IRC办公室公听会/2021年10月14日办公室公听会

维基媒体基金会社群修复与持续发展（CR&S）团队于2021年10月14日举行了一场交流会（之前被称作“互动时间”），副主席玛吉·丹尼斯主持了本次会议。这次会议涵盖的议题包括：维基媒体运动的策略协调、董事治理、信任与安全（以及通用操守准则）、社群发展以及人权。如之前预期，社群对基金会九月份的声明表达了兴趣。

详情

此次会议在YouTube上结束直播，现可点播。

我们通过Zoom主持了此次会议，并接受了来自Telegram和YouTube的提问，我们也在会前通过answerswikimedia.org邮箱地址收集问题（邮件标题中注明“Question for Maggie”）。

除了会议视频，我们还做了笔记，接受了表现良好的维基媒体人（即未被基金会或社群封禁者）的提问，并对在会议期间没有时间回复的问题在会后以书面形式做了跟进。

主題

维基媒体基金会法务部门下属的社群修复与持续发展团队副主席玛吉·丹尼斯负责主持办公时间。玛吉负责管理社群发展、信任与安全方针、信任与安全日常运营、人权保护以及基金会运动策略等职能。我们预期到社群可能对于基金会九月的声明有所关注。

如同之前会议的惯例，以下是来自Maggie的注意事项：

• 我不能也不会讨论具体的信任与安全相关案例。我可以谈论信任与安全相关的规程、实践与行事方式，以及我们曾经犯过的一些错误，一些值得我骄傲的事情，还有一些我们希望达成的事情。
• 我不会回应任何针对我、我的同僚或社群当中任何人的失礼性评论或问题。即便你我无法观点一致，我仍然能以文明的方式谈论我们的所作所为。在这一点上我不会妥协。

会议记录

现场提问

1. 基金会是否可以公布一些有关所有全域锁定用户违规行为的证据？
   • 不可以。受制于法律原因，我们对于全域锁定用户能披露的信息受限。根据外部法务的建议，我们在公开发布相关信息问题上必须极度严格。
2. 关于对中文维基人的基金会行动，知道你能分享的内容有限制，能否解释一下是什么导致了此决定，包括导火索是什么，为何现在行动（而不是更早或更晚），为何社区处理不了这种情况？关于对俄语维基人的基金会行动，我们也有兴趣问问同样的问题。
   • 关于我们为什么在这儿：

     你们当中许多人可能已经知道，信任与安全团队收到大量来自全球各地用户有关他们本地社群纷争的举报。而我们团队在多数案例中的惯例是，让他们使用本地程序，因为他们所述之情形本地社群更有能力解决。有时，情势发展到基金会认为有介入的程度，通常由于问题已经违反使用条款，基金会必须采取行动。这可能是因为对于社群成员来说，他们如果采取行动可能会有安全隐忧，或者情形极度复杂，社群可能已无力自我解决。当这类情况出现时，挑战在于审时度势，决定事态是否已经到了基金会需要介入的程度。

     关于此次中文维基的事件，我们和社群中的一些人毫无疑问对于多年的冲突问题有所耳闻。在我们的社群里，冲突是常态，有关何为准确信息的争论总会是困难的。在争论中对对方恼火并不鲜见，（有时候我希望一些人能转变他们的发言方式）。但是如果冲突升级，发展到可能会造成现实伤害，或者核心的社群方针无法执行，那么基金会就有必要介入。

     至于有关时机的问题，为什么不早点或晚点出手？基本上我们有两点考量。第一，对于此类担忧的深入调查持续了大概一年之久。我们的团队已经收集了充足的证据，将我们认为正确的应对措施建议送至律师那里做审议。收集整理、翻译材料和确保材料在我们能力范围内被正式解读耗费了不少的时间。当我们做出决定，为了保护他人安全，需要有所行动之时，我们必须出手。对我本人而言，我认为在我们知晓有人的安全受到威胁时，每拖延一天，我们都对因此而受威胁的人有道义上的责任。当我们认清这点，并且知道我们可以做点什么时，是我们采取行动的时候了。

     关于为什么社区不能自己解决这个问题：

     有些情形是社群成员可以解决的，有些情形则是在我们构建出一个更好、更安全的系统之后，希望社群成员可以解决的，但还有一些情形，无论以各种形式，交给社群成员解决都是不安全的。对于中文维基社群的问题，我们所见的证据表明，有些曾尝试通过社群解决此事的人面临报复，因为他们的介入而人身安全受到威胁，让人们不顾自我安危解决社群问题，在我看来基金会如果提出这种要求是不负责的。我认为我们有责任出手相助。在这类案件中，我们的确出手了。

     这个问题也关系到基金会在俄文计划中的行动。过去一个月里，共有两次影响到俄文用户的行动，但我猜我们讨论的是最近的这一次，涉及到维基新闻。对此我需要更加谨慎，因为正如我在会议开始时所言，由于法律原因我们不讨论全域封禁。我能够出来讲更多有关中文维基的事情是因为它涉及到了很多人，所以我不必指控特定的个人做了特定的事情。我们所说的是一种形式模式，涵盖了不同的人和不同的方式。 对于俄文维基新闻的情况，就不是这样的了。但是我能够说的是，因为信任与安全团队已经透露，这次调查始于七月份，由三个不同的人向我们提出了举报，其中包括一名俄语社群成员。我们审视了用户安全或软件系统的安全是否受到威胁。结论是我们不能允许此种风险继续存在。我们的律师审核了此结论并表示同意，因此我们采取了行动，同之前一样，我们在调查完成后采取行动，以防止任何未来可能发生的伤害。

3. 在基金会2021年9月的行动之后，一部分用户永久离开了维基媒体计划，如维基百科。基金会对此持何看法？
   • 我以我个人，以及一名基金会高层职员的身份发言，但是我无法代表整个基金会全体高层。除非当人们觉得自己自己竭尽所能做出贡献而选择离开，其他任何原因离开都是很糟糕的，这包括他们觉得受人排挤或他们觉得无法信任基金会。我真希望有更好的办法避免此类情况发生。
4. 短期或到中期有何实际性的新措施用以减小或避免恶毒的交流和冲突？短期到中期有何实际性的新措施用以鼓励鼓励友好的交流观点和创造一个健康或协作的社群，并同时保持社群的独立？
   • 迫在眉睫之事，正如你们不少人已经知晓的，是我们正在起草通用操守准则，用以帮助人们了解应如何行动，如何对待他人，以及他人反过来应该如何对待自己。我们还会搞明白如何施行这一准则，希望我们的方式能得到社群的大量协助，以及在本地社群一级以身作则。 我本身并没有在指导该采取各种执行方式，我也没有参与到那一流程当中，但我有在更高一层注视着其发展动向。我认为如果我们在长期想要成功，我们需要有办法帮助那些在各个维基媒体项目中贡献的人。作为一名维基百科人（我既是志愿者也是职员，不过我现在不太活跃），我最大的痛点之一就是我们应该帮助人们了解如何应对冲突，避免事态失控，我们失去了不少不错的人，如果他们得到了更多的指导懂得如何化解问题（如果当时有更好的做法，估计他们使用正确的语气），那他们是有可能可以和他人融洽且文明地合作，而不至于变成一场危机。

     我们社群中的问题有时可能很难解决，期望每个参与者都知道如何解决难题，而不会动怒或说出自己会后悔的话，未免过分苛责。

     I hope that over the next couple years, either through the enforcement or through follow up to the enforcement pathway, mentorship and mediation becomes an increasing focus for the movement.

5. 基金会采取一系列行动的目的是避免“社群抢占”。然而据我所知，除了WMC之外，也有其他人想控制中文维基百科，将其变为宣传平台……比如，反中国政府的宣传。现在其中一群人被清除，那基金会有何计划确保其他团体不借机将维基百科的内容带偏到另一个方向？
   • 中文维基媒体计划上除了WMC以外，还有更多的人希望将其变为对自己有利的内容，这一点上我并不意外。（对不起，这样的说法听起来好像是在说我认为所有参与WMC的人都有问题。我不这么想。）我认为，一个维基媒体计划的社群内存在不同观点，这是计划本身设计使然，不同观点的人在一起搞清楚什么是准确的信息是健康的。至于移除一个团体所造成的可能的权力真空，其他团体可能会反方向施加影响：我希望仍然活跃在中文社群里的成员会觉得安全，帮助我们监视需要我们协助的问题的发展。 My goal would be that we would be able to offer that support before we reach a point where that support comes in the form of banning people, and that instead, we might be able to help come up with new processes, new approaches. I also know I'm pinning a lot of hope on the universal code of conduct. I have always dreamed that someday we would have a body of volunteers from across wikis who can help when crises and individual projects go beyond the ability of local communities to support. We've depended a lot on the stewards for that, and I've heard from some of the stewards that this is not a role they think they should serve. And I really hope that we will be able to work together to create a better system of supporting people across projects. In the meantime, I invite people to reach out to the Trust and Safety team. They, in addition to doing office actions, have a disinformation team now who are supposed to work with community members to identify problems and we are still figuring out how best to support you with that.
6. How will the implementation of the UCOC on Chinese and Croatian Wikipedia differ from most language versions of Wikipedia? The "right to be heard" seems to be missing from the UCoC enforcement guidelines so far.
   • UCoC is meant to be universal, and customization on a local level is meant to use it as a base. It is possible for the community to add more elements to that. Implementation will probably not be as customizable, but we are still finding that out. No definitive answer for that. Enforcement pathways need to make sense.

     With respect to the universal code of conduct, and the right to defend themselves, I'm not in charge of what the enforcement guidelines are going to look like. We have a drafting committee who are working on that with input from communities. There will be a ratification process, I don't know yet what that will be, but once the ratification process has been completed, we will be trying it. Whether there's a right to defense that's included or not, what that looks like I don't know.

     I'm going to expand a little bit on this right to be heard to talk about how it works with Trust and Safety Office actions, because I'm sure that is also a matter of concern. When Trust and Safety began its office actions, they were strictly limited to what I'm going to call the worst of the worst cases. They were, by and large, people who violated our Terms of Use in such a way that they could not, for, for reasons of liability be permitted to continue on the projects. We do not need to ask to hear from such people. We do not communicate with them in the same way that we do with trusted community members. Over time, as with any process, things started to get a little less clear. People would reach out to us that were not (what I would call) bright line cases, and that is what we created our own appeals committee for. We are still trying to make sure that we do the right balance of hearing from the people who are involved, and responding to them. There are some limitations, and some of those limitations have to do with the limitations that Trust and Safety has. The Trust and Safety team has a limited toolkit. When Trust and Safety gets involved there are only a few actions that can be taken because the community has so far stated a strong preference that we not step into some of the lesser sanctions. They can warn a user, they can ban them from events, or they can ban them entirely. Because of this, we currently do not have a protocol that allows us to say, you're a great Wikimedian, but you won't stop harassing people. Therefore, we would appreciate it if you would not do activities on this project, or wherever they're having problems. Currently, we don't have that ability. So within the tools we have, we try to work with people safely to understand their side, to understand the safety of others, and to consider what the best response is to ultimately keep our people and our platform safe. It's a balance that we're still working to get right, particularly as we transition, and sometimes the line between borderline and bright line also gets a little soft where something is almost over the borderline, and then it gets tipped over by something worse.

7. At present, the Case Review Committee cannot review some cases which are those conducted because of statutory, regulatory, employment, or legal policies as defined by Wikimedia Foundation attorneys. Does this put the Wikimedia Foundation in the power of being judge and jury? Is it possible to allow a community body, like the Case Review Committee, to review all cases?
   • 维基媒体基金会在一些人看来是一个实体，但对我不是。只因“身在此山中”。我的看法有所不同。

     For example, I know that Trust and Safety actually doesn't have the power to impose sanctions. Trust and Safety makes recommendations, they make these recommendations to lawyers who come in after the fact, read the cases and make a determination, and when the lawyers who make this determination, they make a recommendation to the executive staff. In many cases, we've recently modified some of our policies so that the brightest of bright line cases, cases that are clearly statutory like death threats or child pornography, that doesn't have to go to executive review, there's no reason for that. We are particularly interested in making sure that we hold ourselves firmly to account on cases that do impact community members, particularly long term and who may otherwise be in good standing. Is the foundation in the power of being judge and jury despite that collectively. Yes, in some cases the Foundation has a legal responsibility to uphold its terms of use and where statutory, regulatory employment or legal policies are involved, the foundation's attorneys have said that it is not possible to share all of these with the case review committee for legal and liability reasons. Again, we consulted with an external firm to help us determine how to talk about some of these cases, in a way that protects movement resources. But I will say that we have to continue to figure out the best way to allow review, and it is very possible that we may in the future, be able to create a system where there is a more routine review. We are also trying not to overwhelm community volunteers. When we created the case review committee, I was scared that they were going to be reviewing cases every 10 minutes, and we were going to be taking these volunteers out of their regular workflows. It hasn't turned out that way. So, we see that at the very least right now, they probably have a good bit more capacity than we thought they would. It is possible that someday we may have a committee advisory group, who routinely reviews and monitors everything that is not statutory, regulatory, employment or legally mandatory.

8. 我想知道，如果基金会雇员中如果没有会说某种非英语的语言，这种情况下你们是如何调查该语言社群的案件的？
   • 我们可以多团队协作。运动策略和治理团队有很强大的语言支持组。信任和安全团队也有相对足够强大的语言支持组。我们系统中有300多种语言，但远未到达所有语言。所以这看情况，取决于案件的复杂性。有时我们用专业翻译。有时我们找社群修复与持续发展团队之外的工作人员。我们有一份名单，列出了人们自愿使用哪种语言，有时我们可以从他们那里获得支持。有时我们请可信的社区群组帮助，她们要有保密协议，并必须能够保护所有相关人的隐私。
9. The UCoC Draft guidelines propose that more Arbitration Committees should be created in the movement. Does every project need an ArbCom?
   • Well, okay, my opinion, no, at least not immediately. The amount of bureaucracy any project supports should depend on the capacity of that project to support it, and the necessity of it.

     Smaller projects may be able to handle these issues in a much more informal way or we may have some sort of general International Arbitration Committee that can stand to support groups that don't have their own. So I don't know, and I don't believe that every project needs an ArbCom but other people may feel differently. And I would perhaps say to them, maybe the question is, when do they need it? At what stage in their development?

10. The Draft Guidelines for enforcement still have a lot of open questions. How can the communities see and discuss what the Drafting Committee is developing as they make their revisions?
    • The modifications are ongoing, and the drafting committee will be coming together to work on their revisions, I think, within the next couple of days. And that work will be happening in public. There will be revisions happening as they go, as I understand it, and I would encourage people to keep an eye on it, stay engaged.
11. 在对中文维基用户的行动和调查中，维基媒体基金会是否有能力指出有些WMC用户和中国政府关联的可能性？
    • 不。这不是调查的重点。而且要这么做很难。重点是她们对维基媒体计划的其他用户的行为。
12. The Movement Charter Candidates Election have started, but with a lot of mistakes. 8 users had to revote for example. It seems that a lot of time pressure may have been the cause. Is this true? Either way, how can we avoid this in the future?
    • [Quim answers] MCDC elections were meant to start on Monday, but we hit a problem. We had to restart it on Tuesday. Before we were able to take it offline, people had voted, and we had to scratch those votes. We have contacted those to revote, 5 already did it. Could this have been prevented in the future? Technical details are available, but a combination of project management and technical skills. We use SecurePoll, which is a very fragile system. Its experts suggest the most hands-off approach possible (ie not doing changes). To avoid this was to don't start anything big on Monday that would necessitate people working on Sunday and to avoid a WMF holiday (Monday was US staff holiday). Time zone is also an issue. Other parts: we want to do our best. Even if the process is already clear since July. The AoE suggestion did not work on SecurePoll. WMF staff participation is also a factor; we did not anticipate that it pressures communities from where they came from, but this also necessitates removing them from the candidates pool. A candidate swap also happened. Combined with SecurePoll fragility, it was a ticking problem. We reacted quickly and only had to strike eight votes from the record and introduce a 24-hour delay.
13. 中文维基百科当前的用户查核程序复杂，不利于傀儡调查。是否可以将用户查核权限返还给2018年4月被除权的用户？
    • 我同信任与安全团队沟通过此事，我的理解是，最近的方针变化之后，中文维基百科的用户查核员只要有资格签署保密协议便可以重新运作。这意味着我们必须有理由期望他们不会被轻易查出真身和被人利用。我并不了解2018年被移除权限的所有查核员，但我知道的一点是，三年已经过去，他们需要重新通过社群甄选流程，以确保社群仍对他们保有信任。这是个很重要的角色。这个角色能接触到很多数据，所以确认社群仍认为他们可堪此重任至关重要。
14. What does Trust & Safety feel is the right approach to take when they are reviewing a complaint where a person has violated the Terms of Use but their actions were at least partly in response to situations beyond their control? For example, in one recent T&S case it’s well known that the individual caused repeated server issues trying to work outside the known technical limitations that were preventing important work being done. They had requested a solution to the technical issue before, but a solution was not produced.
    • In the example, it sounds like a legitimate frustration. Trust and Safety, as part of their practice, tries to consider the context in which everything happens. As I mentioned earlier, the work we do here is hard, and hard work sometimes causes people to react badly in a given moment. I myself have certainly done things I'm not proud of, when I'm frustrated or upset when things go wrong.

      We try to ensure that the Foundation respects that people are not always perfect and don't always make the best choices. If a person's response to frustration goes so far beyond the realm of what can be permitted on the site, we may still have to take action. So, causing widespread technical issues, server issues, maybe, depending on why and how it happened, enough of an issue that we are required to act, threatening people harming other people there are, basically, we can all react badly, but there's a question about how badly we react. Hopefully in the future... As I mentioned, I think eventually we need some systems that will allow people to learn better conflict resolution skills, and hopefully in the future as we get there we can help people learn how to deal with these frustrating situations in a way that is productive and doesn't get themselves or others into trouble.

15. 针对保密协议方针的变动，是否有任何长期性的解决方案或提议以减轻安全威胁？
    • For context, the "NDA" (officially the confidentiality agreement for access to nonpublic information) allows people to access personally identifiable information.

      For example, CheckUsers need to sign this to see the IP addresses of users. A recent change was made to refuse NDA signatures from individuals in countries where there is a high risk of exploitation, both for the user accessing it and the users accessed, that they may be forced to disclose this information. The risk here is how we keep as open as we can while recognising that our work sometimes puts real people in real danger, and we want to know who is trying to know that. We want to have trusted people access it without putting them or others at risk. We don't have a long term plan yet, but I think we really need to focus on better digital security training for people. In my years during this work, I’ve seen some people who have become targets of bad actors in their own contexts, because they didn't fully understand how much about them was visible and discoverable and how vulnerable they were to attack. That's why we hired a human rights lead.

      Doing this work is dangerous. In some places, there's frankly no guarantee that where it is safe today will still be safe tomorrow. We really do need to think as a movement, about how to be safe in this world, and how to keep each other safe, and especially how to protect the vulnerable people who trust us, staff to not put them in danger.

16. 近日，维基媒体基金会因中国连续第二次拒绝，未能以观察员身份加入世界知识产权组织，理由是台湾维基媒体协会存在。我的问题是：在中国不断拒绝下，维基媒体基金会如何在世界知识产权组织的批准及台湾维基媒体协会之间取得适当平衡？可能的话，维基媒体基金会会不会说服中国政府在中国大陆地区解封维基媒体的项目？
    • 我的答案可能与那些呼吁取得观察员身份的人士不同。维基媒体基金会的使命是支持社群打造线上资讯来源，将这些资讯分发给全世界。事先声明，（中国拒绝基金会加入世界知识产权组织）不是意外事故。我们来这，就是为了帮助大家。我认为跟世界知识产权组织观察员身份比起来，台湾维基媒体协会是更为优先的事务。

      那我们真的很在乎（世界知识产权组织）吗？的确在乎，因为我们的法律团队一直在努力确保现有法律仍然有利于我们展开工作，所以不能说不重要。从国际层面上看，他们在努力确保法律不会变到让我们难以展开工作的地步。但我是支持大家的。我不会阉割掉这个运动的任何一部分，让想将政治斗争强加给我们组织的国家高兴，而我在这里所说的组织，不是基金会，而是维基运动。问题又说，可能的话，维基媒体基金会会不会说服中国政府在中国大陆地区解封维基媒体项目？我觉得一定会的。我认为，每个人都有获取信息的权利。我们这个时代，有太多垃圾信息在网上传播，以至于我了解到有许多人担心维基媒体项目自己就成了假消息来源。但是，有太多人不了解我们的运作机制，不晓得查看来源，不知道检查来源的可靠性，不明白如何参与。所以，依我看来，我非常乐意说服中国政府在中国大陆地区解封维基媒体的项目。

17. 是否有计划改革信任与安全团队，根据社区的反馈和观点？
    • Yes, we reform Trust and Safety constantly, we're constantly changing our policies and approaches based on feedback and opinions we receive from the community. I like to tell people, based on what I see — because of course I mostly read the more complicated cases, as I mentioned, if they come to me they're complicated — there is no normal Trust and Safety investigation, everything is uniquely hard. And every time we get one of those cases we have to stop and think, are we doing this right? Is this the best way to do things? What can we do with the tools we have, with the evolving landscape of our movement? So yes, we reform it constantly.
18. 您认为IP遮蔽是否会有信任和安全影响？
    • That question starts to get technical to a level that I myself am probably not the best person to address. But I can share with you what I understand. I will have to ask somebody who understands IP masking and its implications better than I do to follow up. There are probably people attending this call who can answer this question better than I can. Yes, I think, just like I was talking earlier about the trade off, and being open to allow anyone to help govern anyone to add content with the need of understanding the risks. IP masking has pros and cons for our movement. It makes individuals safer, it makes it harder to identify vandals. It makes it more compliant with the evolving legal landscape in the world, but it makes it harder to identify vandals. My understanding is that we are supposed to be working hard to create tools that make it as easy as possible for functionaries and administrators to continue to do the work even with IP masking. So, there are Trust and Safety implications on both sides. Yes, individuals will be harder to doxx. Those of you who are editing, it should be harder for people to say where specifically in the world you are, and who specifically you are. This is good news. Bad news, it will be harder for us to control, long term and repeat vandals, and we need to figure out how to do that well.
19. 这是不是在维基媒体运动中实施美国法律？比如，因为维基媒体基金会受美国法律约束，一些人不能被赋权。
    • 在不知道我们讨论的具体是什么行动的情况下，我会尝试回答这个问题的核心，我理解的是：我们是否在维基媒体运动中执行美国法律？

      基金会有义务遵守美国法律。所以某种程度上，在维基媒体运动中执行美国法律无可避免。无论我们在何处，我们都会让维基媒体运动遵守当地法律。

      但是，我认为有必要理解我们到底在讨论什么样的行动。我要说的是，基金会并无意把美国的法律价值观强加在维基媒体运动之上。我们作为一场运动，有些自己的一套价值观，它并不一定会和任何单一的司法管辖区的价值一致。在部分情形下，我们必须遵守美国法律，但在其他领域中，我认为我们的目标是达成使命和维基媒体运动的价值观，尽我们所能分享信息。希望我的解释有助于你的理解。

      Yeah, that is hard. I mean it's just like when we try to hire people, we try to hire people internationally through our hiring partners, and it's hard. If US law doesn't allow us to send money to somebody and in some cases even through a proxy, we haven't figured out how to solve that one yet. That's a big problem that is still in the future for us to work out. Will the Global Council play a role? I don't know, I've heard ideas maybe but I've also heard that, like I say, there are problems with giving money to a proxy organization to give money. Another big problem we have to figure out how to manage. And as somebody noted in the chat, by the way, I just want to reiterate what they said — really it doesn't matter where we're based — the law, wherever we are, is going to apply to us and we're going to have to work within the law. We may solve some problems if we were in a different locale but then we'd have other problems. It's part of the reason why our advocacy team is working so hard to make sure that the laws are favorable to our movement, it's because laws are constantly shifting and laws all over the world impact the way we can operate. Somebody else noted in the chat that the restriction is not always from the US, sometimes it's from the receiving country. That's also true.

20. 您对改善中文维基百科上管理员和行政员投票有无建议？
    • 我的理解是，信任和安全团队有在和中文维基社区直接交流。我不知道她们谈了多少，但是之前我听到的一个建议是，使用SecurePoll。

      最近有一名记者问过我这个问题，在我们发现一些管理员的选举过程受到影响或者对他们使用权限工具的行为有疑问时，我们移除了他们的管理者权限，这种做法是否不民主。我想说的是，民主选举需要安全保障。人们投票之时不必担心会受到意见相左人士的报复。这一点上，维基运动这一整体都将艰难寻找开放透明之法——这是我们价值观的核心——同时保障人们的安全。在中文维基问题上，我们知道部分被封禁者曾采取的行动包括对不按他们心意投票者进行人身伤害。我们作为一个团体需要弄清，如何进行选举，是否可以放之四海而皆准，对此我尚不清楚答案。但我认为最起码选举制度应有能力保障人民自由的投票，不必担心受到伤害。

21. Show fragile systems like SecurePoll more love re: tech debt
    • Tech debt is outside of my area of influence. I mentioned the teams that I work with earlier, but I do know that our Product team had quite a lot on their plate getting SecurePoll ready for the Board elections. They had to defer a lot of work in order to do that. But yes, tech debt is something that I hear people talk a lot about in terms of concerns on how we catch up. I agree that's a problem, and I will carry that recommendation up and out because I care about that too.

书面问题

1. 为什么所有来自大陆维基人用户组（以下简称WMC）的管理员都被除权了？这是否意味着基金会将驱逐所有来自WMC的用户？
   • 我不清楚他们是否都被除权。我知道他们中的一部分被除权了，但是这个组织一度表明自己有数百名成员，我并没有去看成员名单。我可以说的是，基金会不反对任何用户，包括管理员，以他们认为有助益的方式组织起来，包括以通过WMC这样的实体。但我们不能接受不当行为，而对于那些被除权的管理员，有证据证明他们有系统性的不当行为。基金会当前没有针对WMC的更多调查，尽管我们收到部分被制裁用户扬言报复的举报。我们不会假定所有该组织成员都参与了不当行为；根据元维基上该组织所述的成员数，远少于一半的成员有不当行为。
2. 您认为这些基金会行动对于其他社区是否会产生寒蝉效应，包括本来就有内部纷争的？
   • I certainly believe they can and worry they do. Whenever people don’t have full information on why something happened, they may worry whether something similar may happen to them. I wish that were not the case. However, I have to say I also know that taking no action when people appeal for assistance can also have a chilling effect on communities. Some in the Chinese community have openly called for support for years, support which the Foundation was not then in position to provide. Seeing such concerns unaddressed also doesn’t provide much sense of safety and courage. :/ I think it requires a careful balance of acting properly to the best of our abilities and continuing to work to create systems together with communities that people do believe are fair and can trust, such as those I hope to see emerge from and even after the UCoC enforcement.
3. 基金会无法提供证据给社区可能会造成信任问题。在9月份的行动中基金会做了一些解释。以后是否有可能在影响有关人士时告知社区？能不能给可信用户组提供一些细节，比如给监督员或用户查核员？
   • During the call, somebody asked me if the Foundation takes into account community feedback and changes our Trust & Safety practices. Yes. This communication around China is an example of that. It is a level of engagement around an office action that we have never taken before, and while I have no illusions that it can make everyone feel happy and satisfied with the action, I hope that it will help at least some. Trust & Safety actually does disclose a little bit of information to trusted community groups, especially those under NDAs, like the stewards and some arbitration committees. This has been long practice. I have to think hard about the question of sending notice to the community when experienced users are involved. All Foundation bans are posted on Meta at the time they occur. As I mentioned earlier, explanations cannot be given of why actions are taken with regards to individual users which makes it considerably harder to discuss cases involving one person...which most cases are. We can’t even post publicly whether or not cases are appealable, although we do notify individuals who are banned of their options in that regard.
4. [没有提问文字]
   • Several questions were asked about the reasons for individual bans. I can’t speak to those, I’m afraid, and I’m sorry that I can’t answer your concerns. I *can*, however, address the concerns about the user who said they received a note that they were banned for physical assault. This is a misunderstanding of the note they received. Because of the need to have the notices translated and to ship them quickly with non-Chinese staff having to send many emails in a short window of time, the notice sent to all banned users was written to indicate: “We regret that due to the need to translate this notice and due to the number of individuals involved, we cannot provide you individual information about the reasons for your ban, but collectively they include” [followed by a list of four of the factors observed within the group]. We did not intend this to confuse people into thinking that their ban was for all of those factors, and I hope that our translation quality did not contribute to any confusion. We have recently hired a facilitator for the CR&S team who has Standard Mainland Chinese as a language, but unfortunately due to the short notice the translation we obtained for our Wikimedia-L notice was not, as I had understood, from a Mainland Chinese native speaker. I do not know if there were issues with the notices sent to the users as well.
5. 在用户页贴指向WMC的链接是否违反使用条款或其他规定？
   • There are a great many questions I received in the immediate aftermath of this action. This was among them, although it was part of a lot of other questions and my answer wasn’t very succinct. For convenience, I point to those: Talk:Office actions/September 2021 statement. The Foundation has not taken action to bar the group as an entity, and we think it is for the Chinese community to determine if the actions of the group are a net positive based on the current information we have. There is no specific rule in the Terms of Use against posting links to any WMC pages, although it is regarded as “proxying” to edit on behalf of a banned user. For that reason, I would ask individuals to think about what pages they are linking to and why. I personally hope the group will recover and continue and thrive or, if it is deemed better by the community, reconfigure in a new form that will allow them to continue to grow Wikimedia in Mainland China without the prior issues demonstrated by a subset of members of canvassing and hostile engagement with others.
6. 你能否解释为什么对混淆IP地址感兴趣了？尽管维基媒体基金会发了一些通知，我看到用户们仍很困惑。[IP遮蔽计划的原因是什么？]
   • 这个问题我得看着律师声明回答。我的团队帮助探索变化后如何满足职能机关运作，但是并不指引政策执行。我的理解是，不断变化的法律法规和该信息被滥用后对用户的风险是两个要点。
7. 如果这份协定（和中国政府的）带有“附加条款”会如何？
   • Since this question was presented without context (because after the call), I’m assuming it refers to the Chinese government making Wikipedia available within their national boundaries. I was speaking to the fact that I personally would be happy to ask them to do that because I think people deserve access to free knowledge, and Wikimedia exists to try to provide good knowledge resources to everyone, everywhere. I’m not the kind of person who would say, “No way will I ever accept strings!” It’s not in my nature. Instead, I would ask, “What kind of strings are we talking about?” For instance, we can’t display media content that is not freely licensed in the US unless we have an exemption policy on a local project and an explanation for how the content qualifies. That’s a string we accept. We accept that content about living people must have reliable sources. Before I myself would ever say “No, never!” I’d have to start with “What.” And in most cases, I suspect it would be up to the international community to decide. If it is not a string with which we MUST comply (like US copyright), is it a string with which we SHOULD?