 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 <
>> c...@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
>>> .
>>> 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
>>> .
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> 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

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Recent press around December Office Action

[Andreas Kolbe]

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 
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
> 
> 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 <
> c...@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
>> .
>> 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
>> .
>> 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
>> 
>> 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 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Recent press around December Office Action

[Wikimedia Trust and Safety]

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

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 
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
> .
> 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
> .
> 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
> 
> 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
> 
> 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 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Recent press around December Office Action

[F. Xavier Dengra i Grau via Wikimedia-l]

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=t2bs5SCVNy7WjqGXdHVl0g

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  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-sentence-independent-wikipedia-administrators-to-prison/
> [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/صالح](https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec-rightschanges/ar.wikipedia.org/%D8%B5%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD)
> [7] https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec-rightschanges/ar.wikipedia.org/جار%20الله
> [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 
>  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  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 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Recent press around December Office Action

[Andreas Kolbe]

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-sentence-independent-wikipedia-administrators-to-prison/
[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/صالح
[7] https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec-rightschanges/ar.wikipedia.org/جار%20الله
[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.w...@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  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-years-after-alleged-saudi-spy-infiltration/
>>
>> 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 <
>> c...@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
>>> .
>>> More are certain to follow. These media reports are 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Recent press around December Office Action

[Nanour Garabedian]

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  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-years-after-alleged-saudi-spy-infiltration/
>
> 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 <
> c...@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
>> .
>> 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
>> .
>> 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
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>> 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, 

[Wikimedia-l] Re: Recent press around December Office Action

[Nathan]

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-years-after-alleged-saudi-spy-infiltration/

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 
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
> .
> 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
> .
> 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
> 
> 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
> 
> 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