Wikipedia talk:2024 open letter to the Wikimedia Foundation/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Making sure I understand the current status of what is happening ...

So, WMF agreed to provide the information being requested to identify the editors, and now the New Delhi court has issued summons for the editors involved? Is this correct? Steel1943 (talk) 19:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

To my knowledge, WMF hasn't agreed to hand over information, but they are considering it, and they have a short time (3-4 days) until the deadline to respond is. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@BerryForPerpetuity: An article I found published on 14 October 2024 states Wikimedia refused, but an article published 28 October 2024 states they will comply and provide the information: [1] Steel1943 (talk) 20:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Could you counter what Upd Edit said in an above section about their decision? Upd seems to be spouting bull, with all due respect. Carlinal (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Take my input with a grain of salt, as I don't know the details as well as I'd like. I'm also not here to 'counter' anyone. That being said, I don't think he's intentionally lying, but he is wrong. He cites Bar&Bench, and per Jimbo on 11 November: "Some people in this thread are misreading the news from Bar&Bench up above, assuming that it means that the WMF has disclosed user identities. This is not correct at all. No user information has been disclosed."

Also, from User:Quiddity (WMF) today (November 14): "Jimmy's update from 11 November remains true – no user information has been disclosed" I don't believe anyone has any reason to believe they'd actively lie about this. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 22:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The problem is if we wait for them to disclose the information, the harm has been done. The WMF loses control over it the second they release the information, even under seal. This judge has already shown they don’t care that this is an obvious SLAPP lawsuit that will be thrown out. So what’s stopping the judge from accepting it under seal and then allowing the lawsuit to proceed against the individuals? Or releasing the individual’s identities to ANI to file individual suits against the editors? The answer is nothing. The time to stop it is before the cat is out of the bag. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, and let me add this for further clarity: I am saying, speaking only for myself and not for the board and not for the WMF, but being privy to discussions, I am not worried and I'm telling everyone that a blackout of this type is unnecessary/premature/misguided, etc. People stating confidently things that aren't consistent with what I know to be true are mistaken and should relax a notch or two.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

When is it not premature? After we have confirmation the information was released and thus the cat is out of the bag, and a precedent set that the WMF will consider catering to SLAPP lawsuits?

There is only one outcome that should be acceptable. The WMF refuses to participate in this kangaroo court proceeding - even if it comes at the expense of their operations or the site’s availability in India. If this judge refuses to entertain the arguments, it is NOT acceptable to throw the three editors under the bus personally on the off chance the WMF may win on appeal. The damage to those three editors and the chilling effect on other potential or real editors who aren’t willing to even let it get to that point will never be undone once the information is released - regardless of a win on appeal. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

You keep arguing, but I'm telling you repeatedly that you are mistaken about the thinking at the WMF, you are mistaken about what is going on. So you're arguing against a straw man. Probably now would be a good time to put down the stick. Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

You’re telling me I’m mistaken, but not how. So again, how am I mistaken? Has the WMF perjured itself by asking for a consent order (which was accepted) in which they agreed to release the information, when they never had any intent to do so? Again, instead of saying “trust me/us” show us why we should. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 14:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales, thank you for your comments.
I believe one of the main reasons for the editors’ anxiety and all the nervousness going around is the prolonged silence from the WMF.
The situation is extremely tense for the editors—if any information that could identify participants is handed over to the Indian court, it would set a worrying precedent, and many in the community are strongly opposed to letting things go in that direction.
Meanwhile, WMF remains silent, not communicating its intentions, and all the information we, as editors, receive comes from the media.
I believe that breaking this silence and having the WMF communicate openly and honestly about what’s happening and what they are planning to dowould help calm the community down.
So, even a statement like “under no circumstances will we provide personal information about our editors to the Indian court” would be enough to reduce the tension in the conversation. Rampion (talk) 14:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Except the WMF, through their lawyers, asked for a consent order in which they agreed to release the information… -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 14:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Remind me in the future to explain this to you. That's all I can really say. Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, Rampion. I think something very satisfactory will be forthcoming soon, but in legal matters the standard advice is to not talk. There are reasons for this, including court rules about sub judice, the violation of which can stand us in contempt of court. There are very limited things which it is even legal to say. That's without even getting into specific details about legal and negotiating strategy where bringing the entire world into a transparent blow-by-blow just isn't a great idea.

I should add that the WMF has not remained silent - they have updated the community as best they can. Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Honestly Jimmy, I think there is substantial room for improvement in the WMF's approach to this situation, even taking into account all of the org's significant restrictions in these circumstances. I'm going to ask for some of the same trust you have frequently appealed for here in recent days when I say that I have significant reasons to understand and appreciate the delicate position and frustrating limitations which WMF counsel and Board members have been labouring under in this situation. And yet I still feel as if there was mismanagement of communication in this scenario.

If nothing else, the WMF has absolutely massive resources and can not possibly have been unaware that a situation like this was on the horizon with regard to India; or if they were, inside counsel's capacities need serious reinforcement. So if the WMF thought there was any chance that they might even contemplate turning over PII in a suit such as this (or even that they might end up appearing to be considering that) they should have had MASSIVE engagement with the community well before sub judice principles attached in an actual case. Many aspects of how this has all played out were avoidable, at any number of junctures. Even my empathy for the difficult position of these dedicated advocates doesn't negate a conclusion of "I really hope lessons have been learned here", for all of us, and that more robust discussion between community and foundation on these issues touching upon our principle values are immediately forthcoming, as soon as possible. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm completely against WMF releasing (even considering to release) this information at all. I'm just stating that as of right now, no information has been released, which is not what some users have been portraying. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I guess this is probably off-topic to this section but wanted to say that just that this possible news, even though it's been mischaracterized and reported erroneously, that I am feeling a chill come over my editing here on Wikipedia. I personally don't feel as safe here as I used to. That's all... - Shearonink (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Yep... For some, regardless, the damage has already been done. Steel1943 (talk) 23:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Jimmy, I do take some comfort in your reassurance here. But I also think it's essential for the community to speak loudly and clearly in defense of editor privacy. It's neither premature nor misguided nor an impediment to anything WMF Legal needs to do, to reaffirm what this community stands for. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

This. Every institution needs to know where the guardrails are. These are ours. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 23:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales this is blatant overreach by the India High Court. They have absolutely zero jurisdiction over WMF or the WP project, and the WMF's compliance with this order is flatly asinine. The fact that the information is to be sealed to the court serves absolutely zero purpose other than to divulge to the state - which has only one possible outcome. The WMF board members who voted in favor of compliance & disclosure should be immediately unseated - even if it means complete dissolution of the board and an outright restructuring of the WMF. The compliance has revealed the board is not acting in the best interest of the project, and now all editors are at risk. This is flatly unacceptable on all levels, and there is now the mark of no confidence in the WMF. All servers and data physically located in India should be immediately migrated out of the country, the servers wiped and permanently shut down. In absolutely no manner or fashion is WMF or the WP project obligated to comply with this demand, or to even respond to the suit. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 15:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

"The WMF board members who voted in favor of compliance & disclosure should be immediately unseated" - this is pure misinformation, please refrain from jumping to conclusions. There's not much else I can tell you other than calm down, you're getting extremely upset over things that didn't happen. Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

An editor inserted the word "propoganda machine" for the live wire ANI. Now they are rattled. Thats the long story short TracyVaghmare91 (talk) 23:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I trust Jimbo. Not unconditionally, but enough to believe him when he says that the WMF isn't releasing identity data. Now it bothers me that he isn't being more clear than that, but I trust that he has his reasons. He did make the Wikipedia, and its principles, including this one. He's earned that trust. We can always riot if it turns out he's lying; but until then, I'm going to believe he isn't. --GRuban (talk) 14:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

The Indian government and courts need to be disregarded. If English Wikipedia gives in to nutty demands, than every government with an axe to grind will take a stab. Maybe someone from the incoming Trump Administration might make a similar set of demands about 1/6. Users in India are more than savvy enough to use VPNs to get around any sort of ban the Indian courts put in place. WP needs to stick to its guns. King Lobclaw (talk) 15:51, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

The Indian Govt has a single point agenda for Wikipedia, "bend or break". In this context the Supreme Court of India is now independently questioning if Wikipedia should be treated as a publisher instead of as an intermediary. Maimontradi (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia community +

I would like to propose to expand the scope to other projects and language editions. Ruwiki's community is VERY DEEPLY concerned by this case for obvious reasons. Le Loy (talk) 22:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

How about orchestrating signed translations? The list could then be compiled together. CNC (talk) 23:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I went ahead and did a translation into Spanish:

Desde la comunidad de Wikipedia, hemos seguido los eventos recientes del caso Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation con trepidación. En un mundo donde muchas entidades querrían controlar el contenido de los artículos de la Wikipedia, consideramos que la protección del anonimato es esencial para mantener una enciclopedia amplia, fiable y neutral. Nuestros millones de contribuidores voluntarios esperan que la Fundación les defienda contra entidades externas poderosas mientras trabajan, buscando un equilibrio entre lo que las fuentes disponibles han escrito sobre el tema.
En vista de ello, nosotros, los abajo firmantes, estamos profundamente preocupados por la posibilidad de que la Fundación esté considerando divulgar información privada sobre editores voluntarios al Tribunal Supremo de Delhi. Comprendemos las complejidades de las disputas internacionales legales sobre la divulgación de esta información, y apreciamos que la Fundación se oponga rutinariamente a la divulgación de datos personales y asista a los editores que se encuentran en peligro legal. No obstante, pedimos a la Fundación que priorice la seguridad y bienestar de nuestros voluntarios, aunque acarree riesgo de acciones legales contra la Fundación u otros costes. Cualquier otra acción se arriesga a tener un efecto paralizador en el trabajo de los voluntarios en todo el proyecto, y solo hace mas probable que presiones como estas puedan ser ejercidas en el futuro. En resumen, pone en peligro el futuro de nuestro proyecto compartido.

How should we go about sharing translations? Should we make a page on other language Wikipedias? Or add this to a comment box under the letter? --Grnrchst (talk) 14:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

One way is to shift this letter to meta, and then using the translation feature there. Then we can see a consolidated pool of signatures as everyone signs. Optionally, we then can apply for a central banner to push out the letter to all communities hosted on Wikimedia architecture. However it may lose the traction we see on local wiki projects.

The alternative is to host on local projects, use wikidata to link the translated texts together, and at a predetermined time, pool the signatures together somewhere on meta, removing duplicates. – robertsky (talk) 01:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm opposed to moving this letter to meta because many English Wikipedia editors (me for one) don't visit meta at all. The immediate situation seems to directly affect English Wikipedia editors, although broader support from other 'pedias is of course extremely welcome. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Is it not possible for meta to transclude from en wiki? Surely it should be. I agree with above comment that moving this letter to meta is a bad idea, as many editors don't use it and will likely be put off. Ideally meta wiki could do a meta-based job of collating transclusions of the letter's translations and signatures from different lang wikis to act as a central hub in a decentralized way (for the benefit of all editors of local langs), rather than centralizing this letter to meta directly. Thoughts? CNC (talk) 11:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@CommunityNotesContributor nope. the option is not enabled for wikiemdia wikis, I think for performance purposes. – robertsky (talk) 12:17, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

If performance related, from pulling data from different language wikis, then wouldn't the solution be to avoid live transclusions, and use an internal meta copy that is updated (from a transclusion) say every hour or so? Then at least meta would only be "live" transcluding from itself, rather than different sites, if that makes any sense? CNC (talk) 12:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

That's a discussion for the devs. There have been attempts to enable it, but nothing has transpired yet. – robertsky (talk) 12:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the English Wikipedia community would be more than happy to cooperate with ruwiki (and any other similarly situated communities, such as zhwiki), if they would like us to, on joint statements. I know I'd certainly be willing to do that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I have already created a summary page at French Wikipedia, and linked it via Wikidata link to the WP:ANIGATE page and started a section there § Other Wikipedias which I imagined would have a similar function with bullets per language. But the idea of moving it to Meta with inlinks from here and elsewhere seems like a better one. Ле Лой, please provide link(s) to the Russian discussions; I didn't see anything relevant in your ru-wiki history. Mathglot (talk) 05:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

It's not surprising that you can't see anything relevant because I didn't participate in any :-)
There is a big ongoing discussion on our news forum: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Википедия:Форум/Новости#Фонд_удалил_статью_анвики_по_предварительному_требованию_индийского_суда Le Loy (talk) 10:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Translation efforts aside, I think any interested persons should feel free to sign here, regardless of whether they frequently (or ever) edit here. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

+1. I have no objections to anyone who only edits other wikis signing the petition, and I would actually encourage it, as their opinion matters as much as anyone else's. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

+1. I'm tbh more of a wikisourcerer than of a wikipedian, and we tend to have less trouble than you do, but still, doesn't prevent us from sympathising. — Alien  3
3 3 20:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' Noticeboard Incident – Hindu News

Given this ani [[2]] the idea that users name will be published in India (given the threats) is highly troublaing. We have a duty of care. Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere that the Wikipedia users name will be published in the ANI suit. Under Indian criminal law neither "truth" nor "verifiability" are absolute defences to the offence of defamation (and its civil consequences, ie. damages). WMF has recorded a compromise in court that they will serve the 3 editors in question by email, what is not appreciated is under Delhi High Court's procedural rules in such matters where the noticee has not appeared before the court, the email service of notice has to be only sent from the email ID of the Court registry and not from the email ID of Wikimedia or Wikimedia lawyers. So Foundation will have to disclose the email IDs to the Court registry. This procedure cannot be termed as publication Maimontradi (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The threat is possed by the threats to publish users names elsewhere for the purposes of reprisal. One garnered from the court records. Slatersteven (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Categories for Times that 1,000+ Wikipedians supported something

New section so this doesn't get lost in § Almost 400 signatures. Heads up that my creation of the 1,100 category is up for discussion, along with the 1,200 category, so I suggest we all refrain from creating more of these unless it starts approaching 2,000 (!). — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email · global) 22:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Petition

Normally petitions are for the benefit of elected officials, in deciding what policies to support. Because in a "democratic" system, petitions matter, since "the people" have the vote, next election cycle, and can vote elected officials out of office. Otherwise, what is a petition other than bleating sheep.

Is this case something elected officials at WMF have a choice over? It seems like an external legal matter. Do the elected board members have access to all the information about the case? I think the petition should hold accountable elected board members, if that is appropriate. But if they are not the responsible parties, I don't see the point of a petition, except as a pressure escape valve. -- GreenC 16:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

There is no petition being signed here, rather it's an Open Letter to WMF (also to general people at large). Open letters are like expression of views whereas petitions are more structured way for demanding some actions to be taken or directions to be issued and are directed to a certain body, which then can accept or reject such a petition. `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 17:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh duh. It does say, "Open Letter". I saw somewhere it was called a petition (now can't remember). The letter does say "Nevertheless, we call upon the Foundation.." which is a demand for a particular action in regards to this case, I don't know how else to read it in full context. If it were a true open letter, it would rather say something like, "We the undersigned support a position .. ", but not going so far as "calling upon" the Foundation to take an action. -- GreenC 17:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

My personal opinion on this has been that volunteer community is overstepping at many places (should I say presuming too many future happenings). I have mixed feelings about this type of behavior at one hand we want to support those individuals who are at the receiving end of this and on the other hand maintain common sense and logic to prevail over personal interests and opinions that few other editors are making (pushing a pov of "Modi's India", bad judiciary, etc. etc.). So since platform welcomes community edits unfiltered I could only hope that more people learn than teach. Just a quick note, India despite being democratic country does not have petition procedures for any matters except for mercy petition for capital punishment, which in itself is last option those offenders have. So not all democratic societies have petitions. `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 17:59, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

A current watchlist notice says "There is a petition to the WMF", linked here. Certes (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I cant find the link `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 18:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-messages#Petition to WMF. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 18:36, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Got it, petition message leads to open letter -_- `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 18:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't accept the premise of the original post here. Certainly petitions exist or have existed in many types of society, including undemocratic ones. And who, if not the WMF, is making the decisions in this case? I would hope that they are not blindly following legal advice. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The gross total of edits

The gross total of edits these editors have should be calculated somewhere. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

About 50.9 million. —Cryptic 23:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Nice. I'm an old cobol programmer, so I've written my share of sql statements in my career. Are the tables that you extract this data from populated by the Wikpedia software directly, like when you save your edits? HandsomeFella (talk) 09:56, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes; documentation here. This is a bit off-topic for this page; I'd be happy to follow up on my user talk or at WP:RAQ. —Cryptic 11:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

WMF's policy

If it has already been in WMF's privacy policy before that "We will access, use, preserve, and/or disclose your Personal Information if we reasonably believe it necessary to satisfy a valid and legally enforceable warrant, subpoena, court order, law or regulation, or other judicial or administrative order", then I wonder if such open letters would make a difference and if it's worthy complaining at all. Besides, WMF isn't a Big Brother, collecting all possible user data, it can only collect the data provided by underlying user IP and user themselves who is presumably aware of WMF's privacy policy. So I think we shouldn't make big eyes out of fear. Brandmeister^talk 10:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

It's something to ask them not to choose. Just because one can doesn't mean one shall. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Huh, never noticed that before ... and if I had, I would have stopped editing the day that excerpt was written. Steel1943 (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm assuming you would withdraw from every online service that collects any data as well? Aaron Liu (talk) 17:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

That's impossible to do in this day and age with trackers almost literally everywhere, including on Wikipedia itself, so absolutely not. I have become a lot choosier in where my data gets revealed over the years; I had assumed there were some safeguards that the WMF implemented to protect its editors since that protects the integrity of this site, but that illusion of security has now disappeared. Steel1943 (talk) 17:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

All entities are required to comply with law. I read the sentence as "we will comply with court orders", which they can also appeal and battle before complying at the last moment as they have done with Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation and the reason why we still have no idea whether emails have been disclosed to ANI. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that since every entity is supposed to do that. However, the lack of clarity is put into play when international law is considered, especially when the entities in a lawsuit are from different countries. In such cases, there are multiple ways to respond to such lawsuits to resolve the lawsuit; the response in this specific case is unfortunate since even though WMF apparently has in writing they could do this, they didn't have to do this since there were other options which may have satisfied the lawsuit that did not involve providing user information. Steel1943 (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Legal ≢ ethical. I wish the WMF would make the right ethical decision, whatever legal advice they have been given. Lawyers only advise; the WMF decides. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I actually did read that fine print, but I always took it to mean that such information might be turned over to authorities when there is actual wrongdoing, such as child abuse. Not that it would be done in order to (perhaps) protect the WMF's rear end. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Anonymous speech is not guaranteed in the Indian Constitution. Free speech is only for Indians. Indian law, especially the old IPC and the new BNS, criminalises defamation as a criminal offence as well as civil tort. So the options for Wikimedia are very limited and we need to be very cautious to maintain safe harbour while avoiding criminal liability. On the other hand ANI has every right to pursue civil damages. To do that ANI needs a defendant and that’s where the three targeted editors come in. If we don’t provide the necessary info to serve notice on these individuals, the court may have to ban all anonymous Wikipedia content in India, including the Indian language editions provided by Wikimedia. I see a lot of negative comments against Indian judges on this page. Based on my personal experiences I can say that the Indian judiciary, especially the High Court, has a good understanding of cyber law and is very tech savvy. For example Indians all over the world can pay just 6 cents to download the entire digitised court file in the ANI case from the Delhi high court's website. I doubt if that’s the case in the US. Has anyone here tried to do it I wonder ? Maimontradi (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

IIRC court files in the US are free unless a judge orders something to be held sealed. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The San Diego Superior Court does not send out court files electronically or by fax. In addition, persons are not allowed to use cameras (including phones with cameras) to take pictures of the contents of a file. Maimontradi (talk) 06:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

That's the normal court, not the appeals court, the rough but still more local equivalent of the Delhi High court: https://www.courts.ca.gov/publicrecords.htm?rdeLocaleAttr=en Aaron Liu (talk) 12:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

At the Federal level in the US, PACER is pretty impressive and for reasonably popular cases, the Free Law Project's RECAP has free access to Pacer docs. I wish there was something similar / consistent across the states. Ravensfire (talk) 16:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The Delhi High Court isn't only a court of appeal, its primarily a court of original jurisdiction. I read that PACER is only available to authorised people (? lawyers) and is very expensive (like a paywall), while the Delhi High Court e-inspection is open to all Indians anywhere in the world to access at a token court fee of just 6 cents. So back to my original question, has any Indian Wikipedia editor accessed the official court file so that this open letter can be based on what the litigants have actually filed and not assumptions from the secondary reporting or what the Foundation condescends to share to the minions ? Maimontradi (talk) 21:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

1. Local appeals courts also hear quite a bit of original jurisdiction cases.
2. The PACER system only charges fees after one requests 300 pages within 3 months.
3. The aforementioned RECAP system is free, albeit an unofficial effort that has slightly less documents.
4. PACER and RECAP are only for cases that involve federal law. I'm not sure if Indian high courts are under territorial or federal jurisdiction.
Everything said in the secondary sources can and have been backed up by looking at the original case files. For example, the latest wave of anger directly quotes the court order. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

The Actual court order is quite different to what is reported in your link. let fresh summons be issued to Respondents No.2 to 4 through all permissible modes, including Dasti, and emails which are to be supplied by Defendant No.1.. This means that WMF will provide email IDs to the Court Registry who will serve summons on the the 3 users. Since Court has specified Dasti (hand delivery) too, WMF has to provide their physical addresses also. On Court website it is visible that exactly 5 days after that order the ANI has paid the summons service fees vide Diary No : 5326539/2024. This probably means that ANI also knows the names and IDs of the 3 users by now, as provided by WMF.Maimontradi (talk) 06:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

How is that different to what we've taken from it? The entire open letter was exactly against the disclosure of the identities of the users. People hoped that the WMF would deliver the summons themselves instead of disclosing names or any other "subscriber details". Aaron Liu (talk) 12:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Subscriber details will still be submitted to the court after issuing summons. (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 - Ratnahastin (talk) 01:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, exactly; that's what people are angry about! Aaron Liu (talk) 01:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

"understanding of cyber law and is very tech savvy. " - We can clearly see how it is using its " tech savvy"-ness to control the internet on behalf of the Indian state.[3] - Ratnahastin (talk) 10:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

"If we don’t provide the necessary info to serve notice on these individuals, the court may have to ban all anonymous Wikipedia content in India, including the Indian language editions provided by Wikimedia" — then so be it. It is a blatant pressuring of editors who just use reliable sources. BilboBeggins (talk) 10:36, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, people in sub section above this one are using confetti cause the signature reached certain numbers, Lol. WMF can still stand by and help editors in court cases, especially when the court examines whether their actions caused offence. Its a court case so should get decided in the court is what I believe and is what many on wikipedia are lacking in understanding. `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 07:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

It's an external court case. Many signatories want the foundation to cease operations in India instead of handing over the identities of editors. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

This talk page betrays a complete lack of understanding of the issues involved in the court proceedings

Y'all wasting your time on a longterm troll who just started another account. Drmies (talk) 02:45, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Scenario : An entity based in India perceives a Wikipedia article about them is "defamatory". They approach WMF legal and are asked to interact with the "community". The entity hereafter also relies on the Indian Supreme Court observations of October 2022 that "You can edit Wikipedia yourself" if you feel defamed and begins editing out the perceived defamatory bits. Along comes a very senior Wikipedia steward/oversighter and reverts their edits without any explanation. The entity's user/IP is also blocked to prevent further 'vandalism'. The aggrieved entity is then left with no legal remedy except to sue WMF (the primary respondent) and some of the other contributors (innocents misguided by Wikipedia's meaningless "policies" which have no legislative backing in any jurisdiction) for damages. IMHO, The fault is entirely WMF's for not putting in place the grievance redressal procedures mandated under India's laws so that aggrieved Indian entities can get their grievances redressed .. without having to interact with the verysame community and to adhesively accept WMF terms of use as a condition to do so. Similar news aggegators like Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc. have all complied and they have separate grievance structures exclusively for Indian persons. Indian courts are now increasingly admonishing WMF to either comply with Indian laws or not publish (be read) in India. I fail to see why an innocent wikipedia UNPAID contributor who adds a well sourced sentence or two to a Wikipedia article/page wgould be legally equated (by being sued) to the WMF which collects millions in donations from such unregulated websites. DrMees (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC) Wikipedia has exhaustive avenues to challenge content. They deleted content repeatedly from an IP without comment until they got banned. Never even attempted to use a talk page or even made an edit summary for why they deleted the content. The claim that they had no other remedies but to launch legal action against the WMF shows complete lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works. Photos of Japan (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2024 (UTC) 3 points. (1) Why should a hypothetical person aggrieved by defamatory (as they perceive it) content have to understand how Wikipedia works ? (2) Why should such a hypothetical person have to first agree to abide by Wikipedia's (legally meaningless) policies like WP:V, WP:NLT etc to complain or avail "community" procedures or else be blocked ? (3) Why does WMF not have an independent procedure like DMCA for removing defamatory content as it does for copyrighted content ? DrMees (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2024 (UTC) (1) Because the lawsuit would likely have been averted if they had taken ten minutes to write out something on the talk page to the effect of "I represent ANI, we have problems with X, Y, and Z." (2) WP:NLT exists because issuing legal threats - or really any sort of threat - has the effect of immediately shutting down any sort of reasoned discussion of the content on the merits. (3) WP:Contact us includes a link to the info-en queue for things like this if it requires discretion, and talk page posts similar to what I detailed in 1 work for matters that are not sensitive. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 19:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC) Since "defamation" and its variants are taboo for discussion on ENWP, attempts to engage are quickly shot down using WP:NLT with the aggrieved persons getting blocked and having TPA revoked. The info-en queue doe not work at all for such kind of matters with legal implications. DrMees (talk) 21:07, 28 November 2024 (UTC) No, discussing whether the content of an article is defamatory is fair game. Shutting down any such discussion by threatening to sue for defamation unless demands are met is a completely different ballgame and is counter-productive. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 21:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC) AFAIK, once having informed the publisher (WMF) at their designated address/agent for service, the complainant does not have to accept the suggestion of WMF to interact with the community of mostly anonymous editors, and can proceed directly to court. It would benefit all sides to have an independent body within WMF to decide these contentious issues. Otherwise we will keep seeing such types of lawsuits in India with its new laws. ANI's is not the first such one. DrMees (talk) 21:24, 28 November 2024 (UTC) Except the WMF doesn't publish the content. The community does. (The WMF is younger than Wikipedia.) It's like suing HarperCollins for an off-the-cuff comment one of its authors said in an unrelated forum. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 00:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC) Just because one party views it as defamatory does not mean that it is, in fact, defamatory. When it's supported by multiple reliable sources, it's unfavorable towards them but also well supported. Also, the "legally meaningless" policies aren't legal, it's a something that affects editing on Wikipedia and that's it. Sure, they can be ignored, and there are consequences here (and here only) for making that decision. Ravensfire (talk) 20:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC) You are both skirting the issues I have highlighted. eg. "Why ?" must somebody from India who somebody else in, say, Canada, has written about have to discuss this matter with the writers of the article ? Every reputed news publisher has an independent oversight mechanism, you can call it a self regulatory mechanism, so that aggrieved persons do not have to interact with the authors directly. The DMCA mechanism is one such efficient mechanism, which balances the rights of both parties to the dispute and leaves all legal routes open. Since 2011 the Govt of India has laid down a 3 level process for aggrieved Indian persons, the first 1 would be in-house within WMF (not Wikipedia) the 2nd level would be a formal internal arbitration style process before a retired judge along with 4 or 5 qualified and experienced media persons from the organisation or its self regulatory body - sample decision #1, sample decision #2 , and the 3rd level is before the very senior rank Govt officer who actually regulates the internet transmission of all publications in India, assisted with officers from other departments like internal security, information technology, womens rights etc.. WMF, unlike Google, Twitter (X) and Meta who have all complied, has not. Hundreds of Indian websites are compliant (including some very anti-Govt ones) so the only question is "WHY" the WMF has opted not do so so while building up its Indic language communities in India through proxies like CIS (Centre for Internet and Society) and holding conferences in India (2 in Hyderabad this year past) and getting substantial donations from Indian users - and instead chosen to throw its editor identities to the Indian court jurisdiction where they can be targeted by thugs from Hindu News. NB: Unlike the USA, anonymous speech is not privileged speech in India, as the publisher runs the risk and consequences. DrMees (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC) Sometime, way back, I had a copyright issue with WMF, it was ultimately resolved in my favour via DMCA after local communities went into their "Wikipedia is not Censored" shtick. Here is what WMF's then General Counsel wrote to me initially on the topic of "grievance officer" under Indian laws (Redacted). Reading this professionally, I decoded that it's better not to waste time on timesink community talk pages as the WMF suggested and instead use the legally prescribed methods directly with WMF to get my result over the community howling. DrMees (talk) 21:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC) wth WMF is shying away from legal responsibilities for wiki? the thing that made WMF what it is today :( I guess the case is going to tell how wiki will work in IN in future `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 22:38, 28 November 2024 (UTC) The fact that you tell us your version of this copyright issue story, and hide mention of any details that would allow someone to look up what you are referring to themselves, strongly suggests that your version of events is not credible and wouldn't hold up to scrutiny. If you want someone to seriously consider your lengthy post then you should stop hiding the supposed copyright issue in question and actually link to it. As far as your "why?" question asking why the aggrieved must "have to discuss this matter with the writers of the article ?", I would respond that they do not have to discuss with the writer directly. They do have to discuss with whoever in the community wants the content to be retained, but not the writer specifically. The reason they must discuss with the community is because the community is responsible for the editorial oversight of Wikipedia. Sites like Twitter and Meta moderate the content of their users, and are therefore responsible for the moderation of the content on their sites. The WMF does not moderate the content on Wikipedia. You state that: "Every reputed news publisher has an independent oversight mechanism" But the WMF is not a publisher, it is a platform provider. Meanwhile, Meta and X are in a legal gray zone and can be considered publishers due to their active content moderation policies and substantial role in shaping content visibility. Photos of Japan (talk) 23:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC) Photos of Japan has a point in light of this claim you make. A claim which happens to run afoul of WP:Biographies of living persons, which exists to kerb defamation via Wikipedia and so is very rigourously enforced on discovery. Let's also circle back to the email contents you posted, which you claim are from WMF Legal and which explicitly states that the WMF does not publish the content; the individual editors that commit each edit (specifically) and the community (in general) do. Your argument is that WMF is the publisher when even their lawyers are telling you that individual editors are responsible for their own edits. Now, part of the reason that people are up in arms about this lawsuit is because it looks, from the outside, like lawfare in the form of a strategic lawsuit against public participation - a lawsuit designed specifically to bankrupt targets to get them to shut the fuck up about the suing entity. There is a genuine risk that if ANI succeeds, other entities, in India or otherwise, will follow suit, hollowing out Wikipedia's editor corps, particularly in contentious topic areas such as India itself or in one of the other intractible ethnopolitical hellholes. This has a legitimate risk of damaging Wikipedia as a whole by making it harder to cover these topics without risking a legally-frivolous lawsuit. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 00:22, 29 November 2024 (UTC) WMF is to be blamed here for operating in an authoritarian country with draconian and hostage taking laws ("keeping three grievance officers in the country"). From now WMF should close down their operations in countries that do not respect freedom of speech and have no anti-SLAPP laws. - Ratnahastin (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC) Also noting here that DrMees displays a very high levels of understanding of Indian legal matters similar to the socks belonging to WP:LTA/IAC. - Ratnahastin (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2024 (UTC) Behaviour really doesn't match at this point, Ratnahastin. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v threads critiques 00:28, 29 November 2024 (UTC) https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/wikipedia-and-anis-defamation-suit/article68924317.ece Published 35 minutes ago. - Ratnahastin (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

WIRED – India's Government Wants Control of the Internet

https://www.wired.com/story/indias-government-wants-total-control-of-the-internet/ - This lawsuit is India's far right government's attempt at controlling the internet. By conceding to India's demands, WMF has forever damaged its mission. - Ratnahastin (talk) 10:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I like WIRED, but there's nothing that hasn't been already said about the Indian government (and journalism) at this point. Besides, I argue that the WMF hasn't conceded. Not yet. Carlinal (talk) 05:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

The terms of the consent order has following terms (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. C. It is made clear that service of summons in accordance with this order shall constitute sufficient service upon Respondent Nos. 2-4 (impleaded as Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 in CS(OS) No. 524/2024) and the Appellant's compliance is limited to effecting service as provided under this order and will thereby fasten no liability on the Appellant for Respondent Nos. 2-4's actions or inactions. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Respondent Nos. 2-4 will be at liberty to raise all defences available to them in accordance with the law in CS(OS) No. 524/2024. If WMF fails to comply now that the ANI has deposited the process fees, the only appeal route left for WMF is to the Supreme Court of India, which traditionally has been extremely reluctant to interfere with consent orders. There can be no further confirmation that either WMF has thrown the 3 editors under the bus, or has failed to give their correct details.Maimontradi (talk) 06:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

As the Maimomtradi said before, WMF has agreed to hand over the details to court within 7 days of issuing summons. Perhaps they have already submitted the details to the court or they will do it by 16 December. In any case, it is beyond certain that WMF will throw editors under the bus to save itself and not doing so would mean going against whatever they have agreed to in the court. - Ratnahastin (talk) 08:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Are there any updates on that? What is going on at the moment? BilboBeggins (talk) 10:38, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

"Others have challenged the 2021 IT Rules and filed petitions against the laws—including online publications The Wire, The News Minute, and The Quint, as well as musician T. M. Krishna."

This is from the article itself, so its (The WIRE) a party and interested party for that matter on this issue. Any internet company that carries business in, from and via India has to appoint local rep. who can be contacted and communicated not only by the government but by the common people for their grievances. So I am all in with GOI on this particular matter. It is similar to an EU law.

Aside from that, coming to ANI vs WMF case, it seems people here are doing the job of judiciary and the executive when they have exactly zero percent real power and authority to do so. In the SignPost article over this case it was mentioned under the heading "how Indians view Indian courts" iirc, as Indian courts take time and processes can last longer than 2-3 years, etc. etc. And they forgot to mention the Indian views- which is with respect and last resort for justice. Ofc all governments around the world abuse their powers for political gains and influences. This is so much true and evident with rise in right wing sentiments around western world than ever before.

I being an Indian citizen believe in the court to do just the justice and I am of an opinion that whatever Wikipedia volunteers choose to do it shall carry no bearing to the courts job. As per what I read- WMF has no office in India- itself seems little odd to me and would require legal scrutiny whether it should change that. Let me again repeat, online media that want protection as an intermediary need to have local rep. in India. If not WMF will be liable for actions even if its caused by a vandal. That is what I don't wish to see. Wiki for me as a High schooler was nice place to look up for info and articles for projects. Today now grown up, I believe it has drifted a lot from that, I hope Jimbo reads this. Pretty bad place to write it for Jimbo to see, but hope is everything I have, from wiki volunteers, from the court, from Jimbo and from WMF. Thanks! `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 21:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I choose not to reply to the rest of your points, but if you want Jimbo (who has little formal power over Wikipedia now) to read this then you can post at User talk:Jimbo Wales or ping him. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:57, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

"India has to appoint local rep... It is similar to an EU law." - India is not EU, it is an authoritarian country seeking to control the internet. An American organization like WMF has no reason to endanger their representative by keeping them in India. Even participating in legal proceedings for this frivolous SLAPP lawsuit was a dumb idea. - Ratnahastin (talk) 11:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

:::OP appears confused between WIRED.COM and TheWire. Not uncommon with these 2 cent Tweeter types. Directing him to Jimbo was a masterstroke.DrMees (talk) 00:36, 27 November 2024 (UTC) -- hush, sock. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

You were correct, I striked my wrong parts, but my sentiments about wikipedia volunteers and WMF remain the same. Also, reading the article I dont take WIRED article as fair assessment of the law and what's happening in Indian media landscape either. Either you can be an intermediary and avoid prosecution subject to new laws or the publishers and face prosecution when your publication gets used by wrong people. When I break traffic rules I should get a challan and when a big company's platform carries any illegal/ damaging material they should be let go due to legal lingo, NO. `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 05:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

WMF is not an Indian organisation and should not be expected to respect India's draconian laws. - Ratnahastin (talk) 11:57, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, but I am not active editor here so idk if I should be that visible `~ᴀɴᴋʀᴀᴊ ɢɪʀɪ🎇✨( C • Talk ) 05:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Almost 400 signatures

Almost 400 signatures signed by established editors and multiple admins. Perhaps it's time for WMF to make a statement on the situation. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Somebody tag WMFOffice please Djano Chained (talk) 14:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

400+ now. At the present rate of growth, I estimate we'll have 500+ signatures in a little more than ten hours, but it'll probably slow a bit, so make it twelve or so. In the last ten hours, we've had an average of 5 new sigs/hr. In the first ten hours after the signature opened, that was closer to 18. Cremastra (u — c) 15:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll get ahead and ask this, would there be a moment where we have to make a subsequent page or two of these signatures, to prevent lagging? I'm happy regardless of the wide support. Carlinal (talk) 15:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the precedents (WP:NPPWMF and WP:SOPA), I don't think that's necessary yet. Cremastra (u — c) 16:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

If you're concerned about page load time, the page size is currently about 65,000 bytes. There's a lot of room for growth. isaacl (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Now 800, which seems quite impressive. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Make that 900... and close to 1000, as I speak. wow TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 06:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

No Category:Times that 1100 Wikipedians supported something yet! Martinevans123 (talk) 09:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

That didn't take long... Martinevans123 (talk) 11:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉 Carlinal (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Martinevans123: note it's now up for CfD and I'm not going to create one for 1,200. — ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email · global) 00:47, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

1300 anyone? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll note there's been a discussion on the redundancy of adding a category for every 100 votes, and that a potential category of 1000+ is being considered. Maybe it's too similar to this other page of the same subject, but someone should've linked to this discussion already. Carlinal (talk) 18:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

No, see § Categories for Times that 1,000+ Wikipedians supported something. The 1100 and 1200 categories have been deleted per the closed CfD. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · contribs · email · global) 12:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Any updates on the case?

Or are we currently waiting for the first week of December, which is I believe what was previously mentioned for when the next decision or announcement is meant to happen, correct? Silverseren^C 23:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

In this case, this is the last update. Baqi:) (talk) 12:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Sockpuppet shenanigans

Title. I know a topic like this wouldn't attract too many puppet masters and vandals besides those with veteran experience on this website and/or are related to India and such but I can't believe we had at least two lengthy interactions with these bad accounts. It's minor in the long run but still incredibly stupid that it happened. They came in to make us look like fools and they got it, almost hook-line-and-sinker. Whether these discussions will be exploited I don't know, but it's another consequence I couldn't help thinking about. This talk page is semi-protected, but if the socks continue at this rate an ECP should do. Otherwise I'm just issuing complaints where appropriate. Carlinal (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Is it at all against policy or guidelines for anons/IP editors to sign the letter?

See this edit, and the subsequent reverts, etc. Just saying that it is true - nowhere in the letter does it state that only named accounts are allowed to sign. Seeking policy/guideline clarification & perhaps editorial consensus. - Shearonink (talk) 13:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it's more helpful to gauge community consensus by looking at the signatories who are established users, but I don't think that means we should be disallowing signatures from IPs or new accounts. In my opinion, anyone should be welcome to sign. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, if we gauge community consensus by looking at the signatories who are established users then we would supposedly establish that consensus to be that IPs can't sign it, purely because of the sheer number of "established users" who have. So i don't think it's helpful to do that at all. But since we allow guest editing, and AFAIR letters to WMF aren't under a CTOPS restriction, the answer seems pretty plain. SerialNumber54129 14:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I think we should let IPs sign, and not worry about it. It's not like there is any harm being done. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, we have a number of IP editors who are long-term established users with thousands of edits. They just never felt like making an account. Silverseren^C 23:30, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies to my query. I agree, just wanted to make the editorial consensus known, that IP-editors can continue to sign this letter in the future and not have their signature removed... - Shearonink (talk) 03:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. And by chance, today there was this edit by an IP, that I think was very helpful indeed: [4]. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment I think that IPs should not be allowed to sign. It is much too easy too change IP and sign again. Yann (talk) 10:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not really much harder to change IPs, create a new account, and sign again. There's only been 3 IPs sign anyways, 2 of which were editing before the petition and one of which said they can't be bothered remembering their name and password. Photos of Japan (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Open letter from Russian Wikipedia

Here. Всезнайка (talk) 14:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

I hope the WMF will take note, as editors in Russia are more affected by this than most editors of the English Wikipedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)