Recent removal from Access to nonpublic personal data policy/Noticeboard

Are these removal "under a cloud"? Are they related to any misuse of (CU/OS) rights or issues Ombs are investiaging? Also @JSutherland (WMF), Martin Urbanec, and Matanya:.--GZWDer (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[]

@GZWDer: Thanks for asking. As I'm not an office representative, I'll speak only to the right removal I performed. That removal was done per self-request delivered to the stewards in a private way (any steward should be able to confirm that). Due to highly exceptional circumstances, the removal unfortunately cannot be done via the standard process at SRP. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how much I can disclose as to "why" SRP cannot be used -- the office is aware, and I'll let the office to speak to that.
Also ping @NahidSultan (WMF). Martin Urbanec (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Same for the removal performed by me. Matanya (talk) 15:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi folks, the Foundation has just released an additional statement and set of FAQs that should address these questions. WMFOffice (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Typo in List of globally banned users#Currently banned by the Wikimedia Foundation

Ana-Africana, the "global banned user" you've added, doesn't exist globally, it seems that what you've global banned is Ana-africana, that the a after dash is lower case, should we fix it? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 01:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Fixed. Thanks.--WMFOffice (talk) 06:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]

In order to maintain a friendly atmosphere in the Chinese wiki community, we urgently need a ruling from the Foundation on the legal threats against Hong Kong Wikipedians

Hello, I am a user of the Chinese Wikipedia. Two months ago, the Hong Kong Wikipedians in our community were subjected to legal threats by a user, and there was a heated debate (which included several administrative battles) over whether that user should be blocked from our community(This incident has been reported in the media(HKFP, 2021-07-11 HKFP, 2021-07-14) )
See that discussion for details. We faithfully hope that this account, which acts on behalf of the Foundation, will follow this topic.If you need further understanding, please move on to this discussion page.If you require further information verification, we strongly recommend that you go and request information from the administrator Antigng (who is investigating as a third party administrator in the case)。——WMLO (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Recent desysops

I have seen this, but a core question is not answered: Can affected users regain adminship via RfA? Is it possible right now or after a period? @Mdennis (WMF):.--GZWDer (talk) 17:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Hello, GZWDer. :) Yes, but the Foundation will monitor the integrity of elections for those seeking sysop rights again (after this action) until we are able to help the local community adopt a more secure system. Essentially, we need to make sure that voters are not coerced or the election process tampered with. These individuals were not banned and are not disallowed from participating in Wikimedia projects and activities except as regards their use of tools bestowed in their prior election. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 17:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Hello, I'm wondering who is User:玄客. He/she never participates in any discussion although has a lot of weird edits. Is he/she someone's puppet or this is a mistake? --PhiLiP (talk) 19:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Hello. After some short discussions with the community (through zhwp's Telegram channel), we would like to ask for the clarification of the follows:

  1. Do the desysop actions just mean a requirement of re-election, in other words, is the community allowed to hold RfAs for those removed of their advanced rights, immediately or ASAP; or is it included as a form of sanction for any of their actions made with sysop tools?
  2. Is a reformation of the RfA system required (compulsory) for holding future RfAs, including or at least for those who were desysoped?
  3. Is the WMF Office going to monitor local RfAs, or is the community need to required the Office for future RfAs for those who were recently desysoped?

The community would be thankful for clarifications of the above questions. Thank you! -- LuciferianTalk 01:19, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Additional question: while the WMCUG is an unrecognized group, it still actively group up users and also hosts public events, including editathlons and news services (e.g. Qiuwen, on which recently a fairly radical and misleading post was issued). As some globally banned user(s) is/are currently in control of WMCUG along with off-site social media platforms like QQ text channels, may I ask if user activities in such areas are also in range of the global bans? Should these organizations, platforms and be removed from on-site exposure as long as they are still in control of such users to comply with global bans? LuciferianTalk 16:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Moin @PhiLiP: and @LuciferianThomas:, please have a look at the mini FAQ Maggie has published here. Best regards, --Jan (WMF) (talk) 21:28, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Hello, can locked users ask Oversight or other things against rumors about them? Crowley666 (talk) 03:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Hello, with regards to User:玄客, Talk:Office_actions/September_2021_statement#Mini Faq #2 mentioned "we were able to reassess the account in question. We no longer believe this user is a sockpuppet, and have restored their account.". However, The status of Special:CentralAuth/玄客 is still locked.--Wolfch (talk) 03:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]

The status of Special:CentralAuth/玄客 is not locked now.--Wolfch (talk) 08:21, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]