Wikipedia talk:2024 open letter to the Wikimedia Foundation

Phrasing tweaks

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)

@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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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

• 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)

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

• 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)

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

heading template

I don't think the heading template is accurate in describing this page as a proposal for a policy, guideline, or process. But in any case, since signatures are being collected, the letter is no longer a draft, and I suggest the template be removed. isaacl (talk) 16:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I have now removed it. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Add the threat of Trump

This has run its course. Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
What is to prevent Trump from doing the same and going after any editors here who include anything negative in his articles? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC) As i said earlier Djano Chained (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2024 (UTC) Trangabellam is very good in arguements. Why dont WMF send them at their cost to Indian courts to defends the community Djano Chained (talk) 17:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC) Trump is already upto revenge politics, Djano Chained (talk) 17:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC) I'm not too worried about that, since the U.S. has much better free speech protections. However, more importantly, adding Trump would alienate a bunch of people and get off-topic from our main concern, which is the Indian lawsuit. Let's not coatrack this open letter with every free speech concern we can think of. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC) I agree with this. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC) Well, okay, but they need to keep that in mind, as he will use this as a precedent for his actions. Any sign of weakness will be an invitation for him to take action, and "free speech" is one of his targets. He will limit it to "loyal" speech. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC) I don't think this petition is a sign of weakness. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC) Its quite the opposite, actually. Babysharkboss2!! (WEEZER FOR PRESIDENT 2024!) 17:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC) I am not referring to this petition. It is a sign of strength, but what WMF is doing is a sign of weakness. They 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) 18:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC) No. This is an open letter about an ongoing case with imminent and direct potential consequences for three Wikipedia editors. They deserve better than to have US politics shoe-horned into something intended as a statement of support for them. I think you have a right to be concerned about the consequences of a Trump presidency, but that is an issue for another thread and another statement. --Grnrchst (talk) 18:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC) I understand. This should not be a statement, but a consideration, already now. That's my concern. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC) Valjean, I know it's your gimmick to refocus everything to be about Donald Trump, but that really isn't necessary here. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC) I'll start by saying that I fully understand that this discussion is closed, and I'm someone who does not typically ignore closures and insert comments afterwards. I'm doing this as an atypical (for me) invocation of WP:IAR. But I feel strongly about what I want to say here, so if anyone gets the dumb idea of reverting me, please understand that I will edit war with you to put it back, even to the point of me getting blocked. Hear me on that, because I mean it. I agree with other editors that we should not broaden the content of the open letter. It would be incorrect to add Trump. It would indeed be a disservice to the editors this letter is about, to work other issues into it. But I want to say, as a matter of discussion, that the issue is a serious one, that all editors should care about. Dismissing the OP as "it's your gimmick" does not do justice to the underlying issue. The President-elect of the largest English-speaking nation has promised "retribution" against his critics, and he is likely to see Wikipedia as "fake news". The reason this open letter in its present form is so important to me as an editor here is that, once we let the powerful come after any of us, the powerful will come for us, ourselves, next. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Preload

Is it worth having a preload link to add a signature, because I can see this attracting edit conflicts?--Launchballer 18:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

This might just work:

A small issue is that it only preloads the signature, so if we go with it I'll create a template to preload # ~~~~ instead of just ~~~~ Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Fixed version:

Should work fine now. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

In future for consistency, a button like this which also references the diff you signed could be very useful. I say this as considering how #Phrasing tweaks is going, editors have ultimately signed different versions of this letter. CNC (talk) 14:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Context?

I see there's a request for this to be added to the watchlist notices. Is there something we can link "considering disclosing identifying private information" to so editors without prior involvement can see the reason for the petition? Perfect4th (talk) 18:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The Village Pump discussions are an absolute sprawling mess, so the best we have right now is probably one of the Singpost articles on it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Like Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Single/2024-11-06#In_focus. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Perfect4th It's a bit of a long story, but perhaps

• Asian_News_International#Litigation_against_other_organisations
• Why Wikipedia has landed in legal trouble in India
• Explained: What’s ANI vs Wikipedia legal battle all about?

could be of use? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that a link to context should be added above the letter to help editors. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Or quote in brief from the BBC's article: In August, the court ordered Wikipedia to disclose who made these allegedly defamatory edits to the ANI page - and threatened to shut down the website if it didn't comply with its orders. The hearing is still on, but Wikipedia has since agreed to share basic information about the users in a sealed cover to the court, though it's not clear what that would be. 2601AC47 (talk|contribs) Isn't a IP anon 20:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

That is pretty much the essence of it. Noting that as of yet, WMF hasn't shared anything, the next court meeting on that is November 8. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Primary and secondary source ideally. CNC (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and added a context box with links to the Signpost article, BBC article, and WP:VPWMF as a whole. Feel free to make tweaks or modifications as appropriate/needed. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Have gone ahead and put a shortcut in there. CNC (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Would WP:2024OPENLETTER be a better choice, since it's likely not going to be the only open letter in the future? WP:OPENLETTER would end up shortcutting to a disambiguation page for them all. Svampesky (talk) 21:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, will change. CNC (talk) 21:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:OPENLETTER" listed at Redirects for discussion

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)

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

Administrative suggestions

1. Add a note ASAP that signatories support the idea, but that the text can be updated / modified pending talk page consensus in usual wiki way
2. consider changing "English Wikipedia" to Wikipedia, because the censorship happened in French and may happen in other languages. All languages have a chilling effect
3. permit language translation

Recommend looking at the well-designed meta:Community open letter on renaming for guidance

Bluerasberry (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Based on point 1, ideally the open letter would be a transclusion from an edit diff. CNC (talk) 22:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The text has to be stable in order for signatures to have meaning, so I don't think anything beyond minor tweaks is desirable. isaacl (talk) 22:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Isaacl: Text like this is not directly translatable. It seems like an error to restrict this to English only, or to expect every language community to stay divided in protest while they make their own letters.

The wiki community has been through this process a few times a year every year for the last 20 years. Having the option to update and translate are recurring issues in each case.

You might be correct, but in general, wiki editors benefit from retaining the power to revise. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

A signed letter has no meaning if it can be revised to say something different later on, as it misrepresents the intent of those signing. Thus a blanket statement that the document may be revised in any way would rob it of its utility. The time for significant revision was before it was released for signing. isaacl (talk) 15:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Banners and icons

I made these for the reporting in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost but they did not make it to publication. These are for this event. Bluerasberry (talk) 22:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: you forgot to add the word "yet" in parentheses. Polygnotus (talk) 22:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! But what's going on with the padding here? Is there an SVG version? Aaron Liu (talk) 22:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu: I do not know how to convert to SVG. Bluerasberry (talk) 14:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

What did you make this with? (Also, do you plan to refine the padding anytime soon?) Aaron Liu (talk) 16:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you

I just wanted to say thanks to everyone who was involved in conceiving of and drafting the letter. Good job, all. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

100%, I am so glad that we're finally doing something, and not just letting the WMF disclose the information of volunteers without consent. E_F⁵ 22:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Me too. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia community +

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

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

I went ahead and did a translation into Spanish:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scope

Pardon the repeat from VPW: Since this was framed as a rewording/condensing of this draft, just a comment that I was trying to avoid the appearance of trying to intervene in an active court case (mainly, by omitting ANI/India). I'm uneasy doing so with such a conspicuous absence of relevant legal expertise involved in the discussion thus far. I'd also prefer to see us sign on to a statement of principles that would apply outside of India and beyond this case, too (including in the US, should it become necessary). Similar basic idea, just less explicit (and, granted, my draft was wordier, with an additional ask that could've been better fleshed out). Obviously not proposing a change here, since this already has a lot of signatures -- just a comment. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps you can create a page for the statement of principles for comment and revision, and when ready, people can sign it? isaacl (talk) 23:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Not signing this because...

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

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

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Pulled back

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

---

Pulled back from this open letter signing campaign. IMO anonymous editing is not good, editors shall be identified by their original identity Djano Chained (talk) 17:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

If people not like what is being written about them they have right to protest and act through legal means. Freedom of speech is both way. Right? Djano Chained (talk) 17:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The WP community doesn't have to worry too much if ANI goes to court. The trial will involve both WMF and the editor who made the edit. We will prevail if there are no issues with the edit. Djano Chained (talk) 17:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

That is not necessarily true. Keep in mind we are dealing with Modi's India, no longer a democratic nation. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

"If"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

But the WMF releasing personally identifiable information would set a bad precedent. Remember that also that India is not very democratic any more and that Modi is basically a Hindu nationalist. Cremastra (u — c) 20:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Protesting and acting through legal means are two very different things. "Freedom to speak against what you said" is certainly part of freedom of speech, but "freedom to sue you for what you said" isn't. To the contrary, it's using the state's power to punish people for their speech. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

You created your account yesterday and have since done nothing but defend the Indian government in this case.

You aren't "pulling back" from anything because you aren't a Wikipedia editor - that would require actually having contributed any edits. Cortador (talk) 21:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

That would make Djano a single-purpose account. Best to keep an eye on them for potential disruptiveness. Carlinal (talk) 02:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah , WP:NOTHERE block is in order given that they have no other interest here other than asking for editors to be de-anonymized. Ratnahastin (talk) 02:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

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

Almost 400 signatures

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

500 signatures reached

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)

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

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

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

User with one edit

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

---

@Yelromcc, your first and only edit was signing this petition. Why? Cremastra (u — c) 21:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think we need to know people's motivations. Anyone concerned about this situation is free to create an account and sign. isaacl (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Probably worth pointing out that this petition is being advertised on everyone's watchlists. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm a new user on simplewiki and saw the invitation and I agree with the petition. Hope this helps Yelromcc (talk) 23:00, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I think there's no problem here, and this should be put to rest. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Will this lead to any action?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

I think atleast Jimbo has seen it as he responded to a comment by Seraphimblade mentioning this letter. [1] Ratnahastin (talk) 12:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

This will be ignored because...

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

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

Russian Wikipedia

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)

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

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)

Signature format

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)

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

News reports

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Note from Jimbo

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)

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Renaming

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Update from 11 Nov hearing

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)

Using a privacy alt to sign

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

The Wikipedian Nails it Head On

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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

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)

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)