Jump to content

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-09-26/Opinion

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Signpost
← Back to Contents
View Latest Issue


Opinion

Wikimedians of Mainland China were warned

Contribute   —  
Share this
By 1233 and Deryck Chan
The authors are long time members of the Hong Kong editing community. Their views are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of other Wikipedians or groups of Wikipedians or of The Signpost.

This month the Wikimedia Foundation took swift action in banning multiple editors to protect other editors on the Chinese Wikipedia, zh.wiki.[1] The 2-step move was unprecedented. First the WMF protected editors' privacy by removing all data access which required non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) in both Farsi and Chinese Wikipedias. This move affected a steward, some Volunteer Response Team (formerly OTRS) personnel, and oversighters on both language versions. Some editors criticized the foundation's action, but within two weeks of the WMF's removal of such "NDA only access", a more drastic step was taken. Seven users were globally locked, 12 users had their administrator rights removed, and another 12 were warned.[2] The scale of the bans and the unprecedented nature of the 2-step action makes it impossible to call this another Fram Case. When such action against the Wikipedians of Mainland China (WMC), an unrecognized user group, was executed, some members of the zh.wiki community supported the ban and even proposed more drastic measures, though at least one of them has already been denied through a community process.

After the foundation's actions, the WMC claimed the actions were a blatant attack by the foundation colluding with outside authorities. The WMC published a letter to encourage fellow Wikimedians to leave Wikipedia. They even addressed the public through a Chinese tabloid (Global Times), controlled by the communist party, against the "atrocious" act by the foundation.

Some WMC concerns will still need to be addressed. But, when the authors read the WMC's joint statement ("Open letter" posted on their website), it shows that they are still attempting to spread disinformation, still spreading false information against members of the zh.wiki community.

WMC protests mostly concern two aspects of the action – the "no notice" nature of their ban and the bitter fact that they were banned even though they were considered to be in good standing at the time of the ban. Thus, we address the questions: Were they warned, and were they in good standing?

The WMC knew of the possibility of quick bans during the Framgate incident. One of the now-banned users, Techyan, made a lengthy comment at the time.[3] It involved two foundation-bans against two individuals (守望者愛孟 and Galaxyharrylion), with a third person receiving a warning. Techyan omitted mentioning one more foundation action (that seemed to be directed at the WMC), an outright removal of CheckUser permissions from the Chinese Wikipedia in 2018.[4]

The two bans and the conduct warning were directed against individuals who were connected to WMC.

Techyan said that one of the users was in good standing, and received no warnings nor bans in the Chinese Wikipedia. But why? Because individuals connected to the Chinese User Group had been blocking any process to address their own issues from outsiders. In fact, previous deadlocks stemming from the removal of the CheckUser permission was done at a time when Techyan, a now-banned user, tried running for CheckUser position. However, within a month of his run, another desysop poll took place to address Techyan's own controversial acts that he had never explained until the vote. Even with voting, canvassing seems to have completely derailed any attempts of making Techyan accountable, as shown from this voter statistics table.[5]

Why are people afraid to stand up against these tactics?

User:1233, the main author of this article, tried to initiate discussions to bring administrators in check through a motion saying that Techyan had abused his administrator powers in blocking/unblocking users.[6] 1233 also tried placing a meta Request for Comment for the ongoing issues within the Chinese Wikipedia. What happened after that? WMC users started labeling 1233 as both “pro-Hong Kong independence” – making him an easy target for mainland editors – and saying that he “has malign intentions to hamper the development of the WIkimedia community in mainland China". Techyan never properly addressed the concerns in the two desysop attempts, evading all attempts to make him accountable for over 180 days.[7]

Even with a warning the foundation placed against the individual and the subsequent calls by local users to conform to civility, at least two users got banned in this round of foundation actions who had very uncivil user pages.

Walter Grassroot, who was introduced to readers of The Signpost through the 2019 protests and recent threats against Hong Kong users, had written, on their user page that people having different opinions from him were shabi (傻逼) – roughly, "backbiting idiots". Other similar terms on his page (白癡／弱智) refer to supposed mental deficiencies in an editor in good standing who did not agree with Walter Grassroot.[8]

Another user, 尤里的1994, had openly called himself a "fascist, nazi, and Nazbol Wikipedian" in zh.wiki. The user page was nominated for deletion, but a snowball keep made the deletion attempt impossible. Have they been warned? Definitely, serious attempts were made on-wiki. Those who were merely desysopped or warned in the latest round of bans, had given them at least tacit support by disregarding these attempts to warn those who violate our rules on civility.[9]

Perhaps the foundation never warned them directly – we don't really know – but it was the banned, desysopped, and newly warned editors who disregarded local attempts to remind them of their civility violations. Their harsh rebuttals and name-calling made attempts to enforce civility rules impossible. After the foundation ban, we suspect that they have publicly doxxed and shamed a specific user through external media, calling them anti-Chinese and a supporter of Taiwan Independence who betrays China and the Chinese people as a whole (漢奸). Bitter replies against their ongoing calls for civility, are added to ultra-nationalist rhetoric, where outsiders call their efforts "Chi-nazi-fication".[10]

Attempts had been made both on-wiki and off-wiki to correct the problems of some mainland editors.[11] Other parties hope to take note of concerns from Hong Kong and Taiwanese communities. Did that work? No. It did not.[12] These malign actors had effectively paralyzed any attempts to resolve civility problems and place the whole community into gridlock.

After the office actions there was an overwhelming majority of users on zh.wiki voting to remove any links to websites controlled by the WMC user group. This is proof that the WMC user group hijacked the community at large, and demonstrates the idea of "community capture", used in the foundation's open letter explaining the office actions.

So, the question is: were they really in good standing according to Wikipedia standards? The answer is no. Were they warned, or at least, reminded of their actions? The answer is yes.

This explains why the foundation calls this a "community capture". It is not the community being controlled by someone or captured by a party purely based on political means, but it is the outright disregard of civility by a small group of users that placed the Chinese Wikipedia in a deadlock, which rendered local attempts to resolve disputes impossible.

Are they really that innocent? Even after the WMF bans, WMC public statements sought not to address the harassment that led to WMF action, but rather had the audacity to critique that the WMF "never considered whether the appellants had conflicts of interest and whether they held radical pro-Hong Kong independence, pro-Taiwan independence, or anti-communist views",[13] and that WMF "acted like a propaganda organ of Washington".[13] It is clear those in charge of WMC are not here to build a global knowledge movement but to impose the Chinese Communist Party's ideology of information warfare onto Wikimedia. This runs counter to WMF's Terms of Use, the Friendly Space Policy, the Universal Code of Conduct, and just about every policy that the Wikimedia movement has to regulate participant's behaviour and the WMF is absolutely right to ban any editor propagating such intolerance.

For too long, Wikimedians have turned a blind eye to the misdeeds of ultra-nationalist editors in the hope for widened participation from behind the Great Firewall of China. This has unfortunately been turned into complicity with authoritarian abuse. Wikimedia Foundation's recent actions are a step in the right direction: a red line must be drawn, open knowledge must be a two-way conversation, and we will need continued vigilance from the global Wikimedia community to ensure all editors can participate safely regardless of creed, ethnicity, or nationality.

References

  1. ^ Office Actions September 2021
  2. ^ https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/message/6ANVSSZWOGH27OXAIN2XMJ2X7NWRVURF/
  3. ^ Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram/Archive 2#Two similar bans & one "conduct warning" on Chinese Wikipedia
  4. ^ Notification of Wikimedia Foundation actions regarding local CheckUser
  5. ^ w:zh:User:AT/Techyan罷免案統計 (table); OA2021 WMC response
  6. ^ First serious attempt to remove Techyan’s Administrator Tag
  7. ^ w:zh:Wikipedia:管理員解任投票/Techyan/第3次
  8. ^ The last version of WG's user page before the ban: w:zh:Special:Permalink/63696705
  9. ^ Last version of 1994's user page before the ban: w:zh:Special:Permalink/67304211
  10. ^ The content of this doxxing is in the Weibo Public Accounts. It consists of content that would violate the Terms of Use if placed on Wikipedia with regards to doxxing.
  11. ^ m:Requests_for_comment/Ongoing_issues_at_Chinese_Wikipedia
  12. ^ https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/thread/ED4Y2QYIQ2LN5UIGOSHZN5QEA2U75HDI/
  13. ^ a b w:zh:Wikipedia:2021年基金會針對中文維基百科的行動/中國大陸維基人用戶組聲明#丢掉幻想，准备斗争——一评基金会全域锁定中文维基人及玛吉·丹尼斯的“声明” (The WMC struggle). The English version of this article is cached in an online website run by one user who is banned by the WMF.
    [a] 基金會絲毫不考慮在背後舉報和遞交所謂證據的人跟WMC是否存在利益衝突，他們的政治思想是否極端「港獨」「台獨」「反共」，以至於存在需要打壓在政策上政治中立，但編者隊伍實際偏向支持北京的WMC的動機。
    [a] 基金会丝毫不考虑在背后举报和递交所谓证据的人跟WMC是否存在利益冲突，他们的政治思想是否极端「港独」「台独」「反共」，以至于存在需要打压在政策上政治中立，但编者队伍实际偏向支持北京的WMC的动机。

    [b] 在我們看來，「維基媒體基金會」在這件事上，倒更像是聽從華盛頓當局的政治喉舌。我們不得不懷疑：未來涉及美國、歐洲、港台及世界其他地方的一些華盛頓當局不喜歡的條目、內容及觀點會不會漸漸消失，不附會其利益，而被「維基媒體基金會」和美國政府視為眼中釘肉中刺的編者會不會逐漸被排擠打壓——那不如還是改名叫「美國國務院百科」甚至「美國大百科全書」、「反華百科全書」比較好。
    [b] 在我们看来，「维基媒体基金会」在这件事上，倒更像是听从华盛顿当局的政治喉舌。我们不得不怀疑：未来涉及美国、欧洲、港台及世界其他地方的一些华盛顿当局不喜欢的条目、内容及观点会不会渐渐消失，不附会其利益，而被「维基媒体基金会」和美国政府视为眼中钉肉中刺的编者会不会逐渐被排挤打压——那不如还是改名叫「美国国务院百科」甚至「美国大百科全书」、「反华百科全书」比较好。
← Previous "Opinion"
Next "Opinion" →
+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

These comments are automatically transcluded from this article's talk page. To follow comments, add the page to your watchlist. If your comment has not appeared here, you can try purging the cache.
  • Don't get me wrong, Nazis should not be welcome in Wikimedia, but a community choosing not to make an editor delete their userpage (no matter how offense, so long as not illegal) is not something that has me up in arms—we take a fairly strict view on userspace, but other communities may have reason to allow almost anything. (Better to keep the userpage as evidence and block the editor.) So, what is the actual effect the WMC or "Chi-nazi-fication" is having on the Chinese encyclopedia (mainspace)? Are we talking Holocaust denial, or false statistics about deaths under Maoist China, or a more amorphous bias towards the modern Chinese government? Other than some un/blocking abuse that could create bias (but not necessarily misinformation), I'm just not seeing what part of this article relates in any way to the claim: It is clear those in charge of WMC are not here to build a global knowledge movement but to impose the Chinese Communist Party's ideology of information warfare onto Wikimedia. — Bilorv (talk) 23:21, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • If someone is claiming to be a Nazi and that people with opposing opinions should be gotten rid of, that is not someone conducive to building Wikipedia. SilverserenC 01:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quite apart from the Nazi userpage, reading the WMC's official statement in response to the Office actions is not encouraging. It begins and ends with Maoist slogans, is written exactly like CCP's foreign office statements, and the English translation, probably deliberately, leaves out the statement that the actions are the job of "white leftists" (白左, "Baizuo") which is there in the Chinese-language version. The fact that they ran an article on pro-CCP state media does not help matters, nor does the fact that they keep calling the WMF an arm of the US Government in a wildly malicious statement they made later (it's in Chinese, I used Chrome's Google translation). Apparently they can call the WMF an arm of the US Government all they like, but they themselves must not be called pro-CCP. (Cannot provide links as they are blacklisted, but all three pages - the original Chinese-language statement, the English translation, and the later statement - are available on their quiwen dot wmcug dot org dot cn website, and also saved on Internet Archive). W. Tell DCCXLVI t | c 06:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's interesting that the author of this essay claims that the dispute over at zhwiki was a dispute over incivility/pov-pushing/onwiki conduct. While I'm not active on zhwiki nor do I have any first hand experience with it, the WMF's statements on the matter led me in the direction of thinking that this banned group of editors were doxxing/outing Chinese editors to the central government for offwiki punishment. Hence the removal of CUs a while ago and access to non public information more recently with the claim "we know that some users have been physically harmed". The allegations in this op-ed, while concerning, appear to be far less serious than the accusations made by the WMF. Some guy posting about being a Nazi on his userpage is far less of an issue in my opinion than someone who collaborates with the Chinese government to bring physical harm to editors as a result of their actions on Wikipedia. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 01:08, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think OP would have direct information on what the CUs were doing and why the WMF took the action it did. And I think they're just using examples of the off-wiki Canvassing to try and control and silence the community. SilverserenC 01:34, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Some clarification: local CheckUsers had their right removed on 31 March 2018 due to an investigation on the CU data leak years ago. Definitely not this issue but it clearly states that something is going very wrong within the Chinese community. Well I tried fixing so but in no avail.—1233 ( T / C） 19:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The authors clearly state they only comment on "two aspects of the action". side stepping the decision of WMF all together as far as I can see. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well I'm just commenting on what they concern, but it seems that they way how they expressed so matched what Hong Kong editors fear - ultra-nationalists disregarding civility effectively controls the group. If you ask what I personally feel, feel free to look back on the mail exchanges days after the foundation action at the wikimedia-l mailing list.--1233 ( T / C） 05:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disappointed that the article doesn't mention that a number of the banned are not in mainland China and not pro-China. Some of them are in Hong Kong and Taiwan, and some of them are in non-Chinese-speaking countries, even with citizenships of those countries. It's been years that the Hong Kong and Taiwan people are trying to report Chinese user they hate, and they win this time, using the name of privacy. But they actually do not care about privacy at all. A great number of Wikipedians are investigated and publicly shamed on their websites, but no one cares. Privacy is a joke, since the Hong Kong users remove the content involving personal attack and privacy breach and photos from their website after it was reported to the CA, pretending nothing has happened (in the webpage, even banning has not happened). Stereotyping the group with some "evil" characters is apparently an effective work here and I applaud to these users for their years' efforts. Thanks for purifying the community with your hard work! It is of course a pity that the Chinese government does not share certain universal values, but it is also a pity to always associate government support or propaganda with the issue. When spontaneous behaviour is always doubted, everything will be "intentional" and looks like a conspiracy until it becomes a conspiracy. --HNlander (talk) 00:50, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Only one banned user is from Hong Kong (according to the declaration on the user page before the office action). All other banned users are from mainland China. The desysopped users are not necessarily related to the group but might be supported by the group (with socking) during the RfA without having the nominee known... in my opinion, that's why they are desysopped but not banned, and can be elected through RfA again in the future. For the Reddit link, it's not related to Wikimedia, Hong Kong and Taiwanese users do not report users simply because they hate, but violating laws. We appreciate Chinese users participating in building the Wikiverse, but without disrupting the communities. Hong Kong netizens are sometimes hostile to mainland Chinese because of the 50 Cent Party but are friendly to people who debate peacefully with evidence. Reporting is often only the final way to cease them from promoting propaganda, and it's because of their violation of laws. The Encyclopedia of Virtual Communities in Hong Kong on Wikia is non-related to Hong Kong users on Wikipedia. Although some of the users have accounts on both sites, it is still separate. There are also some pages that are promoting hatred to users on Chinese Wikipedia including pro-democracy ones. And it cannot represent the Hong Kong community and it's just a wiki about Hong Kong. Everyone can register an account and start editing there. Sun8908 Talk 10:19, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        In fact, you are using the same tactic that the mainland users are defending their fellows' speech about reporting, that is, claiming it to be the last resort. However, you can never know who is reporting and who is not. It is a good imagination of community that the community will "only" do sometimes, regardless of the individual difference. However, you confirm to me and the community that the Hong Kong and Taiwan users are reporting Chinese users as their last resort, which is a real threat. Surely, I feel threatened when privacy is collected and handled by the off-site Wiki, only to publicly shame users on Wikipedia, whether pro-democracy or not, for such a long time. I don't see any evidence that those people, whether pro-democratic or not, are hired by the Chinese government, yet they are still hated so. So, the hatred is non-related to the Chinese government at all. It is even hardly believable that such detailed content on the off-site Wiki is not written by anyone on Chinese Wikipedia. Even if it is not a representation of Hong Kong users, they are threatening the community with public shaming. --HNlander (talk) 12:45, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        What I meant by "reporting" is reporting commentators outside the Wikiverse, or reporting users to AN/WMF. Reporting the real identity of wiki users because they edit poorly is always not appreciated. Without evidence, I cannot confirm if anyone would have reported users to somewhere. There are a huge number of people who hate some users on zh.wiki without engaging in the community for a long time. There is no way that you can avoid all the potential threats. Wiki is publicly available, users should be doing their best to protect their privacy. It is impossible to keep eye on all the people around the world to have threatened Wiki users or not. Why the users are banned is that there is non-public evidence. They might have done a lot of things that violate the policies. (I was a bit off-topic. I was not saying the users on Wikipedia are 50 Cent Party, but the commentators outside the Wikiverse.) Sun8908 Talk 14:31, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        This is interesting as the Reddit post you claim to have read is about teaching people how to report Chinese netizens to the Chinese government. You also admit that they are "potential threats" which means that you acknowledge that they could be a real threat in the end, which is exactly how people attach those chatting about this on QQ or elsewhere. It is even more weird that you first claim that "Hong Kong netizens are sometimes hostile to mainland Chinese because of the 50 Cent Party", and then when we talk about those Wikipedians hated by Hong Kong netizens, you said they are not the 50 Cent Part, so I now just don't understand why they are hated. Also, thank you for pointing out that they are hated, no matter whether they are pro-democracy or not, so this is not just about political propaganda. Anyway, the real issue here is how the off-site infiltration has disrupted the local rules, which should clearly apply to both sides fairly. Deletion of the content or any other forms of cover-up will not prove these users to have done nothing to threat or publicly shame the mainland users. --HNlander (talk) 21:40, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is an unclosed quote in the paragraph immediately following the subheading ("has malign intentions...") and I don't know where it ends. Can someone fix that? I'm not sure what the italics there is supposed to denote either.
    On a more dire note, I'm not clear on why "an overwhelming majority of users on zh.wiki voting to remove any links to websites controlled by the WMC user group" is "proof that the WMC user group hijacked the community at large". If there are links to websites controlled by you on the wiki, why would you want them removed? Something must be missing in the paragraph. Nardog (talk) 08:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed the unclosed quote. This was done due to the short time of copyediting and publishing time. At the same time, '' and " are similar. For the second question: why the vote can now work now? Because WMC members are suddenly told their leadership is as rot as a rotten apple. And here means links to webpages controlled by the user group which its founders and core members are banned and warned, not normal ordinary members who were neither warned nor banned.--1233 ( T / C） 12:25, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the fix. Oh, so you're saying a vote to remove the links was held prior to the office action and it was unsuccessful, and the one held after the action was successful? So the community was hijacked by the WMC user group, and it no longer is? Nardog (talk) 12:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Explaining what happened here: there wasn't a vote to remove the links before the action. However, after the office action, because of how the user group and its friendly users act, a vote happened to remove all such links from being used in the zhwp. Similar issues of personal attacks not removed can be seen in user pages where users (even including me) was reluctant to remove policy-violating userpages because of the pressure from the WMC side.--1233 ( T / C） 09:13, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Signpost is written by editors like you – join in!
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2021-09-26/Opinion&oldid=1193880223"