This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.
I know this might have gotten lost in the shuffle, but I'm planning to start an RfC regarding the "office" action in that case. Do you know, or know who to ask, regarding how "temporary" the "temporary" takedown of the page is? I'm not asking for some exact date, but rather some estimate, or even just an order of magnitude (days|weeks|months|years). If we're talking "Wait a couple of weeks until the appeal is filed", that's a very different conversation than "We might, if we're lucky, have it back in five years." Do you know that, or know who to ask about that? SeraphimbladeTalk to me08:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend against an RfC at this time, it seems unlikely to accomplish anything positive in any way. I would say that specific questions like that are not answerable at the present time for legal reasons. The best thing to do here is assume good faith that the legal team know what they are doing.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good faith can be assumed to a point. But at some point, "What exactly are you doing, why, and how long will it be?" needs to get an answer, not "Well, legal reasons...". SeraphimbladeTalk to me12:35, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We know that "technical issues" for the comparatively-simple matter of graphs meant "completely broken for 18 months". One can only imagine what "legal reasons" for a political court case in India means—perhaps a decade? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:41, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That, and it was under some type of "sealed cover" arrangement. I don't even pretend to know the first thing about the Indian judicial system, so I don't know what that means or how it would affect things. I will certainly say that the question of disclosing any information to an opposing party, or to any court which might disclose it to such a party, should be the reddest of red lines and the hardest of hard "No"s, even more so than the article takedown. If refusing to do that means "WMF will have to pull out of India and they'll block Wikipedia there", we absolutely should do that instead. SeraphimbladeTalk to me17:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a lot more than that now. Jimbo—this isn't flying. We're going to need a lot more information and a lot less stonewalling, at the very least. I hope you'll get that message to the right people. What's so godawfully important here that we should be caving like this, when we never have before? SeraphimbladeTalk to me02:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Seraphimblade could we take the tone down just a notch please? I completely understand everyone's anxiety over this specific case and the precedent it sets. I genuinely believe the WMF are fighting this tooth and nail but they also want to fight the case on its merits and it's hard to that if you publicly state that you have no intention of obeying a court order. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?16:32, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I shared your optimism, and I hope that in the end, you are right and I am wrong. What we know so far is that the WMF will not draw a line at endangering or harming our content if India's courts tell them to, so that's not the "Absolutely not past here" red line. Will they draw that line at harming our editors, if the court tells them to? Apparently (at least if one believes what Valereee said about it, and I certainly have no reason to believe she is not being honest), what they told the editors in question wasn't very comforting, and they've not given us an answer to that at all. So—I really do wish I shared your optimism, but I'm afraid I don't, and if it comes up to the point of the WMF possibly being willing to endanger real people? Well, that's not a dispute over source reliability or the MOS, or even a dispute over banning someone from the project. That's actually doing real-world harm, and I think that needs condemnation in some pretty strong terms. SeraphimbladeTalk to me17:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I'd be banging the drum right next to you but I don't think we've quite reached that point. Regardless of what will actually happen, the WMF cannot just announce that it won't comply with a court order. Or perhaps it could but that closes off every legal avenue in the original defamation case. We should also bear in mind that these internal discussions are still public and anyone can read them, including the court and the other party. Which (to me) explains why the WMF are so constrained in what they can say. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?19:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WMF has been ordered to reveal the subscriber details to court in sealed cover, a redacted copy of the affidavit will be given to ANI, ANI can also approach the judge to seek details of the editors if necessary. [3] WMF is maintaining its intermediary status, thus all responsibility falls on the editors to prove the content is not defamatory(which will take years and losing means paying 2 crore in damages and taking down the article), in short the letter failed. - Ratnahastin (talk) 03:48, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Has been ordered" doesn't necessarily mean "has". The idea is for them not to; if it goes to the court, they could reveal it to the other party (or the public, or anyone else) at any time, and no one could stop them. SeraphimbladeTalk to me04:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation legal case
It is to be hoped that with almost 600 signatures, the letter will help the Wikimedia Foundation to protect the identities of contributors from the Delhi High Court at hearings on 11 November and thereafter.--Ipigott (talk) 12:40, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's very difficult to say anything about an ongoing legal matter as this is a very public forum. All I can say right now, and this should be clear enough, is that you know my principles and ideals, and I am comfortable with the approach that the WMF legal team is taking at the present time.Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't think we yet need to undertake further action, we urgently need explanations on the significance of the "sealed cover" approach to revealing the names of the three targeted contributors to the Delhi High Court via their emails, etc. Will this protect them from wider revelation of their identities? What could be the worst case consequences?--Ipigott (talk) 16:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo, you may feel that this is too public a forum to say anything. However, if you don't, there is quite the chance that the matter will become far more public than you like—the sort of public that comes with a daily audience of 360 million people. Beware of the monkey's paw! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At this rate, this could be the most stagnantly significant controversy in WP history (and if enabled, lead to a site-wide blackout), certainly in the last 6 years (and I've seen everything). 2601AC47 (talk|contribs) Isn't a IP anon19:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you can explain what you mean by that. My opposition to the protest is that what is being protested hasn't happened and, being privy to the discussions behind the scene, I am being as clear as I can in terms of telling you, speaking only for myself, that in my view there's nothing to protest. To be clear, a protest like this is not going to help our case in court in any way, quite the contrary. And if it's meant to be a protest of the WMF doing something wrong, well, I'm just telling you, I'm not personally worried that the WMF is going to do anything wrong.Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I'm not saying you're objectively wrong to oppose this. I'm just saying that thus far you've defended the board's actions, and it's not a surprise you'll do so, especially given you're obviously involved with the WMF. I do respect your opinions and input in this matter; I mean this particular message is nothing unexpected.Sincerely, Dilettante22:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quite to the contrary, if the WMF does something wrong, I'll be happy to join a protest. Protesting things that haven't happened and that I'm telling you I don't worry about happening, is not really a good use of anyone's time.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware you're willing to disagree. I'm just saying no-one was expecting you to disagree with the WMF just yet.
In what way does this not violate WP:RFCNEUTRAL? Anyone opening the page can read the table of contents, and the section "Note from Jimbo" is pretty prominent therein. Please remove the sentence The tl;dr is I strongly recommend against this as being both counterprodutive and unnecessary. Sincerely, Dilettante23:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The tl;dr is a neutral summary of my position, and the information that I'm brinigng to the community here is crucial for people's opinion.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:20, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's pretty obvious. I'm bringing information to the community that is highly relevant to the RfC, and giving advice from a privileged position as to the best course of action. Burying that in amongst all the other comments would be unwise, as it could easily lead to some of the many misconceptions of what is going on being the basis of people's !votes.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't remember anything about that particular case at this point, but my broad advice stands - if someone wants to walk away with dignity, they should be allowed to do so, without further fight or quarrel.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, 100% definitely! The WMF isn't perfect, I'm not perfect, the board isn't perfect. Constructive work to improve things is always super welcome.
I'm not sure what you mean about the list of roles, are you suggesting an edit to the page, or a change in policy? I just read it for the first time in a long time, and it seems right to me. For avoidance of doubt, the users in question in the ANI situation have qualified and the WMF is paying for their legal fees.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the decision if the WMF will provide assistance has little to do with the roles (admin/arbcom/cu/whatever) a person has. Vandalfighters and others without advanced permissions can also easily end up in a situation where someone decides to sue. Listing those roles makes it seems as if only those people are eligible. "WMF decides" is already the policy, so I would propose editing the page (removing the list) to reflect that. It makes sense to assist a vandalfighter without advanced permissions who follows all the rules and posts the inconvenient truth based on reliable sources; and it also makes sense to not assist an admin who posts libel. Polygnotus (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page also says In its sole discretion, WMF may determine that the Legal Fees Assistance Program may apply to users acting in an administrator, arbitrator, email response, or project governance function that is not among those specified in this document (listed above). as well. I would classify that fighting vandalism is a project governance function since it is a policy here. – robertsky (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't share anything other than my pride in the entire board and the staff. Seriously. You'd all be overjoyed if you could hear it. (As ever, I only speak for myself as a Wikipedian who is passionate about neutrality, truth, privacy, and individual (human) rights.) Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This makes me want to believe; I don't think "you'd all be overjoyed" comes from nowhere. But paraphrasing my earlier comment about this response, the circumstances will compel the community to take drastic action. With the limited information the community has, it's a coin flip whether a "nightmare scenario" comes to pass—namely that PII is disclosed in any way, ANI is successful in getting content changed, or anything else that indicates to other organizations that suing editors can be effective. Until those 50/50 odds change, it's a choice between which is more dangerous: doing nothing as a nightmare scenario approaches or taking drastic action over a false alarm. Most will be more apprehensive of the former. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coin flip and 50/50 mean there's an equal chance, not that we don't know what the chances are. There may in reality be a 1% or even 0% chance of one of two outcomes. The fact we don't know doesn't make the chances equal. Valereee (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that we have imperfect information and can't know that "true" probability. Since the evidence for each option occurring is roughly equal, the community is going to go off of subjective probability and consider both of the options about equally likely. All of the discussion and frantic calls for action are a consequence of that. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence for each option is nowhere near roughly equal because we have no idea what real evidence there actually is. There's a lot of heat. That's not evidence. Valereee (talk) 00:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but Valereee, none of that obviates the core of TBUA's argument. They clearly understand (and agree with) what you are saying about the knightian uncertainty involved here. In fact, it is a cornerstone of their point. They are saying that, plugging that uncertainty into the overall analysis of what is the safest course of action here (both in terms of upholding the movement's values and protecting both the project's overall future and the immediate safety and well-being of these volunteers), they believe non-disclosure (and taking the very likely consequences of default in that suit, including both a large default judgment and a fast track towards regulatory reclassification and/or blocking of the site in India) is the lesser of two evils. In short, I think you are directing your efforts to the side of their point, not addressing it.
Besides, if you want to talk about the actual odds, based on what we actually know, we do have several repeated, consistent indicators from the in-court representations made by WMF's counsel in relation to this case that in fact they have already agreed to divulge the information to the court (which, make no mistake, if true would in this case make it all but 100% certain that ANI will have that information sooner or later.) On the other side of this evidence for trying to divine the "true probability" you refer to, we have Jimmy saying "Trust me, it's going to be alright." but while being unwilling or unable to say why it will be so, or even what "alright" even means in this situation--where it very easily could mean "Yes the information is going to be divulged, but the Board just doesn't see that as the end of the world in the greater context here, and neither do I."
Now different community members are free to (and will) weigh that assurance (worryingly vague but coming from probably the most respected figure in the Wikimedia movement, and one certainly on the other side of our informational asymmetry here) vs. the in-court statements differently. My mixed feelings on that subject can be found here. But TBUA's point (and their resulting position) on what the appropriate risk treatment of this situation is, in light of the knightian uncertainty here, is perfectly cogent and valid. So are the positions of those who have enough faith in Jimmy to trust his assurances in light of his track record and the degree of information he has access to here that the community at large does not.
But, speaking for myself, the longer this goes on, and the more we learn, the more I worry that Jimmy's notion of an 'acceptable outcome' to this situation is significantly different from mine, and that of the rest of the community that overwhelmingly wants no disclosure of PII to the court in this case. Believe me, I'm crossing my fingers to be wrong about that and to have an outcome where I have to come back to this page to say "I'm sorry I couldn't trust you more completely on this one, but phew is that a relief!" But my hope in that outcome is quite diminished at this moment in time, if I am honest. And part of that is because, whatever his possibly valid reasons, the ambiguity about just what he is trying to assure us of is clearly and intentionally designed into his comments on this matter. SnowRise let's rap19:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get me wrong, I'm really, really pulling for that interpretation to to bear out. It sure seems to be indicating a best case scenario outcome on the issue the community is most anxious about. I'm just not prepared to assume it yet, and I understand why many are still inclined to urge for proactive action until we know for sure. SnowRise let's rap23:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From my interpretation of the entire suit, WMF is only using these editors(especially the one living in india) as pawns to fight this case, so they can preserve their intermediary status in India (because under India's draconian IT laws, Wikipedia can be considered a publisher). If those editors win by proving how everything that ANI has problem with is in fact factual and not defamatory then it's good for everyone involved. If not, WMF loses and has to pay the damages( 200k $ is a mere pocket change for it anyway) or worse, cease all operations in India because the court will consider it a publisher of all the content on it. - Ratnahastin (talk) 01:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+ Also cases in india take a long time to reach a conclusion. This case may even go for a decade, that buys WMF plenty of time to stay in india and claim to be an intermediary. - Ratnahastin (talk) 04:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Supreme Court has discretionary certiorari power over the state High Courts, but as in most other systems descended of the common law model, it will only take up cases concerning certain enumerated matters and those pertaining to fundamental constitutional rights. And it will only hear a small fraction of the cases it is entitled to entertain and which it is petitioned to take. I don't know the exact figure when it comes to the Delhi High Court (which has a bit of an aggressive track record in rulings related to defamation in recent years) but suffice it to say, it's certainly quite possible the Supreme Court will not take up this case om appeal. SnowRise let's rap08:20, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[4] Summons have been issued and emails have been handed over to the Delhi court. Now with enough bribes to the right people, ANI will get it's hands on it. - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and emails have been handed over to the Delhi court. Can you please quote the part of the document that says this? I couldn't find it. My read of that document is that WMF served paperwork to the 3 editors on the court's behalf, without disclosing any PII to the court. I could be mistaken of course, so feel free to help me interpret this. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, I misread the order. Assuming that summons were issued on 14 November [5] , WMF still has 2 more days to disclose the details (see where the consent order states :(b) The Appellant shall file an affidavit of service in accordance with Chapter VI, Rule 17 of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 in sealed cover disclosing all the basic subscriber details of Respondent No. 2-4 available with it, along with the proof of service of summons by email within 7 days of service of summons). - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll get to the point: As someone that many of us trusted, trust, and will always trust to lead Wikipedia, you show the courage, clarity, and unwavering commitment to our policies and guidelines as you originally outlined, especially the last point: Diplomacy consists of combining honesty and politeness. IMO, amidst this controversy that threatened to needlessly disrupt our free encyclopedia, you demonstrated your virtues and stood against those that – while understandable, and perhaps even have a right to protest – are very premature to call for a blackout.
You've heard this countless times from editors in the past, but anyway: You have been an inspiration to me, and the one I quietly looked up to for many years (frankly, only one of a few left). I really thank you for all you can to continue to be one, and for all that desire it. 2601AC47 (talk|contribs) Isn't a IP anon21:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a slight chance you remember me from the WM mailing list, on which I was quite active nearly 20 years ago. Anyway, I found a reason to bother you again.
The recent electoral victory of Annoying Orange plunges the United States into a sea of uncertainty. He has on numerous occasions proposed or suggested dictatorial policies. Even if he does not manage to realize these plan, utter chaos is likely to be ahead. Many liberties are at stake, including those that safeguard Wikipedia's neutrality, veracity, and accessibility for everyone.
As we have seen recently in India and several times before elsewhere, countries that were formerly considered 'free' can descend into authoritarianism very quickly. No checks and balances are to be trusted if those in power purport to act with the support of 'the people', whoever that may be. In a few years, the US may no longer be a safe haven for the either WMF as a legal entity, or for the physical servers containing the information.
I would therefore like to know whether the boards has been considering a move out of the United States. Naturally, no country is entirely free of this vile brand of populism, but some countries seem relatively safe. These include Canada and Spain. A major brain drain from the United States to Canada is to be expected anyway, so you can no doubt follow some of you acquaintances.
I know I am probably not the first person suggesting this to you, but since I couldn't find this suggestion here or anywhere else, I felt compelled to make it. Just to be sure: I am a veteran Wikipedian, so I know that I normally should speak to someone else for issues concerning Wikipedia. For offline threats to the very existence of Wikipedia, however, I make an exception. Steinbach (talk) 20:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We will obviously do whatever is needed to keep Wikipedia safe, but I'm not that concerned about the US. The First Amendment is still very strong, and there seems to be no wavering in support for it from the justices that Trump supported. There are other elements of public policy about which I do have some concerns, particularly around Section 230 which is pretty crucial for people's ability to post openly on the Internet without premoderation, etc. But even there, I would expect any modifications would tend to be somewhat narrowly targetted. (I'd be opposed to that, but my point is that it might or might not be existential for us depending on the details.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of that Section, this news from Fortune: Trump’s pick for FCC chair wants to eliminate the law shielding social media companies from legal consequences for posts on their platforms - link to article. Not surprising to me. They might finally get their way, if they may really will it. 2601AC47 (talk|contribs) Isn't a IP anon12:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mzoli's has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well… that's fair. Either way, Airship is a trusted member of the community, I wouldn't expect them to have a "vendetta" against Jimbo pertaining to a GAR. EF514:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to disappoint, but I must reveal that I have sworn an oath of revenge against Jimbo and will pursue this vendetta by any means necessary, GAR notifications included. Watch this space, Mr Wales. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I recommend you take a new picture of yourself to replace the image of you in 2019 on your user page and your Wikipedia one. Thinking about it, 5 years feels like a long time ago, and it would be great to replace it with one that would reflect your recent appearance rather than one from half a decade ago. Wcamp9 (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rumensz, you do not appear to be blocked. Are you talking about a different project? Either way, there will be more appropriate forums to raise questions and requests you may have. CMD (talk) 10:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I checked that Rumensz was blocked in April for 1 yr for (rough translation from Bulgarian) "aggressive behavior in violation of project rules"; in other words, disruptive editing and possibly incivility. 2601AC47 (talk|contribs) Isn't a IP anon12:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
