维基百科:2021年基金會針對中文維基百科的行動/維基媒體基金會聲明

維基媒體基金會聲明

在基金會開始行動的同時，維基媒體基金會法務部門屬下社群穩定及發展組的副主席瑪姬·丹尼斯（Maggie Dennis，即User:Mdennis (WMF)）在元維基以及維基媒體郵件列表（Wikimedia-l）中發表有關一系列基金會行動的聲明，中文翻譯如下（內容複製自meta:Office actions/September 2021 statement/zh）：

“ 各位好，

我是維基媒體基金會法務部門的副總瑪姬·丹尼斯（Maggie Dennis），目前專門負責社群穩定及發展（Community Resilience & Sustainability）。此信是為了要向大家說明為了保護全球社群，維基媒體基金會採取的一系列行動。

在此先向各位致歉——這封信內容非常長，且部分內容較為含糊。本信所述之大量議題相當複雜，我會儘量簡單總結其中對大家來說可能較不熟悉的資訊。在條件允許的情況下，我會儘量回覆相關問題，在數個星期之後我們的部門將會舉辦公聽會，到時我們可以更深入的討論本案相關議題。具體時間和詳細訊息會於跟工作人員協調好之後，盡快公告於Wikimedia-L和元維基。

也許您們之中許多人已經注意到，最近維基媒體基金會修改了保密協議（Non-disclosure agreements，NDA）政策。在元維基上已經有針對這些政策改變的討論，我不會在此信中複述相關討論內容。簡而言之，基于潜在威脅的可信資訊，維基媒體基金會改變了個人接受保密協議的相關方針。这些安全威脅是有关于對維基媒體的滲透（infiltration）的資訊，包括对能够接触個人身份資訊以及当選的有影響力人物的职务的威脅。由于担心可能触发我们被警告的相關風險，我們無法預告我們此次的行動——即便是對我們所信任的社群成員（如監管員等）我們也不得不保密。我們立即限制了可能受影響的人士對此類工具的使用權限，並正在與相關用戶積極溝通，以核實他們是否確切受到危险。

我想要在此強調我們無意指责因此政策改变而權限受到限制之用戶有任何不良企圖。上述的渗透有多種渠道。我們既发现有用戶為了取得相關權力來刻意试图融入社群——然而他們的最終目的與維基媒體基金會開放知識之目標相左。同時我們也注意到部分受信任的社群成員，可能已成為外部團體利用和伤害的危险目標。这项政策主要為了解決后者，減少相關成員被招募或脅迫的可能性。除了这项政策改变中被除權的用戶能获得的個人資訊可能被洩露之外，我們相信这些用户中的部分也可能面臨危险。

本日，維基媒體基金會已经推出第二阶段的方案著手處理關於滲透的顧慮。我們在兩大受到影響的轄區之一內採取行動。在深入調查未獲認可的組織「中國大陸維基人（用戶組）」（Wikimedians of Mainland China，以下簡稱WMC）部分成員之相關行為後，我們決定全域禁制7位用戶，並將12位管理人員除權。同時，我們向部分編輯者告知了拉票以及人肉搜索的相關政策，要求他們改变行為。

通常來說，維基媒體基金會不會對於自身之行動做過多的解釋，但此次破例是因为此次受影響範圍之大前所未見。為了保護在特定國家，及未受認可之用戶組的用戶之隱私及安全，我們無法透露過多訊息。我承认這些行動实属激進，然而此決議并非轻易。我們並不想要打擊及摧毀那些積極為開放知識奮鬥的诚信的包含WMC成員的中國編輯者的努力。我們不希望他們擔憂他們的貢獻會不受歡迎。可是，我們也不能在明知他們的安全可能遭受威脅的前提下，放任他們暴露在危險之中，而不採取任何保護措施。

在此之前，我們已經限制了對中國大陸地區用戶的個人資訊存取，我們知悉到上述的威脅存在於我們的專案之中。我們了解到已有用戶因此受到人身傷害。在確認案件真實性後，我們不得不立即採取相應措施。

在我的維基生涯裡面，此次的事件是一場挑戰，同時是一場勝利——維基百科已從一個受怀疑的非主流網站變成了全球高度信任普遍仰仗的網路百科。我在2007年第一次編輯專案時，就覺得維基媒體有成為世界最偉大的成就之潛力：大众的知识唾手可得。這是全體編輯者偉大的善舉。但是我在我开始編輯之后很快地意識到在如何呈现資訊上的角力之激烈，且有人利用该争端來達成其目的。在此，我並不是要說我有先见之明——我相信有許多維基成員在我之前早就意識到了相應的風險。我相信當今天的維基媒體專案備受信任，而外部勢力控制維基媒體資訊對他們能帶來前所未有的好處的时候，我們面臨的風險之大也是前所未有的。

「掌控」社群的威脅是實質存在的。數年來，維基媒體基金會一直知道克羅埃西亞語維基百科（Croatian Wikipedia）有面臨相關的挑戰——當中的相關檔案可以追溯至近十年前。維基媒體基金會近期設置了打擊虛假訊息團隊，他們在評估相關風險、尋找適當的方式、並已聘僱外部研究人員來審查專案的相關資料，以幫助我們更好地理解在面臨相似情況時可以使用怎樣的解決方案，以及該情境的起因。最近，我們也成立了人權團隊，專門處理这些因有组织的控制訊息的尝试而造成的緊急人權威脅。我們今天所處理的案件展示了作為一個全球媒體活動，我們多么需要積極地處理面對的威脅，既要保证任何人在任何地方都可以编辑，又要保證这些人免受想让他们噤声的人的伤害。

關於除權，我們希望可以於可見的未來跟國際中文社群作近一步的溝通，探討我們對於選舉制度的計劃，以避免相關的維基媒體基金會專案被不合理的控制，並確保人们可以感觉安全并确实安全地編輯維基百科。我們需要確保我們的社群可以舉辦公正的選舉——沒有拉票或欺詐的行為。同時，我們希望對於選舉制度的改變可以幫助我們恢復（中文維基百科之）使用者查核員（CheckUser）權限。

在本信的結尾，我想要对你们当中被驚擾到人被表達我最真摯的歉意。这些人无疑包括那些擔心個人資訊是否已被洩漏的（我們並不認為有這樣的問題。我們已經及時採取行動避免了此事。）以及那些擔心更多此類的維基媒體基金會行動可能影響他們正常編輯和他们的社区的用戶（我們認為我們目前的行動已經在中短期遏止了相關的風險）。我對於受到相關威脅的社群表示抱歉。維基媒體基金會將繼續加強建設，以支持所有需要我們支持的社群，我們也仍然在學習如何能做得更好。同時，我們將繼續改进我們在这两方面的認知：我们在人權領域的影响以及我們解决相關挑戰的能力。您們值得有更好的服務——我們無法馬上解決所有的問題，但我們將积极努力专注地提升改進。

在此，我想要對在全球活躍貢獻的为五洲四海的读者服务的四千多名中文維基人表達歉意和遗憾。我向你們保證，我們將會做得更好。您們向在世界各地的中文維基讀者分享知識是非常有意義的善舉——我們保證會持續支持您們的付出，為您們提供所需工具，使您們在一个安全、有效的环境心想事成。

在此重申，我會在法務團隊及其他相關團隊的幫助下，盡力回答你們的問題。我們會在元維基上設立一個專頁，以討論此系列的行動，並於幾週之後，我會主持公聽會，讓我們能更深入的討論本案相關議題。

致以最誠摯的問候， Maggie Dennis (WMF)（留言） 2021年9月13日 (一) 16:13 (UTC) 瑪姬

---

”

英文原文（內容複製自m:Office actions/September 2021 statement）

“

Hello everyone,

I’m Maggie Dennis, the Wikimedia Foundation’s Vice President of Community Resilience & Sustainability. I’m reaching out to you today to talk about a series of actions the Foundation has recently taken to protect communities across the globe.

I apologize in advance for the length and the ambiguity in certain areas. These are complicated issues, and I will try to summarize a lot of what may be unfamiliar information to some of you succinctly. I will answer questions to the best of my ability within safety parameters, and I will be hosting an office hour in a few weeks where I can discuss these issues in more depth. We’re currently getting that set up in regards to availability of support staff and will announce it on Wikimedia-L and Meta as soon as that information is prepared.

Many of you are already aware of recent changes that the Foundation has made to its NDA policy. These changes have been discussed on Meta, and I won’t reiterate all of our disclosures there, but I will briefly summarize that due to credible information of threat, the Foundation has modified its approach to accepting “non-disclosure agreements” from individuals. The security risk relates to information about infiltration of Wikimedia systems, including positions with access to personally identifiable information and elected bodies of influence. We could not pre-announce this action, even to our most trusted community partner groups (like the stewards), without fear of triggering the risk to which we’d been alerted. We restricted access to these tools immediately in the jurisdictions of concern, while working with impacted users to determine if the risk applied to them.

I want to pause to emphasize that we do not mean to accuse any specific individual whose access was restricted by that policy change of bad intent. Infiltration can occur through multiple mechanisms. What we have seen in our own movement includes not only people deliberately seeking to ingratiate themselves with their communities in order to obtain access and advance an agenda contrary to open knowledge goals, but also individuals who have become vulnerable to exploitation and harm by external groups because they are already trusted insiders. This policy primarily served to address the latter risk, to reduce the likelihood of recruitment or (worse) extortion. We believe that some of the individuals impacted by this policy change were also themselves in danger, not only the people whose personal information they could have been forced to access.

Today, the Foundation has rolled out a second phase of addressing infiltration concerns, which has resulted in sweeping actions in one of the two currently affected jurisdictions. We have banned seven users and desysopped a further 12 as a result of long and deep investigations into activities around some members of the unrecognized group Wikimedians of Mainland China. We have also reached out to a number of other editors with explanations around canvassing guidelines and doxing policies and requests to modify their behaviors.

When it comes to office actions, the Wikimedia Foundation typically defaults to little public communication, but this case is unprecedented in scope and nature. While there remain limits to what we can reveal in order to protect the safety and privacy of users in that country and in that unrecognized group, I want to acknowledge that this action is a radical one and that this decision was not easily made. We struggled with not wanting to discourage and destroy the efforts of good faith users in China who have worked so hard to fight for free and open knowledge, including some of those involved in this group. We do not want them to fear that their contributions are unwelcome. We also could not risk exposing them to danger by doing nothing to protect them after we became aware of credible threats to their safety.

While some time ago we limited the exposure of personal information to users in mainland China, we know that there has been the kind of infiltration we describe above in the project. And we know that some users have been physically harmed as a result. With this confirmed, we have no choice but to act swiftly and appropriately in response.

I take it as both a triumph and a challenge that in the years of my own involvement I have seen Wikimedia go from a suspect non-mainstream website to a highly trusted and widely relied upon source across the world. When I first started editing the projects in about 2007, I already believed Wikimedia had the capacity to be one of the greatest achievements of the world — collective knowledge, at your fingertips. What an amazing gesture of goodwill on the part of all of its many editors. It didn’t take me long after I started editing to realize how entrenched the battles could be over how to present information and how that can be exploited to achieve specific ends. I’m not trying to suggest that I was astonishingly prescient; I think there were many who realized that risk long before I stumbled naively on the scene. I do think that the risk is greater than ever now, when Wikimedia projects are widely trusted, and when the stakes are so high for organized efforts to control the information they share.

Community “capture” is a real and present threat. For years, the movement has been widely aware of challenges in the Croatian Wikipedia, with documentation going back nearly a decade. The Foundation recently set up a disinformation team, which is still finding its footing and assessing the problem, but which began by contracting an external researcher to review that project and the challenges and help us understand potential causes and solutions for such situations. We have also recently staffed a human rights team to deal with urgent threats to the human rights of communities across the group as a result of such organized efforts to control information. The situation we are dealing with today has shown me how much we need as a movement to grapple with the hard questions of how we remain open to editing by anyone, anywhere, while ensuring that individuals who take us up on that offer are not harmed by those who want to silence them.

With respect to the desysopping, we hope to connect with the international Chinese language community in the near future to talk about approaches to elections that avoid the risk of project capture and ensure that people are and feel safe contributing to the Chinese language Wikipedia. We need to make sure that the community can hold fair elections, without canvassing or fraud. We hope that helping to establish such a fair approach to elections will allow us to reinstate CheckUser rights in time.

I want to close this message by noting that I am personally deeply sorry to those of you for whom this will be a shock. This will undoubtedly include those who wonder if they should fear that their personal information has been exposed (we do not believe so; we believe we acted in time to prevent that) and also those who fear that further such bold action is in the works which may disrupt them and their work and their communities (at this point, with this action, we believe the identified risks have been contained in the short to medium term). I am also truly sorry to those communities who have been uneasy in the shadow of such threats for some time. The Foundation continues to build our capacity to support every community that wants or needs its support - and we are still learning how to do so well when we do. One of the key areas we seek improvement is in our ability to understand our human rights impact and in our ability to address those challenges. You have not had the service you’ve deserved. We can’t fix things immediately, but we are working to improve, actively, intentionally, and with focus.

To the 4,000 active Chinese language Wikimedians distributed across the world and serving readers in multiple continents, I would like to communicate my sorrow and regret. I want to assure you that we will do better. The work you do in sharing knowledge to Chinese readers everywhere has great meaning, and we are committed to supporting you in doing this work into the future, with the tools you need to succeed in a safe, secure, and productive environment.

Again, I will answer what questions I can, also relying on the support of others in Legal and perhaps beyond. We’re setting up a page on Meta to talk, and I will be hosting an office hour in coming weeks.

Best regards, Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 16:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC) Maggie

---

”

第一次問答

瑪姬·丹尼斯在2021年9月14日 (二) 20:16 (UTC)於元維基聲明頁的討論頁中發表了一個問答，回應了六條問題。以下採用User:卡達在2021年9月15日 (三) 04:12 (UTC)在互助客棧消息區發佈（固定版本）的翻譯版本，並有少量修訂。

“

1. 基金會是從何時開始意識到這個風險，而這風險又持續了多久？

   雖然我們收到了許多志願者所提出的相關問題、投訴與擔憂，但這些投訴、問題與擔憂最少可以追溯到2017年，但我們從近一年開始非常認真的調查，因為很明顯的，社群成員的初期干預導致無法安全地解決問題。

2. NDA政策的改變與基金會行動有何關聯？

   保密協議（NDA）的政策調整停止對住在維基計畫途徑遭封鎖地區志願者的保密協議承認，理由相信這些用戶有關的地址為個人申請者及基金會所知悉。這是由最近世界所引發的事件，這起事件是由可信訊息所引發的，這些事件使得維基媒體社群面臨更為集中的安全威脅，並使多名志願者曝於危險之中。

   安全風險與維基媒體系統滲透的訊息有關，包括有權訪問個人身份訊息的職位和選舉產生影響的組織。這代表著我們無法預先宣布我們的行動，但不必擔心觸發我們所警示的風險。我們在相關司法管轄區內立即限制對於這些工具的訪問，同時對於受影響的使用者採取合作以確定相關風險會否影響到他們。這是由於並非所有該受到政策變化而遭到限制訪問的個人都有不良意圖。

   政策的改變是解決保持社區安全的迫切需求的第一步。第二步是與受影響的用戶取得聯繫，並與監管員合作制定受影響帳戶表達的偏好，以響應個人的保密協議。

   只有在立即完成填補此安全漏洞的步驟後，我們才會開始去結束對可能參與其中的社群成員的調查。這兩者之間在很多方面都有所關連，但不是每個環節都有關連。對於中國的調查是在安全風險的審查與應對之前展開的，因此確實存在超出此範圍的問題。

3. 社群成員的個人訊息會否曝光？

   我們沒有任何證據表明發生了技術性漏洞。關於修正保密協議的第一個行動的主旨是防止那些容易被國家行動的人或是其他從技術上獲取其他使用者私人訊息並對其識別、利用或控制而對於訊息控制感到興趣的人。由於我們的軟體會追蹤這些訊息被訪問的時間，因此我們沒有任何理由相信這些信息是以這種方式訪問的。始終存在一個問題，即志願者向其他志願者透露了多少訊息，包括透過私人電子郵件和聚會。我希望我們生活在一個每個人都可以被視為表面價值和善意可信的世界中，但儘管「善意推定」是維基媒體社群工作的關鍵方法，但這不會也不應該立即上綱到共享個人訊息。在不久的未來，我希望我們能夠加強我們的集體工作，幫助人們更好地了解他們共享的內容、與誰共享的風險以及如何在數位環境中安全地管理他們的私人訊息。與此同時，我鼓勵每個關心自身安全的維基媒體人訪問元維基上的“Voices under Threat”頁面：https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Voices_under_Threat 。此頁面收集了一些可能有幫助的資源。

4. 社群是否允許被除權的使用者再次RfA？否需要（強制性）改革RfA機制以舉辦未來的 RfA，包括但不限於那些被除權的人？

   這些個人被除權的原因有許多，諸如有證據表明選舉是有偏見的，个人被迫使（例如在 QQ 或其他非維基的平台威脅）而投票，以及有證據表明濫用站務工具支持該組織某些被禁制成員的活動。這些活動包含肉搜、騷擾、共享帳號和跨維基協調。然而這些人知道或理解該團體的某些成員所做的事情，並非一無所知，並且取消管理權限是根據基金會行動政策的次要基金會行動條款，基金會不反對本地社群可以決定公平地重新選舉。考慮到團體活動及對於反對者的人身威脅，我們認為社群應優先改革 RfA 機制，與此同時，我們準備透過以往過去所觀察到的選舉模式，對任何此類的選舉進行覆核，以提供支援。

5. 受NDA（保密協議）政策更改影響的用戶是否最終能夠恢復其帳號？

   是的，儘管我不清楚過程是否已經完成。有鑑於威脅的程度，我們認為最好是在我們單獨連繫他們的同時，關閉他們在伺服器端的訪問，以確保社群和使用者自身的安全。所有使用者都可以自行刪除訪問的權限，有些使用者也已經這樣做了。一些使用者希望就撤銷其保密協議提出申訴，我們的法律人員一直在信任與安全（Trust & Safety）的支持下審查這些申訴，以確定是否可以恢復更高級別的訪問權限。使用者帳號已被解鎖，是因為他們的訪問權限已被正式撤銷（透過自我請求或基金會流程）或他們的NDA申訴成功。

   考慮到這個問題，我們不打算透露哪些使用者申訴成功。這樣做可能會增加這些人的危險。當然，歡迎他們表明自己的身份，但我鼓勵他們根據自己的風險狀況考慮是否可以安全地這樣做。

   我也不打算討論因NDA政策更改而刪除訪問權限的個人，但要注意的是，這些不是在雲端刪除的。

6. WMCUG（WMC用戶組）仍然舉辦公[開]活動，包括編輯松和新聞服務[。]一些全域封禁的使用者目前控制著WMCUG以及QQ文字頻道等線下社交媒體平台。只要這組織仍然遵循全域封禁的控制著這些使用者，是否應該將其根除？

   這是一個很難回答的問題，我覺得我難以完美回應，基金會多年來一直從事信任與安全（Trust & Safety）行動，但並非所有行動都得到社群普遍的支持。有些行动如此；但有些卻引起爭議。多年前，面對一個在某個社群引起爭議的禁令，基金會採取了一項政策，即基金會對於被封禁的帳號透過“代理”來編輯，亦有可能會對其封禁。通常，我們會警告人們，但這取決於當前情勢中固有的風險。

   我們目前並不打算取消WMCUG的站內頁面，儘管我確實認為我們有必要把集結成一個非正式團體的一些困境視為一場運動。這些都是被允許的，甚至我認為是個好主意。它降低了參與和組織的障礙。然而，如果這些非正式組織透過維基媒體的網站向其他人暗示，他們以他們不被認可和授權的方式而被認可和授權，可能會引起人們對濫用的擔憂。

   我們希望WMCUG的其餘編輯，包括那些被警告的編輯，注意到這次的行動，並重新考慮他們如何與我們社群中的其他人展開合作。在某些情況之下，我們認為某些使用者可能並未完全了解正在發生的事情。我強烈懷疑某些用戶可能需要一段時間來反思這些行動，並確定他們如何最好地實現運動的目的，而不會出現過去的問題。

   至於用戶組頁面，我們將繼續觀察我們網站上的頁面，以了解是否需要就他們可能的對他們扭曲的從屬關係或對遭禁制的用戶進行代理的行為採取行動。

”

英文原文（經格式修訂）

“

1. When was the Foundation aware of this risk and how long has this lasted?

   While we have received related questions, complaints, and concerns from other volunteers dating back to at least 2017, we have been investigating these concerns very seriously for nearly a year, as it became obvious that some early interventions by community members were not going to resolve the issue safely.

2. What is the connection between the NDA Policy Change and the recent Office Actions?

   The non-disclosure agreement (NDA) policy adjustment suspended recognition of NDAs from volunteer applicants who live in jurisdictions that have blocked access to Wikimedia projects and where there was reason to believe that the domicile associated with the user accounts were known to others than the individual applicant(s) and the Foundation. This was necessitated by recent world events triggered by credible information about a more focused security threat to the Wikimedia community that placed multiple volunteers at risk.

   The security risk related to information about infiltration of Wikimedia systems, including positions with access to personally identifiable information and elected bodies of influence. This meant that we could not pre-announce our action, without fear of triggering the risk to which we had been alerted. We restricted access to these tools immediately in the jurisdictions of concern, while working with impacted users to determine if the risk applied to them. This is because not all individuals whose access was restricted by that policy change, had bad intent.

   The policy change was a first step to address the immediate needs of keeping the community safe. The second step was to get in touch with the impacted users and to work with the Stewards to enact the preferences expressed by impacted accounts in response to individual non-public outreach.

   Only after this immediate step to close this security gap was complete did we commence to conclude the investigations into individual community members who may have been involved. The two actions are related in many ways, but not in every point. The Chinese investigation precedes that security risk review and response and does have issues that go beyond it.

3. Has private information of community members been exposed?

   We have no evidence that any technical breach occurred. The first action on changing the NDA policy was intended to prevent technical access to private information about other users by those who could be easily identified, located, and exploited whether by state actors or others with an interest in controlling information. Since our software tracks when such information is accessed, we do not have any reason to believe that this information was accessed in such a manner.

   There is always a question of how much information volunteers release themselves to other volunteers, including over private email and in meet-ups. I wish we lived in a world where everyone could be taken at face value and good intentions trusted, but while “assume good faith” is a key approach to working in Wikimedia communities, it does not and should not immediately extend to sharing personal information. In the near future, I hope we will be able to increase our collective work towards helping people better understand the risks of what they share and with whom and how to manage their private information safely in a digital environment. In the meantime, I would encourage every Wikimedian who is concerned about their own security to drop by the Voices Under Threat page on Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Voices_under_Threat. This page collects some resources that may help.

4. Is the community allowed to hold RfAs for those removed of their advanced rights? Is reformation of the RfA system required (compulsory) for holding future RFAs, including or at least for those who were desysopped?

   The individual desyoppings took place for a number of reasons, including evidence of biased elections where individuals were pressured (sometimes with off-wiki threats on QQ and other platforms) to vote as they did and evidence of misuse of administrative tools to support the aims and activities of some of the banned members of the group. Activities include doxing, harassment, sharing accounts, and off-wiki coordination. However, it is not always clear how much these individuals knew or understood about what some of the members of that group were doing, and the Foundation does not object under the Secondary Office Actions provision of the Office Action Policy, on removal of advanced rights, to the community determining to fairly re-elect them. Considering that evidence evaluated of the groups’ activities includes physical coercion of volunteers who opposed the group, we do believe it would be better for the community to reform the RfA system first, but in the meantime we are prepared to support by reviewing any such elections against the patterns observed in prior elections.

5. Were users affected by the NDA policy change ultimately able to recover their accounts?

   Yes, although I am not sure if that process is fully complete. Given the nature of the threat, we felt it best secured the safety of the communities and the users themselves to shut down their access on the server-side while we contacted them individually. All users were offered the option to remove their access on their own accord, and some did so. Some users wished to request an appeal of the revocation of their NDA, and our Legal staff have been reviewing those appeals with the support of Trust & Safety to determine if higher levels of access could be restored. User accounts have been unlocked as their access has been formally withdrawn (either through self-request or Foundation process) or as their NDA appeal has been successful.

   In anticipation of the question, we do not intend to name the users whose appeals were successful. Doing so could increase the jeopardy of these individuals. They are welcome, of course, to identify themselves, but I would encourage them to consider whether they can do so safely, based on their own risk profiles.

   I am also not going to discuss the individuals whose access was removed by the NDA policy change except to note that their removal is not under a cloud.

6. The WMCUG still hosts public events, including editathons and news services as some globally banned user(s) are currently in control of WMCUG along with off-site social media platforms like QQ text channels. Should these organizations be removed from on-site exposure as long as they are still in control of such users to comply with global bans?

   This is a hard question, and I suspect I will not answer it perfectly. The Foundation has engaged in trust & safety activities for years, not all of which receive universal community support. Some do; some are very controversial. Years ago, in the face of a ban that was controversial in one community, the Foundation adopted a policy that users who edit by “proxy” on behalf of Foundation banned accounts may also be banned. Typically, we try to warn people, but it depends on the risks inherent in the situation at hand.

   It is not our current intention to eliminate the on-site page for WMCUG, although I do believe that it will be necessary for us to consider as a movement some of the hard questions around the formation of informal groups. These are allowed, and in my opinion that is a very good idea. It lowers the barrier to participation and organization. It can, however, raise concerns about misuse if such an informal group uses Wikimedia’s sites to suggest to others that they are recognized and authorized in ways they are not.

   It is our hope that the remaining editors of WMCUG, including those warned, will take heed of this action and reconsider how they work with others in our communities collaboratively. In some cases, we believe some users may not have been fully aware of what was going on. I strongly suspect that some users may need a period of time to reflect on these actions and determine how they can best move forward with the goals of the movement without the problems of the past.

   As to the user group pages, we will continue to watch the ones on our sites to understand if action is necessary if they seem to misrepresent their affiliation or to be proxying for banned users.

”

第二次問答

瑪姬·丹尼斯在2021年9月15日 (三) 18:48 (UTC)於元維基聲明頁的討論頁中發表了第二次問答，回應了五條問題。以下採用User:Antigng在2021年9月16日 (四) 16:26 (UTC)在基金會行動本地主討論區發佈（固定版本）的翻譯版本。

“

1. 七笔禁制理由都很“常规”嗎？（“常规”是指仅涉及社群公认基金会信任与安全团队有管辖权的事宜（而非纯粹本地社群事务，译者注），如暴力威胁等严重（不当）行为。）

   对。首先，您已然意识到笔者可能不能如您所愿，非常详细地解答您的疑惑，对此笔者不胜感激。（原提问即标题，提问人没有问具体的禁制理由，而是问禁制理由“常规”与否，表明其意识到了基金会不可能透露具体的禁制理由。译者注）就着您的问题，笔者解释一下个中原因。当我们谈论基金会行动时，有一系列因素需要平衡。（一方面，）需要确保受害者的安全。如果我们透露的（基金会）行动原因（详细到）足以令威胁、起底、骚扰等（不当行为）的受害者被轻而易举地发现，则我们可能会加剧他们遭受的伤害。（另一方面，）需确保社群知悉我们的决定是基于合理的理由。我们希望（维基）人在参与维基媒体计划时能有安全感，而不必担忧什么“非本地的权威机构”会突然强力介入并开展不公正的行动。笔者也是人类社会的一分子；笔者所在的地方，当局的行动——在笔者看来——也非全然公正。故笔者完全能理解维系（权威机构与个人间，译者注）信任的重要性。（此外，）还需避免被（基金会行动）制裁者遭打击报复。这个问题很复杂也引伸出更多的考虑因素。笔者参与领导的任何团队的成员都将一基本原则牢记在心，那就是，所有案件的参与者都是人，有基本人类尊严的人。笔者认为基金会《生者传记决议》原则上对受基金会禁制的个人也应适用。毕竟我们（基金会）不是司法机关。法理上，我们确实有权禁制个人参与（维基媒体）计划；但另一方面，依笔者的“不拙之见”，我们也有在社群需要我们（出手）时执行禁制的道义责任。这种需求有时是由于情势过于危险本地社群难以干预，或是情况过于复杂以至本地制度无法解决。（若为执行《通用行为准则》需成立全域机构，笔者亦希望社群成员能参与合作。）“（基金会）不是司法机关”这一现状给我们带来了很多挑战：我们无法强制搜证，也无法保护举报人、目击证人和“陪审员”免受他人胁迫或报复，更无法避免被举报人遭“私力救济”。从社会意义上说，对他人的不当行为的批评指责乃遏制不当行为的强有力工具，但同时它又是一把“双刃剑”：我们对他人在维基媒体计划上（不当）行为的（指控）意见，可能会伴随他们终生；即使他们犯事时尚年幼、为生活所迫或遭困扰，即使他们日后改过自新（，该种指控仍可能成为其挥之不去的污点）。（笔者认为《当你被公开羞辱》即便不是一部关于如何更好地应对此类问题的指南，也至少是一本发人深思的读物。）

   （遵循基金会所咨询的律所（非受聘于基金会的法律人员）给出的法律建议，）笔者已然在本案中公开远多于过往的（基金会行动）案件中我们所能公开的内容。其中一个原因在于，本案涉案人数之多、活动之广，令笔者得以在不过分针对任何个人的前提下，或多或少地归纳概述案情（并公开发布）。话虽如此，笔者在此向大家赌誓：所有（基金会全域）禁制所针对的行为，皆被包括英文社群在内（大量英文社群成员反对基金会扩权，译者注）的（全体）社群视为基金会管辖权以内的事宜。本案的材料经过基金会两个法律团队的审视；最终的禁制决定亦“不可申诉”，因其属于以下条款描述的情形："Excluded cases are those conducted because of statutory, regulatory, employment, or legal policies as defined by Foundation attorneys."（出自Trust and Safety/Case Review Committee；换言之，本案中遭禁制用户不可上诉至信任与安全案件审查委员会，译者注）。“人身伤害”四个字岂是随口一言？此乃基金会信任与安全团队（的工作）中极少遇到情形；一旦遇到，我们必将严肃对待。

   至于本案中被除权的管理员和遭行为警告的用户是否允许申诉，基金会内部确有分歧。虽然传统上此类案件均允许申诉，但目前基金会法律团队不认为该种申诉可行：该案的材料并非每名涉事者单独一份，而是盘根错节的几百页资料。对于遭行为警告的用户而言，行为警告非明面上的制裁；是否以及何时将遭受行为警告之用户在基金会内部留档以供日后其申请基金会资源（如奖金和拨款）时审视，也是过去困扰我们的一个问题。一名最近被基金会行为警告的社群成员向我们反映，（被警告者）们在维基媒体计划上的贡献会遭不公平的过分审视；据此，我们调整了应对上述问题的策略。（我们会不断学习与改进，即使是被基金会制裁的个人给我们的反馈意见也可能对我们有所帮助。当然，受基金会全域禁制者例外，依《全域禁制方针》基金会不予此类人沟通。）对于被除权的管理员而言，经相关社群同意他们亦可复职。当下，基金会信任与安全团队的全球负责人（指Jan，译者注）正与中文社群开展积极主动的对话沟通，探讨如何在中国大陆内外对（尤其是发生在意见不和的社群志愿者间）报复和胁迫的担忧仍存在的情况下，安全地开展（管理员选举/复职）。

2. 基金会是否认为部分/相当多涉案编者充当了中（华人民共和）国政府的代理人？

   早前已有记者向笔者询问过类似问题；笔者并未承诺向该记者提供独家消息。故，在此处转述早前的回复，作为笔者对该问题的回答：“我无意指责中（华人民共和）国，亦尚未掌握能驱使我作出如此指责的情报资讯。我甚至不确定这些个人受（北京，译者注）影响是出于自愿或否。某种意义上说，我之所以会（持这样的立场），是因为我自己就是一名维基人，也不希望数据被强行引申解读。本想（把以下内容）删掉的，但我还是在这里给你举个例子：如果你问我，2021年美国国会暴动案是否为美国政府（或受其影响的个人）所为，我同样难以直接回答你的问题。是？否？有可能是？说到底，（这类事件的肇因）是那些认为自己有权透過作恶或开展争议行为向他人施压，以满足自身需求的人。这类问题不是中（华人民共和）国（特色）的问题，也不是美国（特色）的问题。它们是人（性）的问题，是在这个‘战线’无处不在、真假消息纷飞的时代，我们会越来越频繁地参与处理的问题。”（笔者在提交（编辑时）没把这段话删掉。就当是拿自己的国家引战吧。）

3. 基金会有否考虑过（本次基金会行动）可能在中文社群引起的“寒蝉效应”？

   当然考虑过，这正是我们在决定如何行动之时所考虑的最困难的因素。老实说，无论我们如何开展行动，“寒蝉效应”都会存在。虽然笔者还是想避免讨论（受基金会行动影响的）特定个人的行为，在此仍试举一例：公开记录显示这其中有一部分用户存在针对香港的中文社群成员的行为。公开记录所示的以上行为明显能诱发“寒蝉效应”。而（WMC）用户组成员开展的“寒蝉”行为不止于此，其中一些的对象则是中国（大陆）社群志愿者。如上方的回答中所述，笔者认为对强力的权威机构本身的恐惧就有可能带来“寒蝉效应”。（指第一个问题的回答中“希望（维基）人在参与维基媒体计划时能有安全感”的部分，译者注）笔者在此开诚布公地探讨“寒蝉效应”，其中一个原因是笔者希望这样做可以部分缓和（该效应的负面影响）。笔者已竭尽所能透露我们行动的细节及原因，望大家理解。考量基金会行动对社群日常发展的影响，并在出现问题的情形下及时加以修补，也是笔者的职责所在。包括中文社群在内的部分维基社群成员在为我们的站点作出贡献的同时又要被迫应对上述行为，同时我们体系的缺陷也令以平稳的方式应对相关情况成为不可能。对此，笔者亦有愧。但现实就是，欲维护安全就必须让人们知悉危险之所在，分享（过多）信息有时也是冒险之举。笔者真心希望大家不要因相关消息而受“寒蝉效应”困扰；请大家振作起来，评估有关安全风险，与我们和其它社群成员通力合作，共同守卫彼此的安全。我们团队（指基金会信任与安全团队，译者注）和基金会人权团队将致力于探索实现这一目标之路。

4. 第八名（被禁制）用户User:玄客未列于基金会全域禁制列表（见此，译者注）。我们调查了该用户的编辑倾向，发现其与其它七名被禁制用户皆不吻合。请问为何该用户会被禁制？（该用户是谁的傀儡/真人傀儡？）

   对于特定的禁制案，笔者只能透露以下信息：这一连串基金会行动涉及庞杂的站外证据和技术证据。所有被执行禁制的账户，要么是被指认为（列於禁制列表上的）个人的傀儡账户，要么就是被指认为他们的主账户。错认用户有可能发生；这也是我们会向受（禁制）影响的账户本人提供邮箱cawikimedia.org的其中一个原因。如账户设置了邮件地址，我们便会透過（站内电邮）与之取得联系；有时候我们只能在他们的用户页留言通知。笔者亦请大家注意，本次基金会行动涉及有史以来在短时间内执行的最大规模的批量禁制。如果经与（被禁制）用户的沟通联系，我们发现有证据表明禁制决定有误，则我们将撤销禁制，（在有关页面）做出注解解释原因，并公开向用户道歉。

5. 关于WMC用户组，我认为基金会有必要回应他们声明中的一些牢骚话（原用戶問題如此，指《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”》，译者注），并出示相应证据。

   两点：

   一，WMC用户组并非受基金会承认的维基团体。在别处笔者也已指出（见上一组FAQ中第六个问题，译者注），（允许未受承认的用户组）是好事，因为它降低了参与组织社群活动的门槛。然而，未受承认的用户组并未签署有关协议（包括行为守则），基金会不能赋予其附属团体的地位。笔者有意愿与（WMC）用户组内其它未被禁制的个人展开对话，正如笔者与大家展开对话一样。但笔者不会通读（WMC）用户组的通讯记录——特别是在有关记录涉及到被禁制的个人或其代理人的情况下。笔者会尽其所能向询问者提供模糊的信息；但依基金会方针，笔者不会与被禁制用户对话，亦不会与透過非（由基金会）控制的通信渠道自行联络我们的用户对话。

   二，虽然基金会未公开其内部调查报告，多年来已有若干维基人发布了大量关于（WMC）用户组及其活动的相关的证据。在此为大家列出若干，例如以下发表在英文维基刊物《The Signpost》上，由一受承认维基团体的成员（指香港用户组的User:1233，译者注）提供的信息，该员今天仍在邮件列表Wikimedia-L支援中文维基媒体计划：en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-10-31/In focus、en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-07-25/Special report，笔者未见案件材料与上述记录有矛盾之处。

”

英文原文（經格式修訂）

“

1. Were the reasons for all seven bans "conventional" reasons (eg, threats of violence or other serious actions of types that the community has accepted as belonging to T&S)?

   First, Yair, I’m grateful for your recognition that I probably can’t answer these questions as fully as you would like. :) That you asked allows me to explain why. When we talk about Office Actions, there are a number of factors we have to balance. There is safety to the victims. If by discussing the cause of an action we make it easy to identify a victim of threats, doxing, harassment or other causes, we can compound any harm they’ve suffered. There is the need to reassure communities that we have made a decision for valid cause. We want people to feel safe on Wikimedia, including safe from some distant authority who may swoop in out of the blue and take unfair action. As a human living in the human world where authorities’ actions do not always seem just to me, I completely understand how important that trust is to maintain. There is also a need to avoid inflicting harm to the people who have been sanctioned. This one is complex, but it arises from multiple factors. Any team on which I myself have direct influence will never forget that everyone involved in these cases is a person, deserving of basic human dignity. I believe that the biographies of living persons resolution should in principle apply even to Foundation banned individuals. We are not, after all, a court of law. We do have a legal authority to ban individuals from participating in our projects and, in my not humble opinion, a moral duty to do so when the community needs us to. That can happen when situations are too dangerous for communities to intervene or when situations are more complex than a local community has systems to resolve. (If a global body is created as part of UCoC enforcement, I hope to have community partners on that side of things.) Not being a court of law increases some of our challenges. We do not have the ability to compel evidence; to protect complainants, witnesses, or ‘juries’ (to use a metaphor) from coercion or retaliation; or to protect those who are complained against from vigilante justice (to stick with the same metaphor). Socially speaking, calling people out for bad behavior is a powerful tool to help avoid bad behavior, but it is also a very dangerous one. What we say about people’s behavior on our projects can follow them forever, even if they are young, even if they were going through a hard time, even if they were frustrated, and even if they correct their behaviors in the future. (I found So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed a really thought-provoking read, even if not a handbook for how to do this better.)

   One of the reasons I requested to speak far more publicly about this case than we are usually able to do (under legal guidance from a firm who advised the Foundation, not the Foundation’s attorneys themselves) was because this case involves enough people and distributed enough activities that I hoped to be able to generalize somewhat without pointing too firmly at any one person. That said, I am going to go out on a limb and say that I have full confidence that all individuals who were banned were banned for the kinds of behavior that communities (including English) widely regard as within the Foundation’s remit. The case file was reviewed by two of the Foundation’s attorneys and the bans have been marked as “unappealable.” This is because they fall into this categorization: “Excluded cases are those conducted because of statutory, regulatory, employment, or legal policies as defined by Foundation attorneys.” I did not mention “physical harm” lightly. This is something that we see very rarely in Trust & Safety, but it is always serious when we do.

   We did wrestle with the question of whether to open up the desysops and conduct warnings for appeal, as traditionally such cases may be open to appeal. At this point, the Foundation’s attorneys do not believe that it is doable, because the evidence file on this case is not defined by individual, but an intertwined conglomeration of hundreds of pages of material. The conduct warnings are not visible sanctions; we have struggled in the past with whether and when conduct-warned individuals should be flagged internally for review when receiving Foundation resources (like scholarships and grants), and based on feedback from a community member who was recently warned that they found their work in the movement unfairly scrutinized, we have modified this approach. (We continue to try to learn and improve, and feedback even from sanctioned individuals is helpful - although by policy we will not communicate with those who are globally banned). Those desysopped can be restored if the involved community chooses to restore their access, and our global head of Trust & Safety is actively and openly speaking with the Chinese community about best practices to conduct that review safely, given retaliation and coercion concerns especially for unaligned volunteers in mainland China itself, but also beyond.

2. Does the WMF believe that some/many of the involved contributors have been acting as agents of the Chinese government?

   Since we did not promise an exclusive, I am going to say here what I said to a reporter who reached out with that question: “I am not in position to point fingers at the Chinese State nor in possession of information that would lead me to do so. I can’t even say with certainty whether individuals are influenced willingly or otherwise. In part, that is because I am a Wikimedian myself and am loath to extrapolate more from data than it actually says. I will probably self-censor this before I mail it, but to give you an example, if you asked me if the US Capitol invasion in January 2021 was the US State (or individuals acting under its influence), I would struggle equally to answer you. Yes? No? Maybe? At the end of the day, it is people who believe that they have the right to do bad or questionable things to exert power over others in order to get what they want. It is not a Chinese problem or a US problem, but a human problem, and one we will increasingly be called upon to deal with as information and misinformation are the frontline of conflict everywhere.” (I didn’t self-censor before I sent it out. Picking fights with my own country, I suppose.)

3. Has the Foundation considered the chilling effect this might have on the Chinese community?

   Absolutely, and that has been the hardest part about determining how to act. To be frank, I see that regardless of what we do, there will be a chilling effect. While I am still avoiding publicly speaking about the actions of specific individuals, there is a substantial published record of concerns about the behavior of some of these individuals towards Chinese users in Hong Kong, for instance. The actions described in that published record have a distinctly chilling effect. These are not the only chilling actions taken by members of this group, some of which have impacted mainland Chinese volunteers as well. I spoke in an answer above about my recognition that fear of draconian authority can also have a chilling effect. One of the reasons that I have come out to speak about this so openly is with the hope of mitigating that chilling effect. I wanted people to understand, as much as I could reveal, what we have done and why.

   It is part of my professional responsibility to think about how Foundation actions impact the ability of our volunteer communities to thrive in their daily activities and to recover quickly when things go wrong. I regret knowing that some members of our Chinese community and beyond are forced to reckon with such activities in relation to their work on our sites and also regret that our systems have not been fully structured to deal with such situations smoothly and easily. However, the reality is that keeping people safe means letting them know where there is danger, and the sharing of information can in some circumstances be a risky act. I really hope individuals will not feel chilled by this knowledge so much as better prepared to assess those risks and work with us and with each other to secure our mutual safety. Figuring out how to do this is one of our commitments with our human rights lead and team.

4. The 8th user, User:玄客, has been WMF-banned without announcement. We investigated their edit pattern, and found no connection with the other seven announced ones. Would you please explain why this user was banned (i.e whose sock/provy they are)?

   All I can say about individual cases is that this series of office actions involved considerable off-wiki and technical evidence. All banned accounts were either identified as socks of one of the named users or was the named user themselves. In such cases, it is always possible that there might be a case of misidentification and that is one of the reasons why users impacted are always reached out to personally through cawikimedia.org. When an email address is identified with an account, we reach out via email. In some cases, we can only leave a note on their user pages. I will also note that this is the largest batch of bans ever launched in a narrow time window, and if our outreach to the user results in evidence that we have made the ban in error, we will reverse it, annotate why, and publicly apologize.

5. With respect to WMCUG, I do think some of their grievances in their response should be addressed and evidence be shown.

   There are two factors here.

   First, the WMCUG is not a recognized body in the Wikimedia movement. I have noted elsewhere I think it is a good idea that we make it so simple for people to gather and organize, but unofficial groups have not signed certain agreements (including conduct codes) that would give them affiliate status. I am willing to speak to individuals who have not been banned as I am to all of you here, but I am not reading communications from the group as whole, especially that include or proxy for banned individuals. I try to give information agnostic as to inquirer, but by policy staff do not communicate with banned users or those who contact us on their behalf outside of legally-supervised channels.

   Second, while the Foundation does not publish details of its internal investigation, there has been a substantial body of evidence published about members of this group and its activities by Wikimedians for years. I would refer communities to some of those, such as those shared in English Wikipedia's Signpost by a recognized affiliate that supports the Chinese language projects in a Wikimedia-L thread today: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2019-10-31/In_focus, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2021-07-25/Special_report. Nothing in the case files I have seen contradicts the truthfulness of those accounts.

”

有關User:玄客的公開聲明

在基金會行動中，User:玄客為該輪行動中被全域鎖定的用戶之一。經報告後，基金會於2021年9月16日 (四) 21:47 (UTC)在元維基的原聲明頁發佈一則有關User:玄客的公開聲明，表示經調查後發現為錯誤封禁並致歉。該用戶帳號於2021年9月17日 (五) 05:12 (UTC)解除鎖定（日誌：m:43359576）。

“ 基於信任與安全團隊透過ca@頻道所得的最新資訊，我們重新審視了一個因此案而被鎖定的帳號。該帳號屬於用戶玄客。我們經收到的資訊和證據經調查人員查證後，確認玄客並非如原先判斷為（被全域禁制用戶）Walter Grassroot的傀儡帳號。因此，玄客的帳號已被完全恢復。

我們感謝所有透過ca@頻道發送額外資訊和證據以反證我們近期的基金會行動的用戶。這是一個非常重要的過程，而基金會會審視每一個用戶提供的電郵和文件。

我們在此向用戶玄客致以深切歉意，同時在此呼籲用戶透過ca@頻道向我們提供更多資訊。

”

英文原文

“

Upon recent information provided through our ca@ channel within Trust and Safety, we have reassessed one account locked as a result of this investigation. This account belongs to user 玄客. The information and supporting evidence received and authenticated by our investigators ascertains that user 玄客 is not, as originally identified, a sock of Walter Grassroot. As a result of this, user 玄客's account has been restored to full capacity.

We appreciate everyone who is using ca@ channel to send us additional information and evidence that substantiates or refutes the recently undertaken Office Action. This is an important part of the process, and the Foundation is reviewing each email and documents provided.

We offer our unreserved apologies to user 玄客, and we request anyone with additional information to share it through ca@.

”

維基百科創始人吉米·威爾斯的個人意見

請留意以下內容並非基金會聲明的一部份，僅代表吉米·威爾斯之個人看法。如有疑問請參閱WP:老大如是說的謬論。

維基百科的創辦人：吉米·威爾斯
時任維基媒體基金會的榮譽主席，但在此次行動中並沒有參與決策

2021年9月17日，User:Assifbus在維基百科和維基媒體基金會共同創始人吉米·威爾斯（Jimmy Wales，即User:Jimbo Wales）的英文維基百科用戶討論頁上发表了对此次基金会行动的意见，同日吉米·威爾斯作出了回應。以下前兩段採用User:Antigng在2021年9月18日 (六) 05:55 (UTC)在基金會行動本地主討論區發布（固定版本）的翻譯版本，並有少量修訂及第三段自行翻譯，摘錄如下：

“

对我而言，维基百科最重要的支柱之一就是中立性。（在维基百科上，）来自中国大陆的编者与来自台灣、香港乃至世界各地的编者一样受到欢迎。不受欢迎的是通过有组织的活动操纵议题及噤声他人的企图——无论这种企图来自哪一方。

我能理解以行为不当和操纵议题为由将一批用户逐出门外可能引起（社群的）不安——事实当然如此。但惟有如此，方能确保（日后）公开、公正、不偏不倚的争论得以开展，维基百科得以描述事实，坚持可靠来源，不辜负这些年来我们所珍视和坚守的理念。

瞭解我在這裡的角色也很重要——我並不直接做出或參與這類決定。我不是（基金會）執行長（CEO），我只是我自己。我認為我的職責主要是提醒每個人——（包括）員工、編者、讀者、每一個人——我們的價值觀，並坦率地談論我們都在努力實現的目標。

” ——Jimbo Wales（留言） 2021年9月17日 (五) 18:01 (UTC)

英文原文

“

For me, one of the most important pillars of Wikipedia is neutrality. Editors from mainland China are welcomed, as are editors from Taiwan, Hong Kong, and all around the world. What is not welcomed is organized efforts to push an agenda and silence others - from any side.

I can understand that the removal of a group of editors for misbehavior and agenda pushing can cause turmoil - of course it does. But it is the first step to ensuring that fair, open, and neutral discussions and debates can be had to ensure that Wikipedia speaks the truth, adheres to reliable sources, and lives up to the values that have nourished and sustained us for all these years.

It is also important to understand my role here - I don't directly make or get involved with such decisions. I am not the CEO, I am only me. I view my responsibility as mainly to remind everyone - staff, editors, readers, everyone - of our values and to speak plainly about what we are all trying to achieve.

” ——Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)