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

{{transcluded section|source=Wikipedia:ANI vs. WMF situation}}

[The Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation situation] {{trim|{{Wikipedia:ANI vs. WMF situation}}}}

{{excerpt|WP:ANI vs. WMF Indian editors|Contacted by one of the editors}}

• I have been following this case in the press over the past few months. I agree with {{u|Snow Rise}} that it is now important to press upon WMF that any steps which may reveal the personal identity of the editors involved should be avoided at all costs. In my opinion, it would be preferable to see Wikipedia completely banned in India rather than risking action by the Indian authorities against any of the editors involved. I therefore suggest, {{u|Valereee}}, that action should be taken along these lines without further delay.--Ipigott (talk) 14:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• :I agree with this. It's about time we formulate a community response. Ratnahastin (talk) 14:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• ::Thanks, {{u|Ratnahastin}}: I've posted a message on Wikipedia talk:Wikimedia Foundation where perhaps it will be noticed by a few key people. I'm not too sure how we can ensure a community response. I'll leave that to the experts but we need to act now.--Ipigott (talk) 14:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)-
• :I'm not weighing in on this, as I don't feel at all confident I understand the entire situation in any meaningful way. Valereee (talk) 15:35, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• ::Thanks for responding, {{u|Valereee}}. I understand your hesitation on further involvement but would like to thank you for all the useful information you have brought to our attention. You could perhaps, nevertheless, advise on how a "community response" could be initiated. We need to act very quickly. I'm afraid I'm not conversant with such initiatives but would be ready to help things along.--Ipigott (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• :::Ipigott, I am not trying to be obtuse when I say I can't think of any way I'm qualified to advise anyone on anything to do with this, and I'm not sure why anyone would think I was qualified to do so. Valereee (talk) 16:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• :::Perhaps you can find something helpful at :Category:Times that large groups of Wikipedians supported something. It's possible that the WMF already has a sense that Wikipedians probably dislike the "disclose user-info to DHC" idea. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• ::::I just thought, {{u|Valereee}}, that as an administrator you might have the necessary background. It's now been suggested on my talk page that we could put something together the Asian News International talk page but I'm not at all sure that is a good starting point for a proposal to WMF. I'll see what I can do but if anyone else has ideas, please let me know. Perhaps I can also draw on the extensive experience of {{u|Victuallers}}?--Ipigott (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• ::::: Not sure I can add anyting {{u|Ipigott}}.I've read a lot of the stuff above and I'm impressed with the foundations openess. I agree completely Ipigot that protecting our editors is more than important. Turkey banned us but this resulted in me at least spending extra time to highlight articles about Turks and related articles. If India loses Wikipedia then that is a significant loss, but better that than access to a Wikipedia whose content is in (unknown) part subject to undue influence. (Offline versions will be available). The days that we take down Wikipedis are the days that we establish the value of our creation to all of our users. Money is not important here - our amazing product was created by volunteers (and some relatively trivial donations). I frequently mention that its the users who have decided to take down Wikipedia in the past. We should be willing to do so again. Victuallers (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• :::::{{re|Ipigott}} If the WMF caves to Asia News International, we should delete the ANI article or black it out as we did for SOPA/PIPA. The precedent we've repeatedly set on Wikipedia is that we'd rather not include information if that information cannot align with our core content policies including WP:NPOV or WP:5P3 (free content). We regularly delete articles that are biased, inadequately sourced, or are composed of content not freely usable/modifiable by our readers.
• :::::Allowing the article to exist when it is controlled by Asia News International would be a disservice to our readers that believe we are neutral. It's also a disservice to editors that believe they can edit said article without consequences.
• :::::We also cannot be defamatory if we say nothing at all. Others might fill in the blanks. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• ::::::I'd argue that deleting that article is around #2 on the list of things we don't want to do here (#1 being giving DHC non-public user-info). It's a decent WP-article on a big media-company. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• ::::::That would be a good outcome for ANI. It removes any balanced reference point and helps project themselves as a flawless source. Which is not a good thing and could lead to other companies jumping on the bandwagon.
• ::::::Forgive me if I am being incredibly moronic, but what if the court ordered the material removed, but it was readded by someone outside of India, like with Pierre-sur-Haute military radio station?. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 20:23, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• :::::::Well, if it's removed like the case-article (office action), it probably wouldn't stay if someone re-added a version. Someone added a case-article on fr-WP, but that was removed, I think by an admin. Of course, the ANI-article exists in several languages, but I don't know if anyone has told the DHC that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
• ::::::::There we go, another lawsuit coming soon against Wikipedia, this time by Republic TV. Primary source: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?si=oMt6lP3VcJJkFhO9&v=7ZZElpr9GXQ YouTube] (At 5:02). GrabUp - Talk 05:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• :::::::::Ayurveda and Homeopath practitioners must be salivating. — hako9 (talk) 09:17, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• :::::::@Fantastic Mr. Fox Fwiw, [https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%BA%9A%E6%B4%B2%E5%9B%BD%E9%99%85%E6%96%B0%E9%97%BB%E8%AF%89%E7%BB%B4%E5%9F%BA%E5%AA%92%E4%BD%93%E5%9F%BA%E9%87%91%E4%BC%9A%E6%A1%88 亚洲国际新闻诉维基媒体基金会案] is alive and kicking. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• ::::::::Backed up externally to both English and Chinese. Il upload it to my sandbox in a few hours once I configure the sources with the English text, unless I get a heads up not to do so either here or on my talk. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 13:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• :::::::::{{u|Fantastic Mr. Fox}} I'd advise against that. There's nothing really to gain from it, but it will likely be considered an attempt to circumvent page protection. There's nothing stopping you from posting it elsewhere on the internet, but we can't post it onwiki for the time being. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• ::::::::::Il avoid uploading it for the time being, unless someone wants a copy of the translated article. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• :::::::I mean in a big SOPA/PIPA like way. Blacked out with big censor bars and explaining why the article was taken down. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 18:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• ::::::::Because the company sued WMF in court, Wikipedians are annoyed about it and this is what happens if you do that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• :::::::::This isn't a retaliatory effort It's to prevent something from happening that would be seriously harmful to specific editors and to the entire project. Personally, I don't see the point of targeting one specific article that's only going to be noticed by people already aware of the issue. We're expressing our concerns in a direct, orderly fashion (as is being organized below), and we're trying to get visibility on the subject (whether on enwiki, across all WMF projects, or to the broader public remains to be seen). Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• ::::::::::Speaking of "across all WMF projects", has anyone brought this issue up on meta? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• :::::::::::Yet another new section of the village pump has been opened for that in Wikipedia:Village pump (WMF)#Community response to the WMF over ANI. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• ::::::::::That's my point. This isn't retaliatory. If editors will be doxxed for editing that article, we should not have it onwiki. It's unsafe to edit and isn't free content.
• ::::::::::Also, companies love having a Wikipedia article. It shows they are important. Having it deleted with a notice that it was censored by the company would seriously annoy them, not reward them. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 17:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
• ::::::::If we're reacting to "If the WMF caves to Asia News International", wouldn't it make more sense to SOPA/PIPA the WMF-article? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

::::Well, there is no requirement for an RfC, and I'm not entirely convinced it is the right course in these circumstances, but one is live now below, and so long as there is exposure, that is a positive step. The only thing to be done now is to do whatever each of us can, short of disruption, to make this issue common knowledge in the community. Eek has advised below that she thinks that individual discussion of this issue with editors who may wish to be aware of it on user talk pages would constitute canvassing. I cannot stress enough how inaccurate and unhelpful I think that is in these circumstances, but each of you reading this will have to come to your own conclusions about the policy and the circumstances and act in light of those determinations and your conscience.{{pb}}For myself, I think this is one of the most consequential moments in the project's history--certainly in recent years--and that every member of this community (indeed, well beyond the en.Wikipedia community) ought to be made aware of what is going on here. I'll repeat one last time that I do no celebrate that we must confront the WMF (who did not seek this situation and are stuck in an unenviable position with no great options that will not in some way lead to negative results and who face ire from either the community or a court, whichever way they act) in this fashion. It is a necessary evil and the lesser of our own bad options. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I have delisted this section from WP:CENT for the moment. Snow Rise, your comment is very WP:VERBOSE, perhaps as a result of your interjection to Joe, and is not the sort of calm, neutral, statement we expect from RfCs. I know you feel strongly about the issue, and that time is of the essence, but it is exactly when time is short and emotions are high that doing things right is most important. If the community wishes to fashion a response to the issue, I would suggest workshopping some sort of statement first. The entire community does not need to be summoned to put a few sentences together; the issue can go back to CENT once a neutral RfC statement is assembled. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• :Oops, bad ping, Snow Rise has a space. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• ::As a side note, I would caution editors against reaching out to the five most influential Wikipedians you know to this discussion, because that's WP:CANVASSING. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• :::I'm sorry but that's an absurd reading of WP:CANVAS, and at odds with almost every word of the policy. This is no garden variety issue, nor an editorial matter at all. Nor has anyone been encouraged to solicit involvement of anyone based on how they would be likely to respond but rather to simply spread awareness of this issue and the pressing need for the community to act before it loses any chance of arresting potentially dangerous outcomes for volunteers. Nor indeed could any respondents be known to have pre-existing stances on this issue to attempt to influence the discussion, as this is a completely novel matter never faced by the community before. Your definition of CANVAS would hold everyone who promoted the PIPA/SOPA blackout or discussed Framgate on user talk pages as "canvassing" an issue. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• :{{hat|reason=In the interest of not bloating this thread further, I'm self-hatting this post, which contains a response to Eek's observations, but which is not highly critical to the boradest issues here.}}
• :Eek, first of all, it is not your place to attempt to speculate on what you think the psychological state of mind is, and I assure you, you are very much mistaken about what animates me in this moment: my approach here is not predicated in an "emotional" over-reaction, any more than the intitial actions of those who rushed to take urgent action during the PIPA/SOPA blackout can be defined as being predicated especially in emotion.
• :I assure you, up until your fairly offensive post to which I respond now, I don't think there's a single moment in this whole debate where my emotional state felt even slightly elevated. What I have said above I said out of profound (but very much rational and non-hysterical) concerns for the import the WMF's apparent plans have for the institutional order of this project and the safety of its volunteers. Concerns which are clearly shared by the vast majority of community members commenting in these discussion (and everyone to respond my last post, aside from you...).
• :Furthermore, I find no particularly exaggerated or problematic language in my post: on the contrary, throughout this discussion I have gone to great lengths to keep in mind (and indeed to reiterate) that the WMF clearly is operating in a fashion it thinks is the best longterm course of action in the circumstances. It is only their reasoning (and their methodology in this case of making decisions with massive implications to our foundational values first, with the expectation that they could consult us on them after the ship had sailed, if at all), that I have questioned. Not their motivations or commitment to our mission.
• :So bluntly, stuff your speculation on my mental state: it is 1) a weak rhetorical ploy often utilized by those who don't have something principled to say on the matter at hand, 2) behaviour that runs diametrically opposite to the effort to keep this conversation civil and based in the un-emotional, principled discourse that you claim to be trying to foster here, and 3) something you should have the courtesy to strike from your comments. Indeed, as an admin and arb, you should simply know better than to be opining about how you think another member of the community is being led by their emotions. Honestly, the gall. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

{{hab}}

• :Now, on to the substantative matter: it is completely inappropriate for you to have removed the CENT notice on the grounds you did. There is, and never has been, any condition on a listing at CENT that draft language for a statement or other action proceed soliciting wide community involvement. On the contrary, it is much more the norm that CENT listings occur early on in a discussion's process: and this one has been going on for weeks and involves dozens of participants. This is a paradigmatic example of what the template is meant for, and it's hard to imagine a discussion of more consequence or circumstances more urgent than these, with potential real world harm to our volunteers hanging in the balance. Frankly, I'd expect an Arb to be at the front of the line of people who understand that time is of the essence, not putting their thumb on the scale to unnecesarily delay fulsome community discussion of these profound issues, with near-immediate consequences for inaction.
• :As such, I'd like you to please consider voluntarily reverting your removal of the listing, as the only other solution here that I can see is that we have a needless straw poll to get consensus on whether or not to include said listing. I think we both know that would get rapid and robust support, but it would only further bloat an already large and complicated discussion needlessly. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• ::Or a third option: I can just do what I was suggesting that you do and open an organized RfC that doesn't have an 1800 word preamble. See below. I will add the section below to CENT. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• :::I don't recall you suggesting that to me, nor do I think it is necessarily the optimal solution, since a formal RfC is not a required in order to reach levels of engagement necessary to make the WMF take notice and may well stymie concrete intervention, since RfCs run for weeks or months and we have merely a couple of days before the WMF intends to act. But the most important thing is that the community be made aware of the facts, so where exactly the CENT link points is not as important as the fact that it exists, and I'm glad we're in agreement at least as to that. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. I had not been following this discussion for a while, and am utterly appalled that the Foundation appears to be considering disclosing information in this fashion. Please can we agree to do something *now* to let the Foundation know that the English Wikipedia editor base is profoundly concerned about this matter? Espresso Addict (talk) 03:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• Comment We’d like to offer one correction to a point in this discussion. The Wikimedia Foundation’s appeal against the disclosure order in ANI v. Wikimedia Foundation is scheduled for hearing on November 8, 2024, before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. This hearing is not intended as a date for data disclosure. As mentioned previously, the matter is sub judice, so the Foundation can share only limited information in accordance with the applicable laws. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 19:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• :Ok, so "the thing" won't necessarily conclude on November 8. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
• :Quiddity, thank you for this clarification. Cremastra (u — c) 20:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Arnab Goswami [https://www.youtube.com/watch?si=oMt6lP3VcJJkFhO9&v=7ZZElpr9GXQ&t=303 announced] that his channel will be sending a legal notice to Wikipedia and "if necessary" sue them over their Wikipedia article either "join-tly" in the current ANI case or "separately". Since [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republic_TV&diff=prev&oldid=1245838692 I edited] this page in September, it is possible that I might end up in similar legal trouble as this editor. Therefore I have reverted myself. Ratnahastin (talk) 12:17, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

::::Was just checking in case there was some weird catch to me to reverting on the article [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republic_TV&diff=prev&oldid=1255761855] Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 14:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

::::You may be interested in [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#c-Valereee-20241104203700-Contacted_by_one_of_the_editors this comment], which talks more about possible consequences. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

:Why revert? Stand proud. We're strong. [https://youtube.com/watch?v=HAvUfmKHAYY&t=163 Dissent cannot be deleted.] {{#tag:syntaxhighlight|Lunar-akaunto|lang=text|class=|style=|inline=1}}／talk 19:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

:Perhaps another who wants to join in :[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=1256299779] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

::{{Ping|Gråbergs Gråa Sång}} IPs from Hindu Raksha Dal are known to create chilling effect by peddling such news on Wikipedia, just have look at their messages on talkpage of Kolkata rape case [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ratnahastin&diff=prev&oldid=1246037151][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_Kolkata_rape_and_murder&diff=prev&oldid=1246031666][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_Kolkata_rape_and_murder&diff=prev&oldid=1244624694][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_Kolkata_rape_and_murder&diff=prev&oldid=1244346361]. Although I'd still be careful because last time they submitted a report to national task force for medical professionals safety which led to the take down order by the supreme court [https://www.deccanherald.com/india/delhi/kolkata-rape-murder-supreme-court-directs-wikipedia-to-remove-name-photo-of-victim-3194258] Ratnahastin (talk) 11:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

:::::https://www.whatsappuniversity.org/sarbajit-roy, yes, it's related to this organisation. Roy is Organisor of Hindu Raksha Dal. [https://www.hindurakshadal.org/media/downloads/gmail---representation-to-national-task-force-for-doctor-safety--submitted-by-hindu-raksha-dal.pdf]Ratnahastin (talk) 12:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

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

:::It's actually a par of a larger LTA that has been harrassing Wikipedia editors since last decade, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/India_Against_Corruption_sock-meatfarm] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=1256583504#Hindu_News][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Blaxstocatamazon#Unblock_request_to_3rd_Admin] - Ratnahastin (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

::::[https://www.wired.com/story/wikipedia-culture-war/ A vicious culture war is tearing through Wikipedia] is from 2020, but probably still relevant. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

{{excerpt|Wikipedia:ANI vs. WMF community response|Community response to the WMF over ANI|subsections=yes}}

Category:Wikipedia legal issues

de:Wikipedia:Kurier#WMF musste nach Niederlage vor Gericht Artikel in en:wp löschen. Selbst Jimbo äußerte sich.

ru:Википедия:Форум/Новости#Фонд удалил статью анвики по предварительному требованию индийского суда

simple:WP:Simple talk#Petition at enwiki

ta:விக்கிப்பீடியா:ஆலமரத்தடி (அறிவிப்புகள்)#ANI_v._WMF

ur:ویکیپیڈیا:دیوان عام (ویکیمیڈیا)

{{excerpt|WP:ANI vs. WMF Delhi court|Next Delhi High Court hearing on 11 November}}

{{excerpt|WP:ANI vs. WMF Delhi court|11 Nov}}

{{excerpt|Wikipedia talk:2024 open letter to the Wikimedia Foundation|16 December court proceedings}}

{{excerpt|Wikipedia talk:2024 open letter to the Wikimedia Foundation|18 December}}

What's really at stake with the court case in India against Wikipedia:

https://www.thewikipedian.net/p/wmf-bjp-court-order-sell-out-principles

Ocaasi ^{t | c} 18:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

In light of the fact that we now have an additional public court disclosure seeming to overwhelmingly indicate that the WMF will imminently be disclosing the personally identifying information of at least the three volunteers that ANI has identified as defendants in its suite, I am proposing we have as broad a community discussion as possible on what further response (up to and including large organized protest actions aimed to challenge the WMF's intended course of action) might be appropriate and feasible in the circumstances. Please see here, for further details. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 16:12, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

• Before we take any further steps, I suggest we call on {{u|Jimbo Wales}} and the lawyers from the WMF to explain to us exactly what the consequences could be of revealing contributors' identities through email addresses, etc. I may be wrong, but it appears to me that the "sealed cover" approach may really be able to protect their identities from wider revelation. But we urgently need some kind of official response to all this.--Ipigott (talk) 16:28, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

For those not already aware, a possible blackout of the site is being discussed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2024 Wikipedia blackout. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

If WMF receives a legal notice from any organisation in India stating that they find their Wikipedia entry to be defamatory and want it to be taken down, someone from WMF's legal team should leave a message on the talk page that they have received such a notice, so the authors of the page can quickly take down any edits they have made on it. Although defamation may still be found in previous revisions, I doubt they would care so long as it does not appear in the current revisions. As defamation cases in India are admitted on a prima facie basis (that is, the plaintiff's claims are considered true on admission), the burden to prove that content is not defamatory falls on the defendants (i.e., editors, as WMF only claims to be an intermediary). If an editor does not want to have their lives be disrupted by being taken to court to prove how their edits were not defamatory, they should be allowed to revert their edits with an expectation that they will not be restored. This is not paranoia either. Recently, Republic TV announced their plans to send a legal notice to WMF over their article and sue Wikipedia if necessary. If WMF receives a legal notice, they should post it on the talk page so the authors can remove anything they wrote. It is now our own responsibility to protect ourselves, as we are liable for anything we write. Pinging {{Ping|Jimbo Wales}} to consider this suggestion. - Ratnahastin (talk) 06:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

:Also pinging {{ping|hako9|Lunar-akaunto}} who I believe are in India too. - Ratnahastin (talk) 06:55, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

::I am a citizen. I'd much rather just receive an email privately from wmf. And I don't think I would revert myself on a mere threat of civil defamation. — hako9 (talk) 08:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

:If WMF wins this case, it would send a clear signal to organizations in India that they should stop wasting everyone's time with fraudulent defamation suits. No need to remove well-sourced content. Nakonana (talk) 09:50, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

::That will take years. In mean time, nothing prevents any organisation from filing another case and repeating what has already transpired since a dangerous precedent has been set that WMF will not hesitate to divulge the subscriber details to the court in order to maintain its intermediary status. - Ratnahastin (talk) 09:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

:::ANI did not receive the subscriber information, so why would it be interesting for other organizations to follow ANI's steps when the outcome of the case isn't clear yet? Nakonana (talk) 22:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

:The Wikipedians just did their job by putting information from reliable sources. They did nothing wrong, there should be no editing of these pages, it goes against the rules. BilboBeggins (talk) 14:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

:If the WMF receives a legal notice from outside of the United States, it should tell the sender to pound sand. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

::Here's a proposal based on some of the above points (I'm not arguing for or against what the WMF should do; this is rather parallel to that), but the following proposal would only make sense if people in India agreed that it sounds viable and if they were reasonably likely to use it.{{pb}}1. Create an essay, something like Wikipedia:Self-revert under Delhi court case precedent (abbrevations WP:SRUD, WP:SRUDCCP){{pb}}2. WP:SRUD itself says something like "A user who invokes this page may consider themselves to be at legal risk under the precedent of the (briefly explain the case and give the main links). To reduce the legal risks of that user, please do not technically restore their self-reversion. However, you are welcome to add their self-reverted content under your own name under CC BY-SA, with an edit summary such as 'similar content to self-reverted content by ... used under CC BY-SA'. Discuss the content on the article talk page if you have any doubts regarding the contents of the original edit.{{pb}}3. WP:SRUD also has a section something like "If you wish to invoke this page to protect yourself, then make your edit and then quickly self-revert it with an edit summary such as 'self-revert under WP:SRUD - please see WP:SRUD if you think that the content should have been kept'".{{pb}}Would this be useful? The idea is to try to satisfy simultaneously: (1) the original editor is legally safe - has not substantially published what could be supposedly defamatory content; (2) the original editor has an efficient way of showing to others how they could be supportive; (3) other editors efficiently understand the practical and ethical situation and how they can help. Boud (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

:::An alternative idea would be (and we probably have this already somewhere), advice on using a [https://switching.software/replace/gmail secure, non-gmail address] with a non-identifying username (e.g. 'cooldude5317@' rather than 'ranjit.gupta@'), after checking to what degree the organisation running your preferred server would cooperate with court requests to identify you, or suggesting the use of an account without an email contact (despite the practical risks that entails for your use of WMF wikis). Boud (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

::::Another option would be to make an edit request via email to a user who isn't living in India, so that they could add the relevant information while being most likely outside of any fraudulent lawsuit's legal reach. Nakonana (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Has everyone seen this discussion?

In an open letter talk page, physical treats to WMF were mentioned. Threats even continued on Administrators Noticeboard.

• See:
• "There was no LEGAL THREAT. It is a clear and direct caution that aggrieved Hindu Raksha Dal cadres, acting on their own and individually, may physically discipline WMF employees and users in India if there is any abuse or disrespect to our HINDU organization/s and project/s on your web portals - as they have done in the past." [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Hindu_News]
• This is behaviour of bullies. And I am afraid that these shocking abuse happens because the party now feels strength because WMF decided to comply. If WMF didn't react to this pressure, they wouldn't have confidence to write this.
• Bullies can not be negotiated with, they will hold on to concessions made and want more. They physically threatened the editors who write what they don't want, and I guess those three users may be under threat too. How can Wikipedia abd WMF guarantee that those editors, shall there personal data be disclosed to someone, will be Ok and safe? As

I hope users and Jimbo understand that only decisive action would stop these guys. They will ask for more and more. Now that they know that if a case goes to court, Wikipedia pages will be frozen, there may be rise in powerful figures, websites who are regarded as unreliable sources and oppose that, to go the same route.BilboBeggins (talk) 08:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

:This harassment has been going for a decade, see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/India Against Corruption sock-meatfarm - Ratnahastin (talk) 08:43, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

::That makes even more consequential.

::So what happens now if the court rules in favour?

::Will be then articles such as 2024 Colcatta rape under threat? BilboBeggins (talk) 09:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

:::If editors agree to take part in legal proceedings after being summoned, then it's possible that they will win. But if they don't, then WMF can't exactly defend the claims since it has argued itself to be an intermediary from the very beginning, if none of the three defendants take part in the lawsuit, WMF will lose and will be forced to pay the damages or may even lose its intermediary status.

:::The Kolkata incident article was an interesting case, the members of Hindu Raksha Dal complained to the National Task Force for Medical professionals safety (a body established by the supreme court of india), which led to an order by the Supreme court to remove the name and photo of the victim from the article.[https://www.jurist.org/news/2024/09/india-supreme-court-orders-wikipedia-to-remove-name-and-photo-of-victim-in-kolkata-rape-murder-case/] The atmosphere in India is currently very anti-Wikipedia for sure. - Ratnahastin (talk) 13:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

::::{{u|Ratnahastin}}, what has Hindu Raksha Dal's complaint to do with SC's order for removal of victim's name? Dympies (talk) 05:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales made an update yesterday that may be of interest. Valereee (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

:There's a huge asymmetry in the understanding of the Internet, and of access to and understanding of knowledge in general, between WMF vs the Delhi court (after all, there would be no court case if the court understood the Internet). I suspect that many of us, including me, have been interpreting some of the sourced, critical pieces of knowledge of this case without thinking too carefully, and I'm quite happy to admit my error. To avoid giving the Delhi court any advantage (I am under no obligation to give legal advice to the Delhi court), I won't give any details of my speculation of where the flaws lie in our interpretations - most of us here could easily see it if we think a little more. Our three contributors may yet remain safe. Jimbo's pride is not evidence, but it's a clue that triggered this line of thinking - thanks {{u|Jimmy Wales|Jimbo}} :). Boud (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I may have just missed it since I'm not sure where I should be looking for news, but is there any update on what has happened (or is happening)? I feel like there was a flurry of activity and concern with imminent court deadlines, and now I haven't heard anything for like two weeks or so. Was, in fact, any editor data disclosed? Do we know yet what Jimmy Wales said we'd be "overjoyed" about? Or if there just isn't any news yet because court cases take a long time, do we at least know when the next update is expected to be? Thanks. PeterCooperJr (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

:I also don’t hear any news about this case since like 2 weeks. RealStranger43286 (talk) 05:04, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

:+1 BilboBeggins (talk) 18:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

:Yes, unless something unexpected happens, we're waiting until the next court date, which I believe is in mid-December. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

A post by {{u|Shyamal}} at ANI talk (permalink) mentions a Youtube video on the Asian News International case. Just after [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4LFcfY_Okw?t=970 this time] the video apparently shows the Wikipedia donations page in India. It says "We are not fundraising in your country at this time". The video suggests that donations have been stopped as a consequence of the ANI case. Can anyone in India confirm what [https://donate.wikimedia.org/ donate.wikimedia.org] shows? Has there been any public statement from the WMF regarding this? Johnuniq (talk) 01:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

:This is what I got [https://ibb.co/WG9RmGf]. - Ratnahastin (talk) 01:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

::There is no public statement by WMF, but the donations page is off as shown in the above photo. -- I.Mahesh (talk) 07:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this.

Accepting payments in other countries involves navigating various technical and operational complexities for us as a U.S. nonprofit. Recently, we've experienced a payment processing issue with our existing provider and have temporarily removed the option for readers in India to donate.

At the same time, we are not currently running a fundraising campaign in India—no banners or emails are being sent out, which typically results in very few donations during these periods.

Thank you for your understanding and patience as we work through this.

Sheetal Puri (WMF) (talk) 16:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Dear All, I have posted an update at Wikipedia talk:2024 open letter to the Wikimedia Foundation#2 December Update from the Wikimedia Foundation on the ongoing case. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 02:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

:What was the point of trying to keep the editors' identities private if not to keep them from being sued by those upset about their work? Which is exactly what happened, but instead of receiving a summons from the court, the editors were served by the Foundation? Is this going to be the status quo going forward? Mesopub (talk) 02:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Posting on this page so people see it. We've received an update on the court proceedings of 16 December, with coverage from [https://www.medianama.com/2024/12/223-wiki-actions-go-beyond-intermediary-status-ani-delhi-hc/ Medianama]. Next hearing is apparently scheduled for Wednesday, 18 December. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

We are pressured by a goverment wanting to squash all of our rights with fear. For goodness sake, we can't let the higher power choke out the words that we speak. The society of our world rests on our shoulders. Wikimedia, we need our freedom to edit our sites without the big cooperations watching our moves. Make our privacy ensured, without our rights broken to pieces by these juggernauts powering over our internet. We value these rights we were guaranteed. Keep in mind that out of these many users, many of them come from a different country with different rights. Regardless, if one of our rights are broken, their country will step up. Wikimedia and every Wikipedian must think about these ideas and rights on the line. Preserve our rights. And save them for our future. Gooners Fan in North London (talk) 03:50, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

:As said earlier, possible alternative platforms that anyone can switch to includes Encycla, Justapedia, Namu Wiki, ibis[.]wiki, and Citizendium.23.162.8.118 (talk) 14:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

So a month of no official updates has passed, and I wanna know exactly when or how the ANI v. WMF article will be reinstated. Dour times aside, is it likely we're gonna get another phase or response from the Indian parties about us? Or did the English Wikipedia lose the right to publish the court's article? Carlinal (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

:Talk:Asian_News_International#Extended_confirmed_edit_request_in_December_2024 this might be the latest update. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

::Next hearing at the Delhi High Court on January 28, got it. Thanks! Carlinal (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

::{{Ping|Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Carlinal}} Have there been any updates about the 28 January hearing (and potential future hearings)? I tried searching for news, but couldn't find anything. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

:::See https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/court/judegment_orders?pno=1220662 - Ratnahastin (talk) 14:34, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Thanks @Ratnahastin. Judging by these documents, it seems the WMF legal team has applied for the rejection of the plaint (2025-01-08); no affidavit has been filed by defendants 2-4 (the accused editors) and no appearance has been made on their behalf (2025-01-15). Further proceedings will be taking place on 19 February. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Recent coverage: [https://bestmediainfo.com/mediainfo/mediainfo-digital/ani-vs-wikipedia-supreme-court-questions-delhi-hc-over-wikipedia-page-takedown-order-8862544 ANI vs Wikipedia: Supreme Court questions Delhi HC over Wikipedia page takedown order] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:What does "Based on the hearings, the [Supreme Court] issued a notice to ANI" mean? Valereee (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:[https://www.barandbench.com/news/courts-have-to-tolerant-supreme-court-delhi-hc-takedown-order-against-wikipedia-ani-case Here's another]. Valereee (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

::Oh, wow...this one says

:::::The page in question, which has already been taken down, was not per se against ANI but a page containing details about the defamation case filed by ANI against Wikipedia in Delhi High Court.

:::::The page in fact contained details about the hearing in the High Court and the remarks made by the High Court during the hearing of ANI's defamation suit.

:::::The High Court had taken objection to the same and had even said in its order that discussion about the observations made by the Court would amount to contempt of court.

:::::In view of the same, it had in October 2024 ordered the online encyclopedia to take down the page.

:::::However, the Supreme Court today was not impressed by the same and asked why the High Court was "so touchy" about the same.

:::::It also said that court proceedings today are often subject to criticism on social media etc. and courts should not ask the same to be taken down merely because it is critical of the court.

::The SC seems to be saying Delhi High Court shouldn't have ordered the article about the case removed. Valereee (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

:::Lol it's looking like the removal of the article may be notable. :D Valereee (talk) 16:07, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Something tells me we're gonna witness an incredibly funny moment should the SC work in our favor. Fingers crossed. Carlinal (talk) 07:36, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Hear hear. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:09, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::Here's hoping! Now if the SC can also bring some common sense to the cause of this case, I'll be quite pleased. Ravensfire (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation (Wikipedia article)??? {{facepalm}} Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:12, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:::{{talkquote|"We are concerned with the legality and validity of the directions issued by the High Court in paragraph No. 5 of the impugned order," the bench observed while issuing notice to the ANI, returnable on April 4. (LiveLaw, [https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/why-touchy-about-comments-on-court-proceedings-supreme-court-on-delhi-hc-order-to-remove-wikipedia-page-on-anis-defamation-suit-286626]}} Kautilya3 (talk) 07:20, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

:The Delhi High Court has now issued an interim order for the WMF to take down alleged "defamatory statements" on the ANI article. [https://www.barandbench.com/news/delhi-high-court-ani-wikipedia-defamatory (Bar and Bench)] We'll see how this interacts with the Supreme Court case. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:41, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::"[https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/delhi-high-court/delhi-high-court-ani-defamatory-wikipedia-page-removal-288188 “Prayer 2 and 3 granted,” Justice Prasad said while pronouncing the order. Prayer 2 of the interim injunction plea sought a direction on Wikimedia Foundation to remove the allegedly defamatory content against ANI on its Wikipedia page as well as to restrain the platform's users and administrators from publishing anything defamatory against the news agency. Delhi High Court Prayer 3 sought a direction on Wikipedia to remove the protection status imposed on the ANI page.]"

::-livelaw.in Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:59, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::So they want to "restrain" our userbase from contributing to the page, but also remove its protection status? Brilliant. Nothing problematic there. /s --Grnrchst (talk) 11:28, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I think what they're after is that WMF will let them create their preferred version, then blacklock the page so no one else can get their hands on it. Which isn't going to happen. If this case somehow goes in their favor, they'll be infamous as the company that got Wikipedia banned in India for not making nice with them. Which is going to really piss off a lot of Indian minor celebrities. Valereee (talk) 15:38, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Aye that is 100% what they're after. --Grnrchst (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::No ec? we can impose pending changes or full protection. Just carrying out the letter of the law. – robertsky (talk) 12:29, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Looks like there'll be more on April 4: {{xt|Meanwhile, the Wikimedia Foundation has moved the Supreme Court against the High Court order. The apex court is expected to hold its next hearing on the Wikimedia case on April 4.}} per [https://www.business-standard.com/india-news/delhi-high-court-orders-wikipedia-remove-defamatory-content-ani-125040200549_1.html Business Standard]. Valereee (talk) 13:11, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::It is about the Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation article, which is listed for April 4. GrabUp - Talk 14:02, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::In case someone here didn't know, there's also discussion at Talk:Asian_News_International#Some_news. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

• The full Judgment of the Delhi High Court; [https://dhccaseinfo.nic.in/jsearch/judgement.php?path=dhc/SMP/judgement/03-04-2025/&name=SMP02042025S5242024_212323.pdf Here]. GrabUp - Talk 15:02, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
• :So the plaintiff is complaining that "It is the contention of the Plaintiff that the material on the page pertaining to the Plaintiff is not the verbatim reproduction of the articles which have been cited as sources." So the answer seems to be quote the sources saying the things ANI is objecting to, which are:
• :# Plaintiff consistently acts at the behest of the Government of India and the Bhartiya Janta Party;
• :# Plaintiff is a 'propaganda tool' and a 'mouthpiece' for the Government of India and the Bhartiya Janta Party
• :# Plaintiff is engaged in 'low quality journalism' that led to news organizations ceasing their subscription with the Plaintiff;
• :# Plaintiff is engaged in the spread of fake news or false news;
• :# Plaintiff mistreats its employees and staff.
• :That seems easy. We can do that. Valereee (talk) 17:39, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::I won't accept any compromise that in any way allows a government to dictate the presentation of contentious content. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 17:45, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::The government isn't dictating, and we aren't obeying. We're considering possibly-valid criticism. Let's not dig our heels in because we disapprove of the lawsuit, the plaintiff, or the court order. Let's be open-minded as to whether the content really is as good as we expect it to be. Valereee (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
• [https://www.barandbench.com/amp/story/news/litigation/how-can-court-be-so-touchy-supreme-court-on-delhi-hc-order-to-takedown-ani-v-wikipedia-page “How can court be so touchy? Supreme Court on Delhi HC order to takedown ANI v Wikipedia page”]; Today, during the hearing regarding the taken-down article. GrabUp - Talk 12:26, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't really understand why the WMF can't just move its offices out of India and into Pakistan or Bangladesh. There people can still use and edit Wikipedia and the WMF won't get censored. Fines, rulings, and orders can be brushed off as India is not the United States. Can someone with a legal background explain this to me? DotesConks (talk) 03:50, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:@DotesConks: If the WMF doesn’t agree with Indian courts, Wikipedia may get blocked in India. To clarify, Wikimedia has no physical presence in India; the WMF is based in the US. GrabUp - Talk 10:56, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::@GrabUp VPNs exist. In my opinion, the WMF is wasting their money. WMF should not appear anymore and if India blocks Wikipedia, just campaign VPN ads all across India. Turkey blocked Wikipedia but articles were still created because of VPNS. It could happen in India too. Just like Chinese Wikipedia. DotesConks (talk) 16:47, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::@DotesConks: You are thinking about only editors, but I am thinking about normal readers, why would they install VPN? GrabUp - Talk 16:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::::@GrabUp Cause Wikipedia is like.. everyones to go stop for... anything in the world? DotesConks (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Imagine your life without Wikipedia, would probably have to spend 2x as long on school projects and 10x as long searching for a particular topic that is neutral and not biased. DotesConks (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:Well Pakistan does have instances of blocking Wikipedia on issue of blasphemy. ArushR (talk) 07:51, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::Yep, see Censorship_of_Wikipedia#Pakistan. India has, so far, not done that. It'll be interesting to see if they do so in the future. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:19, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::And, if a court does order such a block, how long does it last? Each of the times Pakistan has blocked Wikipedia, it's been lifted within days. Even if it is blocked by ISP's, it's fairly trivial to use VPN's to evade, or the various mirrors that exist. I fear that the significant impact of this ruling, if upheld, will ultimately be that editors located in India will be loathe to edit in controversial areas out of fear of legal issues. Even more so for admins where a court might try to force them to use their authority to push a particular view, and probably costing us a good admin.

:::I honestly cannot imagine a scenario where the WMF would agree to a sanction like this outside of very short-term while appeals progress. It is just too contrary to the goals of the project. Ravensfire (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

As we know, we lost the case in the Delhi High Court, and the court ordered the removal of content from the Asian News International article. The court also upheld the single judge’s order and rejected the WMF’s appeal, stating that “[https://www.barandbench.com/amp/story/news/litigation/wikipedia-ani-delhi-high-court-intermediary-challenge-court-decision-merits Wikipedia is an intermediary and can’t challenge court takedown orders on merits].”

So, my question is: what is the WMF going to do next? Will the WMF delete the content or file for a stay order in the Supreme Court of India? Please clarify this, if possible. Thanks. GrabUp - Talk 06:03, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:Based on the story so far, the WMF doesn't like to post ANI-court updates to the community very often, but gets on with stuff anyway. It's possible they will decide to appeal this thing again, take office action like with Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation, or make a Talk:2024_Kolkata_rape_and_murder/Archive_3#h-Wikimedia_Foundation_statement-RfC:_Name_of_victim-20240916002700 style comment. There's a comment from a WMF-rep on this page from October which states "Commentary outside of court about ongoing litigation in India is limited under sub judice rules. We will continue to share as much information as we can under the circumstances."

:At a guess, we'll learn what comes next from media or WMF edits on WP. Might not be very quick. Then again, it might. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:28, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

[https://www.barandbench.com/news/cant-order-takedown-report-court-proceedings-because-we-dont-like-it-supreme-court-in-ani-wikipedia Can't order takedown of report on court proceedings because we don't like it: Supreme Court in ANI v Wikipedia]

Anyone knows what "Today, it reserved its decision on Wikipedia's plea." means? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:20, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:"I have heard your case, now let me sit alone in my chambers and sort out my thoughts before coming back to you with a decision." Nothing bad about a slow deliberation, especially when their decision at that level can set precedence for a lot of other cases at the lower levels for a long time. – robertsky (talk) 11:28, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks! I'm not a lawyer, and a lot of this coverage have me guessing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::@Robertsky Another thing I'm wondering. Yesterday I read this:

::"[https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/technology/wikipedia-vs-ani-the-legal-battle-so-far/articleshow/120085351.cms?from=mdr Last August, the Delhi High Court also directed Wikipedia to reveal the identities of those responsible for the allegedly defamatory edits on the ANI page. It warned that failure to comply could result in the website being shut down. Wikipedia has since agreed to provide basic subscriber information (BSI) to the court under seal, while preserving the confidentiality of the individuals' identities.]"

::Can we read this as that those editors are now reasonably "safe" from the ANI-thing, or is that not clear at all? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:41, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Depending on the terms of the confidentiality, I suppose. The standard confidentiality practice should prevent clients from accessing the details. But best ask the lawyers themselves. – robertsky (talk) 13:23, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes, they're very talkative. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:25, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(WMF)#Update_on_developments_in_India. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:49, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

[https://dhccaseinfo.nic.in/jsearch/judgement.php?path=dhc/PMS/judgement/09-04-2025/&name=PMS08042025FAOOS412025_110145.pdf From the order of a Division Bench of Delhi High Court] (p. 21-22):

{{talkquote|The Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 who are the `Administrators’ have been served but they have not appeared. In fact the real name of one of the Defendant is not known to anyone till date, except Wikipedia. Till date neither the Appellant has disclosed who has put up this content nor Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have come forward to claim authorship of the content. During the course of hearing, upon being queried, the Court is informed by Mr. Akhil Sibal that the said person does not want his identity to be disclosed. Such is the level of secrecy and disguise that the authors or Administrators wish to maintain.}}

However, does this also mean that the Court knows the identity of two of the three respondents/defendants? Upd Edit (talk) 18:56, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:I think at least one of them has used their real name as username. Nakonana (talk) 12:14, 13 April 2025 (UTC)