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 DCCXLVIt | c 06:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so some subset of Chinese Wikipedia users support the Chinese government. And? Why would that be surprising? The "encyclopedia" part of Wikipedia isn't a "by the way", it's the purpose we're all here. I've read the HKFP article and it is showing some anti-Hong Kong source bias and "no consensus" on a pro-Chinese government source that we've deprecated for factual inaccuracies, but it's not showing Maoist or Nazi revisionism in terms of factual content. At least, not so far as I can see. Based on the seriousness of the WMF response, I was really expecting articles that engage in genocide denial or similar. I couldn't care less about what the WMC called the WMF—I saw English Wikipedia users saying worse during Framgate. — Bilorv (talk) 11:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad someone brought up the "genocidal denial" point. Uyghur genocide is named similarly in most wikis, except the Chinese Wikipedia where active campaigning by pro-Beijing editors led to a three month long debate, resulting in the article being renamed from "Xinjiang genocide" to "Allegations of genocide in Xinjiang". There you go. Deryck C. 09:59, 6 October 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. Sun8908Talk 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.) Sun8908Talk 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]
