5 ms·

This article is somewhat confusingly written. This is the timeline that I could gather: 1. In 2020, Saudi Arabia arrested two Saudi nationals who at one point

This article is somewhat confusingly written. This is the timeline that I could gather: 1. In 2020, Saudi Arabia arrested two Saudi nationals who at one point had Wikipedia admin privileges, for posting things that the Saudi state didn't like. 2. In 2022, Wikimedia did some kind of investigation and banned 16 users for a "conflict of interest", but didn't provide further details. 3. Now, whistleblowers are alleging that Saudi state agents had "infiltrated" the "highest ranks" of Wikipedia admins, that this infiltration is what enabled the arrest of the two Saudi admins, that the 16 banned users were those same Saudi state agents. There is a further implication that now Wikimedia is denying the whistleblowers' claims in order to keep from further upsetting anyone in the Saudi government.

CoastalCoder 4y ago
> There is a further implication that now Wikimedia is denying the whistleblowers' claims in order to keep from further upsetting anyone in the Saudi government. Yikes, I hope this isn't true. It would certainly undermine the fundraising slogan of Help Keep Wikipedia Independent.
hef19898 4y ago
Honestly, Sadam was class A ahole. But all things considered, if the war on terror wouod have been about anything other than nations willingnes to sell oil to the West, NATO should have invaded Saudi.
- johnea 4y ago
  Regardless of anything that did, or never, happened at wikipedia, NATO should have invaded Saudi years ago. And certainly once they started openly dismembering people in their embassy. As much as it's appealing to blame all of this on repressive, religiously extremist governments, the bulk of the blame is laid on the US for continuing to ingratiate our entire country to these assholes in the name of petro-profit. The US is after all, a major EXPORTER of oil, and doesn't need Saudi oil except for adding additional profit to the industry...
  - cassepipe 4y ago
    Note that the US is a an oil exporter since j019 only and that's only thanks to intense fracking which is much more costly that getting saudian oil and has quite an impact on the environment and nearby populations.
  - FpUser 4y ago
    >"Regardless of anything that did, or never, happened at wikipedia, NATO should have invaded Saudi years ago." The only reason for one country to go to war with another should be in response to other country starting a war. If you do not like what they do inside then do not deal with them. If you feel sorry about their people - accept their refugees. Nobody gives you a right to declare yourself a saint and start killing people under "high moral" pretenses. We have already completely fucked up whole bunch of other countries and killed their people just to "save" them from dictatorship with the end result of them ending up in even worst state. You are simply advocating crime.
    - phpisthebest 4y ago
      So if a nation is committing genocide "inside their own borders" we just stop buying things from them? Really, that is your position?
      - throwaway290 4y ago
        Let's say it's not Putin's position for example. But you meanwhile are using the exact same justification as him. Total non-involvement is questionable and impossible, but think twice before blatantly calling to fight fire with fire and death with more death. Rule out at least semi-peaceful options first
        FpUser 4y ago
        >"Total non-involvement is questionable and impossible" Really? I think it is quite possible. How actively the West was involved in preventing that horrible genocide / mass murder in Cambodia for example?
- fsckboy 4y ago
  > if the war on terror wouod have been about anything other than nations willingnes to sell oil to the West your comment is confusing, I can't quite grasp what you're trying to say, but just to clarify: The first Iraq War was about Iraq invading Kuwait. In the period leading up to the second Iraq War, there were sanctions on Iraq and Iraq was not allowed to sell oil. Iraq (and France) wanted to lift the sanctions. The war was not about getting Iraq's oil, Iraq was begging to deliver it.
akolbe 4y ago
The two Wikipedians' prison sentences were recently increased, substantially so. See https://dawnmena.org/saudi-arabia-government-agents-infiltrate-wikipedia-sentence-independent-wikipedia-administrators-to-prison/ https://dawnmena.org/saudi-arabia-government-agents-infiltra... and https://alqst.org/en/post/extreme-jail-terms-in-saudi-arabia-signal-new-phase-of-repression https://alqst.org/en/post/extreme-jail-terms-in-saudi-arabia... (September 2022) The Wikimedia investigation was reportedly going on from January 2022 to December 2022: https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/thread/NJUOKYM2UTKFH53OKGIXW6OSEEDUI3AL/ https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@list... So key parts of both stories happened concurrently.
akolbe 4y ago
The Wikimedia Foundation has posted a statement on the Wikimedia mailing list: https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/thread/6IXJ7UQPFTLOC4YRUJNYUGHTXAN5ACVL/ https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@list... The Ars Technica article too now features an update from the DAWN director, responding to Wikimedia.

CoastalCoder 4y ago

> There is a further implication that now Wikimedia is denying the whistleblowers' claims in order to keep from further upsetting anyone in the Saudi government. Yikes, I hope this isn't true. It would certainly undermine the fundraising slogan of Help Keep Wikipedia Independent.

hef19898 4y ago

Honestly, Sadam was class A ahole. But all things considered, if the war on terror wouod have been about anything other than nations willingnes to sell oil to the West, NATO should have invaded Saudi.

johnea 4y ago
Regardless of anything that did, or never, happened at wikipedia, NATO should have invaded Saudi years ago. And certainly once they started openly dismembering people in their embassy. As much as it's appealing to blame all of this on repressive, religiously extremist governments, the bulk of the blame is laid on the US for continuing to ingratiate our entire country to these assholes in the name of petro-profit. The US is after all, a major EXPORTER of oil, and doesn't need Saudi oil except for adding additional profit to the industry...
- cassepipe 4y ago
  Note that the US is a an oil exporter since j019 only and that's only thanks to intense fracking which is much more costly that getting saudian oil and has quite an impact on the environment and nearby populations.
- FpUser 4y ago
  >"Regardless of anything that did, or never, happened at wikipedia, NATO should have invaded Saudi years ago." The only reason for one country to go to war with another should be in response to other country starting a war. If you do not like what they do inside then do not deal with them. If you feel sorry about their people - accept their refugees. Nobody gives you a right to declare yourself a saint and start killing people under "high moral" pretenses. We have already completely fucked up whole bunch of other countries and killed their people just to "save" them from dictatorship with the end result of them ending up in even worst state. You are simply advocating crime.
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    So if a nation is committing genocide "inside their own borders" we just stop buying things from them? Really, that is your position?
    - throwaway290 4y ago
      Let's say it's not Putin's position for example. But you meanwhile are using the exact same justification as him. Total non-involvement is questionable and impossible, but think twice before blatantly calling to fight fire with fire and death with more death. Rule out at least semi-peaceful options first
      - FpUser 4y ago
        >"Total non-involvement is questionable and impossible" Really? I think it is quite possible. How actively the West was involved in preventing that horrible genocide / mass murder in Cambodia for example?
fsckboy 4y ago
> if the war on terror wouod have been about anything other than nations willingnes to sell oil to the West your comment is confusing, I can't quite grasp what you're trying to say, but just to clarify: The first Iraq War was about Iraq invading Kuwait. In the period leading up to the second Iraq War, there were sanctions on Iraq and Iraq was not allowed to sell oil. Iraq (and France) wanted to lift the sanctions. The war was not about getting Iraq's oil, Iraq was begging to deliver it.

akolbe 4y ago

The two Wikipedians' prison sentences were recently increased, substantially so. See https://dawnmena.org/saudi-arabia-government-agents-infiltrate-wikipedia-sentence-independent-wikipedia-administrators-to-prison/ https://dawnmena.org/saudi-arabia-government-agents-infiltra... and https://alqst.org/en/post/extreme-jail-terms-in-saudi-arabia-signal-new-phase-of-repression https://alqst.org/en/post/extreme-jail-terms-in-saudi-arabia... (September 2022) The Wikimedia investigation was reportedly going on from January 2022 to December 2022: https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/thread/NJUOKYM2UTKFH53OKGIXW6OSEEDUI3AL/ https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@list... So key parts of both stories happened concurrently.

akolbe 4y ago

The Wikimedia Foundation has posted a statement on the Wikimedia mailing list: https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/thread/6IXJ7UQPFTLOC4YRUJNYUGHTXAN5ACVL/ https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimedia-l@list... The Ars Technica article too now features an update from the DAWN director, responding to Wikimedia.