Yep. I knew it was going to happen on January 1st but I didn't expect to be watching it happen in process at the stroke of midnight UTC time. Turns out, it's a lot of work to desysop that many administrators so thanks to Xaosflux for spending his New Year's Eve handling bureaucratic work. LizRead!Talk!04:35, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I've gotta keep working as an administrator for another 22 years. If I can make it that long without getting banned by the WMF. LOL Happy New Year wbm1058 (talk) 13:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could it be Anthere, admin since 31 May 2002 circa June 2003? That's the first one I could find at the RfA page history. However there may be one or more who predated the creation of that page. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:19, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is an easy way of fixing this problem, copy the way Wikipedia in Swedish and Norwegian Bokmål work regarding admins. First, change from electing admins for life-time, to a fixed period. Second, make it easy to be admin. As in Wikipedia in Norwegian Bokmål, the criteria for being elected is quite low (must have participated for at least four months, must have a userpage and at least 1000 edits and being possible to reach by email + general knowledge about how things work). Ulflarsen (talk) 13:59, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would be quite a radical change, Ulflarsen. I'll just say that years (and blood and sweat) have been spent over the last decade to reform the RfA system but there is strong opposition to lowering the bar. Actually, I don't think the technical bar for simple eligibility is that high, it's the standards of what those voting in RfAs require that might be too high. You can change the system but if the editors participating in RfAs require, hypothetically, 20,000 edits and 2 years of active editing at a minimum to support an RfA candidate, then it doesn't really matter what the eligibility rules are. The culture would have to change and I think that is a lot more difficult to do than having an RFC and changing the eligibility requirements. LizRead!Talk!23:22, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget the first step, "First, change from electing admins for life-time, to a fixed period." This is the step that makes the second step (no big deal) possible. That first step has been proposed and was overwhelmingly opposed by admins who want it to remain a lifetime appointment. I'm glad we've dropped 100 admins, and if that keeps up, we might get a clean vote on lifetime appointments (that is, a vote not dominated by editors who have a COI because they'd be desysopped if the proposal passes) at some point, and actually be able to make it no big deal and recruit more. Until then, legacy admins will continue to dominate RFA reform RFCs on enwiki. Levivich (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the 2021 RfC Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Adminship term length, 54% of commenters were non-admins and as far I recall, never have been admins, 3% were former admins, and 43% were admins. Taking just the non-admin viewpoints, 60% opposed the proposal and 40% supported. (There were 3 former admins; 2 who opposed and 1 who supported.) Looking at the admin viewpoints, 86% opposed and 14% supported. I don't think it's fair to assume that all of the participating admins who opposed were primarily driven by personal motivations, versus concern over the end effect on the Wikipedia community as a whole. All the same, passage of the proposal was not prevented by admins. isaacl (talk) 04:41, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Further details concerning the reasons Admins on the Arabic & Persian Wikipedias were banned would be useful: few of us have any knowledge of events over there. Otherwise, this may degrade into FRAM2. (Note: I am not speaking in support or against this action -- I simply would like to know more details. If their actions were consistently harmful to those projects, then ample examples should be easy to be provided without risking harm to anyone.) -- llywrch (talk) 02:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like several may have been participants in a Saudi influence operation; I've encountered one of their paid editors here on ENWP, although he declared his COI and, compared to most paid editors, was quite agreeable to work with. That said, I have no more information than you have, and I doubt what I suggest is the full story. —Compassionate727(T·C)14:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This piece could have done with a lot more investigation. Unfortunately, the timing was rather unfortunate ... not the sort of thing people want to do over Christmas. For reference, if anyone wants to dig in, earlier versions of this Signpost page had links to the accounts' contributions histories in various projects (copied in the box below).
The banned accounts' contributions histories across various Wikimedia projects
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'd love to hear more about OsamaK. Please email me here if you have any tips or info. The 1st email is confidential - then we can discuss it. I suppose I'm the best known Signposter for doing such investigations, but I have to tell you that there is a lot of time and luck involved in coming up with a good story, e.g. I did several stories on a Mainland China/Hong Kong dispute like this. I got tipped off early by somebody I'd never expect (not in the WMF or admin corps - they seldom if ever give me good tips!). I did have some contacts from a previous story, but most of the info came from sending emails to people I thought might know somebody who knew something about it, and asking them to forward my email to those somebodies. So I never knew who suggested they contact me. Several people did contact me, but I don't expect that to happen usually. I still had to spend 3 weeks getting the story and wasn't sure I had anything that could be published until the day of publication. In short - it takes a lot of time and luck. There are probably 2 or 3 other experienced Signposters who might be able to do this better. Contact your favorite one if you want. Smallbones(smalltalk)17:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I am not surprised. While researching this for publication it was apparent to me that there was likely to be some kind of unsettling connection to a Middle East security service. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Andreas, the DAWN press-release claims that Wikimedia had terminated all of the administrators based out of S. Arabia! So, all of the admins, who were from S. Arabia, were agents of the state — ? WOW. I also wonder how did the news about the persecution of Osama Khaled and Ziyad al-Sofiani were hushed for over 2 years!
Besides, ar-wiki is a self-governing community and has many, if not most, editors who are sympathetic to S. Arabia (see the community response to the Office Action); what prevents them from electing some new agent to the admin/CU ranks? How does the Foundation plan to tackle the chilling atmosphere created in the ar-wiki for dissenters to the Saudi regime? This is a ripe topic for further coverage in the next Signpost. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TrangaBellam: That part, about all Saudi-based admins having been banned, was news to me too. At first I thought there must be some mistake. But the WMF will no doubt have realised that all Saudi-based admins are vulnerable to coercion. Given these sentences, it's not like any of them would have had a choice. (According to User:Gnangarra in the Wikimedia-l thread the two jailed admins were arrested in 2020, but only sentenced recently.)
What confuses me is that OsamaK stopped being listed as an admin sometime around 2016/2017 ([2][3]), years before he stopped editing. At the time he was jailed, he was not an admin as far as I can see. User:Ziad too stopped being listed as an admin around 2017/2018 ([4][5]).
This is an awful, heart-breaking situation. :( From the DAWN piece: "It's wildly irresponsible for international organizations and businesses to assume their affiliates can ever operate independently of, or safely from, Saudi government control."JN46612:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WMF will no doubt have realised that all Saudi-based admins are vulnerable to coercion
This is something that I thought of — the Foundation did not wish to attract scrutiny of the Saudi state on any admin who was not purged. However, if our explanation is correct, the Foundation appears to have defamed (not in a legal sense) atleast some editors in longstanding by accusing them of activities they were not involved in. I am not blaming the Foundation, fwiw; this is a tricky situation to be in.
Khaled appears to have been sentenced in 2021; the increase in the quantum of punishment (from 5 to 32 years) came in August/September 2022. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cryptic WMF statement now being quoted by Ars Technica: A Wikimedia spokesperson told Ars that there are “material inaccuracies in the statement released by SMEX/DAWN” and in a Guardian report. “There was no finding in our investigation that the Saudi government ‘infiltrated’ or penetrated Wikipedia’s highest ranks,” Wikimedia’s spokesperson told Ars. “And there are in fact no ‘ranks’ among Wikipedia admins. There was also no reference to Saudis acting under the influence of the Saudi government in our investigation. 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.”AndreasJN46617:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A few notes on the Coolest Tool awards:
The names for the categories, according to meta:Coolest Tool Award#2022_Winners, are meant to be sentence-cased. ("Newbie friendly" and "Diversity", not "newbie friendly" and "diversity".)
The Honorable mentions for "Created Articles" and "Wikibooks printable edition" were left off, for some reason.
Some of the category names (e.g. Eggbeater - Tools in use for more than 10 years) are kind of impenetrable without the accompanying description. FeRDNYC (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Actually I'm kind of confused, because on the Meta page, Citation Hunt and MoreMenu have categories as well — "Newbie friendly" and "Editor", respectively — and the category description for "Newbie friendly" is the same as for "Newcomer". I can assume that CH and MM were "overall" winners at rose from nominations in specific categories, but why would the same category have two different names?) FeRDNYC (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In a press release by Democracy for the Arab World Now, a non-profit organization, the ban of arwiki admins is connected to a supposed attempt by the Saudi Arabian government to recruit administrators in the course of prosecuting “those who contributed critical information about political detainees”. A connection is made in the press release to the arrest of two Wikipedians, OsamaK and Ziad in Saudia Arabia. It is interesting to note that at least two of the banned arwiki admins had checkuser privileges: [6], [7]. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that according to the recent WMF response "There was no finding in our investigation that the Saudi government ‘infiltrated’ or penetrated Wikipedia’s highest ranks [...] There was also no reference to Saudis acting under the influence of the Saudi government in our investigation." --SCP-200017:31, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
← Back to News and notes