Wikipedia talk:2024 open letter to the Wikimedia Foundation

2 December Update from the Wikimedia Foundation

Dear All,

We wanted to provide an update on the ongoing case. There has been much speculation and conjecture about this case in various media outlets and blogs which has not always been accurate. This is difficult to correct because commentary outside of court about ongoing litigation in India is limited under sub judice rules. We'd ask Wikimedians to only use reliable sources when discussing the matter and to understand that reporting may not have all the context to understand Wikimedia's legal strategy. We will continue to share as much information as we can under the circumstances. The safety of volunteers is paramount and our legal team continues to defend the rights of Wikimedians through every avenue available.

As we shared in our last update, the Delhi High Court ordered the Foundation to provide information to ANI about the three users named as defendants in the case. The Foundation refused to do so, and appealed the order. That appeal came to a close without requiring that data be disclosed to ANI. Instead, the Foundation itself was able to serve the users the summons in the lawsuit, and to then prepare for the Court an affidavit proving that the summons was delivered. A summons informs someone about the existence of a lawsuit; it does not mean that the Court has determined that they have to participate in the case. It gives a person named in a lawsuit the chance to review the case with their lawyer to decide if they want to show up and offer a defense. As stated, we cannot discuss the contents of the affidavit publicly. As is a general standard in such cases however, a primary focus is not jeopardizing the users’ anonymity or safety.

We won't be able to respond to questions here because of sub-judice rules. We will continue to point to a key value of our movement, and a priority for the Wikimedia Foundation, which is protecting volunteers and the projects. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 02:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

If none of the defendants participate in the proceedings, will the court pass an ex-parte ruling that would be against the sole defendant WMF who claims to be a mere intermediary?- Ratnahastin (talk) 02:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

How can anyone reasonably know what the court will do beforehand? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Or is WMF simply trying to make a point that they have done their job as an intermediary, that is to summon the original authors of the content, therefore they are no longer responsible for the content anymore leaving the editors to prove how the content in question is not "defamatory"? - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, @Quiddity (WMF). Speaking of sources, According to this video, c. 16:00-17:00, the WMF has stopped fund-raising in India for the time being. Can you expand on that? Also, when is the next court-date? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

WMF-comment of fundraising: [1] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I know a bit about fundraising in India due to my work there. After 2014, the Indian government has considerably restrained the possibility of international NGOs to raise funds in India, specially targeting Greenpeace, Amnesty International and the like, which are very critical of the situation there. I suppose that the WMF faces the same issues. Yann (talk) 20:42, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for providing this update. It is reassuring to hear that (despite misinformation saying otherwise) these users' information will not be provided to ANI and that the WMF is prioritising the safety of wikipedia volunteers. With regards to the (understandable) non-disclosure of the legal strategy, I can only hope that it works out, that the defamation claims are beaten and that our colleagues' safety continues to be protected. Anything less than a complete defeat for ANI and comprehensive protections for our colleagues would have a chilling effect on our work. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I know you cannot reply to this, but we're all a bit worried about this court order. Does anyone know if there has been a new one? Aaron Liu (talk) 12:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the update, this is good to know. You mention the chance to review the case with their lawyer, and I know the WMF previously said it was planning to cover legal costs for the users in question. Have any of the users taken up WMF's offer and gotten lawyers paid for by WMF? Or have they retained separate counsel? In general, the WMF seems to be handling this as we would hope they would, even if communication can be tricky under sub judice rules. Just don't forget that Wikipedia being banned in India would be a much less damaging outcome than Wikipedia editors being opened to legal attacks for contributing verifiable content to the encyclopedia! —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I suppose the editors in question will instead wisely choose to ignore the summons. Gawaon (talk) 10:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

They can only safely do that if they aren't in India. Valereee (talk) 13:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

FYI, If the editors are USA residents, then the model 2005 Uniform Foreign-Country Money Judgments Recognition Act variants would ensure actions against them for recovery of money in 48 states of the USA, even if its an ex-parte foreign court decree. T3fg72zp (talk) 02:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

The only info the WMF has is IPs and in some cases email addresses. Valereee (talk) 13:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

This is absolutely absurd that the WMF has allowed this kangaroo court proceeding to even gain any semblance of legitimacy by serving the editors. Allowing the editors to be served with a lawsuit, even if their identities are not (yet) public to the court is not something that should be tolerated. This is exactly what the open letter was meant to prevent - but the WMF doesn't care. They are willing to throw three editors under the bus and now have them be individually party to a baseless lawsuit in the name of what, getting money from India still? Absurd. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 20:49, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

What Drmies said. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@me Sir, The terms kangaroo court and illegitimate (implied) you used to describe the High Court of Delhi constitute WP:LBL of the Republic of India, its laws and its judicial system. The Court is a Constitutional court. Even in the United States of the Americas In the libel context, the Supreme Court has also ruled that a journalist’s privilege could not shield a publisher from liability for libelous content from anonymous sources. See Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153 (1979). Section 230 CDA also permits John Doe summons. I can cite several examples where US courts have cited cyberlaw judgments of Indian superior courts while arriving at their decisions. So, I hope you reconsider your uncalled for remarks and remove them. T3fg72zp (talk) 01:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC) @T3fg72zp: Is that a legal threat? (CC) Tbhotch™ 05:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC) No, it is a polite and reasoned request to the editor to comply with WP:LBL voluntarily. Furthermore, in terms of WP:NLT, I have clearly informed the editor that his statement is incorrect / offensive and I am requesting him to correct it. In terms of WMF editor Quiddity's suggestion, I have also assisted the other editor with a reliable legal reference. T3fg72zp (talk) 07:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC) On December 4, you said you had read our "no legal threats" (NLT) policy, stating, "Yes, I have taken the time to read Wikipedia policies generally, including the ones you mentioned." The NLT policy specifically includes the section titled Perceived Legal Threats, which advises: "Always choose your words carefully when starting or responding to any discussions or disputes, as well as with any messages or communication with other users; you must refrain from making any comments that other editors may translate or interpret (even incorrectly) as legal threats. For example, if you assert that another editor's comments are 'defamatory' or 'libelous', that editor might interpret your communication as implying such a threat." Your comment, "I hope you reconsider your uncalled for remarks and remove them," could easily be interpreted as a threat of legal action, especially when preceded by the statement, "The terms you used to describe the High Court of Delhi constitute [libel]" and a reference to a US court decision concerning journalists (which Wikipedians are not). While I understand that you are a lawyer, it's important to remember that many people here are not, and thus, neutral language is crucial. Your comment, which you referred to as a "polite reasoned request", could have been reworded to avoid implying that you would escalate the situation to the HCD over the alleged defamation, which has not occurred. Please, reword such comments in the future. (CC) Tbhotch™ 17:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC) To accuse someone of libel against a country is pretty absurd and would be getting into WP:NLT territory. I see that this new account has been cautioned about this over at Teahouse too. KoA (talk) 06:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC) The WP:LBL document is overly broad in its wording and is not confined to defamation. Also, under UK/Commonwealth evolved law, countries can be libelled. Lastly, I was informed about this open letter at the Teahouse by a helpful editor over there. T3fg72zp (talk) 08:01, 6 December 2024 (UTC) Do you care about the billions of Indian readers who access information as their government has increasingly clamped down on opposition media and information? If the WMF can do this without disclosing PII, then they should. I agree with T3fg72zp's slightly-poorly–expressed remarks. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC) Yes. As an Indian I do care. a) We don't have "billions" of Indians, let alone Indian readers. b) The "clamppown" on media in India is not being done by the government, it is common knowledge and a matter of public court records as being done against specific journalists and media houses by oligarchs like Gautam Adani, Jay Shah hailing from the Indian State of Gujarat through the device of CRIMINAL defamation cases for their arrest and imprisonment, ie. quite unlike the present SOFT one against Wikipedia which only asks for damages.The Delhi High Court has a series of judgments directing blocking of websites where the Respondents failed to appear to defend themselves and thousands of such undefended foreign websites have been blocked by the Registrar of the Court. However, in the Alexandra Elbakyan And Ors. matter ( CS(COMM) 572/2020) brought by Elsevier she entered appearance and the sci-hub.se website is accessible as I write this. Hope this clarifies. T3fg72zp (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2024 (UTC) There's about 1.4 billion Indians, and that's what I meant by "billions", sorry. There's at least more Wikipedia readers in India than the those in the US, as previous statistics have shown. I don't want to elaborate too much here, but you can see Premiership of Narendra Modi#Use of investigative agencies for information on the state's crackdown. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Normally I'd let the collapsed section above be, but just in case anyone sees more hints at legal threats, it's collapsed due to a sockpuppet.[2][3][4][5][6] Just something for others to keep an eye out for if they weren't aware of that going on here for a little while now. KoA (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

An article remains censored.

A foundation ignores its own policies that say it will only answer US court summons.

A community shuffles the issue to side boards so it’s forgotten.

Everyone just keeps editing while helping the foundation accomplish waste other people’s money on everything other than an encyclopedia.

Real fighters of freedom would have a notice the article is being censored not fundraising notices in people’s faces that pretend they didn’t actively censor an article on an American server.

Ah well, the slow decline continues. Slywriter (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

"policies that say it will only answer US court summons." What policies are that? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

[7] - click “what we require from you” and find - Legal Validity & Enforceability Under United States Law. Your request must be legally valid and enforceable under US law and be in one of the following forms:

let me know where foreign court is on this list

the last bullet is most enlightening

* A request served by a US court of competent jurisdiction or enforcement agency under the procedures set forth in an applicable mutual legal assistance treaty or letters rogatory -- if you are making a request originating outside of the US. Slywriter (talk) 02:33, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

As of 2016, the US has been under an MLAT with India. In fact, I would've been surprised if it didn't. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

That is for criminal is it not? When i looked when this first came up there was one for criminal but no MLAT for civil. I would be very surprised if this were the process for any U.S. MLAT's and if there were no way under the process for WMF to simply move the matter of the basic subscriber info to a federal district court. All the IANAL and i don't really know what's going on disclaimers of course. If U.S. law (a treaty is law) allows this then the open letter has the wrong target and there should be thought of moving the servers and blacking out the U.S. because that would be effective. fiveby(zero) 06:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Good point, the 2001 one does appear to be criminal and I can't find a civil one. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Jesus, right now sucks a lot but just how anarchic do you want us to be? We went though a blackout proposal and consensus was almost mostly in opposition, but that's half of my discontent. Your wording is just pretentious in cynicism and diminishes the contributions of others who couldn't care more. There's a difference between a justified complaint over an issue and a justified complaint while playing the fiddle acting like a doomsday prophet. Please, move the colorful bleakness to reddit, Slywriter. Carlinal (talk) 16:36, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

No. And your useless commentary distracts from the facts presented but feel free to continue allowing the Foundation to profit off of your back. The Foundation is not Wikipedia. Its mission is not bettering the encyclopedia, it’s enriching itself. You are welcome to deny reality but you will not silence me expressing the absolute reality that censorship has been imposed by the Foundation to kowtow to a foreign court with no jurisdiction and without following the policies cited above Slywriter (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

You would rather deny 1.4 billion people under state-sponsored informational siege their food for thought when we aren't required to permanently censor anything important? Have you seen Asian News International#Wikimedia Foundation? Aaron Liu (talk) 03:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes. That’s 1.4 billon people who can take it up with their government when they are greeted with a notice of why they can’t access Wikipedia. The Foundation is in violation of its rules. Two months of overt censorship of an article is incompatible with its mission. Don’t worry more “thoughts and prayers” will sure make the Foundation stop focusing on its own selfish goals and protect the encyclopedia. Just one more signature on a back page no one see will fix it.

Where’s is the banner notifying readers that a government is hostile to wikipedia? Where’s the message on the front page informing every single reader, every single day that the WMF believes in censorship? Where’s the ban on the foundation using English Wikipedia for any fundraising activity while it colludes with an autocratic government?

Nope Just a back page where people can whine while the Foundation has Jimbo run cover for them ignoring their American corporate status to kowtow to the Indian government seeking to stifle speech and succeeding. Slywriter (talk) 13:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Rigorous free speech protection only exists within the United States and just something no jurisdiction outside North America understands or respects, c.f. sub judice. You may not realize this, but you want us to close off this vault of information just for removing an article whose information is easily accessible elsewhere—including within Wikipedia itself—and whose original contents are still available through unblocked archives, unnecessarily punishing others in observance of our own culture and for observing the culture of most of the world.

Shutting down should be a counterattack of last resort for egregious things like disclosing private user information to a state-sponsored corporation—which has not happened yet—not such relatively trivial matters. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Hey, this looks like it could spiral out of control, I guess I should've elaborated on my previous comment. I never contested Slywriter's complaints about the WMF, and it's more than fair about exactly where the distrust against the WMF is coming from, including with money. I also agree that allowing Wikipedia to be banned from India would've been a mostly better solution, and it would've said a lot that India isn't any better with free speech than China.

My concern with Slywriter specifically, however, is that they're a veteran editor that arguably is acting no differently than the right-wingers and banned users who dismiss Wikipedia as a joke. Wikipedia's reputation and legal standing could not be more threatened by outsiders now and similar attitudes growing within a Wikimedian community is the last thing I want to see in a talk page. I do not take Slywriter's tone and wording lightly, and they may as well otherwise run a campaign dissuading more new users from joining. If Slywriter has no optimism or reason to continue editing despite the WMF and its communities, they may as well retire.

At this point the thread's becoming unrelated to the open letter, so anything more I have to say will go to the respective user's talk page. Carlinal (talk) 20:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Hah, as if the WMF wasn't aware the censored information would be streisanded all over the internet. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Where? The silence is deafening because the editors and community are handling this behind the scenes and on back pages. There should be a banner blatantly stating the facts on every page until such time as the Foundation withdraws its censorship. Slywriter (talk) 13:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Just search up "WMF India censorship/case". Even within Wikipedia articlespace, it's everywhere:

• Delhi High Court (links | edit)
• Internet censorship in India (links | edit)
• Information Technology Act, 2000 (links | edit)
• Asian News International (links | edit)
• Censorship of Wikipedia (links | edit)
• Litigation involving the Wikimedia Foundation (links | edit)
• Wikipedia in India (links | edit)
• Deletion of articles on Wikipedia (links | edit)
• Manmohan (judge) (links | edit)
• Tushar Rao Gedela (links | edit)

Aaron Liu (talk) 01:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

At least two of those are an insult to readers as they provide a link to the banned article with zero context.

I congratulate all of you for helping the WMF cover-up for the fact they are not following the policy cited above and have created a new policy of making this encyclopedia subordinate to Indian Law without any authority to do so. Slywriter (talk) 15:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

As to why I consider every activity ineffective and useless - a Google News search doesn’t even find the most recent Wired article, only showing articles from a month ago. No idea what search you used to find those articles but none were easily accessible via Wikipedia or Google searches.

The press isn’t covering our story because we have let it be relegated to back pages. The Foundation gleefully fundraising with the public none the wiser of their breach of trust. Slywriter (talk) 15:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Why is the emphasis on Wired’s article, which AFAIK doesn’t even exist? What’s wrong with BBC’s article being on the top?

only showing articles from a month ago

Because that’s when the latest development happened? What else new is there to cover? Aaron Liu (talk) 17:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

My point was that it’s covered in many places. Besides that, every place a reader would check to look for this information has a blurb. That’s

• Asian News International
• Wikipedia in India
• Censorship of Wikipedia
• Internet censorship in India
• Litigation involving the Wikimedia Foundation

, and maybe Deletion of articles on Wikipedia.

While it’s weird that they made that guideline and I do agree that they violated it, I still don’t think not releasing the email addresses in sealed cover just to one judge who will not disclose the emails to others or not taking a single article—whose information is all over the web, even without the Streisand effect—is worth having Wikipedia taken down for readers more than the entire population of the United States. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Then India Wikipedia should be stood up as its own Wikipedia and own governing board. The United States domiciled corporation should not be kowtowing and violating its policies to appease an authoritarian government because they have a billion people. Or do you support the PROC also exercising control of English Wikipedia? Or do we only make an exception for India because … billion people would have to use a VPN. And you can point to every article you want , they show exactly what I am saying deafening silence as the world is unaware. Google news search doesn’t show any recent events and it’s practically a real time search engine these days of news sites.

so keep fooling yourself but at least be honest that you are kowtowing to the Indian government and policies, ethics and freedom of speech be damned. Slywriter (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll just stop here, ask you to re-read what I've said above, and respond to your escalation about things irrelevant to what I just said by calling your demands unwitting cultural imperialism. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

References

Wasn't the next hearing on the 16th of December? What happened there? Tazerdadog (talk) 22:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Tazerdadog: Please see below. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

16 December court proceedings

https://www.medianama.com/2024/12/223-wiki-actions-go-beyond-intermediary-status-ani-delhi-hc/ - Ratnahastin (talk) 14:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this here. I think this goes to show that ANI and its legal team fundamentally do not understand how Wikipedia functions. The claims they're making before the court are clearly not in line with reality. That an intermediary is protected, provided they do not "select or modify the information contained in the transmission", should clearly cover Wikipedia, irrespective of their mischaracterisations of Wikipedia's internal structure.

Also this passage is worth highlighting for those that still insist on assuming bad faith of the foundation:

[ANI’s lawyer, Sidhant Kumar] claimed that Wikipedia resisted “tooth and nail” serving summons to the editors, who were arrayed as defendants two, three and four in the case. The platform had also resisted the interrogatories Kumar had issued, which asked for the details of Wikipedia’s communications with the editors. This came after Wikipedia allegedly stated publicly that they had informed the editors when the suit had first started in July.

I think if any party is acting in bad faith, it is clearly ANI. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

The Medianama story is only partial because my friend Nikhil Pahwa joined in late and watched only the last 10 minutes of the 43 mins long arguments. We can expect a longer report from Sohini Ghosh (Indian Express) soon. The opening and closing arguments (totalling around 25 mins of 43 minutes) are up on Youtube. link to opening arguments, link to closing arguments. There is also a rather interesting Non-Free post on INDIALEGAL.NET where inter-alia it is mentioned the next date of hearing is Wednesday 18th December. 157.37.171.136 (talk) 16:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Video on YouTube - see 8:45-11:XX, the judge is taking a look at an "affidavit of service" (which contains basic subscriber information) submitted by the WMF's counsel and subsequent back and forth. @Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Ganesha811, Slywriter, and Grnrchst: - Ratnahastin (talk) 00:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

In addition to my learned friend User:Ratnahastin's post Video on YouTube the second video shows the judge clearly saying that Wikimedia Foundation will be directed to remove all the defamatory statements as the 3 editors have not appeared before the court to defend their edits despite summons being served.The judge's concern now relates to "Wikimedia's methods" and how to prevent 3 different editors coming back and reinserting those statements. Judge also seems to be well clued up on edit warring. 157.37.174.217 (talk) 03:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The judge did not say WMF will be directed, but speculating as to what would happen if he directed. His expectation was that the WMF would remove it but that other uses might come and add it back (either the same content or other content that is defamatory as well). Thereby, he was prompting the ANI lawyer to suggest measures that he should take.

Then the ANI lawyer started the argument that WMF Is not an intermediary at all. I am surprised with the WMF lawyer's silence through all this. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

That's the crux of this lawsuit, to revoke Wikipedia's intermediary status so that WMF will be forced to shut down Wikipedia in India or risk a tsunami of frivolous cases against people associated with WMF like what happened with twitter when they lost their intermediary status for a brief duration. [8] - Ratnahastin (talk) 15:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Now that judge has had a look at the subscriber details, it is beyond confirmed that details have been disclosed to the Indian court. This letter should be closed for signing now as it has failed to achieve anything. Is anyone willing to take the initiative? - Ratnahastin (talk) 04:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ratnahastin: I just closed it for signing. This is incredibly disappointing and distressing. I'm very worried for these editors now and the judge's statements do not bode well for the independence of the platform. Now that the letter has been closed and we will be hearing more details tomorrow, we may have to start considering other courses of action. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

it is beyond confirmed that details have been disclosed to the Indian court. Do we have a quote from a reliable source that says that email addresses, IP addresses, etc. were disclosed? A "sealed cover" in this case could just be the editor's usernames and a copy of the documents that were forwarded to them by WMF. I'd recommend amending the letter's close, or re-opening it, until these details are confirmed. We would not want to spread incorrect information on this sensitive issue. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

The "basic subscriber details" have been disclosed now(just check the video) whether those subscriber details contains editor IP, email or any other PII is not something we or anyone can verify unless the judge himself states what type of information he has access to now or if WMF itself comes forward and tells us what type of information they disclosed. If the basic subscriber details are merely "username or copy of the documents to them by WMF", then we should ask ourselves whether this letter had any point in the first place, if the information that was going to be shared is not personally identifying? Or should we blame WMF for not being transparent with us at least about the "basic subscriber details" they had no hesitation in giving up. - Ratnahastin (talk) 14:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

We should demand the WMF cease all dishonest fundraising on English wikipedia

we should demand the WMF resign

we should demand the WMF surrender all assets to an entity that will refuse to answer any foreign court summons

We should demand prominent banners on every page exposing the WMF

Or this can be relegated to the backboards with zero press coverage because the WMF controls the narrative Slywriter (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Grnrchst to close this with such a definitive statement seems dangerous when we haven't had confirmation on what exactly happened. I'd rather hold off on this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien: If you think the closure was premature, by all means, feel free to reopen it. I just didn't see a point in keeping it open after the subscriber details were handed over to the court, what with stopping that being the purpose of the letter. As for the statement being too definitive, I did try ensuring that the language wasn't so final (and definitely less inflammatory) than the declarations here on the talk page. If you think it could be better, feel free to amend the closing text or suggest amendments to it. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

"The seal cover has been opened"

At 1:09 of the closing arguments, the judge says, "so the seal cover has been opened...." Does that mean the defendant editors usernames, IPs, emails, and the addresses at which they were served are now in the public record? Sita Bose (talk) 08:42, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Actually, the judge opened the sealed cover, perused the contents thoroughly, then asked WMF counsel "How can these addresses be verified?" to which the reply was "These are all we have, and the website does not conduct verification of its users". The ANI counsel assisted his opponent by saying that service on the editors (D2-D4) is complete, they have not appeared, so can we please move on to my defamation takedowns. The judge then resealed the covers. So it can be safely inferred that WMF did not give ANI anything, and ANI never wanted the D2-D4 details at all, it was only a procedural formality so ANI can take on the "Wikimedia method/model" directly which is troubling all their SPAs/IPs. On a procedural note, once the case is complete and judgment given, the sealed covers are opened and anyone can inspect its contents. So nothing to fret over. Storm in a teacup. 157.37.179.138 (talk) 10:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

This seems roughly consistent with the video. Thank you. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

What's taking place in the court clearly brings out ANI and WMF have worked out some arrangement before the Division bench that Wikipedia and its agents will be restrained from publishing anything about ANI (and vice versa ?). The judge would have passed the order on the 16th itself except that WMF's belated filings were not formally on the record of the court (ie. on the judge's screen). Consequently WMF counsel was not able to argue points in those submissions. Seeing the past judgments of this court (from Medianama) #, #, #, #, # # its clear why both ANI and WMF are cooperating to get around these judgments to achieve their very limited mutual objectives. Jimbo's statements tend to support this.157.37.185.116 (talk) 04:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

18 December

https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/delhi-high-court-examine-caravan-ken-articles-decide-interim-relief-ani-wikipedia - Ratnahastin (talk) 13:04, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Arguments, for interim relief sought by ANI, have closed and orders are awaited. ANI counsel dominated the proceedings while WMF's (expensive and senior) advocate was "excused" to earn his bread and butter (the judges's choice words) in other cases/courts. Videos of proceedings pre-lunch, post-lunch. Judge wound up by instructing WMF's counsel not to argue for the missing editors D2-D4. NB: 39(1) and 39(2) used liberally refer to plaintiff's application for interim injunctions while 7(11) refers to Defendant's opposition to 39 (1/2) prayers.157.37.134.204 (talk) 12:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

"I will also read the articles ... to see whether the (edits) are borne out of the articles or not. Obviously, if they are not borne out of the articles, they cannot do it. Therefore, I can, to that extent, even ask them to take down those offending statements," the Court said.

The Court added that if it finds that such inference, as made in the edits, can be drawn from the articles, then it may not pass a takedown order.

Aaron Liu (talk) 13:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Meanwhile, the Court also questioned Wikipedia for attempting to defend the actions of the users, who are accused of making defamatory edits on ANI's page.. "I have to defend my model of free speech. I am not on merits of allegations," Senior Advocate Jayant Mehta, representing Wikipedia, said in response.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Could you post these at Wikipedia:ANI vs. WMF Delhi court#Court updates instead next time? Thanks! Aaron Liu (talk) 13:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Will do that from now onwards. 157.37.134.204 (talk) 13:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)