Wikipedia:Community response to Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation

The ongoing court case in India has resulted in large community discussion because of its implications on the encyclopedia. A page created on the lawsuit has been blanked and office-locked by Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) staff. Meanwhile, certain editors of Asian News International have been notified that the WMF is prepared to disclose their personal information to the Delhi High Court. In response to the latter development, a large number of English Wikipedia editors have signed a petition to the WMF expressing concerns and emphasising the WMF's responsibility to protect editors.

The Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation situation

[The Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation situation] is becoming quite interesting: 'Prima Facie Contemptuous': Delhi High Court Orders Take Down Of Wikipedia Page On Pending Defamation Suit By ANI

Does the WMF have any input for the Wikipedians who edit in the general area? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notably, Court Reporters also report that WMF's lawyer has been willing to provide the sought details in a "sealed cover" and that WMF plans to comply with the takedown order. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WMF's lawyer has been willing to provide the sought details in a "sealed cover". Are you claiming that WMF has disclosed the identities of the ANI editors? That's a pretty WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple Court Reporting Portals — including Live Law and Bar&Bench — report that WMF's lawyer was willing to provide details about the "authors" of the ANI article but in a "sealed cover". But the Court didn't accede to such a compromise and wanted it to be filed in public.

The part about "sealed cover" is not reported in mainstream media widely but see Rohini's comments in this Hindustan Times report, etc. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another not-so-established Court-Reporting portal:

Adv Sibal [lawyer appearing for WMF]: I will disclose the name of the author in a sealed cover.
Court: why in a sealed cover?

I doubt that the portal was making this conversation up given how low the bar for invoking contempt jurisdiction appears to be in India. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raises a number of questions... Most importantly what is meant by subscriber information? Most of us edit pseudo-anonymously after all and the Foundation doesn't have our names, birth dates, etc and technical info like IP can tell you what device the edits are being made from but not who is making the edits. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huh — IP address is considered as PII (though it doesn't disclose device details; are you confusing with user-agent?)? For example, if the address is from an Indian ISP, the Court will compel it to give up the name of the person the IP address was assigned to, during the timeframe of the edits.

Now, I do not know for how long Indian ISPs retain their IP assignment logs. For a comparison, in most European states, it's about 6-12 months. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah theres a few different bits of technical info, but none actually tell you the author unless I'm missing something. So how does WMF know who the author is? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All major ISPs in India require their subscribers to produce personal details like Aadhaar at inception. All ISPs are "intermediaries" and are bound by Indian IT Act. So WMF's disclosure of IP addresses is all that the Indian authorities would need to personally identify editors if they are based in India. Read [1] for further info. — hako9 (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The question isn't how the court could figure out the name from the technical details and a subsequent investigation... The question is how the WMF has a name. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They don't. They have IP addresses though. — hako9 (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then how can they "disclose the name of the author" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They don't need to even if they wanted to. Disclosing IP would be as good as disclosing the name in India. How do you not get this? — hako9 (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I get that... But the lawyer said name not IP. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lawyer probably misspoke because admins do not have the NDA requirement like checkuser/oversighters. The Indian judge/lawyer also seem to have misspoken when they said 3 admins. I think they meant editors. — hako9 (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They could have, but at best it's ambiguous so best to continue to seek clarification from the WMF. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Names" is an imprecise substitute for "Identifying Information". How do you not get this?

These are fragments from an oral argumentation in a court before ~60 y. judges who, going by the literature on Indian Courts, are usually not very technically adept. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense.

I do not know where you are going ahead with this — conspiracy theory territory where WMF has somehow managed to access our IRL Identities / WMF's lawyer being either incompetent or taking the Court for a ride / .. — but this is my last comment on this topic. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are blowing this out of proportion, there are a large number of scenarios in which the WMF might be privy to the IRL identity of an editor. I don't think that it hurts to get clarity on the issue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI had asked for details of three "administrators" — do note that their usage of administrator might be lax and not correspond to what we understand as admins; publicly available court records do not mention the names of these three entities — who supposedly inserted and restored defamatory content in the article, from Wikimedia. These are the "authors" referred to, by WMF's lawyer. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did we start make admins verify their identity at some point? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. But, because of a couple of roles I have filled over the years (OTRS and ARBCOM), I have had to provide WMF with identifying information. The WMF has at least the same access to editor information as do checkusers. If you put your mind to it, you can make it difficult for anyone to identify you, but most editors leave breadcrumbs, and some of us have left a lot. Donald Albury 20:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neither OTRS (VRTS) nor ArbCom required ID from me. Nor would I give it. Cabayi (talk) 11:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cabayi pretty sure I had to provide it. That was before your time though. Doug Weller talk 13:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Cabayi and Doug Weller, identifying to the WMF did used to require sending them a copy of some ID but that has since changed and you no longer do. I don't remember exactly when it changed but it was after December 2014 when I was elected to the Arbitration Committee, it's possible it coincided with the introduction of the current Wikimedia Foundation Access to Nonpublic Personal Data Policy in November 2018. My recollection is that the copies of the ID were retained only long enough to verify you were who you claimed to be and were then destroyed. Thryduulf (talk) 16:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I would have been one of those presenting my ID then. Doug Weller talk 16:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those applying for Grants with the Foundation are required to disclose their identity. – robertsky (talk) 13:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JSutherland (WMF): out of curiosity does the WMF attach an IRL identity which could be provided in court to either my or TrangaBellam's account? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what I know of WMF and Wikimedia culture, I would not expect WMF to disclose any private information about an individual editor to a foreign court. WMF has a history of sticking to open source values in foreign courts even if it means being blocked for years by that nation's ISPs. I think this would be a great opportunity for someone at WMF to clarify what exactly is being disclosed to the Indian courts about our editors. If nothing private like IP addresses were disclosed, this would be an excellent time to set the record straight. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Novem Linguae I agree about the culture of WMF. But given that Wikimedia retains no private data except IP addresses and UAs (correct me if I am wrong on this point), I do not see what else their lawyer could have been willing to provide only under "sealed cover". And I support the call for WMF to clarify on these issues. TrangaBellam (talk) 02:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It also retains your email address if you set it, of course. Which is much closer to "identifying information" than anything else. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, true. Email adresses are stored as long as the user keeps it linked. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite was just noting at article talk that WMF did disclose US IPs at least once in 2007 per Video_Professor#Video_Professor_lawsuit. Apparently only Comcast kept the claimant from being able to access personal details. Valereee (talk) 12:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I am wrong, but twitter/X warns their users before disclosing their IPs on orders of a foreign/local court, when they receive and comply with takedown requests like some mentioned here [2]. If the counsel for WMF has no qualms about throwing wikipedia editors under the bus should push come to shove, shouldn't wmf warn the specific users whose IPs they are willing to disclose? — hako9 (talk) 14:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Policy:Privacy_policy#For_Legal_Reasons. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine that WMF would have to disclose personally identifiable information (PII) in USA lawsuits since WMF is based in USA. My hypothesis is that WMF would not disclose PII to foreign courts. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the first case at Litigation involving the Wikimedia Foundation talks about WMF declining a British court order in 2011. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been more than 24 hours and the Wikimedia Foundation has not taken down the page. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next meeting in court is on monday, I think. Stay tuned. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: ANI asks HC to initate contempt case against Wikipedia, says 36 hr deadline over. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, notwithstanding the fact that WMF's lawyer did broach a "sealed cover" approach, WMF appealed the order — this time, being represented by a different lawyer — petitioning that the Court must find the accusation of defamation to be prima facie true before ordering disclosure. However, the appeal was not granted and additionally, WMF was asked to take down the page(s) on the litigation. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was just reading that article, it's quite interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is the same lawyer, Akhil Sibal, representing WMF in the main case as well as the appeal. The appeal was a bit pointless. See below. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of the case at this point is that it is at "ground 0", meaning it hasn't taken off. ANI wants to sue somebody for defamation, it doesn't know who. It can't sue WMF because, under the Indian law, WMF is just an "intermediary", equivalent to a television cable company that just trasmits signals. The people that can be sued are the authors of the content, of which there are probably many. Somehow or the other, ANI narrowed down to three editors who, it believes, can be held liable for defamation. So it is weighing in on WMF to reveal their identities. The court, quite reasonably, agrees that it needs to be done. Unless they appear in court and plead, the case doesn't even begin. So, when the WMF lawyer says, I will provide the information in a "sealed cover", I think he doesn't undrestand what is going on (in fact "clueless" would be more accurate). There are only two ways out. Either WMF reveals the identities of the editors so that they can appear in court and plead. Or, WMF waives its status as an "intermediary", and pleads on their behalf. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legal Validity & Enforceability Under United States Law, US-India MLAT (can't find a treaty for civil matters[3]) Section 1782 discovery. You might be underestimating lawyers in general or WMF's in particular to say "only two ways out". fiveby(zero) 15:30, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"There are only two ways out." the WMF can also just close their offices in India and tell the court to pound sand. There is no need to operate in India, its not like there are profits to be made. If they block wikipedia they block wikipedia, we get blocked all the time. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WMF has told us the information is in the US, that they will only release under U.S. law, and told us what those laws are under which a foreign tribunal could get their hands on the information. I hope WMF thinks the court is already pounding sand. fiveby(zero) 16:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your analysis is missing the WMF's argument that the court must first make a prima facie determination as to whether the content was defamatory before it orders the WMF to turn over identifying information they have on editors. That determination really can't be made, when the Wikipedia content is (1) true, and (2) simply a summary of public facts already published elsewhere. Levivich (talk) 00:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Judge Chawla did make some remarks in the initial stages, which sounded like he made that determination. But to contest that, WMF would have had to plead, which it has refused to do, claiming itself to be an "intermediary". Recall again an "intermediary" is like a cable company that just transmits signals. Twitter has tried to do something like that a year ago, to contest the blocks the government was ordering. It lost. The judge said that it had no locus standi because it was just an "intermediary". The only people that could contest the blocks would be the authors of the content. If I was WMF I would have filed a motion to dismiss, on the grounds that Wikipedia just summarises what the reliable sources say. So the people that can be held to be liable are the authors of those sources, not Wikipedia. But that point has not been brought up in front of the court yet. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3 Per B&B, Sibal made the argument:

One of the articles hyperlinked to ANI’s page is of The Caravan. When Wikipedia argued that the publication had not been made party to the case, the Court called it a convenient answer:
An article published by say X magazine which is read by a hundred people, you don’t bother about it…it does not have the gravitas that it deserves a suit of defamation. If it comes to Wikipedia, it is not going to have a viewership of hundred, it may have it in millions and then it becomes a cause of disturbance.

TrangaBellam (talk) 09:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I noticed. This is probably part of what transpired in the 20th August hearing, which I was asking about a while ago. It did not get reported in the press at that time. The WMF lawyer gives me the impression of trying to bargain with the judge(s) rather than to assert our rights forcefully on legal grounds. My disappointment continues. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is part of our fundamental msision is to bring to the public, knowledge that might be known only to a select few. We cannot be faulted for doing this. We are not producing our own knowledge here, only collating it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but at least for me, there is a difference between "knowledge that might be known only to a select few" and "pushing fringe sources, limited to a selected few (for good reasons), as authoritative to defame someone or something, thereby promoting the fringe source in the process." This issue is not just limited to ANI, but practically applies to all Indian media news channels that do not bash the incumbent government day and night, using motivated and third-class sources like Mohd Zubair's Alt News. Should self-proclaimed fact-checkers and rival news agencies be used to defame other news agencies? Please do a quick check regarding this if you don't believe me. It's not just about ANI. When someone starts using these sources as authoritative to defame something or someone, it becomes difficult to determine who is at fault—the source, the people pushing those sources, Wikipedia itself, the Wikipedia community that allows this, or the person who feels they are being defamed because they are trying to censor "free speech." The thing is, no discussion will result in anything unless all parties are determined that they are right and the other is wrong. Let's just leave this to the court. My comments on this issue end here. DangalOh (talk) 15:01, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should self-proclaimed fact-checkers and rival news agencies be used to defame other news agencies? This would likely be a content-related discussion if it arises, and should be held on the article's talk page or at WP:RSN if it warrants an input from the wider community. – robertsky (talk) 15:40, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

using motivated and third-class sources like Mohd Zubair's Alt News Wikipedia has WP:RSN, where the editor community decides collectively whether a source is reliable or not. You can start a discussion on a source there, if you wish to. — hako9 (talk) 15:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the editor community has its own ideas about who is allowed into the club. 1.38.148.33 (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We really don't... We will in rare instances kick people out of the community for abuse but as far as a new editor joining there aren't any nescessary qualifications (we don't even technically have a minimum age). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody else apparently filed a defamation case against The Caravan and lost, in the very same Delhi High Court. That explains why ANI doesn't have the guts to go after them. We are easy pickings, apparently. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They did comply with the interim injunction before appealing. Wmf is definitely not easy pickings. — hako9 (talk) 01:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I was WMF I would have filed a motion to dismiss, on the grounds that Wikipedia just summarises what the reliable sources say There's no motion to dismiss like the US, in India. Cause of action and merit is decided in the pre-admission stage. — hako9 (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See the new related deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Navin Chawla (judge). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ANI versus Wikipedia: What is at stake? from Bar and Bench. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From an analysis of a different case by Gautam Bhatia who is well-regarded in the legal academia and has written an authoritative work (OUP; 2016) on free speech jusisprudence in India:

Quashing in a criminal defamation case is a difficult prospect. This is because – to simplify – under Section 499 of the IPC, a prima facie offence of defamation is made out with the existence of a defamatory imputation, which has been made with the intention or knowledge that it will cause harm. This is, evidently, a very low threshold.
Section 499 also contains a set of exceptions to the rule (such as statements that are true and in the public interest, statements made in good faith about public questions, and so on) – but here’s the rub: these exceptions only kick in at the stage of trial, by which time the legal process has (in all likelihood) dragged on for years. What we essentially have, therefore, is one of those situations where the cost of censorship is low (instituting prima facie credible criminal proceedings), but the cost of speech is high (a tedious, time-consuming, and expensive trial, with the possibility of imprisonment).

Interesting. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from WMF (to community?):
Hi everyone,
I, Kabir Darshan Singh Choudhary, am a Senior Counsel at the Wikimedia Foundation’s Legal Department. The Foundation is in receipt of your message(s) regarding the developments in India around a defamation suit filed by ANI.
We are currently reviewing the recent order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and will take all necessary actions, in accordance with applicable laws, to ensure that the people of India continue to have the right to share and access free and reliable knowledge in an open and safe online environment. The Wikimedia Foundation is committed to safeguarding the rights of Wikimedia community members and preserving uninterrupted access to Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects in India. As a standard practice, we do not share specific details of ongoing legal cases that are sub-judice.

Additionally, since this is an active legal case, we recommend caution while sharing, discussing, or speculating on the topic. Please contact ca@wikimedia.org for any trust and safety concerns. Also, please direct any press inquiries you receive to pr@wikimedia.org.
On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation
Kabir Darshan Singh Choudhary
Senior Counsel
— https://www.mail-archive.com/wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/msg15179.html
TrangaBellam (talk) 20:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TrangaBellam, and why share this now? Kinda belated, no?
1. This was not addressed to the broader English Wikipedia community, but the Indian community, since this was sent to Wikimedia India mailing list.
2. This was sent on 20 September 2024. https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org/thread/DEKVYIS7ZT2SJKK63TDIHRSC72FUSOYD/
– robertsky (talk) 02:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies; I read it as 20 October 2024. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:49, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WMF action

And now WMFOffice has taken down the page Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation. Which is one of two occasions since 2020 in which the WMF has accepted a non-DMCA-related content request (the other being some edits to fr:Dorcel) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have to rewrite WP:NOTCENSORED now? Currently it reads "Content will be removed if it is judged to violate Wikipedia's policies (especially those on biographies of living persons and using a neutral point of view) or the law of the United States (where Wikipedia is hosted)." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We may as well get rid of NOTCENSORED. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

English Wikipedia policies like WP:NOT describe the way the community conducts itself, and nothing more. WP:NOTCENSORED survived Damon Dash being taken down for two entire years, for example. It can survive this. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even then, I think it's something to consider. Is it really not censored? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NOTCENSORED could mention OA somehow. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an instance NOTCENSORED being ignored via WP:Ignore all rules. And I say that as someone skeptical of that policy in general. I don't think it requires an kind of rewrite. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I think IAR is about community conduct as well. OA goes beyond that, but can include stuff (like in this case) that can appear like censorship. So I think NOTCENSORED could include something like "For X actions, see WP:OA." Or "or the law of the United States" could have the addition "... and in some cases, other countries." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:16, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IAR does not apply, as this action does not improve or maintain Wikipedia (unless, arguably, it is a good-faith attempt to preemptively maintain India's access to Wikipedia). Randy Kryn (talk) 07:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it is the opposite of improving Wikipedia, and it's a bad precedent. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant meta-policy is not IAR but WP:CONEXCEPT. NOTCENSORED exists as a matter of editorial consensus, and the WMF is exempt from that. Whether this was a good use of that exemption is something we'll probably only be able to say some time after the dust has settled. For now, histrionic responses (not like yours, GGS, but some others') help nothing and may risk making things harder for the WMF (and thus all of us), given that the court does not seem to recognize much distinction between the WMF and Wikipedia editors. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 07:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's really unhelpful at this juncture to characterize matters in this way: this is part of a live legal dispute, and it's pretty clear to me that the WMF's strategy is in service of getting content back up. They're taking what they see to be the least obstructive means—the least censored means possible frankly. I'll put it like this: if all of Wikipedia got censored in the largest country in the world on the pretext of WMF violating this order at this stage—I would hold them partially but meaningfully responsible for that because they fell for easy bait and handed them that pretext. It would be a tremendous fuckup. Remsense ‥ 论 09:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I must disagree in the strongest possible terms, Remsense. This is about much more than the access of one country's population--even be it the the first or second most populous country in the world--and capitulating to such demands increases the liklihood they will be made in the future, sets a highly dangerous precedent for acceding to them, and, along with various other orders of the court in this case (and the WMFs decision to tow the line with them) creates a number of profound chilling effects upon the project (which serves a much wider world than India's population, and cannot do so effectively and with any accodrance to our traditional image of what what our part in the free knowledge movement looks like, maintaining certain principles)--as indeed has been noted by a number of legal and policy experts who don't even have the added benefit of a Wikipedian's perspective.

So, no, I don't think the concerns being raised here about what this says about 1) our project's role and the interference of outside parties, and, more crucially 2) the culture and decisions being made by WMF and it's legal team in this instance, are at all hyperbolic. This is deeply, deeply worrying stuff and more or less unprcedented (even considering other office actions over the years), and I'm frankly not sure what I am more gobsmacked by: some of the WMF's decision making in this case, or the relatively low level of response from the community so far.

And this is all the more inexplicable because, bluntly, I think the writing may already be on the wall when it comes to India. It's ruling government and high court have become increasingly ambivalent, and indeed sometimes quite hostily postured, when it comes to imporant principles that the free knwoledge movement is predicated on generally, and the operations of Wikipedia in particular. Orders from India's higher courts, and saber rattling about the consequences of not complying with them, are becoming regular affairs. I honestly doubt that the WMF can maintain the dance you refer to above for much longer, and in the meantime it is now unambigously crossing its own Rubicon in respect to the independence of the community in editorial matters in its effort to do so. The people of India elect their leaders, who in turn appoint and regulate the high officers of their courts. If access to Wikipedia is lost in their borders, and that loss is important enough to them, they can make their voices heard. Meanwhile, we cannot continue down this road of abrogating key principles of the movement upon which the basic functioning of this endeavour rely, nor should we take lightly that the WMF seems to be increasingly open to coercion in doing just that. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 18:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I strenuously disagree. Removing one page makes it easier for governments to quietly use threats like this to remove things from Wikipedia that they find distasteful; while also achieving their goal of suppressing it internationally. Having all of Wikipedia blocked in their country, on the other hand, is "louder" and risks more backlash in their own country, while failing to actually restrict access. Wikipedia should 100% without exception choose to be blocked country-wide rather than taking down a page like this. The WMF's compliance here was a grave mistake that ought to undermine trust in their ability to properly manage Wikipedia's interests against suits of this nature. --Aquillion (talk) 19:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see the action on the French Wikipedia is also pretty recent. Is there coverage or discussion on it? Nardog (talk) 04:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not aware of any. I stumbled across it when I was checking the WMF's transparency reports to see how rare this kind of office action is. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Going by Category:Wikipedia Office-protected pages, not that common, at least not on en-WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Found this: it:Wikipedia:Bar/Discussioni/Notification of office action. Nardog (talk) 05:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Odd. The Italian/German action from 2021 is not reported at the 2021 transparency report where I would have expected it.

Looks like I failed to read the logs correctly, the transparency reports don't include all such actions, and the French Wikipedia action mentioned at https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/transparency/2024-1/content isn't that at all but the deletion of fr:François Billot de Lochner (especially since those edits are in October and thus would go in the not-yet-released 2024-2 report). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess they were lying about this then? The Wikipedia database is stored on servers in the United States of America, and is maintained in reference to the protections afforded under local and federal law. I thought i knew what those protections were, and must have misread some of the claims made about Wikipedia. fiveby(zero) 05:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not happy about this at all. Why should we bend over to censorship? LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At a guess, some version of "our lawyers say we must." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can the WMF office engage with us here and provide additional details?

I would like to know what our options our. For example, we’ve accepted being blocked in various countries before - why isn’t that outcome acceptable here? BilledMammal (talk) 05:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because of what the court's requests entail. That, and the large amounts of editors and potential editors in India. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but it would be good if the WMF could be clear to the community about what penalties the court threatened, and which of those penalties the WMF believes the court could enforce.

If the only realistically enforceable penalty is blocking, then I think that is a decision that should be devolved to the community and let us decide whether we want to go down the slope of deferring to censorship, or if we wish to continue rejecting it. BilledMammal (talk) 06:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In essence, Wikipedia is blocked right now, not only in India but everywhere. fiveby(zero) 06:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Obviously it's not blocked everywhere, as I'm making this edit (from the United States) without applying any kind of anti-circumvention measures. Do you have some evidence to support that hyperbolic claim? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the real Wikipedia blocks are the friends we made along the way. (???) LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 06:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think they’re saying the because the WMF has removed the page in response to this lawsuit, there is a global partial block on Wikipedia.

It’s a reasonable perspective, in my view, and asks the question of how much are we willing to let Indian courts control the content that our global audience views. BilledMammal (talk) 06:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no one is worried about you Pppery, except in a hope you are well and having a nice evening way. Now i see in the X thread below more talk of releasing info under sealed order. This is baffling unless employee(s) there are truly in danger. How many more of these will there be now that everyone knows it works? fiveby(zero) 06:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per [4], this happens from time to time. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

not the first time the High Court has ordered an online platform..., as far as i am aware this is a first for WP, which they told us they wouldn't, but much more importantly told editors in India they would not. fiveby(zero) 07:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By "this" I meant "WMF giving user-info per court-order." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, under Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and applicable US law. I do see those to Italy, Germany, and France in the article. Was not aware of those and they may be under US law, Terms of Use, or Privacy Policy. If not should have complained then. It's a shelter for editors at risk. fiveby(zero) 07:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think at least one part of it is the short deadline given (especially given Levivich's quote of the applicable policy). For something easily reversible like hiding the article, it's more practical to temporarily accept the legal orders and then arguing it's invalid after. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Applicable policy: m:Legal/Legal Policies § Applicable Law Determination:

If an applicable legal order requires changes to on-wiki content, we will only make direct changes via office action if there is a legal deadline and local process is unavailable or unable to respond in line with the legal requirement in time. In the event that we make a change via office action, we will provide an update to the local community after the change explaining the reason.

Levivich (talk) 05:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which is one of two occasions since 2020 in which the WMF has accepted a non-DMCA-related content request (the other being some edits to fr:Dorcel)

I see several WMFOffice actions just on fr wiki: fr:Spécial:Contributions/WMFOffice, fr:Spécial:Journal/WMFOffice. Der-Wir-Ing (talk) 12:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia ‘suspends access’ to ANI defamation case page, following Delhi HC order - The Hindu Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Today's hearing can be followed here. tl;dr : WMF's lawyer is willing to disclose the sought details in a sealed cover but wants the Court to make a finding on defamation before that and is wary about precedent. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The final sentence in the court order uploaded by WMFOffice at foundation:File:October 16 2024 ANI v Wikimedia order.pdf gives me pause: "this Court directs Wikimedia Foundation Inc.– the appellant herein to take down/delete the said pages and discussion with regard to the observations made by this Court within thirty six (36) hours" (emphasis mine). I do hope the "discussion" refers to the article's talk page, and not this and any other related discussions. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 13:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The court may not know exactly what it means, as they may be unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works. CMD (talk) 14:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WMFOffice also uploaded the order to Wikimedia Commons: c:File:October 16 2024 ANI v Wikimedia order.pdf. If it's okay, for convenience, I posted that version here as thumbnail at the top of this subsection. theinstantmatrix (talk) 15:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a Russian Wikipedia editor this leaves me stunned. We as a community have always thought the NOTCENSORED policy is one of the most important ones, refusing to block pages with valuable information on requests from Roskomnadzor, and now... WMF does this? Well very well (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion in ruwiki: ru:Википедия:Форум/Общий#Фонд удалил статью анвики по предварительному требованию индийского суда Well very well (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The censored WP page has been preserved by the Wikipedia criticism site Gender Desk, with an archived version of this linked in the appropriate thread at Wikipediocracy. Carrite (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And archive.today. Talkpage available as well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now that they have set a precedent by taking down an en-wiki article for a non-US legal matter, Will WMF also concede to Indian government 's old demand and orders to change/remove maps of Kashmir / Aksai Chin [5][6]? - Ratnahastin (talk) 15:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My read is that this take down is temporary until the case is over, and we will be free to have this case be written on enwiki thereafter. Sub judice is about an active case. Using this case as legal precedence, from my rusty company law classes knowledge, is that accepting prior cases as precedence requires a strict matching of the backgrounds of the previous cases and the current ones. It may establish a precedence for future sub judice cases under similar conditions, i.e. a defamation trial being being written on enwiki after the trial has started; or that it is a dispute between companies, not nations and a company; what's sought after is a determination of defamation being made and not content changes (although one outcome of the case would be the courts ordering for a change or removal of wordings in the article, but that's an remedy and not an active point of determination [afaik until we see the original filing by ANI]); etc. The legal facts/background pertaining to the maps are vastly different from this case. The maps aren't defamatory per se, and it has been discussed plenty of times outside of the courts. S – robertsky (talk) 00:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for the WMF

I think it would be beneficial to have a clear list of questions for the WMF to provide answers to. As an initial draft:

The Indian Courts are demanding that the WMF disclose the identity of three or four editors, and according to recent media reports to WMF is willing to do so.

Are these reports accurate?
If they are accurate:
1. What types of PII would the WMF be disclosing?
2. Have the editors involved been informed that the Indian Courts are seeking their PII, and that the WMF is willing to disclose it?
What would be the consequences of not disclosing this PII, including:
- What sanctions have the Indian courts threatened to impose?
- How realistic is it that the Indian courts can enforce these sanctions?

The Indian Courts have demanded the WMF take down Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation, which the WMF has now done

What would have been the consequences of not taking down this page, including:
- What sanctions have the Indian courts threatened to impose?
- How realistic is it that the Indian courts can enforce these sanctions?
Why did the WMF diverge from its standard policy of refusing to comply with these requests, such as in Turkey and France?

Are there any additional questions that the community wishes to get an answer to, or changes to these questions, before I start badgering the WMF to get answers to them? BilledMammal (talk) 07:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like as a community that we take time to make careful and thoughtful considerations about this, which may involve not badgering the WMF for immediate details on a live court case where they are already handling apparently quite serious contempt of court allegations. CMD (talk) 07:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, this is very news-y and will take time. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 2) Without details we don’t have the information needed to make careful and thoughtful considerations. Once we have the details, we can consider them and decide if, as a community, we endorse or reject the WMF’s stance. In particular, I’m very concerned about the WMF being willing to disclose PII in cases like this, and I would like the community to have the chance to determine a position on that decision prior to the PII being disclosed. BilledMammal (talk) 07:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think "Ongoing lawsuit, no comment for now" is likely to be the response if any for now, but we'll see. A known Wikipedian said this [7] regarding the ANI-case in early September. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, that is not a position that the community has to, or should, accept in this case, with very clear indications that there has been actual consideration by WMF and their internal counsel to actually disclose personal information of editors. Sensitivity to the delicate position of the WMF in such cases is one thing, but BilledMammal is correct: insofar as these reports are alarming and represent and unprecedented step that has substantial implications for the basic manner in which this project has already operated, we cannot accept the very piecemeal and unreassuring limited statements we have received thus far. The questions BM raises are a reasonable first step in getting some clarity here--and in any event, do not seem to contain anything which would impinge upon it's duty before the court in the current case. The only real potential fallout from their answers is their relationship with the community--and if there is anything that should damage that in the information to be disclosed, it suggests all the more reason we would want to be aware of it. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The questions about sanctions are not based in reality. No one knows what the outcome of a court case might entail until long after the verdict, and no one has any idea about enforcement apart from a few obvious platitudes about due process. Fortunately, the WMF lawyers are smart enough to not make a public statement about on ongoing case (apart, perhaps, from a few obvious platitudes). The WMF's actions might be a little late, but they look like the first step in protecting identities to me. Johnuniq (talk) 07:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The questions about sanctions are not based in reality. No one knows what the outcome of a court case might entail until long after the verdict, and no one has any idea about enforcement apart from a few obvious platitudes about due process.

I think the WMF would at least have an idea of what sanctions would be imposed, as well as which sanctions can be enforced on an entity based in America, but I’m not an expert and could easily be wrong on this.

The WMF's actions might be a little late, but they look like the first step in protecting identities to me.

Given the WMF is willing to disclose those identities, I don’t see how this is the first step in doing so. Given past actions and focuses, I’m wondering if they are more concerned with protecting the WMF’s Indian revenue stream than editors identities or our core mission. BilledMammal (talk) 07:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are unlikely to ever see a public statement from either side regarding this case except for something released by a public relations department with legal vetting. I doubt there is any reliable information about the WMF's intentions but we can see some action: the article and talk page have been deleted and all edits, edit summaries, and user names have been suppressed. Johnuniq (talk) 07:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be because the court ordered the page taken down - not because the WMF is trying to protect editor identities. BilledMammal (talk) 07:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The financial cui bono angle is not convincing. Remsense ‥ 论 09:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given our track record over a great many years, that's an odd thing to wonder. But for the avoidance of doubt: no one at the WMF, no board member, no one at all as far as I know, has brought up the question of "protecting the WMF's Indian revenue stream" - because it isn't in any way a concern that is motivating anyone. I think you already had all the information you needed in order to come to that conclusion, before you started the speculation. Please don't do that, it's not the right way to AGF, ok?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In recent years, the WMF has behaved problematically in regards to its revenue stream and the use of that revenue, and one of the areas it is attempting to increase revenue from is India. Given this, and the unusual behavior we are seeing here, I think some "wondering" was appropriate at the time - the WMF needs to earn back trust in the area of revenue, it can't expect it. BilledMammal (talk) 13:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Literally none of that resonates with anyone who has been aware of the facts, so let me just repeat it - no one on staff or on the board has raised or mentioned or discussed in any way any question about revenue in the context of fighting for editor privacy and freedom of expression. It's literally not true, not even close to true. That's really about all there is to say about it. Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm going to have to agree with our first citizen on this one, BM. Putting aside for the moment that I think substantial portions of the community discussion around how "the WMF has behaved problematically in regards to its revenue stream and the use of that revenue" are ginned-up histrionics more indicative of the desires of certain community members to convince themselves that they are corruption-sleuthing muckrakers, there is just no principled reason, supported by anything outside of wild speculation, that considerations relating to revenue streams have played any part in the decision making on this issue. Considering that you are also getting additional affirmation that they did not from the community member best positioned to know, I'd drop this line of inquiry. It's signal-to-noise ration in the presence of the much more well-attested and profoundly worrying concerns that the community might legitimately have here is just far too low. I otherwise strongly support your call for responses on your enumerated list of inquiries for the WMF above, but this revenue topic is not only an unfruitful line of discussion, it is an active distraction from the real issues of consequence you are trying to reach to. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like one of those questions is more important than the others, and so it might make sense to just focus on that: "is WMF going to divulge any personal information (emails, IPs, etc.) about the three editors accused of defamation, under sealed cover or otherwise?" –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It is unfortunate that WMF is being submissive a wannabe authoritarian regime that is known for jailing people even for the most trivial things.[8] Raymond3023 (talk) 08:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It raises a good question of whether the WMF is making some sort of determination that some court systems are legitimate and others not... I would note that almost all of the North Korea and China related editing I do could now in theory be undone by defamation orders from the courts in those countries. The very idea that Taiwan isn't part of China is after all offensive to the "Chinese nation" same for the idea that Kim Jong-Un is a human rights abuser. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is of course true that in any situation, any rational and thoughtful defender of human rights will take into account various factors about the legitimacy of court systems and about the likely result of various courses of action. Again speaking only for myself, I think it should be fairly obvious to anyone who is thinking thoughtfully about how to fight would realize that doing anything in order to comply with courts in, per your example North Korea, would be pointless and hopeless. There would be no question of "we need to respect sub judice so that we can fight the real fight which is about user privacy and freedom of expression" because North Korean courts have zero chance of acting independently. If the WMF told me "we need to take down this page for now, so that we can preserve our ability to fight for the principles we believe in" in North Korea, I'd be totally unpersuaded. Nothing would change the outcome there, as it wouldn't be a real process.

If the WMF said "we need to take this page down because it offends the sensibilities of the 'Indian nation'" I'd be similarly unimpressed, as I'm sure you would be as well. So, again, don't worry - serious people, acting on top level advice from top people, are fighting the fight in a smart way for the principles that we believe in. Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy, I have no reservations about assuming the dedication or the WMF board and legal team to broadly defending the movements principles, nor their competencies in that task, but I'd be lying if I said what we already know about the strategy adopted and concessions made in this case doesn't give me more pause than pretty much any other set of responses I have ever seen the foundation make in response to any challenge to our free speech principles. I have extremely mixed feelings about undertaking the decision to pull the article even temporarily and as a strategic temporary measure to keep options open; I think there is a very compelling argument for not going down that most slippery of slopes. I'm only somewhat re-assured by the knowledge that it is a course that, in theory anyway, the WMF can abandon at any time if they (under their own analysis cost-benefit or bowing to community will if we arrive there) determine that enough is enough.

Unfortunately, that is (and this highlights the extreme nature of this situation) not the action by the WMF which commands my deepest apprehension in this complex of issues. Rather, that is the apparent willingness of the WMF (or at least momentary indication of its counsel to that effect) to consider turning over private user data to the court and parties to this case. You of all people need no explanation for how potentially explosive such an act could be, and damaging to the fundamental operation of this project--for reasons too vast to summarize here, even if you did need that information. Maybe I'm not caught up on some particulars here which would otherwise indicate a reason to think that the reports are inaccurate to a degree that obviates reasonable concerns. If so, I'll be relieved to hear it. If not, I wonder if you are in a position to illuminate what is happening in that arena? How close did WMF counsel come to revealing that information, even in a sealed disclosure? What is the WMF's current position on that matter, and what is the current posture of any motion or order dictating the court's current expectation in relation to this information and the timeline to act, do you know?

This is one matter I would hold that it is not proper for the community to forebear on demanding answers about, even considering the complex legal situation in which the WMF finds itself unenviably captured by. It goes to fundamental assurances the organization has given to the community time and again about protecting its volunteer's privacy, especially from the overreach of entities as powerful as those involved here and which, frankly, are displaying increasingly worrisome tendencies in both their propensity to request such information and the possible actions which follow from such disclosures. Historically, I have been reassured by the foundations firm commitment to maintaining the necessary bulwark against such intrusion, but the indications and messaging I have seen so far in this situation have me about as worried as I have ever been in my time with the movement--both for the individuals involved here (and any others similarly position in the future) and for the endeavour as a whole. Any insight you can provide would be deeply appreciated. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that WMF's legal team is advising they definitely not come in here and officially explain the action to us all. This is breaking news, and there's no particular reason Wikipedia itself needs to have this article live right now. No deadlines, we'll finish writing it after the case is settled. Valereee (talk) 09:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Jimbo Wales

Hi everyone, I spoke to the team at the WMF yesterday afternoon in a quick meeting of the board. Although I've been around Internet legal issues for a long time, it's important to note that I am not a lawyer and that I am not here speaking for the WMF nor the board as a whole. I'm speaking personally as a Wikipedian. As you might expect, it's pretty limited as to what people are able to say at this point, and unwise to give too many details. However, I can tell you that I went into the call initially very skeptical of the idea of even temporarily taking down this page and I was persuaded very quickly by a single fact that changed my mind: if we did not comply with this order, we would lose the possibility to appeal and the consequences would be dire in terms of achieving our ultimate goals here. For those who are concerned that this is somehow the WMF giving in on the principles that we all hold so dear, don't worry. I heard from the WMF quite strong moral and legal support for doing the right thing here - and that includes going through the process in the right way. Prior to the call, I thought that the consequence would just be a block of Wikipedia by the Indian government. While that's never a good thing, it's always been something we're prepared to accept in order to stand for freedom of expression. We were blocked in Turkey for 3 years or so, and fought all the way to the Supreme Court and won. Nothing has chnaged about our principles. The difference in this case is that the short term legal requirements in order to not wreck the long term chance of victory made this a necessary step. My understanding is that the WMF has consulted with fellow traveler human rights and freedom of expression groups who have supported that we should do everything we can to win this battle for the long run, as opposed to petulantly refusing to do something today. I hope these words are reassuring to those who may have had some concerns!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Involved here, as I created the article) Thanks, Jimbo. I support keeping our eyes on the prize. Valereee (talk) 09:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimbo Wales ban is one thing but the cost of litigation (as claimed by ANI) that the court will impose would be a costly affair DHICKYPEDIA (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indian courts are extremely powerful thing in India. They have the power to scrap the ruling governments, change the constitution and what not. This thing is not related with the government. DHICKYPEDIA (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree on a top-line level with the sentiment in the penultimate sentence regarding long term benefit vs short term benefit, my concern would be: is this likely to happen again? We saw with the squabble with the Supreme Court only a few weeks ago regading a victim's name of a crime, now this in the same jurisdiction. Are we setting ourselves up for failure here by showing that we will repeatedly acquiesce to demands—that conflict with our values and mission—from Indian courts that we wouldn't accept from any other jurisdiction outside the US? Daniel (talk) 09:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a lawyer either, but I'm fairly sure wisdom I've heard from lawyers talking about analogous disputes has some purchase here: one has to play ball to some degree. If the WMF throws up their hands, says the entire court is out of order, and declares they will not participate in this legal farce—that is what will make them look vulnerable, because it's handing every bad faith actor an automatic pretext to get the website they hate to shoot themselves in the foot. See also my comment above. Remsense ‥ 论 10:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hear what you're saying, but the Indian courts are continually looking to expand their power, influence and jurisdiction. They are often seen as more powerful than the legislature and executive within that country; they share some alarmingly similar characteristics in their conduct and processes with the judiciaries of failed states and military juntas. I expect we will see this conduct continue over the coming months and years with more frequency until a line is drawn somewhere in the sand. Daniel (talk) 10:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, I think there is long-term reason for concern, certainly—I think one has to play ball to some degree, but determining when that degree has been exceeded is a big part of what you pay your shiny expensive counsel for. After that, who knows! — Remsense ‥ 论 10:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Jimbo. WMF Legal are in a hard place. Having 48,297,200 "clients" it's impossible for them to give confidential strategy briefings. Cabayi (talk) 10:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comforting in what you do not mention, the anonymity of editors in India is not at risk? If it's not a concern that is great, and i am sure you would have mentioned if it were. fiveby(zero) 10:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like, what? If India wants to block us like Turkey did, well, that's why people invented things like Tor, VPNs, etc. If India's threatening something else to WMF there, get out of India. India can't do anything to someone who's not there. (Unless, of course, the WMF is going to hand over data about editors who are there, in which case I hope no one would ever trust them regarding anything again.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's better for Wikipedia to cease all operations in India than for it to hand over personal information of editors to the Indian courts. Ratnahastin (talk) 10:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sera, WMF pulled the article to keep the ability to appeal open. They aren't trying to make sure we aren't blocked in India. They're trying to make sure whatever decision is made can be appealed up the line. Valereee (talk) 12:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely understand that. The answer to any such demand still must be "No". If that means they block us, they block us; that's all they can do if WMF pulls anything they may have there out of India. Unless, of course, they want to involve the community in the discussion about what's going on, and we agree that it's better to have it removed for some time so they can do what they're going to do. But otherwise, if having it up messes with their appeal, well—that sucks, but we should not be telling governments "Just make threats, and we'll remove whatever you don't like!". And now they even know how to make the threat—"Remove it right now or we won't let you appeal!". That cannot happen. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think they believe that, like in Turkey, if they appeal it high enough, WMF will win, and that will be not only a win for Wikipedia but for free speech in India in general. And having the community discuss isn't really practical when a court order expired two days ago and the hearing is about to open; we could spend three months discussing this. I think temporary blanking is worth it, myself. We can always open an RfC here to get input. Valereee (talk) 12:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably what we should do, but I think we'll need some more information first. To start with (and Jimbo Wales, maybe you can answer this, or know who can), how temporary is "temporary"? If we're talking "Leave it down for a week or two until the appeal's filed", then I don't think people would object to that too much. If it's "We'll have an answer in five years, maybe, if we're lucky, and it might still be no"—I think that would be a very different conversation. Legal processes can be very lengthy indeed, so I think we need to have some time frame more specific than "temporary". Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it's 'no' once there's no ongoing litigation, then yes, that's a very different conversation. That would be actual censorship. This is just complying with the laws in a country where discussing ongoing court cases is considered an attempt to influence those cases and therefore contempt of court.

But yes, it would be good to clarify what happens when the case is decided in Delhi High Court, but before an appeal is filed with the Supreme Court. Valereee (talk) 12:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't be complying with those laws. Now, if we need to as a genuinely brief measure to achieve some goal—maybe we say "Okay, this is worth a one-time compromise"; all rules can be ignored after all. But we certainly shouldn't be making a habit of knuckling under to things like that, and I'm afraid we're setting a very, very bad example for other such governments to follow. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You or I, as editors, shouldn't be complying. For WMF, as an intermediary trying to thread a legal needle, it's more nuanced. Valereee (talk) 12:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add a plus one to what Valereee is saying here and additionally that in my view the Wikimedia Foundation legal team has earned some trust that it understands the principles that we are all collectively fighting for and that it is acting competently to advance those principles under difficult circumstances that call for hard tradeoffs. Say what you will about other parts of the WMF, but our Legal team is genuinely top-tier and alined on principles, and I am 100% sure that they detest complying with this order. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 13:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"That would be actual censorship. This is just complying with the laws in a country where discussing ongoing court cases is considered an attempt to influence those cases and therefore contempt of court."

Well there's the rub, though. Typically it is only in nations with recent or historical trends towards the public suppression of information reasonably viewed as in the interest of the public that the act of tertiary source summarizing the facts of a legal case, as reported on broadly by news sources, would be considered an act to "influence the case" that is so improper that it can lead to findings of civil contempt or criminal charges. And that's so even where those reporting the news or summarizing it have some degree of involvement in the underlying dispute around which the case revolves. Rather, most modern democracies and free societies have some combination of constitutional and precedential legal authority which provide express protection for such public reporting and discussion. So your argument somewhat relies on a conflict of terms, because this action very much is considered "actual censorship" under the most common applications of the term, and orders of this nature are part and parcel of the active broader discourse of the eroding of freedom of expression and individual rights in contemporary India. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the court considers Wikipedia a party. Valereee (talk) 13:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia clearly is a party, but I don't see where that in any way obviates the rejection of your argument. Your basic position was "This is not censorship, it's 'just' the court ordering a party to sublimate its content under these circumstances." Well, those two things are not contradictions in terms and, yes, this very much is censorship, by any reasonable conventional use of the term--and it's actually a particularly onerous and problematic form for us.

I can appreciate your decision to defer to the difficult position of the WMF in the circumstances: it's perfectly reasonable. But let's not let deference lead to language minimizing the extraordinary circumstances this situation constitutes for this project and its community. Nor indeed write a blank check on our position regarding the extraordinary, unprecedented, and potentially future-of-the-movement shaping impact of the WMF's own actions in this case. They are at a minimum exceptional in the extreme (in fact, easily near the very top of the list of most consequential decisions ever made by the WMF on behalf of the project, with jaw-dropping consequences for the independence and operation of this project and the privacy protections its volunteers are supposed to receive) and deserve the highest possible level of immediate scrutiny.

Even now, being in possession of some more context for the WMF's actions and assurances from Jimmy that he thinks this is the proper course, there are still many, many unanswered questions and cause for profound concern. If nothing else, I am deeply worried by the lack of communication directly from the Foundation to justify in detail either of two seismic actions it has undertaken in relation to this case: the apparent courting of the idea of revealing the personal data of volunteers, and the decision to use an office action to censor content that in every respect seems to have comported with this project's rules. The latter goes against this community's--no, in fact this entire movement's--most core principles and the former against assurances we have tacitly given to every new volunteer for decades. Mind you, I have nothing but understanding for both the strategic argument and the time constraint which justify the WMF leadership's willingness to call the shot on whether to comply with the take-down order for the immediate term. Actually, I have more reason to relate to and respect the position of the Board of Directors and the foundation's legal counsel in those circumstances than you might think.

However, what I am less prepared to gloss over is that the Foundation's position now seems to be "Decision made: we'll let you know if there are any developments." Well, no--I'll say to the WMF on behalf of the community, if no one else of higher stature within it is willing to--it's not remotely that simple. These are big issues with the potential to define key aspects of the future of this movement, and, not withstanding our willingness to understand your short-term, buck-stops-here call that needed to be made to preserve legal standing for appeal, the next steps are not your decision to make alone. I respect that the WMF has a unique organizational and legal role in these circumstances: indeed, I find myself in a very weird position at this moment, because I have historically more often found myself defending the WMF from what I have often viewed as hyperbolic or even histrionic complaints about how it navigates its work--specifically because of the Foundation;s unique role in the movement and the Boards particular fiduciary duties. But at the same time, in terms of the organization of the movement, it has never been the understanding of the community that the WMF was entitled, whatever it's technical and legal powers, to make a decision as profound as the ones involved here without consultation with the community. At least, not unless it was prepared to face a serious loss of volunteer confidence and commitment.

Or so I would have thought, anyway. I will confess to being beyond confused right now about the level of alarm-with-potential-for-outrage that I am seeing in the community over this situation. Or even the level of awareness it is getting. Considering the speed and scope of furor from the inception of Framgate, when half the community of veteran editors went into open revolt almost overnight for a single (arguably very defensible) office action that temporarily limited the privileges of one community member, I don't understand how this infinitely more serious situation--with the WMF 1) reportedly contemplating the divulgence of private information of editors with deeply worrisome consequences for those volunteers, and 2) definitely having been willing to suppress content at the direction of a state entity--does not have the entire community mobilized and demanding answers. I only know I am more than a little worried about what the relative level of response says about our current priorities, and how we feel about the privacy rights of volunteers and the importance of maintaining a firewall against state influence over our content.

Again, for sake of making myself perfectly clear, I understand the WMF having acted in haste as it did in the circumstances. A quick call had to be made and the people authorized and positioned to do so made that call. It would be absurd to hold that they should have done otherwise. I'd even go as far as saying that I'm not sure I can see a cognizable argument for them having made any other decision on whether to pull the article to preserve appeal. If only to buy enough time to raise the issues with the community, it was almost certainly the right call.

But said consultation should start today. Or bluntly, should have started, in a deep and fulsome fashion, immediately contemporaneous with the office action. It certainly is not something I think the community is required to (or should) enter into a holding pattern about. The WMF's legal position the Indian court will in no way be negatively impacted by taking a read of whether the community thinks the office action was the right thing to do in the circumstances, or what the collective response of the movement (in this case involving both the WMF and the en.Wikipedia community) should be to the Dehli high court's ultimatums. The community may very well wish to draw a line in the sand here and now, as both a matter of principle speaking to the values of our movement, and as a pragmatic signal about how we should be responding to the acts of courts in other countries with dubious present day positions on the free exchange of information, who might bring undue pressure or consequences down upon our volunteers engaged in the hard work and principled work of that mission. And while we cannot as a legal matter dictate every particular of that response, we can sure as hell, as an organizational and community matter, make our will (and the potential consequences of rejecting it) known to the Foundation.

And in those terms, let me be the first to state my line on one of those issues in the clearest possible terms: : if the WMF adopts a policy of being willing to disclose PII in circumstances such as these, I will immediately suspend my contributions to this project indefinitely and until such time as the Foundation reverses that position and I believe I can trust they will never go down that road again. And I'll probably only be satisfied about that latter part after major changes in the WMF leadership on both the Board and operational levels, if the current Board and counsel are willing to breach this community's trust on what I consider to be a longstanding implicit compact between the two sides of this movement's leadership. And one of the last things I do before leaving will be to create a user page notice template for anyone who wishes to follow suit. And if I'm the only one to use it, that will be the largest surprise to me of all. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought about this over the past few days, and I've come to the same decision. If the WMF chooses to disclose personally identifying information to an entity in a foreign country based on the content of an article, I fully intend to retire until such time that certain members of the Foundation's leadership are no longer employed by the organization. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1 - taking it down temporarily is acceptable, but if we're talking years then that becomes a different matter. BilledMammal (talk) 13:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The circumstances of which Wikipedia was blocked in Turkey are vastly different from this time round. At the very least, there is still a legal pathway for WMF and the other parties to resolve the matter. If ultimately Wikipedia has being blocked in India totally, we can argue for the Office action to be lifted. For what reason will we want to the article to be not being written by then?

While English Wikipedia has its own rulebook, and one that is evolved largely within USA's set of laws, as an international encyclopedia, we have to be cognizant that the world is made up of different cultures, and accompanying them, different sets of customs, rules, regulations, and laws. What one may think as censorship or self-censorship for not covering an ongoing legal case, in other parts of the world, it may be more prudent to have the case covered only after the case has ended so that one does not prematurely receive an invitation for a coffee/tea session with the authorities.

In the meantime, we can collect the relevant sources for referencing for the article when the Office action is lifted. At the same time, in recognition of the ongoing archive.org issue, please archive the sources on other archival sites such as archive.today or ghostarchive.org. I just realised that some links I had tried to retrieve from archive.org aren't archived in the last two weeks or so. – robertsky (talk) 12:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to worry about what's prudent when deciding to write an article. If a court orders WMF to take it down, and WMF decides that's in the best interest of long-term goals, fine. But to not write it in the first place because I'm worried a judge might take offense? No. Valereee (talk) 12:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not worried about the judge, but instead fellow editors who are in India. Ever stop and think what adverse effects it may bring to the local community/groups there? – robertsky (talk) 13:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I already grabbed a copy from an archive site, and saved it offline as well. If anyone has an issue with getting it from archive sites, I'm happy to email them my copy. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

robertsky, that's an argument for not revealing identities, not an argument for not writing an article. Valereee (talk) 13:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what Valereee said. They can't go after them if they don't know who they are, and it's clear they don't, or they wouldn't be doing all this to begin with. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, I'd hardly say there is zero chilling effect from permitting the government and courts of India to dictate whether articles will be retained. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"but instead fellow editors who are in India" thats the hostage fallacy. Its the same problem with paying terrorists for hostages... You incentive hostage taking, not disincentive it. Ironically what would endanger editors in India the most is setting up a system where the Indian government can use editors in India as leverage against editors outside of India. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jimbo Wales, thank you for that update regarding the page takedown; that is reassuring to hear.

However, of greater concern is the WMF's apparent willingness to share PII with the Indian Courts; in line with Novem Linguae's question above, is WMF going to divulge any personal information (emails, IPs, etc.) about the three editors accused of defamation, under sealed cover or otherwise, and if so what types of PII will be disclosed? BilledMammal (talk) 13:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal Possibly true, WMF likely throw poor Indian editors under the bus just like The Wire (India) thrown one of their editors in Meta/Xcheck fiasco. DHICKYPEDIA (talk) 16:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know that the editors in question are Indian? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coule of them are. DHICKYPEDIA (talk) 17:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Couple DHICKYPEDIA (talk) 17:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like an entirely reasonable decision, and I'm thankful that Wikipedia is prepared to be blocked in India for the sake of freedom of expression if it ultimately comes to that. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimbo Wales: An appeal on constitutional matters, although usually accepted, could perhaps take years for a final decision because of the seemingly endless pendency of cases in India's Supreme Court. But once the matter is no longer sub-judice in the Delhi HC, the page on ani vs wmf can be put right back up, afaik (correct me if I am wrong). If the appeal is on civil matter (i.e court finds wmf guilty of defamation), editors here won't be able to add the defamatory content (mouthpiece of BJP) back up until resolution in supreme court. Is this correct? — hako9 (talk) 16:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You or someone on legal team of wmf will need to explain this to editors here because, they will keep editing cluelessly about the matter and admins won't know what they are supposed to do. I can reproduce the content on the deleted page right now, to a section in Freedom of expression in India. Will there be a staff action again? — hako9 (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. My preference, speaking personally, is that people mainly not do that sort of thing just to stir the stew. I don't see the point. WP:POINT. At the same time, I don't think it's necessary to step around on tip-toes nor for anyone to go wild WP:TROUTing anyone who talks about the case anywhere. We are all, or should be, reasonable people acting with kindness towards others. Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jimbo Wales: Would WMF comply with a future potential defamation/takedown order from the Indian government or its aggrieved citizens there for say Ayurveda or Narendra Modi/2002 Gujarat riots? — hako9 (talk) 20:00, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hako9: look at Jimbo's statement again above. The reason to take it down for now was so that we can appeal the case and not lose it by default (i.e. get Wikipedia blocked sitewide in India and probably a bunch of other bad things I won't speculate about). This is not a new permanent precedent where WMF will start taking down content on request from India or any another government. Since the purpose was to enable an appeal in an undecided case, let's keep our cool and not jump to conclusions. Steven Walling • talk 21:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's better to be blocked than to trample on the principles. Well very well (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more concerned about the disclosure of the identifying information about editors to the court. That is irreversible, and should not happen, even if it wrecks chances of appeal, and even if it means Wikipedia is blocked in India for a very long time or forever. I mean that seriously, and with real consideration behind it. I'm also not happy in the slightest with the WMF takedown of the page. If that is a takedown with a timescale of days to a week, I can hold my nose, although it is offensive on principle. If this is a more permanent takedown, that can be reasonably foreseen to last months or years, that would not align with the values of the community as I understand them. Tazerdadog (talk) 01:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have a somewhat different view of it. I don't like the idea of the WMF disclosing personal data about editors to anyone, either. But I live in the US and I know the WMF is subject to subpoena in the US: if a US court orders the WMF to turn over my IP address, etc., the WMF is going to comply. They might appeal, they might ask the court to not require compliance until after the appeal, but ultimately, they're going to comply with a US court order, as they must. So would every other US-based website.

That's the US, but if Wikipedia wants to be a global website, then it's going to have to comply with the laws of multiple countries, not just the US. The EU's privacy laws are different than those in the US; I have rights in the US I don't have in the EU, but if I want to edit here, I have to understand that if a court in an EU country orders the WMF to disclose my IP and stuff, the WMF is going to do it.
Unless we want Wikipedia to pull out of India -- which I don't think we should, like a sixth of humanity lives there -- the WMF is going to have to comply with India's court orders, just like in the US or EU. Same goes for blacklocking the article: the WMF would comply with a gag order from a US or EU court, it should comply with Indian court orders, too, because a lot of people live there and we should not give up those readers (and editors). So I think complying with Indian court orders does align with the community's values, which is to be a global encyclopedia with a global readership. Levivich (talk) 03:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope WMF decides to defend the personal data of our editors in this situation. Unmasking our editors because a company doesn't like the edits they made would set an ugly precedent. This talk of disclosing personal data of our editors under a "sealed cover" makes me uncomfortable. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: That's an appallingly bad argument. The concerns of user-privacy, a no less fundamental cornerstone of community values, needs to be balanced with that of potential loss of readership. It would be a global encyclopedia with a global readership but USA-based-authorship if WMF starts going down this slippery slope! Taking your logic to its rational end, you ought to have no problems with WMF disclosing IP addresses of Palestine based editors upon receiving requests from Israeli courts; what if, upon defiance, Wikipedia cannot reach the Israelis?! TrangaBellam (talk) 08:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Israel isn't India. Neither is Venezuela, Turkey, Pakistan (all of which have blocked Wikipedia at one point or another). Neither is North Korea, Iran, etc. etc. There are some nations where we shouldn't try to comply with their laws. I don't think India should be one of them. Levivich (talk) 14:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to your list. Some people might say that "Levivich distrusts this country" or "TrangaBellam trusts this country" is an useless way of discussing these issues — esp. when these assessments are not corroborated by any reliable sources — but I am certain that you are already aware of that. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You jest but coming up with a list of countries where Wikipedia does business and countries where Wikipedia does not do business is exactly what must be done, and what has already been done. We don't have any offices in North Korea AFAIK. We do in the EU. We've already made that choice, and must continually make these choices. The question here is: which group should India be in? I say in the "yes, do business" group. Levivich (talk) 15:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That depends whether they try to impose censorship. The US has very robust protections of free speech and press. Many other countries, not so much. If any other country tries to censor our content, they put themself immediately in the "No business" group. People there can still read and edit the encyclopedia (even if they block it; it's not like Tor, VPNs, proxies, etc., are some shocking new technology), we'd just have to remove any offices, equipment, etc., from that country. And if they try to censor any content, we should almost certainly do so. If they demand giving up data on editors, we should 100%, no questions asked, do so. That applies to India, the EU, or anywhere else. If we need to stick to the US to avoid censorship and protect our editors' privacy, that is exactly what we should do. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Seraphimblade: To be clear, when you say And if they try to censor any content, we should almost certainly do so. If they demand giving up data on editors, we should 100%, no questions asked, do so., you mean "do so" as in "stop doing business", right? jlwoodwa (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct. Sorry if I was unclear in my wording. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: Maybe you should revisit your analysis. India is increasingly becoming an authoritarian country and has experienced rapid democratic backsliding. Ratnahastin (talk) 06:00, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So now the Foundation is going to disclose editor's personal data to EU, India... Why not PRC? It's another "sixth of humanity" just like India, and I am more than certain the WMF would be happy to return to China if it is given a chance. Why not Russia, or Iran, or Türkiye? Each one of these has huge populations and the WMF would not want to be blocked there and "give up those readers" for such a trifle as editors' privacy, right? Deinocheirus (talk) 14:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we should try to keep PRC readership because it is about a fifth of humanity, which is a huge proportion. But China isn't India, there are other considerations, like that China isn't even ostensibly a democracy.

But what privacy rights are you talking about? You don't have unlimited privacy rights in your IP address. Even in the US, that can be disclosed. And all other websites follow the same laws--why should Wikipedia be immune to laws that apply to every other company or website: Apple, Google, Microsoft... Twitter, Facebook, etc., all of them are going to turn over your IP address if they're ordered to do so by the US, or the EU. Why should Wikipedia editors be exempt? Keep in mind we voluntarily give our IP address, user agent, and other information, to literally every single website we visit, so it's not really private.

"Wikipedia editors should be absolutely immune from any legal consequence of their editing" is not a value that I hold. My values are: "we are subject to the same laws as any other user on any other website." We don't have any more privacy rights at en.wikipedia.org than we have at www.google.com. And it would be better for Wikipedia to be a global website than a US website. That means subjecting Wikipedia to as many legal jurisdictions as possible. Russia, Iran, and Turkey are dictatorships. I think it's OK not to do business in dictatorships. India is not a dictatorship, even if its democracy is flawed, so is the US. I mean, I don't think Modi is really any worse than Trump, but YMMV. Levivich (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And how do you arrive at the fact that Turkey is more of a dictatorship than Modi's India — vibes? VDem (EDI) ranks India at 110 and Turkey at 127; not much of a margin. Of course, I feel that none of them are dictatorships (as indeed do scholars) but flawed democracies undergoing rapid democratic backsliding.

This is what I pointed out above. Your argument boils down to nothing but "I feel India is good enough to do business and hence, WMF must comply." TrangaBellam (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Should" not "must" :-) Levivich (talk) 15:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
:-) Ironically, in today's edition of NYT, I came across this but yeah, "Modi isn't really worse than Trump". Anyway, we aren't really convincing each other; so, no point in continuing this. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(ec re Levivich) Gråbergs Gråa Sång was it you who linked the article where an editor commented that they were scared? I keep trying to find it again and can't, Bar and Bench? Anyway i would like this editor to not be scared, or a hypothetical editor in such a situation not to be scared. I am in the U.S. and would not be scared in this situation. I thought having the content and PII stored in the U.S. was a practical if not very global way to help. My values conflict with yours but that's ok, for me at least. fiveby(zero) 15:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I might have, but if so I don't remember which. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fiveby, it's ringing a dim bell that it might have been at my user talk? Valereee (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not spot on, but "However, Delhi High Court ordered the disclosure of Wikipedia users’ identity without even determining whether there was any prima facie defamation. “This appears to deviate from the usual judicial approach of ensuring a proper legal basis before ordering the disclosure of user identities, potentially raising concerns over privacy and freedom of expression,” Choudhary said. ... “Restricting platforms like Wikipedia is an indirect assault on the freedom of speech under the guise of technological regulation,” he said. According to Hasan, “it may stifle open discussion and limit access to information”" - Scroll.in Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://thediplomat.com/2024/09/will-indian-courts-tame-wikipedia/. Quote is about halfway down. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, a sixth of humanity lives in China, too. There is not a snowball's chance in Hell that we ought be giving them all the user data that they request, nor obeying censorship orders that they hand down.
If a state is unfree, and is trying to exert editorial control over this project, then the best thing to do is simply to:
Refuse to comply with censorship orders; and

Refuse to hand over user data to countries who would use it to violate our contributors' rights and freedoms.
There is no other way to maintain project integrity.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that sacrificing some of our editors in the name of "global encyclopaedia" is wrong. What WMF did has created a chilling effects for non-US editors - that at any given time WMF could gave up their information. The United States is a flawed democracy, but it has way better freedom of speech protection that many other countries. It is not the best, but it is not a bad one either! We have articles on numerous scandals of US administration. We have articles on scandals of powerful people - from presidents to movie stars to religious leaders. We have covered scandals on big companies as well. And none ever did what ANI had done - trying to sue the editors. If this case is brought before a judge in the US it would be thrown out in a heartbeat - not so in many other countries.

The question remained - why would WMF agreed to share the PII of the editors? What is their motivation? Is "winning" on Indian court worth sending some of our editors to Indian prison? Or the viewership and the revenue of India is too good to be passed? What if the country is not India, but smaller like Belarus. Will we do the same thing? Or how if these things happened in the US? Will Wikipedia surrendered meekly like what happened in India or fought tooth and nail up to the Supreme Court? I previously believe the latter but now I believe WMF would surrender quickly citing "our legal team forced us to do it, the aforementioned editors better get some good lawyer." ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, I find it extremely concerning that the lawyers would be willing to disclose identifying information to the court. IANAL, but giving this info to a foreign government doesn't seem like a wise move at all. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that I don't dislike the idea as well, but from where I'm sitting, the US is foreign government too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, yeah, my government is the Canadian one. And considering the Canada–India relations being so bad right now, this is not the time for the WMF to just give my info to India. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 07:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is probably a smart move to take the article down until we are legally able to put it back up, but I would like to make it clear that under no circumstances can I support giving editors' private information to the government of a country like India, especially considering what has been happening in Canada recently. IANAL, but I believe it would be better to have the site blocked in India than to reveal the private information of our editors without their consent. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, I respectfully understand that the hope is that the WMF will appeal and ultimately win. And I very much hope that the WMF does win here.

But what if the WMF loses this case? Is the WMF then going to restore the page (or permit the page to be restored), and flagrantly be in contempt of the Indian courts? Or are we going to allow this global project's content to be subject to a de facto veto by the laws and courts of India? And, if we accept that the Indian government has that de facto veto, doesn't that place this whole project at a real risk of censorship down the line? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a lawyer, but as I understood it, the (perhaps) main reason the judges got pissed off was that the case is "Sub judice", but that can probably be the case for years to come. I also read today that there are currently two ongoing cases, ANI-defamation and WMF appealing order to release user-info. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. CS(OS) 524 / 2024 and FAO(OS) 146 / 2024 — hako9 (talk) 20:13, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, but if the WMF loses the case, the case is over, so no longer under subjudice and no longer in contempt of court, so there'd be no need to suppress the article, even from the court's point of view? Valereee (talk) 20:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:40, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

However in that case, presumably WMF would be ordered to censor the ANI article, essentially the same dilemma. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 11:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the same dilemma, as the reasons the action is being requested would be different. This will weight the decision differently. CMD (talk) 12:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was being unclear. I meant the dilemma Red-tailed hawk described, not the one we're facing right now. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 12:54, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We would run into the same dilemma, inasmuch as the WMF would have to make a decision as to whether or not they would comply with India's court order that requires that a particular page's content be edited in some way or removed in some other way. I understand that this decision by WMF legal is tactical in nature so as to try to preserve the opportunity to win on the broader point at the end of the day. But there are big questions here, and I hope the board really does take to heart that we are talking about freedom when we talk about a free encyclopedia, not merely taking about a gratis one. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's only the same dilemma if you consider all court orders to be identical, which I'm sure WMF does not and I hope we would not as well. CMD (talk) 06:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request journalistic help with The Signpost

The Signpost is Wikipedia editors' own newsletter. Like everything else with Wikipedia, anyone can edit it, and it invites volunteer contributors. I am writing to request assistance from anyone who would like to draft the story about this legal issue. I have some notes started at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/News and notes. Here, a brief objective summary of the events is needed. If anyone would like to contribute other journalism, such as a personal opinion piece on the situation, then please express your interest at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom. Thanks! Bluerasberry (talk) 15:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This feels like a bad idea. If covering the court case is what got us in trouble the first time, I doubt the court would look kindly on us doing it again, even if in a different format. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:16, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since when has Signpost cared about what's right or best for the project. SerialNumber54129 16:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Doug Weller talk 09:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you are talking about an actual incident or just vaguely expressing disdain (?) but if there's a particular thing you have in mind I am always open to criticism. jp×g 🗯️ 05:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good comment. Don't you find it disturbing? fiveby(zero) 16:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am disturbed when free speech is under legal threat. That does not mean we should take a poor legal strategy, such as ignoring court orders while a case is ongoing. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you a WMF employee? Because if not the "us" there isn't under court order and has no legal strategy. We are not the WMF. Also note that you are currently ignoring such a court order if it does apply, you are literally discussing the court order right now on wikipedia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not a WMF employee, but I do view us as in this fight together given that they're fighting for our rights here. Doing things on Wikipedia that are likely to interfere with their strategy and piss off the court is, in my view, a bad idea if you want the WMF to win this case. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So why are you commenting in a discussion which will almost certainly piss off the court? If you're taking the court seriously you aren't supposed to be having this conversation... You aren't supposed to even mention the case on wiki. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't refute anything I've said. An internal discussion vs something intentionally presented as a news report is very different and it's not unrealistic to think that the court would see it as such. And yes, I do think it would probably be better if we keep the discussion about the case itself to a minimum here, but since the discussion is already happening, it's not like my comments in particular are going to be the tipping point for the court being unhappy with us. Not interested in arguing about this with you. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have a long tradition of covering controversies which involve ourselves confidently, even handedly, and promplty, it is one of our best features and something that even our most ardent opponents will mention as a positive, its a peculiar badge of honor that anti-wikipedia people will refer to Criticism of Wikipedia or List of Wikipedia controversies for evidence of why Wikipedia sucks. I don't see a compelling reason to abandon that tradition, if you want to engage with me in that sense I would be very open to it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The principle shouldn't be abandoned; just put on pause until we get a final result in this court case. Unlike previous cases, the judge here doesn't seem to be able or willing to distinguish between actions of Wikipedia editors and of the Foundation (that's how this whole thing became a problem in the first place). Given that, us editors doing stuff that the judge wouldn't like has the potential to cause problems for the Foundation's legal strategy.

After the court case is resolved, whatever the result, I expect that we will fully cover this, and that we will restore the page on this case (even if we lose the case and get blocked in India for it). However, doing so now would make it far more difficult for us to win the case. That's why we shouldn't. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the problem is that we aren't seen as separate wouldn't doing the same thing be the problematic one by that logic? And is an argument to do or not do something in order to seek advantage in a court case the foundation is involved in an WP:IAR argument or is there another policy or guideline basis for it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's an IAR thing. In my opinion we should try to make the Foundation's job easier here, because doing so will benefit us in the long-run. (Of course, it wouldn't be IAR if they force us to shut this discussion down or removing coverage of the case elsewhere on the site... but I'd rather avoid things even getting to that point.) Elli (talk | contribs) 17:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be unfair to say that you think we should temporarily put aside NPOV in order to promote the Foundation for our own long term benefit? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is unfair to say. This isn't setting aside NPOV at all and certainly not promoting the Foundation. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting the Foundation's interests then? What is making their job easier if not promoting them or their interests? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you honestly cannot understand the difference between "violating NPOV to promote the Foundation" and "not posting things that will harm their chances in ongoing litigation" then I do not think there is any point to discussing this further. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't fabricate quotes, thats just not what I said... I said temporarily put aside in the context of IAR, which unless I misunderstand is the only policy or guideline on which your argument is based. Doing something to help a group's chances in a court case is a WP:NOT problem, that doesn't change when the party in question is the Wikimedia Foundation and not the The Coca-Cola Company. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost isn't part of the encyclopedia. Content policies don't apply to it. Not that any content policy requires us to write about a topic anyways. This is a very silly thread. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 17:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Throwing a third layer of complexity in the picture? I really can see why this is so maddening for judges to figure out... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with that, Maddy from Celeste :D SerialNumber54129 12:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just as editors shouldn't worry about performance, I disagree with the notion we should adjust our behaviours to assist the WMF's active legal affairs, especially our own syntheses of what would help (with a clear distinction here in regards to settled policies, e.g. fair use). The Foundation has a legal team and contractors who are professionally poised to handle these situations. Once a hammer comes down, if it does at all, then those directions should be followed. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 17:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are all fine here, our speech isn't under legal threat. Bluerasberry can write elsewhere and we'll all be able to read about things elsewhere. It is annoying and shocking to see happen is all. I'd like to hear from those whose speech is under threat in the Signpost article. I thought that Wikipedia gave them the best protection they could to do so. From what i'm reading and how it appears that is not so strong a protection as I thought (but most importantly what they thought). Based on Jimbo's statement above and taking it as more reliable, it appears that this is not so great a concern in this case. fiveby(zero) 17:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine the elsewhere is diffblog and it somehow gotten past the review stage. 🤣 – robertsky (talk) 03:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We're going it now in a different format. This current discussion will offend the court if that will. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a big difference between a general discussion about how the community should react to the issue between the WMF and the Indian courts, and publishing an article in something which identifies as a newspaper, covering apparently the same sorts of things as the recently redacted article covered. I know that it's ultimately the WMF's decision what flies and what doesn't fly, and no doubt they'll take the Signpost article down themselves if they deem it appropriate to do so... but personally I do agree with Elli that it would be prudent and WP:COMMONSENSE not to inflame this situation any further by publishing a Signpost article on it now, given the Office Action decision to redact the article itself. Once it all blows over, the Signpost can cover it at will. — Amakuru (talk) 18:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the Signpost used its own web server instead of piggybacking a free ride on WMF's servers, this wouldn't be an issue. And they'd be closer to an actual independent newspaper instead of being this website's newsletter. I agree they shouldn't pour fuel on the fire by posting about the case on the WMF's servers. Levivich (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you'd just have to buy a domain, set up a webserver, then write an application for passing through URLs to retrieve, format and display Signpost articles, and also make it capable of overriding this default behavior for specified titles to fetch the content from its own database rather than from enwiki_p... jp×g 🗯️ 11:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lol it's not the 90s anymore, you don't need to set up a web server to have a website, nor do you need a domain (which btw cost less than $1/yr now). Signpost could post its articles on wordpress or substack for free. Takes like five minutes to set up. They have lots of nice templates that do the formatting for you. If boomers can do it then so can anyone. You could even have your own message boards, event calendar, email newsletter. Levivich (talk) 11:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know any TLD that costs less than $1 a year, unless you mean some kind of introductory/bundle offer. At any rate, if I were going to sit down and do this I'd want it to be something decent and presentable like, say, signpost.news. jp×g 🗯️ 12:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

which btw cost less than $1/yr now. My domain name registrar charges USD $17.29/yr for .coms, $15.95/yr for .nets, $9.49/yr for .orgs. I feel those are more typical prices. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the one example at hand, the process seemed to be: ANI lawyers notice whatever > They tell judges > Judges get annoyed > Judges order WMF. It won't necessarily become a habit, and the previous article was in mainspace + linked on the ANI WP-article, and so more visible to the lawyers involved.

It will be hard to convince all Wikipedians not to discuss this possibly first-time-ever issue on-WP, but prudent people can always join the discussion on Wikipediocracy instead. I don't think writing in The Signpost is more not prudent than this thread. We as a community don't handle gag-orders well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of us would rather have the discussion via messages left in gas station bathrooms than on Wikipediocracy. That aside, I think we handle gag orders well, in that we refuse to shut up, which is a good way of handling them. We just don't handle them the way those who would hold the gags wish we would. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:07, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Thieves respect property. They merely wish the property to become their property that they may more perfectly respect it." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely an appropriate quote, but not in the way you think. If someone's trying to keep me from speaking either my opinion, or any true fact, and I have not voluntarily agreed to that situation (e.g., an NDA in exchange for access to sensitive data in employment), they are trying to steal my right to speak. And I won't take too kindly to that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My thinking was that the cadence of your comment reminded me of that quote, I'm not calling anyone in or mentioned in this discussion a thief. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is in the real world may be more germane than WP:COMMONSENSE. Nardog (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the editor-in-chief exists to post in situations like this.

Well: I don't think it's possible for a thing to fit fit more clearly in the Signpost than this (what could possibly matter more? the crossword?) At the same time, I would personally prefer to do so in a way that avoids hosing the entire project and everybody on it for no clear benefit. The obvious journalistic response to open direct censorship is somewhere between "NUTS!" and "Aux armes citoyens", which is altogether good and proper.

I would consider directly causing the death of the website we're hosted on something of an anathema to our ability to exercise journalistic integrity; I would consider e.g. having entire articles summarily oversighted with no appeal something of a pointless exercise in boneheadedness and organizational dysfunction for its own sake. Anything which results in these things happening, then, is no good. So what actions result in which outcomes? Well, I don't know. I don't think anybody really has a complete picture of what is going on, hence this vacuous if-by-whiskey post. All I can say for sure is that some emails are going to be sent. jp×g 🗯️ 18:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It might sound radical. But hear me out. Since signpost is a newspaper, you report 2 facts. 1) The article xyz was taken down. 2) Jimjams quote verbatim. That's it. No bylines. No explanation/analysis (not that most of the editors here are competent in legal analysis anyways). — hako9 (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The court might consider it a house organ. They don't really understand the separation. Valereee (talk) 20:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

published See this issue at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single/2024-11-06 Bluerasberry (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

fr.wiki OAs

In 2024, WMF also took two content-related OAs for two articles at fr.wiki. It is perhaps pertinent to note that in the period from 01-01-2015 to today — which is about a decade —, there have probably been only five OFFICE ACTIONs concerning content per this discussion: the article on the ANI litigation (2024), Lois Lee (2015), two fr.wiki articles (2024), and a Zh.wiki article (2018).

In any case, WMF issued a long statement to the fr.wiki community. I found it interesting because it seemed like an unprecedentedly detailed intervention (not attributing any negative motives, though; it's perhaps helpful) by WMF into content, going to the extent of suggesting how the community ought to write articles, deal with COI requests, etc. They also note that French courts are becoming increasingly sympathetic to the subjects of Wikipedia articles and probably hints that there could be more litigations (and similar OAs?) in the future. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As is often the case, we have used automatic translation tools here in order to communicate with you in France – which explains the lack of inclusive writing/turns of phrase, for which we apologize. Bet the French loved that lol... Valereee (talk) 20:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I bet the non-French members of the French-speaking Wikipedia community loved it even more... Like starting of a letter to the ewiki community with "we have used automatic translation tools here in order to communicate with you in America" (although to be fair they do use the much more accurate "French-speaking Wikipedia community" further in) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Especially odd since the WMF does have several French-speaking employees, and has had French-speaking employees over the entire time period. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The francophones don't seem to have forgotten the slight against their honor from the WMF... [9]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:39, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, wow. Valereee (talk) 01:04, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair the court only seems to care about enwiki, there are pages for ANI on eleven other language wikis (including other languages widely spoken in India) which say more or less the same thing enwiki does but they don't seem to be at issue for the court... Just the stuff on enwiki. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Blessentmoncoeur. Valereee (talk) 01:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth pointing out that creating that page is Blessentmoncoeur's only edit across the entire wiki farm. Probably some LTA making a point, not a legitimate expression of the views of the French Wikipedia community. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not an LTA but someone who thought it prudent to use an alt account. Can someone give me a correct translation of the username, I don't think "bless my heart" is quite right? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hurt my heart. – robertsky (talk) 08:07, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That makes a kind of sense, thanks. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a line from Chanson d'automne, by Paul Verlaine. Whoever chose that name probably intended to recall its use as a secret message for the French Resistance during World War II. – Swa cwæð Ælfgar (talk) 12:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities might be interesting for you, knowledgeable people are always welcome. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My God. You'd think it would make sense NOT to do this. I know I'm all about the Streisand effect, but this isn't the time just yet. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 02:56, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. On the one hand, I think this is on the "just to stir the stew" side on Jimbo's comment here. On the other hand, it made me smile. While the en-WP article was live, I certainly hoped it would be translated into Hindi and other languages. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's gone now. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted citing enwiki OA and sock puppetry. – robertsky (talk) 08:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Faux-nez, a false nose! I hadn't heard that before. Now I'm going to need to know the idiom in every language. Valereee (talk) 09:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sv-WP uses Marionette. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

09:31, 22 October 2024 JohnNewton8 talk contribs deleted page Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation (Page supprimée de en-WP par WMF à la suite d'une procédure judiciaire + notoriété non démontrée (sources sur un mois seulement)  + création par un WP:FN +)   (thank)

Is this an office action or a normal CSD? Neither I nor the machine translator parlez-vous well enough to tell. jp×g 🗯️ 11:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"notoriété non démontrée (sources sur un mois seulement)" indicates it was deleted on notability grounds as it didn't contain sources older than one month. I don't see such a clause in fr:WP:N, but that might be how they operate there. Nardog (talk) 14:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is mentioned at fr:Wikipédia:Notoriété#La notoriété doit être pérenne.

La notoriété, telle que définie ici, ne peut pas résulter d'une notoriété ponctuelle ou d'un engouement temporaire. C'est pourquoi il est demandé en principe que le sujet puisse s'appuyer au minimum sur deux sources secondaires considérées comme fiables qui lui aient consacré un article ou un chapitre, espacées d'au moins deux ans.

Basically, a subject needs to have reliable secondary sources that are space by at least two years to be considered notable. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We need this on enwiki, if only to get rid of the many articles about current events that don't warrant a page. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 03:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We sort of do have it, "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability.", but it's just one of the factors editors can look at in an afd. It's not like fr-WP doesn't have Tentative d'assassinat de Donald Trump en juillet 2024. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note how they don't have pages on the perpetrator. That's a good thing. But that's besides the point for this noticeboard. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 06:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not "pages" but Auteur_de_l'attentat has about 500 words. There may be a case for merging Thomas Matthew Crooks at some point, but the technically 4 afd:s so far didn't do it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Page supprimée de en-WP par WMF à la suite d'une procédure judiciaire: Page deleted from English Wikipedia by WMF following a legal procedure
notoriété non démontrée (sources sur un mois seulement): Notability isn't demonstrated across time (sources only across one month)
création par un WP:FN: Created by a sockpuppet ("faux-nez")
Appears to be a regular deletion, but informed by the office action on English Wikipedia. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now this is a good subject for a The Signpost article, @JPxG. Office actions in history or something like that. I read some of a discussion linked in the long statemant [10], and the WMF lawyer there seems to be saying that it generally helps the legal department when the encyclopedic content is good quality, so they don't have to defend crap in court. I'll try to keep that in mind if I do more edits in the general area. And I think the deleted article was pretty ok from the WP-perspective. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Important nitpick: I confused myself. See below. But TL;DR: There's a sixth. ~~As discussed above, one of the two OAs on frwiki itwiki and dewiki, albeit much more minimally.~~ -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 23:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That happened in 2021. Weird to say the 2024 OA "affected" them. Nardog (talk) 23:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The specific database query used to start this thread looks only for logged actions (in the sense the community defines that term). It missed the 2021 action as a result of that, since the only logged actions it involved are oversights. I skimmed through WMFOffice's global contributions, and didn't find anything else of note. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:43, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I mixed up my frwiki things. The 2021 itwiki & dewiki actions were about a French individual, but had already been handled by the community at fr:Dorcel (and, it seems, also at Special:PageHistory/Marc Dorcel). But then more recently the same statement was reïntroduced on frwiki and led to an OA there, unrelated to the two linked by TrangaBellam. So that makes six total, if we count the it/de/fr Dorcel actions as one. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 00:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But it's correct that Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation is the only such takedown of an article in en-WP history? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Likely unless WMF has supressed the relevant logs too. TrangaBellam (talk) 08:51, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not correct. The WMF took down Damon Dash and DD172 temporarily and Andrew Stewart Jamieson permanently in 2011, for example. I think this is the first takedown since those, though I haven't looked exhaustively. Office actions were much more common in the early days.

Those do show up in that query, by the way. And to answer the implied comment in the query you linked to: "but did staff have WMF accounts, then" - the current policy of official actions being required to be staff account dates only back to 2014 (although most staff followed it anyway), and the WMF didn't even exist in 2002. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A good reminder that Wikipedia is pretty old, and many things happened BEFORE the tools that now document similar things :) —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Calling Wikipedia 'pretty old' is making me feel pretty old. :D Valereee (talk) 19:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, "maturing", instead. I don't think WP is anywhere near as creaky as I am. Donald Albury 20:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, it's of course not as old as any of us who were here from the early days. I know I felt it when a high school student asked me "What was it like to actually see 9/11 happening?", and realize they wouldn't have. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has always baffled me that there's not a list of all onwiki office actions somewhere. jp×g 🗯️ 12:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be. WP:OA now links to Special:Contributions/WMFOffice, but that's not quite right, as there's also OAs in Special:Log/WMFOffice that didn't involve any edits [11] [12] and those in m:Special:Log/WMFOffice changing enwiki userrights [13] [14] [15] [16]. If an enwiki functionary is struck from the NDA access list, that shows up in a fourth special page, m:Special:Contribs/WMFOffice. So it does seem like a centralized, wikitext log would be helpful and wouldn't be that much additional overhead for T&S. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 13:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

do we want to reactivate the log then? – robertsky (talk) 06:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Might be good to ask someone from T&S or Comms (@JSutherland (WMF), @RAdimer-WMF?) whether it's something the WMF would like to take responsibility for. If not, I don't see any reason it couldn't be done by the community. Most of it could even be automated: Have a bot list any local edit/action from WMFOffice, plus any metawiki edit/action affecting an account or IP with >0 edits/actions here. Then allow humans to collate related entries so it's not like 10 entries for a single rename. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 17:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

Let's have some more press, shall we? Wikipedia’s credibility at stake as its editors target more Indian media outlets Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How would they know that it's "Wikipedia editors" who did that? Article content is freely licensed, so those news outlets could just as easily have decided to do that on their own. I know I certainly don't have any control over what any Indian news outlet chooses to put on their website. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think Wikipedia editors replicated edits across more Indian media outlets refers to the articles on those outlets. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a RS. TrangaBellam (talk) 04:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not, they seem to have a staff of sorts:[17]. But I wasn't using it as a source in an article. I'm not saying that the WP:HEADLINE is right, but the articles he mention do have some recent edits in the history. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:48, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

""Anybody can edit a page on Wikipedia?" What kind of page is this if it is open to anybody (for editing)?" the Court asked with surprise." I guess that's progress. Also, per that article, it seems that ANI has asked the court for a take-down of the ANI WP-article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They're right that it's dangerous though! That's why we have numerous policies and tools to help define and manage the risks. Grappling from first principles with Wikipedia's system. CMD (talk) 08:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"ANI also submitted that page is continuously changing and further defamatory edits have been made." "page" here means Asian News International, I think. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mehta submitted ANI has a very wrong understanding of Wikipedia's architecture. He added that a note would be submitted on how Wikipedia functions. Looks like this is a step in an encouraging direction in which the court is learning how Wikipedia works. – robertsky (talk) 08:57, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have a new lawyer it seems. And he didn't seem to know that the ANI page is locked from "anybody can edit". Indian right wingers often complain about precisely this locking because they can't change the pages to their taste. In any case, I am glad that the court is finally trying to understand the architecture of Wikipedia. But it is important that our lawyer understand it first. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many people/groups complain about that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:23, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tangential discussion

Right-wingers (who are ideologically diverse depending on the country and community) often complaint more—mainly because they are systematically silenced or blocked to a greater extent. Most right-leaning sources are either depreciated or, at the very least, extensively defamed (a trend you may have also noticed). In contrast, left-wingers (who share a relatively consistent ideology globally) and their situational allies typically receive a free pass on Wikipedia, provided they aren’t overtly disrupting the platform. Many senior editors (with support from admins) feel no hesitation in doubling or even tripling down on defaming right-leaning pages and sources when questioned about their intentions, fully aware that they contribute to Wikipedia’s declining reliability.

The prevailing left-wing view often assumes that "truth is left-wing," leading to the belief that they are always right. When one sees themselves as the "fact," there's little motivation to consider opposing perspectives. This imbalance has made Wikipedia extremely one-sided and unreliable for political, historical, and certain religious pages, especially those that aren’t assets to the left.

However, as I always say, Wikipedia remains excellent for topics like science, philosophy, movies, and other non-political subjects. Never forget this:[18][19] DangalOh (talk) 12:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are using a disgruntled former Wikimedia official as a source. That's called a self-defeating argument. Ratnahastin (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source? I don’t need a source to assert this; I was just using it as an example. Besides, the person I was replying to can think for themselves, I suppose. DangalOh (talk) 13:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're making some pretty serious accusations there without evidence, @DangalOh. That's not okay. Valereee (talk) 13:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DangalOh I'm not particularly invested in the right versus left propaganda debate, but I’ve noticed that any media outlet that even slightly supports a government tends to receive more citations labeling it as biased. Conversely, there are often few to no references asserting that it is not biased, making it challenging to counter those claims effectively. This imbalance is a consistent issue: when right-wing parties are in power, left-leaning voices tend to be more active in criticizing and highlighting their errors, and vice versa. This back-and-forth dynamic creates a cycle where each side focuses on pointing out the other's flaws, distorting the overall representation of viewpoints. I.Mahesh (talk) 13:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree with the idea that when the left wing is in power, Wikipedia becomes full of right-wing perspectives. There are more left-wing governments in power in G7 countries, yet Wikipedia still bashes the right wing of those countries day and night. Additionally, it seems that the anti-India bias on Wikipedia is free of any foreign political leaning, which has become very intense recently—perhaps due to the recent developments in India-Canada relations. All I can say is that as long as the USA and Canada continue to be left-wing, there is little hope for good relations with India. Even left-wing Indian governments won't be able to salvage this damage. And don’t forget, whether left-wing or right-wing, Wikipedia will almost always prioritize America first, considering it has to adhere to American laws and rules. DangalOh (talk) 14:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, if the Indian government is considered right-leaning, it follows that many major Indian media outlets are either right-leaning or neutral. This is evident from their Wikipedia pages, which often face vandalism and scrutiny. The references used on these pages typically come from a limited number of sources, which tend to be either left-leaning (citation needed) or neutral or out of country whatsoever.

The issue seems to stem from the fact that when one media outlet accuses another of being right-wing, the right-leaning outlets rarely support their counterparts or other news channels. This lack of mutual support makes it difficult to find sources that can substantiate claims of bias in a balanced way. As a result, we struggle to find reliable references to counter the prevailing narratives. This is purely my observation and may not be factual. I.Mahesh (talk) 14:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DangalOh That's wrong about the G7 countries. Italy is right wing, France neither left wing nor right wing, the UK Labour party is not actually left wing at least as it stand now. etc. Check them. Doug Weller talk 14:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, we can debate whether UK labor is left or right, etc., and how Wikipedia still targets the traditional right, but let's discard all this and delve a bit deeper. To be honest, the only country whose political ideology at the center is relevant is the top boss: the USA. If the USA is left, the G7 is left; if the USA is right, then the boss is always "right." The same goes for NATO's ideology, as well as any other major organization in which the USA has had an unfortunate stake. Wikipedia also can never go completely against the top boss, no matter how much it bashes the USA's right wing. Think about it. regards, DangalOh (talk) 15:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DangalOh, when was the last time the US was actually left-wing? Sincerely, Dilettante 15:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention that the majority of left-wingers often see them as centrists. If by "actual" you mean "extreme," then the "actual" left wing is anarchism (which is the same for every country), and the "actual" right wing is cultural fascism (which depends a lot on a culture's tendency toward fascism and varies for each culture and country). On the other hand, some forms of left-wing ideologies are much more prone to dictatorship; for example, various communist regimes. Even the Nazi Party, officially known as the National Socialist German Workers' Party, labeled itself as a socialist party. However, despite some early socialist rhetoric aimed at attracting workers' support, the party fundamentally rejected core socialist principles and aligned more closely with fascism. So, "actual" doesn’t mean anything here. If you think the Democratic Party is not left-leaning/aligned (which was the word I originally used), then I don’t know what to say anymore. I can say a lot about that party, but that wouldn’t be appropriate for a Wikipedia talk page, and people will come asking for evidence when they are the ones who disqualified that evidence. So, yeah, "actual" doesn’t mean anything here. Anyway, it’s best for me to skedaddle out of here. DangalOh (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My claim wasn't that the Democratic Party is centrist. Since you're skedaddling, however, and didn't answer the question, I won't waste my time. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In case I was not clear: you asked, “When was the last time?” and I answered that it’s right now and how “actual” doesn’t mean anything here. I also said that if you fail to see this, then what’s the point? By asking such a question, you showcased your firm belief that the current government is not left-aligned. Centrist was my assumption. I don't know what you consider it to be. Good day! DangalOh (talk) 16:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you showcased your firm belief that the current government is not left-aligned. I don't; strike this. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NATO has an ideology? Ot mentioned in its article. Doug Weller talk 17:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest everyone here skedaddle for the time being and let this useless tangent be. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 16:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Valereee (talk) 17:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I am outspoken, Valeree, but you just need fair observational power and the "right" intent, and you will discover that evidence is all over Wikipedia. From the sources depreciated or considered marginally reliable to the frequency with which the same editors target the same types of pages with the same POV, and the pages that have recently been attacked again, etc. Those with proper intent and good observational skills will definitely see through it. I am not going to fight for this lost cause; I have seen how this unfolds. I have presented my views, and now I will leave. DangalOh (talk) 14:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not good enough. We need wp:diffs that

the same editors target the same types of pages with the same POV and
Many senior editors (with support from admins) feel no hesitation in doubling or even tripling down on defaming right-leaning pages and sources when questioned about their intentions, fully aware that they contribute to Wikipedia’s declining reliability

and other vague insinuations like that, or stop making them. It's disruptive. Valereee (talk) 14:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some good intent editors have already noticed this, and some are currently acting on it. I don’t feel the need to reveal the names of editors or admins I consider problematic and totally biased. I still intend to be on Wikipedia rather than make direct enemies because I truly believe that with the right approach, even enemies can become friends. We all are human after all. And as i said earlier, I have seen how it goes if you directly challenge authority. Vague or not, I am not fighting a case here to win. My job was to make one or two people aware, no matter the outcome. My job is done. Now I leave. Farewell, Valereee! i like this name for some reason. DangalOh (talk) 14:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From today's Medianama's coverage,

If Wikipedia collects news articles and presents them in a particular space, then how is it any different from Google, the judge asked.“Google does not add its own version to the index,” answered Kumar “It will not characterize what the statement is.” He also planned to show that some of the offending statements were not borne out by the source material.

The Judge needs to be informed that the correct procedure is for ANI to come and raise such issues on the article's talk page and convince the involved editors that there is a genuine problem. It is not the court's business to butt in and start making editorial judgements for us. And the court should also be made aware that ANI has not made use of the available grievance redressal mechanisms. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If they knew how Wikipedia works, this case would have been thrown out of court long ago. Ratnahastin (talk) 00:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From a commentator called Pratik Kanjilal (this is the first time I am hearing the name):

Not foregrounding the public standing of editors brings a kind of egalitarian rigour to Wikipedia that even academic publishing does not have. To expose editors by court order would disturb a delicate balance. And when editors play safe, powerful interests get away with murder.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:32, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia agrees to share details with Delhi High Court about users who made edits to page on ANI; also interesting "Justice Prasad on Monday said that the Court will have to understand the architecture of Wikipedia before deciding an interim injunction application by ANI." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly this is outrageous. People should not have to worry about being sued for adding information to an article and the WMF should not be aiding in India’s backsliding freedom of speech. Galobtter (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the Foundation has terribly failed the volunteer editors. The case could have been dismissed as useless if the Foundation had consulted a better councel who knew how the Wikipedia works - and how ANI's suing Wikipedia was technically/logically/practically wrong. Hugely outrageous. _Regards,Aafi ^(talk) 16:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not sure that's true at all, but then my knowledge of the Indian legal system is fairly limited. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this - the judge doesn't understand or care about how editing here works and is totally ignoring that this is from other sources. This is purely an intimidation tactic from ANI, trying to silence critics they can because they know that the news sources we're citing can't be silenced. Despicable behavior from them and I'm profoundly disappointed in the judges involved for allowing blatant lawfare like this to continue. Ravensfire (talk) 17:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more disappointed in WMF. This is outrageous behavior on their part. They should not cooperate with India's authorities. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 22:47, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Participating in the court proceedings itself meant that Wikipedia was going to submit to their outrageous demands. Should have never bothered, honestly. Ratnahastin (talk) 17:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refusing to participate in the proceedings would have left the Foundation in contempt of court, which would probably lead to a worse outcome for the Foundation and all editors in India, than would trying to fight the charges in court by legal means. Donald Albury 18:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll disagree in part with your comment - people should not have to worry about being sued for adding information in good faith that is backed by reputable reliable sources. These edits were absolutely made in good faith and there are highly reputable sources making the acusations. ANI isn't going after them though, but going after what appears to be an easier target. WP is in an unpleasant situation where they can't win right now. Ravensfire (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to see WP countersue ANI for defamation and drag them through discovery hell for the mis-statements, deceptions and lies they'd made in this process. Turnabout is fair play, right? Ravensfire (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whatever, could be done but it is not easy to come back from the repercussions of agreeing to share user-data. _Regards,Aafi ^(talk) 17:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not surprising, per this (PDF warning) — The three editors(Defendants 2,3 & 4 ) in question are also defendants in the lawsuit, Defendant 1 (WMF)'s senior counsel submitted that they no connection to the three other defendants, therefore court ordered disclosure of their subscriber details to issue summons/notices to them. Ratnahastin (talk) 17:23, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are perhaps mistaken. The three names three are of advocates - not of users. _Regards,Aafi ^(talk) 17:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, check the page 2, 10. The learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that defendant nos.2 to 4 are claimed to be the ‘Administrators’ of defendant no.1. sounds familiar? Ratnahastin (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

my bad - I missed the point previously. This is outrageous. _Regards,Aafi ^(talk) 17:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested to see the initial filing by ANI. Where or how can I see them? – robertsky (talk) 03:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't that's possible, but you can view orders issued in the lawsuit here [20][21]. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The names mentioned in the order all turn up as advocates when I did a google search, several for the same firm. Absent a self-declaration from an editor here, about all that Wikimedia can provide for a given user name would be the associated email address and a list of IP's used for certain edits. ANI could then ask the court to force the relevant ISP's to take the IP information and convert it into subscriber information. And then it gets interesting - let's say I'm very determined for my security, I use a throwaway email from a provider that doesn't log anything, and I use a public wifi signal from a nearby McDonalds. It could be extremely difficult for ANI to determine anything past that if I really was good about isolating what I used to edit vs anything else. (That's not an approach that I follow, I'm not worried about something like this happening to me as I don't make edits that would trigger legal liability for me in my home country, and if a court in India tried to get me to do anything, it would be a good laugh.) Ravensfire (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article of Asian News International warrants scrutiny in related to the lawsuit. SYSS Mouse (talk) 18:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By agreeing to identify editors of the page, no matter that it's under cover, the WMF has caved in shamefully. They have done a massive disservice to our readers and endangered editors who happen to work on any article someone litigious disapproves of. There is no excuse. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is very true. If editors are self-censoring their edits it would be very bad for their project. American and European editors have better protection, but many other countries have "less than dependable" courts where if you go against the "big guys" you can automatically lose no matter how good your arguments were. I honestly didn't understand why WMF caves in - is it because Indian traffic and revenue is very good? ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is depressing. It would have been better to just be blocked here than to do this. We all know what happens to those editors now; they are cooked; ANI or the government's other minions will go after them. Such an awful thing to do to comply with this order in Mudiji's India, where the press freedom index stoops at an all-time low, where convicted rapists share stage with the ruling party and are garlanded, opposition sits in jail denied bail in corruption case while the money trail leads to that of the incumbent government, Wangchuk is detained for peaceful protest while a murderer and rapist is yet again granted bail before elections, and this is barely just scratching the surface. Definitely not Nehru's India anymore. I have nothing more to say. My condolences to those 3 editors. Lunar-akaunto／talk 10:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You assume that the three editors in question are from India. But how would you or ANI know where the editors are from? What if the three editors in question are from the United States or Europe? What can ANI or the Indian court possibly do to them? Nakonana (talk) 21:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They can still be sued and can take part or ignore the proceedings as they wish. If the Indian courts award damages against them, ANI can seek to enforce that in the defendant's home country. "Under U.S. law, an individual seeking to enforce a foreign judgment, decree or order in this country must file suit before a competent court. The court will determine whether to recognize and enforce the foreign judgment." [22]. Similar arrangements apply in most other countries. Nthep (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nthep, while that's generally correct, there's specific legislation pertaining to foreign defamation judgments. [23] Basically, US courts may not enforce foreign defamation judgments unless the foreign judgment would have also passed muster under US First Amendment jurisprudence. So, the chance of a US court enforcing such a judgment from India is quite remote. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But how much would that person have to pay in legal costs, time, and stress, in order to obtain that dismissal in federal court? I'm confident the WMF won't be footing the bill. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The act provides that if the foreign party loses, they pay attorney's fees for the person they're suing. So, they thought of that too. It was passed in response to "libel tourism", where people would sue US citizens or entities in some other jurisdiction with much looser libel/defamation laws, and then try to bring that judgment to the US. So, they still can try—but if they lose, they're paying both sides' attorneys, so they better be very sure they've really got a winner before they go forward with it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that it falls under Raise significant freedom of expression questions that affect the Project's ability to be a neutral source of information, such as true and verifiable statements that are censored under local law in the Legal Policies but it's up to the Foundation to make that determination so they should really prepare a statement to that effect it if looks like it might be required. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WMF is offering financial assistance for legal issues under some circumstances as was mentioned in the update the other day. The question is also whether a defendant would need a lawyer immediately when ANI would initiate such procedures or whether the defendant would only need a lawyer once the court has checked that ANI really has a case according to local law. Who knows, a local court might dismiss a filed suit for lacking a legal basis in local law even before the case is opened. For example, I once reported some damage to my property to the police. Several months later I got a letter from the court wherein they informed me that the police had found the culprit but no legal case will be opened because the culprit was too young (a child) to legally pursue any compensation charges against them, so there's nothing that can be done against the kid from a legal point of view. (The kid was below the age threshold for legal liability.) I didn't need a lawyer at any point of this procedure (and neither did the kid, most likely, as they were not legally liable anyway). Nakonana (talk) 13:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If these three editors are in the US/EU or some Western countries like Canada or good Asian countries like Singapore or Japan they are lucky. But what happens if they are in India? Or Nepal? Or Egypt? Or some other country that have questionable court system? They are toast and WMF should be blamed for that. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

good Asian countries like Singapore or Japan The judiciary in Singapore is no doubt robust, but the laws that Singapore is derived and adapted from its British colonial days, aka from the colonial Indian set of laws. Yes, there have been changes to the laws here, but my vague recollection is that it is not too far off from India's. – robertsky (talk) 07:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would Egypt bother enforcing Indian law? If the legal system over there is corrupt, ANI would probably first need to bribe every local civil servant through whose hands the papers need to go to reach a court or judge. Might get pricey. Once the issues reaches a court/judge, it might also reach the attention of some politicians, who might then make it some geopolitical considerations: are they friends with India or not? Do they want to be friends with India or not? Do they want to score some good reputation points with Western press or politicians or not? Is there an upcoming local election and do they want to score some points with local voters or not? Are there some important international negotiations upcoming soon where they need to score some points for good behavior or not? Etc. Based on such considerations they might either accept the case and enforce it draconically, or just throw the case in the next trash can, or present themselves as mighty defenders of freedom of speech by counter-suing ANI for daring to press charges against Egypt's "beloved and highly respected" citizens. It would be a lottery game for ANI. Nakonana (talk) 13:20, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eh... they were putting a scenario up. What if this happens elsewhere. Not other countries enforcing the Indian court's decisions, whatever the outcome it may be. – robertsky (talk) 13:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about the possibility that the three editors in question are not from India and what ANI's options would be in such a case because everyone seems to assume that the editors in question are from India, and the other person was replying to my suggestion of this possibility? Or maybe I just got the wrong thread and they were replying to someone else. Then that's my bad, I got it wrong, feel free to ignore my statement then. Nakonana (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nakonana: From the below conversation, it appears at least one of the editors does live in India. But just for the record, I am aware that many might never edit in areas related to where they reside, so i don't know for sure, but when i learnt that ANI had listed 3 editors too in the lawsuit as well, I checked who introduced the edits, and so my assumption is based on their usernames and contributions. Well, i could be wrong, and i hope i am, but WMF was still not supposed to agree to reveal their data, regardless of where they live.

Now there's other possibilities as well; as far as the other 2 editors are concerned, they might have lived here but moved elsewhere; after all, 5 years is a long time. Now if they had moved with their family, good stuff, but if not, then there's a fair chance now their family will be subject to harassment.^[24], oh, and don't forget the online harassment they themselves might face.[25]

Just what they can make of an ip address, email, or whatever the foundation might be giving the Delhi High Clown is a different story. The editors might have even used vpn, but again, vpn companies are required to store user information for around 5 years and disclose it when the government deems it necessary. The editors might be safe since this was only introduced 2 years ago, but i don't know.

I am also aware that WMF is trying not to disclose the data, but if it comes down to it, they plan to do it in sealed cover; know that there have been instances where the sealed cover data provided to court had been leaked. See ^[26][27]. Also, let's not forget the disheartening case of Satyendra Dubey, who, despite having requested his name not be disclosed, was still leaked.^[28][29] Not to mention the absolute unkils sitting in the court who i have no faith in to give any reasonable judgement, or for that matter, anything good coming out of their mouths.

More importantly, this is not just the question of ANI; say, if tomorrow another scoundrel of an entity decides to sue WMF. What would the foundation do then? Would they yet again consider complying with the request? Just how many times does this gamble of residence, vpn, sealed covers, etc save the editors acting in good faith?

I still have some faith that WMF will not disclose the data, but let's see.

Also interesting to note ANI had been stalking their page for 5 years—talk about being too self-obsessed—reverting edits and telling others not to add them, and it is just now that they filed a lawsuit. My only guess would be the new ugly Telecommunications Act, 2023, which was passed when 140 opposition MPs were suspended. Lunar-akaunto／talk 19:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many people who have made edits in sensitive topics around the world (Belarus, Russia, Ukraine, China, Iran, etc.) believed they personal data was protected by U.S. law and the judicial system, but the Foundation misled them. In my opinion, the enwiki community should discuss a strike (blackout). Iluvatar (talk) 10:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Betrayal by WMF? Shocker. Jimbo needs to drop his big stick on the table and impose his will from above to save this encyclopedia or let it become a tool of propagandist, government agents and others with less than pure motives(more than it already has become) because the good people will be risking imprisonment and worse. Europe has already seen laws constraining free speech and most of the worlds population lives in places openly hostile to full freedoms of speech and expression. Slywriter (talk) 15:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you read Jimbo's statement above—well, I wouldn't hold your breath for him to do that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo is just talking emptily about the empty article. The removed article is not the main concern - the main real concern is how WMF agreed to hand out PII of its editors. Articles can be restored, three editors that are caught with Indian justice system is more dangerous. The fact that Jimbo and WMF failed to recognize the danger for three editors showed how out of touch they are. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WMF agreed to disclose user data to Indian court

Based on this news article: https://www.barandbench.com/news/wikipedia-user-details-delhi-high-court-ani

Wikipedia told the Delhi High Court on Monday that it is willing to disclose to the Court in a sealed cover the basic subscriber information (BSI) details about users who wrote/ edited the page about news agency ANI [Wikimedia Foundation Inc v. ANI Media Private Limited & Ors. - taken verbatim from the article. While the information wouldn't be given in public domain, ANI would get "some" information on the editors themselves.

Can someone explain to me what kind of data will be shared? As I pointed out in the talk page, I am disappointed at WMF for choosing to disclose user data to the Indian court where they can be subject to punishments or other legal problems. Wikipedia forbids VPN in their quest to prevent vandals, while at the same time failing to protect the privacy of its editors. Can someone in the WMF provide more details on this case? Should other editors be worried about their safety? ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 15:37, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also discussed in related thread above. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Safety of Wikipedia editors

Wikipedia has consented to provide the Indian Court with the basic subscriber information (BSI) of users who created or modified the page regarding the news agency ANI in a sealed cover. This might imply that Wikipedia will probably reveal the IP addresses of the editors who contributed to this article.

To be honest, Wikipedia's failure to secure the identities of its editors disappoints me. In addition to refusing to safeguard editors, Wikipedia prohibits access to VPNs that can do so.

What about the editors who are in India, even if the majority may not fall under the purview of Indian courts? I hope WMF has the answers to that query. The "tough things" will no longer be edited by editors if this doesn't happen.

Wikipedia agrees to share with Delhi HC information about users who edited ANI’s page

https://x.com/barandbench/status/1850870024468095357 DHICKYPEDIA (talk) 16:32, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to refusing to safeguard editors, Wikipedia prohibits access to VPNs that can do so. inappropriately conflates two separate actors. The Wikpedia community has prohibited VPN use (in most but not all cases). The Wikimedia Foundation is disclosing user data. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it is not VPNs, as such, that are prohibited. It is open proxies that may be blocked. For users subject to government interference with their ability to edit Wikipedia, there is a process for gaining access though secure proxies. Donald Albury 16:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is that we assume that WMF will safeguard our PII, which it turned out that they didn't. The process to be allowed to use VPN is for editors that have problems on where they live - but the situation is more complex than that right now. India is not one of the "closed countries" and yet the companies there are using the law to censor free speech. This problem is not unique in India. Freedom of speech isn't a guaranteed right on many countries, and many countries have questionable court system. Despite their problems the US and the EU still have the best justice system.

No one in India would think that they have to use VPN to edit about ANI, but now they wished they had one when they edited about ANI. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:09, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is there in a budget of 9.3 mil no money for something as elementary as a liaison function that does something as simple as reacting here or wherever saying "We are in contact with the affected editors and they have agreed with our course of action. Also, while we can't share details we have a plan that ensures no editor is ever thrown under the bus." In other words, someone who ensures editors that WMF is working for them and that we can risk editing, no matter what topic and what country we are in. EVERY time the foundation intervenes in some way it's the same shitshow of inept or no communication. --SchallundRauch (talk) 02:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it seems to be that again indeed. I certainly hoped they learned their lesson about that last time, but it seems they did not. We may need to force the issue again. I really hope not; that was a really awful and painful process for all involved, but it seems that's the only way we get anything out of the WMF besides corporatese say-nothing bullshit. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WMF disclosing editor identities to a non-US court fundamentally changes the amount of risk involved in being a Wikipedian. I'd support strikes/blackouts/targeted breaking of things to ensure that WMF understands this. Tazerdadog (talk) 02:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not 100% certain that any type of PII has been or will be released even under 'sealed cover'. The information in the article is very limited and We can file an affidavit (to show steps have been taken to serve notice) does not mean necessarily that the redacted information will be PII. They may be simply redacting how service was effected. Bar & Bench seems to think so however, and they probably have access to the full transcript. fiveby(zero) 02:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can support such actions as well. If we are truly a "global community" the community of editors should be responding harder than WP:FRAM simply because three of our fellow editors are in risk of facing Indian court of law, which is not known for being unbiased or valuing freedom of speech. And WMF way of handling this is typical of large companies that wanted to protect itself instead of handling it like community of editors. It's hard to act on good faith towards WMF after what they had done. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 06:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would also very much support drafting a community response. Taking the article down, I disagreed with it but I can understand them wanting to fight the bigger fight. But endangering editors is blatantly unacceptable. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has been noted that giving user-data to courts is something the WMF does from time to time. So, far not to India. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which may have been enforceable under U.S. law. Treaties have full force and effect of law. Here's a paper discussing the French MLAT and electronic evidence[30]. Looks like it may only concern criminal matters? Not fun reading. Probably worth asking if the privacy policy is still valid. fiveby(zero) 12:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Privacy policy: Policy:Privacy_policy#For_Legal_Reasons. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i'm looking at the box to the left of that section as an explanation of what WMF consider's "legally valid" which is "Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and applicable US law." All the while wishing i did not have to read any of it. fiveby(zero) 14:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed Types of Nonpublic Information We May Have. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So would this mean that WMF doesn't even have the IPs of anyone who hasn't edited in however long, ditto the email addresses of anyone who removed them however long ago? Valereee (talk) 14:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which it looks like is the same 90 days checkusers have access to for IPs, and for emails, immediate deletion. The exception would be an active order to retain information currently in the system. Valereee (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you are coming from, but I find it unlikely that provided e-mail is "thrown away" (mine has never been afaict) even if people stop editing for years. If I actively delete the mail from my user-profile, perhaps it's forgotten/deleted from internal logs, but if they throw away my e-mail I can't reset my password, for example. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you wouldn't be able to reset your password if you delete your email from the site, unless you add it back in, in which case they have it again until you delete it again? Valereee (talk) 14:57, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...Yeah. But it would be funny if the "sealed cover" turns out to be empty, or even mostly empty. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like the BBC said, "The hearing is still on, but Wikipedia has since agreed to share basic information about the users in a sealed cover to the court, though it's not clear what that would be." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, the information ANI has access to -- the user names and their edit history -- would be the information WMF has, if the editor hadn't edited in the three months previous to whenever the case was filed (July, I think) and had deleted their email before then. Valereee (talk) 15:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can hope. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the lawyers were untruthful in saying "Based on information available to us, we can effect service." But ya never know with lawyers. Does not necessarily mean that information is available to them through stored data covered under the privacy policy. fiveby(zero) 15:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimbo Wales, any chance you or a WMF-representative will tell us at some point (soon if possible) "The user info turned over to the DHC was as follows: x IP-adresses, y mail-addresses and z personal names."? I don't know if this has actually happened yet, but per what we read it seems it will soon. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In short, we still don't know. I hope the WMF realizes the enormity of this unknown factor from our perspective, and that they're going to need to provide a response very, very quickly. I would not blame any editors based in India if they were to stop contributing for their own safety until then, and I would not be surprised if editors from other countries were soon to follow. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are in contact with the affected editors and they have agreed with our course of action. By doing so publicly, if they did, they can't deny in the court that they have no contact with the three editors or not representing the editors by association. – robertsky (talk) 02:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't they need to contact the editors in question to be able to serve them in the first place, which they're promising to do? Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know that ANI has requested that Wikipedia serve the editors, I don't know if that was agreed to or not. Even then, good luck to Wikipedia. They *might* have an email address, definitely some of the IP's used by the editors and would then require a subpoena of the ISP to get subscriber information. I think that generally it's up to the plaintiffs to do all of that legwork. And on a strongly security concious editor using public wifi or VPN to edit, good luck with that. Ravensfire (talk) 03:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia agreed to it. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:40, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Subpoenaing ISP is trivial for a company as large as ANI. The problem is that editors (me included) feels like I didn't need an VPN/public wifi to edit anything, trusting that WMF will provide some degree of protection. If WMF suggested that VPN/public wifi may be necessary for "tough" edits they should make it known. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, going by news reports, WMF has expressed its willingness to service the editors ANI sued; by "service", I understand (from Google) notifying the real life person(s) behind the account of the legal proceedings against them.
Now, the best-case scenario is that WMF has IP address data for the 90 days preceding ~September and email-IDs for all the editors. If I further assume that all the IP addresses trace back to Indian ISPs, will WMF's lawyers be able to compel (1) the ISP to disclose subscriber details and/or (2) the email service provider (which can be based outside of India, too!) to disclose their logs, followed by (1)?
Also, what if the IPs are not from India? As far as I have been given to understand, European ISPs cannot be compelled to give up subscriber details just by citing an order from a foreign court and one needs to go through a lot of hoops. So, is WMF indirectly disclosing — by accepting to service without any additional disclaimer — that the editors in question have edited from India?
I am not acquainted with how Indian law works; so, please feel free to point out inaccuracies in the post. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
13 June 2022, a statement from WMF stated,
In addition to arguing that the Russian government’s request to remove information from Wikimedia projects constitutes a violation of human rights, the Wikimedia Foundation appeal contends that Russia does not have jurisdiction over the Wikimedia Foundation. Describing Wikipedia as operating inside of Russian territory mischaracterizes the global nature of its model. Wikipedia is a global resource available in over 300 languages. All of its language editions, including Russian Wikipedia, are available to anyone in any country around the world.
— https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2022/06/13/wikimedia-foundation-appeals-russian-court-decision-on-removal-of-wikipedia-information-related-to-the-russian-invasion-of-ukraine/

Why is the Wikimedia Foundation now complying with Indian laws and sharing user information, and what are its goals? —MdsShakil (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At a guess, they include not being blocked for readers and editors in India. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is blocked in many regions, but following such orders contradicts its core values. If an editor follows all Wikipedia guidelines to create or edit a page, yet the page is deleted or their identity is disclosed, it raises concerns. Today it may be one authority demanding control, but soon others could follow, aiming to influence Wikipedia’s content and compromise its principles. —MdsShakil (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Giving in to these threats does not make them go away. It gives every organization and government more leverage to make similar threats in the future. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In response to multiple editors, including Tazerdadog and Thebiguglyalien, the WMF caved unnecessarily—en.wiki, or even all Wikimedia wikis, being banned in India would have been a salutary demonstration of the principle that the encyclopaedia is written independently of the WMF and reflects published sources without regard to the preferences of either official or political bodies. It would have occasioned outrage in defence of Wikipedia, respect for the WMF, and probably a wave of protest editing by the Indian diaspora and by the internet-savvy within India. By instead giving up and thereby sinking to a level below that of the most venal newspaper owner, it has endangered all its volunteers who work on even remotely contentious topics, even to fix typos and template errors. The organisation has demonstrated yet again that it does more harm than good; the only thing that can be said in its defence is that it has only implied it works for us, the volunteers, when asking for money in its advertising banners.

I suggest we run a banner of our own under all those advertising banners, something to the effect of: We, the editors of English Wikipedia, disavow the above ad by the Wikimedia Foundation, which offers no support to its editors. Your donation is not needed to keep Wikipedia running and would be better made elsewhere. with "no support" linking to an archived report of the WMF's decision to identify editors; and "not needed" possibly linking to WMF's latest financial statement, showing their more than healthy financial state. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to give the WMF a few days to explain precisely what they have decided to disclose and why. If they have disclosed personally identifying information in a way that is not required under United States law, or if they fail to comment on this at all, then all bets are off as far as I'm concerned. The WMF had a positive track record on community safety and support for the principles of the free knowledge movement, and it was on this one point where I still had confidence in the organization. That confidence is quickly eroding. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've contacted by email JSutherland (WMF) to tell him that we need more information than we've gotten, and that the current "But legal reasons!" stuff is not sufficient to involve the community in the conversation. (And to make clear that we know that attorney-client privilege binds only the attorney, and that WMF, as the client, may talk about it all they like and may also authorize their attorneys to do so if they want to, so the lack of communication is by their choice and not legally mandated.) I think we should wait until next week to see if there's any further response from WMF, and if there is not or that response is unsatisfactory, we'll need to discuss next steps at an RfC. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of communication may not be legally mandated, but it may be legally wise to not communicate things. You don't play poker with your cards all open and visible to everyone, right? There's good reason to not disclose things. Nakonana (talk) 00:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion it had eroded completely. Beforehand I saw WMF (with $170+ million donation and almost zero labor cost for its main work) as an organization that will do its utmost to defend freedom of speech, but now I saw WMF is just looking to protect themselves. Letting three of our fellow editors to be attacked by a large news organization because of their edits (which is not vandalism!) showed WMF isn't the beacon of free speech. Today we gave up three of our fellow editors for ANI vs Wikipedia, what about next month if we got Trump Organization vs Wikipedia? What about next two months when we got Russian Today vs Wikipedia? Or the next three months when it is The Guardian vs Wikipedia? Will Wikipedia concede again? As I outlined before, the outrage from the community SHOULD be greater than WP:FRAM. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 03:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yngvadottir: I know you have some axe to grind with the WMF but you're totally wrong here. You should read the transparency reports; WMF is one of the best organizations when it comes to protecting user privacy, both by convincing people to not sue Wikipedians and then also standing up for them in court (I still remember when someone tried to subpoena my data; they didn't get it). Your read of the situation ("a wave of protest editing by the Indian diaspora and by the internet-savvy within India") seems entirely out of touch with what's actually happening in India.

P.S. Would be great if someone wanted to recreate Rajat Khare to actually fight transnational repression instead of throwing pitchforks at the people who are actively trying to stop it. Legoktm (talk) 03:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever may have been true in the past and whatever organisations you are comparing WMF with, this is kind of Exhibit A for its not being true that WMF protects editors' privacy. I admit the decision to cave in surprised me. I hadn't thought even the WMF would be so craven.

While I'm editing here, it occurs to me that we need warning templates, immediately. Placed by a bot on all articles pertaining to India. Something like: Warning. Indian topic. The topic of this article pertains to India. Editors should be aware that editing this page in any way may lead to the Wikimedia Foundation disclosing your IP and other personally identifying information in response to a lawsuit in an Indian court. Readers should be aware that this article may be outdated or otherwise inaccurate, or in need of copyediting, because of good faith editors' reluctance to have their personal information revealed.—with a link on "disclosing your IP and other personally identifying information". If someone else has made a similar suggestion, I apologise. This whole thing makes me sick; I only came back to this discussion because I was pinged. Yngvadottir (talk) 08:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A warning banner for Indian topics is the bare minimum here - Wikipedia (the community) has a duty of care to its users and editors - if WMF has failed to protect its users and editors then it falls on the community here to provide that warning.Nigel Ish (talk) 09:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about on American, French, Italian and German topics?. See "Information requests from India and abroad" section in linked article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be located in the United States - outside Wikipedia we still got the First Amendment backing us up. Even if Wikipedia handed over your IP they will have to go to your ISP which may not honor such request. Even if both honor that request you can sue Wikipedia and your own ISP for infringing on your First Amendment. There are people like ACLU or EFF that may take your case pro-bono. The media will take your case - billions of dollars of Wikipedia donation will go away once your case went viral. And even if the case went to trial, the barrier of First Amendment is very hard to overcome. Any sane judge will threw the case out of the court and award you money. Bottom line - WMF will lose even if they handed out your data in US court. Not so in other country's court.

The question is why WMF acted correctly on your case but not on these three (possibly Indian) editors? I hate to "wonder" but the cost of handing over the data in India might be smaller than the cost of getting out of India. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 16:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's literally not at all how the First Amendment works. Legoktm (talk) 06:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to read the First Amendment again. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe yes, maybe no. Someone's attempt to uncover your identity on Wikipedia to sue you (and Wikipedia chose to go along with them) because of something you write will be a First Amendment issue. Bottom line is that American courts is more likely to side with you in such cases, and the public opinion will be on your side as well. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:25, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The media will take your case - billions of dollars of Wikipedia donation will go away once your case went viral. Wow. Good thing I never donated. — hako9 (talk) 12:06, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More detailed coverage

In ANI vs Wikimedia, Round 1 goes to India’s tech law. The US firm has taken a beating twice. During the trial, Wikimedia did something that it reportedly hasn’t done anywhere else in the world. It took down an English article after the Delhi High Court ordered. And now, it has even agreed to disclose the basic subscriber information about the users who wrote or edited ANI’s Wikipedia page in a sealed cover to the court.
ThePrint also reached out to Wikipedia’s lawyers, advocates Aayush Marwah and Abhi Udai Singh Gautam through email, but hadn’t received a response till the publication of the article.
— https://theprint.in/ground-reports/in-ani-vs-wikimedia-round-1-goes-to-indias-tech-law-the-us-co-has-taken-a-beating-twice/2333951/
TrangaBellam (talk) 11:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BBC: Why Wikipedia has landed in legal trouble in India Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the verdict is not in Wikipedia's favour, “we as a society will suffer since we will not have access to impartial information”, Ms Choudhary says.
Ratnahastin (talk) 11:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice timeline. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary statement?

Too early for something more elaborate as there is a lot we don't know, but maybe it's worth signing on to a really basic statement of principles on behalf of the English Wikipedia community. Perhaps something like this:

In response to the ongoing case Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation in India, during which the Wikimedia Foundation agreed to the release of Wikipedia contributors' personally identifying information under a "sealed cover" and removed a Wikipedia article about the case itself, the community sets forth the following principle: In cases where defamation or non-criminal lawsuits are filed concerning the content of Wikipedia's articles, the Wikimedia Foundation should refrain from releasing any personally identifying information about users whose edits were in line with Wikipedia's policies, under a "sealed cover" or otherwise. The community expresses deep concerns about the precedent doing so would set, allowing governments, companies, and individuals to use legal mechanisms to intimidate or penalize good-faith contributors engaged in advancing free access to knowledge. Preserving the safety and privacy of the volunteers who make Wikipedia possible is of existential importance, and no cost is too great to uphold this commitment. Rethought and ultimately superseded (see #Community response to the WMF over ANI) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're asking for, is it that the WMF should just not follow the law and court orders? "no cost is too great to uphold this commitment" sounds really nice, but I don't think that's actually true. I say that as someone who is as pro-free speech as they get, but Wikipedia is not somehow above the laws of countries, and saying you've complied with "Wikipedia's policies" isn't really a substitute for actual defamation law.

It's worth pointing out that Wikipedians have already made it clear that privacy is not the absolute most important thing given our de facto ban on VPNs that was mentioned above. Fixing that seems like a better stand to take first. Legoktm (talk) 04:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the WMF should just not follow the law and court orders? – If the WMF's headquarters is outside the jurisdiction of that law, and the court order would involve divulging the personally identifying information of editors? Then yes, that's exactly what we want. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what the proposed statement says though, it says nothing about jurisdiction. Moreover, pretending that the WMF or even Wikipedians only have legal exposure in the US is ridiculous, we've already seen Wikipedians get arrested in France and Saudi Arabia. Why is the WMF spending time complying with the EU's Digital Services Act? And so on.

I won't pretend that I know what's the right course of action here, I do think y'all are jumping down the WMF's throat without realizing that this is part of a bigger picture and the answer isn't as simple as "just ignore the Indian government". Legoktm (talk) 04:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi Wikipedians didn't get arrested because Wikimedia provided user details to them. Ditto for France. Or Russia. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The WMF cannot control whether some governments want to arrest editors. But they can certainly refuse to help those governments do it. And since WMF is not an Indian organization, it really is as simple as "Pull any WMF assets out of India, and then ignore the Indian government." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saying it's as simple as pulling "WMF assets out of India" really takes the humanity out of it. We're not just talking about some physical hardware, it's also people, including WMF staff, chapter staff, and volunteers too. Legoktm (talk) 06:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The WMF staff, yes, that would certainly be unfortunate—but if necessary, then necessary nonetheless. WMF would not be pulling chapter staff or volunteers out of India; those people have neither control over article takedowns nor any personal information about editors, so they could carry on exactly as normal. Even if the Indian government were to tell those people "We want you to remove this article and give us private information about these editors", they could truthfully respond "I can't do that and don't have that." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide what "bigger picture" you think WMF is pursuing by sacrificing three of our fellow editors to Indian court of law? If WMF sacrificed three of our editors today, what will keep them from sacrificing Chinese or Russian editors next? What will keep them from sacrificing editors from Belarus, Georgia, or Moldova? Or what will keep them from sacrificing American editors? I am quite sure those three editors that are scared for their lives today will prefer WMF to be blocked in India rather than facing the biggest media company on some trial. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 16:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Legoktm: I had a bit about jurisdiction/countries in there, because yes at the end of the day they'd be in a very different position in the US, but I removed it to aim for a general principle. The intended subtext is basically: "We would prefer you risk being blocked in a country that demands you betray volunteers' privacy for actions in accordance with our mission and policies." — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:32, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think what matters most here is what kind of information Wikipedia is disclosing. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And to whom. I assume "in a sealed cover" means only the judges can see it for the moment, but I wonder under what circumstances they could disclose it to the plaintiff and how likely that is. Nardog (talk) 16:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rhododendrites: The Wikimedia Foundation agreed to the release of Wikipedia contributors' personally identifying information under a "sealed cover". I would not be confident in saying that based on the information available to us. There are also statements above which would tend to contradict. fiveby(zero) 15:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fiveby: Did I miss something whereby the I will disclose the name of the author in a sealed cover quote is in question? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:36, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously missed it, Bar & Bench twitter. In my defense that's not a quote and would you use that in an article, and besides it's twitter.fiveby(zero) 15:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the phrase 'whose edits were in line with Wikipedia's policies'. If someone violates Wikipedia policies, they can be blocked or banned, but they do not forfeit their expectation of privacy. PRicoNMI (talk) 16:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, those who post, say, bomb threats or nonconsensual imagery, should. Nardog (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that, but I think that's related to the WMF Universal Code of Conduct (or whatever preceded it), not Wikipedia policies. PRicoNMI (talk) 17:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that some violations of Wikipedia policy make releasing […] personally identifying information about users an appropriate response. Removing the phrase whose edits were in line with Wikipedia's policies would prohibit those responses. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's say a suspected terrorist had also been editing Wikipedia, without violating any of Wikipedia's policies. In this case, it would be appropriate for the WMF to report this person's personal information to the authorities to help with investigation. So I think whether or not a person follows Wikipedia policies is entirely unrelated to whether their information should be given to the authorities. PRicoNMI (talk) 18:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That scenario is...farfetched, to say the least. If the person were advocating terrorism on Wikipedia, that most certainly does violate our policies. If they weren't—then either whoever says they're a "suspected terrorist" already knows who that editor is, meaning it doesn't matter if we release their information, or does not and is just fishing, meaning we shouldn't release their information. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that there's nothing magical about violating Wikipedia policies that should give the WMF special permission to share personal information. Others can respond here, but this is all I have to say about this matter. PRicoNMI (talk) 18:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The point is interesting though. Let's say the authorities discover that a prominent Wikipedia editor is a terrorist. The editor never violated Wikipedia principles, but the editor recently did some terrorist attack where people got killed. The authorities knew his Wikipedia username but didn't know where he has been - which can be known if Wikipedia gave up his IP address. This scenario is far fetched - but this showed that there are some "lines" where the common interests beats the privacy interest of one editor. For ANI case it's pretty clear (for me, at least) that the privacy of the three editors trumped the need for ANI to know it to "wrongly" sue them. But who will adjudicate whether the "line" has been crossed or not? ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 05:51, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PRicoNMI: Remove the phrase 'whose edits were in line with Wikipedia's policies'. If someone violates Wikipedia policies, they can be blocked or banned, but they do not forfeit their expectation of privacy. - It's in there because I see this case as fundamentally challenging the basis of Wikipedia. If someone creates an account just to vandalize an article with e.g. "my teacher at Springfield Elementary School, John Doe, is a serial killer" and makes no other edits, that's a completely different story from if someone summarizes reliable sources in an article about a notable subject. It's about preserving the project by protecting the people who contribute to it, not ensuring that creating a Wikipedia account protects you from liability. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What if verdict is not in Wikipedia 's favour? What happens to those three editors? I have zero faith in India's kangaroo courts. Ratnahastin (talk) 17:02, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this statement ignores the ways that failing to comply would have jeopardized WMF employees in India and perhaps volunteers since I do not trust that the court would have understood the distinction of Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia India. It also ignores the way the Wikimedia foundation already complies with court orders to turn over information - something I know from first hand experience when a subpoena effected me. I also think it ignores the fact that Wikipedia turns over far less information, on a rate basis, than other companies that publish transparency reports. I also would want the Foundation to fight back against the deletion of the article page, knowing that we have won in legal systems far more hostile and with far less rule of law than India's and turn this information over under seal strikes me as a reasonable balance. I do not think it possible to both fulfill our mission of spreading free knowledge and to never turn over volunteer information. As we have seen repeatedly in recent years, spreading free knowledge carries risks and dangers and I blame no editor who decides that risk isn't worth it for them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it ignores any of that. Those just aren't relevant to a statement of principle. But, to respond, AFAIK Wikimedia India doesn't have access to the data the court wants, which is something pretty easily explained. We should not be ok with giving up user data just in case powerful people are incompetent. It doesn't ignore that the WMF already complies with court orders; it simply applies to those, too (granted, court orders in the US are more complicated). It doesn't ignore that Wikipedia turns over less information because it's not a statement or judgment about past actions or about WMF as a whole. You may be confusing me with one of the "WMF sux" regulars here. We don't have to weigh in on specific WMF policies or its track record to simply say that we do not want the WMF to share personally identifying information about good faith contributors to aid in a defamation or non-criminal case. I think the objections are largely going to come down to I do not think it possible to both fulfill our mission of spreading free knowledge and to never turn over volunteer information. I'm arguing that our volunteers are the only reason we have free knowledge to be spread, and that if a country decides it's willing to block access because the WMF will not comply with an order that challenges the basis of our project (that volunteers summarize reliable sources to write about notable subjects), "that's on them", so to speak. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those just aren't relevant to a statement of principle. They just aren't relevant to the statement of principles you have, but they are relevant to the principles I bring to this matter because I want our editors to be able to make informed decisions about the risks they are taking by being editors. We don't have to weigh in on specific WMF policies or its track record to simply say that we do not want the WMF to share personally identifying information about good faith contributors to aid in a defamation or non-criminal case. I don't think anyone, including the WMF, wants to share personally identifying information so in that sense it's a reasonable principle, except for the part where it makes it sound like some unprecedented action where as it's not. But yes ultimately perhaps you are right. Your only principle is editor privacy where as I don't think we should let ourselves be closed down because we refuse to comply with US legal requests and because it is my principle that Indian readers and editors are worthy of the same respect as US ones. So if we're not willing to let ourselves be closed or have employees subjected to contempt hearings in the US we should not do so in other countries with a rule of law (which I presume are the only ones the WMF is willing to employee people in), which despite its issues includes India. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I take it as a given that WMF always has to comply with US courts, due to being based in USA and the ability of USA courts to impose penalties that could bankrupt or shut down WMF. However the situation is different with regards to foreign courts, since foreign courts have much less leverage. I think the only leverage foreign courts have is threatening to block us, which isn't an existential threat and can be circumvented with a VPN.

With that difference in mind, I think a strategy of "always comply with USA courts, never comply with foreign courts" is worth consideration, at least on the issue of protecting our editor's PII from defamation lawsuits. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-US courts certainly have less leverage but the WMF is an international organization, employing or willing to employ in a number of countries (including India) so there can be leverage beyond just being blocked. And maybe it's just me, but the idea of "write an encyclopedia for and by Americans" is much less fulfilling than trying to spread knowledge globally in the way we do today. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No one is forcing the WMF to continue operating in a country if its government is asking for something nonnegotiable. And I don't believe that the majority of countries are going to demand PII on the threat of blocking Wikipedia, let alone every country outside of the United States. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:39, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some conflation here. I doubt, for example, that the WMF has operations in Liechtenstein, but editors there can still edit Wikipedia. So there's a big difference between "WMF shouldn't operate in countries that try to censor us" and "Editors in those countries can't edit the encyclopedia." Indian editors edited Wikipedia long before WMF established any operations there, and if WMF stopped, they'd edit it after too. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following this logic, the WMF should not operate in the following countries where there has been, since the start of 2023, requests for editor information:

Armenia, Australia, Bangladesh, Brazil, France, Germany, Hungary, India, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Portugal, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and of course the United States of America. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That depends a lot on why the information was requested. If, for example, I edit Wikipedia to make a threat to kill the president of Examplia, then the Examplian government will probably want to know who's threatening to do that. And indeed, the WMF often releases information to law enforcement in the case of threats of violence, so that is not an unreasonable request for such information, and that would not be any reason to cease our operations in Examplia. If, on the other hand, it's "Acme Corp. doesn't like that the article about them contains well-sourced negative information, so we want data about all the editors who put it there so Acme can harass them"? That's a big, big no. So, it's not just that they made a request for information—in many cases, that may have been for an entirely valid reason, such as to track down a person who has threatened violence. We'd need to determine why those governments asked for it, and if the request was unreasonable, whether that country's legal system was sufficient to get the request quashed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it is my principle that Indian readers and editors are worthy of the same respect as US ones I appreciate you explicitly saying that Barkeep49. Legoktm (talk) 06:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And maybe it's just me, but the idea of "write an encyclopedia for and by Americans" is much less fulfilling - This is hyperbole, as though what's happening in India could/would happen anywhere. We're talking about a country where the ruling party is frequently accused of using the legal system in general (including defamation suits) to target journalists, activists, and critics, and suppress dissent. e.g. [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], UAPA, and so on. If we learn in this case that all it takes is a defamation case to out pseudonymous critics, that would be a disaster for local editors. So yes, we'd have some Indian editors based in India, but living knowing they could be arrested just for making good faith edits. Personally, I'm skeptical this would lead to a total ban. From the [admittedly incomplete] picture we have of this case, the headline would be "India bans popular educational resource for refusing to disclose identities of ANI/BJP critics", and I suspect that wouldn't be worth it. Total speculation, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel pretty confident that you could write the exact sentence, "the ruling party is frequently accused of using the legal system in general (including defamation suits) to target journalists, activists, and critics, and suppress dissent" about the United States!

Happy to discuss my perception of India's perception of Wikipedia sometime in-person, unfortunately I don't think it's as rosy as that :( Legoktm (talk) 06:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

India's perception - India, as in the current government or the people? TrangaBellam (talk) 06:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both I suppose. Legoktm (talk) 06:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive that the Indian population is a monolith whose perception is so easily gaugable. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:05, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, you're putting words in my mouth, I never said anything like that. I literally said I'd share what my perception was, which, spoiler alert, is not that "the Indian population is a monolith". Legoktm (talk) 07:22, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Legoktm, you said that you'd like to share your perception. While it's unlikely I could literally meet you in person (unless you're in Denver, or plan to be soon), I would like to hear that from you, so if you'd like to set up a time that you and I could talk over Zoom or the like, I really would like to hear what you think. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll shoot you an email. Legoktm (talk) 02:45, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Legoktm, you wrote (emphasis mine) — "my perception of India's [Indians'] perception of Wikipedia" The second usage of perception is what I focused upon as it implies the existence of a monolith or something approximating it. In short, unless you are restricting yourself to the views of the incumbent government, I reject that there exists any "Indian perception" of Wikipedia; to say otherwise is as nonsensical (and demagogic) as saying that there is a "Jewish / BiPOC / ... perception of Wikipedia". TrangaBellam (talk) 09:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the link between a perception being a single, monolithic, point of view. E.g. New York's perception of the weather is that it's too cold and at the same time also too hot (possibly people in India might say the same!). Maybe I committed a grammar crime there, but I think (certainly now), the intent of what I meant to convey is clear. Legoktm (talk) 03:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel pretty confident that you could write the exact sentence ... about the United States. There are events in history, sure, typically related to wars or the Cold War/Red Scare (COINTELPRO, McCarthyism, Alien and Sedition Acts, Habeas Corpus Suspension Act (1863), etc.), but as far as I know the modern US government isn't exactly known for arresting social media users and journalists who criticize the president/his party. Who knows what'll happen next week... we might all have to go back and scrub our Wikipedia contribs ahaha [uncomfortable nervous laugh]. sometime in-person I accept. unfortunately I don't think it's as rosy as that - "That" is a reference to my hypothetical headline, right? I only meant that while Modi might not care much about foreign press, it seems like a pretty unexciting case to spin into a good narrative to justify banning a popular website. I'm sure, given his popularity, and given the way enwiki is written, that there are a lot of people who see it as biased -- maybe that's what you're getting it, and maybe that's the narrative right there. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can browse the list of journalists arrested in the US (disclosure: my employer) over the past few years, including those detained without any charges. Not to mention the joint Trump+Biden prosecution of Assange, or what's happened to Tim Burke and so on.

The point I wanted to make (which I didn't really do well earlier, my bad), is that I do fundamentally disagree that this wouldn't happen outside of India. Freedom of expression, including the right to private speech, is under attack globally, and despite this case happening in India, given a decade of this erosion of rights continuing, it could happen in a major European country or even the U.S. (see Trump's rhetoric around wanting to expand defamation law). Once we reach that point, would you still say no cost is too great to uphold editor privacy?

And yeah, I was referring to your hypothetical headline; that's basically what I was getting at. Legoktm (talk) 03:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. Did you look through #fr.wiki OAs above? Pressures and erosions widespread, our failure seems to be mostly an inability to hold people accountable for their actions, so once again good work. fiveby(zero) 14:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update from Wikimedia Legal team

Hi all - I wanted to provide you with an update from the WMF legal team in response to some of the conversation happening here and across different channels, as well as reports in the media. Within the limitations of what we can say about this kind of ongoing litigation, we wanted to provide some facts about this case and our privacy practices. We can confirm that the Wikimedia Foundation is before the Delhi High Court in the ongoing lawsuit involving Asian News International (ANI). Currently, the case is focused on the content of Wikipedia articles, and an order related to user data. There are hearings on two of these matters next week.

In August, the Delhi High Court ordered the Foundation to disclose data related to three users who contributed to the Asian News International article on Wikipedia. We notified the users at the start of the litigation, and have been challenging this order for several months. We have not shared any user data, and remain in an active appeals process arguing for every protection available under the law.

Here is some important additional context on our privacy practices.

To start, when presented with a demand for user data, the Foundation strives to narrow any disclosure demands and to challenge it where there are grounds to do so. A core principle underlying our Privacy Policy is that we collect minimal data, far less than any other major platform. What we do not have we cannot be forced to disclose. The policy also outlines circumstances where we must disclose data to comply with the law.

The intent of the legal team is to work in the open as much as is possible. Our Transparency Reports, published every six months, provide aggregate information about cases like this where we may be facing requests to remove content or disclose user data. A legal requirement to disclose data in a case outside the United States is uncommon, but not unprecedented. Over the past 12 years, these transparency reports document 417 requests for user data from outside the US. From these requests, we have complied seven times in four countries.

To protect users, we also have the Legal Fees Assistance Program, a program put in place over a decade ago to support volunteers who are threatened because of their activities on Wikipedia, consistent with the site’s policies. These policies are how we fight for and protect core values—including the accuracy of Wikipedia content and the privacy of contributors.

Commentary outside of court about ongoing litigation in India is limited under sub judice rules. We will continue to share as much information as we can under the circumstances. If you have any further concerns please contact legal@wikimedia.org and if you or someone you know has concerns about immediate individual safety please contact emergency@wikimedia.org right away. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm largely satisfied by this. I'd like to be assured that if it came down to either compromising the identities of editors and putting them in legal jeopardy or to closing shop in a country, that the WMF would opt for the latter. But for the time being, the fact that no user data has been shared puts my mind at ease. I'm also glad to see there's a dedicated Legal Fees Assistance Program, even if it may or may not be applicable here (and I don't want to know whether it's applicable, given the privacy issue). As I said above, this is the area where I have the most confidence in the WMF, and I'm cautiously optimistic with this update. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a helpful update. I tend to AGF when it comes to the WMF, but this was (and is) a worrying case for Wikipedia's future in India. Good luck and I hope this will be resolved with a court victory for freedom of expression. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; this is what I was hoping to hear. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's very good to hear that no user data has been released. That's an even bigger concern than the takedown of the article (though that's not insignificant either), but I'm very glad to hear that hasn't happened. I'd still rather hear a reassurance that it won't happen, but it's good that it hasn't to date. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this is reassuring, and I think it's reasonable for the WMF to cooperate with the courts to try to win on appeal and also protect user data. Andre🚐 22:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the update on this. Very much what I was hoping WMF was doing here. Good luck as the process continues. Ravensfire (talk) 02:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JSutherland (WMF): This seems to be contradicted by the WMF offering to share the PII with the court.

Can you clarify this? Does it mean that the details haven't been shared yet, but will be? BilledMammal (talk) 02:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but do you suggest that multiple reliable sources — BBC, Print, etc. — have fabricated the claim about WMF's lawyer having declared in the Court about his willingness to share PII but in a sealed cover (and even effect service)? If so, I presume stating it outright won't be a violation of sub judice rules. TrangaBellam (talk) 03:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can read it something like "WMF has not shared any user data, but the case/discussion on this is ongoing. We have agreed to share something (whatever the WMF has on hand at this point I don't know, but since they were able to notify the editors in question in July, at a guess it involves e-mail) if x, y and z, but the discussion has not concluded." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if "We notified the users at the start of the litigation" necessarily means that WMF knows that the users saw the notifications (I'm guessing the mean by e-mail). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the update. But as BilledMammal and TrangaBellam have stated, your information contradicted what has been stated before by reliable sources. BBC stated The hearing is still on, but Wikipedia has since agreed to share basic information about the users in a sealed cover to the court, though it's not clear what that would be. The question remained - what PII Wikipedia HAD agreed to disclose? While it is true that WMF haven't shared anything for now, the fact remained that WMF HAD agreed to disclose something before. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, "basic information" can be defined as ["User name", "Date of account creation"] but I fail to see why WMF will insist on producing such (publicly available) details in a sealed cover or why the Court (and ANI) will agree to it! TrangaBellam (talk) 05:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IANAL and definitely not familiar with the Indian court system, but I think why they'd agree to it is conceivable. Those individuals being sued for defamation in India presumably are being served the equivalent of a subpoena. So "basic information" could be their email so they can have documents e-faxed to them. I'm not saying the WMF should give over user information, but that's probably the reason. Andre🚐 05:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That seems plausible. However, that contradicts Joe, right? Email, after all, is part of "user data" and not disclosed to anybody except to those the user have sent a wiki-email. Further, litigants can plead to subpoena the email service provider (Google/Microsoft/...) — who usually preserves logs for a longer span of time than Wikimedia — in order to have their hands on PII. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem to present new information, as far as I can tell, so I'm surprised by the ~"this puts my mind at ease" responses. In line with what some others have said, I do hope boldtexting "We have not shared any user data" isn't a spin on "we offered to share user data, but they said what we offered wouldn't cut it so we're still talking". I will say this, however: it is entirely possible that WMF lawyers made the offer of a "sealed cover" strategically, betting on it being rejected in order to characterize the request as overreaching. Getting above my paygrade with that speculation (I have no information or involvement beyond this very thread and the links it contains) -- just looking for the goodest-faith interpretation. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JSutherland (WMF), the wiki-link in The policy also outlines circumstances where we must disclose data to comply with the law. ends up redirecting to an advocacy page. Hopefully your intent was to point to https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Policy:Privacy_policy#For_Legal_Reasons? fiveby(zero) 13:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I forgot the "wmf:" bit in the link. Added now. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 17:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JSutherland (WMF) So, long thing short.

User data has not been disclosed as per the Wikimedia Legal team's update date. However, it's possible that it will eventually be shared with the Indian courts, if asked to do so by the Indian courts?
A core principle underlying our Privacy Policy is that we collect minimal data It is commonly known that the foundation has its users' MAC and IP addresses. This essentially says that Indian authorities use IP addresses and Aadhar card information to zero in on the identity and address of Indian editors.
Over the past 12 years, these transparency reports document 417 requests for user data from outside the US. From these requests, we have complied seven times in four countries. How much are the odds that the data identifying the identity of those 3 editors of the ANI are shared this time?
It seems Legal Fees Assistance Program is only for Admins, stewards etc Not for autoconfirmed users , not even ECU's?

Hemacho328wsa (talk) 05:02, 2 November 2024 (UTC) — Hemacho328wsa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I don't think MAC addresses are transmitted over the internet, so I find it unlikely WMF has a way to collect them. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not pretty sure about the MAC but the IP address details might dox the wiki editors. How Exactly Can Police Track Your Address? Hemacho328wsa (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

India's ISP's store vast amount of customer data so probably MAC, IMEI, MSISDN, and more can be obtained with an IP address. There is no technical reason i can think of that WMF needs to retain IP addresses for 90 days, but they do. fiveby(zero) 18:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is to allow the CheckUser tool to work the way it does. It's social, not technical. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's technical, in order to perform its function WP has to be able to fight vandalism, but easily done without retaining the IP. The reason is maybe something to do with "life or limb" mentioned in the privacy policy. But if that EFF article is accurate as to how much is retained then CERT-In probably would not need an IP address to connect customers to WP edits. fiveby(zero) 18:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fiveby: I'm not sure I understand you – by easily done without retaining the IP, are you saying that CheckUser is unnecessary? jlwoodwa (talk) 19:24, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, suggesting that the functions of CheckUser could be implemented (and possibly even enhanced) without retaining IP addresses. fiveby(zero) 13:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think MAC addresses are transmitted over the internet there is a historical IPv6 address format which includes the MAC address in your externally visible IPv6 address (see IPv6 address#Unicast and anycast address format). But the privacy implications of that was recognized long ago and I'd be astounded if there are any modern devices which still do that.

Traffic routing on the internet is complicated, but at some point in the process your data carrier (I'm assuming wireless) has to know what IP address belongs to your phone so it can route the packets to the right transmitter and bill the data usage to the right account. Even if you're on a service where your IP address changes often, at any given point in time, your carrier knows what IP address is yours. How long they keep that information is a matter of policy. In theory, they could keep it forever if they wanted to invest in enough storage and didn't have any pesky privacy laws (or internal policies) telling them they can't do that. RoySmith (talk) 22:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMO WMF should hand over the identity of those 3 editors. WMF is not responsible for editing and content. As I know they have hardly intervened anywhere in the editing process. Bajajkunior (talk) 14:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editors shall be responsible for their edits. If they use heavy words like "Propoganda", "Mouthpiece" etc in articles, they shall be knowing and be liable for what they are doing. Bajajkunior (talk) 14:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a legal threat? Nakonana (talk) 15:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This does not address the fact that WMF's senior counsel has agreed to hand over the data in a sealed cover and to file an "affidavit effecting service [of notice]" just days ago. [36]. we have complied seven times in four countries. — How many of them were a non-western country with questionable track record of human rights ?[37] Ratnahastin (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In their January-June 2024 transparency report, the WMF reports fully complying twice, once in the US, and once in Sweden. In their July to December 2023 report, they report complying 5 times, all in the United States. In their January to June 2023 report they say they complied 3 times, one each in the US, France, and Germany. They did not comply with any requests in 2022. They complied with one request in France in July-December 2021. In January to June of 2021, they complied fully with 3 requests, 2 in the United States and one in Italy. They complied with 2 requests in the US in the second half of 2020. They complied once with a French request in the first half of 2020. In total over the last 3.5 years, the WMF self-reports 17 compliances with 5 countries (US, Sweden, France, Germany, and Italy.) This appears to directly contradict the claim Over the past 12 years, these transparency reports document 417 requests for user data from outside the US. From these requests, we have complied seven times in four countries.

~~Someone please check my work to make sure I didn't misinterpret something. Courtesy pinging @JSutherland (WMF):~~. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:53, 2 November 2024 (UTC) Struck incorrect portion Tazerdadog (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While it's not the immediate concern, and it's hardly the same thing as a private organization trying to silence and threaten editors, it would be a strong show of good faith to tell us what type of information is being requested and provided, and maybe even what justifies a disclosure in the eyes of the WMF if that can be said without itself getting into privacy issues. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From these requests, we have complied seven times in four countries - these requests refers to requests for user data from outside the US, so the complied requests in the US don't count toward the seven. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I see that now, very clearly my mistake. Striking my original comment. Tazerdadog (talk) 21:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indian representation on the English language Wikipedia

I was browsing Wikipedia using the app today. This reports the top read articles and I noticed that these started with Indian topics: Diwali, Singham Again, Bhool Bhulaiyaa 3, Amaran (2024 film), Mukund Varadarajan. This seems to be partly because it's Diwali but it's not unusual for Indian movies to be such popular topics.

I then looked at the Main Page in the web browser and noticed that there seemed to be next to no Indian topics represented in the various sections such as the Featured Article, In the News, Did You Know, etc. Even On this Day didn't mention that it was Diwali. The closest topic to India seemed to be the Featured Picture of a Mauritius kestrel but that picture was taken by an editor from Scotland.

Now one swallow doesn't make a summer but it's my general impression that Indian representation on the English Wikipedia is unbalanced in this way – that there are lots of readers but not so many power users and content creators. Perhaps that's because Wikipedia started in the US and its early adopters were in countries like Australia and the UK. This gives India correspondingly little influence on what goes on here and that may be a cause of conflicts such as this one.

A possible solution might be to create a fork for Indian English. This would tend to cover topics from an Indian perspective and might engage better with the Indian authorities. Of course, there might then be dissonance with this English Wikipedia but so it goes. I'm not sure what the search engines would make of it though...

Andrew🐉(talk) 08:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What hits the mark is the lack of power users from Asia, who are interested in the Main Page content. I don't think a fork would work though. – robertsky (talk) 15:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't really have anything to do with the WMF, but I agree that finding "power users" in Asia is a problem. For the past couple of years, there has been a push to get more CU and OS coverage of Asia, mostly driven by a desire to have better time-zone coverage, but also to have better understanding of languages and cultures. Back in August, I clicked through every user page in Wikipedia:List of administrators/Active looking for people who (based on their userboxes and/or timecards) appeared to live in Asia. I'm sure I missed some people, but it's certainly a short list:

I don't know how to get better participation from people in Asia, but I'd like to see it happen. RoySmith (talk) 16:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am named, haha. I have tried asking those I know in the area to request for adminship, but they are generally uninterested or have tried running but was put off by the entire process. – robertsky (talk) 16:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just yesterday there was a Diwali POTD. jlwoodwa (talk) 16:48, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diwali started on Oct 30 this year. I've checked the main pages for Oct 30, 31, Nov 1 and 2. That picture seems to be the only Indian topic on the main page in that period. Compare with the coverage of Halloween on Oct 31, which seems to have gotten attention in every section except ITN. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think its a secret to anyone that we have a problem with representation... IMO the biggest one is that we in general demand an absolute mastery of the English language from admins and "power" users (and even belittle those with such mastery for minor errors or regional dialect use), I think that shunting Indian English off into its own corner would make that problem worse not better. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Y'all are welcome to participate in Wikipedia Asian Month, which just started! Legoktm (talk) 04:15, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nvvchar ("My name is Narasipur Vijayaraghavachar Venkatanarasimhachar" he tells us) is #3 on the Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs, with 1548, mostly on Asian subjects, but he hasn't been active for a year. User:Soman (#11, with 748) also does many Asian topics. There are others. A fork would be a terrible idea; I suspect it would be thought insulting by most South Asian editors. Of course there are the 20+? wps in Indian languages. Johnbod (talk) 04:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The South Asian enWiki representation has been all over the place because of lack of power users, like others have said. There are some solid contributors though, just most of us are often juggling multiple things.

Some editors I personally know have been put off by the difficulty of contributing to enwiki, and that we are trying to change directly by direct interactions and guidance. There currently does not exist a sense of community between the English Wikipedians who live in South Asia, and so one of the first steps we are doing is to connect to each other, both in terms of resources and community.

Based on recent events, I am more hesitant to name any active contributors publicly. But if anyone else would like to connect to other South Asian wikipedians, my email a user is open. Soni (talk) 05:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this subthread would be relevant to the specific issue of the Delhi High Court case nor the broader issue of ethical-legal considerations regarding sharing user data with government agencies. Wikipedia has issues with systemic bias in general, but there is not really any specific problems in regards to India and South Asia. --Soman (talk) 13:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update

"If you are an intermediary, why are you bothered? If somebody else has edited and that addition is without basis, then it comes down. They are not here to protect... D2, D3, D4 are editors and you are a mere wall. If you are a mere wall and somebody else has written those things and they are not prepared to come to the court, then why should I hear you. I would only see whether the opinion given in your encyclopedia does not depict the correct picture, as not a true representation of the article [hyperlinked source], the page comes down," the Court observed.

"What is troubling me is your representation to the people that I am an encyclopedia," Justice Prasad said.

"After saying encyclopedia, can you say that you do not endorse what Mr X and Mr Y have said on my encyclopedia without verifying its contents. 'Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia' that is your first sentence, what do you mean by that," the Court asked.

"Wikipedia nowhere says I am factually accurate," Mehta said. Bajajkunior (talk) 13:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of India related articles are mostly edited by people related to India themselves (except of pure factual or technical edits). Creating a fork for sole purpose of impressing the authorities would be censorship, or a form of it and actually would not even make any difference, and it even may become a playground for ideological wars between external organizations with own interests as we've seen with the Croatian Wiki. Also that surly may lead to the degradation of technical quality of articles, which is generally overlooked by editors across the community, as well as clean out the Indian presence on the global version completely. About the representation, ~~I think that, albeit immperfect, Wikip(m)edia still manages to handle it quite well.~~ And I think that India and other countries need attention, compared to what US and western Europe gets in comparison. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 17:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contacted by one of the editors

The above section has gotten so long (and has started to go off on tangents) so I'll start this new.

I was emailed by one of the editors, who asked me to please post for them so they could remain anonymous. This is an editor with thousands of edits over multiple projects.

"Hello, I apologize for troubling you. As an admin, I trust you with this sensitive matter. Yesterday, I was notified that I'm one of three editors implicated in the ANI vs. Wikipedia defamation suit. As an Indian, I'm deeply distressed that the Wikipedia Foundation plans to disclose my personal details. With India being a significant market for the Foundation (receiving a billion views daily), I feel betrayed by their actions, which seem to prioritize their interests over our well-being.
I've done nothing but revert IP users' edits attempting to remove stable content without proper summaries. I haven't added any original content to the page.
Also, I'm worried about the Delhi High Court's jurisdiction outside India and its authority compared to India's Supreme Court.
"India's Supreme Court has overturned Delhi High Court rulings several times, with opposition parties labeling it a pro-government court. However, if Wikipedia were banned in India by the Delhi High Court and the Foundation appealed to the Supreme Court, WMF would likely prevail. Such a victory would not only benefit Wikipedia but also uphold free speech in India."

Valereee (talk) 10:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So even reverting unconstructive edits was enough to get your name in the lawsuit. Ratnahastin (talk) 11:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that they edits they reverted were removing the content ANI objects to. BilledMammal (talk) 11:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps those IPs belonged to ANI? Afterall ANI admitted that they tried to get the content removed until the page was placed under extended confirmed protection. [38] Ratnahastin (talk) 15:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that at least one of the editors is in India changes things - it goes from concerning to a major issue.

I think it is time to start preparing our response, and I propose that we do it in two stages:

First, we write a letter to the WMF similar to what Rhododendrites proposed above, expressing our stance that in circumstances like this we expect the WMF to protect editors, both as a matter of principle and because the chilling effect of not protecting editors will be significant.
Second, we prepare a contingency for what we will do if the WMF does disclose the information. I propose, similar to Yngvadottir's proposal, we target WMF's fundraising if they do proceed with it, as based on past precedent they only respond when their money is under threat. Specifically, I propose we run our own banners above the WMF's banners during the next major fundraising event, informing our readers that the WMF has sufficient funds to not need their donations, and that editing community requests that they boycott donating this year, to send a message to the WMF about the importance of protecting editors and preventing censorship.

We would, of course, first need to determine that both of these have community support - probably through an RFC. BilledMammal (talk) 11:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: Above, Joe claims that they (WMF) had notified the users at the start of the litigation but here, we have the user claiming that they were only notified yesterday. Can you reconcile the two statements? Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 11:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm that what I've quoted is a direct quote, but I'll reach back out. Valereee (talk) 11:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, V. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response:

Despite following news on the defamation suit, I was unaware that I'm one of the editors involved. I've been in contact with the WMF over the past three days. They informed me that my name may be disclosed by November 8th and offered to recommend lawyers to assist me tomorrow. The foundation also assured me that they will cover all my legal fees.

Valereee (talk) 14:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For all the criticism we're sending their way in this thread, just noting for the record that I very much appreciate The foundation also assured me that they will cover all my legal fees. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also appreciate that they're doing their job and directing donations to the programs they were earmaked for... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:52, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's the least they could do after exposing editor identities to a kangaroo court. Ratnahastin (talk) 14:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's like thanking FEMA for assisting you on a disaster. The help is appreciated, but that's why your taxpayers/donations are for. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If court summons the editor in their personal capacity, and if it finds the editor guilty, they'll ask for apology, which will make wmf's appeal weaker. Also, there is a real fear of reprisals once the name is outed like here. — hako9 (talk) 14:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The possible knock-on effects of any disclosure in a cases such as this are too numerous to even summarize. Providing access to a legal defense fund is not an act anywhere in the same universe of effectively negating the consequences of sharing this PII in the first place. We are talking about nothing less than the stone cold betrayal of these volunteers, and an offensive denial of the community's place in deciding if this is the Wikipedia we want, and what our priorities should be in this case. Whether the encyclopedia being more easily available in India is worth 1) obviating principle protections to our volunteers working and 2) allowing the kind of suppression of content as is involved here--or indeed, whether either is even a functional possibility for us without doing immense organizational and value damage to the whole endeavour--are questions we should all be answering together. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:49, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To the person concerned about the suit. Don't be. Unless and until a court issues a summons against you, nothing will happen. And court cannot summon you until wmf gives out your info. — hako9 (talk) 12:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two things: Valereee, have you verified what the user says is an accurate summary of their edits (ignore this if it's impossible to answer without outing this user, of course)? Also, BilledMammal, while I've been clear that I'm down for a statement of principle of some sort, I think we need more information before concluding the WMF is handling this incorrectly (and before embarking on some form of protest). If/when it comes to a protest, IMO the perennial WMF protesters who have gone after WMF fundraising/banners for all sorts of reasons in the past, down to and including the wording that appears on the banners, do not send a sufficiently strong message about this issue, especially with the same plays. I don't know what form of protest would be most appropriate. Worth talking about options sometime, but I don't think we're quite there yet. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure what would be stronger than going after their money, with the added benefit that this would be a very visible protest.

The issue is we’ve only got two tools at our disposal; a strongly worded letter, and going after their money. I suggest we try the letter first, and then the money if that fails. BilledMammal (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BilledMammal, does that mean you don't agree with Rhododendrites' comment that we need more information before concluding the WMF is handling this incorrectly? Or just that you think some form of protest is appropriate now, regardless of whether the WMF is handling it incorrectly? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we already have enough information to know the WMF is handling this incorrectly - disclosing editor PII in this case means they are handling it incorrectly, and they are now days away from doing so. This means we need to act now. BilledMammal (talk) 14:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have confirmation that the disclosing is actually going to happen. Don't jump the gun. Nakonana (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree. When the disclosing happened it would already been too late. It's better to nip this on the bud before it happened rather than just protesting when it had happened. Protest against a government bill happened before the bill is passed, not when it had passed. The action is needed NOW to dissuade WMF from doing such actions. If WMF decided to not disclose, we can close up the campaign. If WMF decided to disclose, we can continue the campaign. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the whole discussion here made it already more than clear to WMF that editors are not happy with the prospects of data being disclosed. Continuing to repeat the same things over and over again just distracts them from focusing on handling the legal case properly. Is there really anything that still needs to be said but hasn't been said by now in this whole discussion and that WMF really needs to know but doesn't know yet...? Nakonana (talk) 04:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the WMF, who would be spending quite a lot to deal with these demands (and, it turns out, the legal fees of the users involved) has any philosophical or financial interest in setting a harmful precedent here. I also think we have a dearth of relevant legal expertise in this thread. I'm open to the possibility that the sealed cover offer was strategic, or that there's something else going on which would complicate the "WMF is selling us out" view. There's no way I'm going to support a protest action that's intended to interfere in those legal proceedings. We should make our stance clear, but decide what comes next only when we have the information. That mighty mean after the case, but if we make a clear statement in advance, it won't be a surprise. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that the WMF is choosing to prioritize... something... over protecting the PII of editors acting in accordance with our policies and guidelines. There is nothing I can imagine that can justify that - can you? BilledMammal (talk) 15:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only things I can imagine are the real-life safety of an individual. I cannot imagine that that's true here, so I'd support the RFC for both the letter right now and the banner if PII is disclosed. Tazerdadog (talk) 15:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These conspiracy theories are totally counterproductive. Theknightwho (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rhodo, there is a minor inaccuracy in their description of their edits that in my view is both meaningless and understandable -- in fact I won't go further because it may make the editor identifiable -- and which I believe most other editors would also find meaningless and understandable. Valereee (talk) 13:50, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But you do know the username, right? It's not just some random unidentifiable editor who claims to be affected — you can exclude that possibility, right? Nakonana (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know the username. Valereee (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You say "emailed" above, but the first message was through Special:EmailUser right (just to make sure)? fiveby(zero) 21:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New questions have been raised, and I believe it's time to talk about a response. The goal is to tell the WMF that they should not do so, rather than wait and say they should not have done so. The affected editor says They informed me that my name may be disclosed by November 8th. The WMF must be aware that if they capitulate to a private organization's attempts to censor Wikipedia through a foreign court and compromise the safety of our peers, then they will be crossing a point of no return. As someone who's strongly criticized the wording of the donation banners in the past, that is very low on my list of priorities right now and I don't particularly care whether the banners specifically are a subject of our response. At a minimum, I'd like a formal statement signed by the community, whether it be an RfC, a list of signatures, or anything else. The next step is a more public, reader-facing response. And if neither of those are sufficient? Snow Rise, let us know when you've drafted the notice of departure you mentioned above. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree with drafting a pair of formal statements, directed at the WMF itself and the public respectively. Compromising the safety of Indian editors in this way is unacceptable. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Am I the only one who, looking at what few communications we have received to date from the WMF on this matter now have the feeling of being accurate more to the technical letter of the truth than the spirit? I am not prone to this kind of cynical disposition when it comes to this movement, but there is just a feeling of being managed that hovers over the Foundation's approach to the community on this one.
Mind you, I think the talk of fundraiser banners issue needs to exit this conversation, like immediately. Please don't bring any preconceptions about the WMF into this dialogue. Many of us find many of those arguments to involve a lot of conspiratorial thinking and absurd exaggerations--as have many habitual complaints about the WMF. More to the point, there is is no need for it here: it's quite easy to be someone who has generally had full faith and confidence in the WMF up to the present day (that's me, more or less), to still be horrified and adamantly opposed to the strategy being contemplated by the Foundation's leadership in this instance. Miring and tying concerns to older, different issues will not help bring clarity to this matter. And there's more than enough to be concerned about in relation to the immediate concerns. To the extent that the WMF's response to date seems to have mollified an outburst from the community initially, I hope some are starting to re-assess the wisdom of forgoing a strong and unified demand for deeper engagement to be made immediately. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately TBUA, even in the circumstances I didn't think to believe I might need it so soon. I am so discouraged. I've never anticipated ever feeling so inclined to believe the senior WMF leadership could lose the plot so completely on such important issues. This is really a sea change for me. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what the last paragraph is a quote from? Nardog (talk) 23:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My deepest sympathy for the emailer notwithstanding, I doubt WMF is "prioritiz[ing] their interests" by trying to maintain its presence in India. The billions of pageviews incur nothing but cost for WMF, and donations from North America and Europe dwarf those from Asia. I assume it chose to fight the case rather than close up shop out of inertia and not being nimble enough to do so. Nardog (talk) 00:14, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What does "my name may be disclosed" mean? Surely all the WMF can do is disclose the IP address of a specified user? I know that is serious and could easily lead to full identification, but some clear wording would be helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 00:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WMF could disclose the email of the editor, and in most cases it will "out" the editors anyway. And for a company ANI-size it is trivial to subpoena the ISP to give out the name as well. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee, I have some questions about the message you have received.

Is the editor who sent you the message one of the editors who had worked on the ANI article?
Did they share with you any correspondence with WMF with regards to this matter?
When was the initial email sent to you?

Am asking as the rest of us don't have the necessary information to verify the person and the message(s). – robertsky (talk) 02:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article here that somehow details what kind of edit that ANI have a problem with. Seeing what kind of edit they are trying to introduce we can see that a lot of innocent edits can be classified as "defamation" by ANI. We can also see how they wrongly identify "Wikimedia" and "Wikipedia administrators" as the one trying to remove their statement. To be honest, such edits that ANI tried to make will be removed promptly by anyone running an anti-vandalism tool. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I previously speculated after reviewing the revision history and their own admission regarding their involvement on this article that they could have filed lawsuit against the editors who reverted their attempts at whitewashing, rather than the actual authors. Ratnahastin (talk) 03:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the article, however it does not answer the questions I have above. – robertsky (talk) 07:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[39] If the initial email came from wiki@wikimedia.org with the DMARC signatures then #1 should be answered. fiveby(zero) 10:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yeah... If it is. – robertsky (talk) 12:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robertsky, I'm not going to provide any details this editor didn't ask me to share. Valereee (talk) 12:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New developments that might be relevant to this. Ratnahastin (talk) 15:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per my reading of this, the disclosure of identities is one of the main issues being pressed right now, and the WMF is putting up a fight. That's good to hear, and I can completely understand why they don't want to lay out their full thought process while the appeal is still being considered. My concern right now remains with the anonymous email, particularly whether we can reconcile the WMF's statements and actions with I was unaware that I'm one of the editors involved and They informed me that my name may be disclosed by November 8th. Valereee I'm glad that you're leaning toward privacy and ask that you keep doing so, but more information is really needed here. Could you ask the editor in question for a rough timeline, namely when they were first made aware and when they were given the November 8 estimate (or if they're reading this, would you consider sending it to Valereee). Yesterday, I was notified and in contact with the WMF over the past three days suggests we don't know the true timeline right now. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

tbua, I'm trying to be supportive rather than trying to investigate. This is undoubtedly very stressful for this person, and I'm not going to add to that. Valereee (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can respect that you didn't want to push further; I wouldn't have asked if this weren't critically important. Based on the reply below, it looks like the timeline adds up and the WMF has done its due diligence in this regard. It remains to be seen what they do with the information, and what the consequences end up being, for the victims, the community, and the WMF's operations in India. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update:

"I received an email from WMF on July 24, but unfortunately, I didn't notice it. Had someone notified me on my talk page, I would have taken action sooner. WMF sent a follow-up email on October 28, which I didn't notice until November 1. Seeking clarification, I asked WMF if the email targeted all Indian editors or specifically those in ongoing defamation suits. They clarified on November 2, revealing my involvement and the initial email sent in late July.
Since November 1, I've been in touch with WMF. They've consistently stated (as recently as today) that they may disclose editor details in a sealed cover by November 8. Additionally, WMF is arranging Indian lawyers to assist me, covering fees under their Legal Fees Assistance Program."
Although the foundation may provide legal assistance, I'm uncertain about navigating the broader implications:

Valereee (talk) 18:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing they didn't want to use the talkpage in this context. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:10, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update

"I received a new email from the WMF a few hours ago. They updated me that they are still arranging for Indian lawyers to assist me, covering their fees under the Legal Fees Assistance Program. I can expect contact information for the lawyer later today.
The Foundation clarified that they have not disclosed, nor do they intend to disclose, any co-defendant's personal information to ANI directly. This follows the Delhi High Court's August order to disclose data about Wikipedia users.
As mentioned in their email on November 1, 2024, the Foundation may need to provide limited user account data confidentially to the Court."
"I believe the Wikimedia Foundation's email indicates their intention to disclose editor details to the court in a sealed cover, potentially on November 8th. I consulted a lawyer friend practicing in a nearby session court, and they advised that given the current political climate, this development could be detrimental to me.
According to my friend, I risk:

Device seizure (used for editing)

Traveling to Delhi High Court, which is expensive or time-consuming

Facing online and offline backlash

My friend's assessment heightens my concerns." "I would appreciate it if you could share these new developments and my concerns related to this lawsuit with other editors."

Valereee (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding #2, advocate can appear on your behalf. You won't need to be physically present for every hearing.

Regarding #3, from wmf's comments above, I don't think they will agree to disclose your info. It looks like the most they are willing to do is give it to the judge in a sealed cover, so it won't be in the public domain. — hako9 (talk) 05:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hako, let's please be careful about giving assurances to this editor that we can't possibly guarantee. Once the court has the information in question, it can, and in all likelihood at some point will, give to plaintiff. We also have absolutely no certainty that they will not be named a form, and potentially liable party to the case (and again, in fact, probably will), nor can we begin to predict the scope of liability or potential size of awarded damages. So it's no really appropriate to try to soothe this party in this manner, however good the intention.

Rather than attempting to manage this volunteer's entirely reasonable anxiety, we should be discussing next steps to make make a powerful statement to the WMF about how unacceptable this course of action is. What they are about to do to this individual is, in my opinion anyway, an unconscionable violation of trust and profound breach of movement values. And all to temporarily safeguard availability of the encyclopedia in a country with a current political and legal landscape with regard to human and personal rights that will probably force the WMF and community into a corner that will require us to call the same bluff sooner rather than later, regardless of any capitulation in this particular case. We have mere days to act now to keep this threshold from being crossed, to the detriment of this project's culture and feasability forever after. It is time to wake up the rest of the community to this situation. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Snow Rise I think the time is now to create the move. Outside certain small circles I am not sure the readers of Wikipedia are aware of the situation. I am quite active on Wikipedia but if not for the random thread on /r/wikipedia I won't know about this case. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 10:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently, I was correct with calling this court a kangaroo court[40] and criticizing the situation of India. This battle is not just about the problematic outlet ANI, but every Wikipedia page that does not align with the pro-government propaganda. Ratnahastin (talk) 07:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update:

I've consulted a lawyer recommended by Wikipedia's legal team for legal advice. They assured me of confidentiality and attorney-client privilege if I engage their services. However, despite promising a prompt response, I haven't received a reply to my two follow-up emails in the past 24 hours.
With the November 8 deadline looming, I'm uncertain about the next steps. Could you please update the community on this situation?

Valereee (talk) 17:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not that this is enormously comforting, but per [41], November 8 isn't necessarily a deadline. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict x2) It isn't necessarily one, but I notice the use of "intended" in the comment text. That means 'probably not, but maybe'. Considering the course of the trial, this 'maybe' has a good chance of happening tommorow. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 17:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update from minutes ago:

Hi,
Hope you're doing well. I've been in touch with the lawyers suggested by the foundation. They've advised me to wait until tomorrow's hearing, which may take place within 12 hours. They've also warned that maintaining anonymity in court could be challenging if the foundation discloses personal details.
Thanks for all your help.
Best regards

Valereee (talk) 17:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: Apologies if this has been answered but the editors in question have been referred to in court alternately as "admins" "administrators" "editors" and "writers" without any real clarification. For clarity's sake is the editor you are in contact with an administrator? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HEB, I'm not trying to be coy, but I really don't want to add any details that might help this person be identified/outed. Valereee (talk) 18:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, based only on my (fairly exhaustive) reading of the sources over the past six weeks: the courts, ANI, ANI's lawyers, and most of the media have zero idea what an admin is/does vs. what an editor is/does. Much of the coverage seems to make the assumption an admin is appointed by WMF to be some final arbiter of content. Valereee (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that safety is paramount but I've also noticed a lack of clarity between admin, extended confirmed editors, and editors in general (and I've seen nothing which touches on the dual nature of admins, that they make both admin actions and regular old edits). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Horse Eye's Back, re: and I've seen nothing which touches on the dual nature of admins, that they make both admin actions and regular old edits: In the media coverage? I don't think we're likely to see that level of understanding by anyone who hasn't made a few thousand edits themselves. I've seen confusion over that even from editors who've made tens of thousands of edits. I'm sure you have, too, maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're getting at? Valereee (talk) 22:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in the media coverage. I would hope that the Foundation's in-house lawyers are wikipedia editors themselves (and thus able to explain that sort of nuance to the court), it never really occurred to me that they wouldn't be but I guess its probably not required. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can barely explain it to experienced editors successfully in many cases. Valereee (talk) 23:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps my faith is misplaced but judges are in general highly intelligent people used to dealing with complex and opaque networks who should be able to get it if given enough time and information. It is early days yet, I wish all the best. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you have the same faith in judiciary if this lawsuit happened in China or Russia? Ratnahastin (talk) 01:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think your characterizations of India's political status in this discussion are entirely fair. The country has been undergoing democratic backsliding like many parts of the world, but relatively speaking, it's still a free democratic country. It's nowhere near the level of China or Russia, and it's not accurate to portray it like a dictatorship running a "kangaroo court". The lawsuit is a problem that needs to be solved, and casting things as great evils generally makes it harder to solve them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thebiguglyalien: Russia and China are not working to convince their citizens that their countries were horrible before 2014.[42][43] This is happening only in India under the Modi government and for that laughable but poisonous agenda they have to use these outlets like ANI for running massive disinformation campaigns. Nearly whole Indian media is in the ruling party's favour. The court appears to be running on some government directive given that the government itself is parroting claims made by ANI[44] and the fact that only WMF is getting attacked at every hearing by the judges who inspite of having only the layman understanding of Wikipedia refuse to use this opportunity to actually understand how it really works. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I would say that WMF is unfair to decide to "disclose" by themselves without consulting the editor in question or Indian editors in general. If the Indian editors decided to trust the Indian court system that's on them, but if they didn't trust them WMF shouldn't throw them under the bus. The Indians are the one that is best positioned to judge the whether they believe the court systems of their own country or not, and WMF should have respected it. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 06:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget the case of Satyendra Dubey [45]. The Indian state machinery does not care one bit about anonymity. Ratnahastin (talk) 06:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth pointing out that, according to Reporters Without Borders, freedom of the press has deteriorated so substantially in India that it is now on more or less the same level as that in Russia. The Modi administration and its allies have routinely brought defamation cases against journalists in order to silence them and censor any criticism.[46] This case isn't an outlier, it's part of a broader problem. I don't think we do ourselves any favours by ignoring the wider material context. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update

It's late here, but I'm still awake thinking about tomorrow.
I sent this 👇🏾 to WMF , in response to their email and I would like to share this with other editors too as I would want them to see the absurdity of this situation
I have additional questions, several issues which I don't understand.
1. The edit in question is still on ANI's wikipage. You said you don't remove edits from wiki just because courts rule they should be removed and your privacy policy makes it clear you only share PI if you reasonably believe it necessary to satisfy a valid and legally enforceable court order. How can there be a valid court order in this case, if the very basis of this case if frivoulous, namely that me reverting an edit that is well sourced and would not be removed from wiki no matter what this court rules, no matter what ANI wants, is somehow defamation.
2. You say you won't share my PI with ANI itself, but it cannot be reasonably assumed that if you share this info with the judge he and only he will ever see it, and the plaintiff, who wants this information, won't have access to it. From there, ANI can go after me, they can leak this info and I can suffer damages, maybe threats or worse, just because I reverted an edit that is evidently won't be removed from wiki due to any kind of ruling from this same judge.
3. I asked about juristiction, because I find it odd that an Indian court would dictate what an American company should or shouldn't do. My question is, what would happen if you simply informed this judge that you won't disclose editor PI for a frivolous lawsuit, and this court has no right to force you to do otherwise.
Thank you for your response, in advance.

Valereee (talk) 23:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having checked the edit history, I'm really dumbfounded as to why did WMF even bothered with this frivolous lawsuit, the only one at fault was ANI trying to whitewash their page without disclosing COI/PE, not the editors who reverted their attempts. Ratnahastin (talk) 01:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from the statements above from Jimbo and WMF staff, the WMF is clearly of the opinion that Wikipedia remaining not-blocked in India is more important than the rights for editors' anonymity they are theoretically reponsible for protecting. Unsurprisingly, the editors who actually create the encyclopedia strongly disagree—hence the petition, and likely further, more hostile action if the warnings are not heeded. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With this case, the demand from the Indian government and now the threat from Republic TV, perhaps the option WMF needs to be looking at is to close down all official ties with India. A concern I have right now is the courts taking steps that will punish WMF staff in India with contempt fines / imprisonment. Two courts now have demonstrated they have a lock of understanding about how Wikipedia works from an editing model and both have made outright hostile comments about both WMF and Wikipedia's model.

So cut all ties with India. No staff members there, no representatives, no officially supported user groups. Nothing. Think Russia. And then just ignore the courts entirely. The only lever available to the Indian courts would be to demand the entire website be blocked in India, which would be quite interesting to see them actually make that happen and make it stick.

When a country shows hostility towards an open collaborative editing model, should WMF have official contacts with that country? Ravensfire (talk) 04:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think WMF have no presence in India - so no staff and no representatives to punish should DHC decided to retaliate. A redirect to a page explaining why it had happened and who are the culprits (Asian News International) should be made to explain why Wikipedia is not available anymore. Hopefully it will push some people to stand against such overreach of government power. On the other hand, WMF's first choice to "disclose" is still an issue that has to be discussed intently with the WMF. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 05:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think WMF have no presence in India This is categorically wrong. – robertsky (talk) 14:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia India was closed back in 2019, what other presence do they have? Ratnahastin (talk) 15:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, on Wikimedia India. Wikimedia India was the community chapter in India, which is a separate entity from Wikimedia Foundation. Currently, there are other user groups within India that the foundation have recognised, you can check out meta:Wikimedia movement affiliates#thorgs. Just because there is no overarching chapter/user group at the national level (India is not the only country in this situation if you are wondering, there're China, Philippines, and USA), that does not mean there is no IRL activities within the country by various groups of editors/contributors to the Wikimedia movement.

Second, presence of the Foundation. It does not have an office strictly speaking, but there is a number of staff working in India, working on a wide range of projects and initiatives. I know some of them in the course of organising Wikimania.

A ban on Wikimedia Foundation and/or Wikipedia in India may mean that people may be put out of their livelihood, projects getting halted, community groups having to scatter, etc, in general. – robertsky (talk) 05:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having a physical foundation was the point which Wikipedia totally lacks in India. Since Wikimedia India was shut in 2019, it becomes clearer that anything that happens in India with regards to Wikimedia is ultimately irrelevant for them.

Your message reads like Wikipedia is supposed to comply with POV, no matter how absurd, of every single country because they have workers and volunteers in just every part of the world. Anybody having them is not a big deal today. I am sure all of the editors who are writing here also have contacts outside their native countries. Ratnahastin (talk) 07:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since Wikimedia India was shut in 2019, it becomes clearer that anything that happens in India with regards to Wikimedia is ultimately irrelevant for them. The Foundation lacks physical presence almost everywhere in the world by its very nature. If they deemed what happened in India as irrelevant, then why the continued engagements with the various user groups in India? Why continue employing staff directly in India to work in India? Why even bothered trying to fight this case? Wikimedia India had its issues which I am not totally familiar with (Is ChatGPT right? Hi @Bluerasberry, your 2014 post turned up as a reference in the AI chat! Amazing.), but Wikimedia India is not the only organisation they can work with to better the editing/contributing environment in the country.

Your message reads like Wikipedia is supposed to comply with POV, no matter how absurd you are putting words into my mouth. I come from a country whose freedom of speech laws is no better than India's, and yet I am editing in my own name, and have seen the laws being utilised to go after anonymous speech (first with corrective orders for falsehoods in statement about a public hospital, then a defamation case.

If there is anything that I want to say, it is actions have consequences, and I am laying down what's the worst case that might have happened in the event of an outright ban without Wikimedia Foundation seeing a day in the court, not only to Wikipedia, but to your fellow editors and contributors whose identities are of no secret in the country. By all means, edit anonymously, and what I am seeing is the foundation is trying to fight for that right/status quo, even as the court and ANI is trying to compel them to release the information they are requesting for. Whether they ultimately release the information is another matter, but if we go down (ie Wikipedia getting blocked), we go down with a fight. In the earlier timeline, we would have seen Wikipedia getting blocked weeks ago, and not much time at all for the exposed editors/contributors to evaluate and secure their own safety if needed. Personally, I think what would be a win is that the case continues without the need to release the requested information and ultimately setting new precedence for freedom of speech to proliferate better.

I am sure all of the editors who are writing here also have contacts outside their native countries. Not sure what to make of this. This is beside the point I am making? – robertsky (talk) 12:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update:

I apologize for the scrutiny you're facing due to sharing my emails with the community. To clarify, the lawyer didn't claim in court that WMF would cover one editor's legal fees. Instead, they stated Wikipedia's legal team informed editors about the case on Village Pump and offered aid. Furthermore, I haven't publicly questioned the court's neutrality, nor did I sign the open letter to the foundation.

Personal note: I've let them know the scrutiny (which I'd barely even characterize as that) isn't causing me any stress whatsoever. Valereee (talk) 16:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Need for immediate action

I have been following this case in the press over the past few months. I agree with Snow Rise that it is now important to press upon WMF that any steps which may reveal the personal identity of the editors involved should be avoided at all costs. In my opinion, it would be preferable to see Wikipedia completely banned in India rather than risking action by the Indian authorities against any of the editors involved. I therefore suggest, Valereee, that action should be taken along these lines without further delay.--Ipigott (talk) 14:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. It's about time we formulate a community response. Ratnahastin (talk) 14:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ratnahastin: I've posted a message on Wikipedia talk:Wikimedia Foundation where perhaps it will be noticed by a few key people. I'm not too sure how we can ensure a community response. I'll leave that to the experts but we need to act now.--Ipigott (talk) 14:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)-[reply]

I'm not weighing in on this, as I don't feel at all confident I understand the entire situation in any meaningful way. Valereee (talk) 15:35, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding, Valereee. I understand your hesitation on further involvement but would like to thank you for all the useful information you have brought to our attention. You could perhaps, nevertheless, advise on how a "community response" could be initiated. We need to act very quickly. I'm afraid I'm not conversant with such initiatives but would be ready to help things along.--Ipigott (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ipigott, I am not trying to be obtuse when I say I can't think of any way I'm qualified to advise anyone on anything to do with this, and I'm not sure why anyone would think I was qualified to do so. Valereee (talk) 16:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you can find something helpful at Category:Times that large groups of Wikipedians supported something. It's possible that the WMF already has a sense that Wikipedians probably dislike the "disclose user-info to DHC" idea. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just thought, Valereee, that as an administrator you might have the necessary background. It's now been suggested on my talk page that we could put something together the Asian News International talk page but I'm not at all sure that is a good starting point for a proposal to WMF. I'll see what I can do but if anyone else has ideas, please let me know. Perhaps I can also draw on the extensive experience of Victuallers?--Ipigott (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I can add anyting Ipigott.I've read a lot of the stuff above and I'm impressed with the foundations openess. I agree completely Ipigot that protecting our editors is more than important. Turkey banned us but this resulted in me at least spending extra time to highlight articles about Turks and related articles. If India loses Wikipedia then that is a significant loss, but better that than access to a Wikipedia whose content is in (unknown) part subject to undue influence. (Offline versions will be available). The days that we take down Wikipedis are the days that we establish the value of our creation to all of our users. Money is not important here - our amazing product was created by volunteers (and some relatively trivial donations). I frequently mention that its the users who have decided to take down Wikipedia in the past. We should be willing to do so again. Victuallers (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ipigott: If the WMF caves to Asia News International, we should delete the ANI article or black it out as we did for SOPA/PIPA. The precedent we've repeatedly set on Wikipedia is that we'd rather not include information if that information cannot align with our core content policies including WP:NPOV or WP:5P3 (free content). We regularly delete articles that are biased, inadequately sourced, or are composed of content not freely usable/modifiable by our readers.

Allowing the article to exist when it is controlled by Asia News International would be a disservice to our readers that believe we are neutral. It's also a disservice to editors that believe they can edit said article without consequences.

We also cannot be defamatory if we say nothing at all. Others might fill in the blanks. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that deleting that article is around #2 on the list of things we don't want to do here (#1 being giving DHC non-public user-info). It's a decent WP-article on a big media-company. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a good outcome for ANI. It removes any balanced reference point and helps project themselves as a flawless source. Which is not a good thing and could lead to other companies jumping on the bandwagon.

Forgive me if I am being incredibly moronic, but what if the court ordered the material removed, but it was readded by someone outside of India, like with Pierre-sur-Haute military radio station?. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 20:23, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if it's removed like the case-article (office action), it probably wouldn't stay if someone re-added a version. Someone added a case-article on fr-WP, but that was removed, I think by an admin. Of course, the ANI-article exists in several languages, but I don't know if anyone has told the DHC that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There we go, another lawsuit coming soon against Wikipedia, this time by Republic TV. Primary source: YouTube (At 5:02). GrabUp - Talk 05:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ayurveda and Homeopath practitioners must be salivating. — hako9 (talk) 09:17, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fantastic Mr. Fox Fwiw, 亚洲国际新闻诉维基媒体基金会案 is alive and kicking. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Backed up externally to both English and Chinese. Il upload it to my sandbox in a few hours once I configure the sources with the English text, unless I get a heads up not to do so either here or on my talk. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 13:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic Mr. Fox I'd advise against that. There's nothing really to gain from it, but it will likely be considered an attempt to circumvent page protection. There's nothing stopping you from posting it elsewhere on the internet, but we can't post it onwiki for the time being. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Il avoid uploading it for the time being, unless someone wants a copy of the translated article. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean in a big SOPA/PIPA like way. Blacked out with big censor bars and explaining why the article was taken down. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because the company sued WMF in court, Wikipedians are annoyed about it and this is what happens if you do that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a retaliatory effort It's to prevent something from happening that would be seriously harmful to specific editors and to the entire project. Personally, I don't see the point of targeting one specific article that's only going to be noticed by people already aware of the issue. We're expressing our concerns in a direct, orderly fashion (as is being organized below), and we're trying to get visibility on the subject (whether on enwiki, across all WMF projects, or to the broader public remains to be seen). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of "across all WMF projects", has anyone brought this issue up on meta? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another new section of the village pump has been opened for that in Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)#Community response to the WMF over ANI. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's my point. This isn't retaliatory. If editors will be doxxed for editing that article, we should not have it onwiki. It's unsafe to edit and isn't free content.

Also, companies love having a Wikipedia article. It shows they are important. Having it deleted with a notice that it was censored by the company would seriously annoy them, not reward them. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we're reacting to "If the WMF caves to Asia News International", wouldn't it make more sense to SOPA/PIPA the WMF-article? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basic strategy proposal and further efforts at communicating the degree of community disapproval to the WMF

I believe there's some overthinking that is going on here. We don't need a complicated scheme for action at this moment--though I am not in principle opposed to a mass protest action, and given the rapidly closing window, I don't know if anything other than some sort of unorthodox response is sufficient to grab enough attention to arrest the WMF's stride before it passes the point of no return here. This is an especially big concern considering that the presently underway election in the U.S. is likely to claim a lot of focus for a lot of our community over the coming days. In truth, we may have been lulled into waiting too long as is: all indications are that the WMF has committed to this course of action. If there is any hope of stopping them in their tracks, it will take an exceptional display of community will and unity on this issue, and with just two days to affect that statement, nothing less than something at least vaguely on the same scale of the last two mass mobilization events in the project's history (those leading to the PIPA/SOPA blackout and 'Framgate') will be required.

Now, those two situations evolved rapidly due to organic word of mouth. Why that hasn't happened as readily here is difficult question that we will have to spend some time investigating after the immediate emergency, but aside from possibly saying something about our flagging numbers and levels of investment and energy among the veteran editor base, I think we can probably point to two factors: 1) people are often inclined to defer the specialized knowledge of the attorney "in the room" where formal legal proceedings are concerned (even though, in this case, the issues the community actually needs to deal with here are institutional and cultural ones; setting the priorities that the WMF should be designing its strategy within, but not the granular strategy itself--while right now, the WMF is doing both, in an apparent belief that they have a blank check to divine the former without need to consult the community); and 2) because the WMF, intentionally or otherwise, kind of hid the ball on the more pressing issue of volunteer PII by barely addressing this issue in their direct communications and utilizing Jimmy as the primary channel to summarize the current state of affairs, focusing on the office action/article take down.

The assurances we were given with regard to the disclosure of personal information by JSutherland (WMF) can be basically summarized by one sentence from therein: "We have not shared any user data, and remain in an active appeals process arguing for every protection available under the law." (emphasis in the original), which, while accurate to the technical truth of the mater, failed to reveal that the WMF was apparently planning on capitulating to the disclosure of such information within roughly the following week.

Joe, I'm going to embed an involved message in my overall post to you here: I've pinged you not so much because you made these assurances in a manner which might be perceived at this point in time as incomplete representations at best, and arguably manipulative wording at worst. Afterall, I know you are just a small part of a larger apparatus navigating a complex situation, and I'm sure that message was made somewhat via committee. Nevertheless, yours is the only WMF voice we have heard from with regard to this spectacular chain of events and the remarkable course the WMF has charted--without apparently thinking the community/broader movement might have a role in determining our first order priorities in a case like this.

Further, your role is with the Trust and Safety team, and speaking personally, I must tell you that there has been no moment in my entire history with the project where my faith in the WMF's ability to deliver on either of those vital needs has been at a lower ebb. Even factoring in the limitations and restraints of ongoing litigation, the WMF's transparency in this situation has been abysmal. Summarizing the consequences of the WMFs choices after the fact in an end-of-the-year report is completely (and clearly) insufficient to our needs in circumstances such as these. Frankly, even within the parameters set by the existing litigation, there was a lot more in terms of dialogue to establish the community's order of priorities on these issues that Foundation could have done, months or weeks ago. And let's pretend for the moment that's not the case: that in fact the WMF can't say much more of substance beyond what it has disclosed thus far, and at the 11th hour, under the application of sub judice principals in this particular court. Well, if that is in fact the case, those circumstances alone should be regarded as reason enough to stop entertaining the notion of splitting the difference between complying with the plaintiff/court's demands in this case and preserving this project's independence from undue influence and commitment to the movement's values..

Because the baseline of what this community needs and expects from the Foundation in these circumstances is so far above what we are getting here. And if the price of staying live in India outside of VPN use is this situation, then I join the chorus of other users here in saying we'd just as soon take that (admittedly far from trivial) consequence over all the other organizational costs we are being asked to swallow here, and their profound combined effect upon our ability to deliver on our mission for the rest of the world (minus the other illiberal nations who have banned us for similar cause, which we were also disappointed by, but willing to accept as the lesser of two evils). So far, every new thing I learn about this situation makes me more convinced that in the name of placating this particular court, the WMF is willing to walk this project farther and farther down a completely ill-advised path that can ultimately amount to a death by a thousand cuts for it's independence and service of its core mission.

If nothing else, my mind is boggling at the fact that a group of individuals that nominally have as much expertise and specialization in the task of facilitating one of the greatest disseminations of information in the history of the world somehow couldn't collectively realize that the Streisand effect would prevent this situation from exploding, no matter how much the WMF might want to comply with the DHC's unrealistic expectations. The only sense I can make of this situation, is that the WMF expected to slow play its communication with the community here such that the disclosure of PII would be a fait accompli by the time any large community response manifested. That or the Foundation just doesn't believe it owes any substantial duty of consultation with the community on such matters, and is entitled to decide matters that cut straight to principal priorities for the project all on its own. And frankly, I don't know which possibility disturbs me more when contemplating the immediate future of our collective endeavour.

All of which is my long-winded way of saying that I am relying upon you to communicate to your colleagues at the WMF that this situation is truly about to boil over, and that, not withstanding the fact that WMF legal and any outside Indian co-counsel probably lack any ability to forestall the Nov. 8th deadline for handing over the PII, they still need to be prepared to enter that court room in a couple of days prepared for the consequences of non-compliance. Because there is not a single community member here in this entire voluminous discussion who has supported handing over that information in this instance, and most have expressly said the WMF should flatly refuse, whatever the consequences for the encyclopedia's availability in India. And there's absolutely no reason to expect the numbers to be any different as the number of Wikipedians aware of this situation mounts. And getting as much of the community to be aware of what the WMF is planning to do is precisely what I (and I expect a great many others) to be exclusively focused on with our project time over the coming days.

If the WMF undertakes the planned action, there will be no question that it was done not only without it being sanctioned by the community, by indeed directly in contravention of broad community will. I believe it will create probably the biggest wedge that has ever been forced between the community and WMF leadership, with longterm consequences for the movement that none of us can predict. I am appealing to you to try to avert that outcome. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I find it very awkward to be in this position, as I have frequently made it a habit, in the last decade in particular, to defend the WMF from what I have often felt were histrionic complaints about it methods in providing for project needs and furthering movement values. But today I am forced to join with the skeptics and ask you to deliver a message to the WMF leadership, both Board and operations: you are about to cross a threshold many of us cannot countenance, without even properly involving us in the decision. Please do not take us there.

Now, returning to addressing my fellow community members... What do we do to make the best of our limited time to underline the line in the sand about to be crossed for the WMF? Well, we might well consider some form of protest action in the next two days, but bluntly, the most important thing that needs to happen for this exposure over the next 24 hours is exposure. I think that every one of us ought to be reaching out at a minimum to the five most influential Wikipedians you know who have not yet participated in this discussion. If the WMF remains committed to the course of disclosing this information at this point, really the only thing that stands a chance of dissuading them is pure numbers in the community. Spread awareness of this discussion here, on meta, on the sister projects and encyclopedias for other languages, even off project. Hell, this may be the day that Wikipediocracy makes itself a net positive to the internet for a shining moment.

I'm going to add this discussion to CENT, where it should have been from the start, as a starter. You all may want to use your discretion as to forums where a notice may be acceptable. The important thing is to move fast and to bring as many of the project's experienced figures and community institutions into the dialogue. I still wonder if we are too late to stop this runaway train, but we can at least make the effort. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support a protest action with as much exposure as possible. The WMF shouldn't be disclosing user information to the Delhi High Court, and putting our Indian editors at massive risk for doing something as routine as reverting vandalism. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd oppose any protest action to prevent stirring the hornet's nest unless the WMF discloses PII. Sincerely, Dilettante 00:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the proposed protest is to make WMF reconsider their course of action. Should we wait to protest until WMF throws an editor under the bus for reporting the facts, the very outcome and precedent we want to avoid? Bowler the Carmine | talk 01:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I said, yes. Sincerely, Dilettante 01:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your straightforward and honest response. Bowler the Carmine | talk 01:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support This sort of cowardly and hypocritical move makes me sick, and the WMF cannot be allowed to weasel out of facing the music again. Bowler the Carmine | talk 01:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably agree on what specific course of action we're looking at before any bolded votes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All right Snow Rise and others, what specifically are we talking about here? It seems that broader community discussion on this is not allowed until an RfC of some sort is opened (a rule I was unaware of until this point). What specific proposal are we looking at? An RfC to endorse sending a statement to the WMF (pinging Rhododendrites who has helped draft one)? I don't think people realize this is an issue that needs to be addressed in the next two days before editors are potentially put in harm's way. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is no requirement for an RfC, and I'm not entirely convinced it is the right course in these circumstances, but one is live now below, and so long as there is exposure, that is a positive step. The only thing to be done now is to do whatever each of us can, short of disruption, to make this issue common knowledge in the community. Eek has advised below that she thinks that individual discussion of this issue with editors who may wish to be aware of it on user talk pages would constitute canvassing. I cannot stress enough how inaccurate and unhelpful I think that is in these circumstances, but each of you reading this will have to come to your own conclusions about the policy and the circumstances and act in light of those determinations and your conscience.

For myself, I think this is one of the most consequential moments in the project's history--certainly in recent years--and that every member of this community (indeed, well beyond the en.Wikipedia community) ought to be made aware of what is going on here. I'll repeat one last time that I do no celebrate that we must confront the WMF (who did not seek this situation and are stuck in an unenviable position with no great options that will not in some way lead to negative results and who face ire from either the community or a court, whichever way they act) in this fashion. It is a necessary evil and the lesser of our own bad options. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support a protest. I think the only thing that will work is to black out the entire website. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would a blackout be possible without the WMF backing it? Iirc, the SOPA/PIPA blackout was carried out with WMF support. Without that, it may have to manifest as an editors' strike or something similar; a stoppage of updating and maintaining the project, rather than preventing access to readers. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grnrchst I've already stopped. In part out of protest, but in part simply because I don't see the point until we know where the WMF stands. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thebiguglyalien: Personally, I've been preoccupied the past few days with covering a natural disaster in my own country, but I'll stop if this course of action isn't reversed. If following the publication of the letter the WMF decides to continue down this path, I think we'll need to issue a call for other editors to carry out a work stoppage (if a blackout isn't possible). This is too dangerous a precedent to set for our work and our safety. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's technically possible for local interface admins to implement a blackout. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery: I see you were previously an interface admin, so I'll take you at your word on that. I'm guessing we'd need to get the interface admin team on board for such an action? I'm not sure how to go about doing that myself. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support: Wikipedia is not 4Chan, and it's not Reddit. It is quite disgraceful that the organisation appears to be planning to use members as cannon fodder for the crime of doing their job, while a WP:LTA enjoys the fruits of anonymity. We can and have survived being subjected to being blocked in certain countries like Turkey. If the court is unwilling to accept Wikipedia for what it is, a platform which editors can use to freely share information without intimidation, they must suck it up themselves somehow. If Wikipedia where blocked, it would be bad, but as mentioned, it is the lesser of two bad outcomes. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have delisted this section from WP:CENT for the moment. Snow Rise, your comment is very WP:VERBOSE, perhaps as a result of your interjection to Joe, and is not the sort of calm, neutral, statement we expect from RfCs. I know you feel strongly about the issue, and that time is of the essence, but it is exactly when time is short and emotions are high that doing things right is most important. If the community wishes to fashion a response to the issue, I would suggest workshopping some sort of statement first. The entire community does not need to be summoned to put a few sentences together; the issue can go back to CENT once a neutral RfC statement is assembled. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, bad ping, Snow Rise has a space. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, I would caution editors against reaching out to the five most influential Wikipedians you know to this discussion, because that's WP:CANVASSING. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but that's an absurd reading of WP:CANVAS, and at odds with almost every word of the policy. This is no garden variety issue, nor an editorial matter at all. Nor has anyone been encouraged to solicit involvement of anyone based on how they would be likely to respond but rather to simply spread awareness of this issue and the pressing need for the community to act before it loses any chance of arresting potentially dangerous outcomes for volunteers. Nor indeed could any respondents be known to have pre-existing stances on this issue to attempt to influence the discussion, as this is a completely novel matter never faced by the community before. Your definition of CANVAS would hold everyone who promoted the PIPA/SOPA blackout or discussed Framgate on user talk pages as "canvassing" an issue. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of not bloating this thread further, I'm self-hatting this post, which contains a response to Eek's observations, but which is not highly critical to the boradest issues here.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Eek, first of all, it is not your place to attempt to speculate on what you think the psychological state of mind is, and I assure you, you are very much mistaken about what animates me in this moment: my approach here is not predicated in an "emotional" over-reaction, any more than the intitial actions of those who rushed to take urgent action during the PIPA/SOPA blackout can be defined as being predicated especially in emotion.

I assure you, up until your fairly offensive post to which I respond now, I don't think there's a single moment in this whole debate where my emotional state felt even slightly elevated. What I have said above I said out of profound (but very much rational and non-hysterical) concerns for the import the WMF's apparent plans have for the institutional order of this project and the safety of its volunteers. Concerns which are clearly shared by the vast majority of community members commenting in these discussion (and everyone to respond my last post, aside from you...).

Furthermore, I find no particularly exaggerated or problematic language in my post: on the contrary, throughout this discussion I have gone to great lengths to keep in mind (and indeed to reiterate) that the WMF clearly is operating in a fashion it thinks is the best longterm course of action in the circumstances. It is only their reasoning (and their methodology in this case of making decisions with massive implications to our foundational values first, with the expectation that they could consult us on them after the ship had sailed, if at all), that I have questioned. Not their motivations or commitment to our mission.

So bluntly, stuff your speculation on my mental state: it is 1) a weak rhetorical ploy often utilized by those who don't have something principled to say on the matter at hand, 2) behaviour that runs diametrically opposite to the effort to keep this conversation civil and based in the un-emotional, principled discourse that you claim to be trying to foster here, and 3) something you should have the courtesy to strike from your comments. Indeed, as an admin and arb, you should simply know better than to be opining about how you think another member of the community is being led by their emotions. Honestly, the gall. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now, on to the substantative matter: it is completely inappropriate for you to have removed the CENT notice on the grounds you did. There is, and never has been, any condition on a listing at CENT that draft language for a statement or other action proceed soliciting wide community involvement. On the contrary, it is much more the norm that CENT listings occur early on in a discussion's process: and this one has been going on for weeks and involves dozens of participants. This is a paradigmatic example of what the template is meant for, and it's hard to imagine a discussion of more consequence or circumstances more urgent than these, with potential real world harm to our volunteers hanging in the balance. Frankly, I'd expect an Arb to be at the front of the line of people who understand that time is of the essence, not putting their thumb on the scale to unnecesarily delay fulsome community discussion of these profound issues, with near-immediate consequences for inaction.

As such, I'd like you to please consider voluntarily reverting your removal of the listing, as the only other solution here that I can see is that we have a needless straw poll to get consensus on whether or not to include said listing. I think we both know that would get rapid and robust support, but it would only further bloat an already large and complicated discussion needlessly. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or a third option: I can just do what I was suggesting that you do and open an organized RfC that doesn't have an 1800 word preamble. See below. I will add the section below to CENT. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall you suggesting that to me, nor do I think it is necessarily the optimal solution, since a formal RfC is not a required in order to reach levels of engagement necessary to make the WMF take notice and may well stymie concrete intervention, since RfCs run for weeks or months and we have merely a couple of days before the WMF intends to act. But the most important thing is that the community be made aware of the facts, so where exactly the CENT link points is not as important as the fact that it exists, and I'm glad we're in agreement at least as to that. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I had not been following this discussion for a while, and am utterly appalled that the Foundation appears to be considering disclosing information in this fashion. Please can we agree to do something *now* to let the Foundation know that the English Wikipedia editor base is profoundly concerned about this matter? Espresso Addict (talk) 03:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We’d like to offer one correction to a point in this discussion. The Wikimedia Foundation’s appeal against the disclosure order in ANI v. Wikimedia Foundation is scheduled for hearing on November 8, 2024, before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. This hearing is not intended as a date for data disclosure. As mentioned previously, the matter is sub judice, so the Foundation can share only limited information in accordance with the applicable laws. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so "the thing" won't necessarily conclude on November 8. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quiddity, thank you for this clarification. Cremastra (u — c) 20:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Republic TV pursuing legal action

Arnab Goswami announced that his channel will be sending a legal notice to Wikipedia and "if necessary" sue them over their Wikipedia article either "join-tly" in the current ANI case or "separately". Since I edited this page in September, it is possible that I might end up in similar legal trouble as this editor. Therefore I have reverted myself. Ratnahastin (talk) 12:17, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And it is horrifying that you should have to revert yourself. Cremastra (u — c) 13:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I live in an area other than India, would they be able to take action against me or others living outside of India if I or others reinstated the revert?. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 14:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Action? Like what? They can fart in your general direction. This is a petty civil defamation case. It's not a crime where the mighty Indian judicial system can extradite foreign individuals. — hako9 (talk) 14:53, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was just checking in case there was some weird catch to me to reverting on the article [47] Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 14:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you didn't just make an edit to prove a point. Please also verify the citation and make sure you agree with the edit. — hako9 (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not to prove a point, I assume there was a good reason for the revert. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 15:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 3) IANAL but, assuming the WMF gave an Indian court your IP address, the most they could do would be to request subscriber information from your IP (which they may or may not do). Whether and if so what your ISP gave the Indian court would depend on the law of the country in which you reside and the policies of your ISP. Assuming your details were requested and provided, they would have to either option 1: summons you to the Indian court, option 2: try you in absentia (if allowed by Indian law), or option 3: do nothing. If option 1, then you would have a choice of either voluntarily complying or not, assuming you did not then they would have to request your extradition if permitted by Indian law (or proceed with options 2 or 3), whether that would be successful or not would depend on many factors, not least international agreements between your country and India.

If they went with option 2 then (assuming they found you guilty) then either they could issue you with a penalty (e.g. a fine) that would presumably become due if you ever visited India or, if they tried to enforce it internationally, would either be valid or invalid depending on international agreements between your country and India. If they issued you with a prison sentence, then they could arrest you if you ever visit India (or in extremis, an Indian embassy) and/or try and extradite you (for which see option 1, but with a probably lower likelihood of success). Thryduulf (talk) 15:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no imprisonment or extradition in Indian civil law. — hako9 (talk) 15:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in this comment, which talks more about possible consequences. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've read that comment, but I was answering a question specifically about potential consequences for someone who is not Indian and who is located outside India, which are very different to the potential consequences for an Indian editor located in India described there. Thryduulf (talk) 22:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why bother with the revert? Defamation may still be found in the words published prior, especially if it has been there for a time, if they wanna push it. It is no different from releasing an edition of a printed book containing allegedly defamatory words, circulating it publicly, and then release a newer edition and circulating the newer book to the public. – robertsky (talk) 17:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why revert? Stand proud. We're strong. Dissent cannot be deleted. Lunar-akaunto／talk 19:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The chilling effect had started. If WMF allowed this to happen we will have more similar "notices" from big companies in similar countries. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 00:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I said above that if we made a "blueprint" for doing this type of crap, everyone else would start doing it too. Gee, color me surprised when exactly that happens. Cave once, and we'll be getting these requests from everyone with an ax to grind because we said something well-sourced but unflattering. And even if they don't ultimately win their case, if they wind up with the article gone for years until everyone has more or less forgotten about it, they still got what they wanted out of it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps another who wants to join in :[48] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: IPs from Hindu Raksha Dal are known to create chilling effect by peddling such news on Wikipedia, just have look at their messages on talkpage of Kolkata rape case [49][50][51][52]. Although I'd still be careful because last time they submitted a report to national task force for medical professionals safety which led to the take down order by the supreme court [53] Ratnahastin (talk) 11:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was also an interesting case: Talk:2024_Kolkata_rape_and_murder#RfC:_Name_of_victim. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tangential: User talk:ShymalWhatsappUniversity, someone who had tried invoking ANI vs WMF case to get an article deleted. – robertsky (talk) 12:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.whatsappuniversity.org/sarbajit-roy, yes, it's related to this organisation. Roy is Organisor of Hindu Raksha Dal. [54]Ratnahastin (talk) 12:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The RSN discussion has now been closed and it displays some very disturbing behaviour, to say the least. It seems clear that other far-right outlets feel emboldened to threaten Indian Wikipedia editors not only with legal action, but also physical violence. This thread has only emphasised the necessity to push back against these intimidations. We can't stand by while this continues to happen. --Grnrchst (talk) 22:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually a par of a larger LTA that has been harrassing Wikipedia editors since last decade, see [55] [56][57] - Ratnahastin (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A vicious culture war is tearing through Wikipedia is from 2020, but probably still relevant. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Community response to the WMF over ANI

In response to the the Wikimedia Foundation's intent to disclose, under seal, the private information of several users to the Delhi High Court in the ongoing ANI v. Wikimedia legal case, should the community as a whole respond? If so, what course of action should be taken?

For context on this discussion, please see the proceeding sections. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General discussion

I should note that we may also wish to consider whether we should direct any response partly or wholly towards the the Delhi High Court, since I think we can agree that the Court is ultimately the one putting us in this situation. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My preference would be not to, if only on editor safety grounds. We have no influence over what the court does, we should have some influence over the Foundation's actions (within the bounds of what relevant laws permit of course). Espresso Addict (talk) 04:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but in meeting Eek's point, I think we can at a minimum authorize and encourage the WMF to share the statement with the court. Or even consider drafting a separate one which includes an explanation of how this community feels about our role in reporting as a tertiary source (not a primary or even secondary one) and the measures we take to maintain that firewall, since the court seems fundamentally confused as to some of the basics of our operational structure. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

whether we should direct any response partly or wholly towards the the Delhi High Court. I think directly addressing the court would be unwise and could really mess up the case. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this course of action, but I think it would be hard to get the tone right... Our primary goal IMO would be to explain how wikipedia works, not to sway the court towards a particular decision. We want to make the job easier for the judges and it is genuinely very hard for those outside wikipedia to understand how it works even if it seems obvious to all of us. We certainly don't want to be lecturing the court or making legal arguments, but I think there is perhaps room in there for productive communication. I would also on a technical level disagree that it is the court which is putting us in this situation, its ANI which put us in this situation and the court is proceeding in what is in its own tradition a neutral and proper way. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not quite sure how aware the Court understands Wikipedia as well. To me, Wikipedia is more like a search engine that merges all the results together into a series of paragraphs. They should be made aware that Wikipedia only sources from content that exists already on other sites: If there is no content, the chances of it being on Wikipedia practically none.

I wonder how ANI have worded how they attempted to "remove" the allegedly controversial content. I assume they didn't flag themselves as such, which breaches WP:COI, and also that they have made zero attempt at a "Hey, this information sounds very critical of us and we think it sounds biased, is it possible to refactor this in some way?" before deciding to go from 1-100 by suing Wikipedia. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 22:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The judges have zero knowledge about Wikipedia's workings [58]. It's ridiculous how WMF even bothered to pay heed to this frivolous lawsuit in an unfree country. Ratnahastin (talk) 00:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Court is certainly not neutral, Delhi high court is known for ruling in favour of BJP government (which also backs ANI). All of this happened only because ANI lost an edit war to push their POV on the page back in April. The editors implicated in the case have likely never authored anything on article, their only fault was reverting COI IPs trying to whitewash. Ratnahastin (talk) 00:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to disagree but I stand behind my statement. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should we send an open letter?

The open letter has been created and is collecting signatures. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Yes. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm against drastic action but this seems like a good way to avoid angering the court while making our opinions clear. Sincerely, Dilettante 03:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong yes. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and it needs to be up before the WMF's November 8 deadline. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC )
Yes, we should.Ratnahastin (talk) 04:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely charlotte ^👸♥📱 05:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 07:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At a minimum. Tazerdadog (talk) 08:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Perhaps Espresso Addict can draft something short but to the point.--Ipigott (talk) 08:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. This action is unacceptable. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, although there is no chance that it goes out before Nov 8. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is a serious matter and deserves community response. Cremastra (u — c) 12:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. If they proceed anyway, we can consider additional actions. BilledMammal (talk) 14:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely yes. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think an open letter saying we stand for user privacy is a good idea. I don't think it should take the tone that's been discussed above, that we/WMF should just leave India and not comply with any non-U.S. laws. I can't tell whether people are genuinely upset over this or just using this as another WMF punching bag incident. I'm disappointed that there hasn't been more introspection about why we force users to entrust supposedly such valuable personal data to the WMF by wholesale banning VPNs and other anonymity technology (Tor). Legoktm (talk) 16:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I think, if anything, that the wording is not strong enough, but I have no specific changes to suggest and I endorse the suggested version without any qualms. --bonadea contributions talk 17:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. First it should not be an "open letter", but if the intent is to communicate to WMF that privacy be prioritized at all costs it should be directed to the WMF. While in general agreement with much of what Snow Rise says above personally i do not feel informed enough about the situation enough to demand a particular course of action. I have tried to track down any pertinent info on "sealed covers" and failed to find anything which might be informative to add here. Unlike where everyone could see content being blocked much of what is happening now is based on appearances and on omissions in statements from WMF. I can imagine that WMF has it's priorities screwed up but also imagine scenarios in which this WMF's course of action might be the best way to shield the individual editors. Personally i don't feel demanding a course of action when the information is so limited is something to sign on to. fiveby(zero) 18:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Government censorship must be fought at every turn. Carrite (talk) 19:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Zero doubt.Marcelus (talk) 20:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. While Fiveby makes a good point, if we actually are in a scenario where the WMF's course of action is the best thing to do for our editors, they should absolutely be communicating better and clarifying the situation, especially to the targeted editors. The lack of information has itself been a concern throughout the process. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Of course. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 00:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

If so, what should the letter say?

I don't think the exact text is that important as long as we convey community dismay at the prospect of handing over private data to the Indian court. Brevity and timeliness are key. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should raise the concern about the court's order to disclose editors' personal information, which will cause a chilling effect, and suggest that the WMF decline the request. The root problem lies with the court rather than the WMF. --SCP -20 00 04:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with both of the above. There are a few concerning issues at play here, but the top one is that the court is ordering the WMF to turn over private information. We can also reiterate that this is part of an attempt to censor Wikipedia's content and that giving in will only encourage more people to do this—endangering further editors and effectively compromising editorial independence on Wikipedia. The WikiMedia Foundation must refuse to willingly put these editors in harm's way, even if it means retaliation from the Indian government by blocking Wikipedia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:53, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The court is also clearly acting as an instrument of the Indian state [59], we cannot expect it to make an independent and impartial ruling. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've drafted something (I left it on my usertalk for now, not wishing to dump another long wall of text here, but would be curious to hear what people think). IMO an ideal statement makes clear that we view this as an existential threat, and not just a matter of protecting these three users. It also shouldn't be specific to the ANI case (or specific to India) but rather a broader statement of principles. It also makes some clear asks of the WMF that aren't just "do this thing right now or else". The WMF does some of what I'm asking for already, but especially given democratic backsliding trends around the world, this is an important enough matter both domestically and internationally that it's worth forming a dedicated team. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Generally agree with the sentiments; however it's a bit purple passageish in places, and I think we should avoid at this point asking for something specific beyond the immediate threat because we are going to have trouble getting signatures quickly enough to support anything complex. I'd use "well-being and safety" in the action bullet. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"it's worth forming a dedicated team" WMF already has a Human Rights Team, which supports those under threat for their participation in Wikimedia projects. Their job already includes "preserving the pseudonymity or anonymity of contributors". SCP -20 00 05:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rhodo, let me say first that I think this is an excellent summary of community will as I understand it from the foregoing discussion, and a high quality piece of writing. Thank you for taking such a necessary and proactive step, under suboptimal conditions. I would be satisfied to adopt the majority of your wording as-is for the core of a response. I will echo the previous two comments in a couple of small areas: I don't think the calling for a new team or any other largescale organizational development is the right fit for this immediate situation, and as noted, such teams as at least somewhat match your description do exist in various forms in the WMF aparatus. But more principally than that, I think our observations and the courses of action we urge should be a little more pointed and near-term.
On the topic of how much a statement should speak the specifics of the Indian case, I am torn in multiple directions. On the one hand, we cannot entirely dismiss that the more we engage that specific topic, the more complicated the WMF's position, and we should be working to find for them a path of least resistance to the right outcome here. But the critical part of that priority is the right outcome, and I think any formal statement in these circumstances might require some direct engagement with the WMF's reported disclosure plans and our specific objections to them. Then again, there may be communications from the WMF in the next couple of days that will satisfy that at least the community's position has been received, loud and clear. In that case, a more indirect, generalized approach may be more appropriate. Either way, I really do think you captured the mood of the room so far, and kept the tone rooted in our common aspirations with the WMF, rather than recriminations and uncompromising demands. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generally agree with the points above. The three paragraph preamble seems fairly long, and like Espresso Addict said, it should be brief if possible. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 08:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest Espresso Addict, who seems familiar with procedures, should draft a short open letter pointing to these discussions and simply expressing strong concern that the WMF apparently intends to reveal the identity of certain editors of the Asian News International article to an Indian court. WMF should be urged not to provide any details liable to reveal the personal identity of the editors concerned, particularly that of an Indian who has contributed in good faith and now feels personally threatened.--Ipigott (talk) 09:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, thanks for the compliment but I am in no way familiar with procedures of writing to the WMF! What you've just written sounds to the point. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the mix-up but I share EA's concerns and support for an open letter to the WMF. I am not too happy about addressing the Dehli court. Could you, CaptainEek progress along these lines? Time is very short.--Ipigott (talk) 10:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC) In the meantime, I think it may be useful to make sure JSutherland (WMF) is aware of our concerns.--Ipigott (talk) 11:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

a bit purple passageish in places - Not going to disagree. I think the style is within the "open statement of principles" genre, but I'd would welcome any changes that would help in that regard.
I'd use "well-being and safety" in the action bullet Done.
WMF already has a Human Rights Team - Thanks for the link. I know there are folks at the WMF doing this stuff, but hadn't found the precise group. The team appears to be one person at the moment. Maybe the ask should shift towards significantly increasing that team and its importance within the organization.
Regarding the suggestion to be more pointed about the ANI case, I don't think that's a wise idea and probably wouldn't sign on to a letter that set out to interfere so directly in an ongoing case. As I wrote earlier, it just doesn't seem like we have all the information, and we have a death of relevant legal expertise in this thread. I don't even know that putting out a public statement about the case wouldn't make things more complicated on the ground for them. Also, writing that statement as I watched the US election results, I'm also thinking about what happens if the American justice system is used to silence critics. If the WMF doesn't have a big team of smart people figuring out how to protect people when those US orders start coming in, and coming up with contingency plans, it should. Just another reason to talk principles and broader requests rather than something pointed IMO. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the US election, I have been thinking about this as well and think this is something worth discussing, but it should have its own thread. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Short suggestion below... [cobbled together from various people's words, especially Rhododendrites]; edited to change underlined bits. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The English Wikipedia community has been following recent events in the The Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation legal case with trepidation. In a world where many players would like to control the content of their Wikipedia article, we consider that protecting editor anonymity is essential to maintaining an encyclopedia that is comprehensive, reliable and neutral. Our millions of volunteer contributors look to the Foundation to defend them against powerful external entities as they go about their work, sifting and balancing what the existing published sources write about the topic.

In the light of this, we, the undersigned, are profoundly concerned at the suggestion that the Foundation is considering disclosing identifying private information about volunteer editors to the Delhi High Court. We appreciate the complexities of international legal disputes over release of such information, and commend the Foundation for routinely resisting disclosure and for assisting editors who find themselves in legal jeopardy. Nevertheless, we call upon the Foundation to prioritize the safety and well being of volunteers, even if it comes with a risk of legal action against the Foundation, or other costs. Any other action risks having a chilling effect on the work of volunteers across the project, and only makes it more likely that such pressure will be exerted in future. In short, it jeopardizes the future of our shared project.
Going offline soon, feel free to hack around as you please. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This looks good, thanks for putting it together. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quite acceptable (at the time I'm reading it). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Cremastra (u — c) 12:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This feels like a reasonable distillation of the conversation so far. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable and I don't see any glaring flaws. Support. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 16:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Espresso Addict for your draft. This is just what we need. How do we rally further support and how do we publish it as an open letter?--Ipigott (talk) 16:53, 6 November 2024 (UTC) Can we follow this example?--Ipigott (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ipigott: If we set up a dedicated page, as suggested below, I think that is how we'd go about publishing it. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would make sense to follow that example. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of their Wikipedia article, I suggest "Wikipedia articles", to avoid implying that articles belong to a given party, or that undue influence is only a concern with articles directly associated with the party. isaacl (talk) 17:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot engage deeply in this, for which I apologize. Based on what I have read in the news media, though, I believe we need to emphasize the point that we are a tertiary source and that we do not publish anything that hasn't already been said by other sources: in this case, the Indian news media. The news coverage of this suggests the court does not fully understand how we write our content. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Espresso Addict is there a way you can incorporate a line to this effect in your draft? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Vanamonde93. Ack, this is why I am bad at doing this kind of thing, I find it easy to write a draft that I feel flows and then can't incorporate new material. There's the problem that we're exhorting the Foundation, who already know that, not the Delhi Court. I don't want to put anything between "...comprehensive, reliable and neutral. Our [millions] of volunteer contributors look to the Foundation..." because those two sentences flow into one another. How about after "...as they go about their work", to add something like , sifting and balancing what the existing published sources write about the topic. Other thoughts welcome! @Barkeep49 and Cullen328: Espresso Addict (talk) 23:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I pinged you I was trying to stuff it into the second paragraph and couldn't make it work. But re-reading it now I came to the conclusion it would work better at the end of the first paragraph only to see you write the same. I'd personally suggest Our volunteer contributors look to the Foundation to defend them against powerful external entities as they go about their work and to help those powerful entities understand that we work by summarizing what existing published sources write about a topic. (deleted [millions] as in a given year we only have ~800k editors most of whom only ever make one edit; the true number of editors who count on it is over 100k). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Barkeep49. Not sure "to help those powerful entities understand that" goes here, it's not clear to whom it is addressed, but otherwise we seem to have written very similar things!

I genuinely thought the number was millions, I think based on the edit count ranking page, which suggests there are 3.3 million editors, but now I look it says registered accounts, and I have no idea how many of those have actually made an edit (@WhatamIdoing: who is good at this kind of figure). I was going for "very large numbers of worker ants labouring tirelessly but oh so vulnerable to the boot of capitalism" feel... Also, I don't think we should go for the figure of editors active in any year because, in principle, bad actors could demand personal information in relation to edits from the past. I know the Foundation deletes IP data but connected e-mail accounts are, perhaps, an even bigger problem. (I'm personally considering delinking mine, as a result of this discussion.) Espresso Addict (talk) 01:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On contributor number, "Over 1,100,000 editors have edited Wikipedia more than 10 times" acc. English Wikipedia and the date appears to be 2008! I don't think millions is hyperbolic. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support the Espresso Addict short version, with a small change in line with Vanamonde93's suggestion just above. Cullen328 (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Acceptable for me as well. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 00:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as the adjusted EA version seems to have a lot of backing, I've created Wikipedia:2024 open letter to the Wikimedia Foundation to try to get the ball rolling. Those more experienced with previous petitions needed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Visibility

I requested a watchlist notice and it has been implemented. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Taking into account the time-senstive nature and impact implications of the above discussion, would a watchlist notice be too far a step? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would be in favour of requesting a watchlist notice. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it would not be too far a step; it affects the entire site more in the long term than any RfA or editing drive, and we don't blink at including those as watchlist notcies. Cremastra (u — c) 12:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please go ahead. We can't let WMF set an extremely dangerous precedent.Ratnahastin (talk) 12:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* There is a proposed letter to the WMF [link] in response to Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation.

Cremastra (u — c) 13:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This feels sensible once there is an open letter for Wikipedians to sign-on to. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. What timeline are we looking at here? How much support is needed in #Should we send an open letter? before we can progress to doing so? Cremastra (u — c) 20:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1. Given the short timeframe we've found ourselves in, we're talking about a timeframe of the next few hours. It seems like there aren't any concerns about Espresso Addict's draft. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think it would be fine as a watchlist notice. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support a watchlist notice, and a WP:CENT notice while we're at it. We're on a short timeframe here. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With zero communication from WMF and the very real threat to our fellow editors it is not too far. We should make it a WP:CENT as well to inform more editors. We are up against time and we can do with speed instead of precision this time. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 00:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dedicated page

I was scrolling through past actions when I discovered Wikipedia:SOPA initiative. Considering the sheer size of this discussion, I believe it would be a good idea to give this matter it's own page. Plus, it would help with visability.Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this, given how voluminous the discussion has been. Ratnahastin (talk) 17:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a dedicated page should be reserved for when we have an open letter for editors to sign, which should hopefully be very soon. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps release the letter and publish the page simultaneously? It's in important to remember we don't have days to play with - we have less than 48 hours. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that publishing the page should probably be how we release the letter, and we should do it as soon as possible. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The best organized open letter has been the 2020 meta:Community open letter on renaming, which reversed the the WMF's decision to rename the Wikimedia Foundation to "Wikipedia". The format is a combination open letter and petition inviting signatories. As an open letter, people coordinated translations, and as a petition, it attracted more signatures than any other Wikimedia community effort. I suggest replicating that format. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense to me. It should probably be on Meta, since this issue affects all Wikimedia sites. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The draft letter is explicitly written from en-wiki, and I'm certainly not the right person to draft something covering other sites as I do not have a clue what the editing community elsewhere thinks on this issue. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doing something quickly

Barring the one No vote, it seems like there is a consensus to create an open letter to the WMF that can collect signatures. There is also a draft on this page that seems to be accepted among participants. We have a limited amount of time. Considering the unusual circumstances, I think we should hurry up and post the open letter to Meta. Any objections? QuicoleJR (talk) 19:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there's confidence in the current draft by Espresso Addict (with Isaacl's and Vanamonde's suggestions). Note that Quiddity (WMF) has left a comment above clarifying what he can say about the timeline, namely that November 8 is the date the appeal against releasing the info will be heard but that information beyond that is limited for legal reasons. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting Quiddity's (WMF staff) latest comment, I'd like to encourage folks to slow down for a moment. Parsing the admittedly cryptic language, I think we have our timeframe wrong here. The Foundation isn't disclosing data on the 8th; it's just that the next hearing is on the 8th. While I'm no expert in Indian courts, I imagine that the court isn't going to make a decision within a day, and even if they did, they can't require immediate disclosure. So I think we have at least a few extra days breathing room, minimum, and potentially a lot more. I know American appeals courts usually take months to render decisions. Even if India is going a lot faster, we have some time here. Wikipedia doesn't work well under time constraints, so let's recognize that we have more time, and be a bit more contemplative about this. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You might be right, CaptainEek, that things will not move forward as quickly as some of us fear. Nevertheless, in this context I think we should bear in mind the recent Hindustan Times article titled "Wikipedia ready to give details of who edited page".--Ipigott (talk) 10:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your read of things, is there a specific aspect of this discussion you think is more likely to change (or should), given a little more time? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with CaptainEek that we don't want to rush into this. I think we need some kind of agreed-upon timeframe to be working on, so that everyone is aware of our "deadlines" and goals. Even if nov. 8 isn't a crisis day, we still want to do this as soon as possible while still having a bit of time to discuss. I think the letter should be posted on meta no later than the 12th, a date I definitely did not just pull out of my hat. Cremastra (u — c) 20:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially, we don't know what the WMF's plan is. We don't know how cooperative they intend to be with the court or with us. It's possible they fully intend to have it in hand on November 8, it's possible that they're already in full agreement with us and deadset on not giving it away under any circumstances, or it could be anything in between. And I don't blame them for not saying, especially if it's somewhere on the latter half of that spectrum. We know they're watching this discussion very closely, and we don't know whether the court is following this discussion (they don't seem to understand the first thing about how Wikipedia works, but we can't fully rule it out either). There is a definite point of no return, but we don't know when it will come to pass, or if it even will. All we really know is that November 8 is the earliest that it could. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm of multiple minds on this. While it would be nice to seize upon Quiddity's assurances to believe that we have more breathing room than there appeared to be, the collective context gives us no real assurances: for one, we have one of the involved volunteers here telling us plainly that the WMF has told them that they may disclose the information as early as the 8th. That detail has been consistent across their messages detailing their communications with the WMF.

And that actually makes a lot of sense because, not meaning to go after you here CaptainEek, but as to "While I'm no expert in Indian courts, I imagine that the court isn't going to make a decision within a day, and even if they did, they can't require immediate disclosure.", I'm afraid that you're mistaken. The court very much can--and if it has previously requested the turn-over of this information, probably will--order the immediate disclosure of that information. Or more accurately, it will give an oral colloquy (directive), and may or may not already have a written, formal order prepared to enter immediately, since a court of this standing has its own clerks--in lower courts, in a common law system, the prevailing party is often tasked with the work of writing the order consistent with the court's oral ruling, which is then reviewed and entered by the court, introducing delays, but this is less common in cases at bar before higher courts, where justices will typically task the work to one of their (lawyer) clerks.

Indeed, because the WMF's disclosures and the published reporting on this case are so incomplete and vague as to the current posture of the proceedings, it is entirely possible that court's patience is at a low ebb and that they are already prepapred to threaten or immediately apply contempt sanctions the day of the hearing, which will put WMF legal and outside co-counsel immediately on the spot. It all depends on the number of times the court has ordered this information, the legal arguments brought to bear at the hearing, and court's disposition, but make no mistake that it is completely within the court's discretion to order disclosure at any time during that hearing, and a very real possibility. This is undoubtedly why Quiddity used the quite tactical wording of "This hearing is not intended as a date for data disclosure." (emphasis mine)

So, on the whole, I do believe we should err on the side of caution and assume that the WMF should be given the a formal statement of the community's stance on the preference for accepting certain sanctions, if it is the only way to avoid disclosure of PII. The communication of that preference is not fundamentally difficult, and we can't unring the bell if they don't get that message in time and factor it into their decision making as the legal representative of the project. On the other hand, if we do end up having more time, great: we can continue to refine our messaging to the WMF with further statements. But they should be aware of something firm and concrete by the 8th. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The other important detail is that they've already been working on the decision. The appeal was filed a while ago. We're approaching the end of the decision making process, not the beginning of it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with you here. The main goal for this is to respond to WMF's possible action, not to what they have done. The goal is to provide a strong opinion on WMF's agreement to disclose the PII, not whatever the PII is disclosed or not. The best timing to do that is before the hearing on the 8th, not after that date. And this matter have been going on for months. The editor in question had been contacted in July, and WMF's agreement to disclose had been made at the end of October. The best timing is now, not then. It may not be the most elegantly worded letter but a quick response is what is most impactful now. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 00:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the letter doesn't claim to speak for the community beyond the ones signing it, personally I feel once there have been a few days for all interested persons to provide feedback and a stable version to emerge, those who want to sign it should proceed. However if the intent is to let contributors across all Wikimedia sites sign on, then an opportunity for the other communities to provide feedback should be given before signing. isaacl (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should we notify at minimum the other big wikipedias (fr, de, ja and so on) about this discussion? Cremastra (u — c) 21:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely asap. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 21:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think the broader discussion should occur on meta wiki. So if you're thinking about having the letter open for signing by the 12th, in my opinion the discussion at meta wiki should be started very soon. isaacl (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will notify meta that this discussion here at enwiki is, mm, happening, and will deliver a message to our sister english-language projects soon. Cremastra (u — c) 21:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the situation were reversed, I imagine there might be greater participation from English Wikipedia editors in a discussion on meta than another wiki? So I think there might be more participation from other Wikimedia communities on meta wiki than here. isaacl (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So we should wait until the letter is moved to meta? Cremastra (u — c) 21:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the work on drafting the letter should move now/very soon to meta wiki and at the same time the other communities should be invited to participate, so there is an opportunity to revise the text based on their feedback. I appreciate that opening up discussion risks a too-many-cooks situation, but I think it's reasonable to give other communities the chance to have input if they're going to be asked to sign up. I think the desire to get a statement out sooner rather than later will exert enough pressure to compromise on a version quickly. Or other communities might decide to draft their own version, which is fine, too. (Of course, this is all my personal view; others may have different ideas.) isaacl (talk) 23:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that opening up discussion risks a too-many-cooks situation I'm not worried about that; Wikipedia as a whole is a too-many cooks situation, and we seem to bumble through well enough. Cremastra (u — c) 00:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever a page goes up, the page creator might want to email an annotated link to wmf-legal. A single communique here from their department chair does not necessarily indicate broad awareness of how these threads have developed; my impression is that email gets some people's attention more readily than interwiki notifications. Folly Mox (talk) 01:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any merit in putting up the draft written by me (based on condensing Rhododendrites' draft), up somewhere on en-wiki as soon as the final tweaks are sorted, and getting the watchlist notice activated, so we can start to get signatures? My draft is specific to this community, and who knows how long it will take to find someone prepared to summarise the views of the wider Wikimedia community (not me). I feel as if the clock is ticking and nothing is happening. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is merit. I suggest creating Wikipedia:2024 open letter to the Wikimedia Foundation (possibly marking it as a draft) and linking it from watchlist notices and T:CENT Cremastra (u — c) 02:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to state the obvious for clarity, the current underlining in the draft letter was only intended to indicate editing changes, and should be removed before posting it anywhere. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no desire to get signatures from other communities, then sure, it can have a separate page on English Wikipedia. (Maybe just send some notifications to let other communities know that English Wikipedia is planning to send an open letter.) Some of the previous commenters have suggested not rushing to start with signature collection, though. A little more time to let people review the text might be good. isaacl (talk) 02:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've created the page here. As noted above, we don't know how much time we have, so would be good to get stuff moving along as quickly as possible. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: Thanks for posting. Signed. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Espresso Addict, Dilettante, Pppery, Snow Rise, Thebiguglyalien, Ratnahastin, Queen of Hearts, Fantastic Mr. Fox, Tazerdadog, Cremastra, BilledMammal, Legoktm, Bonadea, Carrite, Marcelus, Chaotic Enby, SunDawn, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, and Barkeep49: Apologies for the mass ping. As you all appear to have expressed support for the open letter above, I thought you should be aware of its publication. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. Cremastra (u — c) 22:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, since my name has come up a couple times, though some of the language comes from a draft I wrote, I was trying to avoid the appearance of trying to intervene in an active court case (mainly, by omitting ANI/India). As I expressed above, (a) I'm uneasy doing so with such a conspicuous absence of relevant legal expertise in this thread, and (b) I'd prefer a statement of principles that would apply outside/beyond this case, too. Similar basic idea, just less explicit (and, granted, wordier, with an additional longer-term ask that could be better fleshed out). This statement is less pointed than some of the other expressions on this page, but I'm still not entirely sure I feel comfortable signing onto it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like your statement of principles and doubt you would sign on to one of mine, so good job. It does however contain: prioritize the safety and well-being of volunteers even if it comes with a risk of legal action against the foundation. This is a legal action against the foundation. It's unclear what the intent is there. Being unclear it smacks a bit of the "revenue streams" thinking which has been forcefully denied above. fiveby(zero) 14:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is intended to refer to a potential fine, block, or other legal punishment by the court. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This, yes. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to read carefully #Comment from Jimbo Wales and other comments as to "potential fine" and "block". other legal punishment by the court still remains unclear. You might be writing something which everyone in the WMF would gladly sign on to if they could. fiveby(zero) 15:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I do also think a longer and broader statement of principles is something we should put together, but that is less time sensitive than something like the open letter. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely (and thanks for the above ping). Espresso Addict (talk) 00:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Open letter to WMF now published and awaiting support

An open letter to WMF has been published and is taking signatures.--Ipigott (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Journalism invited

The Signpost invites community submissions for publication in the Wikipedia community newspaper.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions

Bluerasberry (talk) 18:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great banner! Ratnahastin (talk) 01:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry: Thanks for making this banner Lane. I have added it to my user page and encourage others to do the same. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea, me too! Espresso Addict (talk) 00:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other Wikipedias

List

Commons: Done c:COM:VP#2024 open letter to the Wikimedia Foundation. Yann (talk) 19:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
French – summarized here, and can also be reached via the Wikidata language link on this page. Mathglot (talk) 03:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
German – explanation at Wikipedia:Kurier, with discussion on its Talk page.
Russian – ru:Википедия:Форум/Новости#Фонд удалил статью анвики по предварительному требованию индийского суда, ru:ВП:ВУ#Заявление_редакторов_РуВики
Simple English - simple:WP:Simple talk#Petition at enwiki
Tamil – Wikipedia:Under the banyan tree (Notices)#ANI_v._WMF (ta:விக்கிப்பீடியா:ஆலமரத்தடி (அறிவிப்புகள்)#ANI_v._WMF; in English via MT)
Urdu – ویکیپیڈیا:دیوان عام (ویکیمیڈیا); and English via MT)

Commentary

I would think this case transcends language, and would be of interest to Wikipedians working on any of the other language Wikipedias. Mathglot (talk) 03:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this. An editor also mentioned that ru-wiki is concerned about this too [60]. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Russian – mentioned at WT:OPENLETTER2024#The English Wikipedia community +; link needed. Mathglot (talk) 04:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ru:Википедия:Форум/Новости#h-Фонд_удалил_статью_анвики_по_предварительн-20241022171800 this is from somewhere above in the first thread. – robertsky (talk) 08:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to skim this discussion with machine translation, and I'm happy to confirm that ruwiki attracts the same type of people as enwiki. Many people expressing concerns with level-headed comments, many people jumping to the worst possible conclusions, some racist tangents, and an admin (who also happens to be a boardmember) misrepresenting the facts so they can say that there's nothing to see here. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I left them a note about the petition at Simple Talk, which is basically a combination of all the Village Pumps and the Teahouse. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone might want to look into the Indian languages. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aafi:, @Matrix: @Satdeep Gill: Abzeronow (talk) 20:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected one. Abzeronow (talk) 20:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping @Abzeronow. I receive pings on my doppelganger as well. I posted on ur-wiki VP here. _Regards,Aafi ^(talk) 06:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aafi, I added a link to the links section above, but it links to the top of the page not the section. If you know how to link directly to the section, please adjust the link to point directly to it. (Ditto for the Google translate link, if you know how to do that as well.) Mathglot (talk) 21:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: I fixed the main-link. Feel free to fix anything if needed. _Regards,Aafi ^(talk) 07:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

as it appears the translation links are broken. I landed on main-pages when checing two. _Regards,Aafi ^(talk) 07:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aafi, yes, I noticed that; I'll fix those tomorrow. Thanks for the section link. Mathglot (talk) 07:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help spread the word to the many Indian language Wikipedias. If I can think of Odia and Telugu speakers, I'll ping them. Abzeronow (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ta-wiki notified here —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {u - t? - _uselessc} 11:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Forgot to @CptViraj: before. Abzeronow (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added German to the list above. Mathglot (talk) 00:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ruwiki open letter: ru:ВП:ВУ#Заявление редакторов РуВики.—Iluvatar (talk) 08:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Court updates

Next Delhi High Court hearing on 11 November

According to this, the next hearing on the case is now scheduled for 11 November.--Ipigott (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[61] – Released by court. Ratnahastin (talk) 15:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping in view the above submissions, defendant no.1 is directed to disclose the subscriber details of defendant nos.2 to 4 to the plaintiff, through its counsel, within a period of two weeks from today. On receipt of the said information, the plaintiff shall take steps for ensuring service of summons and notice on the application on the said defendants.
— CS(OS) 524/2024 para 12

~~I read that is no more talk of "sealed cover" and releasing directly to ANI.~~ fiveby(zero) 16:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That document is from August, no? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, clicked on the wrong order, sorry. fiveby(zero) 16:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11 Nov

Delhi High Court allows Wikipedia to serve summons on users in ANI's defamation suit.

The court allows Wikimedia Foundation to serve the summons to the editors as an intermediary, thereby avoiding the scenario which the foundation has to reveal the editors' identity. As of this juncture, the editors' privacy remains protected still. However, the editors may still have to appear in the court within a week. As to whether they can take the case remotely or still have their IRL identities remained shielded, it is crystal ball territory. ANI is aware of the open letter and raised it in the court (and possibly misstating what's in the letter with the comments here) but the judge dismissed ANI's new points, acknowledging that different people can have different perspectives.

– robertsky (talk) 13:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a similar report here.--Ipigott (talk) 13:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI claimed that one of the signatory of the letter is an editor of Wikipedia who is going to be summoned in the suit.

- Ratnahastin (talk) 13:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so now we need to think about next steps and the open letter should probably be closed to further signatures. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Grnrchst: What kind of "next steps" are you talking about? QuicoleJR (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that following the latest developments, it is important to allow signatures to the open letter for at least a few more days. As far as I can see, ?names to the court is no guarantee of identity protection. It would be useful to hear from WMF's lawyers on this. And when exactly is the follow-up and what could the consequences be?--Ipigott (talk) 19:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo's commented the letter's talk page. Sincerely, Dilettante Sincerely, Dilettante 19:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo's comment is largely in line with my views here. – robertsky (talk) 03:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WMF argues itself to be an intermediary, therefore the burden to prove that the content is not defamatory now falls on the editors.[62] - Ratnahastin (talk) 10:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK it doesn't work that way. The accusation should prove that the article is defamatory, not the opposite. Yann (talk) 11:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does work that way in India, Yann. This case was admitted by Delhi High Court, on original jurisdiction, not appellate i.e, it was considered important enough in pre-admission stage for a prima facia case. In India, merit is decided at the pre-admission stage. @Valereee:, read the medianama report that Ratnahastin shared above. ANI's lawyer made the case for collusion with, and protection of, its editors, based on the updates that the editor shared with you. Editors here know zilch about Indian laws. I say, keep the private correspondence with the editor private. It does more harm than good. — hako9 (talk) 13:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hako9, sorry, do you mean this? It doesn't say anything about the updates the editor has shared that I can find...it mentions comments made at VP about the court not being neutral, it mentions one of the editors in question signing the open letter. Which part do you think is referring to that shared info?

This was info I was asked to share on this editor's behalf in order to allow them to describe what was happening but still protect their privacy. I don't really see how I can refuse to do that for someone. Valereee (talk) 14:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The editor shared that wmf will pay for their legal defense here. — hako9 (talk) 14:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the mediamama article says "Kumar pointed to a post made by Wikipedia’s legal team on Village Pump, a forum used by the platform’s community. The post stated that Wikipedia had in fact informed the editors of the case and offered them legal aid." It doesn't say anything at all about collusion based on the updates I shared. Valereee (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JSutherland's post here gives a plausible deniability. He posted that wmf has a Legal Fees Assistance Program, unlike the editor's communication that they asked to share with us here, which confirmed they are covering the fees. I am really not blaming you for anything. I am sure that the lawyer representing the editor has asked the editor to stop sharing further info. But if they do want to share, just run it by wmf first. — hako9 (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I strenuously disagree that Valereee did anything inadvisable here, or indeed that she had any real choice in the situation to which you allude. She's hardly behaved in a cavalier fashion throughout this affair: indeed, she's been one of the strongest voices for showing faith and patience in the WMF and urging hesitation on bold community response, even where it has been arguably the right call. But once she was put in the position that the user's request created, her only realistic alternative was to force that user to dox themselves in order to communicate their concerns to the community, triggering the very outcome they were, through reasonable means given their circumstances, seeking to avoid through those communications. I have a hard time seeing how that would benefit anyone here--other than, frankly, ANI. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 09:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How would one know that the user had doxed themselves when it seems that ANI had conflated the open letter with the discussions here and on the open letter's talk page (nothing on the open letter claimed that the court was biased, but there were plenty here 😂)? For all we may know, they may be referring to the proxy updates that Valereee made. – robertsky (talk) 13:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Running it by WMF first is up to the editor in question. If WMF prefers they stop updating us, I'm sure WMF will tell them that, and they can make that decision. Valereee (talk) 16:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hmm... it suddenly struck me that this case may turn bigger than just the three editors in question, if there are interested third-parties (on both side of the argument) wanting to make use of this case to advance their own interests. – robertsky (talk) 12:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have heard about Republic TV and Hindu News are looking for some legal actions as well. I think they are looking to see the outcome of the ANI case before they make their move. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 04:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SunDawn: By Hindu News do you mean the right leaning media networks or The Hindu. If the prior, then it is better you use that term, as it sounds calling Fox News as 'Christian news' or CNN as 'Atheist news'. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 12:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The name is literally Hindu News. Here is the discussion where the legal threat is somewhat made. And look at their first page: That designated Nodal officers of MHA, Survey of India, MEA (IBD) have all issued official notices, separately, under the Information Technology Act calling for prosecution of M/s WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION, USA for sedition and acts affecting the Defence of India, sovereignity, unity and integrity of India and for causing disaffetion in the people. These notices under section 79(3)(b) of IT Act were based inter-alia on complaints of members of HINDU Samaj. Here is the link to their website. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 13:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weird random website, joining the trend of suing, possibly for publicity. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 15:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't currently have an article titled Hindu News, so I'm not sure what kind of defamation they are suing us for. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, it is for considering them to not be a reliable source at WP:RSN. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Hindu News. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://wikimediafoundation.org/news/2019/12/26/indias-proposed-intermediary-liability-rules-could-limit-everyones-access-to-information-online/ - Found this letter by WMF to Ravi Shankar Prasad (MeitY). - Ratnahastin (talk) 05:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no idea what MeitY is supposed to be. Here's the full name for acronym: Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology. – robertsky (talk) 13:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From that letter: The proposed changes may have serious impact on Wikipedia’s open editing model. I believe that comment should have been appended with "in India." It would be terrible to have WP blocked in India, but it would be far worse if the WMF abandons its mission due to defamation laws in India. Or anywhere else, for that matter. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday's court order [63] :

(a) Respondent No. 1 shall promptly ensure that fresh summons be issued to Respondent Nos. 2-4 in the Suit bearing number CS. (O.S.) 524 of 2024 and made available to the Appellant for dasti service upon Respondent Nos. 2-4. The Appellant shall serve Respondent Nos. 2-4 with the summons along with a copy of this order in fulfillment of all applicable legal requirements for service of summons by email, within 4 days of the summons being made available.
(b) The Appellant shall file an affidavit of service in accordance with Chapter VI, Rule 17 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 in sealed cover disclosing all the basic subscriber details of Respondent No. 2-4 available with it, along with the proof of service of summons by email within 7 days of service of summons and shall simultaneously provide the counsel for Respondent No. 1 with a redacted copy of the affidavit of service, after redacting the basic subscriber details of Respondent Nos. 2-4, as disclosed in the sealed cover.
(e) Respondent No. I shall be at liberty to approach the Ld. Single Judge for disclosure of the information and documents filed in sealed cover, if required, which shall be considered in accordance with law. All rights and contentions of the parties in this regard are left open.

- Ratnahastin (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So based on my reading on these, it seems like WMF still have to provide the "basic subscriber details" to the court? Thankfully we have confirmed that ANI won't receive the full detail. The question then became what kind of "basic subscriber details" is being provided? ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 13:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read the last paragraph. Respondent 1 (ANI) can approach the single judge bench for disclosure of the information and documents filed in sealed cover. - Ratnahastin (talk) 14:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is fine. Lunar-akaunto／talk 14:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Press response

The Wikipedian Nails it...

What's really at stake with the court case in India against Wikipedia:

https://www.thewikipedian.net/p/wmf-bjp-court-order-sell-out-principles

Ocaasi^{t | c} 18:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've proposed a broad and rapidly organized community discussion on the prospect of a protest action against the planned disclosures.

In light of the fact that we now have an additional public court disclosure seeming to overwhelmingly indicate that the WMF will imminently be disclosing the personally identifying information of at least the three volunteers that ANI has identified as defendants in its suite, I am proposing we have as broad a community discussion as possible on what further response (up to and including large organized protest actions aimed to challenge the WMF's intended course of action) might be appropriate and feasible in the circumstances. Please see here, for further details. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 16:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Before we take any further steps, I suggest we call on Jimbo Wales and the lawyers from the WMF to explain to us exactly what the consequences could be of revealing contributors' identities through email addresses, etc. I may be wrong, but it appears to me that the "sealed cover" approach may really be able to protect their identities from wider revelation. But we urgently need some kind of official response to all this.--Ipigott (talk) 16:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blackout proposal

For those not already aware, a possible blackout of the site is being discussed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2024 Wikipedia blackout. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What WMF should do if they receive a legal notice

If WMF receives a legal notice from any organisation in India stating that they find their Wikipedia entry to be defamatory and want it to be taken down, someone from WMF's legal team should leave a message on the talk page that they have received such a notice, so the authors of the page can quickly take down any edits they have made on it. Although defamation may still be found in previous revisions, I doubt they would care so long as it does not appear in the current revisions. As defamation cases in India are admitted on a prima facie basis (that is, the plaintiff's claims are considered true on admission), the burden to prove that content is not defamatory falls on the defendants (i.e., editors, as WMF only claims to be an intermediary). If an editor does not want to have their lives be disrupted by being taken to court to prove how their edits were not defamatory, they should be allowed to revert their edits with an expectation that they will not be restored. This is not paranoia either. Recently, Republic TV announced their plans to send a legal notice to WMF over their article and sue Wikipedia if necessary. If WMF receives a legal notice, they should post it on the talk page so the authors can remove anything they wrote. It is now our own responsibility to protect ourselves, as we are liable for anything we write. Pinging @Jimbo Wales: to consider this suggestion. - Ratnahastin (talk) 06:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging @Hako9 and Lunar-akaunto: who I believe are in India too. - Ratnahastin (talk) 06:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am a citizen. I'd much rather just receive an email privately from wmf. And I don't think I would revert myself on a mere threat of civil defamation. — hako9 (talk) 08:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If WMF wins this case, it would send a clear signal to organizations in India that they should stop wasting everyone's time with fraudulent defamation suits. No need to remove well-sourced content. Nakonana (talk) 09:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That will take years. In mean time, nothing prevents any organisation from filing another case and repeating what has already transpired since a dangerous precedent has been set that WMF will not hesitate to divulge the subscriber details to the court in order to maintain its intermediary status. - Ratnahastin (talk) 09:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI did not receive the subscriber information, so why would it be interesting for other organizations to follow ANI's steps when the outcome of the case isn't clear yet? Nakonana (talk) 22:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedians just did their job by putting information from reliable sources. They did nothing wrong, there should be no editing of these pages, it goes against the rules. BilboBeggins (talk) 14:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the WMF receives a legal notice from outside of the United States, it should tell the sender to pound sand. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a proposal based on some of the above points (I'm not arguing for or against what the WMF should do; this is rather parallel to that), but the following proposal would only make sense if people in India agreed that it sounds viable and if they were reasonably likely to use it.

1. Create an essay, something like Wikipedia:Self-revert under Delhi court case precedent (abbrevations WP:SRUD, WP:SRUDCCP)

2. WP:SRUD itself says something like "A user who invokes this page may consider themselves to be at legal risk under the precedent of the (briefly explain the case and give the main links). To reduce the legal risks of that user, please do not technically restore their self-reversion. However, you are welcome to add their self-reverted content under your own name under CC BY-SA, with an edit summary such as 'similar content to self-reverted content by ... used under CC BY-SA'. Discuss the content on the article talk page if you have any doubts regarding the contents of the original edit.

3. WP:SRUD also has a section something like "If you wish to invoke this page to protect yourself, then make your edit and then quickly self-revert it with an edit summary such as 'self-revert under WP:SRUD - please see WP:SRUD if you think that the content should have been kept'".

Would this be useful? The idea is to try to satisfy simultaneously: (1) the original editor is legally safe - has not substantially published what could be supposedly defamatory content; (2) the original editor has an efficient way of showing to others how they could be supportive; (3) other editors efficiently understand the practical and ethical situation and how they can help. Boud (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative idea would be (and we probably have this already somewhere), advice on using a secure, non-gmail address with a non-identifying username (e.g. 'cooldude5317@' rather than 'ranjit.gupta@'), after checking to what degree the organisation running your preferred server would cooperate with court requests to identify you, or suggesting the use of an account without an email contact (despite the practical risks that entails for your use of WMF wikis). Boud (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another option would be to make an edit request via email to a user who isn't living in India, so that they could add the relevant information while being most likely outside of any fraudulent lawsuit's legal reach. Nakonana (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Threats to editors and WMF

Has everyone seen this discussion? In an open letter talk page, physical treats to WMF were mentioned. Threats even continued on Administrators Noticeboard.

See:
"There was no LEGAL THREAT. It is a clear and direct caution that aggrieved Hindu Raksha Dal cadres, acting on their own and individually, may physically discipline WMF employees and users in India if there is any abuse or disrespect to our HINDU organization/s and project/s on your web portals - as they have done in the past." [64]
This is behaviour of bullies. And I am afraid that these shocking abuse happens because the party now feels strength because WMF decided to comply. If WMF didn't react to this pressure, they wouldn't have confidence to write this.
Bullies can not be negotiated with, they will hold on to concessions made and want more. They physically threatened the editors who write what they don't want, and I guess those three users may be under threat too. How can Wikipedia abd WMF guarantee that those editors, shall there personal data be disclosed to someone, will be Ok and safe? As

I hope users and Jimbo understand that only decisive action would stop these guys. They will ask for more and more. Now that they know that if a case goes to court, Wikipedia pages will be frozen, there may be rise in powerful figures, websites who are regarded as unreliable sources and oppose that, to go the same route.BilboBeggins (talk) 08:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This harassment has been going for a decade, see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/India Against Corruption sock-meatfarm - Ratnahastin (talk) 08:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That makes even more consequential.

So what happens now if the court rules in favour?

Will be then articles such as 2024 Colcatta rape under threat? BilboBeggins (talk) 09:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If editors agree to take part in legal proceedings after being summoned, then it's possible that they will win. But if they don't, then WMF can't exactly defend the claims since it has argued itself to be an intermediary from the very beginning, if none of the three defendants take part in the lawsuit, WMF will lose and will be forced to pay the damages or may even lose its intermediary status.

The Kolkata incident article was an interesting case, the members of Hindu Raksha Dal complained to the National Task Force for Medical professionals safety (a body established by the supreme court of india), which led to an order by the Supreme court to remove the name and photo of the victim from the article.[65] The atmosphere in India is currently very anti-Wikipedia for sure. - Ratnahastin (talk) 13:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ratnahastin, what has Hindu Raksha Dal's complaint to do with SC's order for removal of victim's name? Dympies (talk) 05:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update from Jimmy Wales

Jimmy Wales made an update yesterday that may be of interest. Valereee (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a huge asymmetry in the understanding of the Internet, and of access to and understanding of knowledge in general, between WMF vs the Delhi court (after all, there would be no court case if the court understood the Internet). I suspect that many of us, including me, have been interpreting some of the sourced, critical pieces of knowledge of this case without thinking too carefully, and I'm quite happy to admit my error. To avoid giving the Delhi court any advantage (I am under no obligation to give legal advice to the Delhi court), I won't give any details of my speculation of where the flaws lie in our interpretations - most of us here could easily see it if we think a little more. Our three contributors may yet remain safe. Jimbo's pride is not evidence, but it's a clue that triggered this line of thinking - thanks Jimbo :). Boud (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]