Wikipedia talk:2024 open letter to the Wikimedia Foundation

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2024 open letter to the Wikimedia Foundation page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 7 days

OK, I'll post the first comment to this pristine talk page: the phrasing the suggestion that the Foundation is considering disclosing identifying private information about volunteer editors could be tweaked a bit. However much we dislike the use of auto-translation software, this letter will almost certainly be run through such software, and constructions with multiple -ing forms where some are part of a progressive verb phrase and some are adjectival can make machine translators choke. GTranslate's French version seems to interpret this as something closer to "that the Foundation intends to disclose", for instance. While it isn't possible to get rid of all potential translator traps, this particular one could maybe be tweaked – I think that humans who are not fully proficient English users might also find the phrasing a little difficult to parse. Would the suggestion that the Foundation considers disclosing private information that would identify volunteer editors be an acceptable alternative?

I don't think this is a crucial issue, but wanted to raise it all the same. --bonadea contributions talk 15:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bonadea: I think this would be a good change. It doesn't change the content, but improves understandability. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, you are suggesting the sentence, "In the light of this, we, the undersigned, are profoundly concerned at the suggestion that the Foundation considers disclosing private information that would identify volunteer editors to the Delhi High Court." I think there is a bit of complexity around the use of "considers", as a typical use would be "that X considers Y to be Z", and so the sentence seems to be left hanging. Perhaps the wording could be something like "In the light of this, we, the undersigned, are profoundly concerned at the suggestion that the Foundation may disclose private information that would identify volunteer editors to the Delhi High Court." isaacl (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Isaacl: Good point – I agree. --bonadea contributions talk 17:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would [...]at the suggestion that the Foundation has considered disclosing private information, particularly the identities of volunteer editors work? 2601AC47 (talk|contribs) Isn't a IP anon 21:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think my suggested wording is more direct: the concern is that the WMF may disclose information. A "suggestion" that something has been "considered" is adding two levels of indirection, which doesn't sound as emphatic to me. isaacl (talk) 21:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On "Our millions of volunteer contributors". If we count worldwide everyone who made at least one edit this year, I guess that would be over a million and thus correct, but perhaps "hundreds of thousands" would be more on the mark. It's a minor thing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was some discussion over this in a previous thread. My take is that this is not just editors active this year, as bad players can request data relating to older edits, and even if the IP information has been deleted, the relevant e-mail address may still be linked. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd quite like to know why and only makes it more likely that such pressure will be exerted in future was changed to and makes it more likely attempts at such pressure will be exerted in future, because I think my version read better, was more grammatical, and had certainly received some signatures before the change. I'm going to change it back. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I made that edit. It was still marked as a draft at that time. Valereee (talk) 12:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The other thing I'd suggest is delinking Delhi High Court (the single blue link makes it stand out strongly), especially in the light of concerns that we should steer away from mentioning the Delhi High Court at all. @QuicoleJR: who looks to have added the link. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Delinked. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I have also delinked Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation. Not sure exactly when that got linked but I really think we should just leave the text alone now: it is not as if it provides any information. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd say it does provide some contextually interesting info. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Wikipedia:OPENLETTER has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 7 § Wikipedia:OPENLETTER until a consensus is reached. Sdkb ^talk 21:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have snow closed since almost everyone request for a disambiguation page: Wikipedia:Open letters. – robertsky (talk) 12:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

+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)[reply]

After decades of recklessly allowing editing by IP on Wikipedia, often grossly misrepresenting it as "anonymous", now that registered users are involved, knowing the IP behind a registered account suddenly becomes "identifying private information about volunteer editors"? What about the tenths of thousands of people which have been recording their IPs along their editions since 2001, many of them misguided by wrong information disseminated by Wikipedians themselves that it was some kind of anonymous access? Why was such a tremendous privacy & security breach allowed even in 2001, when it was already very well identified, and more important and urgent, why is it still allowed today now, 23 years onwards? Why isn't it immediately blocked? Apparently there are two classes of users, one that deserves privacy protection, and the other that can be sacrificed to judges, dictators and all kinds of harassers and stalkers around the world. Of course I agree that disclosing such information to a court should not be an option, but that must apply equally to registered and non registered users. Signing that petition for only one of the castes sounds like hypocrisy to me. Darwin ^Ahoy! 12:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there are two classes of users, one that deserves privacy protection, and the other that can be sacrificed to judges, dictators and all kinds of harassers and stalkers around the world.

IP editors face a gigantic warning that their IP address will be disclosed. They may use a VPN; better yet, they are encouraged to register. One of the core promises of registering is anonymity and non-disclosure f private information. Not to mention the progress on mw:temporary accounts already underway. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aaron Liu You are assuming that people that find Wikipedia have even some basic idea of what an IP is, which obviously is not the case. For heavens sake, even Wikipedians usually have not the least idea of what an IP is, or they wouldn't have been parading it as "anonymous user" for decades. As for VPNs, they are usually banned nowadays. And registration shouldn't be "encouraged", should be mandatory, until non disclosure of the IP address by non registered users is fully implemented. It should never have been allowed to start with, this has been an incredibly reckless behaviour from the WMF and the community for decades. Darwin ^Ahoy! 13:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with your average schmuck making an edit with their IP address? It's not connected to any doxxable identity; it's no more dangerous than walking on the street or having a home near other homes. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aaron Liu Please read the open letter, the problem of revealing ones IP address to a court is exposed there. Darwin ^Ahoy! 13:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking about people who don't know that an IP address is valuable personal information. These editors wouldn't be editing such topics close to Wikipedia, especially in our era of digital education. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aaron Liu I don't think you can make such assumptions, even more in an era which has been extensively described as of digital illiteracy rather than the other way around. It's absolutely irresponsible, reckless behavior, no matter from which angle one looks at it. Darwin ^Ahoy! 14:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the Asian News International article. The only IP editors were disruptive and reverted POV pushers. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aaron Liu: — Infact the whole reason behind this lawsuit is that ANI was whitewashing that article through their IP addresses , upon being reverted and getting the page protected, they filed this frivolous lawsuit. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of the letter is to criticize that hypocrisy on the part of WMF, who seems willing to break the promise of protection made to registered users when they signed up. "Anonymous" in that parlance simply refers to the fact they are unnamed, and, as mentioned, our wikis are exactly on the path to concealing the IP addresses of all users. Nardog (talk) 14:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nardog I just checked, and when I try to register an account there's nothing even near a "promise of protection" there. If at all, there is a "promise of no-protection", since all it says is that the username I chose will be publicly visible for all eternity. But you certainly would agree that calling "anonymous" to something that is the exact opposite of anonymity is at the very least quite reckless and irresponsible behaviour, be it part of the wikiparlance or not - the fact that such an absurdity and fakery managed to enter and establish itself in the wikiparlance only makes it worst. And I still don't understand why IP exposition on logs has not been immediately blocked yet, it's mind boggling. Darwin ^Ahoy! 15:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Why create an account?#Username and privacy, linked to within all system messages to Ips
Wikipedia:CheckUser#CheckUser and the privacy policy Aaron Liu (talk) 16:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On "anonymous", I think back in the early 2000s, it didn't have the connotations of "incognito", didn't have the implication of a hidden identity. Even today, Collins English Dictionary does not include anything about identity in its definition, only namelessness. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aaron Liu That's a rather extraordinary claim, and blatantly false. Anonymous means "without identification" for ages, and it already had exactly that meaning at the very onset of Internet when the anon.penet.fi service appeared, precisely with the purpose of anonymizing IP and other identifiable information on email headers. Darwin ^Ahoy! 16:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, my guess was wrong, then. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to the site you linked anon.penet.fi started in 1993, well after the onset of the Internet. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's way before the early 2000s—when MediaWiki was made. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm opposed to IP editing, at least without masking, so there's no contradiction. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused. Is the information that WMF might turn over already in the history of the article (IP and/or user names) or would it contain additional data? If all they are doing is showing the court how to find information that is already in public space then I'd remove my name from the petition, but would, of course, oppose any additional release of personal data. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, the information they want to provide is unavailable in article's history. When you register an account, your IP address is not publicly visible. They want to provide IP addresses of several registered users who edited the article, which would allow ANI to contact internet service providers of said users to identify them. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 13:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, the concern is that they may turn over information of registered accounts. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks for the clarification. As a journalism graduate (back when journalism sometimes meant accuracy and literal reporting) I'd say the concept of 'off the record' would apply here and reporters would go to jail to protect it (although, just to be clear to lawyers reading this talk page, editing Wikipedia is not 'journalism'). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As i understand what the court has ordered WMF to provide is Basic subscriber infomation. In a criminal context in the U.S. i think that is defined in 18 U.S. Code § 2703. I think, tho not at all sure, that the weak and outdated Electronic Communications Privacy Act might bar WMF from providing if the request were from an Indian law enforcement agency. That's at least according to Observer Research Foundation here—an Indian think tank arguing that law enforcement in India should have easier access to this information. Somewhat skeptical, possibly my aluminized attire askew, that based on the amount of data ISP's in India are required to collect and retain that a law enforcement agency or even the court would actually need WMF to provide this information and that it could not be obtained by other means. fiveby(zero) 14:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's also worth noting, in the context of this discussion, that WP:OUTING is a policy of the English Wikipedia. Our community extends important protections of personal information of registered editors, that simply do not apply to the IP addresses of IP editors. The outing policy exists precisely because we want to protect against just the kinds of retribution for editing that this open letter is concerned with. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP editing will be fixed very shortly. Probably within the next 6 months. Please see mw:temporary accounts. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So the Foundation are "reviewing" the agreement to disclose the IP and email addresses of editors to the Indian High Court. For heaven's sake! Can't you see them for what they are? A section needs to be added immediately to the open letter protesting at the rollout of "IP masking", which is anything but. IP editing is completely anonymous - when editors switch IPs there is no method of linking them together. WMF want to correlate all the IP addresses used by an individual editor, thus making it easy to identify them. An enquiry to an ISP might elicit a handful of names, and an enquiry to another ISP might elicit another handful of names, but under correlation the same name will appear in both lists - WMF HAS IDENTIFIED THE EDITOR.

The Foundation are desperately trying to conceal their activities. Go to [1] and check the reverts (identified in red). You will see that every time someone posts a warning they are immediately reverted and blocked. This has happened 19 times in the past eight months. The full extent of their activity has been carefully concealed. You have to go to another page to reveal it [2]. It was done ten times in the previous eight months. 31.51.214.104 (talk) 12:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Or the original retail price of an Xbox Series X if a person contributed a dollar each. I think we are entering the realms of 'a WMF reply is needed in some form' as the number of signatures continues to rise steeper above expectations. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 20:47, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether the Foundation is even aware of all this. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know either. What is the best way to make them aware? Cremastra (u — c) 21:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could post a link on WP:JIMBOTALK. Or something on WP:VPWMF. But I do think that Foundation staff are aware. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's 600. Cremastra (u — c) 16:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...and its getting to 700 now(should be mentioned)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple WMF people have responded at the village pump discussion that spawned this letter. They can't actually say what their plan is because they need to cooperate with the court. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If cooperating means revealing personal information of editors and leaving said editors open to lawsuits or worse, then I'd rather we cut India off from Wikipedia entirely instead. Those who want to still access Wikipedia can use VPNs or other methods, like others have to in their home countries. Silverseren^C 05:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The WMF should be willing to allow India to block access to Wikipedia, rather than give in to these unreasonable demands. The howl from the unhappy populace would be a huge Streisand effect. If they cave to India, then other nations will follow, including Trump. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People at the WMF should be aware of this letter, if they have any pretence to know what is happening on "their" projects, but has anyone told them expicitly? Otherwise I can't see this achieving anything. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't done so; tbh I have no idea how to go about doing it. I was thinking about perhaps posting a note to VP:WMF with an update either when it hit 600 signatures (currently 576) or when San Francisco might be coming on line, whichever came first. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody else does it first I'll try to find out the best contact (who may not be Jimmy Wales) later today. We are fast closing in on 600 signatories and only the really keen have got up yet in San Francisco on a Sunday morning. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! 600 is a good number (599 as I type). Agree the office might well be deserted on a Sunday morning, but if the court is meeting again tomorrow, doesn't most of the Delhi working day happen before San Francisco wakes up? Espresso Addict (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Ipigott put a note on Jimmy Wales's talk page earlier today to inform him that it was nearing 600 signatures, but there has been no response as yet; I don't think bludgeoning him is going to be productive. @Phil Bridger: Have you had any luck identifying a suitable member of WMF staff? Espresso Addict (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Espresso Addict: I also wanted to draw attention to the fact that according to this, some kind of hearing is scheduled on 11 November.--Ipigott (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet. I have posted at Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF), but that page says that the WMF do not accept it as a communication channel, and lists loads of stuff that should not be posted there but does not have a simple link to the correct communication channel. I presume that is somewhere at Meta. Does anyone know where? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I tried looking for an up-to-date WMF organogram that might give me an e-mail address to contact but drew a blank. As I've written elsewhere I just don't visit meta (the talk pages made my laptop hang). One thing that I think would be valuable to clarify moving forward is who to contact in these kinds of situation in future. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are now at 601. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, per the WMF-comments (+ Jimbo) at Wikipedia:Community response to Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation, I think they're aware. What they'll do with it is a more difficult question. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think atleast Jimbo has seen it as he responded to a comment by Seraphimblade mentioning this letter. [3] Ratnahastin (talk) 12:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to the question: 아니요. いいえ. Não. नहीं. Hayır. Ei. Hет. Không. Nej. Hі. Nei. Nee. Ez. Tidak. Nie. Óχι. Next question? SerialNumber54129 14:34, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I would think the Legal Department at WMF would be the part of WMF to contact. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James signed on to the letter just an hour ago here. Very significant support, imho. 2601AC47 (talk|contribs) Isn't a IP anon 02:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note there is a brief response from Jimmy Wales on his talk page this morning. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... read up on the Iron law of oligarchy _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not get into debates about the merits of hierarchy here. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In Russian Wikipedia, there always has been a consensus that we do not comply with government censorship. As a result, one Wikipedian is in prison, another Wikipedian is under policial supervision, and one more Wikipedian is prosecuted as a "foreign agent". Should we expect that the valiant Wikimedia Foundation would give IP addresses of Wikipedians to the Russian government, so that it can persecute even more people? Such a prospect would destroy Russian Wikipedia more effectively than all the efforts of the Russian government. Wikisaurus (talk) 17:05, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is already blocked with the Russian WMF chapter disbanded anyways, so probably not. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is already blocked – false. However, there were numerous warnings and it's likely it will get blocked in the near future, considering they already slowed Youtube to a crawl (blocked without technically blocking it). AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 20:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be a note where it says “If you wish to sign the petition, you should do so by adding #~~~~ to the bottom of the list” or something like it? Sangsangaplaz (Talk to me! I'm willing to help) 10:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there was when I signed it. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was removed in this edit. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did mention a #Preload link above.--Launchballer 10:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@QuicoleJR: (who removed it) to join this discussion. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because new editors kept copying the whole thing, code tags and all, and pasting those deformed signatures into the list. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a modified version of {{Meetup/signup}} that would do the trick here:

To sign this letter: Log in or create an account.

— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, actually, I forgot that I don't know how to avoid adding a linebreak before preloaded text, so it breaks the ordered list. Courtesy ping Czar, who made the original template (also FYI that changing the buttonlabel doesn't seem to work with the template as-is, which is why I didn't just use it above). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LiveLaw:

The Delhi High Court on Monday (November 11) closed an appeal filed by Wikimedia Foundation, which hosts Wikipedia platform, against a single judge bench's order directing it to disclose subscriber details of three individuals who edited Asian News International (ANI) Wikipedia page. This was after both the parties entered into a consent order and resolved the matter. The bench also allowed Wikipedia to serve summons relating to ANI's defamation suit upon the individuals who edited the news agency's page.

Sibal and Advocate Siddhant Kumar appearing for ANI exchanged their consent drafts with certain terms. The consent order was then accepted by both the parties with minor modifications from both sides.

Bar&Bench:

"I think we have made a lot of progress here. People have got identified in the process, they will be served within a week. What else can be there," the Court said while refusing to entertain other arguments being raised by the ANI.

During the hearing earlier, Advocate Sidhant Kumar, representing ANI, referred to a user’s open letter to Wikipedia about the case. ANI claimed that one of the signatory of the letter is an editor of Wikipedia who is going to be summoned in the suit. It was submitted that the letter contains comments about judges handling the matter and states that the Delhi High Court is not neutral.Upd Edit (talk) 14:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think LiveLaw is reliable. E_F⁵ 14:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, just to clarify.... It's now just too late. The identities of the three editors concerned have now been revealed. There is no point in anyone else signing the letter. And this page should be closed off? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If that’s true, then the WMF has officially failed its community, and this is just one in a row of questionable things they’ve done. E_F⁵ 14:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but almost 700 editors made it clear how they felt. So a nice warm and fluffy collective hug? Not just a big petulant frenzy. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We definitely need to be considering next steps now, rather than getting more people to sign. How would we go about closing the letter to signatures? --Grnrchst (talk) 15:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"It was submitted that the letter contains comments about judges handling the matter and states that the Delhi High Court is not neutral." That's not true. Both of these claims are entirely false. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So that would have been somebody in court, representing ANI, being "economical with the truth" or "legally inventive"? (Hope that doesn't count as defamation...) Martinevans123 (talk) 15:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also did say possibly misstating what's in the letter with the comments [on Wikipedia:Community response to Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation] (and maybe the talk page here) as well at Wikipedia:Community response to Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation#Court updates. – robertsky (talk) 12:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by my reading of relevant sources online, it would appear that the anonymity of our editors has been maintained for now. According to an article I found, the WMF is directly sending summons to the editors to avoid revealing their identities to ANI. Whether this will be effective or not, I am unsure. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. So the open letter is still perfectly relevant? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my question after reading this is how would the editors be able to maintain their anonymity in court? --Grnrchst (talk) 15:19, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Court may redact names from orders published in public domain, or allow advocate representing the editor to appear on their behalf. — hako9 (talk) 15:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I added the last sentence of my comment. I am not sure how the legal system in India works, but hopefully the editors can maintain their anonymity. We could always ask the WMF for clarification. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most legal systems require people who appear in court to confirm their identity? Perhaps the case would be heard in camera. But the principle here was release of information by WMF that could be used to identify people, not what an Indian court of law might then decide to do with that information? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Going to sound like a broken record, but as we yet again make clear, there's a conspicuous lack of expertise or understanding among Wikipedians about this case and the system in which it's taking place. We don't know the WMF's strategy (nor should we expect them to disclose it), and we don't know how these processes will play out. Certainly their lawyers have a much better understanding than any of us -- that I've seen, anyway -- what's involved in this delivering summons approach. Further, when ANI raised this letter, if the judge hadn't replied with a big "meh", who knows what kind of harm we may have done to the case. Maybe just stop making rash decisions or jumping to conclusions based on lay interpretations of partial knowledge of courtroom maneuvering, and stop trying to intervene in the case. Articulate certain clear principles that apply broadly (including to future situations) and rely on the context in which they arose (not to mention about 600k of text on this issue so far) to communicate its applicability here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's why you haven't signed? But I see that you thought it should have been wider than this case and wider than India. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the judge replied with worse than a big "meh", they would've ordered the release of private information anyways. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we don't have enough information to go off of right now. It's probably time for another update from the WMF to explain exactly what has happened from their end. I disagree about separating the issue from this case. This is the case we're concerned about and the case that will set the precedent. There's no benefit to being indirect or coy about that. The WMF is deciding right now whether Wikipedia will remain independent or if any entity mentioned on Wikipedia can reshape coverage with a frivolous intimidation lawsuit that puts real people in harm's way, and it's the decisions in this specific case that will determine where we land. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's the vibe I get from Jimbo's last comment. If the counsel is playing games with the court, they have to with us too, or otherwise they'd tip their hand and jeopardize their strategy. But whether they're actually willing to dox editors or not, they did censor one article for sure, and that alone is a cause for concern. Nardog (talk) 19:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a legal opinion... but neither is the letter. It lays out potential reactions by the Wikipedia community to be weighed by the WMF when deciding the best approach, but has no legal bearing on the WMF's actions and no relevance to the appeal. The justices were correct to dismiss the plaintiff's mention of the letter, one saying "Everyday you go to the social media, you will find all this,” followed by another saying "We can’t be defined by somebody who has his own views. We can’t either get moved by this or cowed by it. It is okay. People will have different perspectives of us" (from the Bar and Bench article). isaacl (talk) 19:35, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Jimbo's message below. Sincerely, Dilettante 19:41, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In light of Jimbo's message, clarifying that no user identities have been disclosed, I have edited the section header for this section. I struck through it, so readers can still see what it said when editors commented earlier, but I have changed it to the neutral "News reports". I don't want rumors to spread that the editors were doxxed by the WMF, when that is not true. I see no reason why the letter should not continue to remain open for more signatures. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. (But looks like it's too late for me to add those three rhetorical question marks and optional irony indicator. Never mind.) Martinevans123 (talk) 21:57, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has now removed the part that I struck through. For the record, the old header was "This letter failed". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The letter is addressed to the WMF, not the high court in Delhi or to ANI or its representative, so I do not think this section (particularly under its original title) is relevant. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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. More information will be forthcoming soon. Please share this message widely across all languages, because the facts really do matter here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. Sincerely, Dilettante 19:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jimbo. E_F⁵ 19:44, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you, that's very useful. No need for any more pure conjecture now. Just slightly informed speculation... (yes, only joking). None of us who have no experience of the Indian legal system should really comment at all, I suppose. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jimbo for clarifying, I look forward to hearing more from the WMF on this soon. --Grnrchst (talk) 21:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday's court order — (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. - Ratnahastin (talk) 11:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo, so...the court order does not match your statement? Lunar-akaunto／talk 14:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reports were correct. The Basic Subscriber Detail would include IP Address and Email. Note that the Hon' Court has also noted, Respondent No. I (ANI) 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. If editors do not respond to the emailed summons by appearing at the Court, ANI will request unsealing. Upd Edit (talk) 16:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find this answer satisfying. Now that the editors have been summoned as individual codefendants in this matter, it seems unlikely that the WMF will be able to shield their identities much longer, especially if the court ultimately finds them liable for libel. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Today's news

"Let summons be issued to defendants 2-4. The summons can be served through all permissible modes ... including email addresses to be supplied by the defendant 1 [Wikipedia]," the Court ordered.

The counsel representing Wikipedia clarified that the email ids will be supplied in a sealed cover. Wikipedia has to serve the summons in four days as per the court order.

https://www.barandbench.com/news/delhi-high-court-issues-summons-wikipedia-users-ani-defamation-suit Zubehamoreha (talk) 14:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was of the opinion that this letter has failed. The Hon' Court's order confirms it. The purpose of this letter was to prevent the disclosure of user-info even to the Court.

Founder Jimmy Wales assures us that no user-info has been (or will be) disclosed but I ask editors to think carefully about what might be the more probable of two alternatives: Wikipedia is lying to us to keep us pacified or Wikipedia is committing perjury at the DHC. Upd Edit (talk) 16:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is a dangerously reductive either/or dichotomy based on the most extreme possible assumptions of bad faith. I'm very disturbed about the possibility of the WMF disclosing these editors' details and oppose it wholeheartedly, but let's not act like we can nail down the WMF's motivations to the point of accusing them of maliciously lying. --Grnrchst (talk) 19:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly would not go as far as saying anything they've done in connection with this affair is "malicious", but at the same time, I feel we can equally not say that the WMF has been anywhere near open and transparent with the community. I wouldn't even go as far as to say that they have been forthright or particularly earnest with us even within the constraints under which they are currently working.

And at a minimum, there has been a lot of strategic verbiage that is clearly calculated to attempt to set us at ease that certain thresholds are not about to be crossed, even as the foundation's legal, operational, and fiduciary leadership has clearly been committed to the precise course of action of crossing those very lines. Such as repeatedly telling us (paraphrasing here) "no personal information of the involved volunteers has been disclosed", while conveniently leaving out the part that internally they have (clearly and unambiguously now, in light of their agreeing to the most recent order) remained committed to their chosen course of action of doing precisely that thing, in very short order.

Now, is that "malicious lying"; well that's certainly not the language I would choose to frame things with, but is it the case that the WMF is keeping faith with and being perfectly on the level with the community? Nowhere in the same universe, frankly. There is an increasing odor of the foundation leadership clearly trying to manage the community (rather than treating it as the WMF's partner in forming a strategy for how to approach the kind of movement-shaping decisions and highest-level priorities imputed here) in their entire approach to this situation.

Now clearly the WMF leadership anticipated being able to make the strategic decision to sacrifice the privacy of these volunteers without enough of the community noticing or caring enough to object (and felt entitled in their institutional roles to make that call without community consult), and when that did not occur, the strategy became tactical statements walking right up to the line of mistruth without technically lying, but certainly crossing the threshold of misleading. Now, I can't speak for the entire community, but I'm willing to put up with a certain amount of prevarication and tight lips, but at this juncture, the messaging is starting to feel disingenuous and frankly bordering on unethical.

Further, I feel that, consciously or not, WMF staff have leveraged the natural hesitation of the average person to weigh in on an active legal affair (an instinct that is understandable, reasonable and even respect-worthy), as well as empathy for the foundation's awkward posture between competing demands, in order to further subdue growing community concern about their chosen strategies and priorities, hoping to minimize community engagement (due or undue) until after these disclosures are irreversibly made. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And let me add that I think they've leaned on Jimmy's good name to the same hoped-for effect. Now I can't tell you how much personal respect I have for Jimmy--its probably as great as for any living person whom I have never had the good fortune to get to know personally. Nor can the weight of his perspective on such matters as these be easily dismissed. But when he's parroting the same "no info has been disclosed" line we are hearing from the the WMF, with the unsaid part of "but it will be, in a matter of days", as the (apparently stipulated) public court order clearly demonstrates, that is less than perfectly reassuring, and if anything only drags the founder's name through the dirt for no good cause that I can see. I appreciate that Jimmy feels that "You know my values, and I think this is the right call." is an argument that should count for something here. And it does. But bluntly, it is still not his call to make alone, anymore than it is the WMF's to make alone. The foundation is making decisions of eye-watering import to the future of this movement, the viability of this project, and the safety of its volunteers.

Sub judice principles or no, this community deserves a say in those decisions. And if the cost of complying with this particular Indian court's jurisprudence is that the foundation cannot consult the community on these decisions until the ship has already sailed and our "consultation" is retrospective and pointless, then that alone should be considered justifiable reason to withhold the kind of action being demanded by that court in this instance, with its profound implications for our institutional order, our movement values and goals, and the wellbeing of editors doing nothing more than volunteering their time and faithfully developing content in fidelity with this project's rules and mission. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with this and wonder what the foundation has to say about it. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. The stakes are high here. This isn't just about this one legal case; other authoritarian governments/courts will look at this closely. Cortador (talk) 09:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with much of what you said here, particularly that the WMF hasn't been as open about this as I would have liked. I was specifically pushing back against the false dichotomy this new (apparently single-purpose) user has presented us with. I think we should be firm about what our position is with the WMF and be critical of their actions when we feel they are wrong (as we have been), I just don't think we should be assuming bad faith. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, if they do push forward with disclosing user identities to the court, I think that would be a massive violation of trust by the WMF. As of today, that hasn't happened yet, so I'm still trying to hold onto some hope that they'll do the right thing. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's understandable. However jaundiced and skeptical my sentiments may seem, I'm in the same boat with you there: I'm trying to hold out hope. It's just that the known facts would seem to present a vanishingly small chance that the WMF is not preparing to release that information. Here are the only scenarios where that seems possible, given what we know of the WMF's known positions going into the hearing, and the order which resulted from it:

First, it's technically possible that the WMF was prepared to provide service to the volunteers in question at the court's direction, but not to disclose volunteer identities without their consent, and went into the Nov. 11 hearing with that proposal in hand. Now, if the court then adopted that approach but added the specific orders as to delivering the names to the court under seal and plaintiff being free to motion to receive that information, it would not be the first time a lawyer walked into a courtroom with a plan of action, only to have the court adopt their proffered solution but in a way that vitiates the attorney's ever goal. Every trial attorney who practices long enough will run into that kind of legal equivalent of a monkey's paw. In that scenario, we might have hope that the WMF, upon receiving the final version of that order, was immediately opposed to it and is merely taking time to prepare its counsel with as much cushioning as possible because their rear ends are about to meet the type of boot that can only result from a panel of unhappy justices.

But here are the reasons why that is almost certainly not what happened/is happening here, unfortunately:

a) That's just not how modern courts or service work. At all. No court (especially a court of this stature in this particular legal system) is going to just take it on faith that a party served their co-defendants without proof of service. It just raises far too many issues regarding due process and the various procedural and substantive rights of the parties. It strains all credulity to believe that any attorney who is even one-tenth competent and practicing at this level would ever believe that any Indian court of law (let alone the Dehli High Court) would agree to that. And I think we can safely presume the WMF is springing for top shelf talent in their associate counsel on this one.

b) We already know for certain that WMF's counsel had proposed delivering the PII under seal. That is a big part of why I have been un-reassured by the WMF's attempts at re-assurance here. Because had the court taken them up on that offer, that would be have essentially meant complete capitulation on the disclosure issue. And that's a point I think the average community member might have missed here: that seal is worth next to nothing in these circumstances. A court that receives information under seal (and any court which presides over it, and often by similarly-postured courts with which it is in domestic comity) has discretion to release that information.

And from the context of the previous rulings and orders here, I think it's pretty clear this court would almost certainly disclose that information at some point--and probably close to immediately, as the plaintiff will most assuredly move that it is entitled to that information in making its case. Again, it's pretty impossible to believe the WMF's counsel was in any way unaware of this at the time the offer was made. Which means that their previous offer of sealed disclosure can't even really be accurately described as a compromise; it was effectively just disclosure. And the WMF was known to have proffered that "solution" even before the Nov. 11 hearing.

I could go on for a bit about those things which don't seem to add up if the WMF was really preparing to defy the order, but honestly the above is pretty dispositive in itself: much as we may want to AGF on this question, there's just no place for that good faith to flow at this point. The WMF seems to have definitely been planning to disclose that information to at least the court: I just can't see any realistic alternative, based on what we know for a fact here, and I've thought long and hard on this trying to find one. Now, that does leave one possibility open: the WMF was planning on the disclosing the PII, including as recently as the 11th, but the community's response has caused them to re-evaluate that position. That's the slim hope that remains, for me. But at this juncture, I'm very dubious about the prospect of leaving that entirely to chance. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 14:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, Jimmy's update from 11 November remains true – no user information has been disclosed and the Foundation is reviewing the order that resulted from the hearing.

For those who are new to the conversation, you can find some context on our privacy practices, including the Legal Fees Assistance Program, in our previous update on the case. --Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 09:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let’s hope that the WMF is being truthful about this, I think the last few years have shown that community trust isn’t something that y’all highly prioritize. E_F⁵ 14:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, I completely disagree with this characterisation. The WMF has worked hard to gain and retain trust, and many in the community have specifically called out the legal team as having done a great job on this. "Let's hope that the WMF is being truthful about this" is a failure to assume good faith - you're raising the possibility that the WMF has, contrary to our longstanding values and interests released private data and might be lying about it. That's absurd. This is a critical moment, a lot of things are on the line here, and good people are working very hard on it. Inciting conflict within the community about this isn't going to help anything.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Quiddity (WMF): The issue here, for a significant number of editors, was never that the information had been disclosed. It's that the WMF is even entertaining disclosing the information, in any way, under seal or not, in response to an obvious SLAPP suit. It doesn't matter that you're offering to pay the legal fees of the editors in question. When their names become public, which is entirely likely to happen if/when you reveal their identities, per the court's own consent order, that can never be undone. And their names being public will be public - they may face personal or professional repercussions beyond the legal case for their actions. And the WMF seems to be oblivious to that fact.

The WMF should never have even considered revealing editor personal information in response to a SLAPP suit, regardless of the financial/availability ramifications that it may entail. Period, full stop, end of discussion. The fact you're still trying to defend the actions so far is appalling and absurd. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 10:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a number of facts wrong, but let me re-iterate what I have said elsewhere. It is completely valid for the WMF staff and board to examine and explore every avenue. Serious people should make decisions in a serious way, which means: lay out for me all the possible options, the ramifications of each, the possible modifications of each, so that we can make a fully informed decision. If your criticism is that this sort of serious process is being followed rather than a wild "fuck you" to the court, I'm sorry, but I find that entirely unpersuasive.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me what facts I have wrong. The WMF lawyers agreed to release the editors information under seal to the court in the consent order. That is unacceptable, period. So unless you’re prepared to say that the WMF lawyers perjured themselves with that consent agreement… you don’t have the consent of the editors. And you shouldn’t imply the WMF can choose to throw them under the bus, no matter for what reason. Implying that I am unserious is a violation of multiple Wikipedia policies, and I encourage you to stop implying people are unserious just because you disagree with them. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 11:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please stop shouting? Jimmy seems to be doing the best he can with what he feels he can say, but he isn't actually required to answer to any of our satisfaction. There may be some reason to consider reading between the lines. Valereee (talk) 12:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that you were unserious, and I am not sure where you got that idea. I said that the board and the WMF staff, the people actually in the hot seat making decisions are serious people. I think the idea that you seem to have about what happened in court, suggesting that I am saying the lawyers may have perjured themselves shows a lack of understanding of the details of the situation. You might be well advised to consider that you don't know what you think you know. I also don't have any idea what you mean about the WMF throwing people under the bus. Nothing I have said has suggested that - the opposite actually. Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of confusion over the WMF counsel clarifying that they'd supply emails in sealed cover to the court. I understand if you can't clarify that, but it is what's troubling the community right now. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not wanting to fall afoul of WP:PROJSOCK, but would it be reasonable for I (a long-term contributor who is a little worried about having their identity tied to this open letter) to use this newly created privacy alt to sign? Privacyalt 25ec798ee (talk) 14:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not my area of expertise, but... As anyone who edits mainspace at all is affected by these issues, "A legitimate undisclosed alternative account is permitted to contribute to project space discussions that directly affect the account" would tend to suggest that you are permitted to sign under an alternative account, as long as you warrant that you haven't signed under any other account? Anyone disagree? Espresso Addict (talk) 14:13, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was my reading too, but I'll let some more people weigh in on if they think its okay. As for warranting that I've not already signed, I've not and have no intention to with anything other than this account - I've no interest in falsely bolstering an open letter which already has well over 700 signatures! Privacyalt 25ec798ee (talk) 14:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to be really safe, email arbcom-enwikimedia.org and declare the connection there. NightWolf1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 14:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, email Arbcom. If yer lucky, they might reply before the case is over. SerialNumber54129 16:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can experienced editor Bishzilla sign letter? bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 15:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

I think not, because although you are an experienced editor, you are also a giant hungry monster and might scare away potential signatories. Cremastra ‹ u — c › 20:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. Socks are only a problem if you use them to deceive other editors, which you would not be, assuming you don't do anything else with this alt. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm normally against letting people use socks for project-space work, but I think this is certainly a case where we should ignore that rule. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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} 18:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a decent overview, but I think they miss the most critical point. If WMF caves once on this stuff (which they already at minimum partially have), everyone will start doing it. If you can get unflattering information (even if well-sourced) removed from Wikipedia just by filing a defamation lawsuit, that's going to become awfully attractive to people. And even if they ultimately lose their case, if they still succeed in having it removed for years until everyone more or less forgets about it, they've still ultimately gotten what they wanted out of it. It's never just this one time, not in the end. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

100%. This case will be a precedent setter, whichever way it ends up going. --Grnrchst (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it even matters how it ultimately ends up going. If they've succeeded in getting stuff they don't like removed and intimidating other editors from touching the subject at all, they won, even if the court ultimately finds the case meritless and tosses it. I'm not sure they even particularly much care what the ultimate verdict is, they're getting what they want already. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:30, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They've started already. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So much for WP:No legal threats. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. That policy is essentially now tissue paper for purposes of preventing disruption on articles that touch upon controversial Indian political, religious, and social issues, if the WMF continues on its current policy trajectory. In fact, NLT blocks can (and make no mistake, will) be used as fodder in the flood of SLAP suits in Indian courts that waits just over the horizon of that chosen course of action.

And once potential litigants realize this, they will actively press the limits of aggressive legal threats, knowing it to be a win-win scenario for them: if they can intimidate compliance through legal threats (which every editor will have to take much more seriously, knowing the precedents being formed in Indian courts and the WMF's willingness to comply with violating their privacy on demand of those courts), then wonderful, from their perspective. And if they can't get immediate compliance and are instead blocked, that's almost as good for them: grist for the mill of later litigation. Historically, only the tiniest of tiny fractions of legal threats were ever credible or acted upon. That paradigm is about to shift in a major way, as a knock-on effect of the WMF's questionable overall strategic response to the current dilemma. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with everything you've said here 100%. This is dangerous territory of censorship and intimidation that we're moving into. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not even just legal threats either. They made pretty transparent threats of physical violence against editors they don't like. This is exactly the reason we need to hold firm about the defence of Wikipedia editors' anonymity, for their own safety. Disclosing user identities doesn't just put them at risk of legal action, it puts them in danger of assault. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It does not mention the fact that there is an infact a court order which clearly orders WMF to hand over subscriber details to court and if deemed necessary single judge may also grant those details to ANI. WMF has left editors to fight this case on their own now. - Ratnahastin (talk) 01:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The watchlist message for this open letter had expired today. I haven't seen any prior discussion mentioning a specific timeframe for the message, and given that the petition is still open, should the duration be extended further? If so, until when? Liu1126 (talk) 11:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it's needed.--Launchballer 11:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support extending the duration. It should stay up for as long as the open letter itself is relevant. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liu1126: According to this new Bar and Bench article, Wikipedia has four days to serve these users with summons and the matter will be next heard on 16 December. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason why we can't extend it at least for those 4 days. Can someone do this? I believe we need to send the strongest possible message to the Foundation that we the community are genuinely concerned for the safety and well being of the three editors in question. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the watchlist message has been extended to the end of the month, thanks to a request by QuicoleJR. We can revisit this if the situation persists beyond that time. Liu1126 (talk) 15:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After going through the Division Bench order, Justice Prasad [who is hearing the defamation suit] ordered the High Court Registry to comply with the mandate of the consent terms recorded in it.

"Let summons be issued to defendants 2-4. The summons can be served through all permissible modes ... including email addresses to be supplied by the defendant 1 [Wikipedia]," the Court ordered. The counsel representing Wikipedia clarified that the email ids will be supplied in a sealed cover. Wikipedia has to serve the summons in four days as per the court order.

The matter will be heard next on December 16.

-- https://www.barandbench.com/news/delhi-high-court-issues-summons-wikipedia-users-ani-defamation-suit

I understand that there is fog of war and we need to trust WMF but we can be certain about at least one thing:

WMF IS DISCLOSING THE EMAIL ADDRESSES OF THREE EDITORS TO THE COURT IN A SEALED COVER.

Upd Edit (talk) 13:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thats in the news. Thats so sad Zubehamoreha (talk) 14:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Can anyone reveal the significance of revealing the email addresses to the court in a "sealed cover"?--Ipigott (talk) 15:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It means the identity of the editors are not made public. Zubehamoreha (talk) 16:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  For a while Zubehamoreha (talk) 16:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It means that technically only the judge and court officials get to see them. But I don't think any of us trust the court in question to not have someone leak the information to the prosecution regardless. Not with the influence ANI clearly has (being a government propaganda outlet) on the entire Indian court system. Silverseren^C 22:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search for "sealed cover" finds loads of information about manhole covers and this, which appears to be a blog from an education provider. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The recent development is quite depressing and frightening. Concerning their safety, one editor I spoke with today decided to stop editing Wikipedia. Zubehamoreha (talk) 14:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the community is to take action on a last ditch effort to force a turn of approach from the WMF, it will need to be now or never. In truth, the substantial levels of disbelief that the WMF was truly preparing to cross this line, even as the evidence has mounted, has very likely stalled action for too long as is. But I think we should rather be motivated to use the time that is left to put our collective will to the purpose of trying to forestall this wrong--as indeed, all indications so far are that the community overwhelming considers this course of action, both ideologically and in practical terms as regards the future of the movement to be a wrong. Rapid and broad community engagement is called for, with concrete proposals launched with close to as much alacrity and intensity as was called for during the PIPA/SOPA crisis.

I can contemplate at least a few potential protests actions that might fit the bill here, though each has it's trade-offs. Another blackout of the site is one possibility, though I grant that wielding it against an organ of our own movement is a peculiar thought. Still, for maximum exposure and public pressure, it probably has no comparison. A work stoppage would be a more measured, but still non-trivial message, especially if it is framed in terms that make it likely to continue well after the date of disclosure, if it occurs, and a substantial enough portion of the heavy-lifting community signs on. Another similar option is a disengagement/retirement pledge that if the WMF complies with the order, we will retire our activity immediately and indefinetly (whether with specific conditions to reverse that action or not). Again, with enough support, this could very well send the message to the WMF Board and other senior leadership that they are about to embark upon a defining mistake in the history of this movement. I am already commited to that course of action, personally, but I know it is no trivial ask for the vast majority of us, who take great pride and gratification from what we have accomplished here over the years. But I consider the WMFs plans to be a grave error that betrays the values of the free knowledge movement and the trust of this and our sister communities, and puts the principles upon which we have built all of our accomplishments here at grave peril, and the safety of our fellow community members at risk--and all at a moment in time where we very much need to be standing up to the forces being brought to bear against free speech and free knowledge, as an increasingly global and universal matter.

Speed is of the essence, and every corner of the impacted communities should be presented an opportunity to debate what, if anything, is to be done in the unknown amount of time before the WMF may comply with the order. I recommend any further discussion and proposals should be taken to WP:VPR, the most central and appropriate of the high visibility fora on-site. Those of you with engagement on other Wikimedia platforms, be they Wikipedias of other languages or sister projects of a different strip, should engage there as well. Meta, needless to say, may become the coordination hub between community responses. I know there will be some of you, even on this page, who continue to feel it is not in our remit to try to force our preffered outcome here, or that we should continue to hold out hope of an unprompted change of internal approach to this crisis at the WMF. We should all strive to respect such differences of opinion, and welcome input in any resulting discussions. But in the absence of a dialogue from the WMF before this act is done and the bell impossible to unring, I am quite positive that we need at least as close to community-wide a discussion as we can muster, so that we may be certain, when all is said and done, that we did not shirk responsibility in this moment. My friends, to each of you I ask that you speak your conscience at this time. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 15:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would support any reasonable action to protest the revealing of editors' identities. We need to come up with something quick. I like the idea of a strike, but I'm unsure with we could get enough editors on board to make an impact. The blackout also sounds like a good idea. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP dont give a heed to the open letter. They dont think twice to save their head. They throw the editor straight under the bus Zubehamoreha (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+ 1. Since most people just come to Wikipedia to read, a mass strike won’t generate any attention, a Wikipedia blackout would get our cause where we want it. E_F⁵ 16:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A blackout for the most used version of Wikipedia is for sure to get lots of attention even outside of the community. Support a blackout. Also support strike if we don't do a blackout. fanfanboy (block_talk) 16:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree WP:VPR is a better place for this. Snow Rise, I empathize with your position. I do know from experience that if such a thing (whatever form it takes) is to succeed, brevity of statement is going to be needed. I don't mean to criticize the length of what you wrote above. Rather, as a formal proposal, it will need to be brief and to the point if we are to get rapid engagement and agreement. I think getting people to retire to send a message will be too slow, and not get enough engagement. You might get a handful, including me, but it won't be enough. A black out of the main page is effective and can likely get enough support in a short amount of time. The blackout will send tremors throughout the net. A few resignations will not. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While the SOPA blackout ended up being a failure, this one could 100% be different, as a lot of attention is on the issue. E_F⁵ 16:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was the SOPA/PIPA blackout a failure? IIRC, those laws ended up not passing in Congress. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought so? I wasn’t around when the blackout was carried out. E_F⁵ 16:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EF5, after several Internet sites did their blackout and encouraged people to contact their Congresscritter, their switchboard damn near got melted. SOPA/PIPA became toxic, even some of the sponsors of the bills dropped them like hot bricks, and they were left to quietly die. So, yes, those blackouts most certainly worked. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Melting Congressional switchboards can backfire. For example the recent Tik Tok advocacy. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having made my appeal here, I am quite happy to leave the drafting and posting of the immediate proposal on VPR to others. I would only urge that it should go up sooner rather than later (as in, within an hour, not hours). Equally, having been the one to make this call to action, I am happy to draft the proposal myself, with a drastically reduced footprint over what I have said above, so that it is my name and skin attached to the initial action. I'll wait a little bit to get input, either way.

Regarding the choice of action, I am in agreement with the emerging consensus (so far) that a blackout is the most efficacious and appropriate option, particularly within the time constraints we are now working with. However, it is also the course of action which may face the highest probability of objections from some corners of our administrative establishment. Community will may need to be large and resolute in order to overcome such objections, but the response so far is encouraging. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 16:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some good suggestions here for how this blackout screen may look like, if this really is not enough. 2601AC47 (talk|contribs) Isn't a IP anon 16:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(notified Jimbo) 2601AC47 (talk|contribs) Isn't a IP anon 16:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We need to make sure we have a couple of paragraphs explaining the situation in the blackout screen, so that all relevant information gets out to the public. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree VPR is a good place, also that brevity is needed. A few editors going on strike or even resigning advanced permissions isn't going to be noticeable, but are we technically capable of blacking out the site? Espresso Addict (talk) 16:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think all we would need to do is get community support, and the interface admins could take care of it. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is pretty clear that an RFC should be started at VPR to gauge community support for a blackout. Such an RFC should be widely advertised in the same way as the open letter itself. Can someone more eloquent than me please start the RFC? Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 16:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should keep the RfC short and sweet and link to background reading if people want to know more. Time is of the essence so we need to make !voting easy.

How about something along these lines?

As part of the ongoing court case,Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation, the WMF has received orders from the Delhi High Court to disclose personally identifying information of editors in a sealed cover letter and is considering complying.

Should the English Wikipedia blackout all or part of the site in protest of this?

• Option A: Yes, the entire site
• Option B: Yes, but only the main page
• Option C: No

Sincerely, Dilettante 16:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That could very well work, and would fit with WP:RFCNEUTRAL. Not sure about a multi-option RfC, a yes/no choice would be better and wouldn't lead to WP:COLOROFSHED. We need to get consensus for the blackout now and then figure out the details if we have time, rather than doing everything at once. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, IMO we should cut B and leave it as a yes/no on blacking out the whole site. I'm not sure what a Main Page-only blackout would accomplish that a whole-site blackout couldn't do better, and a simpler RFC would be better here. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that a blackout of just the main page will be in any way effective to curating the kind of word of mouth we want here. Furthermore, having two yes options will split the !vote and complicate discussion considerably. If somebody wants to propose the blackout of the main page as an independent matter, that is another matter, but I think the main blackout proposal should be a site-wide one, and should involve a straight support/oppose !vote. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 16:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also while I fully recognize that the type of verbosity I have deployed above in my appeal is not a great fit for the formal proposal, I do feel we need some degree of preamble to contextualize matters. Substantial portions of the the community will be made aware of the facts here for the first time today. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 16:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That goes in the first !vote, usually. The RfC statement is required to be brief by WP:RFCBRIEF. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the comments above that it should be a yes or no !vote for a site wide black out. No need to make things more complicated. fanfanboy (block_talk) 16:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Option D: Wait. Valereee (talk) 16:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since the WMF is to disclose the identities in the next four days, that's equivalent to option C. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not, though. What is "complying"? Valereee (talk) 17:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't making a blackout of the site kind of destroy the argument that the foundation is just an intermediary? I'm as concerned about all the privacy implications here as anyone else, but I don't see how making it harder for WMF Legal to do their jobs to fight this in court would be helpful to our cause in the long run? Maybe I'm missing a piece of the puzzle here? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand. The foundation is still hands-off regarding the site's content if the community decides to implement a blackout. isaacl (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also noting that the link points to the wrong section of the page. Proposing a revised version based on the feedback:

As part of the ongoing court case Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation, the WMF has received orders from the Delhi High Court to disclose personally identifying information of editors in a sealed cover letter and is considering complying.

Should the English Wikipedia blackout all of the site in protest of this?

• Option A: Yes
• Option B: No

Please let me know if anyone has objections with this formulation before it is posted. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No objections. RFC time. 2601AC47 (talk|contribs) Isn't a IP anon 17:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, implementation detail: RfCs usually last either for 30 days or until consensus is clear. For obvious reasons, we do not have 30 days, and it might be the case that we won't have an extremely clear consensus early on. Do we fix ourselves a deadline for closing, as the identities might be revealed at any time during the next four days? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:58, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say 24-48 hours, hopefully closer to the former than the latter. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That can work, and should be noted in the RfC. Exactly 24 hours or exactly 48 hours is good as it doesn't advantage any specific timezone – it's currently evening in India, so a RfC that runs from night to night would work well and give editors there a full day/a full two days. I'd say close after 24 hours if there is an obvious consensus, otherwise after 48 hours either way. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There should also be some way to let editors know about the RfC, like a watchlist notice or something like that. fanfanboy (block_talk) 17:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlist notice, WP:CENT, and cross-posting it everywhere we cross-posted the petition. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would encourage no or little more than 24 hours. The WMF may be planning to disclose the information sooner and could conceivably even advance their timeline if they decided to obviate the action. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 17:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, precisely 24 hours should do it. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• As far as I can see, the contributors' email addresses, etc., are to be revealed over the next four days. I have already suggested we should wait for further explanations on all this from Jimbo Wales and the WMF lawyers. The "sealed cover" approach may represent the kind of protection we are asking for. But we now really do need explanations as soon as possible.--Ipigott (talk) 16:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure if waiting for further explanations is the best course of action, as we might not get them in a four day timeframe, or we might get them too late for an organized response. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Unfortunately for our timeline, no attorney of the caliber that will be employed by the WMF in this matter will be looking to respond on the last day of a court's deadline in a matter such as this. We must assume that disclosure may come at any time now and act accordingly. In any event, I think we have received abundant and consistent indications from the WMF that they are not prepared to say more than they have at this time. Unfortunately, in light of their counsel's also-consistent in-court statements over recent days, I do not feel we are any longer in a position of giving them the benefit of the doubt if we are going to have any realistic chance of forestalling their apparent plans for disclosure. Indeed, giving them that benefit repeatedly so far is what has put us so far behind as the hour of this matter grows late. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 16:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The "sealed cover" just means it doesn't become public knowledge. They still give the info to the court, and the editors still have to appear in court on defamation charges. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If a petition with 800 signatures didn't convince our legal experts to change their strategy, blackmail is unlikely to help. Which means there is no urgency here. Honestly we can't really even know what their strategy is at this point, because it would be silly to make it public. Valereee (talk) 16:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  "Honestly we can't really even know what their strategy is at this point, because it would be silly to make it public." Except if that public indication was in court, today, and made by their counsel. I think you might not be up to date on today's developments? To be perfectly blunt, the "We don't know if they are really going to do it" argument was already on life support for a while now. But there can be very little doubt as to their intentions at this point, I feel.

  In any event, the court has given a deadline of four days (three now, really, and no attorney on this matter is going to wait until the 11th hour to file their response. Our time is up, we act now, or not at all. And I object to your classification of this course of action as blackmail, and, meaning to personal offense, seriously question your reasoning that this course of action doesn't have our best chances of impressing upon them just how opposed this community is to their chosen course of action and it's unavoidable longterm and massive implications to our movement. In any event, I'd rather try and fail than do nothing, given the moral and practical considerations which hang in the balance. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 17:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, I'm up to date. I just disagree that we already know what's going to happen. We don't, because it hasn't happened yet. I'm not trying to argue that I know bad things aren't going to happen. Just that we as a group can't predict based on plans and contingencies we aren't party to. Valereee (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  But we do know that counsel for the WMF has indicated disclosure is forthcoming. If we're calculating our response on the best possible information available to us, that's about as solid as it's ever going to get. Further, by your standard, there is simply no circumstance under which action will ever be warranted, until after the disclosures are made, at which point the action's effect will be mooted. Which...I guess is a position, but rather a distinction without a meaning when it comes to the option of just doing nothing period, regardless (and also begging the question on the underlying question). SnowRise ^{let's rap} 17:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree, but I'm obviously not going to convince you so I'll stop. Valereee (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Make no mistake, Valereee, I value your input. If this happens, it will be one of the most extraordinary actions this community has taken to date and it will further complicate the sometimes already fraught relationship between the two loci of project decision making. I appreciate the gravity of that, and we must be as close to certain as we can be that this is the right course of action. So please understand my intent is not to dismiss your concerns entirely. I just happen to think that the evidence is too consistent and too compelling to have much remaining doubt on the question of whether they are really preparing to make those disclosures: they almost certainly are. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 17:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I actually agree with Valereee on this that we can't say for certain what the WMF's course of action is going to be, and I think we should stop declaring "they are obviously going to do [X]". We'll know what happens when it happens. But I do think we need to come down hard against even the possibility of disclosure. It is getting way too close for comfort now. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Calling for staff to explain themselves, or even resign will fail as staff are staff, and we don't control them. We can strike but that will only harm the projects in doing so. BLACKOUT of some form/design is the proper response, because it alerts the PUBLIC, our readers. That will create a journalistic opportunity for wider exposure of what is happening. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That, sadly, isn't the top story. | This is. 2601AC47 (talk|contribs) Isn't a IP anon 17:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I guarantee that if Wikipedia does a full-site blackout, it will make headlines worldwide. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  And unfortunately, those who wish to choose to protest a wrong on a day when no evil acts will be competing for attention will forever be waiting for that day to dawn. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 17:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Adding another important question: if we blackout, and they still reveal the editor identities, what are our demands exactly? Do we go for a fixed-duration blackout, or are we still asking the WMF to do something specific? If we don't have something specific they should do for us to lift the blackout, then a blackout to say "don't do something" won't be very effective. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the best course of action is plan the blackout to last 2-3 days, which should put us past the court's deadline. At that point, we can hope to know the lay of the land as it stands then and re-assess the advisability of further action then. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 17:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think a blackout is likely going to be the most effective short-term response, both in terms of getting the WMF to take how we feel about this seriously and communicating the problem to a wider audience. An editors' strike is an option for a longer-term action, but it has its own set of problems: most people reading front-end Wikipedia likely won't know it's happening; it needs a critical mass of power-editors behind it to really slow things down; we don't yet have something like an editors' union to coordinate such a call-out; etc.

In terms of other things that could be done, here's some ideas:

• contacting journalists to tell our side of the story;
• a call for support from other open-source and digital rights organisations;
• a second open letter to be signed by external entities rejecting defamation lawsuits against Wikipedia;
• the creation of a mutual aid fund for Indian editors that will be in need of protection, both from legal threats and threats of violence;
• a targetted blackout of the ANI article, providing a short statement about what they have done to intimidate our colleagues and censor information;
• in-person delivery of this open letter to WMF offices.

These are just ideas, not fully formed suggestions, but I think a few of them might be worth considering alongside a blackout (which it seems most people are on board with). --Grnrchst (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I see in some responses some balking at this concept because we do not have all the information that we need to make a decision. This is true. We don't have all the information. However, we are under a time constraint to effect change before impact. Effecting change after impact is meaningless. There is a concept of the 70% decision; if you have 70% of the information you need to make an informed decision, then decide. If you wait until you have 100% of the information you need, it will be too late. We are at or beyond the 70% threshold at this point. A decision right now might not be the right decision. There is risk. However, there is more potential benefit. It's time to move. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well said. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This is honestly one of the best written things I may have ever read. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 01:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC has been started here. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have an issue in the RfC; it can't run for 30 days and then be acted on. 30 days from now will be weeks late. Someone needs to have the courage and backing to close this within two days. If this RfC doesn't snow by then, it will never fly. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Regardless of where the outcome stands, it must be closed after 24 hours. IAR applies. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With that in mind, the interface admins need to be in the loop on what's going on. I've informed them. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody better insert a length of time for this total blackout, and soon, or it'll need a second RfC. Valereee (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think it would have been sufficient to request blacking out only the mainpage for a set period of time (perhaps a few days to a week). Going for the entire site is a reach. There's going to be and already is pushback. It's a big goal to reach for. I backed the proposal because of time limitations. It's not the proposal I would have liked to have seen, but it's close enough. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Errmm... yes, unless a time is specified, I don't see how that RfC is valid. There's quite a difference between 1 hour, 1 week and indefinitely? How do you know what you're voting for? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a similar blackout proposal at simplewiki. The blackout might have even more of an impact if it affects more than one wiki. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.google.com/search?q=total+number+of+active+editors+of+Wikipedia&gs_ivs=1

0.7086% of total active wikipedia editors have signed this "2024 open letter to the Wikimedia Foundation".

Do we think we're speaking loud enough for WMF to hear us?

Think TracyVaghmare91 (talk) 19:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: Yes. Long answer: Obviously, because this open letter has way over 500+ signatories from editors across English Wikipedia, and very very few moments of collective consensus in Wikipedia or the WMF's history grew to such a scale. This entire event we're in right now is also very unusual and the collective voice in defense of the three editors has already been noticed. Google be damned. Carlinal (talk) 21:40, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This "consensus" is for the community's survival and an editor's safety, not for some trivial edit dispute. The "scale" itself, I suppose, is negligible. TracyVaghmare91 (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The scale is a much bigger deal when you change your perspective of who counts as an active editor. Someone making one edit includes all the vandals and spammers, afterall. There are 4,992 people who made 100 edits this month. If there's overlap between two groups here (and based on all the familiar usernames, I'd say that's likely the case), then that's actually a much larger portion of the active editing commumity than one might assume. I signed the initial petition after some thought because nothing said there was actually pretty controversial - it's within the spirit of the foundation's values and that doesn't change even if there's information I'm not privy to that would make such a reminder unnecessary. As for the blackout, I have not yet supported or opposed it. I'm wary of supporting something that might feel good on a personal level but might hurt our cause in the long run. I like to speak for people who don't have a voice but I also don't like assuming what they want. I'm also not a lawyer. I'd like to think that the foundation isn't throwing their values out the window but it's also understandable why a lot of community members don't exactly trust the foundation. There's a long history of tense interactions there. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many established editors signed, and the support of the letter and discussion of events gained traction.

This category [4] speaks for itself. BilboBeggins (talk) 10:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the community has enough of a voice that certain warped groups like the HRA feel the need to threaten members with physical punishment if they don't heed their demands. Even if the end result is that more people become aware and are willing to uphold EWP's guidelines against hardliner weirdos, than that will be a success. King Lobclaw (talk) 15:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what is HRA. Could you explain what do you mean by physical punishment threats, or gove a link? BilboBeggins (talk) 21:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BilboBeggins I had assumed it was in reference to the very unpleasant threat by an IP at the Administrators' noticeboard Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Hindu News, but there might be others I have not seen. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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: [5] Steel1943 (talk) 20:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]